Litmus Lunacy

Could there be a more blatant indication that Senate Dems have a litmus tests for judicial nominees than this?

From the Washington Times:

A group of female Democratic senators said yesterday that they will vote against Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. unless he vows to uphold abortion rights.

Yesterday's comments exceed previous posturing by Democrats calling on Judge Roberts to state his position on settled cases, a practice that previous high court nominees have avoided. They also come closer than ever to establishing a single-issue "litmus test" for his confirmation.

"Thousands of women a year died in back alleys," Sen. Barbara Boxer, California Democrat, said of the days before Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that established abortion rights.

"For more than 20 years, Sandra Day O'Connor has been an important vote in upholding Roe v. Wade," she said. "Will Judge Roberts be that same important voice?"

...At a press conference yesterday, the women were asked whether any of them could vote in favor of Judge Roberts if he said Roe was wrongly decided. None spoke up. Mrs. Boxer said she would find it "impossible" to vote for him.

Asked specifically, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Democrat, clarified that she would wait to hear Judge Roberts' answers during his confirmation hearings.

"I'm not going to be speculating," she said.

Also on stage were Barbara A. Mikulski of Maryland, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, and Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell of Washington. Although Miss Mikulski did not say that she would support Judge Roberts if he opposes abortion, she said the coalition of female senators cared about more than just abortion rights.

...Mrs. Cantwell said that it isn't "good enough" to only ask about a nominee's allegiance to Roe. They also must establish that the nominee believes in an earlier court decision that found "privacy rights" in the Constitution.

"I want to hear a nominee say that it is the basis for their philosophy," she said. "If an individual says that, then I will be convinced that they truly believe in the right to privacy and will not be a member of the Supreme Court that will unsettle Roe v. Wade."

Mrs. Cantwell, a former member of the Judiciary Committee, did not dispute that such a standard amounts to a "litmus test."

"Some of you may think that that is a litmus test," she said. "Well, I can tell you this, that over 60 percent of the American public believe that it is the job and role of the Senate to advise and consent on nominees, and it is very appropriate to ask nominees about their judicial philosophy."

A few thoughts:

First, if I hear one more Dem say that there is no litmus test for judicial nominees, I will become physically ill.

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck! QUACK! QUACK!

Second, the Dems are clearly feeling the heat from fringe special interest groups, like NOW, NARAL, MoveOn, and PFAW. No doubt, the posturing of these female Dem senators is meant to assuage their concerns.

One would think it's a risky move for these senators to actually go on the record saying that they are applying a political litmus test to Roberts, rather than evaluating him on his qualifications to serve as a justice on the high court.

One would think that would be so, but it's not risky for them at all.

They are in the pocket of these loud, radical, leftist groups. In effect, the senators are obliged to come out and say they will oppose Roberts on the sole basis of his position on abortion.

Moreover, senators should carry out their duties with proper decorum, reason, and dignity. Poll numbers should not be an excuse to throw out precedence and procedure.

These senators are a disgrace to their offices, plain and simple.

Third, Hillary indicates once again that she has her sights on the oval office.

Her refusal to discuss how she would vote until she hears Roberts' responses during the confirmation hearings, while totally appropriate, runs counter to the approach her Dem colleagues have chosen--judge first, ask questions later.

Hill is sticking to her moderate facade. She's pretending to be a measured, rational person, unlike the majority of her Dem colleagues. As usual, Hillary is doing what's best for Hillary.