OK, Tell Me Again Why You Think Barack Is A "Uniter?"
Legal expert and blogger extraordinaire Ed Whelan makes an observation in the Weekly Standard that I had completely overlooked. Not only did Sen. Barack Obama vote against Sam Alito (appointed by a 58-42 majority), but Sen. "Reach Across Party Lines" voted against Chief Justice John Roberts.
Roberts was appointed with a 78-22 majority.
Sen. Obama's vote against Justice Roberts is both hypocritical and reprehensible. There is no justification for any vote against Roberts. He was clearly qualified for the job and nearly every serious legal authority in America supported his nomination. The 22 Democrats who voted against him were doing so on purely political grounds: "We know he's competent and qualified, but no judges should be appointed, no matter how brilliant, unless they agree with us."
So much for the Left's obsession with an independent judiciary.
But Obama's vote is worse, because he spends all day attacking partisanship and "business as usual." He's going to unite us, get something done, forget about party labels, blah, blah, blah.
Then, when it's time to actually vote, he sides with the most partisan, most liberal extremists in his party.
A vote for John Roberts was a no-brainer. You had to be looking to pick a partisan fight in order to deny him this job.
So, tell me again how Sen. Obama is going to "heal" my soul? Please, Michelle. Save it for the Oprah dopes on the stump.
UPDATE: According to the NYTimes, Sen. Obama's decision to vote against Justice Roberts wasn't just hyper-partisan. It was also gutless:
Mr. Obama wanted to vote to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. for the Supreme Court, for example — he thought the president deserved latitude when it came to appointments — but [staffer Pete] Rouse advised against it, pointing out that Mr. Obama would be reminded of the vote every time the court made a conservative ruling that he found objectionable.
Now THAT'S bold leadership for the future!
Can we duck any tough political votes? Yes We Can!