William Santee – 1/19/06

This page was last updated on January 31, 2006.

What would Jesus be?; William Santee; Beaver County Times; January 19, 2006.

1/31/06 - Democrats tried a filibuster to deny a vote on Judge Alito’s nomination, but failed to defeat a cloture vote 72–25. On January 31^st, the Senate confirmed Judge Alito via 58 to 42. Democrats voted against Judge Alito by 40 to 4.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“Letter writer Ronald Groves (‘How would they grill Christ?‘ Tuesday) wonders how liberal Democrats would treat Christ if he were sitting before them in a Senate committee hearing.

“They would probably treat him with more respect than neo-con Republicans and fundamentalist Christians would.”

[RWC] I’d be willing to bet good money Mr. Santee doesn’t even know what a “neo-con” really is. If Mr. Santee would check his history and current events, he’d find so-called neocons as a group (There are individual exceptions, of course.) support economic, political, and social positions not much different from those of JFK-era Democrats. For what it’s worth, I believe neocons as a group are a tad too liberal.

Anyway, let’s look at Mr. Santee’s assertion using Bill Clinton’s two liberal Supreme Court nominees.

In 1993, all eight Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee recommended a floor vote for Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In the floor vote, only three of 43 Republicans voted against Ginsburg. Lest we forget, Ms. Ginsburg had once served as chief counsel for the ACLU.

In 1994, all eight Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee recommended a floor vote for Judge Stephen Breyer. In the floor vote, only nine of 44 Republicans voted against Breyer.

Therefore, those poster children for intolerance overwhelmingly approved the nominations of people at the opposite end of the ideological spectrum.

How about those poster children for tolerance, Democrats?

In 1987, Democrats conducted a baseless character assassination campaign on Judge Robert Bork so repulsive it gave birth to a new verb, “Borking.” Ultimately, the character assassination tactic worked and the Senate rejected Judge Bork’s nomination 58-42.

In 1991, Democrats tried to “Bork” Judge Clarence Thomas. Judge Thomas himself referred to the attempt as a “high-tech lynching.” With a 7-7 vote split, the Democrat-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee just barely forwarded Judge Thomas’s nomination to full Senate, but without an approval recommendation. In the floor vote, 46 of 54 Democrats voted against Thomas.

In 2005, Democrats tried to “Bork” Judge John Roberts but the world had changed since 1987 and 1991. One anti-Roberts advertisement implied Judge Roberts supported abortion clinic bombings. The organization responsible was forced to kill the ad and apologize. Another anti-Roberts group intended to investigate the Roberts’ adopted children, whom his critics deemed to be “too white” to have been adopted from Central America. That too died when Roberts supporters got wind of it. Five of the eight Democrats on the Judiciary Committee voted against forwarding Roberts’ nomination for a floor vote. In the floor vote, 22 of 44 Democrats voted against Roberts.

In 2006, Democrats once again tried to “Bork” a Republican nominee. Despite glowing testimonials from both conservatives and liberals that had both personal and professional experience with Judge Sam Alito, Democrat Judiciary Committee members tried to smear Alito with both misrepresentations and outright lies. In probably the most outrageous example, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) tried to tie Alito to the views expressed in an alleged article written 20-30 years ago by someone else. There were two problems. First, Alito didn’t write the piece. Second, the piece turned out to be a satire written by a conservative to show how liberals viewed conservatives. All eight Democrats on the Judiciary Committee voted against forwarding Roberts’ nomination for a floor vote. As of the writing of this critique, Democrats are still trying to sidetrack Judge Alito’s nomination.

Based on history and current events, it would appear Mr. Santee’s assertion has no basis in fact.

“If Mr. Groves would go back and read Christ’s words in the Bible, I doubt he would find proof to support his assumption that Christ was a card-carrying member of the Neo-Con Republican Christian Taliban.”

[RWC] I wonder if Mr. Santee read the same letter I did. Nowhere in Mr. Groves’ letter did he write or even imply a position on Christ’s political affiliation. To the contrary, it’s usually liberals who claim Christ as their own. Oddly, it’s these same liberals who fire schoolteachers for wearing a cross on their necklaces.

Finally, Mr. Santee resorts to name-calling, the refuge of a small mind. Naturally, he even gets the name-calling wrong. Being a conservative and Taliban-like are mutually exclusive positions. As we know, the Taliban wanted its government to control every aspect of life and that’s a trademark of liberalism.