Friday, October 07, 2005


The conservatives that are bothered by apparent cronyism have noted that all conservatives would have protested loudly if Bill Clinton nominated his White House counsel. The question that should be posed is, if Bill Clinton nominated his White House counsel would liberals have protested? One cannot envision Bill Clinton saying of Susan Estrish or Eleanor Clift, "the lady doth protest too much."

Liberals, since they see power as an end unto itself, are scratching their heads over why conservatives are fretting about the qualifications of Harriet Miers

"Jurisprudence." "Qualifications." "Judicial philosophy." "Pedigree." "Credentials." "Experience." Those words and more have stunned liberals as they have seen the fight over Harriet Miers take place not between right and left but amongst rank and file conservatives. Liberals view power as an end unto itself in which it is more important to figure out what a potential supreme court nominee thinks than it is to figure out how they think. Conservatives have bandied about words like "qualifications" and "credentials" because not only do they care about the role the Supreme Court has in our lives but they are also true believers in the sort of judicial phphilosophy that extols originalism, textualism and respect for the U.S. Constitution.

The cleaving of the conservative bloc that had been reliably supportive of President Bush's judicial nominees is a result of a deep-seated caring for the future of the Supreme Court that supercedes loyalty to any president or political party. Conservatives wish to see a realignment of the Supreme Court not because they want Republican control of the highest court in the land but because they want to see a restoration of a healthy respect for the Constitution.

Before President Bush named Harriet Miers liberals were licking their chops, ready to pounce on whatever "ideologue" they could get their hands on and turn into chopped liver. They did not anticipate that conservatives would start another front in the Judicial Battle and seriously review a nominee's qualitative merits instead of reflexively backing Bush's choice.

The funny thing is that liberals never automatically critique a judicial appointment from their own side of the political aisle. In the "end game" of liberal politics the only thing that matters is, "will she vote to uphold Roe v. Wade and (insert any cause celebre case of the day)?" As long as the ideological bona fides of a nominee like a Breyer a Ginsburg or a Jane Doe is patently obvious then all intra-party introspection is considered an unnecessary waste of time. A liberal thinks 'who cares if Liberal Judge #1 has no judicial experience if she believes that Roe v. Wade is settled law?' Or, 'who cares if Liberal Judge #2 has been a blatant political partisan for our side, where's the harm in that?'

To liberal amazement Republican voters and conservative pundits have closely examined Harriet Miers background and credentials in a better manner than any of Charles Schumer's goon-like plumbers could ever hope to achieve. The issue of "cronyism" has also embarrassed and rankled Bush supporters. Conservatives have noted that if Bill Clinton nominated his White House counsel they would have protested loudly. The question that should be posed is, if Bill Clinton nominated his White House counsel would liberals have protested? One cannot envision Bill Clinton saying of Susan Estrish or Eleanor Clift, "the lady doth protest too much."

An illustrious and a diverse group of conservatives including George Will, Pat Buchanan, David Frum and William Kristol has come out and opposed Miers. Do these prominent conservatives oppose her because they think she'll ask Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden on how to decide Supreme Court cases? No, they oppose her because they feel that her resume is not as robust and solid as many other potential nominees.

Conservatives are aware that Bush knows Miers personally and in a very familiar manner. It is obvious that he is as comfortable with her as he is with Karl Rove and Karen Hughes. Like Rove and Hughes, President Bush brought Miers to the White House from Texas. In all likelihood, she will vote on cases in a way that most conservatives will find pleasing, satisfactory and desired. The crux of conservative angst is whether or not Miers will bring a judicial manner that bears considerable heft (yes, the dreaded "gravitas"). Those who are worried by Bush's choice of nominee want to be reassured that there will be a Supreme Court justice whose reasoned and thought-out jurisprudence will not only enable her to vote the way they want her to, but will do so with a healthy respect of the constitution so that written opinions, concurrences and even dissents can make them proud.

George Will: Can This Nomination Be Justified?
William Kristol: Disappointed, Depressed
and Demoralized - A reaction to the Harriet Miers nomination
Charles Krauthammer: Withdraw This Nominee
Ann Coulter: This is What 'Advice and Consent' Means
Pat Buchanan: Bush Recoils from Greatness

Martin Olasky: Wanted: An Originalist
James Dobson: Court Nominee is 'Deeply Committed Christian'
Jay Sekulow: 'Excellent Choice'

Slate: Gods vs. Geeks - GOP evangelicals fight intellectuals over Harriet Miers. By John Dickerson



By attacking Bennett, liberals are unknowingly undermining their own pro-choice arguments

Liberals and the national media were up in arms over words that William Bennett supposedly said regarding his views on abortion. Only in the bizarro world of Brian Williams, Bob Schiffer, et al could a vanguard of the pro-life movement, Bennett, be characterized as advocating millions of abortions on top of the millions of abortions this country already endures.

The reason why liberals and Democrats are "pro-choice" is because they believe that women "control" their own bodies and hence have the moral authority to determine whether a conceived child is worthy of continuing its journey to share the joys and tribulations of the world with the rest of us. Pro-choice apologists like to say that a woman's choice leaves us better off because a woman having an abortion is making such a gut-wrenching decision that the eventual decision to have an abortion is done for worthy reasons. What would some of those reasons be? Well, a woman could say "I can't afford a baby at this time" "(economic decision), "I don't want my child to grow up deprived and be in a gang or steal a car" (crime reduction decision). Usually, Democrats like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry applaud the decisions that these women make. Pro-life conservatives like William Bennett have been arguing the exact opposite for decades.

