Imagine: Making Mountains Out of Mole Hills
Posted on January 12, 2006
Supreme Court nominee Alito has been grilled this week by senators questioning his past associations, writings, and decisions. Is Alito being treated fairly? It is time to revisit how they approached another Supreme court nominee.
Let us image for a moment that a Supreme Court nominee had advocated, this week, for the following through writings and speaking engagements: (A). A constitutional right to prostitution and polygamy. (B). Attacked the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. (C). Proposed abolishing Mother’s Day and Father’s Day and replacing them with a single androgynous Parent’s Day. (D). Called for an end to singe-sex prisons on the theory that if male prisoners are going to return to a community in which men and women function as equal partners, prison is just the place for them to get prepared to deal with women. (E). Wrote, “use the Supreme Court to enact `social change….without taking giant strides…the court, through constitutional adjudication, can reinforce or signal a green light for social change.” (F). Also wrote, “boldly dynamic interpretation departing radically from the original understanding of the Constitution is sometimes necessary.” (G). Advocate universal court-ordered work place affirmative action quotas, even if no discrimination is found.
Surely no Senator would support Alito if he had such views. And surely no president, no matter how outrageous, would nominate such a candidate.
Unfortunately, the hypothetical nominee I have just described is, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. President Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg on June 22, 1993. A mere six weeks later, on August 3, 1993, the Senate confirmed her nomination by a 96-3 vote.
In conclusion, it is hard to imagine any senator attacking Alito’s respectable record with a straight face, while confirming an extremist like Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Indeed. And as they try their best to paint him as a bigot for being a member of CAP, there wasn’t near enough criticism to Ginsburg for the involvement with another radical organization, the ACLU. She served on the National Board of Directors! Why wasn’t a conflict of interest was not investigated?
Yes, sadly she was confirmed. Why the Republicans didn’t question her more harshly is beyond me. They should have grilled her hard. But they didn’t have a spine. I don’t have a problem with grilling questions to the nominees. We need to know what their views are before appointing them to such an important position for a life term. I don’t think, as some suggest, that the hearings need to be scrapped. I do, however, think the Senators involved need to stop using it as a stage for political speeches, and smear tactics, and do their job. When the questions are ten minutes long, and the political smears are enough to make his wife cry, then something is wrong with the process.
What we need are impartial judges that will interpret the Constitution. The Republicans made a mistake back in the Clinton days allowing Ginsburg, someone that had admitted to believing in departing from the original intentions of the Constitution, to make it to the bench of such an important position. The Democrats want someone like that on the bench. This is their last power hold, and they are holding on tight. I haven’t quite figured out what they think they are going to do. They don’t have any reason other than partisan hatred. They won’t be able to bork this nominee. Do they just hope to drag him and his family through the mud as much as possible before he is confirmed?
Asking important questions that “deeply concern” you about the nominee is a good thing. But how many times will you beat a dead horse, and make mountains out of mole hills? They begged for papers they hoped to use in smearing Alito as a racist, and they didn’t even contain his name. Stop the empty smear campaign, review his qualifications and confirm him.
Trackback URL
Comments
3 Responses to “Imagine: Making Mountains Out of Mole Hills”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
In 2005, a federal court in Illinois wanted to end the Army’s support for the Boy Scouts’ National Scout Jamboree because the ACLU (Anti-Christian Communist Liberal Union) opposes the Scout Oath’s “duty to God”, but the Boy Scouts of America Legal Issues Web Site at bsalegal.org says they believe the decision will be overturned on appeal.
http://gopchristiannews.blogspot.com/2006/01/anti-boy-scout-judgement-to-be.html
What the Ginsburg hearins demonstrated was the dignity afforded to a nominee. They gave her the benefit of the doubt and a pass because they did not want to be portrayed as hate mongers and uncivilized. They demonstrated decency. Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas and the Anita Hill affairs were not far from their minds and the last thing they wanted was another heroic martyr.
The Democrats have shown us that the have no civility, no shame, no decency, integrity, honesty, or even respect. They are the unruly mob of politics.
These are the same people who preach political correctness, multiculturalism and love of their fellow man. Hypocrites!!!!
I still say it was a mistake to confirm her. Whats worse? Who would have more power? She has more power to screw up America in the lifetime position she was put in than she would have being a political martyr.