DEMS TREATMENT OF ALITO IS UNACCEPTABLE AND DANGEROUS

Last week Judge Samuel Alito was confirmed as the newest US Supreme Court justice. His confirmation vote of 58 – 42 which fell largely along party lines, was a much needed victory for President Bush and a big loss for the Democrats. Unlike other legislative defeats however, the Democrats brought this one on themselves and they did it in a way that both added to the already poisoned atmosphere in Washington and set a new and unfortunate standard for the confirmation process.
Until recently, nominees to the Supreme Court were judged based on their character, qualifications, intellect and dedication to the tenets of the Constitution, the document which they are employed to interpret. With the nomination of Judge Roberts and now Samuel Alito, Senate Democrats have demonstrated that they will now base their votes on the nominee’s personal political beliefs. In other words, you could be the most brilliant legal mind in the world, and be superbly qualified for a seat on the bench, but if your opinions differ from those of Senator Ted Kennedy, you can forget it.
When Bill Clinton was president, his nominees were treated very differently. Republicans gave both of his liberal nominees, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg a free ride. They were approved by overwhelming margins with Ginsburg receiving 96 votes and Bryer getting 87. As we all know, Republicans rarely gave Clinton a free pass on anything he did, but the GOP overwhelmingly stayed true to the idea that it is the president’s choice as to who he wants to put on the nation’s highest court regardless of the nominee’s ideological leanings. That unwritten privilege of the presidency is one of the consequences of a presidential election. As long as the candidate is qualified and is of a reasonably high moral character, the Senate has always honored an obligation to abide by the president’s wishes and approve his nominee.
As soon as Alito’s nomination was announced the liberal Democrats determined that they would try to stop Alito even though they knew that it would be an uphill and almost certainly futile battle. The reason for this was simple: in one word….abortion. In their role as the defenders of Roe v. Wade, the Democrats believed that if confirmed, Alito’s vote would take the court one step closer to overturning the landmark 1973 decision which federally guaranteed the right to an abortion. This decision has come to define the modern Democratic Party and no issue is more important to the party’s base. This meant that any senator who had any desire to run for the party’s presidential nomination in 2008 had to oppose Alito. Otherwise, if Roe was overturned and Alito cast the deciding vote, a senator’s primary election opponents could point to them and say “Roe v. Wade is no more and that Senator is to blame.”
The Democrats had to find some excuse to not vote for Alito, and to stop him if possible, so they cracked open their old playbook on how to destroy a Supreme Court nominee. I think it’s called Borking for Dummies.
Alito is a mild-mannered kind of guy, so they couldn’t attack his temperament as they did in defeating Reagan Supreme Court nominee Judge Robert Bork. Alito had no history of inappropriate sexual behavior, so that took the Clarence Thomas strategy off the table. The strategy that many Democrats had used in the confirmation hearings of Chief Justice John Roberts hadn’t worked either. Asking the nominee questions related to how he would rule on a given case with a controversial issue involved have been largely ignored by all nominees in recent years.
The nominee usually chooses not to answer these questions so as to not paint himself into a corner when the time comes to actually rule on the case itself. When the nominee refuses to answer the question, Democrats (Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid for one) say that as a result of the lack of a specific answer they simply don’t know enough about the nominee to vote for him in good conscience. This reasoning was incredibly hypocritical in Robert’s case however, because many of the questions he refused to answer were the same ones that Ruth Bader Ginsburg refused to answer when Clinton nominated her. In fact, Ginsburg refused to answer far more questions that either Roberts or Alito, and can you really blame any of these nominees for refusing to answer questions on how they would rule on cases involving controversial topics? It is obvious that the senators are just baiting them--trying to get them to say something that will give the opposition a real reason for voting against the nominee.
Because this option had been ineffective against Roberts, the Democrats were at a loss. Desperate, they decided to use two old Democratic favorites: class warfare and the race card.
Senator Richard Durbin (D-Illinois) was the first to use what became the Democratic talking point for the week, saying that in his years on the bench Alito had a history of deciding cases in favor of big corporations and against the “little guy”. Of course this is ludicrous. Even if it were true, a judge’s job is to uphold the law. Whether it benefits Bill Gates or Joe Six Pack is irrelevant. Needless to say, this strategy didn’t last very long.
With time running out, Senators Durbin, Schumer (D-New York), and Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) decided to pick up a handful of mud and let it fly. In what qualifies as one of the most repugnant examples of political demagoguery in recent memory, the Democrats attempted to paint Alito as racially insensitive.
Using a group that Alito had once been a part of known as “Concerned Alumni of Princeton” the Senators tried to connect him to an issue of the group’s magazine, in which one of the articles had contained some racially insensitive comments. Forget that Alito had never read the article, nor did he know the individual who wrote it. It was guilt by association all the way. If I subscribed to Sports Illustrated and one issue included an article in there about how great the L.A. Clippers are, does that mean that I love the Clippers? Of course not, you’d have to be insane to love the Clippers.
Anyway, the Senators continued to imply that Alito was a racist and were having a grand old time until his wife broke out in tears exposing the questioners as nasty and mean-spirited. This put an end to the Democratic strategy, as well as any hopes they might have had of defeating Alito’s nomination.
Americans now backed the Alito nomination by a substantial margin. In contrast to the Democrats, qualifications were what appeared to matter to them, not ideology. So at this point the Democrats were done embarrassing themselves to make a political point, right? Wrong.
As the confirmation vote approached, Senator John Kerry called from Switzerland and alerted the media that he would be wasting everyone’s time by attempting to filibuster the nomination. Kerry knew perfectly well that he lacked the 41 supportive votes needed to sustain said filibuster, but he went ahead with it anyway. We can only presume that he did this to gain favor with his party’s left-leaning primary voters, and to remind them that he is still available to lose future presidential elections, if they will only entrust him with another nomination.
Finally, on Tuesday the Senate voted to confirm Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court, just in time for the President to show off his victory at The State of the Union address later that evening.
Right now it seems that the Democrats don’t care whether or not a judge is highly qualified for the job, as long as he or she is committed to upholding Roe v. Wade. Democratic Senators like Harry Reid gave a rather warm reception to Harriet Miers, who’s personal beliefs may have been more to the left’s liking, but she was stopped by Republicans who rightly forced the administration to pull her nomination based on the fact that there were dozens of more qualified judges waiting in the wings.
In addition to this, Democrats don’t seem to be concerned with the fact that many people on both sides of the abortion debate, question the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade. Support for a woman’s right to choose does not necessarily translate into support for a federal guarantee to the abortion procedure.
Some defenders of the Democrat’s bad behavior will undoubtedly view the minority’s actions as justified in order to draw attention to what they see as the inevitable erosion of our fundamental rights. But the precedent that the Democrats have now set for opposing Supreme Court nominee’s is a very dangerous one that could dramatically hinder the President’s ability to do what is required of him in the constitution.
By opposing a nominee because his political beliefs don’t jibe with the ideology of the opposition party, the president could potentially be forced to find a consensus candidate rather than the one that he feels is the most qualified for the job. No one, regardless of what party you align yourself with, is well served by forsaking quality in exchange for moderation. In other words, the absence of a swing vote, is not an excuse to diminish the presidents power, as it relates to one of his most important responsibilities. .
One must also think about the consequences of this new precedent in a bipartisan manner. The Democrat’s vote against Alito may come back to haunt them if Republicans decide to adopt the same philosophy. If a Democrat becomes president and the GOP maintains its Senate majority, it is very possible that conservatives will feel justified in using the same tactics that the Democrats have used, in order to stop any presidential nominee with whom their political views differ. I sincerely hope that the GOP would take the high road and not use these divisive tactics, but in the end they may feel it necessary to fight fire with fire.
The most unfortunate aspect of what the Democrats did to Judge Alito however was how their actions elevated the already bitter partisan divide in both Washington DC and around the country. In his response to the president’s state of the union address on Tuesday, Virginia’s Democratic governor Tim Kaine stated that “Our greatest need is for America to heal its partisan wounds and become one people.” If the Democrats really believe this, it is not evident in their behavior. This kind of hypocrisy is a perfect example as to why America is still unsupportive of the Democratic Party despite congressional scandals and serious reservations about President Bush and his agenda. If it continues, the Democrats can count on wandering through the political wilderness for many years to come.

