A Word On The Anti-Roberts Lynch Mob
I said earlier that the Democrats are a constant. The Kosacks' Saturday Night Live impressions are one manifestation of that truth, and the "dour, hateful, sad, and pathetic" (to borrow Brother Hinderaker's phrase) responses of Senators Schumer and Leahy build on that heinous foundation.
I don't feel any particular need to fisk every single lefty press release or flense every avenue of lefty attack. It's like trying to swat every last fly - you know you'll never get them all, and yet you also know that they'll keep coming, and in the exact same way, regardless.
Besides, they're all pretty much encapsulated and harbinged by the droning bleat of the New York Senator Time Forgot:
That should have been the end of Chucky's statement by the criteria used to confirm judges for over two centuries. Schumer, of course, is the point man for eviscerating those criteria.
Here we see two things quite openly disclosed:
(1) The Dem view that the SCOTUS is, indeed, a "superlegislature," rendering judicial confirmation a de facto national election campaign before an electorate of 100 voters (kind of like senate "races" used to be before the Seventeenth Amendment);
(2) Schumer and Co. are intending to drag this process out as long as they possibly can, a la John Bolton and Miguel Estrada, by demanding that Judge Roberts pre-judge cases that may come before him as a Justice (answers he is ethically barred from giving) and demanding documentation from his earlier public sector legal work to which they are not entitled.
That upside-downism is even more blatantly and defiantly spewed with this:
To coin my own phrase, "Bull[BLEEP]!" That is the exact opposite of what the Constitution says. The Senate's advise & consent role is not positive/proactive but negative/passive. It is the President who determines the "worthiness" of judicial candidates, and who is accountable to the voters if he makes poor choices in that regard. Senators' role is to examine the nominee and his/her record to determine if there are any relevant (i.e. professional or ethical) reasons why the nominee should not be confirmed. Put another way, the nominee comes before the Senate with the presumption of "worthiness"; s/he doesn't have to "prove" anything. That burden rests with his/her interviewers.
Schumer's bass-ackwards declaration is just the rhetorical evolution of his comrades' attempt to bully the President into conceding them a pre-emptive veto over the candidate selection. Which is, well, consistent given that they enter Judge Roberts' confirmation process with minds pre-emptively made up.
And that makes them that much easier to ignore - unless they become so obnoxious they trip a backlash so big even the Seven Dwarves can't duck it.
My prediction? Judge Roberts will be confirmed, but only after the full smear treatment, a full-scale filibuster, and the razor-thin triggering of the Constitutional option.
Yeah, the rational (and obvious) Dem calculation would be to not waste all that bile and effort on a nomination that is well-nigh bulletproof, but rationality has little role in this fight from the opposition's perspective, and everything to do with disemboweling George W. Bush's presidency, to which they don't believe him to be entitled. Judge Roberts can take a weird kind of solace from the fact that the attacks and indignities and outrages that come his way in the near future will not be borne of personal animus against him, but against the man who sent him - and that, as it were, a prophet is honored everywhere, except on Capitol Hill.
UPDATE: Line of the day, from Mark Levin:
Yep, constant as the Northern star....
I don't feel any particular need to fisk every single lefty press release or flense every avenue of lefty attack. It's like trying to swat every last fly - you know you'll never get them all, and yet you also know that they'll keep coming, and in the exact same way, regardless.
Besides, they're all pretty much encapsulated and harbinged by the droning bleat of the New York Senator Time Forgot:
There's no question that Judge Roberts has outstanding legal credentials and an appropriate legal temperment and demeanor.
That should have been the end of Chucky's statement by the criteria used to confirm judges for over two centuries. Schumer, of course, is the point man for eviscerating those criteria.
But his actual judicial record is limited to only two years on the D.C. Circuit Couirt. For the rest of his career he has been arguing cases as an able lawyer for others leaving many of his personal views unknown. For these reasons it is vital that Judge Roberts answer a wide range of questions openly honestly and fully in the coming months. His views will affect a generation of Americans and it is his obligation during the nomination process to let the American people know those views. [emphases added]
Here we see two things quite openly disclosed:
(1) The Dem view that the SCOTUS is, indeed, a "superlegislature," rendering judicial confirmation a de facto national election campaign before an electorate of 100 voters (kind of like senate "races" used to be before the Seventeenth Amendment);
(2) Schumer and Co. are intending to drag this process out as long as they possibly can, a la John Bolton and Miguel Estrada, by demanding that Judge Roberts pre-judge cases that may come before him as a Justice (answers he is ethically barred from giving) and demanding documentation from his earlier public sector legal work to which they are not entitled.
That upside-downism is even more blatantly and defiantly spewed with this:
The burden is on a nominee to the Supreme Court to prove that he is worthy, not on the Senate to prove that he is unworthy.
To coin my own phrase, "Bull[BLEEP]!" That is the exact opposite of what the Constitution says. The Senate's advise & consent role is not positive/proactive but negative/passive. It is the President who determines the "worthiness" of judicial candidates, and who is accountable to the voters if he makes poor choices in that regard. Senators' role is to examine the nominee and his/her record to determine if there are any relevant (i.e. professional or ethical) reasons why the nominee should not be confirmed. Put another way, the nominee comes before the Senate with the presumption of "worthiness"; s/he doesn't have to "prove" anything. That burden rests with his/her interviewers.
Schumer's bass-ackwards declaration is just the rhetorical evolution of his comrades' attempt to bully the President into conceding them a pre-emptive veto over the candidate selection. Which is, well, consistent given that they enter Judge Roberts' confirmation process with minds pre-emptively made up.
And that makes them that much easier to ignore - unless they become so obnoxious they trip a backlash so big even the Seven Dwarves can't duck it.
My prediction? Judge Roberts will be confirmed, but only after the full smear treatment, a full-scale filibuster, and the razor-thin triggering of the Constitutional option.
Yeah, the rational (and obvious) Dem calculation would be to not waste all that bile and effort on a nomination that is well-nigh bulletproof, but rationality has little role in this fight from the opposition's perspective, and everything to do with disemboweling George W. Bush's presidency, to which they don't believe him to be entitled. Judge Roberts can take a weird kind of solace from the fact that the attacks and indignities and outrages that come his way in the near future will not be borne of personal animus against him, but against the man who sent him - and that, as it were, a prophet is honored everywhere, except on Capitol Hill.
UPDATE: Line of the day, from Mark Levin:
I understand Dick Durbin's original draft statement accused Roberts of being Pol Pot's lawyer.
Yep, constant as the Northern star....
posted by JASmius at 9:08 PM
<<< Home