WP: The Ginsburg Fallacy (Republican spin doesn't square with History)

[Pirate Smile]

The Ginsburg Fallacy

By Ruth Marcus

Tuesday, November 15, 2005; Page A21

To hear some Republicans tell it, letting Ruth Bader Ginsburg onto the Supreme Court was a tough pill to swallow. She was an ACLU-loving, bra-burning feminazi, but they supported her anyway, dutifully respecting the president's right to put his own stamp on the high court. Therefore, Democrats now owe President Bush the same deference when weighing his choice of Samuel Alito.

Ginsburg had "supported taxpayer funding for abortion, constitutional right to prostitution and polygamy," Texas Sen. John Cornyn (R) said at the confirmation hearings for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. "And she opposed Mother's and Father's Days as discriminatory occasions. But nevertheless, Republicans . . . put that aside and supported her nomination because she had terrific credentials, and because President Clinton was entitled to nominate someone to the Supreme Court of his choosing."

-snip-
Strong argument -- if only it had happened that way. Either those peddling this conveniently muddled version of events don't remember it correctly or they are betting that others won't. Listeners beware: Those who don't remember history are condemned to be spun by it.

In fact, then-Judge Ginsburg was a consensus choice, pushed by Republicans and accepted by the president in large part because he didn't want to take on a big fight. Far from being a crazed radical, Ginsburg had staked out a centrist role on a closely divided appeals court. Don't take it from me -- take it from Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah). In his autobiography, the Utah Republican describes how he suggested Ginsburg -- along with Clinton's second pick, Stephen G. Breyer -- to the president. "From my perspective, they were far better than the other likely candidates from a liberal Democratic administration," Hatch writes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/14/AR2005111401021.html

[aquart]

1. Shouldn't Cornyn be in jail?

Didn't Abramoff and Reed have him bought and paid for?

We'd be pretty happy with a consensus choice. Alito ain't.

[Spinzonner]

2. The dictionary doesn't have an elephant under hypocrisy for nothing

[CTyankee]

3. Altogether now "'You're a lying sack of crap' Cornyn!" n/t

[swimboy]

4. Hey now! By presenting facts you are attempting to rewrite history.

The Bush version of history. :puke:

Sock it to 'em! :thumbsup:

[TwentyFive]

5. More Right Wing lies? David Duke would be a better Supreme Court justice.

David Duke is truthful about who he is.

Types like Alito and Cornyn are far more dangerous because they take David Duke's ideas and repackage them as constitutionally sound and good for America. A guy who successfully puts a smiley face on racism - is indeed more dangerous than the guy who burns crosses.

[myrna minx]

6. K&N

:kick:

[TaleWgnDg]

7. Yes, Senator Orrin Hatch (R, Utah) RECOMMENDED Ginsburg and Breyer

.
Yes, Senator Orrin Hatch (R, Utah) recommended Ginsburg and Breyer to then-president Clinton. What? Are the spin-city Republican rightwingnuts truly trying to re-write that portion of history too?

Justice Breyer is no liberal. Nor is Justice Ginsburg. However, standing in the shoes of the ober-rightwingnuts, those moderates (Ginsburg and Breyer) would appear to be "liberals." How utterly sad is that state of our U.S. Supreme Court that otherwise moderates, centrists, pragmatists are considered as radical wingnuts. How much farther to the right is this Court going? And what will the damage to our country be?

.