Rules of the game? Democrats don’t need no stinking rules says Sun editor

Today the Sun’s putative editor Brian Greenspun took to the front page of his newspaper to berate, bellow and bombast over Sen. Dean Heller’s decision to “blue slip” the nomination for federal judge of Clark Country District Court Judge Elissa Cadish.

Greenspun accused Heller of creating a “constitutional crisis” for political gain.

He pointed out that both his paper’s editorial page and that of the Review-Journal had called on Heller to give Cadish, nominated by Sen. Harry Reid to fill the U.S. District Court seat being left vacant by Judge Philip Pro taking senior judge status, a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Brian Greenspun

Heller has used a traditional Senate privilege to block such a hearing.

Though coy at first about his reasoning, he since has cited a questionnaire she had filled out when running for her current seat on the state bench in 2008. When asked whether the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, she replied, “I do not believe that there is this constitutional right. Thus, I believe that reasonable restrictions may be imposed on gun ownership in the interest of public safety. Of course, I will enforce the laws as they exist as a judge.”

Reid has refused to withdraw Cadish’s nomination.

There are litmus tests in politics, and this appears to be one for Heller, who was quoted by the R-J as saying, “I’m a supporter of the Second Amendment. I support the Constitution. I believe it’s a constitutional right, not a case-by-case right.”

But Greenspun fulminated, “Nothing surprises me about how low any politician will go to feed red meat, however tainted, to any part of his base. But in this case, he has gone too far. And he has done so for the very reason that the Tea Party, the independents and the vast majority of people in both major political parties say they are so sick and tired of politicians.”

Advise and consent be damned!

The editor even invoked the First Amendment, “You know, the one that says every American has the right to his or her own opinion. And the right to express it.”

I guess that was what Greenspun was doing back in 2003 when he used his column, called “Where I Stand,” because an R-J editor once had a column called “Where I Sit,” to sing the praises of Harry Reid for … you know where this is going … blocking via filibuster the selection of a half dozen Republican federal judge nominees.

Back then, he compared Reid to Jimmy Stewart’s character in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” because Reid filibustered for eight and half hours, often reading from his book about Searchlight.

“It was a classic filibuster that would have made any Hollywood producer proud and, I suspect, did make Nevadans proud,” Greenspun wrote. “Not only because Harry stood up for what he believed but, by doing so, stood up for most Americans who are frustrated at the way our political system seems to be slipping away from the control of the people for whom this government is intended to work.”

Greenspun called the nominees right-wing nutcakes.

“It turns out that these few judges have been hand-picked from the extreme right side of the Republican barrel, people well outside the mainstream or any responsible stream of intelligent thought for the United States of 2003, and people whose lifetime appointment to their posts would cause great havoc in our social and justice system for decades to come,” Greenspun spewed. “Rather than approve these miscasts of judicial temperance, the Senate has decided to just say ‘no’ to any consideration of them.”

So much for that First Amendment right to have an opinion and express it.

It matters not what the rules of the Senate may be or what the principles are or what the Constitution says. It matters only whose side you are on. Brian is always on Harry’s side.

Hypocrisy, thy name in Greenspun.