|
|
"A comprehensive, collaborative elections resource."
|
Keeping the goalposts firmly in place
|
|---|
| Parent(s) |
Race
|
| Contributor | ArmyDem |
| Last Edited | ArmyDem Oct 31, 2005 03:01pm |
| Logged |
0
|
| Category | Blog Entry |
| News Date | Monday, October 31, 2005 08:00:00 PM UTC0:0 |
| Description | Posted 1:43 pm | Printer Friendly
With Bush nominating Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court this morning, I have to assume it's only a matter of hours before conservatives start trying to the move the goalposts they helped reposition over the last two weeks. Before it gets out of hand, let's remember where the newly-adopted standards for the confirmation process begin.
Or, put another way, let's consider a list of "Talking Points Republicans Shouldn't Be Able To Use While Defending Alito."
1. Like every nominee, Alito deserves an up-or-down vote. This was always on weak ground — Republicans have backed judicial filibusters in the past — but with the Harriet Miers nomination still on our minds, the talking point is completely shot.
2. Ideology is not a legitimate disqualifier. Particularly in Bush's first term, this was a popular one. Republicans said Dems couldn't just oppose a nominee because he or she happened to be conservative; that's applying an ideological litmus test. After the right vetoed Miers because of questions about her ideology, this one has to come off the list as well. As Cass Sunstein, a constitutional law expert at the University of Chicago, put it, "A lot of Republicans have put ideology on the table now by saying Harriet Miers wasn't a true conservative and by objecting that she wasn't clearly opposed to Roe v. Wade."
3. Religious beliefs are off-limits. The right believed questions about religion were offensive when it came to John Roberts and appropriate when it came to Harriet Miers. What'll be the standard this time?
4. Documents pertaining to administration work are off limits. Alito's rulings as a judge will provide ample evidence of his philosophy, but he did work for the Justice Department in the Reagan administration.
[Continued...] |
| Share |
|
|
2¢
|
|
| Article | Read Full Article |
|
| Date |
Category |
Headline |
Article |
Contributor |
|
|
