Sunday, January 22, 2006

Peggy Noonan On The Alito Hearings ... And More

Peggy Noonan takes the Senate Judiciary Democrats' measure and finds them wanting:
I don't think Democrats understand that the Alito hearings were, for them, not a defeat but an actual disaster. The snarly tone the senators took with a man most Americans could look at and think, "He's like me," and the charges they made--You oppose women and minorities, you only like corporations and not the little guy--went nowhere. Once those charges would have taken flight, would have launched, found their target and knocked down any incoming Republican. Not any more. It's over.

Eleven years ago the Democrats lost control of Congress. Then they lost the presidency. But just as important, maybe more enduringly important, they lost their monopoly on the means of information in America. They lost control of the pipeline. Or rather there are now many pipelines, and many ways to use the information they carry. The other day, Dana Milbank, an important reporter for the Washington Post, the most important newspaper in the capital, wrote a piece deriding Judge Alito. Once such a piece would have been important. Men in the White House would have fretted over its implications. But within hours of filing, Mr. Milbank found his thinking analyzed and dismissed on the Internet; National Review Online called him a "policy bimbo."

Could Democratic senators today torture Clarence Thomas with tales of Coke cans and porn films? Not likely. Could Ted Kennedy have gotten away with his "Robert Bork's America" speech unanswered? No.
Peggy also offers some advice on leadership to the Republicans:
But where does this leave us? With our mass media busy with reluctant reformation . . . with the old network monopoly over and done . . . with something new, we know not what, about to take its place . . . with the Democratic Party adjusting to the loss of its megaphone . . . Where does that leave us? I think it leaves us knowing that, more than ever, the Republican Party -- the party ultimately helped by the end of the old monopoly and the reformation of news media -- must be a good party, a decent one, and help our country.

That it regain a sense of its historic mission. That it stop seeming the friend of the wired and return to being the great friend of Main Street, for Main Street still, in its own way, exists. That it return to basic principles on spending, regulation and state authority. That it question a foreign policy that often seems at once dreamy and aggressive, and question, too, an overreaching on immigration policy that seems composed in equal parts of naiveté and cynicism. That its representatives admit that lunching with lobbyists is not the problem; failing to oppose the growth of government--so huge that no one, really no one, knows what is in its budget--is. That they reduce the size and power of government. That they help our country.

3 Comments:

At 1/22/2006 11:56 PM, Blogger Fidei Defensor said...

As for the next court vaccancy I have one word... BORK.

I'd have to go to Washington myself and try to catch a glimpse of Ted Kennedy's furry.

 
At 1/23/2006 12:50 AM, Blogger Pro Ecclesia said...

Bork won't be necessary - I believe that Bush's next nominee (if he gets the opportunity) will likely be Edith Jones, chief judge of the 5th Circuit.

Because she's a very conservative woman, Teddy will call her "Bork in a skirt" and his fury will be on full display.

 
At 1/23/2006 9:47 AM, Blogger Sir Galen of Bristol said...

Gee invasion14, no agenda there, is there?

Machine Guns are not needed by anyone that lives as a civilian anywhere in the United States of America. That is the end of that discussion on machine guns.

Of course that's not the end of the discussion. Define "need". And then tell me who gets to regulate "need". The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting, it's about deterring governmental despotism. If the 2nd Amendment protects the right of individuals, then the only Constitutional way to ban private ownership of machine guns would be to amend the 2nd Amendment. Anything else would be an unconstitutional infringement on the constitutionally-protected rights of individuals. Do you advocate such an amendment? I've never heard anyone who does.

And why does it look as if Judge Alito always seems to favor those in power over those who need the law to protect them. Because you have a skewed worldview and you've been taking selective new reporting as comprehensive. There are many cases in which Judge Alito, on the Appellate bench, has sided with those who have no power. I would include in that every case in which he seemed to prefer not killing helpless innocent babies at their mothers' whim.

The hallmark of Judge Alito's tenure as a judge has been his respect for the Legislative branch; he didn't make up from whole cloth a requirement that husbands be notified when their wives are aborting their (the husbands') children -- that was passed by a state legislature and signed by an elected governor. Alito has respect for that process.

Unfortunately, liberals have neither faith in, nor respect for, the legislative process, which is why the judiciary has become the Supreme branch of American government. A most un-democratic result, but ardently desired by most liberals and Democrats.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

hit counter for blogger