“Oh thou whose feet have climbed life’s hill, and trod the path of youth,
thy Savior and thy brother still, Now lead us into truth.”
--The Hymnal of the Protestant Episcopal
Church in the United States of America 1940; Hymn #507
“They loved their Lord so dear, so dear, and His love made them strong;
and they followed the right for Jesus’ sake the whole of their good lives long.
And one was a soldier and one was a priest and one was slain by a fierce wild beast:
and there’s not any reason, no not the least, why I shouldn’t be one, too.”
--Ibid., Hymn #243
BLUF (Bottom-Line
Up-Front): The Democrats are ‘borking’ Judge Neil Gorsuch, the nominee for the Supreme Court. They are ‘dorking’ themselves in the process.
Historical backdrop. The filibuster announced by Senator Chuck Shumer (D-NY) and other gestures of palpable pettiness by aggrieved liberals in 2017 have a sobering similarity with the nomination of Judge Robert Bork for the Supreme Court in 1987. In both cases, the nominee was and is eminently qualified for accession to the highest court in the land. Unfortunately both bring baggage to their nominations. Judge Bork was the Justice Department official who fired Archibald Cox as the Special Watergate Prosecutor in 1973. Two other officials senior to Judge Bork refused to carry out the order of President Nixon to sack Mr Cox, preferring instead to resign.
By defenestrating the good Mr Cox, Mr Bork came off as either opportunistic or weak. Judge Gorsuch has baggage, too, by being nominated to the seat on the high court that rightfully should be warmed by Judge Merrick Garland. Judge Gorsuch is paying for the belligerent maneuvering of Senator McConnell and almost every other Republican in the Senate. Additionally, this nominee suffers for being wrongly equated with the President who nominated him. There are better ways to voice distaste for President Trump.
Housekeeping notes and legitimate reservations legitimately raised. This essay comes from an earlier Facebook post of mine. I have tightened the language up and changed my mind on certain Democrats whom I had harshly condemned. Before I go on, however, I must note that there remains a lingering doubt I have with one part of Judge Gorsuch's career. The argument that Judge Gorsuch is against the less powerful is baseless.
In this instance, the Democrats are mistaking the Judge's bringing defects within two laws to light (i.e., a decision with reference to a law for the education of disabled children and a dissent on an employment safety suit). Contrary to Judge Gorsuch exercising a judicial detachment crossing some threshold of humanity, I assert that he planted the seeds for future correction of poorly crafted legislation.
In this instance, the Democrats are mistaking the Judge's bringing defects within two laws to light (i.e., a decision with reference to a law for the education of disabled children and a dissent on an employment safety suit). Contrary to Judge Gorsuch exercising a judicial detachment crossing some threshold of humanity, I assert that he planted the seeds for future correction of poorly crafted legislation.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4662438
Nonetheless, there is ample ground for concern with his conduct in the Department of Justice (D.o.J.) from 2005 to 2006. At that time, Judge Gorsuch apparently defended grossly inadequate national security practices permitting torture within the Bush Administration. The concern for me is that this D.O.J. experience was the only one in a position of executive power.
That opens a possibility – one I deem unlikely – of a penchant toward ruthlessness that may re-emerge once he suits up for the Supreme Court with its definitive prerogative of judicial review. ln the context of four days of hearings, I prefer to view that D.o.J. service as a regrettable point in an otherwise exemplary career.
Nonetheless, there is ample ground for concern with his conduct in the Department of Justice (D.o.J.) from 2005 to 2006. At that time, Judge Gorsuch apparently defended grossly inadequate national security practices permitting torture within the Bush Administration. The concern for me is that this D.O.J. experience was the only one in a position of executive power.
That opens a possibility – one I deem unlikely – of a penchant toward ruthlessness that may re-emerge once he suits up for the Supreme Court with its definitive prerogative of judicial review. ln the context of four days of hearings, I prefer to view that D.o.J. service as a regrettable point in an otherwise exemplary career.
