Re: None of This Matters

Andy McCarthy also remarks on the Democrats’ new-found reticence to explore a Supreme Court nominee’s extracurricular activities. He observes that Democrats have elicited her testimony about her work for PRLDEF, but haven’t come forward with the documents evidencing her work there. He writes:

Democrats shouldn’t be allowed to have it both ways. If the PRLDEF is relevant enough for Democrats to elicit testimony about, then it’s relevant enough for Republicans to press hard to get the pertinent documents and time to review them. In a legal trial — which is far less important than vetting a nominee for a lifetime appointment on the nation’s highest court — a judge in such a situation would routinely order the disclosure of the relevant documents and grant an adjournment so they could be reviewed; otherwise, disclosure is not meaningful or consistent with due process. Why should less than that be acceptable here?

Moreover, it wasn’t Sotomayor’s detractors who made her nomination all about her biography. The president did, touting her story and making “empathy” a key consideration. No detail — not even her Nancy Drew reading material — was too obscure. But then it turns out she has a load of wacky stuff in her biography — speeches that ascribe “inherent physiological differences” to different ethnic groups and denigrate impartiality, not to mention work for a left-wing advocacy group that insists women are “enslaved” unless taxpayers fund abortions. So now, Democrats tell us, biography is irrelevant. All they want to talk about are major league baseball and her judicial decisions.

0
Shares
Google+ Print

Re: None of This Matters

Must-Reads from Magazine

Salaita, Out

Sympathy deferred.

I have written before about Steven Salaita. Once a tenured professor of English at Virginia Tech, he resigned from that position on the strength of an offer from the University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign to serve in the American Indian Studies program. But in the summer of 2014, UIUC rescinded the offer, mainly over of a series of reprehensible Salaita tweets.

0
Shares
Google+ Print

Syria’s Forsaken Rebels

Has Washington given up on Syria?

Last week, I wrote about one of the troublesome byproducts of the Trump-Putin summit in Hamburg: a ceasefire in southwestern Syria that Israel worries will entrench Iranian control of that area bordering the Israeli Golan Heights. The day after my article came out, the Washington Post reported on another troubling decision that President Trump has made vis a vis Syria: Ending a CIA program that had provided arms and training to anti-Assad forces.

4
Shares
Google+ Print

The Democratic Party’s False Centrism

It's a duck.

Democrats are finally digging out of the wreckage the Obama years wrought, and are beginning to acknowledge the woes they visited upon themselves with their box-checking identity liberalism. So, yes, the opposition is moving forward in the Trump area, but toward what? Schizophrenia, apparently.

12
Shares
Google+ Print

Challenging Violent Speech—Unless It’s About Israel

The border of incitement.

The idea that speech can itself constitute an act of violence grows ever more popular among the left’s leading polemicists. They argue that employing a politically incorrect word can be triggering; that the wrong gender pronoun can provoke; that words and sentences and parts of speech are all acts of aggression in disguise. The left seeks to stop this violence, or less euphemistically: to silence this speech.

35
Shares
Google+ Print

Russian Undressing: An Explanation

Podcast: How bad is it?

On the first of this week’s COMMENTARY podcasts, Noah Rothman and Abe Greenwald join me to sort through—and we do it systematically, which is a first for us—what is going on with the Russia investigation and how it divides into three categories. There’s the question of the probe itself, there’s the question of collusion, and there’s the question of obstruction of justice. It’s really good. I mean it. Give a listen.

4
Shares
Google+ Print