Bits And Pieces - Alito, et al
Trying to catch up on some items before the end of the week. Enjoy.
JLH
--------------------
Interesting how Senator Charles Schumer – clearly one of the three most partisan members of the Senate – responded to Tuesday’s 58-42 vote to confirm Sam Alito to the Supreme court:
“I must say that I wish the president was in a position to do more than claim a partisan victory tonight.”
Don’t worry, Senator, he is in position to do more than claim a partisan victory. He’s in position to claim a constitutional victory. Something you and your ilk have not been able to do very much in recent years, which explains your constant need to invoke extra-constitutional procedural moves to try to stop, or at least delay, President Bush’s constitutional victories.
--------------------
Along that line, I must say I found it very encouraging to hear a prominent Democrat reveal that he understands at least part of the answer to his party’s recent dry spell in advancing their agenda. After criticizing his party’s “over-reliance” on “procedural moves” – think judicial filibusters – on ABC’s “This Week” last Sunday, Barack Obama of Illinois acknowledged that “There’s one way to guarantee that the judges who are appointed to the Supreme Court are judges that reflect our values, and that’s to win elections.”
Bravo, Senator! I’ve said for some time now that, when the Republicans were in the minority, they accepted that Democrats were entitled to enjoy the fruits of their victories via things like advancement of their agenda items and appointment of judges they wanted. Hence no filibuster of the appointment of an extreme left-wing justice like Ruth Ginsburg. At that time, Republicans recognized that the answer was to get out, work hard, and win elections. So they got out, worked hard, and won elections.
Senator Obama’s party has been slow in accepting this reality. Actually, it’s not certain that they’ve actually accepted it yet. Barack Obama is just one of 45 Democrats in the Senate – I number Jim Jeffords among them – and, in what I found to be an extremely ironic move, Senator Obama himself voted in favor of the failed filibuster attempt – another “procedural move” prior to the final confirmation vote. At least the thought of trying to win the right way has been thrown out there by one of them. Maybe that’s the first step in righting themselves.
Of course, to win elections, they’re going to have to think hard about those “values” the Senator wants judges to reflect.
--------------------
I noticed in a Reuters report of the confirmation vote a comparison of the seats occupied by Justice Alito and the other recent appointment, Chief Justice John Roberts, in which an interesting statement was made by the writer:
“Roberts replaced a fellow conservative, the late William Rehnquist, so he did not change the balance on the court.”
Frankly, I have been a bit surprised that this line of reasoning – not changing the “ideological balance” of the court – hasn’t been trumpeted more loudly by the Schumers, Kennedys, and Leahys in the Senate in their opposition to Alito. Yet I feel very confident that the next appointment to the Supreme Court President Bush makes – and, yes, I do think he’ll have one more before he leaves office in three years – will be to replace one of the more liberal members. It’s almost a certainty that the “ideological balance” issue will be raised at that time.
So.
By way of “preemptive rebuttal,” let me offer this very simple little tidbit: There is no requirement – either in the text of the Constitution or in the realm of common sense – for any kind of “ideological balance” on the Court. If anything, the spirit of our republic demands a court that is unanimously committed to the same ideology – the one that puts faithfulness to the Supreme Law of the Land as it is written over how one might wish it were written.
--------------------
Ed Whelan at National Review Online had a great piece on what that failed filibuster attempt accomplished for the Democrats – have a look at it here – and it’s not good news for them.
In addition to what Mr. Whelan notes, I can’t help but feel that this casts an unfavorable light on Kerry’s 2008 aspirations. Here is a man who made a very public move to take his party’s lead on an issue against the president – and the party didn’t follow. Yet in two years he’s going to try to convince America that he can effectively occupy the single most powerful leadership position in the nation. Good luck to him. This little episode didn’t help that cause.
Ditto when it comes to Hillary Clinton. First of all, I’ll note once again that I have always questioned her ability to win a nationwide election. Proving you can win in New York doesn’t prove you can win enough of the “heartland” to take the presidency – just look at Al Gore and John Kerry. The fact is that, among all the states she could have established residency in to run for the Senate, there are some very specific reasons she chose New York. I believe one of them is the fact that it is one of the few states that provides enough of a “friendly audience” for her to actually win, despite her high negatives with so much of the populace.
But anyway, we were talking about the filibuster, weren’t we? As one of the Senators who voted in favor of it, despite its certainty to fail, she reinforced many Americans’ view of her as a devoted left-winger – an image she had been trying to shed to position herself for a presidential run.
Not to mention the fact that she demonstrated that she was willing to follow John Kerry’s lead in charging over a cliff. Who’s the better pick for the Dems in ’08, the guy who could only get a few of his own caucus to follow him, or one of those wretched few who did follow him?
--------------------
While we’re talking about Hillary, who can really question her intent to run for the presidency now, after her comments to Jane Pauley recently?
Speaking of the American public’s willingness to elect a female president, Mrs. Clinton stated that “there’s a feeling that it’s time,” and that she detected “a certain impatience.”
Where shall I begin? With the assumption that her liberal voice speaks for the American people, like Diane Feinstein has been doing for some time? Like Vicki Saporta of the National Abortion Federation did the day of the filibuster vote when she noted that “Americans” don’t want a justice like Sam Alito? I have no doubt that someone is impatient for a woman to be elected president. But I question whether there is a nationwide feeling of impatience.
Understand, I’m not addressing whether or not America should elect a female in 2008, or any time after that. But I happen to believe that the American people still take voting for the leader of the nation seriously enough to not elect somebody, or the representative of some group, simply because “it’s their turn.” Something tells me most voters still care about who is best suited to lead America more than they care about what that person’s gender might be.
And, still, I wait for someone to tell me why she is even the best candidate among the women who are in American public life. My invitation for someone to explain that to me still stands.
--------------------
Not directly related to the Alito confirmation, but relating to the Supreme Court nonetheless, I noticed that in his announcement that he would not support the filibuster attempt, Democrat Colorado Senator Ken Salazar couldn’t resist taking a shot at innocent bystander Clarence Thomas.
After his announcement about the filibuster, the Senator went on to say, “There are members of the U.S. Supreme Court that I very much disagree with. Clarence Thomas, for example, I think is an abomination when you contrast him to the leadership and principles of someone like Thurgood Marshall.”
With regard to Clarence Thomas, there are few people in public life who have had to endure as many hateful slings and arrows cast by people who we are supposed to consider statesmen as this man who has served with quiet dignity and distinction for fifteen years now.
Does anyone really believe that Senator Salazar would care a whit about Justice Thomas’ leadership and principles if he simply voted “the right way?” Can you recall a time when any conservative or Republican lashed out at Thurgood Marshall in this way, despite his extreme liberal voting record on the court? Can you imagine what charges would be leveled against any conservative that would have lashed out this way? Of course you can.
Interesting how we keep winning, despite the fact that the other side insists on not having a level playing field.
--------------------
And finally.
It seems to be worthy of some note that President Bush “snubbed” columnist Helen Thomas at his White House press conference a few days ago. According to Drudge, the President took questions from everyone on the front row but Ms. Thomas, who was sitting in her traditional front-row center seat, and raising her hand throughout.
This was notable to many. And it was maddening to Ms. Thomas. But I’ve got a question about all this: Why should the President take any questions from this ancient, angry liberal woman? It’s been some time – actually I can’t remember a time – since she had anything to say or ask that wasn’t specifically designed to publicly demonstrate her disdain for the President.
Granted, it’s hard to find any journalist at these conferences who is really aiming to be an unbiased chronicler of the Bush administration. But Helen Thomas’ comments and remarks go beyond the pale, not even willing to demonstrate respect for the office that Mr. Bush holds.
Besides, she’s not even a reporter anymore. She is a columnist. Is a White House press conference really an appropriate place for her to be in the first place?
The fact is that her presence at the press conference is just another one of Washington’s silly traditions – not all of them are silly, mind you – that most folks couldn’t care less about. Somewhere there’s a legitimate reporter who is not able to attend those conferences simply because Helen Thomas has to have a seat.
And with that little rant, I will abruptly close.