The pro-life position on abortion is that no matter how dire your economic situation, no matter how much you fear that your baby will grow up to be a criminal, there is no case to be made that an abortion is a morally justifiable action to prevent your fears from coming true.

While an array of the media and liberal politicians attacked Bennett for discussing different ways that abortion can have an effect on the economy (in regards to Social Security solvency brought up by a caller) and crime rates, they endorse those same positions on a daily basis.

Policies advanced by the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Jesse Jackson, Hillary Clinton and other pro-abortion politicians are practicing what they preach - along with a variety of other utilitarian reasons, they support the aborting of black babies for the purpose of a reducing crime.



A series of disturbing "black on white" bias attacks are ignored by local media and politicians right before the mayoral election - upset parents say its "open season on white, parochial-school children"

It is interesting to note how the media and politicians can be hypocritical when it comes to addressing and condemning bias crimes motivated by racism. The media loves a "good story" in which well-known civil rights "activists" are agitated enough to hold press conferences on the steps of City Hall and New York City is sent to a tizzy over race relations. New York's recent history can be marked by infamous racially tinged phenomena including Bernard Goetz (1984), Howard Beach (1986), Benshonhurst (1989), Crown Heights (1991) and Amadou Diallo (1999).

When a black 29 year old man, Glenn Moore, was set upon, in August, by a despicable group of white youths (even though the gang's leader was of mixed race) the story generated a lot of attention from the New York media. Prominent politicians including Mayor Bloomberg spoke about and condemned the attack. In fact, Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz and Brooklyn DA Charles Hynes visited Moore in the hospital. It turns out that Moore and 2 fellow conspirators were looking to steal a car, a Chrysler 300, for which they were paid $6,000 in advance.

However, a recent spate of hate crimes against white students in Brooklyn and other parts of the city have been largely ignored by the New York media and have not merited any attention by politicians. Even the mayoral candidates Fernando Ferrer and Mike Bloomberg have not condemned these sickening and sad attacks.

The reason why politicians talk about "racial harmony" and "understanding on both sides" but ignore white victims of hate crimes is because only certain hate crimes are considered politically viable. Newspapers like the New York Times are not going to worry if the world is coming to an end if white Catholic school girls are constantly under attack. The fact of the matter is that one crime does not reflect a city but liberal media over the last 25 years has done an amazing job of inflaming racial tensions by highlighting and distorting isolated cases while ignoring the great gains made in racial relations since the 1960s.

[NYP, Fri Sep 23]: "A group of black teens hurled racial insults and punches at two white high school students yesterday in Flatbush... The two victims, both 16 year old students at Bishop Kearney HS in Mill Basin were attacked by 10 to 12 girls who boarded the B9 bus at Avenue L and Flatbush Avenue at 3pm."

[NYP, Sat. Sep 24]: "A Staten Island girl may lose her sight in one eye after being viciously assaulted by five students in an apparent racial attack, cops said yesterday. The girl, Christina Kenny, is white. Her assailants - four girls and a boy - are black.
She said she was held down as another girl beat her with a bottle until it broke over her eye. "They kept kicking me and punching me saying, 'You're a white bitch, you think you're so pretty,' " Kenny said. She said the girls ripped out her hair and stepped on her ribs. The attackers fled after an adult intervened, but not before the boy allegedly kicked Kenny in the head and neck. Doctors say Kenny may have suffered a detached left retina and may lose sight in that eye.

[NYP, Tue. Oct 4]: Four middle-school students were arrested yesterday in what police described as a racially motivated robbery and attack - the latest in a spate of bias crimes that have inflamed a section of Brooklyn. The youths - two 11-year-olds, a 13-year-old and a 15-year-old — are all black. They allegedly followed a 12-year-old white youth several blocks after the school they all attend was dismissed on Friday.

The four called the victim a "cracker" before beating him and stealing his cellphone on Veterans Avenue in Mill Basin, police said. The boy was not hurt badly. He was able to identify his attackers when he returned to school yesterday. They were arrested and charged with robbery and aggravated harassment as a hate crime.

[NYP, Wed. Oct 5]: Parents of Catholic-school girls attacked in Brooklyn hate crimes said yesterday they're forming a group to combat what one mother described as "open season" on their children.

Group members say they want to encourage other families to report such crimes and make sure the city responds appropriately.

"It's like open season on white, parochial-school children," said spokeswoman Joanne Eisen, whose teenage daughter was the victim of a what police called a racially motivated beating in Marine Park in March.

"[The kids] don't know why they're being singled out."

Eisen said her group, which now totals six, is reaching out to parents of other kids who have been attacked.

"We'll support them as they go through this, too," she said, referring to court proceedings growing out of the cases.

Eisen and the parents of her daughter's friends were outraged when police first failed to file hate-crime charges against the young suspects, who allegedly called out "black power!" and "white crackers!" when they attacked six Catholic schoolgirls on a basketball court. Hate-crime charges, which carry more severe penalties, later were added.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?