We now have one new opening on the Supreme Court, with another possible one to come, and an extreme right wing President seeking to satisfy supporters who don’t believe in the separation of church and state and consider Roe v. Wade the work of “activist judges” which should be overurned.
I’m guessing the Democrats will be steamrolled over in the vetting process, which means we’ve got one hope: That Presidents who appointed extremely conservative judges to the SC have not always gotten what they bargained for.
PAD
• 
“If George Bush calls up Patrick Leahy and agrees to nominate the candidate that Leahy recommends, Democrats will guarantee a quick and painless confirmation.”
What is the likelihood that Leahy will, as Hatch did, recommend someone who shares the president’s view on issues like abortion?
Bush might nominate that woman who just got confirmed to the court of appeals. She’s black so if things get ugly it will look like the Democrats really have it out for black candidates to the Supreme Court–at the very least it would help to keep Kennedy and Grand Kleagle Byrd somewhat muted.
Iowa Jim wrote:
“Nice to know not much has changed here while I was out of the country.”
Oh, is THAT what happened? Because I, for one, noticed your absence during the one big change, the advent of X-Ray. Funny how as soon as Iowa Jim disappeared, the epitome of rude, close-minded, and mostly useless conservative postings showed up; and the instant he disappears, his opposite number, one of this site’s pillars of thoughtful, open-minded, and respectful conservative postings, returns ….
Admit it, Jim – have you been drinking the Jeckel and Hyde juice? 😉
And Bill – it’s interesting that you assume the Democrats are less likely to act with integrity if approached about a suggestion of a nominee, as I would strongly assume that of the Republicans …. (For the record, while I am pro-choice, I’m more concerned that Bush appointees will try to enforce pro-censorship, pro-one-national-religion – and possibly even pro-Republican Party – legislation …. Here’s hoping it won’t come to that, even with the very lopsided “balance” of power we have right now ….)
“Thank God for those, on any side of the political divide, who are willing to keep fighting for what they believe is right, even if the Supreme Court has rulled otherwise. Dred Scott anyone? Plessy vs Ferguson? Godzilla vs Biollante?”
Yes, let’s keep fighting for what we believe, as you say – what’s your stand on a real controversy, then, Godzilla vs. Megalon? 🙂
Small point re Bush sending up three nominees for O’Connor’s seat: technically, he could do it, because nothing in the Constitution says that the Supremes have to be nine (cf. FDR and efforts at ‘court packing’). All three could be confirmed…
“Godzilla vs. Megalon?”
Don’t forget the cloning case: “Godzilla Vs. Mechagodzilla”.
or the paternity case: “Son Of Godzilla”.
or the ecology case: “Godzilla vs Smog Monster”.
or the REAL cold war story: “Godzilla and Mothra Battle for Earth”.
Actually, he couldn’t just send up three nominees. The Constitution says that Congress sets the number of justices, so first he’d have to convince them to add two additional seats, and then he’d nominate Gonzales, Ashcroft, and Rove.
Bush might nominate that woman who just got confirmed to the court of appeals. She’s black so if things get ugly it will look like the Democrats really have it out for black candidates to the Supreme Court.
Isn’t funny how the GOP is always on the warpath against people who complain about racism, but just as quick as anyone else to play the race card when it suits them? If you take the accusations of sexual harassment against Thomas seriously, you’re a racist. Question the competence of Condi “We can’t let the smoking gun be mushroom cloud” Rice? You’re a racist. Think that regular, working class blacks face harder barriers in education and employment, than whites? You’re playing class warfare.
Actually, the present size of the Supreme Court was established at 9 by the Judiciary Act of 1869 (16 Stat. 44). The size of the Court varied from 6 to 10 through the 19th Century, starting with 6, then being increased to 7 in 1807; in 1837, 2 more were added to bring the total to 9, where it remained until 1863 when a 10th seat was added. In 1866, the Judicial Circuits Act was passed and signed by Pres Johnson which called for the reduction of the Court by three members as justices retired. The Circuits Act was negated when the Judiciary Act of 1869 was passed.
