Fat Steve's Blatherings

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Idiocy on Parade

Summary:

        John Fund advises that: 'Miers should be rejected because Democrats are dishonest, hypocritical, and unfair.'  That this will ensure only liberals get on the courts is of course, unimportant.

At Length:

        In my last post I said that conservatives are angry with Bush, for non-judicial reasons, taking it out on him over Miers.  Glenn points to John Fund, who now descends to the depths of stupidity.

        He notes that in 1987, Robert Bork was criticized with savage unfairness, and that ever since, Republican presidents have nominated people with scant paper trails, because that's the only hope of getting a conservative nominated.

        Fund's solution appears to be unilateral political disarmament.  Republican presidents should nominate those that the Democrats will attack savagely, and the liberal and moderate Republicans will be afraid to vote for!  If one isn't confirmed, nominate another, and another, and another, leaving seats on the court vacant for as long as it takes, till the Democrats get tired of this.  This will educate the public that Supreme Court nominations are not about political outcomes.

        Which is, of course, horse dung.  The conservatives are so eager to see Roe v. Wade overturned precisely because of a desired political outcome, the passage of laws that will lower the number of abortions.  They want the Interstate Commerce clause applied more strictly to prevent the federal government from doing certain things, not because, for example, environmental protection is not commerce.  If that was really their position, they'd be backing Constitutional amendments to authorize just what environmental laws the Congress can pass.  As Bellow notes, in the in the NRO essay I referenced in my last post, what conservatives want is a court that will restrain Congress.  The honest way to do that is by convincing the public that the federales shouldn't be involved in certain activities.

        Of course, the practical political consequence of Fund's strategy would be that the Democrats, the liberal/moderate Republicans would vote down his nominees with 'proper' paper trails, and criticize the President mercilessly, till he was forced to appoint someone with a liberal or moderate record the Democrats would approve of.  And when a Democrat is President, he'd appoint unabashed liberals to the Court.  The Democrats, with that fine hypocrisy that so distinguishes them, would then use the conservatives argument that "only qualifications matter, and you're obliged to confirm if the nominee is competent."  They did exactly with Ginsburg and Breyer.  If we take Fund's advice, we'll ensure no conservative Supremes for the foreseeable future.

        But idealogues of all stripes are apt to scorn practicality, something that I, a recovering idealogue, know only too well.



        So again, chill out.  And if anyone has a plan for getting a nominee with a conservative paper trail through the present Senate, I'd be interested in seeing it.

THE HOUSE OF SAUD MUST BE DESTROYED — AND WILL BE!

1 Comments:

  • I'm Chillin' but not feeling too good about one-republicans who would rather be right than win.

    By Blogger Ralph, at 8:59 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home