Posted on 09/14/2005 5:38:44 PM PDT by gobucks
It was a battle of the sound bites yesterday at the Senate Supreme Court nomination hearings. The score? Judge John G. Roberts 1, Democrats 0.
Each of the senators got first licks yesterday in a round of ceremonial speeches, but last up was Roberts himself, and he hit the ball out of the park: In his opening statement, Roberts made his role crystal clear by a homey analogy. "Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them. ... Nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire." Then he promised, "And I will remember that it's my job to calls balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat."
Good thing, too, the senators must be saying, after watching Roberts go to bat for himself.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., meanwhile, set sail in a sea of lofty rhetoric, noting the chief justice's future responsibilities were "awesome" -- not "in the way my teenage daughter would use the word," but in the biblical sense, like "angels trembling in the presence of God."
Like, wow, man. Just when you were wondering how high Schumer might soar (especially while sailing), suddenly the good senator beached himself in a big, wet mess of metaphor: "(The American people) need to know -- above all -- that if you take stewardship of the high court, you will not steer it so far out of the mainstream that it founders in the shallow waters of extremist ideology. As far as your own views go, however, we have only scratched the surface. In a sense, we have seen maybe 10 percent of you -- just the visible tip of the iceberg, not the 90 percent that is still submerged. And we all know that it is the ice beneath the surface that can sink the ship."
While Schumer was scratching his surface looking for the rest of Roberts, in order to sink him, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., movingly reminded us that She Is A Woman -- A Woman A Lot Older Than You: "As a college student at Stanford, I watched the passing of the plate to collect money so a young woman could go to Tijuana for a back-alley abortion." (Just watched, senator?) Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., digressed into something about "the price of gasoline and the safety of prescription drugs." (Now there's a guy who knows how to use 15 minutes on national TV.) Republican senators mostly used their time to hand Roberts free passes, as in Do Not Answer Question, Judge, Do Pass Go, Collect Supreme Court Seat.
I noticed only one new development: an attempt by left-leaning senators to borrow the right-wing judicial tyranny rhetoric and apply it to decisions by the Supreme Court striking down laws liberals favored. A successful new "framing"? I doubt it. This rhetoric no longer works for conservatives, because the game of politics has become so visibly nasty, partisan and uncivil that few Americans feel very good about the democratic branches of government.
Senators will no doubt continue to speak of themselves in the third person plural, as the voice of We the People. Meanwhile, public approval of the Senate, as Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), R-S.C., himself pointed out, hovers in the 30s.
Americans want some public spaces that "rise above" partisan politics. They want an institution that they can be proud of, and if Congress won't or can't comply, the Supreme Court will do.
Prediction: This is bad news in the long run for America, and for conservatives who have been on the receiving end of the Supreme Court's gradual expansion of its own institutional power and authority. The good news for conservatives is that this same trend will gently buoy Judge Roberts above the iceberg of Chuck Schumer's animosity and onto the placid sea of a seat on the Supreme Court.
When a democrat stoops to this kind of Rhetoric, when MSM outlets like Yahoo write up glowing reports like this, when the major networks reveal democrats who can't seem to get angry at this guy, no matter how hard they ACT like they are mad (no wonder Biden's Presidential bid sank like a rock) .... one should begin to really worry if one looks at scotus and wants a look into the future.
Sure Roberts is smart. That is not the problem. But he is funny, and the MSM likes that. To me, that is part of a problem, as they revealed over and over the last few days, especially when he said he liked Dr. Zhivago and North by Northwest.
I have noticed that when the MSM endorse ANYTHING, marriages fall apart, pornography swamps the country, and millions of 'non-persons' get extracted before they get a chance to draw breath.
When MSM outrage, and I mean authentic, blood vessel raising outrage, is present, that is the best indicator of whether or not a political figure is good for conservatives; the more outrage in them, the better it is for us. But, for this man Roberts, it has been utterly unaminous, from PBS, to Public Radio, to NBC et al, to Fox and now Yahoo. Only the far left Naral commie whackos are crying alarm ... but even they are not very loud, nor organized. The only thing that is starkly missing is all the political analcysts who are lauding how awesomely underestimated W. was once again as he has hit this nomination out of the park. Why, just why is this obvious tidbit missing?
The MSM talking heads really are a good indicator about what is going right ... if they are really angry. And they are NOT angry in the least about Roberts. That is cause for worry, if you are serious about American Conservativism.
So, just what is it with all the fawning? The glowing reviews, compliments, near butt kissing ..... by DEMOCRATS???
Folks, is it just me, or does anyone else smell a 'RAT? And remember, Republicans have done this before: think Souter, Kennedy, O'Oonner ...
No, it's more like we can't stop him so we better not gang up on him too much. We'll save it for the next nominee.
"And remember, Republicans have done this before: think Souter, Kennedy, O'Oonner..."
Actually, I don't remember. Who is O'Oonner? Way too many vowels in a row.
I think business conservatives will like him a lot and I think religious conservatives will end up hating his guts.
"I think business conservatives will like him a lot and I think religious conservatives will end up hating his guts."
In Business School, those types proudly referred to themselves as conservative, but preferred the label "Business Democrats".
It's just you.
The Democrats are so deluded by their own convoluted logic that they think the "right" to abortion stems from the right to privacy. John Roberts does not.
I'm sure you can figure out what was meant, nitpicker.
I have trouble seeing when I think of Sandy "lets wait 25 years about affirmative action" O'Conner....
:)
Why, because he is a devout Catholic?
So, it's a Win Win situation?
So9
Next nominee, black woman jurist!
Hugh Hewitt just called Joe Biden the Ted Baxter of the Senate!!
"The Democrats are so deluded by their own convoluted logic that they think the "right" to abortion stems from the right to privacy. John Roberts does not."
I have to kind of agree on this one point. He danced very effectively around this right to privacy question, and absolutely didn't refer to Blackmum's statements regarding privacy in RvW. But given how cagey he was, that doesn't mean anything really. But he sure was clever and funny. The democrats were laughing ... alot. When Thomas was nominated, no one was laughing.
Roberts is the real deal for conservatives -- a fact that you would have picked up if you heard his testimony before the judiciary committee.
The dems (and the MSM) just realize that Roberts is a Boy Scout (and a brilliant one at that) who has simply run circles around them for the last two days.
They've shot their wad on this one and have succumbed to his intellect.
They're just keeping their powder dry as they gear up for the next nominee. That's where is is going to get down right UGLY!
My advise to you gobucks is to have a drink and enjoy the victory, then gird your loins for the next battle!
" Why, because he is a devout Catholic?"
If he is like Scalia in this 'devout Catholic' part ... great. But I have to agree w/ Crackingham ... if he were such a devout Catholic, why is the MSM so thrilled to death with this guy?
" I'm sure you can figure out what was meant, nitpicker."
O'Scalia?
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.