Update: You can see the video of the Fox News Sunday panel at the all new Ms.Underestimated! The new site is fabulous!
Update II: Michelle Malkin also has more information.
Besides having nominated the eminently qualified Samuel Alito to be an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, President Bush and the conservatives have scored a major political victory this past week while sitting on the sidelines. When Harriet Miers withdrew her name from the process, President Bush could not have imagined the opportunities that would await him. No one could forecast the President’s prospect of restoring his finely honed political instincts, or the surprising opening that the senate democrats would give him in the first political week of 2006.
Riding on the notorious “derail the nominee” train first engineered by Teddy Kennedy in his 1986 detonation of Robert Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court, Senators Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, and Kennedy permitted the entire process to replicate a ride on the corkscrew. Taking the media and citizen observers on an expedition that will not soon be forgotten, these senators and their colleagues propagated several abiding political themes leaving a lasting residue. Like the song lyric made popular in the 1972 movie The Poseidon Adventure, following these hearings, “there’s got to be a morning after.” It is time to cast a ray of common sense, conservative light through the remnants of shadowy haze conjured up by these loquacious and rambling senate relics. In the morning mist following this miasma, the development of future political strategies is tenuous and theories of the lessons learned are fragile. This certainly won’t stop Biden or Kennedy from engaging in a post-mortem of the misdemeanor they committed.
By truncating the questioning process in favor of strident and tortuous political statements, by forcing the issue of Altio’s membership the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, and by infusing the hearing process with smears and erroneousness, the democrats on the judiciary committee rendered the process of historically significant and constitutionally sound hearings derisory and indecorous.
Most notably, Senator Biden has been cited by no less of a source than The New York Times has having spent the largest segment of his time talking rather than asking the nominee questions that could elicit informative responses. In over 700 redundant, bullying questions laced with invective, misinformation, and harsh pejoratives, democrats hassled the nominee, but failed to do anything except reveal Altio’s superior intellect and his imperturbable, professional demeanor. Alito listened calmly as each of the democrat senators overplayed their liberal hand by berating a man exuding common decency. And now, Uncle Teddy is claiming that the entire process is too political.
In a juvinile display worthy of a high school student council dispute, Senator Kenndy tried to make ominous claims that documents requested were not produced. Uncle Teddy had quite a little scrape with Chairman, Arlen Specter.
Senator Kennedy’s political stunt, which was trumped within hours of its ignition, represented nothing more than a bogus attempt to garner media attention, and did nothing to further the integrity and dignity of the process. The mainstream media has typically led the public astray with its’ commentary and contemptuous description of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton. Liberal democrats described CAP as intolerant, against women, minorities, and civil rights, and completely mischaracterized the organization. Continually called “tawdry” by Senator Schumer, CAP has been described by Terry Eastland of The Weekly Standard as “a group of conservative alumni concerned about trends at their alma mater: a faculty tilting left, a curriculum going politically correct, academic standards declining.”
The media accepted the democrats characterization of CAP to stand uncontested. In fact, ABC News adopted as truth the dishonest, liberal Democratic allegations about the supposedly bigoted agenda of CAP. World News Tonight anchor Elizabeth Vargas referred to Alito's “membership in a controversial group opposed to women and minorities at his college.” Yet, CAP has had as editors of its publication Laura Ingraham, a woman, and Dinesh D'Souza, a scholar at the Hoover Institution and a native of India. Still today, Chuck Schumer stated on Fox News Sunday that if the “shoe were on the other foot, and a democrat President nominated someone who was a part of radical organization of the left in college of after, the Republicans would have questions too.” Really, Mr. Schumer? You are right, they might have questions, but they will also vote for the nominee as in the case of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who as an adult worked for the most radical left-wing group: the ACLU.
Andrew Napolitano, former New Jersey Superior Court Judge, classmate and friend of Sam Alito, and member of CAP has defended the organization from left wing attack artists. CAP, Napolitano said, was committed instead to increasing alumni involvement in Princeton and tempering "the University's anti-traditionalist leftist urges" at a sensitive time in history when the majority of students and faculty were opposed to the Nixon administration's policies, particularly the Vietnam War. Napolitano said he never associated himself with any individual's anti-coeducation stance, adding that "Sam Alito would never associate himself with that" either.
Regardless of the truth, Kennedy, Feinstein, Schumer and others painted CAP with the broad brush of “intolerance” and the lap dog media picked it up without even altering the verbiage.
When it was revealed that Alito had no documented or anecdotal association with CAP, Teddy Kennedy was, believe it or not, speechless, and the CAP issue disappeared as quickly as Kennedy had uttered a bombshell by invoking the Watergate sounding word, “subpoena.”
