Marcus Lost in 100-Acre Wood
Employing cutesy allusions to Winnie the Pooh, The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus purports to be puzzled . . . unclear about Judge Alito's (and Chief Justice Robert's) "underlying worldview, judicial philosophy and constitutional vision."
What exactly is it that she wants to know that she's not hearing? Like Dianne Feinstein (and Tom Coburn), for her is it all about "feelings -- nothing more than feelings"?
Judge Alito's worldview is pretty clear -- didn't Marcus listen to his opening statement? And the man has 15 years of opinions -- 15 years!. With a little study, it's not too difficult to understand his "judicial philosophy" and "constitutional vision." But Marcus apparently wants to turn confirmation hearings into a gathering reminiscent of graduate-student all night bull-sessions. No thanks.
She concludes with this howler: What has been so disappointing about the nominees' testimony is their unwillingness to engage in this discussion in an honest, meaningful way.
Yes -- the behavior of Senate Judiciary Democrats, starting with Teddy Kennedy's in 1987 -- has been nothing if not conducive to "honest, meaningful" testimony, hasn't it? Let's see, the last nominee to try that was . . . Robert Bork.
If Ruth Marcus believes that any Republican would be well-served by trying to meet her standard, she must believe in heffalumps, too.
What exactly is it that she wants to know that she's not hearing? Like Dianne Feinstein (and Tom Coburn), for her is it all about "feelings -- nothing more than feelings"?
Judge Alito's worldview is pretty clear -- didn't Marcus listen to his opening statement? And the man has 15 years of opinions -- 15 years!. With a little study, it's not too difficult to understand his "judicial philosophy" and "constitutional vision." But Marcus apparently wants to turn confirmation hearings into a gathering reminiscent of graduate-student all night bull-sessions. No thanks.
She concludes with this howler: What has been so disappointing about the nominees' testimony is their unwillingness to engage in this discussion in an honest, meaningful way.
Yes -- the behavior of Senate Judiciary Democrats, starting with Teddy Kennedy's in 1987 -- has been nothing if not conducive to "honest, meaningful" testimony, hasn't it? Let's see, the last nominee to try that was . . . Robert Bork.
If Ruth Marcus believes that any Republican would be well-served by trying to meet her standard, she must believe in heffalumps, too.
posted by LadybugUSA at 1:49 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home