Now, whether the post-Civil War’s “Radical Republicans” intended the Judicial Circuits Act as a deliberate way to strip Johnson of being able to nominate any Justices during his term is a bit hard to prove, the timing of the Judiciary Act being passed after a new Republican president had been inaugurated does seem more than coincidental. Interestingly, FDR’s plan to “pack the court” was only initiated out of political frustration over the Court’s decisions against some of the New Deal programs, yet FDR’s own party members (who occupied HUGE majorities of BOTH Houses of Congress–75 out of 96 Senators and 333 out of 435 Representatives) felt the attempt violated the separation of powers. What was so crucial was that while FDR backed down with his plan, the Court which had seemed to have an anti-FDR agenda also became more conciliatory towards FDR’s programs.
There was a fascinating article written by an attorney at the time the ruling came out which dissected the court’s ruling. The ruling was so self-contradictory that what it came down to was that the Florida SC was screwed no matter what. There was literally no decision the Florida SC could have made that would have been acceptable under the Fed SC ruling. It was constructed, not to make the most proper ruling under law or to determine the will of the people, but to put Bush in office, period.
I agree. However, the FSC’s ruling was the same way. I’ll admit that I was rooting for Bush over Gore, but every decision until the FSC made sense to me based on what was being portrayed as the problematic set of Florida laws covering recounts. The lower court rulings that went for Gore made sense, so did the ones for Bush. However, when the FSC ruled to start the counts again, there was no legal basis for it – they just wanted it to happen. By the same token, the SCOTUS didn’t have a leg to stand on either – they just wanted it to happen. It was one of the few times where two wrongs made a right. The unfortunate thing about it is that there’s now two bad case decisions on the books. Ideally, the SCOTUS could have sent the case back to the FSC and told them how to rule, but they have no authority over Florida law, so they found a creative way to get the result that probably should have happened.
“And Bill – it’s interesting that you assume the Democrats are less likely to act with integrity if approached about a suggestion of a nominee, as I would strongly assume that of the Republicans ….”
I just don’t think that the Democrats can afford to anger their base by not putting up a huge fight, fair or not. I think the Republicans would probably do the same thing in their position. If Ginsberg were nominated today by a Democrat president she would not get 90+ votes, in my opinion. The process has become much more politicized.
” what’s your stand on a real controversy, then, Godzilla vs. Megalon?”
Please…do I even have to say it? Megalon is a giant cockroach from the sunken city of Seatopia while Godzilla is King of the Monsters. Shìŧ, BAMBI put up a better fight!
Now the seminal case of Man and Superman vs the Mole People now THAT was really something…
“Isn’t funny how the GOP is always on the warpath against people who complain about racism, but just as quick as anyone else to play the race card when it suits them? If you take the accusations of sexual harassment against Thomas seriously, you’re a racist. Question the competence of Condi “We can’t let the smoking gun be mushroom cloud” Rice? You’re a racist. Think that regular, working class blacks face harder barriers in education and employment, than whites? You’re playing class warfare.”
Well, duh. They’d be crazy not to fight back with the same kind of rhetoric. One man’s hypocrisy is another man’s hoisting them up by their own petard. (What’s a petard? And does being hoisted up by it hurt as much as I think it would?)
Since hearing this news, my nightmares have been haunted by three little words:
“Mister Justice Ashcroft”
AHGAHD! Make it stop! Make it stop!
“Mister Justice Ashcroft”
Mr. Justice Rove.
or Mr Justice Cheney.
Brrrrrrr….
“Frankly, after the liberal side of the judges just ruled in favor of local governments seizing private property for the use of private companies,”
Someone did this to Justice Souter. They claimed the Justice’s property, and they are going to put up the Lost Freedom Hotel. I believe that the ruling is that you can seize it, but you have to promise that you will provide more tax dollars.
Alas, I have no HTML skills, so here is the site….
http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html
Further, on the actual next Justice, I don’t care what their political affiliation is, I want a Strict Constitutionalist in there. Much damage has been done by loose constructionist, much less by a strict interpritation. As long as we stick with what Madison gave us, we are sitting pretty. I don’t think Bush will appoint one though. I think that the only issue is going to be; will they overturn Roe V. Wade? I mean, he doesn’t have to worry about being reelected, so now he is looking to leave a legacy. Thus far, It looks like the only “legacy” he is leaving is a shattered Iraq, a distinct and growing hatred for America all over the world, and what could almost be seen as a return to Manifest Destiny. So he wants to do something big, that will endear him to a lot of people. What better to please the Jerry Falwells of this world (not to mention their millions of Cult worshippers) then to strike down abortion? All the people he cares about, the right wing, conservative, Religious Right types, would be turning cartwheels.
