Ann Coulter says the Democratic Party has gone the way of the Whigs.
And she just may be right.
For the last twenty-eight months, Senate Democrats have prevented the nomination
of Miguel Estrada -- among others -- from coming to an up-down vote on the
Senate Floor. Despite the fact that he'd worked in Bill Clinton's Solicitor
General's Office, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and worked
as a high profile attorney in Washington for years, Democrats claimed that
they were baffled by him.
Was he in favor of sucking little babies down tubes? Did he have the radical
point of view that the Founders meant that the right of the people to keep
and bear arms shall not be infringed when they wrote that "the right of the
people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?" Does he think certain
people should get more points in the Admissions Office because hundreds of
years ago their ancestors may have been slaves? These were the serious questions
Democrats were wrestling with.
than announce that Estrada was just another right-wing kook, followed by
a prompt "no" on the confirmation roll-call, Democrats announced that he
was just another right-wing kook, but that they didn't feel like voting just
yet. When he dismissed his principles and vowed to forever vote the
way the ACLU told him to, they'd confirm him; until then, he'd best forget
it. They were so worried that a young, Hispanic, pro-lifer would end
up with power, that they ignored their duty as United States Senators.
By voting against the cloture motions on these nominees, Democrats have effectively
shown their colleagues in the Senate, and their constituents, that they have
no intention of considering anyone -- no matter how capable he may be --
for any position, as long as he holds different beliefs than they do.
That is fundamentally wrong, and certainly not what they were elected to
"Because the presidential election was so divisive and close," Senator Barbara
Boxer (D-CA) wrote in a letter I received recently, "the ultimate winner
had to know that, in order to heal our very divided nation, he would need
to select moderate nominees for important positions in his cabinet and the
federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court." That is sheer partisan
balderdash, and Babs knows it.
elected a Republican President, a Republican House, and a Republican Senate
-- our nation is certainly not "divided." Furthermore, even if we were
a "divided nation," as she claims, discriminating against conservative judicial
nominees surely wouldn't unite us. Secondly, it is highly curious that she
believes that "moderate" jurists somehow have a superior ability to interpret
law, than do jurists on the political right.
Not the political left, mind you, just the right.
The issue, in short, is not what Democrats are portraying it to be. If,
in their view, the nominees on which they have thus far failed to vote are
not qualified to sit on the benches for which they have been nominated, they
ought to vote against them. As United States Senators that's their
responsibility. The quality of these judges is not the issue.
It never has been, and it never will be. They don't care about quality.
The issue is their refusal to vote.
Z. Sterrett, a resident of Aptos, California, is a Lifetime Member of the
California Junior Scholarship Federation and a Sustaining Member of the Republican