The Lefts REAL Purpose

Barring something truly unforeseen, Judge Samuel Alito will be confirmed as Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, strengthening its independence and perhaps slowing down it's slide towards activism.

But I have grave reservations with regard to the lines of questioning about Executive Power and the Unitary Executive Theory. If I had any doubt as to the lefts intention in asking it, Senators Schumer and Kennedy, no friends of the current administration, put those doubts to rest.

What is interesting, at least in part is the authorization granted by the legislative branch gave to the President which states as follows "IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." This seems pretty clear to me that the President, if he does not have inherent authority, would have the authority under this resolution to use the measures that he thought necessary throughout the law enforcement and domestic intelligence apparatus for our protection.

I think it is important to show the contradictions in the assertions of those democrats who have been so critical. Recall that, following the release of the 9/11 commission report, the Democrats were actively charging President Bush with a failure to "connect the dots". Now with the FBI and NSA attempting (and succeeding) to do just that, they conflict their own argument , stating that President Bush somehow acted illegally. Some on the left side of the aisle are even whispering impeachment for abuse of executive power.

The mainstream media and the Democrats have somehow forgotten that it was during the Clinton administration that the public first learned of the existence and use of an NSA program called "ECHELON". Interestingly, the NY Times was strangely quiet about the use of this program during the Clinton years and even defended it's use as a necessary mechanism to protect us from terrorists. In fact, it was under reported but well documented that the program had in fact been used to eavesdrop on Americans, in many cases for no objective reason at all. Mind you this eavesdropping was done without any FISA warrants, and they were done to American citizens who's phone numbers did not show up in any Al-Qaeda cell phones.

My own conclusions on this matter are bound to upset some of you. The Democrats power in Washington has been so depleted by their loss of the Senate, The House, and The Presidency, and their hatred of George W. Bush is so visceral, that many of them just can't believe that he actually to steps and has heretofore prevented attacks from occurring on US soil. The Democrats are weak on Defense and National Security issues and failed to take action and arrest Bin-Laden while they were in power. They disregard and hold up as civil rights violations the actions taken to protect us to date, yet present no coherent plan of their own. They lambaste the President over a lack of a post regime change strategy in Iraq, but, once again, have offered no strategy or plan of their own other than the complete and total withdrawal of US troops. Essentially their strategy is to admit defeat.

In the end, the public supports the President doing what is necessary to protect them. A recent Fox News poll showed that 58% of respondents were favorable to the actions taken by the with regard to NSA eavesdropping on potential terrorist subjects. My sense of this is that it will ultimately blow up in the face of the Democrats just as their attacks on Judge Alito did.

Days 2 & 3: Food for Thought

In two days of questions and answers, the detractors of Judge Alito have failed, in my humble opinion, to cast any shadow on the nominee's ability to act in any other way than with independence and impartiality.

In light of their inability to disqualify this judge based on some practical and objective standard, they have resorted to their time tested practice of attacking character and ethics. Apparently the lessons from the Thomas confirmation went unlearned as some members of the committee almost went so far as to call Judge Alito a Racist and a Bigot. Yet a couple of others have all but accused him of being hostile to racial inequity, gender and disability discrimination.

At issue is the Judges membership in the Concerned Alumnus of Princeton or C.A.P. It seems to me to be an attempt to cast doubt on his ability to be fair and impartial in cases in which racial and gender minority's are before him as a judge. Such a great deal has been made of this C.A.P. issue that one can't help but wonder where it is the Democrats on congress are trying to go with this. Every individual involved with this group have held that Judge Alito was not involved in any substantive manner be it fund raising, donations, and/or authorship of documents.

So why is this important? It goes to the continuing processes taken by democratic operatives and their counterparts in the special interest groups to attack a nominee's character. We saw a great deal of it during the last two presidential elections and we continue to see it within the confines of the Senates confirmation hearings. Now some of you reading this may attempt to claim that the right has engaged in the same behavior. However, I would challenge anyone to proved evidence where unsupported and unfounded allegations have been made about the ethics or character of a nominee from a democratic president. Two justices were nominated by former President Clinton. Both were overwhelmingly confirmed by over 90% of the US Senate. No one that I can remember attempted to attack the integrity or character of Clinton's nominee's.

Associate Justice Ruth Ginsberg was a known liberal activist. A former head of the ACLU and the other of contentious documents advocating the federal funding of Abortions in some cases. This view was obviously antithetical to the beliefs of the republicans not only on the committee but to those in the Senate as well. Although the Republican members of the committee questioned Justice Ginsberg extensively and perhaps somewhat hostilely with regard to her stance on abortion and judicial activism, they did not attempt to sully her character or intimate in any way that she had acted in unethical manner. In fact, the Republican senators took her at her word and finally voted 96 to 4 to confirm her to the nations highest court.