Mr. Carter…How can you claim to support a “Strict Constitutionalist” and then worryingly comment on the prospect of overturning Roe v Wade? Substantive Due Process, on whice Roe v Wade was based, is a complete fabrication of the court. IMHO, it is crap. Although it wouldn’t bother me if the Constitution had a clause that specifically addressed laws thate were arbitrary and capricious, it doesn’t. If Roe v Wade were based on the Ninth, or on Equal Protection grounds (it can be plausibly argued that anti-abortion laws are directly discriminatory to women), then I would be much more supportive of the decision.
And I’ll reiterate my original post, particularly in light of the comments on this thread after it. It is shocking how many people are willing to swallow the freedom suppressing decisions of McConnell and Raich and Kelo on the grounds that “well, at least we’ll have liberal judges to protect Roe v Wade and a conservative supported theocracy”. I suggest that everyone read Radley Balko’s latest column. (FYI – Don’t write off Radley just because he is published in Fox. If you do, then you don’t know Radley.)
The thing is, a “strict constructionist” would not intervene in a case about state law that had no compelling federal interest just because the GOP can use the issue to pander to the extreme right wingnut faction. A real “strict constructionist” would not try to apply the Interstate Commerce clause to pot grown in California, sold in California, and used in California (point of fact: I’m against legalizing pot). A real “strict constructionist” would have ruled that the Constitution says that the House of Representatives is the final arbitrator in disputed presidential elections, not the courts.
If the neocons even met a true strict constructionist, they’d run away from him screaming.
Interestingly enough, conservatives are now attacking Alberto “torture memos” Gonzales for being too liberal.
God help us.
Oh, is THAT what happened? Because I, for one, noticed your absence during the one big change, the advent of X-Ray. Funny how as soon as Iowa Jim disappeared, the epitome of rude, close-minded, and mostly useless conservative postings showed up; and the instant he disappears, his opposite number, one of this site’s pillars of thoughtful, open-minded, and respectful conservative postings, returns ….
Actually, go back and check the archives. I posted my problems with X-Ray. PAD even mentioned that if someone as right wing as myself had a problem with X-Ray, he was really out there.
So unless I got a dose of gamma radiation in Eastern Europe that I was not aware of, I don’t think my “alter ego” was at work.
Iowa Jim
Morality does not have it “roots” in religion… It’s possible to be moral without being religious, conversly it’s possible to be religious without being moral. The two really have nothing to do with one another. … Morality existed before mordern religion, (or at least before it came to certain parts of the globe).
As far back as we have a clear record of human civilization, we have a record of people worshipping, of them exercising religious faith. In fact, it is the one clear action that distintguishes humans from any other animal. So it is not a stretch to say morality has its roots in religion.
I did not mean to imply, however, that one must be religious to have morals. There are some very moral people who are strong atheists, and there are some very horrible people who belong to a religious faith. We agree on this point.
My point is simply that to try to say a law is wrong simply because it coincides with a given religious belief system is absurd. I do not want laws written simply because they agree with the Bible or the Koran or any other religious writing. But neither do I want to see someone denied the right to sit on a court simply because they believe in a given religion and agree with its basic tenets. Take abortion, for example. Yes, my religious beliefs play a role. But so does my common sense. There are people who believe abortion is wrong based on reasons other than the Bible or a given religion.
On the other hand, take matters such as eating pork. Some Jews and Muslims believe it is a sin. However, this is a personal religious belief, and I would not make it a national law that we all eat kosher meals.
Obviously, some of these matters are not as easy to define. But to deny a religious person a seat on a court, or to call someone an extremist simply because they hold a moral view on a matter such as being pro-life, is wrong.
Iowa Jim
Interestingly enough, conservatives are now attacking Alberto “torture memos” Gonzales for being too liberal.
Oh, they’ve been attacking him since he was nominated by Bush for Attorney General.
I found this in an article on CNN.com from last November:
“More conservative Republicans, however, have found some of Gonzales’ relatively moderate votes on the Texas Supreme court troubling, including a majority vote not requiring some teenage girls to get parental permission for an abortion.
