Alito For SCOTUS — Thank You, Mr. President!
Okay, I admit it reluctantly…. I’ve been very disappointed by the start of the 2nd term of the Bush Presidency. There… are the lib readers all happy now? After all, I’ve been accused of everything from being a front for the RNC to a Bush-apologist. But things haven’t gone well recently and I have felt the President was becoming disengaged, and he was beginning to personally let me down. Folks, when the gay Republican who voted for the Prez, despite the whole marriage debate, starts to go soft….the man is in trouble.
So, I was on the verge this morning of writing an “open letter” to the President asking him to grow a spine and start looking more like Ronald Reagan than George H. W. Bush. I was going to urge the Prez to pick a nominee specifically to get into a robust debate with liberals about the direction of the Supreme Court. No need for the letter this morning.
You may note that I was reserving judgment (though Dan opposed) on Harriet Miers until the confirmation hearings. I will do the same with Samuel Alito until the hearings. For example, I have no clue about his views on gay issues…. and I’m not one of those people that automatically connects gay issues with Roe v. Wade.
Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese called on LGBT Americans to voice their concerns about the nomination. “Alito is the far right’s choice,” said Solmonese. “His record on Congress’s power to protect Americans and a woman’s right to choose give us a level of understanding as to why he was the far right’s choice. Our Constitution does not belong to one narrow ideology. It belongs to all of us.”
(Hat tip for that quote from Charging Rhino who points out…”Always nice to see that Joe Solmonese hasn’t forgotten that he heads an abortion-rights organization.”)
Hell, I may wind up opposing Alito when all is said and done.
So why am I thanking President Bush this morning? Because it is about time he stood up to the media, stood up to the Democrats in the Senate, and frankly stood up to the Republicans in the Senate…. and took a strong stand to force a loud boisterous debate on the Constitution and the conservative views of “constructionists” versus “activists.”
At this point I could care less if Alito actually survives. I want the DEBATE to happen. Give me a filibuster by the Democrats! That would be priceless. Let’s have a talk about the role of government in regulating abortion and why my tax money should pay for abortion-on-demand with no balance in favor of life. (Keep in mind, I consider myself “marginally pro-choice”… I just don’t want abortion to be used as birth control.) Let’s force the so-called “Republicans” in the Senate (yes, you Mr. McCain) to put a stake in the ground about their political, ethical, moral and Constitutional beliefs. Harriet Miers and John Roberts’ confirmations did not or would not have resulted in such a rigorous debate.
Already, the Left is beside itself in hysteria. Guess what folks, elections matter. This is what winning the Presidency and the Senate is supposed to be about, not nominating your personal friend to the Supreme Court! Having a line in the sand on where Republicans, conservatives, liberals and Democrats stand on the fundamental issues of government and the roles of the legislature and the judiciary. If that is all that comes from Alito’s nomination, this country and Republicans running for re-election in 2006 will all be better off for it.
As ColoradoPatriot told me over the weekend….. he thought Bush was about to go “balls-to-the-walls.” I’m glad he has. Ronald Reagan never shied away from a fight. President Bush needs to keep going now and stop the handwringing over what Democrats might do or say. Hint – they will oppose you and stab you in the back at every turn — even if it means endangering national security. They stand for NOTHING anymore except regaining their own power for power’s sake.
So the battle is on. I for one am just happy that we finally have a battle taking place.
[Related Story: Justice Alito and the Constitutional Option – Hugh Hewitt. Ed. Note – I’ve already called Senator Warner, as a constituent, to weigh in.)
And I’ve called Senators Boxer and Feinstein. While the latter is waiting to hear from constituents, the former has already made up her mind, more interested in opposing the president than in considering the views of those whom she serves–a real embarassment to the Golden State. –GPW
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
87 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I’m curious, in the conservative mindset, what constitutes a “constructionist” as opposed to an “activist” judicial nominee? If a conservative justice rules to strike down progressive legislature, is it not “activist?”
For example, the constitution has little to say about abortion from a strict constructionist viewpoint but Alito could tip the balance in a revisit of Roe v. Wade. Once the precedent is set, does not overturning that represent conservative “activism?”
By the way, has anyone read Freakonomics? I’m curious for a conservative reaction to the books founded basis that abortion is responsible for the significant drop in crime in the early 1990s.
Comment by gaycowboybob — October 31, 2005 @ 12:30 pm - October 31, 2005
The strict constructionist opinion is that since abortion is not in the Constitution, it is the role of elected legislators, not judges to set public policy on the issue. Or, alternately, to put a right to abortion into the Constitution through the Amendment process. Democracy, what a concept.
Comment by V the K — October 31, 2005 @ 12:34 pm - October 31, 2005
I am moved to ask, if constructionist judges are “out-of-the mainstream,” is the left arguing that the mainstream wants judges to be setting social policy from the bench? Does the mainstream want unrestricted abortion-on-demand, partial birth abortion, no parental consent, the legal transport of minors over state lines for the purposes of abortion? And if the mainstream wants these things, does it not make sense that they would elect legislators to accomplish them?
Comment by V the K — October 31, 2005 @ 12:38 pm - October 31, 2005
gaycow -
You’ve forgotten what happened to Bob Bennett already? How conveeeenient…
Comment by Frank IBC — October 31, 2005 @ 12:47 pm - October 31, 2005
Legislators (rather than jusges) acting to protect the rights of their constituents?
What a shocking concept…
Comment by Frank IBC — October 31, 2005 @ 12:48 pm - October 31, 2005
clarence thomas is the #1 activist judge on the supreme court…he’s voted 65% of the time to overturn established law. when the right claims foul about judicial activism it’s because the “activists” don’t agree with their view.
let’s see what happens with the current case of assisted suicide in oregon. if roberts, scalia and thomas write the law should be overturned, everyone will know this court IS full of judicial activism.
Comment by bucksrbest — October 31, 2005 @ 1:15 pm - October 31, 2005
The strict constructionist opinion is that since abortion is not in the Constitution, it is the role of elected legislators, not judges to set public policy on the issue.
But then what exactly is the role of the judicial branch then except to rubberstamp existing legislation? You can make the case for nearly anything for or against constitutional leanings.
It’s like the bible. You can find meaning in it to support your position or you can take it literally and not eat shellfish and stone your daughter to death for premarital sex. Right?
Comment by gaycowboybob — October 31, 2005 @ 1:17 pm - October 31, 2005
So the battle is on. I for one am just happy that we finally have a battle taking place.
And by the way, why should you be “happy” about the pending divisiveness that this selection represents? Are you saying further splitting the country over idealogy is a positive thing?
Comment by gaycowboybob — October 31, 2005 @ 1:23 pm - October 31, 2005
Comment 5 – Yeah, we’re used to legislators being predators – in both parties.
By the way, today’s “originalism” or strict constructionism isn’t valid, if it believes a right does not exist unless enumerated in Constitution.
For proof, check your 9th Amendment.
The Constitution was instituted to limit government. Not to define “roles” of people and government in a “metaphysically equal” relationship, because government, per se, possesses no right to exist.
Government is a mere tool or servant, existing by the people’s permission only.
Proper judges would read the Government’s powers narrowly (a.k.a. Enumerated Powers doctrine), and the people’s rights mega broadly (no “Enumerated Rights” doctrine). Always favoring the people’s rights.
Hence, there is absolutely a Constitutional right to privacy.
Privacy is implied and required by all other rights – like life, liberty, property – or by the very limitation of Government power that the Constitution embodies by its existence.
My opposition to Roe comes from also needing to consider the unborn baby’s right to privacy, life, liberty and property. Government’s legitimate job is to protect rights, including arbitrating conflicts.
Comment by Calarato — October 31, 2005 @ 1:28 pm - October 31, 2005
Comments 6 and 7 both exhibit the “words mean anything, so do what I want” school of thought.
Judicial activism refers to judges doing the job of legislators from the bunch.
Not judges reviewing / overturning bad precedents of other judges.
Comment by Calarato — October 31, 2005 @ 1:30 pm - October 31, 2005
Comments 6 and 7 both exhibit the “words mean anything, so do what I want” school of thought.
Exactly. And once the Constitution means whatever a judge (or a politician) wants it too, it no longer means anything at all.
Comment by V the K — October 31, 2005 @ 1:38 pm - October 31, 2005
divisiveness
Translation – liberals not getting 100% of what they want, and raising a hissy fit.
Comment by Frank IBC — October 31, 2005 @ 1:43 pm - October 31, 2005
Bruce,
It’s all bread and circus. Release the Christians, open the gates, and let the games begin.
Oh, I’m sorry, let the DEBATES begin.
