Ken Salazar, who has been completely neutered as a political force by his own scheming, twisting, waffling, and blowing whatever way he wrongly thinks a political wind might be blowing, is obviously frustrated. What would be the metaphor? Neutered cat trapped in corner? Never mind….
Salazar is stuck. He can’t filibuster Judge Alito, because that would be political suicide with the great majority of Colorado voters who, like the great majority of Americans, want senators to do their jobs and vote on judicial nominees. But, unfortunately for him, he chose to make his bed with the extreme liberal left of the Democratic party, and they really, really want Judge Alito to be filibustered.
What’s a two-faced politician with meager intellectual ability to do in such a pickle?
In a telephone news conference yesterday, in which Salazar was forced to commit not to be part of any Democratic filibuster of Judge Alito, Salazar simultaneously tried to appease the Angry Left he with which he has now cast his lot. He suggested that he might have filibustered Justice Clarence Thomas: “There are members of the U.S. Supreme Court that I very much disagree with. Clarence Thomas, for example, I think is an abomination when you contrast him to the leadership and principles of someone like Thurgood Marshall. I’ve been in front of the court and I know the justices.”
For starters, Ken, it’s “Justice” Thomas to you.
And we look forward to the day when you publicly agree to a debate about the Constitution with Justice Thomas — or anyone else of his “leadership and principles,” as you would put it.
And finally, you have unwittingly admitted it: a judge or Justice is an “abomination” to you if he or she is someone you “disagree with.” Like your fellows on the far Left, to you the Courts are just political machines. If they don’t bend to your liberal will … well, they’re an abomination!
Great….keep running on this theme. You and other liberals who insist on politicizing the courts and the confirmation process can run yourselves right into the ground. Your opponents will continue to explain the enduring value of faithfulness to the Constitution and an independent judiciary.