In his opinion on the ruling, Gonzales wrote, “While the ramifications of such a law may be personally troubling to me as a parent, it is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the legislature.”
This is funny. The Liberal section of the court just steamroled over property rights yet you’re bashing Bush for going conservative.
Whatever….
Iowa Jim wrote:
“Actually, go back and check the archives. I posted my problems with X-Ray. PAD even mentioned that if someone as right wing as myself had a problem with X-Ray, he was really out there.
So unless I got a dose of gamma radiation in Eastern Europe that I was not aware of, I don’t think my “alter ego” was at work.”
OOPS. Sorry, sir. I did go back and check out the archives, and see that you are, of course, entirely correct. (Nice – and site-appropriate – joke, btw.) It turns out I had actually missed most of the second half of the “Lies, Ðámņëd Lies …” thread, in fact. May’ve decided it was too long too read at the particular time, and just forgot to get caught up …. At any rate, at some point in the past week or two, when “X-Ry” was talking about being the only conservative in the sea of liberals here, I thought of the prominent (and much more civilized) conservative regulars here, and noticed your (at that point) absence, which led to my little note yesterday, upon your return (good trip?).
Still, I’m glad I made my little jest-post (and hope I didn’t offend you by in any way associating your name with that kid, even in fun), since it led to me reading some interesting and amusing stuff which I’d previously missed.
Luigi Novi wrote, at the end of the “Lies” thread, that he thought “genius” level IQ began at 120; my understanding was that it began at 140 (although I wouldn’t mind if he were right, in that all three of my IQ test scores would suddenly put me at “genius” level … 😉 ). [I was a quiet kid in school, so they tested me a lot ….]
And I got to read Jerome Maida agreeing with Bladestar “100%”(!), about X-Ray, and Patrick Calloway’s reaction:
“Wow.
Ok, is there still time to buy apocalypse insurance?”
So, thanks for referring me back there 🙂
One concern which a lot of us have is that the Bush Administration “conservatives” tend to wish to increase governmental restrictions over the people and over the states – among other things, on freedom of expression, freedom to worship (or not to) …. Bush appointees may not end up being what traditional, less-government, conservatives may want, either (just as I haven’t heard much of anyone happy with the result from the “liberal” wing regarding seizure of property). All conjecture at this early point.
As far as Alberto Gonzales – based SOLELY on the quote from him which Craig presents above, I would be all right with him being on the Court. If he truly would interpret each case based on Constitutionality and law, leaving aside any political biases/affiliations/loyalties, that would be the kind of candidate which I would hope any President, regardless of party, would nominate to the Court. Based on the sentiments of that quote ….
“If the neocons even met a true strict constructionist, they’d run away from him screaming.”
Exactamundo. I was talking about an old-school, Jeffersonian type strict constructionist. As Den said, the Federal government shouldn’t be messing with certain areas that are the domain of the state, which is the tenth amendment
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” IE If it is not specifically given to the government, they can’t touch it.
The property rights debate falls under the Fifth amendment…”nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” IE you just can’t yank someones land away. A Strict Constructionist would never have allowed either to come up….Roe wouldn’t have been tried, and this last one would have been stricken down. DOes anybody know the exact name of this property rights case is? It would make it easier to reference it.
Kelo v. New London
Roe wouldn’t have been tried
Oh, and I’d love to hear your reasoning behind that…
I keep hearing about how the Kelo decision is the result of the “liberal wing” of SCOTUS. I’d be interested to hear how one can break down the sociopolitical viewpoints of the justices. Especially, I’d like to know how one justifies referring to David Souter, in particular, as “liberal”.
This is funny. The Liberal section of the court just steamroled over property rights yet you’re bashing Bush for going conservative.
I don’t agree with the Kelo decision, but how can you say it’s the result of the “liberal” wing of SCOTUS when three out of the five justices in the majority ruling were Republican appointees?
In his opinion on the ruling, Gonzales wrote, “While the ramifications of such a law may be personally troubling to me as a parent, it is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the legislature.”
Well, that statement will sink his nomination. I still have some problems with his nomination, not just the torture memos but also his past as Bush’s rubber stamp in the Texas death penalty machine.
Well, duh. They’d be crazy not to fight back with the same kind of rhetoric. One man’s hypocrisy is another man’s hoisting them up by their own petard.
