Filibustering and the "Mainstream"
My dad left me a message asking whether I was going to blog on the Democrats' use of the filibuster against President Bush's nominees for the federal Courts of Appeal. There would, of course, be so much to say. That they are unprecedented -- no minority party has ever used the filibuster to prevent a judicial nominee from coming to a vote where the majority party had the votes to confirm (Abe Fortas, the only judicial nominee ever filibustered, was opposed by a bipartisan majority of senators, and would not have been confirmed). On this point, it is worth noting that Republicans not only didn't filibuster someone like Ruth Bader Ginsberg, but most voted to confirm her. It is also worth noting that Democrats, despite the fact that they vigorously (to say the least -- to say the most, dishonestly and corruptly) opposed Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas, did not presume in either case to filibuster them, because it simply wasn't done. Which leads me to a second point -- that filibustering judges is not a "time-honored Senate tradition," as the Democrats demogogically argue. The mainstream media should use the word "lie" every time the Democrats say this, or try to blur the issue by lumping in this use of filibusters with using the tactic to delay passage of legislation. (Filibustering as a part of the legislative process in my view is fine, because the legislative process is the exclusive province of Congress. Filibustering judicial nominations -- or foreign policy nominations like John Bolton's -- is wrong, because nominations in these areas are the exclusive province of the President.) But I won't hold my breath waiting for the MSM to bring clarity to these distinctions.
The one thing that jumps out at me, however, is the media's permitting the Democrats to label President Bush's nominees "extremist" or "out-of-the-mainstream." I may be confused or naive, but it seems to me that in an open society with a free press and universal suffrage there is a pretty easy way to figure out what the mainstream is. It's called "elections." President Bush was elected by a majority of Americans to be President, and many of those who elected him did so, at least in part, because they wanted him to nominate federal judges who were conservative and who would interpret and apply the law as written, not make new law. He made his position quite clear in the campaign. He won. Similarly, many members of the current Senate were elected specifically on platforms pledging to confirm conservative judges. (Many former Democratic senators, by contrast, were defeated because of their views on judges, including the former Minority Leader, Tom Daschle.) A majority of senators thinks President Bush's nominees are just fine. By definition, then, in a democracy they are "mainstream."
But the point is made even easier by simply noting that many state court judges -- Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen, for instance -- are themselves elected. If Justice Brown was elected by 74% of the voters in California, a very liberal state, how exactly is she out of the mainstream? If Priscilla Owen was elected by 85% of the voters in Texas (obviously including many Democrats), how is that out of the mainstream? Is there some other definition of what the mainstream is that makes any logical sense? Is there some better evidence of what the mainstream is than the actual votes of actual Americans in two of the country's biggest states?
No, the reality is that the Democrats' use of "out-of-the-mainstream" is simply rhetoric. They can't say what they really mean, because it would be too offensive. What they really mean is something like this... yes, we know the majority of Americans voted for President Bush and elected a Senate that has a strong Republican majority, and yes, we know that the majority of Americans favor things like parental notification prior to a minor having an abortion, and that a majority of Americans favor things like having the Ten Commandments in schools, or saying the Pledge of Allegiance, and yes, we know that strong majorities in every state in which it has been put to a vote oppose gay marriage, yes, yes, we know all that. But we think the majority is stupid and wrong. We think we are smarter than the "mainstream." So we are going to use every trick in the book to try to block what the "mainstream" wants to do.
That's what the Democrats -- at least Democratic activists -- really think. The fact that the media lets them get away with positions that are so illogical merely shows that the mainstream media hold the same views of the mainstream and are, in fact, Democrats and activists themselves.
Dad, there you go.
Happy Memorial Day, everyone!
***
UPDATE: Anthony McCarthy is making a similar point about the "mainstream" in NRO today, a few days after I noticed the same thing.
The one thing that jumps out at me, however, is the media's permitting the Democrats to label President Bush's nominees "extremist" or "out-of-the-mainstream." I may be confused or naive, but it seems to me that in an open society with a free press and universal suffrage there is a pretty easy way to figure out what the mainstream is. It's called "elections." President Bush was elected by a majority of Americans to be President, and many of those who elected him did so, at least in part, because they wanted him to nominate federal judges who were conservative and who would interpret and apply the law as written, not make new law. He made his position quite clear in the campaign. He won. Similarly, many members of the current Senate were elected specifically on platforms pledging to confirm conservative judges. (Many former Democratic senators, by contrast, were defeated because of their views on judges, including the former Minority Leader, Tom Daschle.) A majority of senators thinks President Bush's nominees are just fine. By definition, then, in a democracy they are "mainstream."
But the point is made even easier by simply noting that many state court judges -- Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen, for instance -- are themselves elected. If Justice Brown was elected by 74% of the voters in California, a very liberal state, how exactly is she out of the mainstream? If Priscilla Owen was elected by 85% of the voters in Texas (obviously including many Democrats), how is that out of the mainstream? Is there some other definition of what the mainstream is that makes any logical sense? Is there some better evidence of what the mainstream is than the actual votes of actual Americans in two of the country's biggest states?
No, the reality is that the Democrats' use of "out-of-the-mainstream" is simply rhetoric. They can't say what they really mean, because it would be too offensive. What they really mean is something like this... yes, we know the majority of Americans voted for President Bush and elected a Senate that has a strong Republican majority, and yes, we know that the majority of Americans favor things like parental notification prior to a minor having an abortion, and that a majority of Americans favor things like having the Ten Commandments in schools, or saying the Pledge of Allegiance, and yes, we know that strong majorities in every state in which it has been put to a vote oppose gay marriage, yes, yes, we know all that. But we think the majority is stupid and wrong. We think we are smarter than the "mainstream." So we are going to use every trick in the book to try to block what the "mainstream" wants to do.
That's what the Democrats -- at least Democratic activists -- really think. The fact that the media lets them get away with positions that are so illogical merely shows that the mainstream media hold the same views of the mainstream and are, in fact, Democrats and activists themselves.
Dad, there you go.
Happy Memorial Day, everyone!
***
UPDATE: Anthony McCarthy is making a similar point about the "mainstream" in NRO today, a few days after I noticed the same thing.
posted by PDB at 6:46 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home