October 31, 2005
— Ace Not going to work this time, but thanks for trying.
1. A lot of the liberal media thinks that conservatives are salivating for a fight, just to have a fight. (Funny how they don't seem to say the same about the unhinged left.)
That's not true, really. If Alito sails through, I'd be quite happy. That said, this is a big enough issue to be deserving of a fight, and the nation shouldn't fear a public debate on the role and mission of the third branch of government.
Schumer is an idiot, but he's quite right-- ideology does matter, thanks, of course, to the relentless politicization of the courts by the left. All this sneaky "stealth" shit always seems dishonest and cowardly to me. Let's not be afraid to say what we really believe. Let's leave that for the liberals.
2. One of the problems with Harriet Miers was that, putting it charitably, she did not have the sort of strong record that would recommend her highly as a Supreme Court justice. That didn't bother me so much, except that it would make her very difficult to confirm.
Liberals like to pretend that judicial law-making by the Courts is dictated by the Constitution. That the made-up pretend fakey "penumbras and emanations" they're always discovering in a fairly brief, and fairly well-known, 216 year old document are not the result of political decisionmaking, but simple (though methodical) research into this venerable charter.
But the Credential Issue is important because of that lie. If liberals are going to contend that how they read the constitution is all but inevitable -- simply reading the words and putting them into action -- then the American public can say, "Well, if all of this interpretation so unavoidably flows from simply reading the Constitution, why can't a well-qualified and intellectually-capable judge of a conservative bent do just as good a job as Ruth Ginsberg?" That is, if, as liberals claim, Constitutional interpretation allows for precious little political shenanigans -- which they claim when they say the Constitution commands this or that -- then there's little harm of letting a conservative, well-qualified judge with a long appellate history interpret it. After all, isn't the Constitution terribly clear about the right to abortion, for example?
Now, that's sort of fighting dishonesty with dishonesty, but hey, there's nothing dishonorable about using one's opponent's bullshit against him.
So while the Qualification Question didn't seem to much matter to Bush, I think it matters a lot to many citizens. "He knows constitutional law cold" is a strong rejoinder to those on the left seeking to bork Alito -- if he knows his beans, then he'll get his decisions mostly right, right? Because everything liberals say the Constitution says is right there in black-and-white, right?
Alito, by accounts, has a calm and likeable personality - a genuinely nice guy. Hard to say he doesn't have the proper 'temperment.'
Also, the left won't be able to play up weird facial hair ala Bork. The guy looks normal, which counts for a lot.
In short, Alito gives them nothig to hide behind. If there's going to be a war, if they're going to try and philibuster him, they're going to have to argue on the merits of 'How a Constituion is to be interpreted.' A fight that many on the right don't mind wagin.
We're not looking for a fight, but if there's going to be one, they're going to have to wage it on our turf.
Posted by: at October 31, 2005 12:46 PM (kUNrb)
And I think I have to give Bush credit for getting the message. I hope some other 08 hopefuls in the Senate got the message too.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at October 31, 2005 12:55 PM (pzen5)
If a party's going to go to all the effort to take the majority, then ,dammit, do something with it. Like, push your agenda.
Posted by: harrison at October 31, 2005 01:18 PM (WczIk)
I love a good fight.
Posted by: Maranna at October 31, 2005 01:26 PM (B8PIU)
"My son, a high school junior, is making a documentary for his film class about views of the afterlife. Finding buddhists, pagans and nihilists to interview has been easy, but he hasn't been able to get any connections to jews, muslims, or christians. Does anybody know anyone in the Bay Area who might be willing to be contacted and/or interviewed? Those who are camera shy could appear through audio (voice over) only. All views will be portrayed respectfully and equally."
Respectfully and equally? I doubt it.
Posted by: Everywhere I look Moonbats at October 31, 2005 02:32 PM (uOwet)
Posted by: at October 31, 2005 02:50 PM (uOwet)
And then I checked out the DU site. Even worse, if you can believe it. What the hell did they put in their kool-aid?
Posted by: Maranna at October 31, 2005 03:22 PM (B8PIU)
Ironically, proper Constitutional jurisprudence depends on this article of Faith. Literally.
Posted by: The Black Republican at October 31, 2005 03:31 PM (2lA70)
I like this Alito guy. Bald. I like that. Not enough powerful bald men since the advent of television.
Posted by: Knemon at October 31, 2005 07:12 PM (QaHR7)
Posted by: rd at October 31, 2005 09:26 PM (lpbk9)
Posted by: MTW at October 31, 2005 11:22 PM (niydV)
It's a piss-poor analogy IMO, since you can always find another rabbi who'll tell you what you want to hear. But logic is not their strong suit, feelings are. So I need a better argument, and I need to quit crying like a schoolgirl just to win arguments with them.
Posted by: spongeworthy at November 01, 2005 04:49 AM (uSomN)
62 queries taking 1.0457 seconds, 248 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.