Thursday, January 12, 2006
It's Official: Joe Biden Is an Idiot
One thing all of Bush's nominees have in common — besides the cronyism and incompetence and venality — is their steadfast refusal to provide information to the Senate that could enable the Senators to make knowledgeable decisions about the nominees' qualifications.
The logical response from the Democrats would be to refuse to vote for them, even to filibuster as often as necessary, because the stonewalling amounts to a demonstrated opposition to open government and therefore to the democratic principles on which our government is, in theory, founded.
That's why I've concluded (once again) that Joe Biden is an idiot. His response is not to oppose the nominees on principle, but to surrender.
Specifically, he says "the system is broken" so we should just give up on trying to get any information from or about the nominees.
Joe, why didn't you just go all the way and say the Senate should forget all the stilly nonsense about "advising", and just give the nominees
a rubber stamp "an up-or-down vote"?
Oh, and he's also more respectful to MBNA than he is to his fellow Democrats.
But even if they'd been harder, Scalito still wouldn't have answered the questions, and neither would any of Bush's other nominees.
I hate to see them go after issues like 30-year old extremist ties or how he would vote on abortion. As for Roe, no law is perfectly settled, because new circumstances can always arise.
In addition to the personal corruption w.r.t. Vanguard, his ideas about the "unitary" power of the Executive is why everyone, conservative or liberal should oppose him. He's not just corrupt. He is a monarchist and cannot honestly take the oath to the Constitution.
The Democrats clearly want to confirm him, probably for the most venal of reasons. So that they don't have to do it again. So that a challenger can't say, "They voted for him for the appellate level, so why wouldn't they vote for him here?" So that they don't have to do the work of making a tough call and standing by it.
I often say that there are too many nice people in Washington. We need to send them a few sons of b----s.
Questions like "explain the role of a Supreme Court justice", short questions that require an actual answer, would go much further. It takes away a lot of the opportunity to fudge. And a refusal to provide a real answer to such questions will look bad.
We can't do much better than that, sad to say. But it would be an improvement over what we see these days.
More blogs about politics.