People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Sunday, September 18, 2005

Shocker! NY Times Opposes Roberts.

The New York Times came out today in opposition to the confirmation of Supreme Court Chief Justice nominee John Roberts. The reason given is that Roberts refused to answer questions that every other nominee to the high court in the history of the United States of America has also refused to answer.

How unexpected.
Over days of testimony, he [Roberts] dodged and weaved around many other critical legal issues. On abortion, church-state separation, gay rights and the right of illegal immigrants' children to attend public school - all currently recognized by the court - he asks to be accepted on faith. That just isn't good enough. The Constitution says that senators must give their "advice and consent" to Supreme Court nominees. To do that in a meaningful way in the case of Mr. Roberts, they need information that has been withheld from them.

If he is confirmed, we think there is a chance Mr. Roberts could be a superb chief justice. But it is a risk. We might be reluctant to roll the dice even for a nomination for associate justice, but for a nomination for a chief justice - particularly one who could serve 30 or more years - the stakes are simply too high. Senators should vote against Mr. Roberts not because they know he does not have the qualities to be an excellent chief justice, but because he has not met the very heavy burden of proving that he
does. (
They seem confused. Someone must have told the people at the Times that Roberts was running for mayor, where it is expected that political views are made known.

But I think they knew better.

... While Smarter Minds Prevail

The Washington Post endorses John Roberts confirmation this morning:
Confirm John Roberts

JOHN G. ROBERTS JR. should be confirmed as chief justice of the United States. He is overwhelmingly well-qualified, possesses an unusually keen legal mind and practices a collegiality of the type an effective chief justice must have. He shows every sign of commitment to restraint and impartiality. Nominees of comparable quality have, after rigorous hearings, been confirmed nearly unanimously. We hope Judge Roberts will similarly be approved by a large bipartisan vote. (
How could anyone disagree with such reasoning?

But Don't Get Us Wrong ...

The Roanoke Times (and the rest of the gang known these days as the mainstream press) is starting to realize the damage that has been inflicted on the cause of big government by their trashing the federal relief effort in New Orleans. They now want you to believe that the colossus known as the federal bureaucracy can work, just not when Republicans are in charge of it.

This appears in an editorial this morning:
Two tales of New Orleans
Katrina didn't show that government can't work, but that it must be made to work.
The Roanoke Times

Pumps finally are draining the floodwaters of New Orleans. And as the ruins of the city emerge, two competing visions are rising, too, to explain what went wrong and what the response should be.

Progressives see in the Gulf Coast debacle a failure of the government now in power. (
Yeah. The government, personified in this case by FEMA, went to hell in a handbasket in the five years since Bill Clinton ran things. You can tell these guys have suddenly come to the realization that they've made the case - rather effectively - that conservatives have been making for years - that government and waste and fecklessness are synonymous. The people at the Times believe, even though the bureaucracy has the same personnel and disaster plan as it did back then, except for a few windowdressing appointments at the top, that our government is capable of doing better.

Under John Kerry I presume. Or maybe we could bring Little Willy back.

As I recall, it was Bill Clinton who showed how effective our federal government can be by reacting to the mutilated bodies of our rangers being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu by pulling out all our troops and retreating to our shores. And his government was so effective in dealing with the genocide in Rwanda that the death toll was limited to 3/4 of a million men, women, and children. Any more effective and the entire population of Africa would have been eliminated. Poverty was almost eliminated. Crime was almost controlled. Shoot, we almost found a cure for Aids and the origins of The Big Bang. Almost.

But no matter. Liberals know in their hearts that government can work. Next time.

And what's needed to turn things around? Well, besides getting rid of those awful Republicans, we need to stop gutting the federal budget.
Good government is not an option, though; it is a necessity. Americans won't get it back [get it back - get it?] it [sic] till they recollect that a government that isn't starved from within [my emphasis] can do its job.
That starvation will increase (dramatically) to a record $2,000,000,000,000 next year. In an effort to buy good government.

Any bets?