See, for me, it’s always hypocrisy no matter who practices it. Of course, lately, the GOP has raised it to a whole new level, like arguing that every one of a president’s judicial nominees deserves an up or down vote, unless of course, that president was named Bill Clinton. Let’s just be honest and up front. The GOP used what tools they had to sink those of Clinton’s nominees they didn’t like and the Democrats have been using the only tool (the filibuster) that they have available to them.
It’s politics and politics have always been part of the judicial nominating process and always will be. To pretend otherwise is living in a fantasy land.
“Oh, and I’d love to hear your reasoning behind that…”
two words: States Rights. It was a state issue, that was never given to the Federal Government. This falls under the Jurisdiction of the states themselves according to the tenth anmendment. I dunno, I’m not a lawyer, but that is the way it reads to me. It is the responsibility of the several states to monitor and control all duties not directly given to the Federal government. These include voting, seatbelt laws, road repair, and logically, abortion. I am not stating an opinion, I am simply saying if the Judges (perhaps I indicated it was a single judge, sorry) or at least five of them had been strict Constructionists, then Roe couldn’t have come to trial in SCOTUS. They would have sent it back where it belongs, in the State courts.
1.) For those of you who are panicking, please remember that 7 of the 9 current justices have been picked by Republican presidents, yet this Court has struck down laws against sodomy, upheld affirmative action in the Michigan case and has not come close to reversong Roe v. Wade. In fact, it was Bush the Father’s pick of Souter, when social conservatives felt they had a real shot to overturn Roe, that helped doom him in 1992.
2.) For those like Craig who see this – and probably the way the grass grows – as part of a conspiracy to divert attention from Iraq, will you please get a clue already? I’ll even send you some money so you can buy one. Honestly, not everything is about Iraq.
3.) Oh, and the same goes for those who seem to feel that Cheney or Rove would be serious choices. Do you have any idea how picking a Supreme Court justice is selected, or do you just enjoy spouting nonsense. No, there are about nine – perhaps fewer – on Bush’s shortlist. Try reading a paper sometime. It’s really not that difficult.
4.) Even if O’Connor AND Rehnquist both leave and are replaced by Scalia clones, Roe still won’t be overturned. The Court is currently 6-3 in favor of upholding Roe. So another liberal/moderate would have to leave and be replaced by a conservative for that to happen.
Truthfully, after Kennedy, O’Connor and Souter, I will believe Roe will be overturned when it happens.
Not impossible given the age of the justices (especially Stevens), but not a slam dunk either.
5.) It would be political suicide for Bush to pick Gonzales. They’re friends, but his hearings would bring up the subject of torture, which is the last thing Bush wants in the forefront I would think. Liberals would hate him, and conservatives would feel betrayed, since they feel he is not conservative enough on issues like abortion.
6.) Oh, and black conservatives are attacked in a way that, say, Charlie Rangel never is. Democrats, the NAACP and most of the media feel “real” blacks are still supposed to sing “We Shall Overcome” and blame racism for their problems. So those that HAVE overcome, like Thomas and Rice, shatter the image of blacks being either angry or docile victims. For this, they get attacked viciously.
7.) It’s amusing that many of the same people who have disdain for religion and attack Evangelicals for focusing on social issues are obsessed about Roe. It’s even more amusing that they don’t see the irony.
2.) For those like Craig who see this – and probably the way the grass grows – as part of a conspiracy to divert attention from Iraq, will you please get a clue already? I’ll even send you some money so you can buy one. Honestly, not everything is about Iraq.
Geez, you’re fûçkìņg thick, Jerome. maybe you should save that money for yourself – you need more than a few clues.
I didn’t call this a conspiracy. I called it dámņëd fûçkìņg convenient for the Bush Administration.
Or do I need to spell it out in even plainer English for you?
Try reading a paper sometime.
Try pulling your head out of your ášš and quit playing “The Republican is always right”.
5.) It would be political suicide for Bush to pick Gonzales.
Oh, like Bush gives a dámņ about that at this point in time.
For one, Bush will just go back, like the Republicans before him, and live the private life. While, you know, those evil Democratic presidents continue to do things with their time to help the world.
Second, Gonzales is a logical choice because the Administration could easily trump up the fact that Gonzales was confirmed as AG, so how could the Democrats refuse to make him a SCJ?
So those that HAVE overcome, like Thomas and Rice, shatter the image of blacks being either angry or docile victims. For this, they get attacked viciously.
While others, such as Colin Powell, become nothing more than people for the Bush Administration to abuse along the way to a major fûçkûp (ie, Iraq).
“I didn’t call this a conspiracy. I called it dámņëd fûçkìņg convenient for the Bush Administration.”
When, in your view of the world, would it NOT have been so? When would the resignation of a Supreme Court Justice NOT have crowded other news off of the front pages for a day or so? Should any septuagenarian considering retiring from the Court wait until a truly slow news day to make her announcement?
Morality has roots in religion,
That isn’t necessarily the case. There are numerous moral systems which are not grounded in religion or metaphysics. Regardless, our LAW is not grounded on religion. Murder is not illegal because God Says So, but because our legal system recognizes life as an inalienable right, and that allowing people to violate such a right is incompatible with a free and stable society.
Should any septuagenarian considering retiring from the Court wait until a truly slow news day to make her announcement?
Sure, maybe a time when US soldiers aren’t dying on a daily basis in a war we should never have gotten ourselves into.
Ie, Iraq.
Yeah, she should ignore her husband’s failing health and his needs and wait until the war is over to step down. Yeah, that makes sense!
There is nothing ‘convenient’ or ‘conspiratorial’ about it!
>Yeah, she should ignore her husband’s failing health and his needs and wait until the war is over to step down. Yeah, that makes sense!
It is wonderful that she is in a position to retire from her job in order to be with him.
There is nothing ‘convenient’ or ‘conspiratorial’ about it!
You may be misunderstanding the point. If an elderly woman is in the situation of being on a crowded bus and has to stand due to all seats being occupied, a passenger getting off of the bus, allowing her to sit is certainly opening up an opportunity for her even though this was not the passenger’s intent. It is convenient for the woman that this passenger just left the bus. I’m not aware of anyone suggesting that O’Conner is manipulating the situation or doing anything short of choosing to be with the man she loves, nor is anyone saying that this man’s poor health is a good/horrific/manipulated scenerio.
The situation does allow Bush an opportunity to place at least 1 justice (Most likely 2) in the Court. This is a huge deal.
There was a fascinating article written by an attorney at the time the ruling came out which dissected the court’s ruling. The ruling was so self-contradictory that what it came down to was that the Florida SC was screwed no matter what. There was literally no decision the Florida SC could have made that would have been acceptable under the Fed SC ruling. It was constructed, not to make the most proper ruling under law or to determine the will of the people, but to put Bush in office, period.
Actually, there was a really interesting article on Findlaw a few years back (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20020709.html) about that issue. The synopsis was that, however surprising it might have been to see the “liberal” justices voting for state’s rights and the “conservative” justices voting for Federal intervention in Bush v Gore, it was downright stunning to see the same breakdown on the same principle a year and a half later.
Right, right…because conservatives have an unstinting record of accepting SC rulings they disagree with rather than bringing it up again and again *koff* Roe v. Wade *koff*.
Look, I’m pro-choice, but that doesn’t change the fact that the Roe v Wade opinion was an utter piece of crap. (That’s the technical legal term for “written product supported by neither the law nor logic.” Seriously, it’s turtles all the way down.) It’s also worth noting that Roe hasn’t been good law since 1992 anyway; it’s important now only in rhetoric. However, considering that Casey adopted much of Roe’s logic, it’s not misplaced rhetoric.
This thread and another recent one that developed into a debate on gay marriage raise an issue that constantly worries me in our public discourse: Far, far too many of our most fundamental governmental debates are being carried out through litigation rather than through the political process. And if the counter-argument is that it’s too important to leave to the people, because the majority opinion is too hidebound, I don’t care. We don’t have a nation such as ours because it’s efficient, although as it happens a capitalist democracy turns out to be a very good society in which to live, but we have it because it’s right. Even if the majority is going to do stupid things from time to time, like elect Bill Clinton or demand high governmental spending concurrently with low taxes, those are the people’s mistakes to make. The Senate and the President are elected to make policy decisions themselves, not to select the Justices who will make these decisions. If the decisions they make are sometimes reactionary and wrong, that’s the price of living in a democracy. It’s not too high a price to pay.
