Concerning the Supreme Court issue, it seems that we've given Democrats just enough rope to hang themselves -
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.):
- "Nominees deserve a vote. If our . . . colleagues don't like them, vote against them. But don't just sit on them - that is obstruction of justice. Free and full debate over judicial nominations is healthy.
The Constitution is clear that only individuals acceptable to both the President and the Senate should be confirmed.
The President and the Senate do not always agree. But we should resolve these disagreements by voting on these nominees - yes or no." Congressional Record, January 28, 1999.
Senator Tom Harkin (D-Id.):
- "I really believe that the filibuster rules are unconstitutional. I believe the Constitution sets out five times when you need majority or supermajority votes in the Senate for treaties, impeachment." Congressional Record, March 1, 1994.
Senator Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.):
- "[T]he filibuster rule... there is no constitutional basis for it.... It is, in its way, inconsistent with the Constitution, one might almost say an amendment of the Constitution by rule of the U.S. Senate." Congressional Record, January 4, 1995
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.):
- "If we want to vote against somebody, vote against them. I respect that. State your reasons. I respect that. But don't hold up a qualified judicial nominee. [...] I have had judicial nominations by both Democrat and Republican Presidents that I intended to oppose.
But I fought like mad to make sure they at least got a chance to be on the floor for a vote. [...] Don't hold them in this anonymous unconscionable limbo, because in doing that, the minority of Senators really shame all Senators." Congressional Record, June 18, 1998.
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.):
- "According to the U.S. Constitution, the President nominates, and the Senate shall provide advice and consent. It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor." Congressional Record, May 14, 1997.
Senator Tom Daschle (D-S.D.):
- "I must say, I find it simply baffling that a Senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination." Congressional Record, October 5, 1999.
I'm not sure what media you're checking out Ajay, but DeLay has been getting smoked repeatedly by the mainstream press. Interestingly enough, Democrat politicians who demonstrate equally bad judgment and do similar activities do not get the same treatment.
I think thats true - if the roles were reversed the Repubs would be doing the same thing. Clinton looked into the camera wagging his finger telling a bold-faced lie. Then he bombed Iraq to take the heat off of the story. I'm not a Clinton hater (Bill, that is), fyi - I voted for him in '96.
Rove isn't even a focus of the investigation which is why its puzzling to me that he is on the cover of Newsweek, NYT, LAT, etc. As of right now there is no evidence suggesting he broke the law, and at the time of the so-called "leak" Valerie Plame was working a desk job at Langley. Actually, if you look at what evidence is out there in the public domain you'll see that its apparant that Rove got his information about Valerie Plame from - gasp - the media! Could it have been Judith Miller? We'll never know, at least until she decides she doesn't like the pokey too much.
Lets be honest here... the Rove thing isn't about whether he did something right or wrong - this is more about the fact that he kicked liberal ass twice in a row and now libs seem to think they see a chink in his armor. IMO he isn't going to get charged with squat and there is going to be a liberal uproar because they thought they "got him."
... maybe because pointing out that a politician lied is like shooting fish in a barrel? Jeez... I wonder why the same "mainstream media" isn't commenting about Tom Delay's foibles? Or (heck, this is too easy), Bush's gems?
Can you imagine the uproar if a Democratic administration had revealed Valerie Plame's details to the media? You guys went into convulsions and mass hysteria because Clinton lied about a friggin' BJ, for crying out loud! And Rove destroyed the career of a stellar CIA agent, and the administration's mum about it.
Jeez, the mainstream media and the various lib organizations seem to be strangely silent when it comes to these things. I wonder why they don't want to talk about it?