Blogging

And I’m talking about across the board wrongness. Here’s the opening of a post on Huff-Po, generally a progressive blog:

Jon Kyl: GOP Willing To Filibuster Obama’s Next Supreme Court Nominee

First Posted: 04- 4-10 10:09 AM | Updated: 04- 4-10 12:34 PM

The second-ranking Republican in the Senate suggested on Sunday that the party would filibuster the next appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court, if that nominee were deemed to be outside of the judicial mainstream.

“It will all depend on what kind of a person it is,” Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) declared during an appearance on “Fox News Sunday.” “I think the president should nominate a qualified person. I hope, however, he does not nominate an overly ideological person. That will be the test, and if he doesn’t nominate someone who is overly ideological, you may see Republicans voting against, but I don’t think you will see them engage in a filibuster.”

Note what the title says: “GOP Willing To Filibuster Obama’s Next Supreme Court Nominee.” Got that? Now here’s what the article says: “[Y]ou may see Republicans voting against, but I don’t think you will see them engage in a filibuster.” These assertions bear significantly different implications. One demerit to the progressive inclination.

But note Kyl’s escape clause: “[I]f he doesn’t nominate an overly ideological person.” Given the Republicans’ embrace of Alito, Roberts, and Scalia, how exactly will they define “overly ideological”? Yeah. Rhetorical question. The will define “neutrality” as more than one standard deviation to the right of the mean. In other words, committed conservatives will be seen as neutral. Anyone who stands closer to the true center than the artificial far right line they’ve drawn will be seen as “overly ideological.”

The game is fixed, and Kyl is being deceitful. This is a much more important matter, so a good number of demerits to the conservative inclination.