Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, May 08, 2009
Suzanne Fields :: Townhall.com Columnist
Souter, Specter and a Soft Shoe
by Suzanne Fields
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Souter & Specter sounds like a vaudeville song and dance team, stuck in Cleveland and still dreaming of playing the Palace. You can almost hear their Peoria humor and see their old soft shoe.

"Did you hear the one about how John Sununu was dispatched by the original President Bush to find a slugger who would hit home runs for the conservative side on the Supreme Court," asks Justice David Souter. He executes a neat heel, toe and a tap, and grins a goofy grin. "Well, here I am. Nothing but foul balls and long fly balls to left field. Ain't I a scream?"

Arlen Specter shuffles over with syncopated stomp. "When I switched to the Democrats, all my Republican pals could do was quote Dorothy Parker on hearing that Calvin Coolidge was dead: 'How can they tell?'" Ha, ha, ha.

David Souter and Arlen Specter have little in common except drawing conservative ire and sharing in a triumph of intellectual mediocrity. Only the confluence of events has thrown them together in the public eye. Justice Souter reminds everyone of how a conservative president misjudged him, and Sen. Specter reminds everyone of how easy he trades in his convictions for a mess of Democratic pottage (or maybe a pot of message).

A contributor to Vanity Fair suggests that President Obama replace Souter with Anita Hill, a law professor at Brandeis University. For those who were born yesterday or ignorant of events of more than a year or so in the past, Anita Hill was the woman who accused Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment when the Senate was considering his confirmation to the high court. The drama was the low point (so far) of feminist sniping and congressional griping, a televised spectacle in which Specter played a leading role.

The Senate Judiciary Committee had already reported the Thomas nomination to the Senate when Anita Hill's accusations surfaced, and she was summoned as a witness before a special hearing of the Judiciary Committee. The committee wanted to find out whether she was lying. Sen. Specter, in an uncharacteristic tribute to principle, rose to the occasion with a passionate concern for the integrity and reputation of Clarence Thomas. A one-time federal prosecutor, he demanded the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. He was unrelenting with tough questioning of the accuser; a man's character and career hung in the balance.

Republicans were particularly proud of Specter for not submitting to the intimidation of the mob of the usual suspects of media, feminists and other liberals. Thomas rightly called his ordeal a "high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves." Popular sentiment swung dramatically to the nominee's side, and he won confirmation by a narrow, angry partisan vote of 52 to 48. The feminists quickly went to work to punish the senator, who they dubbed "Snarlin' Arlen." He was quickly tamed.

I encountered him at a reception a week or so after the vote, and he greeted me with a politician's practiced warmth and geniality. When I remarked on how he had stood up to the feminists, he couldn't get to the other side of the room fast enough. But even after he worked hard to enact the Violence Against Women Act, the radical feminists paid little mind. Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, says her outrage remains unappeased, no matter what his current label.

Ironically, the Thomas nomination struggle became a flash point in feminist politics. Many women who weren't radicalized by the sight of Anita Hill at the mercy of an all-male panel, nevertheless worked to elect more women to Congress. Conservative women who stood firmly against the feminist mob began to organize themselves. As testimony to their success, the Women's Freedom Network, founded in 1993, recently went out of business, saying it was no longer needed. "The voices of radical feminists have become muted, and the overall atmosphere has changed such that affirmative action vis-a-vis women is no longer a major concern," says Rita Simon, who was the foundation's last president.

The Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute, also founded in 1993, thrives in training conservative women for leadership on college campuses. Though still a minority voice on liberal college campuses, these women are now speaking up and speaking out in greater numbers, adding authenticity to the clamor for "diversity," which on most campuses means a clamor for more liberal and leftist voices.

The noise about Souter & Specter is noise about not very much. Justice Souter will be replaced by another liberal and the ideological tilt of the court won't change. Specter will still be the Old Unreliable. We'll all move on. Vaudeville is now only about nostalgia, after all.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Suzanne Fields is a columnist with The Washington Times.

