The sides in the culture war that is smothering America’s judicial selection process couldn’t wait to get started fighting over the nomination of Samuel Alito. The sooner you attack, the sooner the other side attacks back, the sooner everybody gets really ticked off, and the more money you can raise, so you can pay your advocacy group’s staff, so you can keep on attacking, so … well, you get
the idea.
Anyway, the prize for being the first out of the gate this time — judging by nothing more reliable than my e-mail — was the ever-feisty People for the American Way. President Bush announced his new nomination at 8 a.m. The "American Way" folks couldn’t wait that long. My first release from them came in at 7:58. Either that, or 6:58. (I’m not sure whether my e-mail had switched over to standard time yet, since my desktop didn’t ask my permission to make that move until a couple of hours later.)
Anyway, the release proclaimed, in all capitals,
BUSH PUTS DEMANDS OF FAR-RIGHT ABOVE INTERESTS OF AMERICANS WITH HIGH COURT NOMINATION OF RIGHT-WING ACTIVIST ALITO
No point in throat-clearing or small talk. Might as well get to screaming right off the bat.
The same group weighed in again a couple of hours later. It wasn’t until a few minutes after that that the second party was heard from. At 10:04, Jim DeMint declared that:
Judge Alito is one of the most respected judges in America. His constitutional credentials are unquestionable and his judicial philosophy is verifiable…. In 1990, Judge Alito was unanimously confirmed by a Democrat-controlled Senate because he commanded respect across party lines. Now that he has been nominated to the Supreme Court, I hope Democrats will resist the temptation to obstruct the process and deny him an up-or-down vote. Judge Alito is a dignified man and he deserves a dignified process. He deserves a fair hearing and a fair vote. People in South Carolina and across the nation want a judge who will carefully listen to the arguments in each case and make thoughtful decisions. Americans want a judge who will strictly interpret the law, not legislate from the bench. We have a critical confirmation process ahead of us and I am confident Judge Alito will clearly demonstrate his qualifications to serve on the Supreme Court.
Then, at 11:30 came a piece headlined:
Christian Coalition of America Praises the Nomination of Judge Alito to the Supreme Court.
It went on to quote CCA President Roberta Combs as saying, "President Bush has hit a homerun with this nomination."
Then, at 12:02, The American Civil Liberties Union got the opposition back up on the scoreboard with one headlined, "ACLU Urges Senate to Explore Supreme Court Nominee Alito’s Record on Reproductive Rights, First Amendment." On that side of the Kulturkampf, "reproductive rights" is seen as rolling off the tongue more smoothly than the simpler "abortion." Don’t ask me to explain.
Being a moderate, Lindsey Graham didn’t hit me with a release until 1:27 p.m. (He said that John Roberts hit a home run. But since I have yet to see instant replays on either of these taters, I’m waiting until the official score is posted.) But he made up for his tardiness at 5:58 with a breathless anouncement that the senator would be meeting with Mr. Alito on Tuesday.
And that’s just the start. There’s plenty of action to come, sports fans.
Related Posts
Brad, the reason that the term “reproductive rights” is used by the left is because it sounds better than “we want the right to kill unborn babies”. As long as they frame it that way, or the famous women’s health issues, then it is harder to argue. After all, who wouldn’t want reproductive rights or women’s health. Problem is, both are simply code for abortion.
It is the new “pro-choice” slogan. I subscribe to several listservs for left and right wing organizations. I found the two messages I got from Planned Parenthood and NARAL most interesting. Each started with a sentence about Bush giving in to the far right (that is what they elected him to do). Each then followed up with a sentence along these lines:
“The fight has begun and your financial support is essential — the next days and weeks are an incredibly important time. We must continue our lifesaving programs to protect reproductive rights and access…”
Or, to sum it up in a few words, Bush hates women and we need money. Of course, the right wing groups also had something to say, but the ones that I subscribe to didn’t ask for money. I find that interesting.
I hope that Alito is confirmed. I hope that he joins other judges in overturning Roe v Wade, a ruling that cannot even be looked upon as a serious constitutional argument, much less an opinion given by the Supreme Court. Then, let us dumb people decide if we want abortion or not. If you are a woman who thinks that even though the ultrasound shows a baby, and you feel a baby, and it will be a baby when it gets out, that it still isn’t a baby, you can move to California or New York and kill all the “not babies” that you want. In SC, I predict that you won’t be able to do that, and the state will be better for it.
Be careful in the days ahead to see how the debate falls out in the days ahead. I think this clip from the Family Research Council is very telling, and this will probably continue until the day that Sam Alito becomes Justice Sam Alito.
“Already, liberal media commentators are getting Alito’s record on abortion wrong. We applaud his dissent in the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey. There, he did not rule that a husband must be informed of his wife’s decision to have an abortion. He did rule that the Pennsylvania legislature could constitutionally require such spousal notice. The difference is huge. Liberals support judges making those decisions. Judge Alito showed respect for the people’s chosen representatives in Harrisburg.”
How refreshing is that?
