Posted on 01/11/2006 8:58:50 AM PST by wcdukenfield
First there was John Roberts. Now there's Sam Alito. The left-wing battle plan honed since 1987 during Bob Bork's confirmation hearings is flopping badly. And there are several reasons for this.
Today Americans have a much more sophisticated understanding of the proper role of judges. First and foremost, the judiciary has so exceeded the bounds of its legitimate authority that the public has taken notice of, and interest in, its egregious abuses of power. From upholding the seizure of homes and barring a display of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse, to conferring rights on terrorists and benefits on illegal immigrants, the accumulation of these policy decisions are troubling not just to conservative intellectuals, but wide swaths of American society which are affected directly by these rulings.
Conservatives have also done a superior job in explaining their case against judicial activism by way of the new media. Long before these hearings, Rush and Sean, among others, have been educating millions about the framers' intended limits on the judiciary, and have exposed the underlying hostility for representative government motivating the judicial supremacists. The Left is now forced to defend the idea that the dictates of nine lawyers in black robes should set national policy, while conservatives are defending popular sovereignty and the founding principles.
The liberal senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee look frustrated and sound incoherent because, well, they are. Their problem is that when you don't have fidelity to the written Constitution, your judicial philosophy, such as it is, consists of nothing more than strained and often contradictory arguments made for the purpose of advancing a political and policy agenda. Hence, we hear Dianne Feinstein demand from Alito adherence to judicial precedent respecting Roe v. Wade (Arlen Specter refers to is as super-precedent), and in the next breath acceptance of something called a living and breathing Constitution.
As for Borking — the smearing of conservative Supreme Court nominees through blatant dissembling about their character and thinking — it falls flat today because the American people have become largely immune to the strategy. It has been unleashed with such frequency and fury during the last 20 years that even a casual observer understands that every conservative nominee cannot possibly be a racist, sexist, and unethical pervert. And the left-wing groups that serve this poison, such as Hollywood's People for the (Un)American Way and the radical Alliance for (In)Justice, have lost what little credibility they once may have had with the public.
Sam Alito will be confirmed. The only question is how much more damage the Democrats will inflict on themselves during the course of these hearings. 01/11 11:14 AM
The Race-Card Fallback Position We knew it was coming; that is, the attempt to impugn Sam Alito by using the race card against him. You see, it’s a given in Washington, New York, Hollywood, and other liberal enclaves that conservatives are, by nature and philosophy, racist. And conservative presidents, as a matter of course, nominate racists to the bench — Bob Bork, Clarence Thomas (even though he is black, but that didn’t matter), Charles Pickering, Bill Pryor, and, now, Sam Alito. They’ve all been targeted this way.
Ironically, the party that defended slavery in the 19th century and segregation for much of the 20th century is the Democrat party. The governors who stood in schoolhouse doorways were all Democrats. The segregationist senators who filibustered the 1964 and 1965 Civil Rights Acts were all Democrats. The party that elected former Klansman Bob Byrd as its leader in the Senate for a decade was the Democrat party.
These are just some of the highlights of the Democrat party’s embrace of racism. That’s certainly not to say that every Democrat is a racist, or every Democrat during these periods was a racist. Indeed, many fought their own party. Many were involved in championing abolition and civil rights. But that’s not the point. The argument proffered by Patrick Leahy and Ted Kennedy, among others, makes no such distinction
During today’s Alito hearings, Leahy’s smear went something like this: Alito’s membership in a college group, in which an individual member wrote an absurd article about blacks, taints Alito as a racist. This is contemptible demagoguery, no matter how many times the Democrats use it against Republican judicial nominees.
For example, Ted Kennedy’s father was sympathetic to Adolf Hitler while he served as Franklin Roosevelt’s ambassador to Britain. Joseph Kennedy opened back-channels to the Third Reich. He was openly anti-Semitic. FDR had to recall him from his post. Now, what does that say about Ted Kennedy? Nothing — unless, of course, we adopt the smear by association tactics used against Alito. Indeed, Kennedy, Leahy, and every Senate Democrat who voted repeatedly for Bob Byrd to serve as their leader — a post he held for 12 years — is what, a pro-KKK racist? That’s absurd and offensive.
It’s hard to believe that the party that so abused race in the past is doing so again today. It’s also sad that the major media carry this message as if it has some legitimacy. To my knowledge, not a single mainstream journalist has shown the courage to condemn this disgraceful farce. Where’s Edward R. Murrow when you need him? 01/10 12:41 PM
Welcome! Today NRO is delighted to introduce Mark Levin's new blog, "And Another Thing … " You know Mark from radio, TV, and elsewhere on NRO. And if you don't…well, you do now. Enjoy!
BUMP!
Unfortunately for the dems,they've blown their cover too many times for even the blatantly irresponsible MSM to sufficiently cover up. And although the John Q public isn't necessarily very well-informed about political matters, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see through the "smear" and "destroy" tactics that have now come to characterize the democratic party.
Levin's book "Men in Black" should certainly be mentioned here since it is a history of the Supreme Court and the memebers who sat on that bench and formulated opinions based on the Consitution of the United States. The Democrats Alito agenda of "Gotcha" is more than obvious and it is a certainty their object is totally biased political from the LEFT. The Republicans have done their homework on this one and are cleaning up the mud the Dims are throwing. The GOP should be totally commended!
Isn't his membership in CAP the free exercise of his constitutionally protect right to freedom of assembly and association? Challenges from those sworn under oath to preserve and protect the constitution sicken me.
Mark is the best. It is definitely worth mentioning that his book, Men In Black, is an exceptional combination of deep thought, incredibly detailed background and easy reading.
Being able to listen to him nightly is one of the best things about living in New York City.
Good work product.
Not only that, but the libs are arguing that some precedents are sancrosanct, but others don't count. Imagine if Alito argued that Plessy v. Ferguson was secret-double-precedent and therefore Brown v. Board of Education shouldn't have taken priority over it. Then precedent wouldn't seem to be so important. It amounts to "leftist precedent good, right/libertarian precedent bad" which rings as hollow as the sheep in Animal Farm bleating "four legs good, two legs bad".
Another excellent article from "The Great One".
ping
If Bork had been clean shaven and not so bombastic, he'd be on the Court now.
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.