The paper's editorial board expressed frustration that Judge Brett Kavanaugh will almost certainly be confirmed to the Supreme Court following Senate hearings on his nomination this week, and complained about the way both Democrat and Republican nominees typically survive what has become a pointless "Charade."
While the paper's editorial board is correct when it traces this reluctance back to the 1987 confirmation hearings of Judge Robert Bork, in doing so, it attempts to rewrite history in a fashion that speaks volumes about why bipartisanship and civility died a gruesome death long before President Donald Trump arrived on the scene.
The primary lament from the editorial board about the confirmation process is that the chances of defeating Kavanaugh appear to be nil.
Astonishingly, the editorial board cites the battle over Bork as the example of what happens when the process works.
The year prior to the Bork nomination, then-Sen. Joe Biden - the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee - had said publicly he found it hard to imagine voting against Bork: "Say the administration sends up Bork and, after our investigations, he looks a lot like Scalia. I'd have to vote for him, and if the groups tear me apart, that's the medicine I'll have to take."
Though the editorial board chose not to mention it, the standard is now known as the "Ginsburg rule" after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's adamant insistence on remaining silent on anything pertaining to an issue that could someday come before the court.
Anyone who doesn't like what the confirmation process has become would do well to remember that it was Kennedy and Biden who began the slide down the slippery slope with the smearing of Bork.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/04/nyt-editorial-board-rewrites-history-to-criticize-kavanaugh-confirmation/
While the paper's editorial board is correct when it traces this reluctance back to the 1987 confirmation hearings of Judge Robert Bork, in doing so, it attempts to rewrite history in a fashion that speaks volumes about why bipartisanship and civility died a gruesome death long before President Donald Trump arrived on the scene.
The primary lament from the editorial board about the confirmation process is that the chances of defeating Kavanaugh appear to be nil.
Astonishingly, the editorial board cites the battle over Bork as the example of what happens when the process works.
The year prior to the Bork nomination, then-Sen. Joe Biden - the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee - had said publicly he found it hard to imagine voting against Bork: "Say the administration sends up Bork and, after our investigations, he looks a lot like Scalia. I'd have to vote for him, and if the groups tear me apart, that's the medicine I'll have to take."
Though the editorial board chose not to mention it, the standard is now known as the "Ginsburg rule" after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's adamant insistence on remaining silent on anything pertaining to an issue that could someday come before the court.
Anyone who doesn't like what the confirmation process has become would do well to remember that it was Kennedy and Biden who began the slide down the slippery slope with the smearing of Bork.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/04/nyt-editorial-board-rewrites-history-to-criticize-kavanaugh-confirmation/
No comments:
Post a Comment