Dems Continue "Living in the Past"... Here come the "extraodinary circumstances."
Today I am not announcing my support for, or opposition to the nomination of Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court.Okay, first of all, why does the left always view the right as "extremists"? Last time I checked, ohh... say back in 2004, Republicans increased their majority in both houses and won the presidency. This was done by a majority of voters voting them in. Are we to surmise by Ms. Boxer's comments that the majority of Americans, who voted for candidates that largely are representative of Justice Scalia & Thomas' philosophy, are "extremists"? Just who is extremist here?(Funny how insane people are usually the last to realize they're insane)
I am not questioning his credentials, intelligence or affability.
I am questioning his views. And I am also inviting every citizen into this debate because it is just that important.
We have about 30 days left to thoroughly examine how Judge Roberts will impact the lives of Americans for the next 30 years and beyond.
His views are not just of interest to me, but they are of great importance to me because the stakes are so high, particularly for women.
With Justice O’Connor’s retirement, we are losing the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court and the deciding vote to protect the reproductive freedom, and the rights, and the basic dignity of all women.
It was Justice O’Connor, for example, who built the 5 to 4 majority to reaffirm Roe v. Wade in 1992. It was Justice O’Connor who cast the deciding vote to protect a woman’s health in 2000.
And it was Justice O’Connor who wrote two 5 to 4 decisions in the last six years protecting girls and their coaches from discrimination under Title IX.
We need to know whether Judge Roberts will follow in her moderate tradition or side with the extremist views of Justices Scalia and Thomas.
Second, I'm still looking for the law that says we need to replace an outgoing supreme court justice with a like-minded clone. Again, back in 2004, we elected a President who vowed that he would nominate strict constructionists to the Bench. Again, last time I checked, the Constitution allows the President, who by definition has the mandate of the electoral if not the voting majority, to nominate justices, with the Senate giving only "advise & consent" (i.e., an up or down vote). Ms. Boxer, you don't get to pick the candidate. Teddy "hic" "swimmer" Kennedy, you don't get to pick the candidate. Harry Reid, you don't get to pick the candidate. Come back when your guy wins, mmmkay?
Third, where do these people get the audacity to demand knowing beforehand how Judge Roberts will vote after the earlier imposition of the Ginsburg standard, and even with respect to "The Swimmer's" own words:
"We have to respect that any nominee to the Supreme Court would have to defer any comments on any matters, which are either before the court or very likely to be before the court," Kennedy said during the 1967 press conference. "This has been a procedure which has been followed in the past and is one which I think is based upon sound legal precedent."Are these people truly this delusional? Do they think that the double standards that they are imposing with impunity are truly going to slip under the radar screen undetected and unchallenged?? Ten- to twenty years ago, with their willing MSM accomplices at the ready, that may indeed have been the case. But the dems continue to underestimate the fact checking power of blogs, talk radio, and other alternative forms of media, and continue to operate as if the MSM is still the only game in town. The only way for their strategy to work is to count on the mistaken notions that the vast majority of Americans are dumb enough to continue to believe everything fed to them by the MSM. It is at once sad and laughable. Ian Anderson must have been prescient with regard to today's democrat party when he wrote:
"Oh, we won't give in, we'll keep living in the past."
|