“Sure, maybe a time when US soldiers aren’t dying on a daily basis in a war we should never have gotten ourselves into”
And you call ME thick? What is every other event in the world supposed to be put on hold – including retirements and deaths of Supreme Court justices when we haven’t had a change in over ten years, the longest such period since the 1920s – so you can continue to spout “Bush Lied, Kids Died!”
Please grow up. If soldiers are dying on a daily basis, as you say, and have been, then it is only a matter of time before Democrats and the liberal media start obsessing about and external insurgency that doesn’t reflect the will of the Iraqi people, Guantanomo and Gitmo. Then you’ll be happy, or as close to it as you can come.
Fred,
“You may be misunderstanding the point…I’m not aware of anyone suggesting that O’Conner is manipulating the situation”
Oh really? Maybe you should read some of the previous posts then, such as Elayne Riggs’ who said:
“The retirement announcement was a gift to the president she helped put in office, cynically timed to take attention away from…fill in the blanks yourself”
What part of “cynically timed to take attention away from” is ambiguous? And you really should know how to spell O’Connor. She’s only the subject of the thread.
This is beyond amusing, but most of the people who see a conspiracy in this are the same ones who felt the reason O’Connor “put Bush in office” was because she wanted to retire four years ago and therefore had a conflict of interest.
What selective amnesia develops when these nonsensical charges don’t pan out.
I have to say, I also see nothing conspiratorial about it. I’m willing to acknowledge that sometimes things just happen when they happen. However, Conservatives really don’t have any moral high ground to cry foul when people comment on the convenient timing to draw attention away from Iraq, considering they didn’t hesitate to ascribe “distraction” motives to anything Clinton did during the entire impeachment fiasco. Any move he made, any actions he took here or overseas, conservative pundits howled, “He’s just trying to make us forget Monica!”
So if conservatives don’t like the sauce for the goose, maybe they should give some serious thought to changing the selections on the menu.
PAD
I’ll go one better, PAD. Remember all those “how convenient” comments on talk radio when one of the key Whitewater witnesses died of a heart attack?
As for the timing of O’Conner’s retirement, there were people who reported hearing her complain the night of the 2000 election that if Gore won, she wouldn’t be able to retire for another 4-8 years. That raises questions of her impartiality in Bush v. Gore. Only she can say whether she decided to delay retirement until after the 2004 election to duck those accusations. Personally, I doubt it, but the perception is still there for people to exploit.
However, Conservatives really don’t have any moral high ground to cry foul when people comment on the convenient timing to draw attention away from Iraq, considering they didn’t hesitate to ascribe “distraction” motives to anything Clinton did during the entire impeachment fiasco. Any move he made, any actions he took here or overseas, conservative pundits howled, “He’s just trying to make us forget Monica!”
So the other guy started it. Is that any reason to be unreasonable? Much of the left has become what the right was during the Clinton years and, like them, have lost much of their effectiveness. I’m not surprised that it happened but I am surprised that they don’t seem to see it. (Someone once said that the party in power becomes corrupt and the party out of power becomes insane. It’s getting hard to argue with that.)
Conservatives are not monolithic Not all of them acted as you describe. Do THEY have the moral high ground?
And one could also make the claim that some of what Clinton did could, arguably, be deliberate distraction, while such claims over Justice O’Connor’s retirement don’t make any sense. It’s not as goofy as the moonbats who thought that the tsunami was somehow a created distraction but it’s getting close.
Much of the left has become what the right was during the Clinton years and, like them, have lost much of their effectiveness.
The funny thing is, the right has now become everything that they said the left was in 1994: Corrupt, power-hungry, arrogant, caring only for special interests, etc.
It’s called politics. I’m against anyone who abuses power. Right now, that’s the conversatives.
Yeah but how smart would it be for the left to NOT act crazy and then, when the Republicans fall under the weight of their own corruption, be able to sweep into power? Instead, they will be restricted by the self made baggage of their own craziness. The best hope any Supreme Court pick Bush sends up is the liklihood that the MoveOn types will over react and do such an obvious smear job that fair minded people will be appalled and the backlash will get them in.
