July 20, 2005

Whose Interests?

It's been less than 24 hours, and already I am so disgusted with both the Right and the Left that I'm ready to throw in the towel over this whole Supreme Court thing. I have received action alerts from NARAL Pro-Choice America, the Priests for Life, Sen. John Kerry, MoveOn.org, the National Right to Life Committee, and a number of others. Even though Judge John G. Roberts said in 2003 that he would respect the precedent of Roe v. Wade, the pro-choice side is absolutely opposed to him and the pro-life side is absolutely in favor of him. What universe is this, where we assume in the face of no evidence that a man is exactly who we think he is?

Does it not occur to either Fr. Frank Pavone or Nancy Keenan that this man said, unambiguously, in a 2003 Senate hearing: "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land . . . There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent"? Does this not at all stop and make them wonder if this man whom they have labeled pro-life merely because he was nominated by President Bush might not actually be pro-choice? It's not beyond the realm of possibility; seven of the nine justices on the Supreme Court were appointed by Republican Presidents, and yet only three of them are opposed to Roe v. Wade.

My favorite so far has been the e-mail from Sen. Kerry. I love reading his hypocritical pontifications:

There are big questions that must be answered involving Judge Roberts' judicial philosophy as demonstrated over his short time on the appellate court. The Senate must learn whether he has a clear, consistent commitment to upholding Constitutional standards like civil rights, the right to privacy, and Roe v. Wade. These issues are in serious question if you take even a cursory glance at his record.

Is Sen. Kerry really going to preach to us about civil rights and the right to privacy? This same Sen. John Kerry, who, rather than defending gay and lesbian men and women in his home state of Massachusetts, betrayed them by opposing the state Democratic Party's inclusion of gay marriage in its platform and by supporting a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage? Is this the one who is going to preach to us now about civil rights and the right to privacy? Give me a break! This is the man who could have stood up and said that gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for months now, and it's not hurting anyone -- it's not hurting the "institution of marriage." Instead, he stood up and criticized his own state party for including gay marriage in its platform, and he threw his support behind a fascist attempt to ban same-sex marriage in his state. And he's going to talk to us about civil rights and the right to privacy? I don't think so. Keep it, Sen. Kerry.

Having watched now as the interest groups have gone crazy, and watching now as the senators on both sides of the aisle begin to bend to their every command, I am beginning to wonder: Who is really looking out for our interests? I watched, fascinated, last night as Tucker Carlson interviewed Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, on MSNBC. She could not cite even a little bit of evidence that Judge Roberts is the fascist demon she's making him out to be. Likewise, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, could cite no evidence that Judge Roberts is the champion of all that is holy. And it occurred to me that we don't know what Judge John G. Roberts is really about, and we may never know. Because this isn't about Judge Roberts for anyone in Washington -- this is, as always, about which political party can come out on top. And frankly, it disgusts me, because while they are so busy looking out for their own interests, they've stopped looking out for ours.