The Right Man for the Job
It seems, to judge from the argument, that the wisdom which we desire and upon which we profess to have set our hearts will be attainable only when we are dead and not in our lifetime.
Socrates (469–399 B.C.)
It took seventeen minutes for the Democrats to attack the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court by President Bush. Judge Alito is the child of an immigrant and a public school teacher with an impressive biography and judicial history (HERE) but the dogs of war slipped out reflexively, baying their loudest and crying 'havoc' with enthusiasm tempered with chagrin at the Judge's credentials.
Sen. Charles Schumer made the especially preposterous suggestion that Judge Alito would “roll back the achievements of Rosa Parks”, but in the words of Hugh Hewitt, “That can only be understood as Schumer's belief that Judge Alito could find segregationist policies acceptable under the constitution. While it is undeniable that the nomination of Robert Byrd would have raised such a question, it is preposterous and indeed base to even hint at such a thing about a distinguished judge and public servant.”
On Oct. 29, Thomas Sowell wrote in his column, “Democrats understand that they were elected to do what those who elected them wanted. But Republicans seem to think they were elected to make deals with Democrats and gain media applause for doing so”. (For those who enjoy Mr. Sowell’s columns and would like to see the ones the Cape Cod Times won’t print, Porcupine provides a link on his sidebar to TownHall.com where you can read them all). The media has already begun its reporting on the knee-jerk opposition to Judge Alito, a.k.a. ‘Scalito’, but immediately follows the report on the well-qualified jurist with the words, “And now more on the war in Iraq…” as they recognize that this is a losing proposition for them. This time, the White House has a nominee who can speak for himself as eloquently as Chief Justice Roberts, and the media will be hard pressed to say that a conservative president ought not nominate a person who reflects his judicial preferences.
There will be no widespread opposition among conservatives to this nomination. A poll already underway (stop in and vote HERE), examines the state-by state response and shows over 90% support for this nomination, versus a 70% opposition of the nomination of Harriet Miers. Judge Alito had a unanimous confirmation by the Senate in 1990, and his well reasoned writings on abortion and other liberal hot-button issues were commended for their clarity and substance. Of course, elements in the Senate would not confirm Louis Brandeis, King Solomon, Nebuchadnezzar, or John Marshall if nominated by President Bush, but as I said earlier, we have three years to fight for this nomination. It will prevail, and we will have a stronger, more originalist, and more intelligent Supreme Court when it does.
Porcupine has a new tenant for the week on his blog, "In the Middle of America", written by another young Alabama conservative and former Marine. Be sure to click on the white 'Rent My Blog' box on the upper right. The other links are worthy of consideration, too, especially that of Speaker Dennis Hastert, who has joined us with a blog of his own!
Socrates (469–399 B.C.)
It took seventeen minutes for the Democrats to attack the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court by President Bush. Judge Alito is the child of an immigrant and a public school teacher with an impressive biography and judicial history (HERE) but the dogs of war slipped out reflexively, baying their loudest and crying 'havoc' with enthusiasm tempered with chagrin at the Judge's credentials.
Sen. Charles Schumer made the especially preposterous suggestion that Judge Alito would “roll back the achievements of Rosa Parks”, but in the words of Hugh Hewitt, “That can only be understood as Schumer's belief that Judge Alito could find segregationist policies acceptable under the constitution. While it is undeniable that the nomination of Robert Byrd would have raised such a question, it is preposterous and indeed base to even hint at such a thing about a distinguished judge and public servant.”
On Oct. 29, Thomas Sowell wrote in his column, “Democrats understand that they were elected to do what those who elected them wanted. But Republicans seem to think they were elected to make deals with Democrats and gain media applause for doing so”. (For those who enjoy Mr. Sowell’s columns and would like to see the ones the Cape Cod Times won’t print, Porcupine provides a link on his sidebar to TownHall.com where you can read them all). The media has already begun its reporting on the knee-jerk opposition to Judge Alito, a.k.a. ‘Scalito’, but immediately follows the report on the well-qualified jurist with the words, “And now more on the war in Iraq…” as they recognize that this is a losing proposition for them. This time, the White House has a nominee who can speak for himself as eloquently as Chief Justice Roberts, and the media will be hard pressed to say that a conservative president ought not nominate a person who reflects his judicial preferences.
There will be no widespread opposition among conservatives to this nomination. A poll already underway (stop in and vote HERE), examines the state-by state response and shows over 90% support for this nomination, versus a 70% opposition of the nomination of Harriet Miers. Judge Alito had a unanimous confirmation by the Senate in 1990, and his well reasoned writings on abortion and other liberal hot-button issues were commended for their clarity and substance. Of course, elements in the Senate would not confirm Louis Brandeis, King Solomon, Nebuchadnezzar, or John Marshall if nominated by President Bush, but as I said earlier, we have three years to fight for this nomination. It will prevail, and we will have a stronger, more originalist, and more intelligent Supreme Court when it does.
Porcupine has a new tenant for the week on his blog, "In the Middle of America", written by another young Alabama conservative and former Marine. Be sure to click on the white 'Rent My Blog' box on the upper right. The other links are worthy of consideration, too, especially that of Speaker Dennis Hastert, who has joined us with a blog of his own!
posted by Peter Porcupine at 6:35 PM
7 Comments:
Hi Porcupine Pete. I am not political but I just wanted to thank you for sitting down for a spell and leaving a comment on my blog. You are all right!
Alito sounds pretty good doesn't he? Sowell's quote mystifies me as it seems contrary to evidence. I don't think it will take three years to confirm Alito. The question in my mind is whether the Republicans will make the mistake of eliminating rather than defeating the filibuster.
Doug - Read the column, the quote was taken out of context. My point was that WE have done far more to be conciliatory, and a fat lot of good it has done us.
They'd be fools to eliminate the filibuster so close to the mid-term elections, but it may happen. As I've said before, someday the shoe will be on the other foot!
Attack is the approach of those who secretly wish to declare how little they are and deny their natural grandeur. See Our Holy Inheritance blog:
http://ourholyinheritance.blogspot.com/
Ah, WE. I'd call the score on conciliation a draw with a pretty low score in any case, but I'm not sure deference is a very important political virtue. I do hope Alito is confirmed without filibuster. I don't mind how bad the Democrats will look if they filibuster. I'm pretty horrified at how bad the Republicans will deserve to look if the filibuster is eliminated other than by (I think) 75% majority required to change Senate rules properly. I think I'd have to work, donate and vote toward the goal of removing my preferred party from power if that happens. The GOP can't be more than one straw away from deserving the contempt of every patriot at this point and the "nuclear option" is a whole big brick.
Doug - I agree the nuclear option would be a HUGE mistake. LET them filibuster - 3 years laer, we'll have our nominee, and the prople's business will grind to a dead halt in the meantime.
What's your take on Searchlight Harry's hijack? IMHO, it's to get the GOP's to do someting stupid LIKE exercise the nuclear option.
Shortish answer? I think it was a bulls**t Democratic ploy to move the news media away from Alito while they figure out what to do with him. I agree with the stated purpose, though and I appreciate the elegance of using the rules as written to an upredictable end.
Longish answer, though, I find myself rooting for the Dems on some of these matters. As you know, I consider the administration to be an unalloyed catastrophe. If the Reps in congress followed through on the constitional function of disciplining the Executive branch when necessary, the GOP could argue that conservatism is alive and well within the party, our guy in the White House just isn't quite the manager we'd hoped.
The above paragraph (thank you for your indulgence) is a long way of saying I would like the stated purpose the hijack to be accomplished and I wish I expected the investigation to be an honest one.
Post a Comment
<< Home