Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed by a vote of 96-3 in 1993 while Samuel Alito was confirmed
by a vote of only 58-42. That must mean that Ginsburg is 65.5 percent
better for the country than Alito. You laugh, but I predict something
very much like this will become the MSM template when Alito’s
confirmation is discussed in the next few years.
In fact,
this line of reasoning began some months ago when John Roberts was
nominated for the Chief Justice position. I heard E.J. Dionne and the
David Brooks discussing the vacancy on NPR (sorry, but can’t find a
transcript). Dionne said Ginsburg’s 96-3 vote was proof that she was a
more reasonable and fair nominee than John Roberts, who was unlikely to
get nearly that many votes for confirmation. The increasingly
compromised Brooks, rather than rebutting Dionne by saying that the
vote on Ginsburg was a testament to Republican good manners and respect
for the Constitution and presidential prerogatives, let Dionne’s absurd
characterization go unchallenged.
