Ginsburg and Historical Parallels
Here is a piece worth reading about the "zig zag" decisionmaking that culminated in Clinton's nomination of Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court. Byron York disabuses everyone of the notion that Ginsburg was somehow a "consensus candidate."
I can add my two cents to that; during the Ginsburg nomination, I was working as a legislative assistant to a US Senator, and Nominations was part of my portfolio. No one should try to insist that Ginsburg received overwhelming Senate support because she was middle-of-the-road. Nothing could be further from the truth -- and, in fact, there was a lot of research about her far-left opinions and speeches circulating among Republican Senate staffs, provided by conservative groups and others.
Even so, with a few exceptions, it was the sense of the Republican senators that a President was entitled to his choice -- so long as she was qualified and had no ethics or judicial temperament issues. Don't think that there weren't those who wanted a fight on Ginsburg, especially young and idealistic staffers, especially as she had been counsel to the ACLU and said/written some pretty outrageous stuff.
But the Republican senators made it clear that it wasn't going to happen. Ideology was not on the table. And (although I was gone from the Senate staff by then), it seems pretty clear that the same thing happened with former Kennedy aide Stephen Breyer.
Too bad the Democrats -- smearers of fine men like Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas -- consistently refuse to play by the same rules.
I can add my two cents to that; during the Ginsburg nomination, I was working as a legislative assistant to a US Senator, and Nominations was part of my portfolio. No one should try to insist that Ginsburg received overwhelming Senate support because she was middle-of-the-road. Nothing could be further from the truth -- and, in fact, there was a lot of research about her far-left opinions and speeches circulating among Republican Senate staffs, provided by conservative groups and others.
Even so, with a few exceptions, it was the sense of the Republican senators that a President was entitled to his choice -- so long as she was qualified and had no ethics or judicial temperament issues. Don't think that there weren't those who wanted a fight on Ginsburg, especially young and idealistic staffers, especially as she had been counsel to the ACLU and said/written some pretty outrageous stuff.
But the Republican senators made it clear that it wasn't going to happen. Ideology was not on the table. And (although I was gone from the Senate staff by then), it seems pretty clear that the same thing happened with former Kennedy aide Stephen Breyer.
Too bad the Democrats -- smearers of fine men like Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas -- consistently refuse to play by the same rules.
posted by LadybugUSA at 9:26 AM
1 Comments:
We need to keep in mind that many able Democratic Party politicians are, to a very large degree, the products of big city machine organizations, be it Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, Boston, or whatever. It is not a gentleman's game to these people. It is a blood sport. It is played for keeps. Everything and anything is acceptable if it will win an election, or further the cause. Playing nice is a concept they do not understand. It is not the way most Republicans approach a political issue. Somehow we need learn how to effectively neutralize the "machine" without resorting to character assassination, inuendo, or out and out lies on one hand and not let a single Democratic claim, charge, or comment go unchallenged. Be ladies and gentlement in that we don't lie, swear, or make outlandish statements that we cannot support and never ever let any Democratic get away with doing the same.
Post a Comment
<< Home