When it comes to ranting and raving against a conservative in this day and age, the left, and I include what most people call the mainstream media in that category, have no concern or regard for a dignified process. How about John Roberts of CBS, who at the White House press conference asked Scott McClellan if Alito was “sloppy seconds”? Nice dignity there, John. That I am sure puts him in line to someday replace Schieffer as the nightly anchor. Then one can predict that we will have none other than Teddy Kennedy, that renowned protector of women’s rights (except for Mary Jo Kopechne) in this nation, expounding about how Alito is such a threat to American women. Lastly, how juvenile of the media to come up with the cute nickname of Scalito? This wasn’t the creation of a catchy nickname like Ike, rather it was hatched to defame Alito. It really makes me wonder what kind of journalist scum is crawling out of our universities with these kind of mentalities.
The bottom line is the more the left screams and wails, the more marginalized they become in American society, and so out of that poor behavior there can be a good result.
You can count on two things:
1. Every thing this judge said or wrote will be spun into something it was not.
2. Most reporters, editors, and commentators will repeat the spin, without correcting inaccuracies. Most of them have never made any effort to understand the basics of what a legal ruling is supposed to be.
For example, Judge Alito ruled, quite correctly, that there was nothing in the Constitution to prevent a state law from requiring that the father of a child be notified prior to the mother hiring physicians to perform an abortion.
That will be spun into a succession of rumors, beginning with a falsehood:
“Judge Alito ruled that a woman must have the permission of the father…”
“Judge Alito believes that women must have the permission of the father of their child…”
“Judge Alito does not recognize a woman’s right to …blah, blah, blah”
The nickname “Scalito” wasn’t coined by the media. It was a name coined by Philadelphia-area lawyers who have practiced in front of Alito’s court. This comes from that renowned purveyor of trashy journalism, The Wall Street Journal (today’s edition).
And John Dean’s accusation that “Judge Alito has been soft on the mob”… where did that come from?
What I don’t really get about this is just what do all the activist groups hope to accomplish with rousing their forces and raising their money, pro and con for this nomination? I mean, in the end, aren’ t we talking about maybe just Specter and Leahy and one or two others on the Judiciary Committee, and then Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Lincoln Chafee, and a handful of others from the full Senate? Aren’t they going to be the ones who decide up or down on Alito? With Alito’s paper trail, everybody else is going to be pretty much locked in to their position. Will Susan Collins think, “gee I got 42,000 emails from members of People for the American Way and only 39,000 emails from Christian Coalition members, so I guess I’ll vote no…”?
I tend to be pro-choice in my leanings but not afraid and in fact, eager to hear an all-out debate on the constitutional aspects of the issue. Meanwhile, on this post we’ve heard only from men, let’s see what women have to say about this appointment.
PS to Brad and Nathan: I’ll grant you there is a touch of the euphemistic at work with the term “reproductive rights,” just as “family values” sounds better than “the practice of discrimination, prejudice, and acts of hostility and hatred against those who are not members of the Judeo-Christian faith, or against gays & lesbians, etc. etc.” Or “War on Terror” sounds better than…oh, well, you get the idea.
But to be fair, “reproductive rights” encompasses a whole lot more than just abortion. Specifically I refer to issues like the availability of contraceptive options, or access to sex education and information, etc, and yes, abortion as well. Organizations like Planned Parenthood are only partly about abortion per se, so the phrase “reproductive rights” is a more accurate and all-encompassing term for the issues they address.
Phillip, face it: If abortion weren’t at issue, that term wouldn’t have made the ACLU’s headline.
And what do the advocacy groups hope to accomplish? Self-perpetuation. I have this theory that the moment a movement or cause hires its first paid staffer, it is corrupted. That’s because from that moment on, the tone for the cause will be set by the person who is paid to spend all day working on the message, and that person will have a vested interest in doing whatever it takes to get the base whipped up and keep the money flowing in.
This, I believe, may be an even greater problem in Washington than the political parties themselves. And coming from me, that’s saying something.
Philip,
Brad is right about this one (see, Brad, I am a fair minded person). I believe that this is the biggest problem with the race hustlers like Jesse Jackson. They have a vested interest in making sure that racial division continues, so they make issues where none exist.
As for these pro-abortion groups, they are a one trick pony. Nearly every email that Planned Parenthood sends out has a header that says “Save Roe!” then on the next line, “Roe v Wade: Savings Women’s Lives Since 1973”. Sure, maybe it is saving thier social lives. The only time thier emails don’t have this header is when they are worried about abortion pills. Then they head off with “fill our pills”.
As for family values and war on terror, I don’t think that either are nearly as disingenuous. I’ll grant that family values may be stretching things some, but only to the extent that you don’t believe in traditional family values. The phrase is used to refer to generally accepted family values in this nation prior to the radical secularist movement began changing the fabric of the family in the US.
Brad, as much as I don’t like the messages from some of the interest groups I think it is imperative to preserve the First Amendment to the fullest. For that reason alone the McCain-Feingold CFR Act should not have been passed or signed. On the other hand, I kind of enjoy watching people like Soros and moveon.org throw their money away on the radical agenda and sometimes their ads are at least amusing.
As noted before, the longer the left is out of power and continues to lose power, the more desparate they seem to act. The publicity stunt to close down the Senate yesterday is just another example. Probably 95% of the American voting public does not pay close attention to the minute details of what is happening in Washington day by day. But, Joe Truck Driver will hear that the dems arbritrarily shut the Senate down, and that during a time of war, and the only conclusion will be that someone is irresponsible. Insert Howard Dean scream right here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Brad, Brad, Brad.
Freedom of Speech is colorful, rowdy, and opinionated–like the people themselves.
Since elites like you, Mr. Warthen, refuse to listen, sometime they have to shout.
Brad, you silly goose. You need a good civics lesson.
Oh look: someone has kindly provided one, just for you, as a courtesy.
You should thank that kindly blogger today!
Hey, I’m always eager to learn something new. But I’m not sure how much I can learn from a teacher who has that much trouble with reading comprehension.
Brad, you’ve hit on something that gets to the core of the problem, the paradox of our democracy if you will, with your theory that “the moment a movement or cause hires its first paid staffer, it is corrupted.” I’m sympathetic to that view, but if you follow your thinking all the way to its conclusion, what you’re really getting at is the actual point of conflict between capitalism and democracy. (Perhaps our friend Mike C would like to weigh in on this if he’s out there reading this.) I like the utopian ideal of McCain Feingold but my civil libertarian side chafes at its questionable constitutionality.
Money equals power in our democracy; unless some way was found to completely eliminate that factor, advocacy groups have to function in the same world that our government does. To cite one example I’ve brought up before, the caribou in Alaska can’t speak for themselves, can’t donate money, can’t go to Capitol Hill and moo or bellow or whatever they do, for their cause. Somebody has to do it for them. Right-to-life people would say a conceived but unborn child can’t speak for him-or-herself. Somebody has to do it for them. And, as we all can admit, one person’s “noble advocacy group” is another person’s “special interest.” So it’s easy to say that the first paid staffer corrupts such groups; but if you’re going to say that (and I won’t argue with you on that point) then you have to follow through all the way on the implication and agree with Ralph Nader that our democracy has become fundamentally corrupt through and through.
Brad and Phillip, The State is an organization, moveon.org is an organization, as is the NRA and Planned Parenthood. All have paid staffers. All have an agenda that they admit to (sometimes). The agenda of The State would in theory be to report the truth and help to disseminate that truth to build awareness among all citizens. All of this is good and acceptable within the bounds of our constitution. Some in congress, like McCain, have worked to limit the free flow of information. I say the more information that we have available the better off we all are. So, if people want to spend their money on their agenda, let them do it. In the final analysis, the American people have been able to separate the phonies from the truth tellers. I think that will continue in the future and with the internet and even more public sharing of information the prospects are even better that truth will prevail.
Phillip –
The really great thing about capitalism, free markets, and democracy is that folks can organize themselves however they want, spending as little or as much of their time and money as they desire or can afford. But as government grows, more becomes political as the tentacles of the Leviathan slither throughout society, encouraging those who believe that the only way to get a piece of the pie is to grab hold of the knife. The folks who are baking the pie organize themselves to minimize the knife-wielder’s take.
If our federal government did less — say, did away with the federal highway tax — the Congress would have less money to spend and would attract fewer lobbyists. There’s potentially greater oversight — assuming that full disclosure were possible — even in SC and voter input at the local level to keep shenanigans to a minimum. More importantly, it limits the ability of lifers in the Congress to divert other folks’ funds to their states, not that I have anything against West Virginia or Alaska.
Brad’s point regarding the corruption of movements starting when they start hiring is a good one. The best example I can think of is Grover Norquist and his Americans for Tax Reform. Back in the old days Grover worked out of his house, wore cheap suits, and worked on a shoestring budget but had a tremendous effect because he was moved by a mission. Today he hangs around with some odious folks and has done silly things because the power bug has gotten him and he needs lots of money to keep his “professionalized” organization going.
McCain Feingold is bad law that is slowly extending to the blobosphere. Politicians will use that bad law to harass any unpaid website operator with opposing views who gains a following.
We’ve lost the notion of limits and balance that our founders held dear. Over time the judiciary has become politicized, with many judges believing that their role is doing what’s “right” instead of deciding matters of law. Thus it matters that the right folks become judges so that they can do the right thing. Why bother having a legislature?
You won’t find an record of “liberals” complaining about non-judges being appointed to hight courts, when it’s their judges.
Jean Toal went from being a minor local lawyer to running the Supreme Court. Her lack of experience was no problem for the media and legislators who were her pals.
Clinton appointed judicial nominees to the federal courts who had never practiced law. The press reported on “the GOP holding up their confirmation” without ever mentioning the reasons why.
This is why elections are so important.
I believe the President(any President) has the right to nominate the judge of their choice when there is an opening on the Supreme Court.
Unless that judge has personal morality issues (and I am talking about lawbreaking) and they are judged as a competent professional (and especailly if they are considered one of the best in their profession by their accomplishments) by their peers, nothing should stand in their way of taking their seat on the court.
b Testb
TestB2
> Testing2……or more
i Testi
Testi2