If they break 150 miles, launch the Alert 5 aircraft.
I agree that the tone of the post is correct. However, the strategy is seriously flawed. John Roberts--despite what leftist politicos will have you believe--is a moderate conservative. Most potential nominees fall to his right. The wise course goes something like this: "Wow, Roberts sure is conservative! It's against our better judgment to vote for someone this far to the right. But, we want to be deferential to the President and give his nominees the benefit of the doubt. And besides, for a right wing nut, Roberts seems pretty well spoken. But take notice! Roberts is walking a razor's edge! Don't even think about nominating someone to his right."That way, the President is backed into a corner and may only nominate Roberts-like moderates. Alas, left-wing kooks--even the ones who don't curse--can't abide the idea that anyone to the right of Howard Dean should have a voice in contemporary politics. So, they do self destructive things like vote agianst moderate SCOTUS nominees. Boo hoo for them.
Aaron, you seem to be judging Roberts' political philosophy rather than his legal philosophy. He may be a moderate conservative, but such classifications don't work when it comes to legal philosophy. There really isn't such a thing as moderately conservative when it comes to legal philosophy. He's not an originalist in the Scalia mold, but he's still not moderate unless you're refering to his temperment. His legal philosophy is in line with a Rehnquist, which will make him a favorite of political conservatives for the next 30 years.
Asking merely that we not have to wipe up the spittle afterwards sets the bar pretty low for an "effective, vibrant oppposition" -- don't you think?While not foam-flecked the piece still exhibits the peculiar liberal pathology concerning jurisprudence. That is -- maybe it's not Bush's nominees "undermining" the process, but rather the view that any nominee outside the 9th-district-ACLU-People-for-the-American-Way mold is an extremist affront to all we hold dear?He writes approvingly that "Bill Clinton... almost certainly took a few names off his potential SCOTUS list to avoid a confirmation fight."Then he nominated... Ruth Ginsburg.Who'd he cross off the list, Lyndon LaRouche?
P.S. Sorry about confusing antecedents in the last paragraphs.
Clinton wanted to nominate Bruce Babbit to the seat he eventually nominated Ginsburg for. Orrin Hatch told Clinton it would be a bad idea and the republicans might filibuster. Clinton then nominated Ginsburg, whom Hatch found acceptable. Good job, idiots. I think US Senators might be the dumbest people alive.
Next after Ginsburg, Clinton nominated Stephen Breyer, who he knew would have the practically unanimous support of Senate Republicans. Hatch assurred Clinton that Breyer would be confirmed, and the judiciary committee recommended him unanimously. Ginsburg was approved 96-3, Breyer 87-9. Clinton was certainly defferential to Republicans in his nominations (he was strongly considering both Babbitt and Cuomo for SCOTUS, although whether either of them would have taken the job, I couldn't say.) We essentially got more or less who we wanted. Hugo
There is no such thing as a leagal moderate? What an odd thing to say. Let's look at a single issue--say, substantive due process. A legal conservative (e.g. me) feels that the entire doctrine is bankrupt and should be gradually undone. I would suggest that a legal moderate is unhappy with the reach of the doctrine, but is willing to keep its progeny intact while preventing further expansion into areas like euthanasia. This kind of distinction is apparent in every branch of constitutional interpretation. Roberts is moderate in his "legal philosophy."
Yes, that is what should be expected at the minimal level of professionalism. Just because many bloggers do not publish for MSM publications does not necessitate producing articles worthy of anything less.
Post a Comment