Saturday, September 24, 2005

Yeah, Right.

From today's NYT:
As President Bush moves to fill the second vacancy on the Supreme Court, he faces a new challenge in finding a jurist who can not only withstand Democratic scrutiny but hold together the support of Senate Republicans as well.


Now, both socially conservative and more liberal Republican senators say they may vote against confirmation of the next nominee if the pick leans too far to the left or the right on prominent issues like abortion rights.

Any Republican defection could provide cover for Democrats who want to oppose confirmation, protecting them politically in Republican-leaning states. Democrats have vowed to dig in for a tough fight over the nominee to succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor because she was a pivotal swing vote on the court.

"It is going to be different," said Senator Lincoln Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island, who is socially liberal and has said he will vote to confirm Judge Roberts.

What total bullshit. Need I remind everyone which seat Roberts was originally nominated for? And how willing almost all the Democrats and "moderate" Republicans were to give him a free pass because he's rilllly smart and oh-so-polite? Besides, it's not like Chief Justice is such a completely trivial position that you should just give someone a rubber-stamp for managing to not say, "If confirmed, I will dedicate myself to rolling back constitutional protections for women, minorities, and the environment" out loud...

Abu Gonzales is probably the best nominee we can hope for. Prepare for disappointment.

Oh, and in case anyone is wondering why I didn't include an example of a Democrat vowing to dig in for a tough fight... The article didn't provide any.


Anonymous said...

And we all know how Chaffee has come through for us in the past.

-Dan McEnroe

Eli said...

At least he's not pretending to be a Democrat. Although the NYT seemed a little confused on this point...