Storm clouds on the horizon?
After a remarkable, and appropriate, show of deference, some of the Democratic party's nuttier elements are making a run at Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) slammed Roberts over several civil rights memos he wrote while at the DoJ and White House Counsel's office during the Reagan administration. Today, Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) joined in the fun.
When will Democrats learn?
Hey, we don't control the Capitol or the Oval Office. We should be so lucky President Bush nominated someone as unoffensive as Roberts, with his impeccable education and impressive legal credentials. Fortunately, most Senate Democrats have been receptive to Roberts.
We may yet find out that Roberts is a wolf in sheep's clothing. I think, though, that in this situation, Democrats would be wise to find the silver lining.
When will Democrats learn?
Hey, we don't control the Capitol or the Oval Office. We should be so lucky President Bush nominated someone as unoffensive as Roberts, with his impeccable education and impressive legal credentials. Fortunately, most Senate Democrats have been receptive to Roberts.
"I was so pleased to meet such an outstanding nominee," said Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-Louisiana. Added Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska: "I don't see anything that's going to be disturbing" in his record.Roberts seems, by Bush standards, relatively moderate. After all, with Republicans in strong control of the Senate and the White House, the President could easily have nominated Ted Olson, or even worse, a wacko like Janice Rogers Brown. As far as the hard right is concerned, Roberts is weak on their issues; it's almost like Bush is offering the Senate an olive branch.
We may yet find out that Roberts is a wolf in sheep's clothing. I think, though, that in this situation, Democrats would be wise to find the silver lining.
8 Comments:
A wolf in sheeps clothing is a distinct possibility, that's what the "hard right" is worried about as well. They're not worried that he is weak on "their issues," but that he'll turn into another Sandra Day O'Connor.
By Marc Moseley, At 10:28 AM EDT
Which is a disturbing idea for the hard right to have. If it were up to them, we'd have a Supreme Council of Reverends instead of a Supreme Court.
On a side note, Sandra Day was the best justice this country has seen in my lifetime.
By Tim McGuire, At 10:00 AM EDT
"They're not worried that he is weak on 'their issues,' but that he'll turn into another Sandra Day O'Connor."
Oh, so in other words, they're worried that he is weak on their issues.
By Tim McGuire, At 10:00 AM EDT
Yeah, well, I would say the hard right believes Sandra Day O'Connor is a little less desirable than just 'weak' on their issues; my reason for creating the distinction.
Although in my original comment the 'hard right' I was referring to was not southern Republicans, but true small "c" conservatives (which is probably closer to libertine in my book).
I am as annoyed with and frightened of the political group who would prefer to see a Supreme Council of Reverends as you most clearly are.
By Marc Moseley, At 10:58 AM EDT
"Yeah, well, I would say the hard right believes Sandra Day O'Connor is a little less desirable than just 'weak' on their issues; my reason for creating the distinction."
How so?
"Although in my original comment the 'hard right' I was referring to was not southern Republicans, but true small "c" conservatives (which is probably closer to libertine in my book)."
Unfortunately, small "c", Bill Buckley-style conservatives are an endangered species in Washington these days.
By Tim McGuire, At 10:58 AM EDT
O'Connor was undesirable to conservatives because she wasn't consistent. Conservatives see the Supreme Court as a policy retardant, not a catalyst. These nine people have taken policies that could have been sorted out via legislation-- in a similar but more nuanced and representative manner-- and forced them down our throats. Checks and balances are supposed to have the opposite effect.
By Ben Polidore, At 8:51 AM EDT
"Unfortunately, small "c", Bill Buckley-style conservatives are an endangered species in Washington these days."
--So are liberal patriots.
Washington has SO MUCH power now, that the people in control don't even think about the policies they're enacting. They're like a bunch of trust fund babies spending daddy's money on new teeth and a SL55. Each policy or ideology is a chess piece moved into a position for maximum political exposure and then ignored forever; hyperbole is maximized; ideas on either side are regarded as blasphemous no matter their content.
This is what happens when you centralize all the power of the world's biggest economy.
By Ben Polidore, At 8:55 AM EDT
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
By Anonymous, At 11:04 AM EDT
Post a Comment
<< Home