Comment by chandler in watts — October 31, 2005 @ 1:44 pm - October 31, 2005
#12 — Yeah, that is true. When the left says “divisive,” what they really mean is that conservatives have a voice, now. As opposed the glory days of “unity” when left-wing liberals had unchallenged control of the government, the media, and academia.
Comment by V the K — October 31, 2005 @ 1:47 pm - October 31, 2005
My understanding, just from what I assume that the word means, is that constructionist limits rulings to things that are actually in the constitution and intended to be there… equal rights, as an example, are clearly an intended constitutional principle… although at the time it was written slavery of various sorts was legal, it is not “activist” to rule that equality under the law is Constitutional.
The US Supreme Court isn’t supposed to rubberstamp laws. Not at all. They are supposed to be a check on the Legislature, right? They are supposed to be a major element in our system of checks and balances. The Consitution is essentially a list of limits on federal government… the House and Senate exceed those limits and the laws ought to get slapped down.
Activist, in either direction, is when the ruling is that “the constitution doesn’t address this, but this is what we think is right.” Or “but this is what legal presidence is in Europe” or something equally appalling.
Yes, certainly there are activist sorts on both ends of the political spectrum. I’d rather have a judge dedicated to ruling on the strict constitutionality of a law, even if it meant that I law I thought was bad was deemed constitutional and upheld, than one who ruled on the law according to how our lives and understandings have changed in the last 200 years and gave me the law I prefered.
Comment by Synova — October 31, 2005 @ 1:56 pm - October 31, 2005
I also think it should be pointed out that this nomination puts the court back into the balance it had before Bill Clinton replaced the moderate Byron White with flaming leftist (Abolish Mother’s Day, Co-Ed Prisons, Force quotas [even though I never hired a minority in my life]) Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Comment by V the K — October 31, 2005 @ 2:04 pm - October 31, 2005
HOO-BOY! Here it comes…the nasty showdown both sides have been claiming to want – but in reality, only the Right is in a position to actually ‘win’ it. And what a victory it’ll be!!!
Even though I was more than willing to give the Prez a pass on Harriet Miers and assumed that he knew her better than all those knee-jerk conservative detractors who pilloried her without a hearing, I’m happy with this new selection. Definitely looks like something to pull up a chair for and watch the teeth and elbows fly.
And now the obligatory jab at the terrified Leftists out there: Face it, YOU’RE F’D! You’re FINALLY going to lose control of the last branch of gov’t that was still keeping your policies on life support. Wow, that’s gotta hurt! The Executive, Legislative, AND the Judiciary branches in GOP control. Damn…how’d you clowns let this happen anyway? Oh, yeah, I forgot…by being cowardly anti-American pieces of dung who’d rather kow-tow to Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, Ward Churchill et al than to stand up to defend your own country. And of course, losing elections like they were pennies.
Bulletin: this ain’t 1973, gals. Bush isn’t Nixon, and Iraq isn’t Vietnam. But it was fun pretending, wasn’t it? Well, now that you’ve seen where the path blazed by your so-called ‘leadership’ has led you, maybe it’s time to come to your senses (big assumption) and rejoin the rest of us back here on planet Earth? No? Wanna keep tilting at windmills, living in denial, following blindly like sheep, raging aginst the machine, huh? Oh, OK. That’s cool with me.
All I can say is that it’s great to have America back again, moving swiftly and steadily to the right after so many years of drifting leftward. The 90s are officially over and the post-9/11 nation has begun in earnest. As long as the Dems continue to follow their same predictable course, it will be YEARS before the political tide turns. Until then, there’ll be plenty of time to firmly establish the kinds of rationale, common-sense policies that put America’s interests first to and indoctrinate the younger generations into adopting a solidly conservative ideology built on strength, pride, and moral conviction.
Oh, happy day! At this point, I don’t care what they may do to Libby or Rove (as if), because those impacts will be only temporary. Today’s the day that the Right finally WON the election of 2000 and the wishes of the majority of Americans voters are being put into action. Yes, it took more time than it should’ve but at least we’ve arrived. So bye bye, Hollywood! So long San Francisco! Take a hike Manhattan, Cambridge, and Berkeley. You all had your chance(s) but ya blew it. All the money and propaganda that you folks could muster wasn’t able to overcome the steel will of the conservative American majority. And now you’ve got no choice but to sit back and watch your dreams for the Europeanization of American to turn to dust. Oh, well. Maybe in another lifetime.
But wait…you DO have one option at your disposal. Last time I checked, the northern border was still open to disgruntled hippies, radicals, and conspiracy theorists of all stripes. There may be a toll at the bridge but you should be able to sell some pot and scrape together enough change to get you and the VW bus safely into Canada. And don’t forget to pick up a French dictionary on your way out! You’ll need to know how to say, “Where’s the welfare office?” in two languages. Au revior, mes amis!
Comment by glisteny — October 31, 2005 @ 2:05 pm - October 31, 2005
Actually, I think that both the Democrats and Republicans are of one mind on Bush’s new nominee. They both want to have as bruising and outrageous of a battle as possible in the Senate in order to energize their respective Party bases. Its a lot cheaper and easier than running political ads. Alito’s judicial qualifications? Who cares?
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — October 31, 2005 @ 2:08 pm - October 31, 2005
Awesome pick! He’s an Italian-American Catholic from New Jersey just like me. Unfortunately I see that the slimy ethnic references have already begun (e.g., “Scalito”, “Tony Supremo”) on some of the left wing blogs.
By the way, I read somewhere that if confirmed Sam Alito will be the 5th Catholic on the SC. This is very interesting. The Protestants seem to have a lock on the executive branch while the Catholics get the bench. And there is likely a larger number of Jews in Congress than in the general population. Guess the Muslims will just have to try harder. But I’d be happy if they just stopped killing innocent people in the name of Allah Snackbar.
Comment by Veritas — October 31, 2005 @ 2:19 pm - October 31, 2005
From today’s NRO:
POLITICAL PLUS [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
An Alito battle and confirmation should help Rick Santorum’s reelection campaign.
This must be good news to you, GP. Will you bill contributing to Santorum this cycle?
Comment by anon — October 31, 2005 @ 2:47 pm - October 31, 2005
Judicial activism refers to judges doing the job of legislators from the bunch.
Not judges reviewing / overturning bad precedents of other judges.
What’s the difference? It all comes down to someone reviewing someone else whether it be legislator or judge who ruled on a legislator.
Frankly, I think “activist” was the stupidist concept the Republicans could have thrown into the long-term debate of the judicial branch. However it was a convenient way to spin public sentiment at the time of the appeals court issue.
Frankly, I believe we do need “activist” judges both conservatively oriented and liberally oriented. It’s difficult to get a clear picture of the middle ground without them and that should be the ultimate goal of what we’re trying to preserve and acknowledge.
When the left says “divisive,” what they really mean is that conservatives have a voice, now. As opposed the glory days of “unity” when left-wing liberals had unchallenged control of the government, the media, and academia.
You’re still operating under this assumption that you represent a mainstream viewpoint.Rather, neo-conservatives are a power-hungry subgroup bent on dominating popular culture, no?
Comment by gaycowboybob — October 31, 2005 @ 2:59 pm - October 31, 2005
Veritas, I’d like to welcome you to our country. I hope however, while you’re here that you’ll take the time to truly become familiar with this amazing concept we espouse called “awareness.” You should try it sometime.
Comment by gaycowboybob — October 31, 2005 @ 3:23 pm - October 31, 2005
glisteny, who needs to worry about lefty radicals when we have you just wrapped up in a different color paper?
Of course it is Halloween. The freaks are apparently coming out before it’s night. Ah, but that’s while we still have Halloween before it’s wiped out of existence by the neocons and replaced with “Angelween” or “All Saints’ Eve,” right?
I’m KIDDING. Well not about the glisteny part.
BTW, also in Freakonomics, they show there’s no correlary between being a single parent and your child doing well in school. Hmm…
Comment by gaycowboybob — October 31, 2005 @ 3:30 pm - October 31, 2005
I think that Ann Althouse has very good posts on this as well as explaining with remarkable clarity (meaning it made perfect sense to even me) the difference between ruling on the law and ruling according to personal opinions.
Comment by Synova — October 31, 2005 @ 3:32 pm - October 31, 2005
BTW
In two cases involving the deportation of immigrants, the majority twice noted Alito’s disregard of settled law. In Dia v. Ashcroft, the majority opinion states that Alito’s dissent “guts the statutory standard” and “ignores our precedent.” In Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, the majority stated Alito’s opinion contradicted “well-recognized rules of statutory construction.” [Dia v. Ashcroft, 2003; Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, 2004]
Comment by gaycowboybob — October 31, 2005 @ 3:53 pm - October 31, 2005
Gay Cowboy Bob, when this becomes your blog then I may consider accepting your advice as relevant and/or worthwhile. Until then, I’ll continue to think and speak for myself and dismiss your blatherings, thanks very much. Even so, one thing I am totally “aware” of is that your prattle carries the distinct whiff of sinking desparation. It’s appropriate that you should be afraid at Halloween.
And thanks also for welcoming me to “our country”, whatever that means. You seem to have a penchant for claiming things that aren’t yours. But when one has so very little cling to then I suppose everything becomes fair game.
Comment by Veritas — October 31, 2005 @ 4:09 pm - October 31, 2005
Looks like someone needs to get out of San Francisco/New York/DC and into “Flyover Country” once in a while.
Comment by Frank IBC — October 31, 2005 @ 4:34 pm - October 31, 2005
Ah, but that’s while we still have Halloween before it’s wiped out of existence by the neocons and replaced with “Angelween” or “All Saints’ Eve,” right?
The only attempt to shut down Halloween has been by LIBERALS:
School board cautions against offending Wiccans
‘This is unbelievable’: Halloween a ‘traumatic shock’ for some children
Nicholas Kohler
National Post
Thursday, October 27, 2005
TORONTO – Teachers should forego traditional classroom Halloween celebrations because they are disrespectful of Wiccans and may cause some children to feel excluded, says a Toronto District School Board memo sent to principals and teachers this week.
“Many recently arrived students in our schools share absolutely none of the background cultural knowledge that is necessary to view ‘trick or treating,’ the commercialization of death, the Christian sexist demonization of pagan religious beliefs, as ‘fun,’ ” says the memo.
Entitled “Halloween at TDSB Schools: Scarrrrrry Stufff,” the document seeks to clarify for teachers and principals the extent to which Halloween activities should be pursued in multicultural settings. In the past, the unsigned memo laments, schools have received “mixed messages” from the board regarding Halloween.
School board officials could not be reached for comment last night.
Citing calls by concerned principals and parents on the subject, the memo aims to make classroom Halloween celebrations consistent with the board’s “equitable schools policies” and warns that “some students and their parents/ guardians might experience their first Halloween not as a ‘strange surprise,’ but a ‘traumatic shock.’ ”
The memo goes on to remind teachers that, “Halloween is a religious day of significance for Wiccans and therefore should be treated respectfully.”
For other students, “food products that are marketed heavily during the Halloween period” may conflict with dietary habits that children know from home. An alternative to eating sweets in class would be to “write health warnings for all Halloween candies.”
The memo also warns teachers that “some students have had first-hand traumatic experiences of violence that make talking about death, ghosts, etc. extremely alienating.”
Observers yesterday suggested the school board memo is a humourless attempt to deprive children of a favourite North American tradition.
“This is unbelievable. I’m sorry I’m laughing because it’s so funny to read this thing,” said Doretta Wilson, executive director of the Society for Quality Education, a parents group that advocates school choice.
“I just think it’s taking political correctness to a ridiculous extreme.”
Reading the caution to teachers regarding Wiccan sensitivities to Halloween, Ms. Wilson remarked: “That must drive the truly religious Jewish and Islamic and Christian parents who send their children to the public school system just ’round the bend…. It’s almost as if it’s not politically correct to be a Christian nowadays in our country.”
She added: “Are they truly a significant proportion of the public school system?”
Nicole Cooper, a first-degree priestess of the Wiccan Church of Canada’s Toronto Temple, agreed. “Frankly, Wiccans are a minority — an extreme religious minority,” she said.
The Halloween celebrations of North American pop culture, she added, are “not actually threatening to my religion anymore than eggs and cute little bunnies are threatening to Easter.”
Called Samhain by many Wiccans, Oct. 31 is the day the faithful celebrate the “turn of the new year,” when the veil between this world and the underworld of departed souls is “at its thinnest,” Ms. Cooper said.
Many Wiccans perform “dumb suppers,” eating meals before spaces made empty for the dead. Some gaze into water-filled bowels for a peek at the future, a divination technique called “scrying.”
But none of this, Ms. Cooper said yesterday, should persuade schools to stop the candy-eating and costume-wearing of students. Indeed, many Wiccans themselves celebrate both Samhain and the masks-and-treats version of Halloween.
“If I had children I wouldn’t deprive them of that — it’s a really fun thing to do. It’s engaging in the spirit of the season; it’s exciting for kids,” Ms. Cooper said.
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=95872eb5-2f27-4a4b-b94e-94c43bf39797
Comment by Frank IBC — October 31, 2005 @ 4:45 pm - October 31, 2005
“Judicial activism” is code for “I don’t like the decision.”
The fact of the matter is that legislatures and Congress keep passing thousands upon thousands of laws, many barely Constitutional because of some excessive interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause or some such reading. If these laws weren’t passed at all, then the Court wouldn’t even have to deal with them!
I also agree with the idea that we retain a whole manner of rights that are not enumerated in the US Constitution or our state constitutions. Only someone who supports the idea of a centralized government’s control of our rights as individuals would buy into the “only enumerated rights” notion. WE are the government, and the founders of our country were smart enough to figure out that they didn’t have to list every right we possessed. Both the 9th Amendment and 14th Amendment make that clear, and Court interpretations underscoring unenumerated rights support that.
As a good conservative legislator once told me: “the best legislation is NO legislation.” The day we get Congress and the legislatures to stop making a law for all occasions and all circumstances is the day the Court will stop having to consider them all!
Comment by GOPValues — October 31, 2005 @ 5:03 pm - October 31, 2005
As a good conservative legislator once told me: “the best legislation is NO legislation.” The day we get Congress and the legislatures to stop making a law for all occasions and all circumstances is the day the Court will stop having to consider them all!
BEST point I’ve read in the whole discussion! (IMHO)
Comment by MarkP — October 31, 2005 @ 5:26 pm - October 31, 2005
Looks like someone needs to get out of San Francisco/New York/DC and into “Flyover Country” once in a while.
You mean all those states that are supported by blue tax dollars?
Comment by gaycowboybob — October 31, 2005 @ 5:41 pm - October 31, 2005
Ah, but that’s while we still have Halloween before it’s wiped out of existence by the neocons and replaced with “Angelween” or “All Saints’ Eve,” right?
The only attempt to shut down Halloween has been by LIBERALS:
A little geography lesson Frank – you do know Toronto is in Canada right? It’s a lovely city, the New York of the north, wonderful theater and cultural outlets but it’s not part of the lower 48.
Comment by gaycowboybob — October 31, 2005 @ 5:46 pm - October 31, 2005
Frank, I believe this is more the American Christian sentiment.
http://www.woai.com/news/national/story.aspx?content_id=33048EB0-FB4A-47ED-884D-B3EED60280FF
Comment by gaycowboybob — October 31, 2005 @ 5:48 pm - October 31, 2005
It’s both, certainly. I know many people who do not do Halloween. It’s a choice like any other. It only becomes a problem when it’s taken out of the private sphere and into the compulsory state schools.
Comment by Synova — October 31, 2005 @ 6:00 pm - October 31, 2005
Y’know what the left reminds me of? Pinky and the Brain. It’s like, “What are we going to do today, Kos?” “The same thing we do everyday, Howard. Destroy the Bush Regime!”
I mean, there was Cindy Sheehan, she was going to turn the public against the Bush Regime. Didn’t happen. Then, it was Hurricane Katrina! Ha! Bush hates Black people. The people will demand impeachment.Then, that fizzled out. Then, there were the joyous left-wing anticipation of the 2,000 the soldier killed in Iraq. Oh, yes! Surely this will turn those idiot sheep in the Red State against Bushhitlerburton. But, it turns out only the left was celebrating the Grim Milestone (TM).
And, last week, it was ‘Fitzmas.’ 22 indictments, you said. Rove, Libby, Steve Hadley — frog marched out of the White House. Cheney forced to resign! The end of the Bush Regime. And then, just five indictments, for Libby, for getting the dates wrong about when he had conversations with reporters. And the air went out of that balloon like a million whoopie cushions being sat on all at once.
Comment by V the K — October 31, 2005 @ 6:01 pm - October 31, 2005
This is why I believe divided government is essential to our democratic process.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — October 31, 2005 @ 6:10 pm - October 31, 2005
It only becomes a problem when it’s taken out of the private sphere and into the compulsory state schools.
Like school prayer?
Comment by gaycowboybob — October 31, 2005 @ 6:18 pm - October 31, 2005
Comment 36 -
Really?
So when Clinton was in office, you supported a Republican Congress?
