November 19, 2005

Who's more "extreme"?

Samuel Alito or Ruth Bader Ginsburg? You decide.

Posted by Hube at November 19, 2005 08:28 AM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

Yeah, she was so extreme that she was recommended to Clinton by Republican leadership as someone they'd confirm easily.

Posted by: dan at November 19, 2005 12:28 PM

Hey dan -- try this: read the article and compare [some of] their views. Then come back and tell us whose views are more extreme, huh?

All your response does is show that that was a time when extreme partisanship wasn't nearly as bad as it is now, and that one party wasn't so obsessed with its loss of power.

Posted by: Hube at November 19, 2005 12:59 PM

So Dan, were her views extreme? A bit nutty, perhaps?

Posted by: mikem at November 19, 2005 05:09 PM

seems pretty cut and dry to me if all of those statements are true....

Posted by: schmitt at November 19, 2005 05:52 PM

BTW, Scalia was confirmed overwhelmingly by the Senate. Lord knows what "hot water" he'd be in if he was nominated today.

Posted by: Hube at November 19, 2005 05:53 PM

Reading is hard.

Posted by: The Unabrewer at November 19, 2005 07:22 PM

Yeah. Not gonna get sucked into this discussion based on that article. To put the piece in perspective, imagine if Mother Jones or some joint had written it in reverse. It would read something like:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg supports human rights. [5 of the most conservative and outrageous-seeming things Alito voted on]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg doesn't want the world to end. [5 specific things Alito did to help polluters].

There may be a valid discussion to be had here, but it's certainly not going to be based on partisan pieces like that of the NRO or the Nation. There's little concern about examining both sides there, obviously.

Further, if you're looking for someone to trash Alito, you're barking up the wrong tree. This is part of the deal when you've got the White House, unless he proves he's an over-the-edge ideologue.

I expect you to feel the same way the next time a liberal is nominated. I won't hold my breath, though, because liberals by their very nature aren't qualified -- because they don't interpret a laughably vague 200-year-old document "correctly!" I'll never learn. :)

Posted by: dan at November 19, 2005 10:49 PM

I am surprised that you have chosen the equivocation route as a response. What a shock.

Posted by: mikem at November 20, 2005 02:27 AM

Post a comment









Remember personal info?