- The Washington Times - Tuesday, July 5, 2005

Bork’s analysis

“Democratic senators’ filibusters of the president’s previous judicial nominees demonstrate liberals determination to retain the [high] court as their political weapon,” former Judge Robert H. Bork writes in the Wall Street Journal.

“They claim that conservative critics of the court threaten the independence of the judiciary, as though independence is a warrant to abandon the Constitution for personal predilection. The court’s critics are not angry without cause; they have been provoked. The court has converted itself from a legal institution to a political one, and has made so many basic and unsettling changes in American government, life and culture that a counterattack was inevitable, and long overdue,” Mr. Bork said.

“If the critics’ rhetoric is sometimes overheated, it is less so than that of some Democratic senators and their interest-group allies. The leaders of the Democratic Party in the Senate are making it the party of moral anarchy, and they will fight to keep the court activist and liberal.”

The coming fight

“We conservatives didn’t pick this fight, but we must win it,” Mark R. Levin writes at National Review Online (www.nationalreview.com), referring to the opening on the U.S. Supreme Court.

“It began with the assault on Bob Bork, and too many sat passively while it happened. Meanwhile, President Clinton’s activist nominees, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, both sailed through the confirmation process. They weren’t smeared. Their video-rental records weren’t combed through. Their trash cans weren’t searched. Witnesses weren’t called to testify with phony stories about pubic hair on Coke cans. But now is the time to put an end to this,” said Mr. Levin, president of the Landmark Legal Foundation and author of “Men in Black.”

“Thanks to the Left and its insistence on judicial supremacy, the constitutional, economic, cultural, and political stakes are too high to ignore. No more stealth candidates like David Souter, or compromise candidates like Anthony Kennedy, or [politically correct] candidates like Sandra Day O’Connor in hopes of quieting the Left’s opposition. And if the president nominates originalists to this and any other upcoming Court openings, as he assured the public repeatedly he would do, his nominees deserve our complete and active support. And they will have it.”

The coming smear

“We don’t know who President George W. Bush will nominate to succeed Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. But this is certain: Democrats will smear the nominee,” syndicated columnist Dennis Prager writes.

“It will not matter how personally honorable, how intellectually honest, how legally profound this nominee is. Indeed, the greater the individual, the greater the personal attacks will be,” Mr. Prager said.


“There are three reasons.

“First, Democrats believe that conservatives by definition are bad people. As Howard Dean, the head of the Democratic National Committee recently said, ‘in contradistinction’ to Republicans, Democrats care if children go to bed hungry at night. In most Democrats’ minds, conservatives/Republicans do not care if children go to bed hungry, and they are racist, intolerant, regard women as inferior, are stingy and mean spirited, and prefer war to peace.

“The reason they see conservatives this way is that most people on the Left are certain that they mean well; therefore, their opponents do not mean well. Moreover, liberals tend to assess policy positions on that basis — are the motives good? — rather than on the basis of what actually does good. …

“A second reason Democrats and others on the Left use smear as a political weapon is to avoid challenging ideas and intellectual argument. Liberals have been able to do so in all the areas they dominate — academia, news media and unions. Instead, they have learned to rely on personal attacks, such as routinely labeling opponents ‘racist,’ ‘sexist,’ ‘homophobic’ and ‘intolerant.’

“Third, having been unable to persuade the American public to adopt most of its policies, the Left has increasingly relied on the courts to do what the political process will not do. As Democrat William A. Galston, former aide to President Bill Clinton, admitted this past weekend, ‘Beginning in the 1950s, the Democratic Party convinced itself that, especially on social issues, the principal vehicle of advance would be the court.’”

Bye-bye, centrism

“In retrospect, the day in September 1998 when two wealthy software developers in Berkeley, Calif., posted an online petition opposing the impeachment of Bill Clinton may stand as the day his vision for the Democratic Party began to be eclipsed,” Ronald Brownstein writes in National Journal.

“That petition from Wes Boyd and Joan Blades led to the formation of MoveOn.org, which has metamorphosed into the nation’s largest and most effective Internet advocacy group. And MoveOn, an unstintingly liberal voice, has become the cutting edge of an online revolution that is reshaping the Democratic Party amid the intense political polarization of George W. Bush‘s presidency,” Mr. Brownstein said.

“The rise of a mass Democratic Internet fundraising and activist base — a trend that includes not only the 3.1 million-member MoveOn, but the political organization founded by Howard Dean, the Internet contributors to the Democratic National Committee and the John Kerry presidential campaign, and the thousands of partisans venting daily on left-leaning Web logs like Daily Kos and MyDD.com — is beginning to shift the balance of power in the Democratic Party away from the ‘Third Way’ moderation that Clinton and his ‘New Democrat’ movement promoted.

“Centrist organizations such as the Democratic Leadership Council have produced nothing like the massive lists of activists and donors that liberals have assembled through the Internet. And that mass liberal base is pushing the party partly toward more-liberal positions, but even more so toward greater confrontation with Bush — and increasing pressure on Democrats who consider cooperating with him in any way.”

Honoring Reagan

The city council of Budapest has approved the placement of a monument to Ronald Reagan in a city park, Chris Field reports at www.HumanEventsOnline.com.

It is the first time a former Soviet-bloc elected government has voted to erect a monument in honor of the president for his role in ending the Cold War and freeing Eastern Europe from communist oppression.

Nepszabadsag, Hungary’s largest national newspaper (and the former Communist Party mouthpiece), reported that support for the monument crossed all party lines, a rarity in Hungarian politics.

Greg Pierce can be reached at 202/636-3285 or gpierce@washingtontimes.com.

Sign up for Daily Newsletters

Manage Newsletters

Copyright © 2021 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide