Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Top Story-Snippets with Uber-Commentary

From Knight Ridder Newspapers-

"Alito, 55, a 15-year federal appeals-court judge whose views on abortion have angered liberal groups, could drive a handful of moderate Senate Republicans into an alliance with Democrats."

I notice creative use of the word "could" while failing to mention even one of these "moderate Senate Republicans" by name. Also, if the ability to uphold the law really meant one needed to agree with every single one of today's laws then not one of the "progressive" minded individuals that the left adores would ever be, nor would they have ever been, confirmed. It really makes no sense that Alito should be required to personally support abortion in order to pass muster, even with liberals. While I'm certainly no expert, it would seem to me that requiring a Supreme Court Justice to completely agree with the status quo before allowing confirmation futher rips the citizens' constitutional right to peaceably petition for a redress of grievances to shreds due to judicial tyranny/legislating from the bench.

"While his solid judicial credentials and intellectual heft make him a formidable nominee,"

Now we're getting to the heart of the matter...

"he could face a Senate filibuster fight even though most senators would prefer to avoid one."

Were the words could and would to exchange places, that statement would be way closer to the actual truth.

"While his solid judicial credentials and intellectual heft make him a formidable nominee, he would face a Senate filibuster fight even though most senators could prefer to avoid one." There, that's more like it.

"Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record) of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee and one of 22 Democrats who voted to confirm Chief Justice John G. Roberts, called Alito a "needlessly provocative nomination."

What the hell does needlessly provocative really mean? Needlessly conservative, perhaps? In any case, since Democrats do not speak for us or our ideals, Republicans do (and that's why we vote for them) I'd have to say that we're much better judges of what is and isn't "needlessly provocative". Provocative is good. Not only do I want provocative, I need provocative. We deserve provocative people!

"Liberal activists went further."

Big shock there.

"Bush "has chosen to divide Americans with a nominee guaranteed to cause a bitter fight," said Ralph Neas, the president of People for the American Way, a liberal group that's been at the center of previous judicial-nomination struggles. Neas vowed to wage a national campaign against Alito for what Neas called his "record of ideological activism against privacy rights, civil rights, workers' rights and more."

Blah blah, yadda yadda.

Conservative senators rejoiced at Alito's selection.


"I believe Judge Alito has every quality necessary to be a great Supreme Court justice," said Sen. Jeff Sessions (news, bio, voting record), R-Ala., who's also a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Conservative activists did too."


"We are extremely pleased," said James C. Dobson, the chairman of Focus on the Family, an influential lobby for social-conservative causes. Dobson said any nominee that upset People for the American Way as much as Alito did "is worthy of serious consideration. ... We applaud the president for this outstanding nomination."

Wow, the left's behavior makes even good-hearted Christians want to see them cry. They should really take their own advice and reflect on what they've done to cause so many to react in this manner towards them and what it is about them that inspires such emotion. I mean, are these not many of the same people who suggested Americans examine their own guilt in the terrorist attacks on 9-11?

These people make me sick! It's a good thing we've a provocative Supreme Court Justice nominee to consider and a tune in our hearts.

No comments: