Saturday, September 24, 2005

The Post Stands Up to the Left

The Post seems to be working hard to redeem itself (at least in my eyes). In what I'm sure will bring fiery condemnation from the left, today's Post has an editorial praising Senators Leahy, Kohl, and Feingold for their votes in support of John Roberts' nomination. They criticize liberal groups for refusing to recognize Roberts as the highly qualified candidate that he is. Furthermore, they criticize Ralph Neas of People for the American Way for claiming that Leahy is responsible for Roberts' future decision on the court. They recognize that only few Democrats will have any moral authority to demand Republican support for well qualified liberal nominees in the future (a la Breyer and Ginsburg). The Post calls the action of Democrats "a disturbing departure from longtime Senate practice." (Despite what our friend Rob thinks, see here.)

The Democrats, in my opinion, seem not to realize that they have put themselves in a losing position. Voting against a candidate as highly qualified as Roberts raises serious questions about their willingness to allow a Republican president to nominate judges that he chooses. The Constitution mandates and the Federalist papers support (see here and here) that this choice rests exclusively with the president. If the president is stymied from nominating anyone who he believes will decide cases in a manner consistent with his or her Constitutional interpretation, has not the minority party (or even majority party) stripped the president of the duty given directly to him by the Constitution?

ConfirmThem points out there was no hand-wringing when Ginsburg was appointed about her moving the court to the left.