A rush to judgment

For progressive‑liberals, there are no acceptable nominees

Posted November 2, 2005 4:30AM PST

In 1998 when right‑wing hounds howled for Clinton's impeachment, I wrote a lengthy piece in which, speaking as a long‑time critic of President Clinton, I asserted that we had more important things to do. Conservative talk radio host Michael Medved felt the same way. Still the hounds howled, got their impeachment, and nothing good came of it.

Instead of taking down the flawed but likeable Administrator‑in‑Chief, it served as one more item for which the ever‑emotional and seldom reasonable but always energetic progressive‑liberal leftists would seek to get even. Leaping past the little stuff, next came the 2000 election, when they failed to win Florida. Despite a handful of large studies published by moderate‑to‑left newspapers reluctantly admitting that Bush really did win Florida, progressive‑liberals still snarl that the Sunshine state was stolen from them by a supreme court that refused to tilt the table in their behalf.

This was followed by 2004, when they blamed their loss on Ohio, which they claim was stolen by Bush. I don't know what happened, there, and I don't care because when we point out how they stole Washington state, these same people either quietly avert their eyes or spit and froth that it was justified because if they hadn't, then the Evergreen state would have descended into an unenlightened hell, infested with thriving small businesses and schools plagued by demonic demands for academic excellence. Hideous this fate, they are happy it was averted, no matter how many crimes they committed to create this blue enclave where they can cultivate more hatred for President Bush.

Bush himself is not without flaws; being a conservative Christian, however, he long ago admitted to this with a prayerful shrug. To progressive‑liberals, that is an unpardonable sin. As if to say, "no, you can't do that, you have to pretend to be perfect so we can tear you down," leftists have created a holier‑than‑thou effigy. According to a listener of Airhead America's Seattle affiliate, AM 1090 Seattle's Progressive Talk, "The difference between liberal and conservative Christians, is that liberals see Christ as somebody to emulate, while conservatives see him as somebody to crucify."

Jesus is an icon of self‑sacrifice. One whose example progressive‑liberals seem intent on forcing everybody to emulate. Conservative Christians, on the other hand, view Christ as the maker of their redemption. No further sacrifices necessary. Maybe that's why, as a non‑Christian, I've experienced more judgmental torch‑and‑pitchfork mentality from the left than the right. Not that the right is without its own knee‑jerk reactionaries. There's plenty of intolerance to go around. In my experience, however, most of it seems to reside on the left. This is nowhere so well exemplified as in the attacks on Bush's Supreme Court nominees.

Most of Harriet Miers' critics were so‑called neo‑conservatives, who found her too moderate. More to their liking is Samuel Alito. While conservatives laud Alito, however, progressive‑liberals mendaciously attribute the ire for Miers to Christian Conservatives. In this, they lie, thus demonstrating their deepening intolerance for Christian orthodoxy. As when progressive radio talk show host Thom Hartmann repeatedly noted that Miers is an evangelical Christian who would lean the Court to the right, and claimed that complaints about her were a ploy to deceive Democrats into voting for her.

What both sides wanted was a fight, and though she likely would have followed John Roberts' lead, Miers is a likeable lady whose track record elicited more yawns than battle cries. In Samuel Alito Jr., however, all sides have their donnybrook:

If confirmed, Alito could very well fundamentally alter the balance of the court and push it dangerously to the right, placing at risk decades of American progress in safeguarding our fundamental rights and freedoms.…After stating that he believed in a diverse bench, President Bush took the nation a step backwards today. Apparently, he couldn't find a woman or minority or a mainstream nominee that meets the litmus tests of the right wing, and instead put forth a nominee with a troubling record on the rights and freedoms important to America's families. — Kennedy Statement on Nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to Supreme Court, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, October 31, 2005

The lens through which I view the world, however, bring into sharp focus something about both Alito and Miers which may not mean much to most folks: both of them have experience with Indian law. As chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission, Miers dealt with Native American tribal sovereignty issues; and while sitting on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Alito ruled on Blackhawk v. Pennsylvania in favor of Dennis L. Blackhawk.

Given the cultural conservatism of Indian country, Judge Alito looks pretty good to me. What about his decision, more than a decade ago, upholding a requirement for spousal notification in an abortion case? That seems reasonable to me. What about requiring spousal notification for men seeking a vasectomy? That seems reasonable, too. Given the violent trends in feminist dogma, however, some might interpret that to mean that a woman must warn her husband before performing a vasectomy.