Several St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnists downed a full dose of Liberal Kool-Aid today...
First is Jo Mannies' giddy commentary on several examples of apparent conservative dissention:
"We're frustrated that we have to fight this issue with Republicans in charge," said Messer, who's also a lobbyist for the Missouri Baptist Convention. "We hadn't expected it."
That seems to be a frequent complaint among conservative activists as they head into the session's final week. Social conservatives eager to take on abortion, gambling and stem cell research are shocked at seeing their dreams stymied by those they'd helped elect last fall to control the state House, the state Senate and the Governor's Mansion.
The new Republicans in charge have chosen to focus primarily on economic and education issues, while also opposing some of the social conservatives' initiatives.
Ironic, isn't it, that the party constantly maligned for consisting of rank-and-file marching lock-step in tune to the "party line" - not to mention, for being under the control of "right-wing" special interest groups - elicits such elation from a liberal columnist for the implied detriment of doing just the opposite?
Next up is Robert Joiner, who is beside himself in reaction to President Bush nominating Catherine Hanaway as the US Attorney for Eastern Missouri:
Hanaway's nomination, in contrast, seems to belie her party's platitudes about merit and qualifications. If she were African-American and Democrat, I suspect you would hear hard-line conservatives mouthing the usual cliches about affirmative action run amok. There has been no such whispering from the right about Hanaway, once known as much for her vindictiveness in Jefferson City as for her trademark cigars.
No, what I expect to hear from hard-line conservatives this time is . . . silence, as they figure out how to rationalize this embarrassing contradiction between what they preach and what they practice.
Such vitriol from the Party of Tolerance. And what, pray tell, are your views on the US Senate Democrats' obstruction of Justice Priscilla Owen; or more telling: Janice Rogers Brown, who happens to be not only black, but also eminently qualified to fill the position to which she has been nominated? Which party is it, again, that consistently plays the Race Card?
Finally - and still on the subject of judicial activism - we have a Post-Dispatch editorial that still can't understand how judicial activism undermines the role of the judiciary in the check-and-balance system:
Under the proposal, known as House Joint Resolution 23, impeachment trials would be conducted by the state Senate instead of by leading judges. Let us count the ways this is a bad idea: One, it ignores the lessons of Missouri history. Two, it would subject judges to political pressures in violation of the concept of separation of powers. Three, it stems from a profound ignorance of the role of the judiciary in a democratic society.
The only "profound ignorance of the role of the judiciary" apparent here is that of the Post-Dispatch editorial board. A fundamental premise of the check-and-balance system is that powers are separated between the three branches, and that the three branches cannot act independently of each other. How can the judicial branch be truly "checked" if it polices itself - as is the case with the judiciary carrying out impeachment proceedings on judges? Apparently, most of the rest of the United States agrees:
He says he simply wants Missouri to follow the same procedure for impeachment that is followed in 48 other states and the federal government, with the Senate holding trials. That also was the Missouri procedure before the 1945 state constitution was enacted.
And what was it that happened prior to 1945, that was so egregious that the rules were changed? Somebody almost was convicted by a partisan state senate in an impeachment trial:
In 1931, Democratic state Treasurer Larry Brunk was acquitted by the state Senate of converting state money to his own use, thus frustrating the House member who managed the effort to remove Mr. Brunk... Mr. Brunk got off because he was a former state senator himself. Mr. Limbaugh said that only the partisan politics of the Senate trial saved Mr. Brunk.
So... what? By most counts, the impeachment of Andrew Johnson happened for purely partisan reasons, and to this day, democrats whine that President Clinton's impeachment for obstruction of justice and perjury before a federal grand jury was a similar ploy of partisan politics. Would supposedly impartial judges provide any better balance than a bicameral legislature buffered by a two-party system? As if we need any more evidence of the editorial board's bias, they state it here, explicitly:
The group says that judges should be impeached if a decision is "clearly in opposition to the plain meaning of the constitution," even if a judge "simply misunderstands" the law.
The proposed amendment might be dismissed as the rantings of fringe groups and legislators...
Holding judges accountable to uphold the law, as written by the legislature and enacted by the executive, against bench-legislation and incompetence, embodies rantings of fringe elements? And the Post-Dispatch editorial board deigns to presume whom does and does not understand the role of the judiciary in a democratic society...
(Hat Tip: JohnCombest.com)
