But most importantly, I am amazed that you are so willing to buy into his nomination hook, line and sinker. It seems you refuse to come to a conclusion that runs counter to your party even when there are questionable circumstances. Where are your high standards now?
To be honest, I am less concerned about the specifics of this one particular judge and more concerned about the trend amongst Democrats to change the role of the Senate in the process.
We have seen a steady push on the parts of Democrats to try and create a veto power on the basis of judicial ideology. This is NOT what the Constitution contemplated. This began with the appointment of John Tower (not a judge, but it is part of the same problem), in which he was smeared by the Democrats in a (successful) effort to block his confirmation. Then we had Bork, who was obviously immensely qualified, but rejected on the basis of his ideology (which agreed with that of the president). There was Thomas, in which a man was literally slaughtered in the media on the word of a woman who was dragged in at the last moment, in a last ditch effort to block his confirmation. Luckily, they didn't get away with it that time. It has become a big game with the Democrats.
Its surprising to me that your refer to "this trend" as something created by the Dems. Its my understanding that reviewing nominations is the purview of the Senate, and God knows the Rep. attempted to block any number of Clinton's nominees. But I can't argue the point sufficiently without checking all the rules governing this responsibility as identified in the Constitution. However, I would find it very surprising that Bush is submitting these nominees not because he has to but because he thinks its a nice touch.
The current incident is significant, however, in that Chuck Schumer clearly stated that the "advice and consent" role was no longer just that, but was now an idealogy litmus test. No longer are they hiding behind these artificial issues such as Pickering's supposed "racisim" (honestly, I think anyone looking objectively at the facts the way Byron York did would have to conclude there was no racist intent). Instead, they have now "come out" with the true intent, which is to have self-appointed veto power, a role beyond that envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
So, my complaint is really about the ever expanding role of the Senate Democrats in obstructing presidential appointments. The fact that Pickering has been smeared in the process is just one more incident in a string of incidents in which the Democrats have attempted, sometimes successfully, in diminishing the power of the president to run the nation as he determines is appropriate.
I going to limit my comments because I have said all I want to say about Pickering. But the concerns I raised about him were legitimate. The Dem. criticism of Pickering could be considered nefarious if by objecting, they somehow get to put a Dem. in his place but we both know that isn't about to happen. So.....having said that, has it ever crossed your mind that the GOPs nominees are much like Pickering........of questionable quality.
My God, Bush's nomination to the AIDS committee starting slamming gays. Where are you getting these people......from the Okifanoki swamps? You do know that not everyone in the US is white, straight and rich?
I'll tell you if the GOP thinks the Pickering nomination is okay, then my estimation of them was too high, and if this is the best they can do, then the GOP's talent pool is pretty thin.
The real problem, of course, is that this results in a persistent erosion of presidential power that can never be corrected. While the Republicans COULD pull the same tricks when a Democrat president is in office, they don't -- realizing, of course, that doing so, while perhaps providing some temporary satisfaction, would harm the democracy further. So, they let it go (Orin Hatch was overheard, however, telling Leahy if they kept this "crap" up they were going to regret it <g>)...
I am astounded.......the Reps. were 24/7 obstructionist when Clinton was in office. Seriously, Ray, you need to take your rose colored glasses off. The Reps. are not nearly as good as you see them. You have a blind spot in this regards that really messes with your credibility.
So that's where I'm coming from. Pickering is getting screwed and clearly is not a racist, but that's the small picture in my opinion.
Why am I not surprised? Its why I don't bother to develop any substantive discussions with you. Developing an argument with someone who is incapable of seeing beyond his own opinion is senseless and time wasting.
ted |
