Monday, July 11, 2005

Wolf in sheep's clothing 

The New York Times is reporting an infuriating set of comments by our old pal Arlen Specter, suggesting that Sandra Day O'Connor should be chosen for a temporary Chief Justice:
"I think it would be very tempting if the president said to Justice O'Connor, 'You could help the country now,' " Mr. Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania and a pivotal player in any confirmation hearings, said in an interview on the CBS program "Face the Nation." "She has received so much adulation that a confirmation proceeding would be more like a coronation, and she might be willing to stay on for a year or so."

Yeah... then what? This is nonsense, plain nonsense. Sandra Day O’Connor is praised for being unremarkable, that's it. Liberals like her because she continued to uphold broad application of Roe v. Wade, and conservatives enjoyed her "sometimes" traditional interpretation of the Constitution. The fact of the matter is that she was inconsistent, and often ruled against herself, as in her conflicting rulings on Sodomy laws (once for and once against) or affirmative action rulings, for example, in addition to the conflicting and confusing flow-chart-choose-your-own-misadventure booklet necessary to determine whether or not a religious display is constitutional (let me see... if the display includes the word "God" and is at least 3 feet in width, go to page 7, otherwise, color it mauve, move two feet to the left, and proceed to paragraph 26...).
Even more important, having her stay on "for a year of so" would only delay the problem of appointing new justices and a new chief justice. This isn't going to just go away if we push it back until the president's appointments become lame duck. "Moderates" like Specter are going to be the wild cards in this fight, since we know exactly how the lefties are going to react to any appointment short of Bill Clinton or Chairman Mao. The same people who authored the "Compromise" on the filibusters will be at work again, trying to flex non-existent muscle on the President's nomination choices. Perhaps Specter hopes to push back the appointments far enough that they become a bitter fight surrounding the next election. Then he can run for Pres in '08, and ride to the rescue with a set of "moderate," cop out, inconsistent judges of the late O'Connor brand. Otherwise, this appointment would make no sense. Even suggesting it reminds me that Specter needs to get with the program, instead of spending all of his time catering to the lefties who don't like him either. Choosing O'Connor would only delay and worsen the problem, and Specter knows it.

Once again you are correct. It is just an attempt to delay the process. We all know the gloves are coming off soon. We might as well gear up for a big fight here. The mother of all fights in my opinion.

My biggest fear is that Bush will nominate some kind of wishy washy moderate to make everyone "happy" and to prove he has brought his so-called "new tone" to the office.
Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?