Dems to GOP nominee: Will the defendant please rise?

Dems to GOP nominee: Will the defendant please rise?

Ann Coulter emphasizes difference in how 2 parties deal with opposing
judicial picks

By Ann Coulter

Every time a Democrat senator has talked during the Senate hearings on
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor this week, I felt lousy about my
country. Not for the usual reasons when a Democrat talks, but because
Democrats revel in telling us what a racist country this is.

Interestingly, the Democrats' examples of ethnic prejudice did not
include Clarence Thomas, whose nomination hearings began with the
Democrats saying, "You may now uncuff the defendant."

Their examples did not include Miguel Estrada, the brilliant Harvard-
educated lawyer who was blocked from an appellate court judgeship by
Senate Democrats expressly on the grounds that he is a Hispanic – as
stated in Democratic staff memos that became public.

No, they had to go back to Roger Taney – confirmed in 1836 – who was
allegedly attacked for being a Catholic (and who authored the Dred
Scott decision), and Louis Brandeis – confirmed in 1916 – allegedly a
victim of anti-Semitism.

What will it take to restore common sense and rein in out-of-control
government? Get Glenn Beck's latest book, inspired by Founding Father
Thomas Paine

Indeed, Sen. Patrick Leahy lied about Estrada's nomination, blaming it
on Republicans: "He was not given a hearing when the Republicans were
in charge. He was given a hearing when the Democrats were in charge."

The Republicans were "in charge" for precisely 14 days between
Estrada's nomination on May 9, 2001, and May 24, 2001, when Sen. Jim
Jeffords switched parties, giving Democrats control of the Senate. The
Democrats then refused to hold a hearing on Estrada's nomination for
approximately 480 days, shortly before the 2002 election.

Even after Republicans won back a narrow majority in 2003, Estrada was
blocked "by an extraordinary filibuster mounted by Senate Democrats" –
as the New York Times put it.

Memos from the Democratic staff of the Judiciary Committee were later
unearthed, revealing that they considered Estrada "especially
dangerous" – as stated in a memo by a Sen. Dick Durbin staffer –
because "he is Latino and the White House seems to be grooming him for
a Supreme Court appointment."

Sandy Berger wasn't available to steal back the memos, so Durbin
ordered Capitol Police to seize the documents from Senate computer
servers and lock them in a police vault.

Led by Sens. Leahy and Chuck Schumer, Democrats ferociously opposed
Estrada, who would have been the first Hispanic to sit on the
influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit. They were so determined to keep him off the Supreme Court
that Leahy and Schumer introduced legislation at one point to
construct a fence around Estrada's house.

In frustration, Estrada finally withdrew his name on Sept. 5, 2003.

At the time, liberal historian David Garrow predicted that if the
Democrats blocked Estrada, they would be "handing Bush a campaign
issue to use in the Hispanic community."

Alas, today Democrats can't really place Estrada – James Carville
confuses him with that other Hispanic, Alberto Gonzales. On MSNBC they
laugh about his obscurity, asking if he was the cop on "CHiPs." They
also can't recall the name "Anita Hill." Nor can anyone remember
African-American Janice Rogers Brown or what the Democrats did to
her.

Only the indignities suffered by Justices Taney and Brandeis still
burn in liberal hearts!

So when Republicans treat Sotomayor with respect and Sen. Lindsey
Graham says his "hope" is that "if we ever get a conservative
president and they nominate someone who has an equal passion on the
other side, that we will not forget this moment," I think it's a
lovely speech.

It might even persuade me if I were born yesterday.

But Democrats treat judicial nominations like war – while Republicans
keep being gracious, hoping Democrats will learn by example.

Sen. Teddy Kennedy accused Reagan nominee Robert Bork of trying to
murder women, segregate blacks, institute a police state and censor
speech – everything short of driving a woman into a lake! – within an
hour of Reagan's announcing Bork's nomination.

To defend "the right to privacy," liberals investigated Bork's video
rentals. (Alfred Hitchcock, the Marx Brothers' movies and "Ruthless
People" – the last one supposedly a primer for dealing with the
Democrats.)

Liberals unleashed scorned woman Anita Hill against Clarence Thomas in
the 11th hour of his hearings to accuse him of sexual harassment –
charges that were believed by no one who knew both Thomas and Hill, or
by the vast majority of Americans watching the hearings.

But when the tables were turned and Bill Clinton nominated left-wing
extremist/ACLU lawyer Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Republicans lavished her
with praise and voted overwhelmingly to confirm her, in a 96-to-3
vote. (Poor Ruth. If Sotomayor is confirmed, Ginsburg will no longer
be known as "the hot one in the robe.")

The next Clinton nominee, Stephen Breyer, was also treated gallantly –
no video rental records or perjurious testimony was adduced against
him – and confirmed in an 87-to-9 vote.

As Mrs. Sam Alito can attest, the magnanimity was not returned to
Bush's Supreme Court nominees. She was driven from the hearings in
tears by the Democrats' vicious attacks on her husband's character.
The great "uniter" Barack Obama voted against both nominees.

Even Justice Ginsburg recently remarked to the New York Times that her
and Justice Breyer's hearings were "unusual" in how "civil" they
were.

Hmmm, why might that be?

To the extent that the Sotomayor hearings have been less than civil,
it is, again, liberals who have made it so, launching personal attacks
against the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Jeff
Sessions, and even the fireman whose complaint started the Ricci
case.

But it was a nice speech.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=104051
.

Relevant Pages