The Libs and major media have waxed long and hard attempting to come up with some evidence of Republican Filibusters of Judicial Nominees. In this article by
Edward Whelan , further light is shed on this non-event. In talking about a hypothetical nominee, Mr. Whelan writes:
"...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.
Let’s say, further, that he had 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."
The nominee ends up to be not so mythical. It was Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The Senate confirmed her appointment to the Supreme Court by a vote of 96-3. If the Libs and the MSM really want to be honest about Republican Filibusters, they should be ripping them for not using it. But if they did that, we wouldn't have anything to laugh at.
