Lower Bound

Twenty-one years ago this weekend, I hosted a changing-parties party celebrating my new allegiance and, I was sure, an adult astuteness.¹ Though an acknowledged partisan and ideologue, loyalty needn't blind: when pressed, I'll concede there's sons of bitches in each party. Still, I'm convinced the mindless and malicious are both more abundant and more annoying among Democrats.² Yet with evidence necessarily anecdotal -- debate deteriorating to list-making -- formal proof was elusive.

Until now. On Thursday, John Roberts was confirmed and sworn in as the 17th Chief Justice of the United States. A long-time fan of Judge Roberts, I'm overjoyed about and for Chief Justice Roberts. And the roller coaster's twisty track is primed for new peaks and plunges when Bush nominates O'Connor's replacement this week.

As jubilation subsided, I realized Roberts' confirmation supplied corroboration of my formerly unproven classification of R's and D's:

• Roberts is a good man, an excellent lawyer and a tremendous jurist. Sure he's conservative--but also may be the most qualified Chief Justice since Taft or Hughes.



• President Clinton nominated a former ACLU General Counsel to the Court. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is unquestionably leftist--probably more liberal than Roberts is conservative. Yet for Ginsburg -- a solid jurist, but no Roberts -- her politics weren't grounds for opposition--she was confirmed 96-3.³



• On Thursday, Roberts got 19 fewer votes than Ginsburg. Twenty two Senators -- Democrats all -- voted "nay":
  
  
  • Akaka (D-HI)
  
  
  • Bayh (D-IN)
  
  
  • Biden (D-DE)
  
  
  • Boxer (D-CA)
  
  
  • Cantwell (D-WA)
  
  
  • Clinton (D-NY)
  
  
  • Corzine (D-NJ)
  
  
  • Dayton (D-MN)
  
  
  • Durbin (D-IL)
  
  
  • Feinstein (D-CA)
  
  
  • Harkin (D-IA)
  
  
  • Inouye (D-HI)
  
  
  • Kennedy (D-MA)
  
  
  • Kerry (D-MA)
  
  
  • Lautenberg (D-NJ)
  
  
  • Mikulski (D-MD)
  
  
  • Obama (D-IL)
  
  
  • Reed (D-RI)
  
  
  • Reid (D-NV)
  
  
  • Sarbanes (D-MD)
  
  
  • Schumer (D-NY)
  
  
  • Stabenow (D-MI)
  
  Notice how many dissenters are potential 2008 Presidential candidates: Bayh, Biden, Boxer, Clinton, Kerry and Obama. Simply outrageous.



• Two football teams of democrat "no" pretended Roberts hadn't answered their questions, despite chiding from Justice Ginsburg:

  Judge Roberts was unquestionably right. My rule was I will not answer a question that attempts to project how I will rule in a case that might come before the court.

  A contemptible pretext, says Paul Weyrich:

  The 22 Senators who voted against Roberts profess to believe that Roberts didn't answer questions posed by the Senators. Roberts followed the Ruth Bader Ginsburg precedent, herself a former ACLU counsel, who often had expressed controversial opinions. During her Supreme Court confirmation hearing she refused to hint at how she would rule on cases which possibly might come before the Supreme Court. Of course, the next nominee will go down the same path.

• The coming months will be worse, as leftist extremists like People for the American Way turn their slime machine up to "11":

  Every Supreme Court nominee should be held to a high standard, which includes a demonstrated commitment to protecting Americans’ fundamental rights, liberties, and legal protections. Given the pivotal role that Justice O’Connor has played in recent years, the stakes with her replacement are enormous.

  At heart, Democrats employ a hypocritical double standard, as NRO's Andrew McCarthy writes:

  Does anyone really think it needed to be established that conservative judges “have every right to serve on the higher benches”? That is self-evident. But, in today’s arrangements, notwithstanding a president reelected with more votes than any president in history and a one-sided 55-45 margin in the Senate, that which is self-evident somehow needs to be reestablished as a “principle” whenever a determined minority objects.

  Why the new, transparently political, standard, asks Dr. Sanity:

  When did the Supreme Court of the United States become yet another entitlement program for the Democrats?
  
  Where is it written that the Supreme Court must be "ideologically balanced"? Who has ever claimed that the minority party has any rights (except the usual "advise and consent role") to determine who is selected by the elected President of the US?

  Partly because, as always, leftists confuse law and policy:

  [T]here is no precedent or sound argument supporting the claim (one that, unfortunately, seems to have great currency in the press) that a President is somehow supposed to preserve "balance" on the Court, or to replace retiring Justices with new Justices thought to be like-minded. Clarence Thomas replaced Thurgood Marshall; Ruth Bader Ginsburg replaced Byron White.

• In sum, there's no better description of the just say no chorale: unprincipled.

Conclusion: The Roberts vote quantifies the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Though the maximum count of scum per party remains uncertain, we can derive the minima. Senate action on Judges Ginsburg and Roberts establish a lower bound for each party. Now we can be confident that at least 3 Republicans are jerks--as compared to 22 unprincipled Democrats. A clear advantage.

Republicans won't need Swift Boat Vets in '08. Twenty-one years after I wised up, and three years ahead of schedule, aspiring Democrats already are acting like lying hypocrites.
____________________

¹ I last voted Democrat in 1978. I'd moved to Washington in part to work with the Reagan's 1980 campaign, and formalized the flip while volunteering for Reagan's re-election.

² Put differently -- and contrary to the old quip -- sometime in the mid 1970s, Democrats became both the evil and stupid party.

³ Other recent confirmation votes:

John Paul Stevens, 1975: 98-0
Sandra Day O'Connor, 1981: 99-0
Antonin Scalia, 1986: 98-0
Anthony Kennedy, 1987: 97-0
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 1993: 96-3
Stephen Breyer, 1994: 87-9