RSS Search

News  Feeds  Tags  Search Shortcuts

FeedsFarm.com > NOW - The Full Measure of Dishonor

Source:

American Daily

Language:

English

Tag/Category:

general

Domain:

www.americandaily.com

Search americandaily.com:

NOW - The Full Measure of Dishonor

6th Sep 2005, 23:30 GMT

On September 3, 2005 the 16th Chief Justice of the United States, William Hubbs Rehnquist, died. Those of us privileged to know him well and objective scholars far and wide have noted his brilliance, his compassion, his dedication, his perseverance. From World War II soldiering in North Africa through four university degrees (Stanford, B.A., M.A., LL.B.; Harvard, M.A. - first in his talented law class, which included Sandra Day O’Connor, also a bright student), successful Arizona law practice, Assistant Attorney General Office of Legal Counsel (the Justice Department top scholarly job) to 33 years on the Supreme Court, with no time off yet writing four history books, he was a remarkable mind and man. How, then, did the National Organization for Women (with the clever acronym of “NOW”) honor the Chief? NOW claims it has half a million donors. If so, using California Senator Dianne Feinstein’s estimate of 145 million American women (for whom the Senator claims she speaks), NOW’s donor list, superficially impressive in numbers, falters in percentages, accounting for only 1/290 of American women, or about one-third of one percent. For whatever number NOW purports to speak, the NOW September 5, 2005 Press Release, much of which follows, with bracketed comments, reflects the continuing decline in honor and courtesy - say nothing of grace - among so much of the contemporary American left. (The right is not without fault, if minimal by comparison.) As if to highlight the discourtesy, the NOW Press Release is issued under the name of NOW’s President, not mentioning she is a member of the Louisiana Bar and a long-time Democratic Party activist. “The [NOW] has been outspoken in our [sic] opposition to the nomination of anti-women’s rights [what rights of which women? - no case cited], anti-civil rights [whose civil rights? - no case cited] judge, John G. Roberts, [Jr.], to sit on the U. S. Supreme Court. Now that Roberts’ attitudes toward women [attitudes? married, wife a practicing attorney, adopted children] have been revealed [no citation], it is an outrage and an insult to the women of this country that [President] George W. Bush has nominated such a jurist to be Chief Justice . . .” “First, there cannot be a ‘stealth nominee” . . . Bush must release every document from Roberts’ tenure as Principal Deputy Solicitor General [including all those which violate attorney-client privilege: so much for clients’ rights and legal ethics] . . . How dare Bush nominate this candidate [no, NOW, it’s not an election; he’s not a “candidate”] . . . when his administration has deliberately concealed hundreds of thousands of pages of his writings [preposterous hyperbole, false accusation] . . . ? “The Senate Judiciary Committee and the full Senate must find its collective spine . . .” [such gracious, objective and literate comment.] “Second, NOW is even more concerned that . . . Roberts . . . will have a greater opportunity [comparative degree: “greater” than what?] to move the Court and our country backward [“backward” - a favorite, emotional and meaningless leftist pejorative] . . . . If Roberts is confirmed . . . Bush will have established right-wing leadership of the Court for another 30 years [Burger and Rehnquist: “right-wing[?]” - maybe just constitutionalists] a lifetime legacy . . . that women and girls will have a lifetime to regret. “Third . . . Bush’s cynicism and lack of compassion in nominating Chief Justice . . . Rehnquist’s successor even as his body [poor syntax: not Roberts’ body] is being prepared to lie in repose at the Court. [Is not Judge Roberts the late Chief Justice’s former law clerk, whose nomination he supported? Was not the late Chief Justice admirably well-known, among other virtues, for his efficiency, promptness and defense of the integrity of the Federal Judiciary?] Bush’s lack of sensitivity has been on display this past month as he avoided [a] Gold Star mom [translate: because he did not waste time on a leftist, publicity-seeking, anti-military agitator] and was stubbornly slow responding to the [Katrina] crisis . . . [translate: did not immediately seek to impose the Federal Government upon a profanity-spewing New Orleans Mayor and a do-nothing Louisiana Governor, both of whom shirked their responsibilities in a time of tragedy]. “Finally, Bush now has a second opportunity to honor Sandra Day O’Connor’s legacy by naming a moderate [“moderate” - an adjective to the left meaning leftist] woman [who, of course, if truly moderate, presumably would be a lady from among the non-NOW 99.97% of American women] . . .” Perhaps the President will nominate a woman who is a lady and who thus, among her other virtues, would recognize the NOW style of press release for the sensationalism, discourtesy, lack of grace and factual error it manifests. The manifold achievements of the late Chief Justice - soldier in war, student and scholar of renown, devoted husband and 14 years widower, father, grandfather, brilliant jurist, admired leader of our highest tribunal, historian, yet a modest and private person - will be remembered. The death of a great American is hardly the time to issue a mean-spirited press release if, indeed, such a statement ever ought to be issued. It is long past time that citizens expressing their views with respect to judicial nominees, as with respect to political issues, do so with at least a minimal measure of accuracy, courtesy and grace. All of us should begin N-O-W. Marion Edwyn Harrison, Esq. is President of, and Counsel to, the Free Congress Foundation.

View full story at www.americandaily.com

Latest news from American Daily: