I fail to see why the Senate Judicial Committee even conducts these hearings. The outcome is already fixed. The Democrats will vote against Alito, and the Republicans will vote for him.
There is no need to ask Alito any questions. The Democrats have already made up their minds. If Alito said, "As a Supreme Court Justice, I will vote to change the Constitution in favor of the Liberals at every possible opportunity," the Democrats would still vote against him. And not because they believe in judicial restraint, because nothing would delight them more than judicial activism in their favor. Alito has demonstrated beyond a doubt that he is fair and impartial, but that isn't what the Democrats want. If it was, they would approve him by a unanimous vote.
They don't want Alito on the Supreme Court because Bush nominated him. That's all.
This appointment isn't about ideologies, or judicial activism, or judicial restraint or fairness. It is about power. The Democrats on the Judicial Committee are obsessed with winning the majority back on the legislature. Nothing else matters to them. They are still angry that Bush won the election in 2000, and they will stop at nothing and stoop as low as necessary to accomplish that end. Anything to make Bush look incompetent and foolish.
They want their power back.
But here's a news flash for them:
They are doing more to hurt their chances than they are to help them. The American people are not stupid, as the Democrats apparently think. They see through this obvious attempt to undermine the Presidency.
It will not work. The American people are too smart to buy what the Democrats are selling. We want solutions, not questions. Positive suggestions, not complaints. Plans that build, not plans that divide.
If the Democrats want to win Senate and House seats this year, they had better come up with a workable plan, and that doesn't mean tearing down the President. It means come up with a plan to stop illegal immigration and plans to prevent attacks on America from terrorists, and plans to further reduce taxes and reduce pork in the budget.
These are among the things that America wants.
But what America wants the most is security. And pointing out perceived inadequacies in the present administration is counter-productive.
Lie Of The Day (From Laura Ingraham's web site)
"To put it plainly, average Americans have had a hard time getting a fair shake in [Judge Alito's] courtroom," claimed Sen. Ted Kennedy, in his opening remarks at the Alito hearings.
THE TRUTH:
Oh REALLY?!? Check out Byron York's latest piece, linked on our "Read It Or Weep" section.
23 comments:
I love these hearings........And any other where the Dems get a mic in front of them.
The more they talk, the more the American people get sick of them......If they'd shut the hell up they'd win more elections. So by all means we should encourage them to continue with their ramblings.
This is why I'm actually hoping they get the balls to filibuster, and also to go after impeachment proceedings against Bush.......Because they kill themselves when they have the stage.
It's funny how much grand-standing is done before the cameras. I guess we all know now why these are called "hearings". The Democratic Senators get to bloviate, while the nominee, Alito gets a front-row seat to hear it all. Seriously...do they want to let him speak, or just use up all their time in meaningless platitudes and bloviating?
Oh, come on. All y'all really that naive? The hearings have become a venue for each party to shore up their base. Quit actin' so dadgum high and mighty -- and surprised.
Ah, memories. I wrote an editorial for my colege paper back in the day, with the headline: "Bork the dork." Drove the Reagan youth nuts, which made it worth it.
But wait! The Byron Dork article is from a MSM source! And it's obviously not "objective"! For shame!
:-)
Sheila, Of course they're supposed to supposed to grill him, and they're doing so. All I'm saying is that they are predictable, except that they've gone way overboard making outrageous accusations that are not only not true, but are so easily unproven that they make themselves look stupid.
As far as watch which ones vote against him...we don't need to watch that. We already know. Like I say, they are predictable.
ER, Alito can't be borked. This time Republicans are in the majority.
ER, National Review is MSM? That's news to me!
Sheila,
If this is "grilling", they're shooting off nothing but blanks at a man who's bullet-proof. And you said it yourself: it makes Alito look stronger, and the ones who don't even really "listen" to his response, but drive on to the next bloviation, just look foolish.
Mark,
This is the final touches of the Reagan Revolution, de-Warrenizing the Court. Democrats are fighting tooth and nail to preserve the status quo. My race-baiting Senator Durbin is always troubled.
Sheila,
You're always too nice to me! Thank you.
