| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Podhoretz Predicts: 'ALL-OUT WAR'? NO CHANCE |
| 2005-11-01 |
| No? Damn! About that "all-out political war" — as an MSNBC anchor dubbed it — that has supposedly broken out over the nomination of Samuel Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court: There isn't going to be one. No war, but a lot of ugliness. For example, it took only two hours for the anti-Alito rhetoric to overheat, courtesy of New York's own Sen. Chuck Schumer. He decided, in a pretty amazing display of bad taste, to use the late Rosa Parks' corpse as a weapon. "The real question today is whether Judge Alito would use his seat on the bench, just as Rosa Parks used her seat on the bus, to change history for the better or whether he would use that seat to reverse much of what Rosa Parks and so many others fought so hard and for so long to put in place," Schumer said. Now, it's one thing for a senator to say that Alito should not be confirmed because he is too conservative. That's been Schumer's stance on GOP judicial nominations, pure and simple, and while it may be wrong-headed, it's not disreputable. It's quite another for Schumer to oppose a conservative jurist by suggesting his views are implicitly segregationist. That's just a lousy and rotten thing to do. Even more embarrassing for Schumer: His slander is just a cheap carbon copy of the real thing. That was Ted Kennedy's stunning 1987 evisceration of Robert Bork — you remember, when Kennedy took to the floor of the Senate mere minutes after Bork's nomination to say he would return America to a time when "blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters." Kennedy's words ushered in a new era in American politics. It would be difficult to capture just how shocking that attack was. Nothing like it had ever been said by an elected official about someone who was not an elected official — unless he was speaking about the leader of an enemy country. Bork's supporters were determined not to give the attack the time of day, presuming that it would boomerang — that people of good will would be disgusted by Kennedy's words and sympathetic to Bork. They didn't understand that the rules of the game had changed. Fortunately for Alito, and unfortunately for Schumer & Co., in 2005 everybody knows the score. All and sundry understand that any judicial candidate with a record of any kind is going to be the object of a smear campaign. As a result, the smears are almost instantly discounted. They aren't going to convince anyone; they're just an automatic and instantly forgettable aspect of our national political life, like balloons on election night or David Gergen's opinion on anything. Yes, the liberal groups are busy preparing their talking points about some Alito decisions on abortion and public religious displays, while conservative bloggers are already providing illuminating chapter and verse on the sophistication of Alito's decision-making. Sounds like a battle royal in the making. However, the great likelihood is that this is going to be a phony war, waged up until the moment of real combat. Unless something really shocking happens, Alito will be confirmed. Here are the facts of the case. No Supreme Court nominee has been rejected by the Senate since Bork, during Ronald Reagan's second term. Bork's defeat came in a Senate controlled by Democrats. Today's Senate is dominated by Republicans, 55 to 45. And though a few liberal Republicans may consider voting against Alito, on the key question of abortion his record is complicated. He voted in 2000 to void a New Jersey law limiting the noxious practice of partial-birth abortion, because he believed a prior Supreme Court decision required him to do so. And when he voted to uphold a Pennsylvania law requiring a wife seeking an abortion to notify her husband of her intent to abort their child, Alito did so on the basis of opinions by . . . Sandra Day O'Connor. And that's just what he'll tell Chuck Schumer during his hearing when Schumer brings it up — the same Chuck Schumer who yesterday morning said he wanted Sandra Day O'Connor's replacement to follow in her footsteps. I suspect there's enough ambiguity in Alito's record to allow a liberal Republican to vote for him — and three Democratic senators fighting for their lives in red-state elections next year (the two Nelsons, Florida's Bill and Nebraska's Ben, plus Louisiana's Mary Landrieu) will want to support the nomination. So, will Democrats try to block Alito with a filibuster? Almost certainly no. Why? Because in that circumstance Republicans led by Sen. John McCain will be forced to support the president by voting for the so-called "nuclear option" to change the filibustering rules. That takes only 50 Republican votes and one from Vice President Dick Cheney, who can break a tie vote in the Senate. Triggering the "nuclear option" would be a huge defeat for Democrats — a defeat far greater than letting a distinguished jurist like Alito get through, no matter how much grumbling they do. They won't risk it. Barring some shocking revelation, Alito is in by Christmas. Chuck Schumer, however, will have to wait until next Yom Kippur to seek atonement for the sin he committed yesterday. Double damn. We not only expect the judiciary to stick to the constitution, the same goes for the Senate. No more unconstitutional filibusters. When the constitution stipulates a simple majority vote, then so be it, up or down, end of story. Oh - and work like hell to defeat the RINOs and replace them with non-idiotarians, but then that part's up to us. |
| Posted by:.com |
| #7 I am continually amazed on how stupid Schumer and Co. remain. He takes his lines from the same large type playbook that failed over and over again. The first thing that he does with Alito is to do the BIG SMEAR. We were taught that smearing someone's character was not acceptable behavior in grade school. If Shumer had serious misgivings about Alito, then he could make a statement to that effect and add that he will be asking serious questions in the Senate, where he will make his decision. The fact is that the President (like him or hate him is irrelevant) has nominated this candidate for SCOTUS in accordance with the Constitution of the US. The Senate has the obligation to give advice and consent on the candidate. Regardless of the candidate, there needs to be a basic respect of the process. We need some decorum here to keep the holding power of the glue of our civilization intact. There are certain standards of behavior that must be maintained for the good of the institution of the Senate and the country. Schumer goes way beyond the Pale when he does this smear stuff. It reflects badly on his Senate district. If they think that he is fine, then they can keep him. If his constituents think that he is a bad example for children and young adults on how to act, they should boot him out on his ass. But, hey. If the Dems want to keep losing, then keep reading from the same loser playbook. It would be nice to get out of the gutter. Moroons. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2005-11-01 22:35 |
| #6 The dems definately do not want to be taxed since most are rich. The Dems are fine with taxes on salaries - just leave their trust funds alone. |
| Posted by: DMFD 2005-11-01 22:27 |
| #5 Don't forget the good 'ol tax cuts for the rich scam. Some people forget the dems in office are also very rich. In fact, who do you think puts most of the loopholes in tax laws? The dems definately do not want to be taxed since most are rich. |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-11-01 16:21 |
| #4 Whoops! Yes, the liberal groups are busy preparing their talking points about some Alito decisions on abortion and public religious displays. You know..."Extremist Views", "Out of the Mainstream", "Radical Rightwing"...and of course my favorite..."Turn the Clock Back" |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2005-11-01 10:35 |
| #3 Yes, the liberal groups are busy preparing their talking points about some Alito decisions on abortion and public religious displays. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2005-11-01 10:27 |
| #2 So, will Democrats try to block Alito with a filibuster? Almost certainly no. Why? Because in that circumstance Republicans led by Sen. John McCain will be forced to support the president by voting for the so-called "nuclear option" to change the filibustering rules. Then the nuclear option has been adopted by inaction. |
| Posted by: Joluting Ebbase3461 2005-11-01 09:53 |
| #1 They aren't going to convince anyone; they're just an automatic and instantly forgettable aspect of our national political life, like balloons on election night or David Gergen's opinion on anything. David Gergen's reply: "Ouch!" |
| Posted by: Mike 2005-11-01 08:24 |