Friday, July 22, 2005
Speaking of documents
Senator Kerry, who has still failed to follow through on his promise, is now in the unsurprisingly hypocritical position of being the short straw puller of the Democratic Caucus, by issuing the first demand for all documents and memos “in their entirety” concerning Supreme Court nominee John Roberts.
Kerry is not a member of the {Senate Judiciary} committee. But he nonetheless injected himself into the debate at the end of a week in which Bush appeared to catch Democrats off guard by picking a court candidate with conservative credentials, yet one with little judicial experience, and thus, little public paper trail.
***
“The American people should know whether John Roberts will protect their constitutional rights if confirmed as a justice to the court,” Kerry said in a statement.
Constitutional rights, like eminent domain being subverted? Or like Government-funded abortion-on-demand? Like gay marriage? Or like banning even the hint of religion during Christmas Winter Holiday?
This is just the opening salvo of the three major arguments the Democrats will use, regardless of who President Bush would have nominated:
- Claim that Bush didn’t “consult” enough with the Senate.
- Claim that the candidate is “extreme” or “outside the mainstream”.
- Claims that there are still documents being withheld by the Administration and/or the candidate
How about this, Johnny-boy? How about you just shut up, show up and vote your conscience when it’s time? Assuming you actually bother to show up, what with you missing more than 60% of all floor votes over the past few years. Almost AWOL-like…
Are you a Hippie, man?
{h/t to AnalogKid}
Alan Colmes, Divorced From Reality
Over the past 2 days or so Fox News pundit, Alan Colmes, has been saying that President Bush’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Justice John Roberts, is a “partsian” and therefore should be disqualified from sitting on the highest court in the land—let us leave aside for the moment that Justice Roberts has been sitting on the D.C. Court Appeal (tradtionally seen as a stepping stone to the Supreme Court) for the past two years and during that time Mr. Colmes hasn’t raised any objections to his alleged partsianship.
Partsian, in this instance of course, meaning Republican. So, one could reasonably infer that Mr. Colmes wished that the President nominated someone with no political leanings whatsoever (Jeff Goldstein asks, “do such creatures exist?") or Mr. Colmes could have wanted the President to nominate someone whose personal political beliefs stand in direct contrast to the President’s own.
Like say, a Democrat.
You know this is a Supreme Court nominee we are talking about here, so one expects logic (not to mention sanity) to go right out the window. But this is just getting silly.