I'm for this country too....which is why I'm standing just to the right of center! (^_~)
Yes, on Clarence Thomas, only if the way you define "judicial activism" is in how often a justice votes in striking down a law passed by Congress. So what is a Supreme Court Justice supposed to do when Congress "gets it wrong", and passes a law that violates Constitutional Law? Is a judge's roll as a strict constructionist? Living Constitution interpreter?
I think the way those on the Left define "judicial activism" is in striking down laws enacted by Congress. Conservative judges, such as Thomas, use a strict constructionist approach to frustrate the "democratic character" of a "living, breathing" Constitution. (If this is how we define it, then, yes, I think that study is probably correct on Clarence Thomas being the most activist).
Those on the right, I think, however, define "legislating from the bench" differently. Conservatives argue that judicial activism is a process of ignoring or selectively choosing precedent in order to make rulings that expands upon personal freedoms such as Roe v. Wade. Or simply "making stuff up", which is how I see the whole "separation of Church and State" line of reasoning, which began in 1947.
If this is how we are to define "judicial activism", then I think Clarence Thomas is "off the hook" on this one.
Prove me wrong, because I may well be. And I'd want to know.
Sheila,
I don't know where you get your information, but Ginsburg and Stevens consistently were in the decent of the Rehnquist Court. Justice Breyer tends to vote with the majority on business matters.
Mark, I came in here simply to thank you for stopping by and wishing me well. Thank you! :)
You wrote an excellent post and I agree with you. All the Dems are doing is "grandstanding." Whenever they get in front of a mike it's a good thing, just as poison pero said. Let them talk. Given enough rope.....
Sheila,
I wish you would provide a link to this information you have discovered. All I know is Teddy Kennedy is wasting our time talking about Vanguard. It is a total smear.
Ohhh, Teddy going McCarthy on Alito, CAP must have been worse than the KKK. Don't we have a Grand Kleagal from West Virginia serving in the Senate?
The National Review, the mainstream conservative voice for 50-something years, is as MSM as anything.
Unles you mean MSM to be any damn publiucation you happens to disagree with -- which I think really IS what righty-rights consider MSM, which is funny because it shows they know they are NOT "MS."
Hoot.
I love these hearings........And any other where the Repubs get a mic in front of them.
The more they talk, the more the American people get sick of them......If they'd shut the hell up they'd win more elections. So by all means we should encourage them to continue with their ramblings.
This is why I'm actually hoping they get the balls to keep smearing Soldiers, and also to go after the Veterans for A Secure America.......Because they kill themselves when they have the stage.
ER, Actually, I do consider The National Review mainstram. I just didn't think you would.
"There is no need to ask Alito any questions."
you're right; the chimp's candidates don't seem capable of giving a straight answer anyway, so why bother....
KEvron
All 100 senators made up their mind on how they were going to vote........Before Bush even nominated Alito.
It doesn't matter how he replies to the Grand Inquisitors. He could come out and say President Bush sucks, and he loves seeing unborn children's brains sucked into vacuum containers and the Dems would still vote against him.
The whole thing's a joke.
I put a Barnyard endorsment on this post, Mark you are right on, I need not say more!
"All 100 senators made up their mind"
speaking of "made up":
http://tinyurl.com/axsnm
KEvron
Well, Mark, that's my point. It doesn't matter what one "thinks" is MSM. That's an assessment that can be made without regard for content or a publication's leaning.
MSM is established, such as newspapers, magazines and broadacasting, period. Non-MSM is online not connected to a magazin, newspaper or broadcasting, pods, blogs, etc.
However, when those on the right use the term, they very often mean "news or information outlet with which I do not agree."
KEvron, damn you. For getting me over the blof of the rightiest of the righty rights!
My eyes! My eyes!
Hey, PP, re: "Niggra = Sen. Robert Byrd's version of the "N-word". --He's used it many times in the U.S. Senate."
So did my dad, who would be about Byrd's age now. Get off that generation of rural Southerners' ass.
It was their dialectical version of "Negro," and you know it. Or if you don't, you Yankee bastage, now you do.
Maybe I should scour yer place for even more example of outright misrepresentations. Spin all you want. But lying sucks.
It sure would be nice to see someone put Kennedy up in front of the panel and question him on all his antics from 40 years ago.
Let's see, how old would Mary Jo be now?
Post a Comment