Posted on 05/28/2009 8:18:12 AM PDT by Jbny
Tuesday night on Fox News’ Special Report with Bret Baier, Charles Krauthammer said this:
Unless there is something in [Judge Sotomayor’s] past explosive that nobody knows about, she is going to end up on the court. I think what Republicans ought to do is talk about judicial philosophy. It should be high-toned, not ad hominem, and not personal.
Contrast Krauthammer’s counsel with this report from ABC News:
(Excerpt) Read more at commentarymagazine.com ...
Newt has been damaged goods as a spokesman for the past decade, and really needs to fade into the woodwork where he can put his skills to use behind the scenes.
Interesting. I definitely agree with Krauthammer. I think the right is much better armed than the left in terms of rationale, logic, morality. And I like to think - and do believe - conservatives are more civil, overall, than libs, who so often resort to the ad hominem attack. But we all know the high-minded arguments won’t carry the day.
If the judge is a racist, she’s a racist. If she makes racist comments, if she exhibits racist behavior, if she rules from the bench in a way that indicates she’s racially biased, then she’s probably a racist. If so, she’s not qualified to be a Supreme Court justice. Should her critics not say this, if it’s true? How far should conservatives go in ignoring the truth in favor of appearing “fair” ? I’m just asking...
Generally speaking, I find Krauthammer’s work to be fine, reasoned, logical, and I can agree with most of it. However, on this one, I think he is wrong.
Sotomayor is ill suited to be on the Federal Bench at all, let alone on the Supreme Court. Her past record belies her activism and her own words clearly say that she is hardly an impartial jurist.
While Charles may wish the confirmation process to be conducted on a higher level, more philosophical than practical, the fact is that it will be a person, not a philosophy, that will occupy this role as Justice of the Supreme Court.
For that reason alone, the questioning should be pointed, focused, demanding and unrelenting.
Save the higher plane for later. We are still in the trenches with the Supreme Marxist and his band of thieves.
It’s time to take back the country.
“MiZZZZZZ So toe My Yorrrrrr
How can the senate vote to confirm you when, by your own admitted judicial philosophy, you would be perjuring yourself the moment you took the oath of office?”
The oath specifically states that a justice is to show no partiality.
“And of course the model for Republicans is Lincoln, the country’s greatest President, of whom it was said at the time, “The sledge hammer effect of his speech results from the … force of the argument of the logician, not the fierce gestures and loud rantings of the demagogue.”
And the Dems admit that the most important attribute for this candidate is feelings, nothing more than feelings ....
“Empathy” over logic and ethics, with empathy intended by the Pretender-in-Chief to mean, for example, that she doesn’t believe the 2nd amendment applies to the states but most importantly, it means `We will be able to count on her vote to achieve our agenda.’
“...but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive,
and the other would accept war rather than let it perish,
and the war came.”
Abraham Lincoln, 2nd Inaugural Address
4 March 1865
And there won’t be anything civil about the second one.
I think someone on the Senate confirmation committee needs to grow the stones to do the following:
1) Start by asking her if there is any reason why the line of questioning should be different for her than for previous candidates. To be even more blunt, ask her if her gender, ethnicity, or life history should be cause for not questioning her as other candidates have been questioned. It would be hard to imagine that she would ask for different treatment.
2) Drag out questions that the Demcrats posed to any number of conservative candidates, especially Thomas and Bork, and quoting directly and by name the senator who asked them, ask her to answer. To really twist the knife, compliment the original questioners on what great questions they were.
Ask Robert Bork or Clarence Thomas about being "challenged with civility".
“Newt has been damaged goods as a spokesman for the past decade”
I disagree.
I think Rush is right, the Republicans enjoy their minority status, and are willing to take second chair, as long as they get to set at the table, and enjoy the perks, but not the respect of their masters.
Lickspittles at best.
Gingrich told the truth that the Rinos and leftists on Krauhthammer’s cocktail circuit do not want to hear. She is a racist. The appointee made blatantly racist remarks in a public speech and is a member of a racist organization (La Raza). She also took great pains not even to address the Constitutional issues presented by white firefighters in the Ricci case. No doubt she is a racist.
Krauhthammer needs to grow a pair instead of throwing up the white flag and running like a coward.
Newt’s budget catting approach and attack in the 1990s is a much preferable and quite refreshing alternative to the big spending approach by recent GOP Congressmen. I am glad to see him back and back on the attack. He may be the only one who can tear down Obama.
I’d pay money to see that line of questioning.
Fred, I am in agreement with your take on Krauthammer. He is certainly on the elitist side, really not Conservative but does make well reasoned arguments. He along with the rest of the FOX news type have moved to the center as the Roookefeller Repubs have moved left of center and disgarded most Conservative principles just when they could have been most helpful. Cowards and traitors all!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.