« Enough is enough | Main | Soldier Ride 2005- Please Donate »


The Liberal version of Pickett's charge

Well the sniping about the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court has begun and, to use a Civil War analogy, the President can see his opponents rolling the media artillery up to the ridge and readying them to fire - on the appointed day, at the appointed hour - as a prelude to an all out attack. As the leader at the forefront of the liberal attack, General Charles Schumer would do well to read up on the "high water mark" of the career of one George Pickett. I do believe we are seeing a slow motion recreation of those events.

Boom!

But now Roberts has been selected for the very Supreme Court that put Bush into office by settling the recount, chosen by the president to replace the swing vote in that 5-4 decision. And his work in Florida during that time is coming into focus, giving critics some ammunition to paint a respected jurist with an apparently unblemished legal career as an ideological partisan.
That, my friends is merely a spotting round, meant to signal other media artillery pieces where to fire. That's right, they mean to fire at sunny Florida! The idiocy of such an attack does indeed rival that of Lee, Longstreet, and Pickett. And how many times do I need to ask this: Why is there a need to preserve balance [read "swing vote"] on a court that is supposed to be unbiased? The answer is of course, that the Court - with Justices like Stevens and Ginsberg - isn't unbiased, and that's just the way the liberals want it. They want the court to force the law (and thereby society) to establish, and at the same time reinforce, their own ideology - an ideology they just cannot seem to convince the American electorate to vote for.

Boom!

Critics, though, were quick to say that Roberts' role in the 2000 election, however minor, suggested that he was not merely the bookish legal scholar described by his supporters.

"What's interesting is that only now is it coming to the fore that John Roberts was part of that," said Ralph G. Neas, president of the liberal group People for the American Way. "He always created an impression of being above the political fray, being part of the Washington legal establishment, but not of partisan politics."

Neas said Roberts' involvement in the recount was not necessarily a reason for senators to oppose his nomination, because many well-known legal scholars on both sides were called into service during the Bush-Gore fight.

And Roberts had only a bit part, compared with higher-profile players such as Florida's then-Secretary of State Katherine Harris, who was subsequently elected to Congress, and Gov. Bush, the Republican presidential candidate's younger brother.

But, Neas added, coupled with Roberts' past work in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, the recount could become a factor.

"This is a legitimate area of inquiry: How partisan is he?" Neas asked.

They're zeroing in their sights, but through the fog of war and above the report of the artillery, I could swear I just heard Major Neas say "The only good Yankee is a dead Yankee! We've got them right where they want us. Lead on General Schumer!"

Comments

If it weren't for the fact that we talked about your post at lunch, I'd swear you got the idea from John Fund.

If it weren't for my e-mailing him the link from the LA Times, I swear he'd gotten that article from Yahoo!

Sponsored Ads



Google ads are not endorsed by nor are they an endorsement of the contents of The Black Republican

vg_180x150.gif