Sphere: Related Content

WELCOME TO FALLING PANDA

Welcome to Falling Panda. This blog is mainly going to focus on politics, but occasionally I'll talk about pop culture and daily occurences in my life. However until those occurences become somewhat interesting, politics is the focus. When posting comments all I ask is that you be considerate and keep the profanity to a minimum. If you don't know what I'm talking about, click on the politics link at Craigslist and view all of the Neanderthals who post hate speech and try to pass it off as legitimate political commentary.

Debate is an important part of this blog. I consider myself a moderate conservative. Some would call me a neo-conservative, but that term is still in its infancy and hasn't fully taken shape as of yet so I'll stick with the first one. I want my opinions to spark debate with those of you out there who dissagree with me, because it is my experience that people who agree with you all of the time are boring. But if I say something brilliant, by all means, let me know how much you love it.

Some of my past work can be seen on Friendster and My Space so if you're on one of those sites check them out. I'm also a journalism major and will be writing as a guest columnist for the Cal State Northridge Sundial, starting in February. There is also a blog from December of last year under this one.

Anywho. I hope you all enjoy this bad boy. And special thanks to Barton Bishop over at Vinyl Edition for being the first blog to link to my site.

Now, It's time to cause some controversy.

Sphere: Related Content

DEAN AND THE DEMOCRATS: SEIZING DEFEAT FROM THE JAWS OF VICTORY

When this country’s politically literate, sit down on November 8 of next year and examine the GOP’s unprecedented victory in the 2006 mid-term elections, those who paid attention will be able to pinpoint the precise moment at which the Democrats blew their chances of regaining the House and Senate. It occurred when DNC chair Howard Dean went on the radio and proclaimed “The idea that we are going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong.”

While almost no one knows as much about losing as Howard Dean does, his statement is a perfect example as to why the majority of Americans consistently reject the Democratic party when it comes to questions of foreign policy and protecting our country from those who wish to do us harm.

For the past five years one of the American left’s favorite pastimes is to claim that George W. Bush has an intellect, equivalent to that of a retarded chimp. However as Forrest Gump said, “Stupid is as stupid does” and there is no political figure in America today who has said and done as many downright stupid things as Dr. Dean.

Dean’s statement that the war in Iraq is un-winnable is not simply false, but it is also a terrible message to send out to our troops and reeks of a kind of pessimism which Americans rarely desire in their political leaders. Even if you agree with the statement, the last thing the Democrats want is to be viewed as the party of surrender or as a party that has no faith in our military. However, Dean’s recent rant has opened the door for the GOP to paint the Democratic leadership as advocates of a cut and run philosophy, and they deserve to be painted as such.

Every day the Democrats are sounding more and more like the French, and it’s not just Dean who’s buttering up the croissants. There is John Murtha of course, who advocated a cut and run strategy, only to flip-flop on his proposal several days later, when House Republicans called Murtha’s bluff and put his idea up for a vote, embarrassing Murtha, who didn’t even vote for his own plan.

Hmmm? Put a decorated war veteran up on a platform to oppose the war and hope that his glory as a war hero blinds people to his bad ideas. Where have I seen that before? Oh, that’s right! Failed presidential candidate John Kerry. Kerry recently accused US troops of terrorizing Iraqi women and children, just like he did during the Vietnam era. Of course, just like his claims during his testimony before the Senate, the recent ones are not backed up with any substantive facts either. Where are the Swift Boat Vets when you need them? Like so many on the left, Kerry is trying to paint our troops as the bad guys rather than the insurgence that they are fighting. No wonder members of the military overwhelmingly supported President Bush in last year’s election.

