Ron Wyden: back on the Kool-Aid

Who said this (emphasis mine)?

Some of the policy watchdogs I respect the most, and agree with on so very many issues, have asked that I oppose Judge Alito because he is not one of us; because he is too conservative; because he is young; because he may prove effective. “He is not who we would choose,” they say, and on that point, I am in full agreement.

Should the test to confirm a Justice be, “He is not who we would choose?” I ask my friends to imagine the mess we will have left for our nation if the Senate uses this test and votes solely on the basis of a nominee’s political beliefs.

Friends who a year ago said, “We don’t want ideologues appointed to the Supreme Court,” now want Samuel Alito to show up at the witness table and submit to an ideological litmus test.

Here’s my message to those friends: a sword forged in ideology in 2006 can be used against a progressive nominee in 2009 with equal disregard for the Constitution and the individual.

These words were spoken by Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden . . . about soon-to-be-Chief Justice John Roberts in September. I changed Roberts' name to Alito, changed 2005 to 2006, and took out a reference to the "next nominee." Has anything changed since then? To my knowledge, the only thing that's different is that Sandra Day O'Connor -- the holy grail of "moderation" on the Supreme Court -- is the justice to be replaced.

Wyden refused to filibuster Roberts and, in fact, voted to confirm him because he recognized that such a move would be just as unconstitutional as a Republican-led filibuster against a candidate nominated by a future Democrat president. But apparently, Wyden's days of moderation and respect for the constitution are over, because Ron Wyden was one of 25 senators to vote for a filibuster of Alito.

Sen. Wyden, your double standards and allegiance to the Blue Oregon crowd make me ill.