Thoughts
(okay, okay: a euphemism for my rant). Sorry, gang, I am fed up with the Democrats. It is a shame to see many of the Democratic Senators failing to follow the worthy example of some Democrats on the Judiciary Committee who have exercised professionalism in questioning Judge Gorsuch intently. Senators Diane Feinstein (D-CA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Chris Coons (D-DE) – even Senator Franken (D-MN) – are displaying the best qualities of a loyal opposition.
The ire expressed in this essay is directed at many others, principally outside the Senate. Sure the Democrats have reason to be angry about Judge Garland. This debate about Judge Gorsuch should be occurring a year from now, when Justice Kennedy, Breyer or Ginsberg retires. Judge Gorsuch himself has graciously and discreetly acknowledged as much by calling Judge Garland first thing after President Trump nominated him. So leave one of the finest minds in the Republic (i.e., Judge Gorsuch) alone.
Judge Garland should have been confirmed; no question. The Republicans did not want a third appointee by President Obama. Shabby? Yes? Unprecedented? No way. Let's look at the Democrats' track record here. W&L doppelganger, Dave Church, has pointed out that thwarting Judge Bork's nomination in 1987 by President Reagan was wrong. Hell, I was still a liberal back then and, at the time, I felt that hatchet-job was utterly unfair.
Not to be out-done, Senator Kennedy's office leaked sensitive information about
certain distasteful behaviors of Justice Clarence Thomas five years later in his hearing for accession to the Supreme Court. In
1992, I was a moderate Democrat, though feeling increasingly unwelcome for my
pro-life view. Other reasons (i.e., publicly hailing Oliver North as a patriot)
had already rendered Clarence Thomas unqualified in my mind. My conclusion was
firmly in place before a staff-infection of Senator Kennedy leaked the Anita
Hill story to the press.
At the time, I felt the discussion brought on by Anita Hill's testimony was beneficial to the country in examining how men and women should interact. Nevertheless, I felt even then that whoever leaked that information, already known and disposed of by the Judiciary Committee behind closed doors, should have been arrested and, perhaps, sentenced to a short prison-term. Was anyone held to account? No. So, I suspect many Republicans felt justified in thwarting a third appointment by President Obama because of past dirty tricks by the Democrats. That does not vindicate what the Republicans did; it merely explains it.
These days, I am a Republican. In addition to finding Senator McConnell’s actions repugnant, I have said many times that the G.O.P. would pay for that subterfuge of undercutting President Obama’s nomination. Yet two wrongs do not make a right, inferred or enumerated. Speaking of the silent slander of leaks, people sympathetic to the Democrats inside the intelligence community leaked information about General Flynn. Again, I did not like him at all.
General Flynn’s speech at the Republican convention was shrill and should have sent him to the proverbial showers. His lies and actions may end up sending him to the cold showers…in prison. Nevertheless, the way General Flynn was brought down was plain wrong. Somebody decided that (s)he was justified in violating law and protocol to effect the demise of a man whom I readily agree was unfit for being National Security Director. Even more than the half-wit staffer of twenty-five years before, that leaker should be arrested and sent to prison.
The only similar stunt by the Republicans I recall is the 'outing' of a desk officer at the C.I.A. To recall both sides of that shameful covert war, Valerie Plame and her cutesy-coiffed husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had conspired with senior C.I.A. officials to try to derail the policy of President Bush of invading Iraq. In retrospect, we might well have been better off had it worked. Again, Ms Plame and her husband might have been right but they were unjustified.
Like Messrs Richardson and Ruckelshaus a generation before, she and her boss at the C.I.A. should have resigned. Yet outing her was really nasty. Vice President DICK Cheney’s chief of staff, one Scooter Libby, was rightly arrested, tried, convicted and sent to prison for doing that. It is to President George W. Bush’s credit that he pushed back on pressure from Vice President Cheney to pardon Mr Libby in the closing days of the Bush Administration. By my reckoning, at least, and by taking the last thirty years into account, the Democrats appear to have pulled more scheiße than the G.O.P., especially when it comes to their style of advise-and-consent.
No comments:
Post a Comment