Monday, July 30, 2007

Comments from Gary

“Ideology Matters”
Senate liberals, led by New York’s Charles Schumer, are throwing down the gauntlet on judicial nominations. In a speech Friday to the American Constitution Society, Senator Schumer said that confirmation hearings had become “meaningless” and stated that the confirmation of Samuel Alito was, “Without question, my greatest regret in the 109th Congress.” Then Schumer declared, “…for the rest of this president’s term and if there is another Republican elected … let me say this: We should reverse the presumption of confirmation.”

That is a shocking challenge to the constitutional authority of the president to make judicial nominations, but at least Schumer is honest about his motivations. He went on to say, “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” Why not? Because, according to Senator Schumer, “Ideology matters,” and “The burden always lies with the nominee to show that he or she is within the mainstream.” Of course, Senator Schumer gets to define what is “mainstream” and what is not.

My friends, the liberals fully understand the role the federal judiciary has assumed in recent decades, and they are prepared to do whatever it takes to preserve this bastion of raw political power. With the Supreme Court acting as an unelected, super-legislative tribunal that answers to no one, our courts have become active participants in the cultural war, a strategic ally of the Left, helping to advance and legitimize a radical agenda that could not pass any legislature. Our elected representatives did not vote to ban God from our public schools nor did they create a right to abortion-on-demand or vote to redefine the meaning of marriage. And yet for taking the slightest step back – finding that Congress can in fact prohibit a gruesome procedure that a fellow New York Democrat once decried as “infanticide” – Senator Schumer feels the Supreme Court is “dangerously out of balance.” What is “out of balance” is the view that judges are little more than political hacks who must pass a liberal ideological litmus test.



Liberal Intolerance

The “tyrants of tolerance” are at it again. This time, MoveOn.Org and the liberal blog DailyKos.com have lined up thousands of people across the country to monitor Fox News in order to create lists of businesses and companies that run cable commercials on the Fox News Channel. Their goal is to pressure advertisers into canceling their contracts with the network, thereby depriving it of advertising revenue. For example, Home Depot has been targeted by the Sierra Club for advertising on Fox because the network has attempted to provide “fair and balanced” coverage of the global warming debate. Home Depot sells “environmentally friendly products” and the Sierra Club doesn’t believe it should be advertising on an “environmentally hostile” network. But there is nothing “fair and balanced” about the radical Left, my friends. It has tried to gag communications from grassroots groups, like American Values, under the guise of “lobbying reform.” Not content with its domination of the network news, most cable outfits and the print media, the Left is trying to gag Rush Limbaugh and conservative talk radio with the so-called “Fairness Doctrine.” Now the Left wants to shut down Fox News. And I thought being “liberal” and “progressive” meant being tolerant of other points of view!



Speaking Of “Fair And Balanced” Debate
How many times have you heard Al Gore insist that a “consensus exists among the scientific community” about global warming? Yet it is highly debatable, as are Gore’s solutions to the “crisis.” Wherever you stand on that issue, debate is good. But, increasingly, the Left is using the idea that a “consensus” exists on important issues, ranging from global warming to stem cell research, in order to bludgeon skeptics, sway public opinion and shut down debate. It’s a savvy strategy, but it is also a dishonest ploy, especially when discussing issues where we need more debate, not less.

No comments: