John, where the heck is Cambodia anyway, Kerry has made a strong Constitutional argument against the Senate confirming Sam Alito. The dower one intoned from Switzerland, "We can't afford to see the court's swing vote, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, replaced with a far-right ideologue like Samuel Alito." Hmm, I did a word search on Article III of the Constitution. The words swing and vote are no where to be found separately, let alone in conjunction with each other, neither are the terms black supreme court justice, conservative, liberal or mainstream.
The president appoints the Supreme Court judges, because he won a nationwide election. The Senate confirms them because, I suppose, the founders thought it to be something that would do no harm and make the Senate feel important – sort of like letting your little one open the junk mail. Well little did the founders know that the current crop of Senate bloviators would be using extra Constitutional standards by which to judge the judge - mainstream, swing vote, ultra-conservative, far-right ideologue etc.
Hey, I’m a far right ideologue. If Alito were a far-right ideologue, he would not have sat quietly and listened to half the crap senators were saying about him. He’d have blasted the worthless little pinheads with both barrels and wound up in contempt of Congress – given the low character of those serving that body – a difficult but honorable distinction for Alito to have earned.
But alas, Alito, ever the mainstream upright descent man that he is, just sat there like Gulliver and took the verbal abuse from the Lilliputians trying to tie him down. Hopefully Senate Majority leader Bill Frist will force a vote on Alito by Tuesday next week.
No comments:
Post a Comment