"Don't Get Stuck On Stupid!"

Dedicated to exposing all manner of journalistic malfeasance and moral incontinence, while laboring in comfortable obscurity.

Name:
Location: Antarctica

Sunday, September 25, 2005

Sen. Clinton Will Vote 'No' on Roberts

Why, you ask? Is it because he’s incompetent? Lack of experience? Nope.

In her words:
“I do not believe that the Judge has presented his views with enough clarity and specificity for me to in good conscience cast a vote on his behalf…”
In other words, I didn’t hear exactly what I wanted to hear, so rather than giving you the benefit of the doubt, I’ll vote against you just in case you might someday make a ruling I don’t like.

"My desire to maintain the already fragile Supreme Court majority for civil rights, voting rights and women's rights outweigh the respect I have for Judge Roberts's intellect, character, and legal skills," she concluded.
In other words, "like the liberal that I am, I am going to let emotion trump logic." Read the words carefully here. What Sen. Clinton is unequivocally saying is that while Roberts is clearly intelligent, honest, and qualified, she has doubts that he will further the social engineering agenda “progressives” have worked so hard to implement.

This is a clear reflection of the Progressive mantra. Statements such as these codify the worldview of the Left which states that -- rather than serve as a watchdog, an interpreter and applier of constitutional principles -- the Supreme Court is instead an activist organization with a mandate to further social(ist) causes. Not to interpret law, but to create policy.

“That uncertainly(sic) means as a matter of conscience, I cannot vote to confirm despite Judge Roberts's long history of public service."
Once again, she laments that despite his clear qualifications, her “conscience” will not let her vote to confirm him.

The five Democrats voting against the nomination were Dianne Feinstein of California, Joseph Biden of Delaware, Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, Charles Schumer of New York and Dick Durbin of Illinois” uh…and Sen. Hillary Clinton.
If ever there was a better endorsement for a candidate, it’s to be opposed by the likes of these.

This whole process highlights to a glaring degree that these nominations are not about selecting the most qualified candidate for the position, but in determining who will best support an ideological position. Neutrality is not required or desired. Objectivity is not a factor. You MUST TELL ME WHAT I WANT TO HEAR.

Time and again his inquisitors tried to pin Roberts down with “Well, what if's”. And time and again, Judge Roberts replied with something akin to, “I can’t answer that without seeing the specifics of a particular case.” They wanted hypotheticals, he insisted on dealing with objective facts. They wanted to hear that, no matter what, he would rule in defense of a particular social agenda (theirs), not with respect to the rule of law. And not receiving such assurances, they felt “conscience-bound” to vote against him.

It’s clear that the Democrats, in the person of Sen. Feinbidennedyschurblinton, don’t want a dispassionate analysis of the facts, a cogent, solid ruling based on established legal precedents. They want someone who will further their social agenda.

To me, this is the single most dangerous aspect of the Progressive worldview: “I don’t care what the facts say, I know what I feel in my heart.” “Right” becomes not what the law says it is; it’s what you feel, at that particular moment, is the way things ought to be.

Jurisprudence based on mood swings. What a great foundation for a Republic. But then again, I think it’s becoming increasingly clear that the liberal Progressives don’t want a Representative Republic – the want a socialist pseudo-democracy ruled by the fickleness of social whimsy and swirling currents of the politically correct mores of the moment.

You, Senator Clinton, are Stuck on Stupid.