Even Katie Couric seems to realize that the democrats on the sensate judiciary committee went several steps too far in their pursuit of Supreme Court Justices who will protect the staggeringly flawed 1973 decision in Roe vs. Wade. When she was questioning Senator Joe Biden on the Today Show this past Thursday, the omnipresent prejudicial banner that has become the fixture of our slanted news coverage stated, “Democrats Gone Too Far.” Uncharacteristically, Katie hammered Biden with questions, and inadvertently advanced the future story of the Alito hearings.
Apparently, Biden told Katie Couric that perhaps these judiciary hearings have outlived their usefulness. Biden suggested that the debate over a nominee should be moved to the senate floor. How convenient. Apparently realizing that the failure of he and his colleagues to make points in a process designed to provide information and ascertain the qualifications of a nominee, Biden wants to move the one sided conversation to the senate floor.
As the powder settles from the myriad of political stunts and the intellectually and morally bankrupt performance of the liberal democrats, let us hope that the process is changed forever, but not ended. Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard says that Joe Biden has it right. We strongly disagree. The constitutional role of the senate to advise and consent on judicial nominees has been historically fulfilled through the senate judiciary committee, a vote there, and a debate and vote on the senate floor. Surely, the legacy of the Roberts and Alito hearings will be the restoration of the decorum and dignity of the process.
Although the last twenty years have been detrimental to the process of vetting on potential judicial nominations, our nation’s long history of setting partisanship aside and dealing with qualifications and judicial philosophy will surely return in the near future. By playing the “Bork Card” one time too many, the response, reaction and treatment of further nominees could be forever changed for the better. We can certainly hope for the best.
Ronald Reagan taught us that hope is the trademark of the conservative movement. Let’s hope for the best, and at any rate, what do the Republicans have to lose by sticking the process? As long as the republicans are the majority, they can vote out most every nominee from the committee. If the republicans are ever the minority again, they will want the hearings process to bring the truth to light.
Previously: Thoughts on the Alito Hearings
Alito is not Scalia
More coverage at The Political Teen
Linked to Perish The Thought, Read All The Links at Right Wing Nation,
Check out Real Teen-Right on the Right
Check out TMH's Bacon Bits-it's wonderful!
Read Basil's Blog
The Mudville Gazette has great links
Update II: Michelle Malkin also has more information.
Besides having nominated the eminently qualified Samuel Alito to be an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, President Bush and the conservatives have scored a major political victory this past week while sitting on the sidelines. When Harriet Miers withdrew her name from the process, President Bush could not have imagined the opportunities that would await him. No one could forecast the President’s prospect of restoring his finely honed political instincts, or the surprising opening that the senate democrats would give him in the first political week of 2006.
Riding on the notorious “derail the nominee” train first engineered by Teddy Kennedy in his 1986 detonation of Robert Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court, Senators Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, and Kennedy permitted the entire process to replicate a ride on the corkscrew. Taking the media and citizen observers on an expedition that will not soon be forgotten, these senators and their colleagues propagated several abiding political themes leaving a lasting residue. Like the song lyric made popular in the 1972 movie The Poseidon Adventure, following these hearings, “there’s got to be a morning after.” It is time to cast a ray of common sense, conservative light through the remnants of shadowy haze conjured up by these loquacious and rambling senate relics. In the morning mist following this miasma, the development of future political strategies is tenuous and theories of the lessons learned are fragile. This certainly won’t stop Biden or Kennedy from engaging in a post-mortem of the misdemeanor they committed.
By truncating the questioning process in favor of strident and tortuous political statements, by forcing the issue of Altio’s membership the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, and by infusing the hearing process with smears and erroneousness, the democrats on the judiciary committee rendered the process of historically significant and constitutionally sound hearings derisory and indecorous.
Most notably, Senator Biden has been cited by no less of a source than The New York Times has having spent the largest segment of his time talking rather than asking the nominee questions that could elicit informative responses. In over 700 redundant, bullying questions laced with invective, misinformation, and harsh pejoratives, democrats hassled the nominee, but failed to do anything except reveal Altio’s superior intellect and his imperturbable, professional demeanor. Alito listened calmly as each of the democrat senators overplayed their liberal hand by berating a man exuding common decency. And now, Uncle Teddy is claiming that the entire process is too political.
In a juvinile display worthy of a high school student council dispute, Senator Kenndy tried to make ominous claims that documents requested were not produced. Uncle Teddy had quite a little scrape with Chairman, Arlen Specter.
