Weekly Jackass Number Fifty-One: Ted Kennedy
How could this feature have gone so long without recognizing this week’s recipient? Perhaps it is because ANY week is a good week to honor the least-well-liked of the Kennedy clan. There is no stunt too shameless, no rhetoric too vapid, for Senator Kennedy to wallow in. Here’s the well-known crusader for women’s rights (just ask Mary Jo Kopechne!) from the well-known feminist Kennedy family (just ask Marilyn!) on Judge Alito:
“A credibility gap is emerging with each new piece of information released on Judge Alito’s record,” said Sen. Edward Kennedy, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is to begin confirmation hearings on Jan. 9.
“He bears an especially heavy burden at the hearings in January to explain the growing number of discrepancies between his current statements and his past actions,” said Kennedy, D-Mass.
This, from the man who didn’t even see fit to notify authorities of the death of Kopechne! Talk about credibility gaps (and shame on the voters who continue to send this man who, at the very least, is guilty of vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated back to Congress)!
Of course, the real problem is that Alito opposes abortion, and it is abortion rights that are the bread and butter of Democratic machine politicians like Kennedy (and it is also his abortion stance that explains why women will consent to even be in the same room with him). Here’s Kennedy on the occasion of announcing his opposition to John Roberts:
…a number of my colleagues on the Committee asked Judge Roberts about issues related to women’s rights and a woman’s right to privacy. On these important matters, too, he never gave answers that shed light on his current views.
No one is entitled to become Chief Justice of the United States. The confirmation of nominees to our courts — by and with the advice and consent of the Senate — should not require a leap of faith. Nominees must earn their confirmation by providing us with full knowledge of the values and convictions they will bring to decisions that may profoundly affect our progress as a nation toward the ideal of equality.
The problem here is the problem that affects most modern liberals: moral relativism pervades Kennedy’s statement.
To a person like Kennedy, as his statement clearly shows, the law is an ever-changing social document, subject to the whims and changing morality of the populace. Thus, judicial nominees should be weighed on the outcomes for social justice and equality that their nominations might enable (some of us call this legislating from the bench).
The truth of the matter is that the role of the Supreme Court is highly limited: its only proper function is to decide on the constitutionality of the questions of law before it. There is no room for sociology coursework in the deliberations of this branch of government. That is the proper domain of the legislative and executive branch.
The proof in the pudding is the fact that justices are appointed for life. If Kennedy’s view of the Supreme Court was the correct one, why wouldn’t we want our justices to face the electorate, and stay in touch with the will of the voters?
If such questions ever cross Kennedy’s mind, the record does not show it…
Thus, we award this broad distinction on a narrow basis to a man who is surely overqualified…congrats, Teddy Boy, and have a drink on me…