What’s this? A call for some rational consistancy? The Chief is amazed here!
THE SENATE’S decision concerning the confirmation of Samuel A. Alito Jr. is harder than the case last year of now-Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. Judge Alito’s record raises concerns across a range of areas. His replacement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor could alter — for the worse, from our point of view — the Supreme Court’s delicate balance in important areas of constitutional law. He would not have been our pick for the high court. Yet Judge Alito should be confirmed, both because of his positive qualities as an appellate judge and because of the dangerous precedent his rejection would set.
Hmmmm. The precedent bit…recognition that continued scorched-earth politics could well come back to burn a hypothetical future Donk president.
…he is undeniably a conservative whose presence on the Supreme Court is likely to produce more conservative results than we would like to see.
Which is, of course, just what President Bush promised concerning his judicial appointments. A Supreme Court nomination isn’t a forum to refight a presidential election. The president’s choice is due deference — the same deference that Democratic senators would expect a Republican Senate to accord the well-qualified nominee of a Democratic president.
And in conclusion:
While we harbor some anxiety about the direction he may push the court, we would be more alarmed at the long-term implications of denying him a seat. No president should be denied the prerogative of putting a person as qualified as Judge Alito on the Supreme Court.
One wonders who hit them upside the head with a cluebat on this one, since, to give credit where due, they actually made very good sense. This makes it all the more mystifying why, as noted in the previous post, our boy Tim has thus far refused to state his views.