Now since I personally don’t trust the left with the big issues this is okey dokey with me but if they were to change their tactics and show some smarts in all this it would go a long way toward convincing people like me to change our views. Don’t see it happening though–if anthing, it seems as though liberals actually believe that their leaders haven’t been sufficiantly extremist.
And you call ME thick?
Yes, and I’ll repeat it: you’re thick.
And speaking of somebody trying to claim the moral high ground…
Please grow up.
Please deal with the facts.
What part of “cynically timed to take attention away from” is ambiguous?
How about the part that mentions a conspiracy… oh, wait, it doesn’t mention a conspiracy! How about that!
But, last I checked, being a cynic doesn’t automatically mean that everything done is a conspiracy.
It’s a simple fact: anything that can distract the ignorant in this country from the bs going on in Iraq is a good thing for Bush.
Unless you want more if his bumbling and stumbling every time somebody asks him how many more have to die for his war of revenge.
Bill, that’s how politics works. Occasionally, you get some crooks in who are also competent enough to achieve some positive things. Right now, we have a bunch of crooks who are ineptly getting our soldiers killed.
As for which side wants their leaders to be more extreme, I’ll let the margins debate that. I still consider myself a moderate even if right wingnut faction has driven me into the Democrats camp for the time being. Right now, I do think both parties are doing themselves more harm than good by pandering to their extreme factions. Polls are showing Bush’s support dwindling, but the people don’t trust the Democrats anymore. The time is right for another politician to emerge and champion a third way. There’s a huge chunk of moderate voters (what Ann Coulter calls “idiot voters” – and you wonder why I can’t support the right?) up for grabs in 2008 and the candidate who connects with them will win the election, not the one who tries to pander to the extreme left or right.
“Right now, I do think both parties are doing themselves more harm than good by pandering to their extreme factions. Polls are showing Bush’s support dwindling, but the people don’t trust the Democrats anymore.”
See, this is where I see someone making a strong, third party thrust. When you end up with extremists on both sides, or when the people are sick of the parties they have,it is usually then that a third party can make a major push, like the Republicans in the 1850’s, or the Populists in the 1890’s. A third party that went after those moderates could make this a whole new ball game in a very little while, if only because both major parties would see the election slipping away, and suddenly focus on the middle.
A third party that went after those moderates could make this a whole new ball game in a very little while
The problem with a third party emerging has always been that, once the threat is introduced, the Big Two semi-work together to make the third party sound like an even bigger nut job than the Big Two.
Which, this time around, would have to be one helluva farking whackjob, because the Dems and Repubs both have really set themselves apart recently.
The one chance for a third party would be if you had two decent people from both sides who are perceived as people who have lost favor with the more extreme elements of their respective parties–say, a McCain/Lieberman ticket.
It might even work, though it would have little long term value–it seems like most third party tries are totally personality driven. The real value would be in how it might cause the Big Two to re-evaluate how they do things.
“So the other guy started it. Is that any reason to be unreasonable?”
Yes. Absolutely. Conservative pundits have hammered away nonstop at liberals for years, and framed the parameters of every major issue before the American public, usually in the most insulting and negative tones possible. Or, to quote Bruno in “West Wing”:
(S)omebody came along and said liberal means soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on Communism, soft on defense. And we’re going to tax you back to the stone age because people shouldn’t have to work if they don’t want to. And instead of saying ‘Well, excuse me, you right-wing reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun Leave it to Beaver trip back to the ’50s’….We cowered in the corner and say, ‘Please don’t hurt me’.”
No more. Fighting fire for fire, tit for tat, saurce for the goose, take your pick. But yeah, you bet your ášš. Decades of trash talk, of distortion, of lies…and now Conservatives are crying out that LIBERALS are being unreasonable? Screw that. There’s no point taking the high road when the people on the low road are firing bûllšhìŧ at you with high powered cannons.
PAD
I loved that speech by Bruno. Sorkin at his best. I found it ironic when the actor – Ron Silver – spoke before the RNC last year and gave another good speech:
Even though I am a well-recognized liberal on many issues confronting our society today, I find it ironic that many human rights advocates and outspoken members of my own entertainment community are often on the front lines to protest repression, for which I applaud them but they are usually the first ones to oppose any use of force to take care of these horrors that they catalogue repeatedly.
It doesn’t look like it has hurt his career too much, though, despite the stereotype of anti-conservative Hollywood.