The left has no credibility on judges
There is a small but growing group of conservatives and libertarians who are voicing concerns over Sam Alito from the right. They fear he will be too deferential to government power if he makes it to the high court.
I don't know that I count myself among their number, but I have enough respect for some of these people that I take their concerns seriously, and would like to give them a thorough airing.
Here's the way it would work in an ideal world: The Democrats would head up the opposition, of course, and by highlighting key areas of concern, the issue would work its way into the public consciousness as well, and the Democrats could hope to peel off enough moderate Republicans to potentially block the nomination should it be deemed necessary.
That won't work, however, and here's why. The left has become as predictable as death and taxes on the issue of judicial nominees, and they never even deviate from the same, tired script (turn back the clock, lack of commitment to civil rights, women's issues, ideologue, extremist, blah blah blah....)
And they'll go through exactly the same song and dance no matter who the nominee is, as long as he's nominated by a Republican. The following picture illustrates this perfectly.
If you can't make out the poster Senator Specter is holding, it says "STOP SOUTER OR WOMEN WILL DIE." That's right, not even David Souter was immune from being targeted by the same ridiculous hysteria.
Even John Paul Stevens, arguably the court's most liberal justice, wasn't spared. The Women's Legal Defense Fund accused him of "blatant insensitivity to discrimination against women," simply for the crime of having been nominated by a Republican.
As a result, everyone has been trained to simply tune out the left-wing noise machine when it comes to Republican judicial nominees. I can't blame them for doing so, but it's unfortunate that the left, through wanton overuse of its playbook, has rendered its opposition entirely meaningless. Bitching about everything is the same as bitching about nothing.
Sooner or later, whether it's Alito or someone else, a nominee will come along whom they'll have valid reason to oppose. And they'll oppose them, of course, but no one will be listening, and they'll have no one to blame for that but themselves.
Comments
Excellent point Barry! The left either does not know the future consequences of their actions, or they are so blinded by hatred they don't care. One day all of this will come back to bite them. As you point out, no one will be listening when it counts the most.
Posted by: Barry | January 25, 2006 09:59 PM
What I would love to hear an answer to from the hysterical left is this:
You all voice concern about the balance of the court being slanted to the right with the election of Judge Alito. And foremost among your concerns in this is that he somehow will provide the impetus to overturn Roe.
In 1993, Ruth Ginsberg replaced Byron White. How many of you are aware that White was one of the two (Rehnquist being the other) who dissented on Roe?
Can you honestly say that, given her history, there was not a major shift in the court made by her appointment?
Did you complain about it then as unfair?
Ginsberg was passed by a 97-3 vote.
Now we hear Dianne Feinstein trying to claim that, somehow, the climate is different today from 1993 in order to explain her bullet rejection of Alito solely on his perceived views of Roe.
Seems to me that Roe was just as polarizing in 1993 as it is today.
The Democrats are engaged in a remarkably hypocritical display of crocodile tears for fairness and balance which was absent 13 years ago.
BTW, I happen to be pro-choice.
Posted by: mal | January 25, 2006 11:07 PM