Still Pissed Off About the Hawley-Smoot Tariff

Monday, April 11, 2005

Dems Seek to Block UN Ambassador Nominee

I think it was actually a pretty shrewd move for the President to nominate Michael Bolton. For my money, it doesn't get any better than when he sings "When a Man Loves a Woman."

Oops, that's John Bolton.

Joe Biden: "There is -- to state this bluntly Mr. Bolton -- a concern that your ideological predisposition relating to some of these issues have clouded your judgment. That is what we're talking about."

Emphasis in original, because Joe Biden speaks in bold font. It really helps him emphasize the important points which is, like, a total time-saver.

So ideology is a bad thing, Mr. Biden? Interesting. In case anyone is interested, it seems Mr. Biden was just fine voting to approve Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court, back in a day when the Senate wasn't used to partisanly obstruct the President's judicial nomiations. Is that significant? I should think so. Ginsburg was an ACLU lawyer arguing gender discrimination cases before she went up to the court and - surprise, surprise - all of her judicial opinions sound exactly like her arguments from before she became a judge. It seems that Ms. Ginsburg's ideological predisposition has colored her approach to the law, but I somehow doubt that Joe Biden cares. It's not that Bolton has an ideology, it's the content of the ideology.

The disturbing practice of Senate Democrats using the filibuster to block Bush's judicial nominations (and to far less important courts than the one behind which Ginsburg sits) is that they lament the possibility that these judges will be biased. But Senate Democrats are okay with Ginsburg. Democrats are blocking William Myers because as a lawyer he has defended mining companies and liberals complain that he is, therefore, anti-environment. But that doesn't stop Dems from heaping praises on SCOTUS Justice Stephen Bryer, who, to be fair, is not as liberal as Josef Stalin.

As an aside, the Myers case is especially frustrating because it is usually screaming liberals who champion the duty of lawyers to defend the rights of criminals, for example Guantanamo Bay detainees, but woe, woe, woe unto the conservative who suggests the lawyer identifies with the terrorists! To the extent that liberals have a valid point - that representation doesn't suggest commonality of viewpoint - it should apply across the board, right? Yes, that was intended as a joke. If a lawyer represents a party who is not lionized by the Left, that lawyer is forever branded an extremist, "outside the mainstream."

So frankly, I'm having a hard time taking Mr. Biden seriously [says Sobek as his reading audience is stunned into silence]. To argue that Bush's nominees mustn't have a conservative ideology, after voting for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is to take hypocrisy to a whole new level.

I say all this in spite of the fact that Biden, had he tried, might have made a valid point rather than a vapid one. When Condi Rice was nominated to be SecState, I thought perhaps that wasn't such a great idea. Not because I don't like Condi - because honestly, how could I not like Condi? - but because SecState is the nation's top diplomat, a post for which one would expect some measure of diplomacy, and those conservatives who admire her most admire her for her directness, her refusal to mince words - i.e. her lack of diplomacy. The same principle holds true with UN Ambassador. If you think the institution important enough to merit sending someone there as an ambassador (I don't), then at the very least you should send someone who doesn't think the UN is a joke at best (it is).

On the other hand, I do see the appeal in sending someone to the UN just to screw with them. I recommend this guy.

In summary, Joe Biden is a douchebag.