Democrats on Monday forced a one-week delay on a vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, but the 55-year-old conservative was still expected to be confirmed by the full Republican-led Senate.
[...]
"The Democrats' decision to delay ... is unjustified and desperate partisan obstructionism," Frist said in a statement.
[...]
Bush has nominated Alito to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has often been the swing vote on the nine-member Supreme Court on abortion and other social issues. If confirmed, Alito could move the high court to the right.
I'm sorry, I don't see it. What possible purpose could this serve? Perhaps it mollifies your base by throwing up the last roadblock you have. After all, they didn't think you slung enough mud during the hearings. Perhaps it's a sop to Sen. Kennedy, who seems to be the only one still swimming against the tide (irony intended). But ultimately you just look a fool, and a stubborn one at that.
Come on. Sen. Feinstein admits that a filibuster won't fly, so this thing will come to a vote. The NY Times, head in hands, rues the "success" of the Alito confirmation hearings; the Washington Post endorses Alito; the LA Times finds him both the type of judge you'd expect from Pres. Bush and a judge that doesn't merit a filibuster (hat tips: Ed Morrissey).
Alito would not have been our choice to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the court. It is understandable that, unlike now-Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., he may not win many Democratic votes. Conversely, there are no legitimate grounds to entertain a filibuster of this nominee, or to be overly shocked that he is the sort of justice Bush would select.
There are a lot of battles that can be fought. The Democrats' fight has already occurred, however, and it's over. It's hard to imagine trying to continue a fight that has ended.
No comments:
Post a Comment