Keeping the goalposts firmly in place

With Bush nominating Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court this morning, I have to assume it’s only a matter of hours before conservatives start trying to the move the goalposts they helped reposition over the last two weeks. Before it gets out of hand, let’s remember where the newly-adopted standards for the confirmation process begin.

Or, put another way, let’s consider a list of “Talking Points Republicans Shouldn’t Be Able To Use While Defending Alito.”

1. Like every nominee, Alito deserves an up-or-down vote. This was always on weak ground — Republicans have backed judicial filibusters in the past — but with the Harriet Miers nomination still on our minds, the talking point is completely shot.

2. Ideology is not a legitimate disqualifier. Particularly in Bush’s first term, this was a popular one. Republicans said Dems couldn’t just oppose a nominee because he or she happened to be conservative; that’s applying an ideological litmus test. After the right vetoed Miers because of questions about her ideology, this one has to come off the list as well. As Cass Sunstein, a constitutional law expert at the University of Chicago, put it, “A lot of Republicans have put ideology on the table now by saying Harriet Miers wasn’t a true conservative and by objecting that she wasn’t clearly opposed to Roe v. Wade.”

3. Religious beliefs are off-limits. The right believed questions about religion were offensive when it came to John Roberts and appropriate when it came to Harriet Miers. What’ll be the standard this time?

4. Documents pertaining to administration work are off limits. Alito’s rulings as a judge will provide ample evidence of his philosophy, but he did work for the Justice Department in the Reagan administration. If Dems want to review documents from these years, the right can’t very well argue now that they should be off-limits — they did, after all, demand even more sensitive materials from Miers.

5. Attack ads by secret sources against Supreme Court nominees are off limits. Conservatives got together to raise money and create new groups for the sole purpose of bringing down Miers’ nomination.

Now, I realize that we’re dealing with a shameless group of people who can quickly hold, abandon, and re-embrace principles without much effort. But before they move the goalposts, it never hurts to try and pour some concrete.

You expect some kind of consistency from rightwingers. You expect too much.

  • Watching the wingnut talking heads make the claims contrary to their past statements and watching the Russerts, Matthews etc not bother to point out the blantant contradictions from only last week will be pathetic.

  • 1. Like every nominee, Alito deserves an up-or-down vote.

    Con’s will say: We didn’t force her to withdrawl, she did that on her own. We would’ve happily given her a vote.

    2. Ideology is not a legitimate disqualifier.

    Con’s will say: We only wanted more info about Harriet to confirm her experience, not her hyper-zealous conservatism.

    3. Religious beliefs are off-limits.

    Con’s will say: We just wanted to know her. She was such an enigma wrapped in a puzzle and a dazzling blue dress. This guy has a long (and exponentially horrifying) history so we don’t need to ask those questions.

    Con’s will say: Plenty of othe documents about Alito. Move along. These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.

    5. Attack ads by secret sources against Supreme Court nominees are off limits.

    Con’s will say: Liberal groups are trying to destroy America! Kill, attack! Look over there! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

    They have an answer for everything, and have to answer for nothing.

  • Comments are closed.