MaxedOutMama
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
The Passion Play Begins
Judge John G. Roberts is nominated, and the carousel creaks (SFGate) into motion:
Can Senator Reid do anything less than defend the lives of Paul Begala's children (once they are born, that is)? The truth is that Judge John G. Roberts donated money in 2000 to George Bush's campaign, thus opening the official Rethuglican Begala destruction campaign. It's genocide against Begalas, and you can count on the Democratic minority in the Senate to oppose that. I mean, the man has not given one red cent to Democratic candidates. One!
It also will result in Roberts' confirmation, and the real reason for that is the Democratic party's political calculations. With Roberts' confirmation, the Supreme Court will then be balanced 5-4 on the Roe V. Wade issue. That is what they want to run on in 2006. They believe it will result in a few more Democratic senators. So they will posture and holler, scream and shout, and milk the controversy for all it is worth - and then confirm him.
"The president has chosen someone with suitable legal credentials, but that is not the end of our inquiry. The Senate must review Judge Roberts' record to determine if he has a demonstrated commitment to the core American values of freedom, equality and fairness." — Senate minority leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.The word on the street is that he's a Republican. Now it is Dem-spin gospel that if you are a Rethuglican you are bent on destroying the core American values of freedom, equality, fairness and same-sex marriage. Paul Begala also has alleged that Republicans are plotting to kill us, and that is obviously anti-American.
Can Senator Reid do anything less than defend the lives of Paul Begala's children (once they are born, that is)? The truth is that Judge John G. Roberts donated money in 2000 to George Bush's campaign, thus opening the official Rethuglican Begala destruction campaign. It's genocide against Begalas, and you can count on the Democratic minority in the Senate to oppose that. I mean, the man has not given one red cent to Democratic candidates. One!
"Judge Roberts is the kind of outstanding nominee that will make America proud. He embodies the qualities America expects in a justice on its highest court: someone who is fair, intelligent, impartial and committed to faithfully interpreting the Constitution and the law." — Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.Translation: "It is not the job of the Supreme Court to decide what America's core values are. The people already did that. It's the job of the Supreme Court to make sure that law is made and enforced in a way that doesn't violate previous law."
"I look forward to the Committee's findings so that I can make an informed decision about whether Judge Roberts is truly a guardian of the rule of law who puts fairness and justice before ideology." — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.Translation: "I'm gonna nail his hide to the wall if I can just get him pinned down long enough." "Ideology" as used here means "opposition to the idea that abortion is a fundamental right embodied in the Constitution."
Roberts "rules based on the application of existing laws and specific facts of the cases before him, rather than making new laws or creating new policies based on personal opinion." — Sean Rushton, director of the conservative Committee for Justice.Translation: "He's just a cute little ol' conservative bunny rabbit! See, you can walk right up and pet him. Nothing to be frightened about, kiddies."
"John Roberts' record raises serious concerns as well as questions about where he stands on crucial legal and constitutional issues. Replacing O'Connor with someone who is not committed to upholding Americans' rights, liberties and legal protections would be a constitutional catastrophe." — Ralph Neas, president of the liberal People for the American Way.Translation: "The mad renegade argued a case before the Supreme Court in which he claimed abortion is not a fundamental right found in the Constitution. Shoot him." See PFAW's preliminary review of the terrifying swath of destruction caused by John G. Roberts' few years on the Appeals Court. I rather liked Roberts' reasoning (along with the majority of the court) in United States ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp.:
Judge Roberts stated that the plain language of the statute required the claims to “be presented to an officer or employee of the Government before liability can attach,” and that it was not sufficient for the claim to be paid by a federal grantee using money provided by the government to pay the claim where the grantee was not a department or agency of the government.See, I would prefer a judge who believes that the words written in the Constitution or the statutes have meaning. I find this sort of thing comforting. Schumer doesn't:
"The burden is on a nominee to the Supreme Court to prove that he is worthy, not on the Senate to prove he is unworthy." — Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.Translation: "Talk or else". You have to tell us that you will not strike down Roe vs. Wade.
"I'm hopeful that in the coming weeks we can avoid vicious character assassinations and attacks in this confirmation process." — Sen. George Allen, R-Va.I wonder what he's smoking? Not a chance. Judge opposition is an industry in this country. Despite the fact that there's really a 6-3 majority, so at worst this nomination would take it to 5-4, and despite the fact that there is no evidence that Roberts is a drooling NeoNazi bent on destroying the very foundations of American liberty, you can bet that this will be a long drawn-out battle.
It also will result in Roberts' confirmation, and the real reason for that is the Democratic party's political calculations. With Roberts' confirmation, the Supreme Court will then be balanced 5-4 on the Roe V. Wade issue. That is what they want to run on in 2006. They believe it will result in a few more Democratic senators. So they will posture and holler, scream and shout, and milk the controversy for all it is worth - and then confirm him.
Comments:
<< Home
Dingo - it isn't an artificial issue for either side (although as you well know, there are more than two sides).
I don't naturally think of these things in terms of political strategies, but after reading DU I realized there were political implications on both sides.
However, I feel sure the Dems will confirm. The guy is an insider, and in the end that trumps everything. Plus, it is their best strategy at this point.
Post a Comment
I don't naturally think of these things in terms of political strategies, but after reading DU I realized there were political implications on both sides.
However, I feel sure the Dems will confirm. The guy is an insider, and in the end that trumps everything. Plus, it is their best strategy at this point.
<< Home