And if the Democrats win in ’06, you will then genuinely support President Bush?
Comment by Calarato — October 31, 2005 @ 6:39 pm - October 31, 2005
she was going to turn the public against the Bush Regime.
Well I don’t know if it was ehr alone but a 39% approval rating doesn’t sound so hot to me…
Then, it was Hurricane Katrina! Ha! Bush hates Black people. The people will demand impeachment.
That’s after Brown finishes his dinner.
Then, there were the joyous left-wing anticipation of the 2,000 the soldier killed in Iraq.
I think you meant 2,000th college Republican with an excuse for not signing up for military duty.
And then, just five indictments, for Libby, for getting the dates wrong about when he had conversations with reporters.
Well even one felony conviction is enough to settle our bet now, isn’t it? You did back up your site so you can drink in the dark while softly crying to yourself singing memories, right?
Comment by gaycowboybob — October 31, 2005 @ 6:47 pm - October 31, 2005
I also agree with the idea that we retain a whole manner of rights that are not enumerated in the US Constitution or our state constitutions. Only someone who supports the idea of a centralized government’s control of our rights as individuals would buy into the “only enumerated rights” notion. WE are the government, and the founders of our country were smart enough to figure out that they didn’t have to list every right we possessed. Both the 9th Amendment and 14th Amendment make that clear, and Court interpretations underscoring unenumerated rights support that.
The question is, though, GOPValues, whether those rights are those guaranteed by fundamental law.
One can think of fundamental law as very similar to a building code. A code lays out specifically what one must have and what one cannot have; however, it does not stipulate one’s exact way of doing everything when one builds. Similarly, there are rights that are written into fundamental law, and there are rights in which the exact way of carrying them out is not.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 31, 2005 @ 6:53 pm - October 31, 2005
Actually, Bob, Cindy Sheehan’s use has just begun; imagine the campaign advertisements next year showing the DNC praising her as a prime example of what they stand for, and then a clip of her praising the Taliban and the Iraqi insurgency while blaming Jews for all the problems of the world.
One of these days your party will learn not to give microphones to moonbats who expose what you really believe, but it won’t be this one.
As for Katrina, was that before or after the world found out about Ray “Schoolbus” Nagin?
Next up, how about the fact that the armed forces, according to last years’ vote counts, are overwhelmingly Republican? Funny how so few Democrats like yourself, despite trying to claim that you support our actions in Afghanistan, are volunteering. Is that because you don’t want to kill the “freedom fighters” that Mother Sheehan is ordering you not to hurt?
And finally, there is a difference between “conviction” and “indictment”. Unless, of course, you want to admit that all the people indicted during the Clinton administration, including Clinton himself, are guilty.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 31, 2005 @ 7:02 pm - October 31, 2005
HT LGF…..here is a fun one:
http://decision08.net/2005/10/31/top-ten-kos-kidz-reactions-to-the-alito-nomination/
The Republican base seems united and elated; the Democrat base is furious and frightened.
But here’s a thought. Going back to their crocodile tears for Miers.
Today’s Dem party line is: “Bush decided to unite his base, instead of America. Bush was in political trouble and caved into his base on Miers, and is now screwing the rest of us.”
If that’s true: why weren’t they nicer to Bush,while they could have still had Miers? Why didn’t they rally around her? and so Bush?
If Miers would be so much better, a real centrist: Why didn’t they jump up and down for joy that Bush nominated her and *cut him slack* on other stuff, at least until she was in?
Is there any conceivable universe in which, after having to withdraw Miers, Bush would then nominate a liberal?
Who set up Alito’s nomination, by way overplaying their hand on Katrina, Delay, Plamegate, etc., until there was a widespread media perception that Bush was in trouble and had better smooch his base?
Comment by Calarato — October 31, 2005 @ 7:21 pm - October 31, 2005
One of these days your party will learn not to give microphones to moonbats who expose what you really believe, but it won’t be this one.
A. Democrats are not my party.
B. Cindy Sheehan had no particular Democratic political endorsements that I know of. She was radioactive in terms of political clout. You’re simply barking up the wrong independent activist tree.
C. Bush still has a 39% approval after you wrote this last post as before you wrote it.
As for Katrina, was that before or after the world found out about Ray “Schoolbus” Nagin?
It was probably after Bahamonde had to take a crap in the hallway of the Superdome.
Next up, how about the fact that the armed forces, according to last years’ vote counts, are overwhelmingly Republican?