Senator Kennedy’s political stunt, which was trumped within hours of its ignition, represented nothing more than a bogus attempt to garner media attention, and did nothing to further the integrity and dignity of the process. The mainstream media has typically led the public astray with its’ commentary and contemptuous description of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton. Liberal democrats described CAP as intolerant, against women, minorities, and civil rights, and completely mischaracterized the organization. Continually called “tawdry” by Senator Schumer, CAP has been described by Terry Eastland of The Weekly Standard as “a group of conservative alumni concerned about trends at their alma mater: a faculty tilting left, a curriculum going politically correct, academic standards declining.”
The media accepted the democrats characterization of CAP to stand uncontested. In fact, ABC News adopted as truth the dishonest, liberal Democratic allegations about the supposedly bigoted agenda of CAP. World News Tonight anchor Elizabeth Vargas referred to Alito's “membership in a controversial group opposed to women and minorities at his college.” Yet, CAP has had as editors of its publication Laura Ingraham, a woman, and Dinesh D'Souza, a scholar at the Hoover Institution and a native of India. Still today, Chuck Schumer stated on Fox News Sunday that if the “shoe were on the other foot, and a democrat President nominated someone who was a part of radical organization of the left in college of after, the Republicans would have questions too.” Really, Mr. Schumer? You are right, they might have questions, but they will also vote for the nominee as in the case of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who as an adult worked for the most radical left-wing group: the ACLU.
Andrew Napolitano, former New Jersey Superior Court Judge, classmate and friend of Sam Alito, and member of CAP has defended the organization from left wing attack artists. CAP, Napolitano said, was committed instead to increasing alumni involvement in Princeton and tempering "the University's anti-traditionalist leftist urges" at a sensitive time in history when the majority of students and faculty were opposed to the Nixon administration's policies, particularly the Vietnam War. Napolitano said he never associated himself with any individual's anti-coeducation stance, adding that "Sam Alito would never associate himself with that" either.
Regardless of the truth, Kennedy, Feinstein, Schumer and others painted CAP with the broad brush of “intolerance” and the lap dog media picked it up without even altering the verbiage.
When it was revealed that Alito had no documented or anecdotal association with CAP, Teddy Kennedy was, believe it or not, speechless, and the CAP issue disappeared as quickly as Kennedy had uttered a bombshell by invoking the Watergate sounding word, “subpoena.”
Even Katie Couric seems to realize that the democrats on the sensate judiciary committee went several steps too far in their pursuit of Supreme Court Justices who will protect the staggeringly flawed 1973 decision in Roe vs. Wade. When she was questioning Senator Joe Biden on the Today Show this past Thursday, the omnipresent prejudicial banner that has become the fixture of our slanted news coverage stated, “Democrats Gone Too Far.” Uncharacteristically, Katie hammered Biden with questions, and inadvertently advanced the future story of the Alito hearings.
Apparently, Biden told Katie Couric that perhaps these judiciary hearings have outlived their usefulness. Biden suggested that the debate over a nominee should be moved to the senate floor. How convenient. Apparently realizing that the failure of he and his colleagues to make points in a process designed to provide information and ascertain the qualifications of a nominee, Biden wants to move the one sided conversation to the senate floor.
As the powder settles from the myriad of political stunts and the intellectually and morally bankrupt performance of the liberal democrats, let us hope that the process is changed forever, but not ended. Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard says that Joe Biden has it right. We strongly disagree. The constitutional role of the senate to advise and consent on judicial nominees has been historically fulfilled through the senate judiciary committee, a vote there, and a debate and vote on the senate floor. Surely, the legacy of the Roberts and Alito hearings will be the restoration of the decorum and dignity of the process.
Although the last twenty years have been detrimental to the process of vetting on potential judicial nominations, our nation’s long history of setting partisanship aside and dealing with qualifications and judicial philosophy will surely return in the near future. By playing the “Bork Card” one time too many, the response, reaction and treatment of further nominees could be forever changed for the better. We can certainly hope for the best.
Ronald Reagan taught us that hope is the trademark of the conservative movement. Let’s hope for the best, and at any rate, what do the Republicans have to lose by sticking the process? As long as the republicans are the majority, they can vote out most every nominee from the committee. If the republicans are ever the minority again, they will want the hearings process to bring the truth to light.
Previously: Thoughts on the Alito Hearings
Alito is not Scalia
More coverage at The Political Teen
Linked to Perish The Thought, Read All The Links at Right Wing Nation,
Check out Real Teen-Right on the Right
Check out TMH's Bacon Bits-it's wonderful!
Read Basil's Blog
The Mudville Gazette has great links
0 comments:
Post a Comment