Have a good ‘un.
JLH
--------------------
Interesting how Senator Charles Schumer – clearly one of the three most partisan members of the Senate – responded to Tuesday’s 58-42 vote to confirm Sam Alito to the Supreme court:
“I must say that I wish the president was in a position to do more than claim a partisan victory tonight.”
Don’t worry, Senator, he is in position to do more than claim a partisan victory. He’s in position to claim a constitutional victory. Something you and your ilk have not been able to do very much in recent years, which explains your constant need to invoke extra-constitutional procedural moves to try to stop, or at least delay, President Bush’s constitutional victories.
--------------------
Along that line, I must say I found it very encouraging to hear a prominent Democrat reveal that he understands at least part of the answer to his party’s recent dry spell in advancing their agenda. After criticizing his party’s “over-reliance” on “procedural moves” – think judicial filibusters – on ABC’s “This Week” last Sunday, Barack Obama of Illinois acknowledged that “There’s one way to guarantee that the judges who are appointed to the Supreme Court are judges that reflect our values, and that’s to win elections.”
Bravo, Senator! I’ve said for some time now that, when the Republicans were in the minority, they accepted that Democrats were entitled to enjoy the fruits of their victories via things like advancement of their agenda items and appointment of judges they wanted. Hence no filibuster of the appointment of an extreme left-wing justice like Ruth Ginsburg. At that time, Republicans recognized that the answer was to get out, work hard, and win elections. So they got out, worked hard, and won elections.
Senator Obama’s party has been slow in accepting this reality. Actually, it’s not certain that they’ve actually accepted it yet. Barack Obama is just one of 45 Democrats in the Senate – I number Jim Jeffords among them – and, in what I found to be an extremely ironic move, Senator Obama himself voted in favor of the failed filibuster attempt – another “procedural move” prior to the final confirmation vote. At least the thought of trying to win the right way has been thrown out there by one of them. Maybe that’s the first step in righting themselves.
Of course, to win elections, they’re going to have to think hard about those “values” the Senator wants judges to reflect.
--------------------
I noticed in a Reuters report of the confirmation vote a comparison of the seats occupied by Justice Alito and the other recent appointment, Chief Justice John Roberts, in which an interesting statement was made by the writer:
“Roberts replaced a fellow conservative, the late William Rehnquist, so he did not change the balance on the court.”
Frankly, I have been a bit surprised that this line of reasoning – not changing the “ideological balance” of the court – hasn’t been trumpeted more loudly by the Schumers, Kennedys, and Leahys in the Senate in their opposition to Alito. Yet I feel very confident that the next appointment to the Supreme Court President Bush makes – and, yes, I do think he’ll have one more before he leaves office in three years – will be to replace one of the more liberal members. It’s almost a certainty that the “ideological balance” issue will be raised at that time.
So.
By way of “preemptive rebuttal,” let me offer this very simple little tidbit: There is no requirement – either in the text of the Constitution or in the realm of common sense – for any kind of “ideological balance” on the Court. If anything, the spirit of our republic demands a court that is unanimously committed to the same ideology – the one that puts faithfulness to the Supreme Law of the Land as it is written over how one might wish it were written.
--------------------
Ed Whelan at National Review Online had a great piece on what that failed filibuster attempt accomplished for the Democrats – have a look at it here – and it’s not good news for them.
In addition to what Mr. Whelan notes, I can’t help but feel that this casts an unfavorable light on Kerry’s 2008 aspirations. Here is a man who made a very public move to take his party’s lead on an issue against the president – and the party didn’t follow. Yet in two years he’s going to try to convince America that he can effectively occupy the single most powerful leadership position in the nation. Good luck to him. This little episode didn’t help that cause.
Ditto when it comes to Hillary Clinton. First of all, I’ll note once again that I have always questioned her ability to win a nationwide election. Proving you can win in New York doesn’t prove you can win enough of the “heartland” to take the presidency – just look at Al Gore and John Kerry. The fact is that, among all the states she could have established residency in to run for the Senate, there are some very specific reasons she chose New York. I believe one of them is the fact that it is one of the few states that provides enough of a “friendly audience” for her to actually win, despite her high negatives with so much of the populace.
