A note on the Amazon ads: I've chosen to display current events titles in the Amazon box. Unfortunately, Amazon appears to promote a disproportionate number of angry-left books. I have no power over it at this time. Rest assured, I'm still a conservative.
|
Monday, January 23, 2006
Surprised?: The San Diego Union-Tribune editorial page has been tacking in a more center right direction for the past couple of years, but not so far that they don't support a qualified candidate for the Supreme Court. Today's editorial on the Democrats and their Sen. Chuck "Credit Report" Schumer-led ideological litmus tests for judges includes some interesting bits from California's "moderate" senator, Dianne Feinstein.
We e-mailed Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., some pointed questions about her announced decision to vote against Alito. To our dismay, Feinstein suggested in her response that there was nothing unusual about Democrats' mass rejection of his nomination. She didn't directly respond to our question comparing the treatment of Alito with that afforded Ginsburg and Breyer. And she didn't respond at all to our question about what this precedent would mean for nominees of a Democratic president.
But we can't blame Feinstein, heretofore one of the Senate's most respected moderates, for attempting to spin this matter. Her case is nonexistent; her cause is not just. If she and other Democrats don't care for Alito and other GOP judicial nominees, they should heed the words of Rep. Rahm Emanuel, once a senior adviser to President Clinton. "George Bush won the election," the Illinois Democrat told The New York Times. "If you don't like it, you better win elections."
They shouldn't be surprised that Feinstein wouldn't give them a straight answer; she's in the thrall of the loony left base.
On a related note: There was a question last week on my desire to see the Democrats filibuster Alito and have the Republicans use the nuclear option. The question was: Wouldn't the GOP lose the right to use the filibuster against Democrats too? Yes, the GOP wouldn't be able to filibuster a Democrat president's judicial nominations -- but if the past couple of years are any indication, the GOP would never have the intestinal fortitude to try it. The Democrats have largely gotten a pass from the mainstream media for their unprecedented use of the filibuster. The New York Times editorial page has gone as far as having claimed that the GOP filibustered President Bill Clinton's nominees despite the fact that there was never a failed cloture vote on any of them. They would not be so kind with a GOP minority pulling the same maneuver.
2:31 AM
|
|
