Soccer Dad: Principles of the Times
Posted by Soccer Dad
One of the things that's amusingly predictable about the New York Times is that it will embrace the looniest leftist notions about law (or anything else for that matter.) When it came to the race for senate in New Jersey a few years ago, the editors of the Times approved of the state's high court ignoring the law to allow former Senator Frank Lautenberg to run in place of disgraced Senator Robert Torricelli. An editorial on October 3, 2002 applauded this violation of the law
New Jersey's Supreme Court made the right call yesterday when it ruled that the State Democratic Party could substitute Frank Lautenberg for the discredited Robert Torricelli as its candidate in November's election for the United States Senate. The ruling appears to clear the way for a vigorous if necessarily abbreviated campaign, thus giving New Jersey voters the choice they deserve.
What is equally predictable is that a "vigorous ... campaign" that the "voters ... deserve" is high sounding garbage.
What's equally predictable is that these high minded principles only apply if they are likely to produce the correct result.
Friday's editorial about the race for Tom Delay's seat contained this line
... the Republican Party’s attempt to replace him with a handpicked loyalist was rejected all the way to the Supreme Court.
Don't the people of Texas deserve a "vigorous campaign?" Or is the only sort of vigorous campaign that the citizens of our country deserve is the kind that will put a Democrat in office?
|