But anyway, we were talking about the filibuster, weren’t we? As one of the Senators who voted in favor of it, despite its certainty to fail, she reinforced many Americans’ view of her as a devoted left-winger – an image she had been trying to shed to position herself for a presidential run.
Not to mention the fact that she demonstrated that she was willing to follow John Kerry’s lead in charging over a cliff. Who’s the better pick for the Dems in ’08, the guy who could only get a few of his own caucus to follow him, or one of those wretched few who did follow him?
--------------------
While we’re talking about Hillary, who can really question her intent to run for the presidency now, after her comments to Jane Pauley recently?
Speaking of the American public’s willingness to elect a female president, Mrs. Clinton stated that “there’s a feeling that it’s time,” and that she detected “a certain impatience.”
Where shall I begin? With the assumption that her liberal voice speaks for the American people, like Diane Feinstein has been doing for some time? Like Vicki Saporta of the National Abortion Federation did the day of the filibuster vote when she noted that “Americans” don’t want a justice like Sam Alito? I have no doubt that someone is impatient for a woman to be elected president. But I question whether there is a nationwide feeling of impatience.
Understand, I’m not addressing whether or not America should elect a female in 2008, or any time after that. But I happen to believe that the American people still take voting for the leader of the nation seriously enough to not elect somebody, or the representative of some group, simply because “it’s their turn.” Something tells me most voters still care about who is best suited to lead America more than they care about what that person’s gender might be.
And, still, I wait for someone to tell me why she is even the best candidate among the women who are in American public life. My invitation for someone to explain that to me still stands.
--------------------
Not directly related to the Alito confirmation, but relating to the Supreme Court nonetheless, I noticed that in his announcement that he would not support the filibuster attempt, Democrat Colorado Senator Ken Salazar couldn’t resist taking a shot at innocent bystander Clarence Thomas.
After his announcement about the filibuster, the Senator went on to say, “There are members of the U.S. Supreme Court that I very much disagree with. Clarence Thomas, for example, I think is an abomination when you contrast him to the leadership and principles of someone like Thurgood Marshall.”
With regard to Clarence Thomas, there are few people in public life who have had to endure as many hateful slings and arrows cast by people who we are supposed to consider statesmen as this man who has served with quiet dignity and distinction for fifteen years now.
Does anyone really believe that Senator Salazar would care a whit about Justice Thomas’ leadership and principles if he simply voted “the right way?” Can you recall a time when any conservative or Republican lashed out at Thurgood Marshall in this way, despite his extreme liberal voting record on the court? Can you imagine what charges would be leveled against any conservative that would have lashed out this way? Of course you can.
Interesting how we keep winning, despite the fact that the other side insists on not having a level playing field.
--------------------
And finally.
It seems to be worthy of some note that President Bush “snubbed” columnist Helen Thomas at his White House press conference a few days ago. According to Drudge, the President took questions from everyone on the front row but Ms. Thomas, who was sitting in her traditional front-row center seat, and raising her hand throughout.
This was notable to many. And it was maddening to Ms. Thomas. But I’ve got a question about all this: Why should the President take any questions from this ancient, angry liberal woman? It’s been some time – actually I can’t remember a time – since she had anything to say or ask that wasn’t specifically designed to publicly demonstrate her disdain for the President.
Granted, it’s hard to find any journalist at these conferences who is really aiming to be an unbiased chronicler of the Bush administration. But Helen Thomas’ comments and remarks go beyond the pale, not even willing to demonstrate respect for the office that Mr. Bush holds.
Besides, she’s not even a reporter anymore. She is a columnist. Is a White House press conference really an appropriate place for her to be in the first place?
The fact is that her presence at the press conference is just another one of Washington’s silly traditions – not all of them are silly, mind you – that most folks couldn’t care less about. Somewhere there’s a legitimate reporter who is not able to attend those conferences simply because Helen Thomas has to have a seat.
And with that little rant, I will abruptly close.
Have a good ‘un.
posted by JeffreyH | 12:58 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home