Be the first to read Suzanne Fields' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

©Creators Syndicate
Feminism, Souter, Specter...
None of these is really worth debating. Souter, despicable coward. Specter, likewise cowardly. Feminism ... a much broader topic but likewise non-starting. For you commenters with your panties in a religious wad, consider this: Use of the male pronoun in most languages has always been gender-neutral or gender-inclusive, whichever you prefer. Try studying legal writing. If legal authors have concluded that using the male all-inclusively is simpler, cleaner, more true to linguistic and grammatical tradition and most importantly, easier for authors and editors alike then really, what argument is left? It's silly to argue about pronouns, just as it's silly to argue about whether or not God is a man or a woman, much like arguing about whether fire is hot or bright. Duh. The God of Scripture is described as having made humanity, genders and all. That would make him... God.

Thus endeth the lesson.

souter nomination
I think the writer is not sure who actually nominated Souter, she mentioned him being nominated by a Conservative, and I could have sworn it was Bush 1. Oh, wait, I get it, she actually thinks one of the Bushes was a conservative.

Gestell
Keep preaching that gospel, brother. And the Democrats shall rule until Jesus returns!!

Nothing like alienating half the electorate....

"... Souter reminds everyone of how ...
"... a conservative president misjudged him ..."

And what "conservative" president, pray tell, would that be?

For most certainly the "Read my (gone wobbly -- and wet) lips, no new taxes," eastern-seaboard-clinging kinder, gentler, pretender to the Ronald Wilson Reagan legacy, George Herbert Walker Bush, was barely a darned Republican.

Let alone a Conservative!

Brian Richard Allen
Los Angeles CalifOBAMBIcated 90028
And the Far Abroad

reply to John ny 3:16
Of course, God is a man. Why do you think all those male pronouns are in the Bible? Joel is absolutely correct. I guess you're not a real conservative, because real conservatives are religious, and really religious people have always known that God is male. Get with the program. The Bible is as clear anyone could want on the subject of women and men. Men are dominant, women are subordinate. Women should not speak in church, and should not hold leadership positions. Roman Catholics understand this beetter than some Protestant denominations.

Genuinely religious people know that all those who have 'liberated' women by giving them rights, status, opportunities, etc. will be judged by God and found wanting. And we all know where those folks will spend eternity.

"He?"
"His is NOT pleased." "...follows the traditional role..." "...she is prettier..."

Really? God is a man? Let me excuse myself while I go rolling on the floor with laughter.

Thank you, dear God, for a wife who is 100% feminine woman while being strong, smart, independent and capable.

God help any many like "Joel" who dares come near my daughter!

Dane
There's no abandonment of feminism in not defending Sarah Palin or Carrie Prejean--it was never the goal of feminism to defend any woman or every women regardless of what they say/do or their fitness for the job? Feminists would support the opportunity for Sarah Palin to be on the ticket with McCain--there have certainly been plenty of dingbat men as VP candidates why not a woman?--but once she's being criticized for not being smart, for saying stupid things--there's no feminist obligation to support her from those charges. Same with Carrie Prejean--she's clearly not be discriminated against because she's a woman, and if she wants to compete in a pagent, you go girl. But when she's criticized for what she said, there's no obligation for feminists to defend her--in fact, it would be anti-feminist to simply defend her because she's a woman.

It's OK if you don't like what you think feminism is, but you would embarass yourself less if you didn't think your dislike gave you license to say silly and inaccurate things.

Years Ago & Far Away
I remember when Anita Hill made her public accusations. At the time, I was empathetic to her but noted that her body language was at odds with her claim. I wondered if she felt intimidated, or if she was reluctant to harm this man's future... I soon came to realize she was just flat out lying for political ideology. That was my first lesson in liberalism.

No Mystery Anymore
It's not hard to see why the feminist lost so much of their clout.

In the early days of labor unions they filled a need - fighting against child labor and dangerous working conditions.

In the early days of feminism some of their platform made some sense - equal pay, etc.

But it has become obvious the feminists no longer care about women. How many feminists have came to the defense of Sara Palin when she was being vilified? How many feminists are coming to the defense of Miss California as she is being attacked because of her personal views and now her looks? Not many.

So like the labor unions - the feminist movement has abandoned their founding principles and have become all about wielding power.

Much like the current administration they set up straw men (or women) in order to justify their positions, but the veil is thin and Toto is tugging at the curtain.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.