Credibility
My dear colleague(s) at crooksandliars.com opined that the right has lost all credibility on the issue of "Is the judicial confirmation process too nasty?" Just because we express legitimate opinions, rooted in fact, with concern to a nominee's qualifications and experience, does not mean we're borking. In fact, looking up "bork" in the wikipedia, one finds it lays out the distinction nicely. For those of you too lazy to click that link, I'll explain.
When the Democrats (and their nastiest accomplices) attacked Robert Bork, nominee for associate justice of the Supreme Court of the U.S. in 1987, they lied, slandered, libeled, and all that sort of thing, dragging through the mud the good name of a good man (who was extremely qualified to sit on the Supreme Court). All the accusations leveled at him were baseless, but they had to be done to prevent an excellent, conservative legal mind from joining the Supreme Court at the time. It worked, and Bork's nomination was defeated in the Senate. After a former pot-head was briefly considered, Anthony Kennedy wound up getting the job, a major victory for the American left. Since then "to bork" has been used as a verb meaning "to attempt to destroy a person's reputation through falsehood or unfounded rumour, especially to prevent that person from being confirmed as a justice in the American judicial system." It is well known that Clarence Thomas was borked when he was nominated to the Supreme Court, but the borking failed, and he was confirmed by a narrow margin. If one wishes to apply the term to cabinet appointments, one could easily demonstrate that Alberto Gonzales was borked when nominated to be Attorney General of the U.S. in 2004, as was John Bolton when he was nominated to the ambassadorship to the U.N., though both of these examples pale in comparison to the hatred evident when the Supreme Court is at stake.
Either way, questioning whether or not Harriet Miers has adequate experience to sit on the Supreme Court is nothing at all like accusing Clarence Thomas of sexual assault or accusing Robert Bork of trying to return the country to forced segregation. For one thing, what was said about Miers was true. For another, nobody (but nobody) on the right side of the fence said or implied that Miers was anything less than a wonderful person. The point was that she was a wonderful person who did not deserve to sit on the Supreme Court.
It is ironic that a left wing blogger would write about credibility.
SRS
When the Democrats (and their nastiest accomplices) attacked Robert Bork, nominee for associate justice of the Supreme Court of the U.S. in 1987, they lied, slandered, libeled, and all that sort of thing, dragging through the mud the good name of a good man (who was extremely qualified to sit on the Supreme Court). All the accusations leveled at him were baseless, but they had to be done to prevent an excellent, conservative legal mind from joining the Supreme Court at the time. It worked, and Bork's nomination was defeated in the Senate. After a former pot-head was briefly considered, Anthony Kennedy wound up getting the job, a major victory for the American left. Since then "to bork" has been used as a verb meaning "to attempt to destroy a person's reputation through falsehood or unfounded rumour, especially to prevent that person from being confirmed as a justice in the American judicial system." It is well known that Clarence Thomas was borked when he was nominated to the Supreme Court, but the borking failed, and he was confirmed by a narrow margin. If one wishes to apply the term to cabinet appointments, one could easily demonstrate that Alberto Gonzales was borked when nominated to be Attorney General of the U.S. in 2004, as was John Bolton when he was nominated to the ambassadorship to the U.N., though both of these examples pale in comparison to the hatred evident when the Supreme Court is at stake.
Either way, questioning whether or not Harriet Miers has adequate experience to sit on the Supreme Court is nothing at all like accusing Clarence Thomas of sexual assault or accusing Robert Bork of trying to return the country to forced segregation. For one thing, what was said about Miers was true. For another, nobody (but nobody) on the right side of the fence said or implied that Miers was anything less than a wonderful person. The point was that she was a wonderful person who did not deserve to sit on the Supreme Court.
It is ironic that a left wing blogger would write about credibility.
SRS
posted by weblogbob83 at 5:11 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home