Democrats object to President Bush's Judicial nominees because they are, in their words, "right wing extremists."
Edward Whelan looks at what a far left wing extremist would look like.
[this far left extremist judge] attacked the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts as organizations that perpetuate stereotyped sex roles and that he had proposed abolishing Mother’s Day and Father’s Day and replacing them with a single androgynous Parent’s Day.
And, to get really absurd, let’s add that he had called for an end to single-sex prisons on the theory that if male prisoners are going to return to a community in which men and women function as equal partners, prison is just the place for them to get prepared to deal with women.
Let’s further posit that this nominee had opined that a manifest imbalance in the racial composition of an employer’s work force justified court-ordered quotas even in the absence of any intentional discrimination on the part of the employer. But then, lo and behold, to make this nominee even more of a parody of an out-of-touch leftist, let’s say it was discovered that while operating his own office for over a decade in a city that was majority-black, this nominee had never had a single black person among his more than 50 hires.
Imagine, in sum, a nominee whose record is indisputably extreme and who could be expected to use his judicial role to impose those views on mainstream America. Surely such a person would never be nominated to an appellate court. Surely no Senate Democrat would support someone with such extreme views. And surely Senate Republicans, rather than deferring to the nominating power of the Democrat President, would pull out all stops—filibuster and everything—to stop such a nominee.
OK, just to show that I'm a bit off the mainstream, there is actually a couple of things I agree with this far left extremist with. Those being:
Let’s assume, for example, that this nominee had expressed strong sympathy for the position that there is a constitutional right to prostitution as well as a constitutional right to polygamy
Sounds like a Conservative Republican's nightmare, doesn't it...
OK, time for the punchline. This person exists and sits on the Supreme Court.
It's Ruth Bader Ginsburg, nominated by President William Jefferson Clinton and confirmed by the Senate in an up and down vote on August 3, 1993. The vote was 96-3.
The democrats in the Senate are blocking Priscilla Owen's nomination to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals because she doesn't have a perfect pro-abortion record due to a single case. In that case she upheld the Texas law requiring parental notification for in the case of a minor having an abortion.
Let us take another look at just who the extremists are in the Senate.