Thursday, May 19, 2005

Extremists We Can Deal With

E.D. Hill of Fox & Friends is not someone whom I would like to have on the other side of the table. She's just too smart and she has this penchance for only asking hardballs. This morning was no exception.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) was on to describe his effort, joined by approximately 12 other senators, to resolve the filibuster stalemate. After allowing him the requisite opportunity to strain his arm by patting himself on the back, E.D. asked an appropriate question. While I don't have it verbatim, she asked why Democratic senators would want to compromise on any of the nominees at issue because the Democrats had smeared all of them as extremists, racists, bigots, conservative activists and persons under the control of the Vatican or the Southern Baptist Convention. Who would want people like that on any bench? I thought it was a perfect question.

So did Reid. He couldn't formulate an answer that directly addressed the question.

Because it drove directly at the heart of the Democrats' emphatic claims that these nominees are extremists. If these judicial nominees are indeed as extreme as the sulfuric rhetoric would have us believe, the Dems have a duty never to compromise on a single one of them. But the fact that compromise seems even somewhat possible topples this house of cards. Either the Senate Democrats have no convictions despite their orations to the contrary, or they set out to slime a bunch of good people in order to keep benches stocked with leftist activist judges.

And so the veneer of a legitimate opposition vanishes like so much dust floating through the air. It boils down to a desire for unchecked power in the judiciary so that the Democrats can get an unpopular agenda established through judge-made law. It's unconstitutional. And frankly, I find that pretty extreme.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home