The confirmation of Judge alito was all-but-certain before the hearings even started. Of course the dissenting view and vote of 22 democrats was also all-but-certain before the hearings began and nothing Judge alito could have said in those hearings was likely to change either side's position.
Despite horrific attempts to assail Judge alito and his family, scripted largely by leftist think tanks like MoveOn.org, regurgitated for the cameras by mindless assassins led by the Senate's ranking village idiot Teddy Kennedy, nearly every news agency around the globe proclaimed "they never laid a glove on him." Though clearly, they did lay a few on his unsuspecting wife…
Senate Democrats have negotiated yet another delay in the confirmation vote moving it out to Tuesday of next week in hopes of uncovering some magic document that can be used to derail the alito confirmation in the 11th hour. Some have not yet turned loose of the filibuster idea, even though they have found no "extraordinary circumstance" that would support the misuse of that procedural tool.
In a moment of true statesmen like conduct, or overwhelming defeat, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California announced on the Sunday talk shows "I do not see a likelihood of a filibuster." Ms. Feinstein went on to state "a filibuster against Judge alito would be an abuse of the parliamentary tool. When it comes to filibustering a Supreme Court appointment, you really have to have something out there, whether it's gross moral turpitude or something that comes to the surface," she said yesterday on CBS' "Face the Nation". "This is a man I might disagree with," she said of Judge alito. "That doesn't mean he shouldn't be on the court."
But according to her dear colleague New York Senator Chucky Schumer, referred to by many media outlets as a chief architect of the (misused) filibusters, "party leaders have not ruled out a filibuster." "It's premature to say anything until we fully assess the record," he said yesterday on "Fox News Sunday."
Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, has said "his party wants to meet Wednesday before deciding whether to filibuster the alito nomination." Now, they don't really want to meet Wednesday to consider this nominee, but rather to use the occasion to launch their latest salvo, asserting the "culture of corruption" theme once again. It's an opportune time to launch their mid-term election platform, while they have the national camera nearby.
The simple fact is, they have no reason or right to filibuster the confirmation of Judge alito and at least one Judicial Committee democrat seems to know that, Senator Feinstein. However, even she plans to vote against confirming alito to the Supreme bench, solely on the basis of what she terms "big issues." Feinstein said "she opposes Judge alito because, (she thinks), he opposes the Roe v. Wade decision that declared abortion a constitutional right and gives too much deference to presidential power." (wink-wink, culture or corruption, remember?)
as I wrote in a previous column, this is the foundation of all dissenting views opposing a more conservative court. The opposition is not really of alito or his well documented judicial qualifications or even his impeccable character as described by his colleagues, even the liberal ones.
The opposition is to what Democrats believe alito represents, a re-shuffle of the Supreme Court from 5-4 liberal to 5-4 conservative. Judge Roberts, a known conservative replaced another known conservative in the late Judge William Rhenquist. But Judge alito is replacing the retiring Judge O'Connor, viewed by the left as the one person in america who decided american social order, to their liking.
It's worth noting that these liberal leaning 5-4 court decisions had little if anything to do with Democrats vs. Republicans. The court has been 7-2 Republican for some years, but 5-4 liberal in its rulings. Both Roberts and alito replace Republicans on the court leaving the party count exactly the same, 7-2 Republican. But the complextion of the court might well change to 5-4 conservative and that means the liberal agenda, already out of power in both the executive and legislative branches, will have lost their last remaining power in the courts.
In this regard, Feinstein is correct, this is a HUGE issue…
When you realize that the liberal agenda has been advanced almost exclusively by the court over the last 40 years or so, the magnitude of this social quake could be devastating to the secular socialist liberal agenda.
a reader recently wrote me with a great question. "assuming that an alito confirmation does result in a more conservative court and that even Roe vs. Wade is somehow overturned as a result, why wouldn't the law making branch of government simply pass legislation or a Constitutional amendment formally legalizing abortion?" after all, if it is true that the majority of americans support a woman's right to choose, why wouldn't the people's representatives deliver the will of the people via the constitutional process of making law?
This question drives at the heart of the current battle for supreme power via the courts. abortion, affirmative action, gay rights, separation of church and state to mention a few, are all parts of the modern liberal agenda and they have all been advanced by the courts in 5-4 rulings, not the people's legislative branch.
So if the court will now become 5-4 conservative, the judicial pendulum could easily swing the other way for the forseeable future and all of these liberal progressive ideas could at least be dead, if not in decline. This is the fear of every modern liberal and the basis for their dissent concerning the alito confirmation. It has nothing to do with alito's otherwise stellar qualifications. It has everything to do with what could well be the final nail in the coffin of the modern liberal agenda.
If liberals were ready to move to Canada on the basis of Bush's re-election, they must be packing their snow shoes as we speak, over the impending alito confirmation. Can you imagine an america where life is respected, where free religious expression is welcome in the public square, where there is no discrimination including reverse discrimination and where gays have a right of privacy, but married couples also have a right to the time honored traditional family unit? How awful would that be?
Can you imagine a court that rules on the basis of written laws and constitutional rights, void of any political agenda, absent of any attempt to perform as an extention of the legislative branch?
Nobody wants to see their hopes and dreams go down in flames, but isn't this the kind of america the founders envisioned? Isn't this the kind of blind justice the framers designed?
The truth is, even most "old" liberals will support the alito confirmation, showing a reasonable respect for the written law and Constitution, sometimes at odds with their personal ideologies.
Only hardcore partisans dependent upon a hardcore leftist constituency for their own political survival will vote against alito in the end. The alito confirmation may confirm more than a good man to the high court. It may provide a crystal clear picture of the difference between old fashioned JFK democrats and the current variety of secular socialist liberals who hijacked their party in search of an america that never was and never should be…
all the easier for removing them from office in 2006 and 2008…
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement