Real Fights, Slap Fights and the Supreme Court
Convention was great! Judging from the volunteers we recruited, Republicans are very excited for change.
A reason for that excitement is illustrated by the little slap fight going on between our senior senator and Mayor Anderson. People understand the difference between core toughness and silly grandstanding. Rocky is to be ignored. Federal tax burden, social security, immigration, federalism are issues that should be addressed.
As one delegate said, "I'm tired of the big speeches about toughness and effectiveness. I want a Senator who really will fight for what I believe, not be a doormat for Kennedy and the liberals."
To illustrate the delegate's point, here's what happened when conservative Robert Bork was nominated for the Supreme Court, according to our senior senator's autobiography (p. 130):
Hours after his nomination became public, Senator Kennedy rushed to the Senate floor and gave a speech that would set the tone for the coming hearings.
As you know, of course, Republicans lost that battle.
So, after that, when President Clinton nominated 2 liberals for the Supreme Court, did Republicans rush to the floor to do battle? No. Instead, the red carpet was rolled out. Again, from our current senator's autobiography (p. 180), regarding a conversation with President Clinton:
I asked whether he had considered Judge Stephen Breyer of the First Circuit Court of Appeals or Judge Ruth Bader Ginsberg of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. President Clinton indicated he had heard Breyer's name but had not thought about Judge Ginsberg. I indicated I thought they would be confirmed easily. . . . their confirmation would not embarrass the President.
Winning in the Supreme Court is simply a matter of getting more points than the other side. Count to five, and you win. If the Republican Chair of the Senate Judiciary was willing to battle for two reliably-liberal judges (one the former general counsel of the ACLU), who was President Clinton to get in the way? Of course, Ginsberg and Breyer became the picks, and now the former ACLU general counsel is free to rule that international law is as good as the Constitution in shaping the Court's decisions.
Here is a 60-second AUDIO on this point. Feel free to share it with your friends.
A reason for that excitement is illustrated by the little slap fight going on between our senior senator and Mayor Anderson. People understand the difference between core toughness and silly grandstanding. Rocky is to be ignored. Federal tax burden, social security, immigration, federalism are issues that should be addressed.
As one delegate said, "I'm tired of the big speeches about toughness and effectiveness. I want a Senator who really will fight for what I believe, not be a doormat for Kennedy and the liberals."
To illustrate the delegate's point, here's what happened when conservative Robert Bork was nominated for the Supreme Court, according to our senior senator's autobiography (p. 130):
Hours after his nomination became public, Senator Kennedy rushed to the Senate floor and gave a speech that would set the tone for the coming hearings.
As you know, of course, Republicans lost that battle.
So, after that, when President Clinton nominated 2 liberals for the Supreme Court, did Republicans rush to the floor to do battle? No. Instead, the red carpet was rolled out. Again, from our current senator's autobiography (p. 180), regarding a conversation with President Clinton:
I asked whether he had considered Judge Stephen Breyer of the First Circuit Court of Appeals or Judge Ruth Bader Ginsberg of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. President Clinton indicated he had heard Breyer's name but had not thought about Judge Ginsberg. I indicated I thought they would be confirmed easily. . . . their confirmation would not embarrass the President.
Winning in the Supreme Court is simply a matter of getting more points than the other side. Count to five, and you win. If the Republican Chair of the Senate Judiciary was willing to battle for two reliably-liberal judges (one the former general counsel of the ACLU), who was President Clinton to get in the way? Of course, Ginsberg and Breyer became the picks, and now the former ACLU general counsel is free to rule that international law is as good as the Constitution in shaping the Court's decisions.
Here is a 60-second AUDIO on this point. Feel free to share it with your friends.
posted by steve u. at 8/30/2005
Subscribe
9 Comments:
Ridiculous! Didn't Hatch also vote to confirm both of them?
To me, this is a perfect illustration of what Hatch is all about--HIMSELF. Hatch lives for power. Instead of pushing for a more centrist candidate that would have forced Clinton to concede some, Hatch made easy on him by suggesting two clearly liberal nominees. This way, Clinton would get his way and Hatch would have his ego stroked knowing that the most powerful man in the world followed his advice.
Bottom line: Hatch's ego takes precedence over conservative/Utah values.
Go get em Steve!
Love the audio clip.
This from the Opinion Journal today:
"To the consternation of conservatives, Mr. Hatch claims credit not only for the pacific confirmations of liberals Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer but for recommending their selection as well(!)."
So many Utahns take pride in knowing that Hatch sat where he did on the Judiciary Committee and imagine that he represented Utah conservatives well in being there. If suggesting a leader of the ACLU to be appointed as a Supreme Court Judge is not embarrassing to us as members of Hatch's same political party I don't know what is. Let us elect somebody who stands for what he believes. I once heard one hall of fame football coach say "If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything". Hatch did not stand, and he will fall.
I think Hatch would make a very good coffin model. After all he is already in show biz - sort of, and he does look dead.
The real indication for me that he was a total "stiff" is the TV commercial a while back where he had a small dog that he was petting. His petting was as cold and stiff as the copy he was reading. It looked like he was doing the rodeo queen wave on the poor dog's head!
I say somebody in the GOP ought to dump the chump so he can go on to his glory in show biz. Besides I am looking forward to his next huge hit recording so I can buy one to use as a fishing lure. They are great for catching big suckers.
Speaking of politicians, I think the only decent humane member politicos in the whole Republican state are Senators Bramble and Stevenson. The rest of them seem like a bunch of self centered, arrogant and lying slugs. Most of them hide behind the Mormon Church yet there isn't one of them that really pays attention or heeds the words of the Prophet.
About the ad. Thanks for listening. Or am I just being too self-centered and thinking that I had any influence.
I am still hoping that you start to put out some substantive ads. They will be needed to win this campaign.
Steve . . .
Just ran across your site. A couple comments:
1) I notice that you fail to give credit to Senator Hatch for his consistently Conservative and principled stance while Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Let us not forget that it was Chairman Hatch who performed the “heavy lifting” necessary to help fill judicial vacancies under President Reagan – helped fight off liberal activists under President Clinton – and oversaw the confirmation of hundreds of President Bush’s nominees.
2) If it weren’t for Senator Hatch’s leadership – we would have had Bruce Babbitt on the High Court!
3) We in Utah are lucky and should be grateful that we have someone with the seniority and gravitas to stand up to the “Liberal Elite” in Washington and give the otherwise small state of Utah a strong voice in national politics.
Last Anon, I don't really follow your second point. Bruce Babbitt, no doubt, would have been awful. But, according to Senator Hatch, he hand-picked Justice Ginsberg to take that spot. Conservatives would find it hard to consider that a trade worthy of much praise.
<< Home