Posted on 07/24/2005 7:39:10 AM PDT by rface
Thoughtful Democrats -- the rarest birds on the endangered species list -- might want to ponder this: "Another hanging chad has dropped. His name is John G. Roberts Jr., and he undoubtedly will turn out to be opposed to abortion rights, affirmative action, an expansive view of federal powers and a reading of the Constitution that takes a properly suspicious view of the state's embrace of religion. In these and other matters -- the death penalty, for instance -- he is expected to substantially reflect the views of George W. Bush, the man who nominated him to the Supreme Court, because that was what the election of 2000 and its sequel were all about. You hang enough chads, and you get to change the Supreme Court."
That's not moveon.org, or the wilder shores of the Internet. That's Richard Cohen, big-time columnist in that bastion of mainstream media, the Washington Post. And his first thought, on learning the name of President Bush's Supreme Court nominee, is of hanging chads.
Leave aside Cohen's careless assumption that the 2004 election was "all about" the Supreme Court: I happen to be writing this in a taxicab stuck in traffic in Central London, where bombs are going off, and it seems to me last November was a little about all that loud exploding stuff, too. If the Democrats hadn't been so hung up on chads and the court, they might have had something to say about that.
Leave aside, too, that it was the Democrats who were trying to "hang enough chads." The Republicans were happy to have the election decided on -- what's the word? -- "votes." It was the Democrats who introduced us to the Four Chads -- Swinging Chad, Dangling Chad, Hanging Chad and Dimpled Chad -- at a time when, to most Republicans, the Four Chads were that vocal group who'd headlined the party's A-list $3.95-a-plate celebrity fund-raiser. It was the Dems who demanded the election be decided by chad diviners interpreting the subtle, indeed undetectable indentation of the dimple as a decisive vote for Al Gore. America has chads in its politics because Democrat lawyers put them there.
Whom the gods would destroy they first make chads. When their frantic swinging, dangling and dimpling availed them nought, Democrats were consumed by bitterness. Understandably enough. That's one reason why some of us like the old-fashioned method of having the big questions of the day decided by the votes of free-born citizens. When you leave them to be adjudicated by nine men and women on the basis of their opinions and you wind up on the losing side, it's bound to feel less satisfactory. But who turned the election into a lawsuit in the first place? It was the Democrats who went before the courts arguing for the inclusion of dimples, and the exclusion of military ballots, and the post-election amendment of the election law.
In his dissent from the Supreme Court's decision in Bush vs. Gore, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, "Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law."
Oh, if only. For four years, Democrats drove around with bumper stickers mocking ever more stridently the "selected President." Yet, pace Justice Stevens, the Dems' faith in the selection process -- in judges as the true parliament of this great Republic -- restored itself within weeks, at least when it comes to selecting gay marriage, abortion, affirmative action, etc. In the words of leading Democratic thinker Nancy Pelosi, "It is a decision of the Supreme Court -- so this is almost as if God has spoken." She was talking about "eminent domain" not Bush vs. Gore, but you can't have it both ways: It can't be the Word of God one day and merely "Bush's daddy's pals" the next.
The Democrats never recovered from the 2000 election. They became obsessed with the "illegitimate" Bush, and carried on obsessing no matter what lively distractions intervened: In time the Twin Towers tumbled, the Taliban crumbled, they're only here today, but hung chads are here to stay. Michael Moore couldn't make a movie about 9/11 and Iraq without a 20-minute chad-dangling opening. Even the chad-free election of 2004 -- the "sequel," as Richard Cohen coyly puts it -- only momentarily dented the party's imperviousness to reality: If you can't get Bush, get Tom Delay, or Karl Rove, or John Bolton, or some other guy nobody's heard of.
Now it's Roberts' turn. Barely had the president finished announcing the nomination when the Dems rushed Sen. Chuck Schumer on air, hunched and five-o'clock-shadowed and looking like a bus-&-truck one-man Nixon revue. Schumer's line was that, as a judge, Roberts had too thin a paper trail. His message seemed to be: Look, we Dems have the finest oppo-research boys in the business and, if we can't get any dirt on this guy, that must mean it's buried real deep and is real bad; the very fact that we can't get anything on him is in itself suspicious. Etc., etc.
Give it up, guys. Here's the John Roberts case that matters: As the Los Angeles Times put it, Roberts "said police did not violate the constitutional rights of a 12-year-old girl who was arrested, handcuffed and detained for eating a French fry inside a train station." We know what the flailing Times is clutching at here: Look, folks, this right-wing nut favors handcuffing schoolgirls for eating French fries.
No, he doesn't. As he wrote in his opinion, "The question before us, however, is not whether these policies were a bad idea, but whether they violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution" -- i.e., it may be bad legislation poorly implemented, but it's not his job to make the law. If you don't like public-transit policy on French fries, elect new councilors who'll change it. That's how free societies function.
The Democrats drew exactly the wrong lesson from their chad fever. If the case teaches anything, it's the importance of winning at the ballot box, which you do by promoting clear ideas confidently stated. The Dems prefer to leave it to the Divine Right of Judges. You might too if you believed in gay marriage and partial-birth abortion, but, simply as a matter of practical politics, it's disastrous for the party. Poor sad Richard Cohen, unabletomoveon.org after five years, is a fine emblem for the Democrats: Ask not for whom the chad hangs, it hangs for thee.
Wordsmything at its finest PING.
Poor Richard Cohen. Born with a dimpled chad in his cheeks.
Great finale, as usual.
Ping
Hah! Gotta love it! Steyn hits another homerun!
Thanks for posting this!
He always engages the reader and sustains interest while making fine insights. Who writes better?????
"Too many notes."
He puts it well - and the mornon Dems just keep proving it daily. A "party" without a purpose FOR AMERICA, without substance, clarity, vision, and an honest output of their real agenda -- which still remains socialism, power, and control and all for themselves.
They are easy to defeat, since they do most of the work themselves!!
I'm glad that Nancy Pelosi has summed up the Dem attitude toward the Supreme Court so suscinctly.
"That's one reason why some of us like the old-fashioned method of having the big questions of the day decided by the votes of free-born citizens. When you leave them to be adjudicated by nine men and women on the basis of their opinions and you wind up on the losing side, it's bound to feel less satisfactory."
Anyone else notice how this describes Roe exactly - as Rush has pointed out so many times. In the UK, they got to vote on the abortion issue - we had it imposed by judicial fiat.
The dims are bitter about a ruling that kept them from power - an Act of God if there ever was one. We at least are bitter about a ruling that has killed 1.5 million - that's million - babies a year. Who has the moral high ground here?
They did, they were against "exploding stuff", ours that is. They were somewhat more ambivalent about the "exploding stuff" from the folks wanting a return to the "good old days" of the 8th century Mid East.
I enjoyed that.
I would argue that they never recovered from the 1986 election, when they married themselves "till death do us part" to the worst man ever to win the Presidency. Or even more certainly, to his impeachment saga, when they sold the last vestiges of their soul to keep his pasty white butt in that office.
Dan
Thanks for the info. It's great to be encouraged something right is on the horizon.
My in-laws are obsessed with the 2000 election and hate Bush. I do not bother to talk politics with them but have told them that unless their party (and they) get over it, they will continue to lose elections.
Why can't I express myself like this?
Turn on your spell checker. (The Spelling Police again!)
Hard to beat the MAN!
Steyn at his best Bump!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.