The message is clear from leading senate democrats… If Judge John Roberts won’t agree to play judicial activist in support of the Democratic Party agenda, they can’t vote to confirm…
In this mornings opening remarks to the Roberts confirmation vote, California Senator Feinstein opened deliberations with this statement, “I think there's no question that Judge Roberts is an extraordinary person. I think there's no question that he's got many stellar qualities: certainly a brilliant legal mind and a love and abiding respect for the law and, I think, a sense of its scope and its complexity as well.
But before taking the momentous step of agreeing that a nominee should serve as the chief justice of our Supreme Court for what in this case will be over 30 years, I wanted to have a reasonable sense of confidence that he would uphold certain essential legal rights and protections that americans rely on and rights that reflect the values and ideals that make our country so great.”
Need I translate? The right of one human being to terminate the life of another, not in self-defense or under some bogus right of personal privacy mind you, but only as a matter of personal convenience. This is one of the few essential rights that reflect the values and ideals that make our country so great, according to Ms. Feinstein.
Ms. Feinstein added, “I asked for some ability to find a commitment to broad legal principles that form the basis of our fundamental rights”, meaning, some commitment in support of broad legal interpretations, as opposed to any form of principles.
This is the foundation upon which Feinstein, Reid, Kennedy and Kerry will cast their “nay” vote against Judge John Roberts. a man minority leader Reid called “an excellent lawyer”, “a thoughtful mainstream judge”, a man “who might make a fine supreme court judge.” apparently, though nice words, they do not describe the type of man Reid and Co. want sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Yesterday, the two most prominent democrat faces in the senate, Kennedy and Kerry, were quick to follow Reid’s dissenting lead. Kennedy stated Roberts’s "reluctance to distance himself" from his history of not being a liberal judicial activist as the reason behind his dissenting vote. Kerry brilliantly added, “a-huh…me too. What he said!”
But in a stunning dissent from the New England professional dissenters club, Senator Leaky Leahy of Vermont announced his intentions to support the confirmation of John Roberts. a move sure to knock him right off the guest list for any upcoming Kennedy compound soiree…
Rather than a process demonstrating a thoughtful deliberation of the soon-to-be Chief Justice of the lands highest court, we are seeing Washington politics as usual. Rather than a common interest in the qualifications and respect for the written law of the next Chief Justice, we see a bitter self-absorbed special-interest ideological game of Washington one-ups-men-ship. at least from democrat leadership, seemingly incapable of anything else these days.
Unlike their democratic counterparts, senate republicans understand the consequences of an election. In 1995, the senate voted 97-3 to confirm then President Clintons aCLU darling of a nominee Ruth Bader-Ginsburg on the basis of her qualifications alone. Ignoring the well known fact that like her liberal brethren, she had more respect for her liberal ideology than our Constitution, senate republicans advised and then consented, in accordance with the process prescribed in the Constitution.
Today this confirmation process tells us little about the nominee. But it tells a lot about the people charged with the responsibility of carrying out the Constitutional process, those sworn to uphold that Constitutional process, rather than their personal ideological agendas.
This message could not be clearer. In the hearts and minds of people like Feinstein, Kennedy, Kerry and Reid, the Constitution be damned. It’s the much more important political agenda of america’s socialist left which must be protected at any cost.
Even papers like the Boston Herald and the Boston Globe, not known for their conservative slant, find it impossible to support the ideological hand wringing of their favorite senators. Senator Leahy went as far as to say ''Judge Roberts is a man of integrity. ''I can only take him at his word that he does not have an ideological agenda.” (an odd statement from a man normally operating solely from his own ideological agenda. One sure to keep him off of the Kerry ketchup compound too.)
Clearly Roberts is going to be confirmed. But I bet the vote won’t be 97-3…
as for the next Bush nominee, I’d like to make my suggestion…
I would love to see Bush nominate a democrat… No easy task though… He’d have to find a qualified democrat, who has never had an abortion, been through drug rehab, been charged with rape, molested any children, attempted to redefine marriage to suit his/her gay relationship, attacked any individual on the basis of race, creed or color, shown support for illegal immigration, left any girlfriends at the bottom of an icy river or been a regular guest on the Jerry Springer Show. In other words, a democrat of real principle, committed to upholding the Constitution as it is written…
Now, before you tolerance folks get your bloomers in a twist - realize that I simply reversed the litmus test Feinstein, Kennedy, Kerry and Reid have just imposed upon Roberts…
Not to worry though… I’ve been searching for a democrat like this for years now and so far, I’ve come up empty handed. But one must exist somewhere in this big country and they would make the perfect next nominee, in my humble opinion.
Can you imagine a DNC filibuster to block the nomination of one from their own party? Now that’s entertainment!