Taking a look at the last 4 (or is it 5 lol) Republican nominations, it is obvious that Democrat senators do not ascribe to the same process. For example, Judge Robert Bork, who by many legal minds is arguably one of the sharpest legal minds ever to be nominated. Yet he was attacked as if by a bunch of rabid Pit Bulls. Additionally, Justice Clarence Thomas hearings were even more contentious. I don't think, in my limited experience, that I have ever seen a more vicious attempt at character assassination. Justice Thomas's record as a jurist and as the head of the EEOC was of such sterling quality that the liberal special interest groups knew they would be unable to disqualify him on the merits of his record.

Accordingly, these same groups were able to initiate a malicious attack on the Thomas's character and integrity. Using a former EEOC colleague, Justice Thomas was blatantly accused of sexual harassment. Those who knew the judge best were so stunned by the accusation that there was a considerable lag in their ability to organize in his defense. History and the passage of time have more than born out the Justices claims of innocence and he was eventually confirmed to the court.

The practices used then have never been more evident in the modern era than the Democrats and their special interest group cronies to attack Judge Alito's character and integrity. Unable to find fault with an unassailable record as a jurist, several Democrat Senators on the committee have latched on to this conservative group in a last ditch effort to give the appearance that Judge Alito has ideas which would be unpalatable to the American public. This tactic is likely to fail with Judge Alito. And although they won't recognize it, those pressing these accusations are likely to end up with egg on their faces.

Technorati Tags : Samuel, Alito, Ruth, Ginsberg, Clarence, Thomas, Robert, Bork, Anita, Hill

Powered By Qumana

Day 1: What has happened to the process?

 

 

One need only go back to the nominations of US Supreme Court Justices Breyer and Ginsberg to see the vast difference in how the Republican senate acted regarding judicial nominations and how the Liberals in the democratic party approach the same.  Justices Breyer and Ginsberg were voted out of committee and out of the Senate with a vast overwhelming majority of senators voting for them.  But one need only look to the Reagan era nominations of Bork and Thomas and contrast it with those of Bork and Ginsberg. The Thomas/Bork nominations were nothing short of all out character assassination.  One successful and one not. 

 

Now, we have decidedly politicized a non political appointment.  Both sides bear some responsibility for this.  Republicans, being the majority party, should have stepped on this a long time ago.  And the opening statements from the Judiciary Committee today should have left no doubt on which side of the liberty spectrum our current legislative leaders fall.  Both parties, although for vastly different reasons, are arguing for greater government control of our every day lives.

 

The left side of the aisle believes that government should be able to dole out what liberties we as Americans share.  To them, the idea of private anything and/or  personal liberty are concepts that should be banned for the greater good.  The right, in it's effort to promote it's agenda would like it if all judges used a completely literal translation of the constitution.  This week it apparently comes to a head in the form of abortion and executive power.

 

How does all this apply to Judge Alito?  He is in the crossfire between the two competing groups. for instance:

 

• Senator Diane Feinstein, D :  She was quite adamant that in order for her to be able to vote for him he would need to explain why he dissented with a majority opinion establishing congresses right to thwart a states right in Intrastate commerce.  Additionally, she claimed to be extremely worried by a 1984 document in which Judge Alito stated his belief that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided.  For obvious reasons that bothers her.
• Senator Chuck Schumer, D :  Chuck was UPSET that the President had the temerity to nominate an individual that might be more conservative then the decidedly centrist Justice O'Connor.  Senator Schumer also claims that he needs to know if the judge will uphold the presidents executive authority to act to protect the public during a time of war.
• Richard Durbin, D :  The most accusatory of Judge Alito and his record.  At one point all but calling the judge a racist based on a stance taken by the Judge at Princeton University against the school administrations decision to grant preferential treatment to those with gender and minority status.

This is but a small sample of some of the more vocal members that I heard.  But I never cease to be amazed at their abilities to contradict themselves.  In short, the two underlying things that reared their ugly heads were Abortion and Executive Power.  It is obvious that the democrats can't stand being beat by President Bush at every turn so they are using this opportunity in an attempt to get back at the executive.

Tomorrow, the real circus begins.  Some of the panel will actually have substantive and probative questions.  But those aligned with the Kennedy/Schumer side of the aisle are likely to begin their pompous grand standing yet again and I will be there to watch it all.  Till then...

Powered By Qumana