In the relatively rare instances of a new Supreme Court nomination (there have been eight or so over the last 20 years) the Senate dresses up and takes its dog and pony show on the road. Well, if CSPAN can bear that analogy.
Whenever the nominee is appointed by a Democratic president, as is the case this week, there are always a few Republicans (Lindsey Graham and Lamar Alexander come to mind) who bounce to the microphones and crow about how qualified the appointee is and express their regret he or she isn’t more conservative. Tsk tsk.
On the other side of the aisle, someone like Dianne Feinstein uses it as an opportunity to promote a plethora of legal hash, from banning handgun in the possession of everyone but MS-13 and al Qaida terrorist in some mosque in Detroit, to government-funded abortion.
And so—in the words of the late Representative Sonny Bono—the beat goes on.
The nominees respectfully decline to answer questions that are pending or could be pending before the court, the senators ask a few cuter questions and get a few laughs from the gallery, and those media hacks who are not snoring report it all as news.
In the end, a few stalwart conservatives get a blow or for in for freedom, knowing that the whole thing is a charade and that no self-respecting conservative can make nice, no matter how high the nominee placed on his or LSAT for Harvard Law. Because being that liberal is un-American.
Yet every time—unless the nominee’s name happens to be Robert Bork or Harriet Myers, unless he or she is a Republican appointee—the nomination goes through without a hitch. And the American people are left holding the holding the bill. The bill being, assaults on gun ownership, the lives of the unborn, Imminent Domain and a slew of other rights Americans used to take for granted. The rights the latest justice will take away.
Ironically that happened just this week.
Sonya “La Raza todo” Sotomayor had no problem lying to this august body of elected deadbeats when asked if Americans have the Right to Bear Arms. She said yes. And this week she effectively pronounced herself perjurer with her dissenting opinion on that very issue.
Some questions: How will Elena Kagan rule on border security? How will she rule on property rights? How about further cases on handgun ownership? Would Barack Obama nominate anyone who will uphold citizen’s rights against government intrusion? How about Internet regulation?
A bigger question: Why do not Senate Republicans filibuster these nominations? What have they to lose by launching a filibuster, whether or not they can derail the appointment? The liberal media will rant about it day and night, suggesting they are racists or homophobes or just plain stupid, and virtually every man, woman and child in the country will know exactly who the President is placing on the Court.
Where is the downside in such an effort?
Well, the Republican leadership in Congress is afraid of repercussions. What if the Democrats do it to them later when their nominee is on the dock?
That kind of thinking is tantamount to not attacking an enemy because it might make him mad. Something Democrats are doing right now with the war in the Middle East.
Clarence Thomas demonstrated the conservative’s ability to fight in a clinch. Republicans in the Senate need to get a spine and fight Elena Kagan’s nomination tooth and nail.
Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans should be in the well of the Senate with bullhorns at the nomination of Elena Kagan. They should be shouting from the rooftops about this leftist who denied the U.S. military access to the Harvard Law campus. Every American should know what her appointment will cost them.