There is no redeeming value in today’s execrable NYT editorial “The Brawl over Judges.” The NYT crew seems to believe that if they use enough scare words, they won’t have to actually prove a point. Thus today’s editorial slithers from “controversial” to “unworthy” to “extremely conservative” and the ever-popular “right-wing.” Of course, both filibuster victims (Miguel Estrada & Priscilla Owen) have received a “well-qualified” rating from the American Bar Association, but that adjective never finds its way into the Times’ peevish diatribe. And I particularly liked this little sneer: “And Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, has scheduled a hearing for tomorrow to question the use of filibusters in judicial nominations.”
Why do I get the feeling that the phrase “Texas Republican” evokes the same response from the NYT editorial board as those guys who find out their salsa is from “New York City!!!”
Well, what’s to be done?
At the heart of this dispute is a simple reality. The administration is intent on packing the courts with right-wing judges, but Democrats have the power to block them. The answer is not to try to twist the rules or demonize Democrats. It is for the White House to consult with the Senate and agree on nominees that senators from both parties can in good conscience confirm. [Emphasis added]The only rule-twisting going on here is by the Democrats who have decided that the Constitution now requires that a judicial nominee receive a 60-vote majority for confirmation. A fair-minded paper would understand – or at least recognize – that glaring fact.
Extra: Here's Jonathan Adler's take on the NYT editorial from The Corner.
No comments:
Post a Comment