Some disingenuousnes…

Some disingenuousness to note among the Democratic reaction to Alito. But first, some background.

Democrats had no qualms about replacing a moderately conservative Byron White with a liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In spite of ideological differences, and respecting the fact that Clinton had the right to choose who he wished as a result of winning the election, Republicans voted for her 96-3. Ginsburg was not an ideological replacement for White; she was a shift to the left. In addition, according to the paper here (PDF format, see page 9), Justice Stephen Breyer was even further to the left of who he was replacing–Blackmun–than Ginsburg was. (Note: I make no claim regarding the methodology used in that paper in rating the justices; I’m just using it as a general indicator of ideology.) Blackmun was quite conservative while Breyer shows up as a centrist on the chart. Again, Republicans didn’t invoke ideology, and confirmed Breyer 91-9.

So in summary; Clinton’s two Supreme Court nominees were both significantly to the left of those they were replacing, and Republicans confirmed them overwhelmingly anyway.

Fast forward to today. Chuck Schumer said that the replacement for Sandra Day O’Connor should be in her mold, invoking ideology. This wasn’t an issue before, but now Democrats are all over Alito for his ideology with very little being said about his actual qualifications.

Thus Democrats are completely ignoring how well they were treated by Republicans in the 90s, and they are the ones that have politicized the process. When they demand that Bush nominate an ideological clone of O’Connor, they’re being just a tad disingenuous.

(What’s sad is that Democrats weren’t always like this. Scalia was confirmed 98-0 by the Senate.)

Filed under: Uncategorized

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!