Then you have House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, now an advocate of “strategic redeployment” which is essentially a cut and run strategy dressed up to sound like something remotely resembling an intelligent Democratic alternative to Bush’s plan, which is to actually win the war.
These ideas and statements are not coming from left wing nutcases like Cindy Sheehan or Michael Moore. These are coming from, the people in charge of the party. Dean is the party’s leader, Kerry was its standard bearer last year, and Pelosi is the highest ranking elected Democrat in the country. The only reason why Murtha has been spared from a GOP spanking in the party’s latest commercials in which a white surrender flag flies over images of Pelosi, Dean and Kerry while they make their politically motivated statements, is because hardly anyone knows who he is.

President Bush may not be the most intellectually curious man to sit in the Oval Office, but politically, he has made a great number of smart moves. And no, you can’t give all of the credit to Karl Rove or Dick Cheney, because when those cameras are turned on and Bush is put on the spot, there is no one there to help him if he says something ridiculous. He has had his share of missteps, but he has never said anything as dumb as Howard Dean’s recent swipe at the US military.

This is not an isolated incident either. Dean has had his foot lodged in his mouth ever since he came on the national scene two years ago. Some of his more poorly thought out comments include:



"I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for..."

On 9/11:

“The most interesting theory that I’ve heard so far……is that he (Bush) was warned ahead of time by the Saudis.”

The racially sensitive Howard Dean:

“You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here."

On Osama Bin Laden, the guy who admitted to killing 3000 American civilians:

"I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found……we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials."

On a man who has not been convicted of anything:

"I think Tom DeLay ought to go back to Houston, where he can serve his jail sentence."

And of course:

"Not only are we going to New Hampshire ... we're going to South Carolina and Oklahoma and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico, and we're going to California and Texas and New York! And we're going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan. And then we're going to Washington, D.C. to take back the White House, Yeeeeeaaaaaargh!"

This last one doesn’t so much show Dean’s proclivity to put his foot in his mouth as it does, his lack of self control.

The amazing thing about most of these quotes is that they were made before Dean was elected chairman of the DNC. Even after seeing Dean’s potential as a loose cannon, the Party leadership in all of their wisdom put Dean in charge of the party. And they say Bush is Stupid?

Despite all of the venom that I have unleashed on Dean in this piece, I don’t think Dean is an unintelligent man. Stupid people don’t graduate from medical school, or Harvard business school for that matter. I do think however, that he is one of the worst politicians to come along in the last 50 years.

Until the Democratic party stops listening to guys like Howard Dean and starts listening to sensible, not to mention elect able candidates like Joe Lieberman, they will stay in the political wilderness, and Dean’s thickheaded statement regarding the possibility of victory in Iraq is a perfect example as to why they deserve their status as the minority party.

I don’t think that most Democrats would echo Dean’s comments, but I do believe that a sizable portion of them agree with him. Just because their concurrence with Dean is not based on reality, does not mean that they should keep their opinions to themselves, but if they care about the future of their dying party, they need to tell people like Dean and Kerry to shut-up.

Dean has already done the damage to the Democratic Party that will lead them to another loss in 2006, so even if they get rid of him now, it won’t do them any good. He hasn’t been a very effective fundraiser either, and that’s the main reason they put him in charge of the party in the first place. It is time however for the Democrats to cut their losses and try to rebuild their credibility on issues regarding the US military and foreign policy. I’m not saying that Bush hasn’t made his share of mistakes in his handling of the war, but with his approval ratings in the mid-30’s the Dems had a perfect opportunity to frame themselves as a common sense alternative to GOP control of the federal Government, and with Dean’s boneheaded remarks that opportunity has disappeared faster than a glass of Maker’s Mark placed in front of Ted Kennedy.

I don’t know why I’m giving the Democrat’s this advice. The last thing I want is for them to come back into power while the US is threatened by a vicious enemy. I suppose this is a big thank you to those in the Democratic Party who came to their senses and denied Dean your presidential nomination in 2004. Even if John Kerry had won last year, I would still thank God every day that Howard Dean was not elected Commander in Chief.

Sphere: Related Content