Saturday, July 23, 2005

John Kerry Misses The Irony

"We cannot do our duty if either Judge Roberts or the Bush administration hides elements of his professional record," said Massachusetts Senator John Kerry yesterday, firing a shot at the President's Supreme Court nominee.

Really now?

Of course, it might have "helped" if we had known Senator Kerry's complete and unedited military service history last year, as the version we received in the spring was pretty clearly the beneficiary of expungement of some form. But he refused to sign off on the form to release all of his records, despite promising to do so. He was for it before he was against it, it seems.

But aside of Kerry's glaring double-standard chuckler, the Dems are seeking documents which may be protected by the attorney-client privilege. Administrations have a right to the advice of counsel, and same is not waived when their counsel is appointed to a judgeship. No, not even when it's a perpetually discontent bunch of Senate Democrats requesting the privileged documents. I don't care what's in them, but the Democrats' witch hunt needs to have its boundaries.

Also, it came to my attention through the linked article that Judge Roberts had some involvement in the Florida 2000 recount, and the Democrats want to know about it. Which says zilch about his qualifications, but makes a few matters quite clear. The Dems are still furious about Florida 2000, and that anyone who participated in the crime of "stopping the voting," "disenfranchising minorities," "preventing 'every vote' from being counted," etc. (i.e. preventing them from stealing a close election) is unfit the bench. Meaning that their goal of pulling the steal was thwarted, causing the ultimate indignity--the election of George W. Bush. Of course, that raises an interesting aside question...if Laurence Tribe or David Boies were nominated by a President Gore or a President Kerry, would the Democrats find them acceptable despite their own efforts to permit unequal standards in vote counting or the pernicious exclusion of military ballots which while secured contained no postmark? Just wondering.

But this raises a greater point. I had thought that as a result of Schumer & Leahy's rather muted reaction to Roberts' nomination that they had essentially decided to save the fight for another day. Katie Couric and Matt Lauer could only get Ted Kennedy in to talk down the nomination on the morning after. But in order to keep the caucus together to make a future attack on a future nominee look legitimate, one would have to lock the nuts in the basement until the whole event was over, and then proclaim their own magnanimity. But Senator Mensa-Boxer was loose, making predictable comments about abortion and other reproductive and gender issues. Ted Kennedy is unrestrained. Now John Kerry. I think they cannot help themselves, and I am fairly certain that they cannot keep their special interest laden constituency happy without a socially unacceptable and embarrassing show trial that will turn off voters.

Self control is not one of their strong suits. The goal may indeed have been to let this battle go. But between their inability to control the morons in their caucus and their record of uncollegial behavior over the past five years, I cannot imagine that these juvenile people will allow any opportunity for another self-inflicted humility lesson to pass.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home