Michael Gaynor
The Judicial Confirmation Network won't let Judge Alito be "borked"
By Michael Gaynor
Robert Bork was appointed as a federal appellate judge on the prestigious District of Columbia Circuit in 1982 and nominated by President Reagan to serve as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court in 1987. Democrats controlled the United States Senate then and shameless judicial activists succeeded in blocking his confirmation by smearing him so effectively that "bork" became a verb!
Senator Ted Kennedy's calumnies (misrepresentations intended to blacken Judge Bork's reputation) were utterly contemptible, but cunning: "Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, children could not be taught about evolution." Kennedy grossly distorted Judge Bork's originalist judicial philosophy (the one that America's Founders expected America's jurists to apply after taking an oath to support the Constitution) as dangerous, sexist, racist, abusive, and arbitrary.
Within an hour of Judge Bork's nomination, Senator Kennedy was on the Senate floor railing against it. TV commercials attacked Judge Bork as an extremist. Widespread public skepticism of Judge Bork's nomination was effectively created. The truth did not catch up to the lies and egregious oversimplifications deliberately used to torpedo Judge Bork's nomination.
On the July 5, 2005 edition of ABC's World News Tonight, Wendy E. Long, the Judicial Confirmation Network's counsel, acknowledged that Judge Bork's nomination was rejected because he was "smeared" during his 1987 confirmation hearings and she obviously is resolved that highly qualified nominees like Judge Bork will be much better defended when the smear artists turn to them (the Borking shock having warn off and the Borking lesson having been well learned).
Broadcast excerpt:
"JAKE TAPPER (correspondent): Conservatives say they've learned their lesson from the successful campaign against Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork.
"LONG: We're more ready than we've ever been before. We certainly were not ready when Justice Bork was smeared and tarred and feathered in 1987.
"ORNSTEIN: This is the final affirmation of the permanent campaign. We have had a number of years now, where there's been no distinction between campaigning for office and governing itself. It's all politics all the time.
"TAPPER: The politics of confrontation, at least for now. Jake Tapper, ABC News, Washington"
Permanent campaign continues. The expected smearing of Judge Alito, by the extreme leftists in politics and the media who ridiculously pose as mainstreamers and arbitrarily define Judge Alito as a dangerous extremist, is in process, since his nomination is set to be acted upon next month.
In the December 12, 2005 issue of Washington Post, columnist Robert Novak wrote about what he (and the headline writer) called "The Alito campaign." He reported that "[a]n Internet ad distributed by the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network to over 10 million users this week will fire back on critics of Alito's dissent validating the search of the young daughter of a suspected drug dealer." The ad reportedly asserts that "left-wing extremists opposing" Alito "may have found new allies — drug dealers who hide drugs on children."
BRAVO!
The left-wing extremists deliberately distorting Judge Alito's outstanding judicial record deserve to be exposed!
Does the ad go too far?
NO!
Those who think otherwise should read Ms. Long's press release rebutting the false charge, issued on November 17, 2005, entitled "Long: Extremist Liberal Groups Misrepresent Alito 'Strip Search' Opinion and Threaten to Pull Moderate Senators Over A Cliff" and st forth in full immediately below.
"Extremist liberal groups want to derail the civility and substance that has characterized Judge Alito's bipartisan reception in the Senate. Because Senators Snowe, Feinstein, Collins, Lieberman, and many others — both Republican and Democrat — have been impressed by Judge Alito in their meetings with him and have had good words, the liberal left attack machine has kicked into high gear. The question is, will these extremists pull reasonable moderates over the cliff with them in this nasty and deceptive campaign against Judge Alito?
"People for the American Way, Alliance for Justice, and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights — all inaptly and deceptively named, as they have little to do with the 'American Way,' 'justice,' or 'civil rights,' although they could be fairly characterized as the "leadership" of the ultra left liberal attack machine — have no qualms about putting out wild inaccuracies and distortions to smear one of the country's leading judges, Sam Alito. Judge Alito is universally regarded by those who know him on all sides of the political spectrum to be a brilliant, hardworking, fair, neutral, and impartial judge who is bound by honor to the law: completely the opposite of what these groups want, which is a liberal judicial activist who will essentially impose their far left liberal policy agenda on Americans through the Supreme Court. President Bush will never nominate the kind of Justice these groups want.
"Their ad released today is reminiscent of the attack ad on Chief Justice Roberts claiming that he supported abortion clinic bombers. Here we go again. Now, they claim that Judge Alito "approved" a "strip search of a 10 year-old girl," and that he "pushed to narrow the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure." This gross and deliberate misrepresentation proves that, as the Left has boasted, it will do anything, including lying, to attack Judge Alito. Here's the truth about the Doe v. Groody case, to which this particular lie refers: the case involved a suit against some police officers, by plaintiffs whose home and persons had been searched as part of a long-term narcotics investigation. The scope of the Fourth Amendment was not even at issue in the case. The only issue was one of "qualified immunity" for the police officers: that is, whether the plaintiffs could collect money damages from the police because their rights were violated, or whether search was covered by the warrant in the case, or even if reasonable police officers might in good faith think that it was authorized.
"Not only are the technical legal issues in the Doe v. Groody case completely misrepresented, but the larger issue is also turned on its head. The liberal coalition running the attack ad wants Americans to think that Judge Alito was somehow in favor of humiliating an innocent 10 year-old girl. Apparently, the liberals contend that children cannot be searched under the Constitution. This rule would amount to a "get out of jail free" card for drug dealers who use young children to stash drugs. We know drug dealers already use children to hide drugs and contraband to evade searches by law enforcement. Apparently the liberals just want to give drug dealers a greater incentive to abuse children in this way. One does not know if there are drugs on the child until she is searched — in this case, the daughter of a long-suspected drug dealer, in the drug dealer's home, was searched respectfully and gently by a female police officer, in the presence of the child's mother.
"Just yesterday, in Philadelphia, the AP reports that a kindergarten teacher found eight bags of heroin in a five year-old student's pocket. The police say that the mother could be charged, and a school spokesman says they are shocked and outraged that a parent could place a child in such danger. But the left-wing liberal pressure groups out to destroy Judge Alito would trample the interests and safety of children in their mad rush to attack the Judge on some bogus Fourth Amendment ground."
"It's no surprise that representatives of these liberal groups are trying to pressure Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid to leading a filibuster against Judge Alito. They think they can strong-arm the whole Democratic Party and the Senate from doing its job and giving Judge Alito a fair up-or-down vote for the Supreme Court. Howard Dean, George Soros, Norman Lear, and the New York-Hollywood crowd tried hard to pull down Chief Justice Roberts, and this time they intend to lie and distort and attack Judge Alito even more viciously.
"But the American people have said overwhelmingly that they want a fair and dignified judicial confirmation process. They want honest questions, not deceptive attacks. And they want Senators to do their jobs in evaluating and voting on Judge Alito's nomination to the United States Supreme Court."
Given the charge being addressed and the time and space limitations applicable to television and radio ads, the responsive ad asserting that "left-wing extremists opposing" Judge Alito "may have found new allies — drug dealers who hide drugs on children" is particularly appropriate.
Mr. Novak reported:
"The impression that Alito's nomination may be in trouble is being created by left-wing interest groups and their Senate allies, who project what the judge's defenders call the 'jack-booted thug theme.' Alito's past decisions are used to depict him supporting strip searches of little girls and legalization of machine guns. In a pre-emptive strike against more such attacks, his conservative backers this week have dubbed this "law enforcement week," to paint Alito as the scourge of crime."
GREAT!
One Borking was one too many!
What is at stake is America's soul. As Mr. Novak put it: " In truth, the Alito campaign is one part of a relentless, sustained struggle for control of the Supreme Court extending far into the future. Nan Aron of the Alliance for Justice in 2004 declared she will do 'whatever it takes' to keep conservatives off the Supreme Court. This year, when Aron was asked what she would do to stop Alito, she replied, 'You name it, we'll do it.'
"The notion that Sam Alito has been scrutinized by liberals and found wanting is an illusion. Anybody that President Bush would select to the high court would be opposed by Aron and her collaborators, Ralph Neas of People for the American Way and Wade Henderson of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. Even Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the possible Bush nominee least acceptable to conservatives, would be opposed by these three horsemen of the Left."
So what's the plan to destroy Judge Alito?
Paint him as "a jack-booted thug" in black robes!
Mr. Novak illuminates:
"Roberts was just as unacceptable to them as Alito is, but the activists were unable to find critical mass for the future chief justice because his paper trail was so skimpy. In contrast, in two pieces of paper prepared 20 years ago by Alito (one of them a job application), he described himself as anti-abortion. That was enough to mobilize the senators who most dependably follow the special interest groups: Charles Schumer of New York, Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Barbara Boxer of California.
"But abortion is not an issue that will broaden the anti-Alito bloc beyond the 22 hard-core senators who voted against Roberts. Accordingly, Alito's 15 years as an appellate judge have been mined to yield controversial decisions that could not be found in Roberts' two years on the District of Columbia circuit court, which dealt largely with administrative cases. Alito's dissents on criminal-search and gun-control cases are cited to turn him into a 'jack-booted thug.' This characterization might seem more credible for Alito, the son of an Italian immigrant, than for Roberts, whose father was a corporate executive."
The response: "Alito's strategists reply with 'law enforcement week,' emphasizing his endorsement by the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP). To assail Alito's decisions, said FOP President Chuck Canterbury, is 'like attacking a police officer for doing his job and making arrests.'
Why?
"The intent of this effort is to keep Alito's opposition in the Senate below the 41 votes needed to defeat a cloture motion stopping a filibuster. But even if his foes fall just short of that level, the hope on the left is that such a showing will dissuade Bush from naming another Roberts or Alito to the next vacancy on the court. The Senate's confirmation process has been degraded into an endless political campaign."
The confirmation process HAS become "an endless political campaign." But there is no time to lament that. Time must be spent on winning the campaign, for America's sake. Judge Alito's supporters, including the Judicial Confirmation Network and Ms. Long, are doing precisely that, by rebutting false charges both in detail and in effective ads. Thanks be to them, and God!
© Michael Gaynor
Robert Bork was appointed as a federal appellate judge on the prestigious District of Columbia Circuit in 1982 and nominated by President Reagan to serve as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court in 1987. Democrats controlled the United States Senate then and shameless judicial activists succeeded in blocking his confirmation by smearing him so effectively that "bork" became a verb!
Senator Ted Kennedy's calumnies (misrepresentations intended to blacken Judge Bork's reputation) were utterly contemptible, but cunning: "Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, children could not be taught about evolution." Kennedy grossly distorted Judge Bork's originalist judicial philosophy (the one that America's Founders expected America's jurists to apply after taking an oath to support the Constitution) as dangerous, sexist, racist, abusive, and arbitrary.
Within an hour of Judge Bork's nomination, Senator Kennedy was on the Senate floor railing against it. TV commercials attacked Judge Bork as an extremist. Widespread public skepticism of Judge Bork's nomination was effectively created. The truth did not catch up to the lies and egregious oversimplifications deliberately used to torpedo Judge Bork's nomination.
On the July 5, 2005 edition of ABC's World News Tonight, Wendy E. Long, the Judicial Confirmation Network's counsel, acknowledged that Judge Bork's nomination was rejected because he was "smeared" during his 1987 confirmation hearings and she obviously is resolved that highly qualified nominees like Judge Bork will be much better defended when the smear artists turn to them (the Borking shock having warn off and the Borking lesson having been well learned).
Broadcast excerpt:
"JAKE TAPPER (correspondent): Conservatives say they've learned their lesson from the successful campaign against Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork.
"LONG: We're more ready than we've ever been before. We certainly were not ready when Justice Bork was smeared and tarred and feathered in 1987.
"ORNSTEIN: This is the final affirmation of the permanent campaign. We have had a number of years now, where there's been no distinction between campaigning for office and governing itself. It's all politics all the time.
"TAPPER: The politics of confrontation, at least for now. Jake Tapper, ABC News, Washington"
Permanent campaign continues. The expected smearing of Judge Alito, by the extreme leftists in politics and the media who ridiculously pose as mainstreamers and arbitrarily define Judge Alito as a dangerous extremist, is in process, since his nomination is set to be acted upon next month.
In the December 12, 2005 issue of Washington Post, columnist Robert Novak wrote about what he (and the headline writer) called "The Alito campaign." He reported that "[a]n Internet ad distributed by the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network to over 10 million users this week will fire back on critics of Alito's dissent validating the search of the young daughter of a suspected drug dealer." The ad reportedly asserts that "left-wing extremists opposing" Alito "may have found new allies — drug dealers who hide drugs on children."
BRAVO!
The left-wing extremists deliberately distorting Judge Alito's outstanding judicial record deserve to be exposed!
Does the ad go too far?
NO!
Those who think otherwise should read Ms. Long's press release rebutting the false charge, issued on November 17, 2005, entitled "Long: Extremist Liberal Groups Misrepresent Alito 'Strip Search' Opinion and Threaten to Pull Moderate Senators Over A Cliff" and st forth in full immediately below.
"Extremist liberal groups want to derail the civility and substance that has characterized Judge Alito's bipartisan reception in the Senate. Because Senators Snowe, Feinstein, Collins, Lieberman, and many others — both Republican and Democrat — have been impressed by Judge Alito in their meetings with him and have had good words, the liberal left attack machine has kicked into high gear. The question is, will these extremists pull reasonable moderates over the cliff with them in this nasty and deceptive campaign against Judge Alito?
"People for the American Way, Alliance for Justice, and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights — all inaptly and deceptively named, as they have little to do with the 'American Way,' 'justice,' or 'civil rights,' although they could be fairly characterized as the "leadership" of the ultra left liberal attack machine — have no qualms about putting out wild inaccuracies and distortions to smear one of the country's leading judges, Sam Alito. Judge Alito is universally regarded by those who know him on all sides of the political spectrum to be a brilliant, hardworking, fair, neutral, and impartial judge who is bound by honor to the law: completely the opposite of what these groups want, which is a liberal judicial activist who will essentially impose their far left liberal policy agenda on Americans through the Supreme Court. President Bush will never nominate the kind of Justice these groups want.
"Their ad released today is reminiscent of the attack ad on Chief Justice Roberts claiming that he supported abortion clinic bombers. Here we go again. Now, they claim that Judge Alito "approved" a "strip search of a 10 year-old girl," and that he "pushed to narrow the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure." This gross and deliberate misrepresentation proves that, as the Left has boasted, it will do anything, including lying, to attack Judge Alito. Here's the truth about the Doe v. Groody case, to which this particular lie refers: the case involved a suit against some police officers, by plaintiffs whose home and persons had been searched as part of a long-term narcotics investigation. The scope of the Fourth Amendment was not even at issue in the case. The only issue was one of "qualified immunity" for the police officers: that is, whether the plaintiffs could collect money damages from the police because their rights were violated, or whether search was covered by the warrant in the case, or even if reasonable police officers might in good faith think that it was authorized.
"Not only are the technical legal issues in the Doe v. Groody case completely misrepresented, but the larger issue is also turned on its head. The liberal coalition running the attack ad wants Americans to think that Judge Alito was somehow in favor of humiliating an innocent 10 year-old girl. Apparently, the liberals contend that children cannot be searched under the Constitution. This rule would amount to a "get out of jail free" card for drug dealers who use young children to stash drugs. We know drug dealers already use children to hide drugs and contraband to evade searches by law enforcement. Apparently the liberals just want to give drug dealers a greater incentive to abuse children in this way. One does not know if there are drugs on the child until she is searched — in this case, the daughter of a long-suspected drug dealer, in the drug dealer's home, was searched respectfully and gently by a female police officer, in the presence of the child's mother.
"Just yesterday, in Philadelphia, the AP reports that a kindergarten teacher found eight bags of heroin in a five year-old student's pocket. The police say that the mother could be charged, and a school spokesman says they are shocked and outraged that a parent could place a child in such danger. But the left-wing liberal pressure groups out to destroy Judge Alito would trample the interests and safety of children in their mad rush to attack the Judge on some bogus Fourth Amendment ground."
"It's no surprise that representatives of these liberal groups are trying to pressure Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid to leading a filibuster against Judge Alito. They think they can strong-arm the whole Democratic Party and the Senate from doing its job and giving Judge Alito a fair up-or-down vote for the Supreme Court. Howard Dean, George Soros, Norman Lear, and the New York-Hollywood crowd tried hard to pull down Chief Justice Roberts, and this time they intend to lie and distort and attack Judge Alito even more viciously.
"But the American people have said overwhelmingly that they want a fair and dignified judicial confirmation process. They want honest questions, not deceptive attacks. And they want Senators to do their jobs in evaluating and voting on Judge Alito's nomination to the United States Supreme Court."
Given the charge being addressed and the time and space limitations applicable to television and radio ads, the responsive ad asserting that "left-wing extremists opposing" Judge Alito "may have found new allies — drug dealers who hide drugs on children" is particularly appropriate.
Mr. Novak reported:
"The impression that Alito's nomination may be in trouble is being created by left-wing interest groups and their Senate allies, who project what the judge's defenders call the 'jack-booted thug theme.' Alito's past decisions are used to depict him supporting strip searches of little girls and legalization of machine guns. In a pre-emptive strike against more such attacks, his conservative backers this week have dubbed this "law enforcement week," to paint Alito as the scourge of crime."
GREAT!
One Borking was one too many!
What is at stake is America's soul. As Mr. Novak put it: " In truth, the Alito campaign is one part of a relentless, sustained struggle for control of the Supreme Court extending far into the future. Nan Aron of the Alliance for Justice in 2004 declared she will do 'whatever it takes' to keep conservatives off the Supreme Court. This year, when Aron was asked what she would do to stop Alito, she replied, 'You name it, we'll do it.'
"The notion that Sam Alito has been scrutinized by liberals and found wanting is an illusion. Anybody that President Bush would select to the high court would be opposed by Aron and her collaborators, Ralph Neas of People for the American Way and Wade Henderson of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. Even Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the possible Bush nominee least acceptable to conservatives, would be opposed by these three horsemen of the Left."
So what's the plan to destroy Judge Alito?
Paint him as "a jack-booted thug" in black robes!
Mr. Novak illuminates:
"Roberts was just as unacceptable to them as Alito is, but the activists were unable to find critical mass for the future chief justice because his paper trail was so skimpy. In contrast, in two pieces of paper prepared 20 years ago by Alito (one of them a job application), he described himself as anti-abortion. That was enough to mobilize the senators who most dependably follow the special interest groups: Charles Schumer of New York, Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Barbara Boxer of California.
"But abortion is not an issue that will broaden the anti-Alito bloc beyond the 22 hard-core senators who voted against Roberts. Accordingly, Alito's 15 years as an appellate judge have been mined to yield controversial decisions that could not be found in Roberts' two years on the District of Columbia circuit court, which dealt largely with administrative cases. Alito's dissents on criminal-search and gun-control cases are cited to turn him into a 'jack-booted thug.' This characterization might seem more credible for Alito, the son of an Italian immigrant, than for Roberts, whose father was a corporate executive."
The response: "Alito's strategists reply with 'law enforcement week,' emphasizing his endorsement by the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP). To assail Alito's decisions, said FOP President Chuck Canterbury, is 'like attacking a police officer for doing his job and making arrests.'
Why?
"The intent of this effort is to keep Alito's opposition in the Senate below the 41 votes needed to defeat a cloture motion stopping a filibuster. But even if his foes fall just short of that level, the hope on the left is that such a showing will dissuade Bush from naming another Roberts or Alito to the next vacancy on the court. The Senate's confirmation process has been degraded into an endless political campaign."
The confirmation process HAS become "an endless political campaign." But there is no time to lament that. Time must be spent on winning the campaign, for America's sake. Judge Alito's supporters, including the Judicial Confirmation Network and Ms. Long, are doing precisely that, by rebutting false charges both in detail and in effective ads. Thanks be to them, and God!
© Michael Gaynor
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
