One cannot help but feel a little sympathy at the frantic floundering of Liberals in the wake of the nomination of Judge John Roberts, Jr. to the Supreme Court. Liberals have the upsetting and accurate notion that Roberts is an attractive, smart Conservative with too little of a paper trail to criticize. The Bush Administration has carefully prepared the judicial nomination battle field by cutting off potential Liberal avenues of attack.
Roberts has the appearance and deportment of a choir boy, as opposed to the professorial pedant arrogance of Judge Robert Bork. Bork's demeanor appealed to like-minded Conservatives, but scared off others. Moreover, when Bork was ``borked'' in 1987, the Reagan Administration was surprised and unprepared for the mean-spirited and personal assault on Bork from the Left. This episode initiated the current trend toward highly-polarized federal court confirmation confrontations. In the Roberts case, the Bush Administration was able to maintain secrecy until the formal announcement of the nomination, allowing the Administration to frame the nominee before opposition groups could effectively undermine Roberts.
In addition, President George Bush at least went through the motions of consulting with members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle. Lack of consultation can not be effectively used as an excuse to delay Roberts' confirmation or even a vote on his confirmation.
Strategic planning and frustration have largely reduced Liberals to rambling incoherence. In order to excavate potentially incriminating information, some Liberals now argue that attorney-client privilege should be violated and written legal advice Roberts wrote on behalf of the government when in the Solicitor General's Office ought to be released. Surely they can not really believe their own arguments in this regard.
Liberals are the ones who normally claim that the Constitution is a living and breathing document that should change with the times, unmoored by the text or the original understanding of the Founders. Yet now they are arguing it is extreme for the Courts to re-examine "settled law" (at least the Roe v. Wade abortion decision). In other words, Liberal victories are to be forever enshrined, but the Constitution should remain open to future Liberal extension. It is difficult to believe that there are some who maintain that same-sex marriage is a Constitutional right and at the same time claim Courts should not question settled law. Liberals find themselves in an intellectual pretzel, twisted and contorted by both their inability to win political victories and their undemocratic reliance on the courts to impose their agenda.
Go To Page: 1 2
