November 23, 2005


You'll read nothing funnier today than the following: "Moving to defend the Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. against attacks on his stance on civil rights, the White House said Tuesday that he had assured senators last week of his commitment to the principle of one person one vote." It's funny enough by itself, but even better is that the Times doesn't comprehend the irony.

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 23, 2005 8:17 AM

Seems like it wasn't that long ago that they were defending Lani Guinier for saying exactly the opposite...

Posted by: M. Murcek at November 23, 2005 8:25 AM

With the Times, some votes count more than others.

Posted by: jim hamlen at November 23, 2005 10:24 AM

?de purpose of the Senate was never to represent people. That's what the House of Representatives is for (the last word in its title should provide the necessary hint). The Senate was intended to represent the states, as in "one state, two votes". Changing that would require every state to accept any attempt to dilute that representation. (It's the only change which has the unanimous requirement.) Which is why the attempts to give Jesse Jackson a seat in the Senate representing D.C. were doomed to failure.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at November 23, 2005 11:10 AM

How these people keep showing their faces in public (or their words in print) is beyond me. A better example of George Orwell would be hard to find.

Some blog ought to start posting pictures of Gail Collins next to all these absurd statements. But no more photos of Dowdy, please.

Posted by: ratbert at November 23, 2005 3:25 PM

Who says the Times doesn't have funnies.

Seriously, the NYT is rapidly turning into The Village Voice (daily edition).

Posted by: Luciferous at November 23, 2005 4:37 PM

To see the horrific results of the Baker vs. Carr decision one only needs look at my home, CA, today.

Prior to "one man, one vote", as set down by the Warren Court, CA had a Federal style legislature;
the Assembly based on population and the Senate, one County/one Senator.

All of CA's rural population were effectively disenfranchised, "Constitutionally" by the Warren Court (despite the fact Warren was a former CA Governor with none of the Constitutional law bonofides Donks, and RINO's seem to think today's SCOTUS nominees need)

Now, with both bodies based on population, as they have been since 1968 or so, we have a State ruled and controlled by the various public employee unions.

California's "Golden Days" were obviously prior to this decision, and everything since has been downhill, infrastructure, education, whatever.
The "liberals" would have you believe it was Prop. 13 causing the downfall, the liberals are, of course, always wrong!

Posted by: Mike Daley at November 23, 2005 10:13 PM