The Dems like a pre-emptive strike for their campaigns it seems; at least, that is, when it comes to public appearances.
There have been plenty of instances in the past few weeks where one could point out this trend. Asking Judge Roberts how he would rule on any case regarding a certain subject, as if a judge should know without context what his ruling will always be. They are already gearing up with the same sort of questions for Miers because her personal opinions, supposedly, shed light on whether or not she can sit objectively on the bench. Cases concerning Rove V Wade haven't even come up yet, and the Lefties are already gearing up for war as if "women's rights" are about to be stripped in broad daylight from our system.
Here's the latest--not as sexy as, say, the nominations for the S.C., but yet another example of the pre-emptive politics is this nice little article. The (dis)honorable Sen Barbara Boxer questioning Condi on when we'll get to come home from Iraq. Apparently the last hundred times weren't enough...we'll pre-emptively ask if we any estimation on when the operation will be concluded, even though the mission isn't done and we all know its not done. Its the same as asking a judge to rule on a case that hasn't been filed yet...you just don't do it. Its not merely foolish...its irresponsible. Unlike politicians, who are used to tell everyone specifically what they'll "accomplish" during their time in power, neither the military nor the Justice system works like that.
Its a case by case basis, which doesn't really gel well with the careers of politicians who prefer to make specific promises (which they generally don't keep). Can you picture it?
"Ah yes, Senator, yes; we can tell now, today, this very instant, what it will take and how much longer we can expect to endure before the fight is over for freedom in a country that doesn't understand the principle."
They call Iraq a mistake, the new Vietnam, etc...all the while doing everything they can to ensure that they are self-fulfilling prophets. They ask these questions and then release soundbytes of the discontent they insist is overwhelming the comman man.
Well, this comman man is tired of it. Stop asking stupid questions and then accusing others of idiocy. Start asking important questions, if you still know how too, and then maybe you'll actually matter in the grand scheme of our nation's policies.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
You do know they're trying to flush out an answer that the nominee might have her mind made up already, right? They're not asking for a promise that she will always rule for Roe, but rather trying to get her to admit that she would always rule against it, which would be both unjust and irresponsible for a nominee to the bench to claim.
Of course, they're assuming that she'll admit it if she would. :)
Eh. They've been trying to know what the judge will decide before the case comes. Its how our nations works presently--there are no longer three seperately equal branches of gov't--there are three branches which are generally out of whack, with the judicical working far and away beyond its intended scope of power. So when we make a new judge, its not enough to say "I'll rule through proper interpretation of the Constitution"--nobody's interested in that! The black box is open for judicial power--what people want to know is what you'll rule regardless of the law.
Nobody'll say it, but its the truth. Well, I've said it.
Post a Comment