Thursday, May 12, 2005

Two Snapshots of the Left: All you need to know in the judicial filibuster battle

A couple of items of note today regarding the looming detonation of the nuclear option ...

Actually, the following speaks volumes about who is winning this debate and also what kind of people are opposing Senate votes on Pres. Bush's judicial nominees.

There's a Pony, er Rather, in there Somewhere

Incredibly, CBS News has struck again -- with another fictitious story in the middle of an important national debate. Earlier this week, CBS News reported that Ken Starr, formerly the anti-Christ prosecutor of Bill Clinton, had seen the light and now saw the pending Senate vote to end judicial filibusters as a "radical, radical departure from Senate tradition and history" and "an assault on the judiciary", as well. Pretty strong stuff from a noted conservative lawyer, indeed. The only problem is that CBS quoted Judge Starr about Senate scrutiny and approval of judges on the basis of judicial philosophy, not the ending of the Democrats' disfigured judicial filibuster.

In other words, CBS lied. And blatantly so.

Here is how Judge Starr described it:

I contrasted the current practice . . . with what occurred during Ruth Ginsburg’s nomination process, as numerous Republicans voted (rightly) to confirm a former ACLU staff lawyer. They disagreed with her positions as a lawyer, but they voted (again, rightly) to confirm her. Why? Because elections, like ideas, have consequences. . . . In the interview, I did indeed suggest, and have suggested elsewhere, that caution and prudence be exercised (Burkean that I am) in shifting/modifying rules (that’s the second snippet), but I likewise made clear that the ‘filibuster’ represents an entirely new use (and misuse) of a venerable tradition ...

Harry Reid on the Respect for Privacy

Is Harry "the President really is a Loser" Reid for real? I mean, I know he is fighting hard over these judges. For one thing, he wants to protect the the Left's Holy Grail -- the "right to privacy". Except for Pres. Bush's judicial nominees, apparently. Today, Sen. Reid slandered one of the stalled nominees, Henry Saad, with the following statement on the floor of the Senate:

Henry Saad would have been filibustered anyway. He's one of those nominees. All you need to do is have a member go upstairs and look at his confidential report from the F.B.I., and think we would all agree there is a problem there.
Amazing. These hypocrites argue that Republican-appointed judges would not follow the law, and would willy-nilly disrespect individual rights and the Left's sacred "right to privacy". And then Reid pulls this?

Where is the Democrat moral outrage? Where is the Democrats' McCain? Oh, I forgot. McCain is the Democrats' moral outrage.