२५ जुलै, २००५
Petite scandalette or nothing at all?
Are we so starved for a scandal that we're biting at anything? Or does Judge Roberts' professed inability to remember that he was on the Federalist Society steering committee in 1997-1998 actually matter?
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
६ टिप्पण्या:
Many of these confirmation fights seem to impose new rules... i.e., the illegal alien nannys. Perhaps the new rule here will be that if one attends a few meetings, it should assumed that he or she is essentially a member of that organization or at least espouses many views of that organization. I would agree with this characterization and I was dissappointed to hear that Roberts was not Federalist Society member. Now that he is a defacto member (under this new rule), all the better.
Of course, once the press assigns this new concept to Roberts, they may have to assign it to Hillary. I am sure she attended more than a few meetings led by Che Guevera supporters, Communiust, or radical violent black panthers in the late 1960s. From her attendence to these meetings, we should assume that she was at least a Communist sympathizer in her youth. Of course everyone should be given a chance to make amends and I am sure Hillary has tempered her revolutionary urges....if you want to take that risk.
This silliness bugs me too. However, it's also a little annoying to hear "he doesn't recall..." I'd rather hear, "Yes... and so what?" Or, "No... and so what if I was." You know what a mean? An answer that has a little testosterone behind it. "I don't recall..." sounds like BS, and wimpy BS at that. It's also a perfect set-up for detractors to seem like they have a point. How about, "I wasn't deeply involved with them, but they're a worthy organization and if my name appears on their roles because of some contact I had with them, I'm proud that they wanted me associated with them." And follow with, "Now, would you please explain to me why you seem to think that an organization devoted to the Constitution of the United States is a bad thing?"
Irish Lad: Well put. I can actually believe he wouldn't recall. But the point is that they must have asked and he must have agreed, so that shows something, some affiliation to the group. You think before you agree to let an organization use your name. I was asked and declined to be the faculty advisor to the Federalist Society at my law school because I was wary of sending messages about myself that I didn't want. That was a while back. It wouldn't bother me today, but that just shows that one knows it means something.
It matters only in the sense that being a "card-carrying member of the ACLU" seems to matter to some other people.
Each side of the political spectrum has their own boogeymen.
This should've been a pretty easy fire to put out. Unfortunately, Roberts and the Administration botched it.
Maybe the confirmation hearings won't be so smooth after all.
Many of the folks who are raising a hue and cry about this are those who have somehow been convinced that the Federalist Society is some sort of Stonecutter-esque secret brotherhood devoted to undermining all that is (in their view) good about America. Now, while I'm not in agreeement with the Federalist Society on a lot of issues, that's not what the Federalist Society is in any way shape or form.
The Ancient Order of Federalists Song:
Who controls the GOP?
Who defies Ted Kennedy?
We do! We do!
Who keeps the homeless unemployed?
Who declares laws null and void?
We do! We do!
Who holds back the EPA?
Who keeps that harsh death tax away?
We do! We do!
Who loathes Social Security?
Who thinks America is free?
We do! We do!
I'll probably be shot for revealing our innermost policy goals.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा