Carol Platt Liebau: Out of the Mainstream -- And Aware of It

Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Out of the Mainstream -- And Aware of It

This piece discusses the difficulties confronted by left-wing activist groups trying to prevent Judge Alito from being confirmed to the Supreme Court.

Of course, Arlen Specter's decision to postpone the Judiciary Committee hearings until January didn't help, insofar as it gives the groups more time to smear Judge Alito and distort his record. Even so, it doesn't seem that the groups are getting much traction -- and December is a bad time to try to focus widespread attention on a negative campaign.

What's interesting about the linked piece is that Minority Leader Harry Reid, along with Chuck Schumer (who takes the lead in savaging Republican nominees because of his safe Senate seat and his intellectual vanity) have implicitly acknowledged that the Democratic efforts to stymie the Alito nomination have a potentially damaging fallout for their fellow party members:

In a private session, Reid and Schumer urged the groups to show restraint when lobbying Democrats from states that Bush won in 2004 — senators from Nebraska, Arkansas, the Dakotas and elsewhere who probably will be the most tempted to support the appointment.

In other words, Reid and Schumer know their positions on these nominees is out of the mainstream -- and they're not willing to put principle above political expediency. But we already knew that, didn't we?

In any case, the Democrats realize that the issue of judges cuts in the Republicans' favor. Now who will inform the Republicans like Arlen Specter, who seem determined to "neutralize" the issue through squishy deference to the Democrats?


Blogger stackja1945 said...

Damn the Dems, full speed ahead!

4:23 AM  
Blogger Renee said...

Wow. Blogs like these make me thankful that I'm an independent.

9:02 AM  
Blogger Renee said...

I meant stories like these...

9:04 AM  
Anonymous suek said...

The interesting part of Schumer's criticism is that it basically invokes the standard that a Supreme Court judge may never in any case hold a position contrary to an established prior SC decision.

There are two issues here - is there valid constitutional reason to disagree with Roe vs Wade, and is it possible for _any_ judge to have a personal opinion contrary to a law which s/he is obliged to uphold?
I think the first question is debatable, but the second! if that's the standard to uphold, I suspect there would be _no_ judges. Legislators _make_ laws, judges _apply_ them - regardless of whether they agree with them or not.

11:48 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home