I think you have your info incorrect Sir. It’s that they voted Republican rather than that they were Republican. Plus it’s a Republican congress that still has yet to adequately eqiup vehicles with the necessary armor and an administration willing to cut pay hikes for our soldiers. I wouldn’t go if my national leaders weren’t going to stand up for me.
Unless, of course, you want to admit that all the people indicted during the Clinton administration, including Clinton himself, are guilty.
V’K was contending that there was only 5 indictments out of a possible 22 (where that number comes from, I don’t know). I was reminding him that it only takes one of those indictment to turn into a conviction and win our bet.
Comment by gaycowboybob — October 31, 2005 @ 7:38 pm - October 31, 2005
And if I lose, i will do the honorable thing and leave this forum. And you, GCB, will continue to rant on how Rove, DeLay, and Frist are GUILTY, even though you were unwilling to wager anything on their guilt.
Comment by V the K — October 31, 2005 @ 8:07 pm - October 31, 2005
But I did. If none are found guilty, I go away like a puff of smoke.
Comment by gaycowboybob — October 31, 2005 @ 8:14 pm - October 31, 2005
A. Sure. And Dolly Parton’s are real.
B. Never underestimate your party’s moonbats.
C. I daresay, given that the media hides the fact that prominent Democrats are endorsing vicious anti-Semites who call terrorists like the Iraqi insurgents and the Taliban “freedom fighters” while taking every opportunity they can to smear Bush, 39% is amazingly high.
It was probably after Bahamonde had to take a crap in the hallway of the Superdome.
Makes you wish Nagin had used those schoolbuses and city buses to get people out of town in the first place, doesn’t it?
I think you have your info incorrect Sir. It’s that they voted Republican rather than that they were Republican.
That wins the spin prize for the evening.
Plus it’s a Republican congress that still has yet to adequately eqiup vehicles with the necessary armor and an administration willing to cut pay hikes for our soldiers. I wouldn’t go if my national leaders weren’t going to stand up for me.
No need to worry, Bob…..you’re a Democrat, so you know your national leaders will never stand up for you. In fact, they, as per instructions from Mother Sheehan, will leave you there to be shot at by the “freedom fighters” as punishment.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 31, 2005 @ 8:56 pm - October 31, 2005
“I wouldn’t go if my national leaders weren’t going to stand up for me.
“No need to worry, Bob…..you’re a Democrat, so you know your national leaders will never stand up for you.”
Zingggggg!!!!! (rings so true!)
Comment by Calarato — October 31, 2005 @ 9:02 pm - October 31, 2005
#45 — Correction, you only bet on someone else’s guilt. You were unwilling to bet specifically on the guilt of Rove, DeLay, and Frist. Thus demonstrating that you do, in fact, understand that the charges against them are BS.
Comment by V the K — October 31, 2005 @ 9:21 pm - October 31, 2005
From the NYTimes:
We found that justices vary widely in their inclination to strike down Congressional laws. Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by President George H. W. Bush, was the most inclined, voting to invalidate 65.63 percent of those laws; Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Bill Clinton, was the least, voting to invalidate 28.13 percent. The tally for all the justices appears below
Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O’Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %
Comment by bucksrbest — October 31, 2005 @ 10:54 pm - October 31, 2005
The difference between judicial review vs. activism has been explained.
The latter referring to positive acts of legislation from the bench.
Like suddenly discovering that the Framers of the Constitution knew all about the 3 trimesters of human gestation and had envisioned what abortions or abortion restrictions were acceptable in each.
Comment by Calarato — October 31, 2005 @ 11:09 pm - October 31, 2005
Jeez, I come back six hours later and I can’t even keep track of where GayCow has moved the goalposts.
Comment by Frank IBC — October 31, 2005 @ 11:22 pm - October 31, 2005
Five Catholics on the Supreme Court? Pat Buchanan and Cindy Sheehan (both Catholics) told me it was the Jews calling the shots. Is GW switching sides?
Comment by John — October 31, 2005 @ 11:40 pm - October 31, 2005
Wow, I get the feeling if the new SCOTUS gets a NEW sodomy case, sent up by say Virginia – that refuses to remove the old laws from the books, and those Strict constructionists deem it worthy to RE-criminalize sodomy that all the Gaypatriots here would jump for freaking joy.
There is thinly veiled masochism in the gay Republican Patriot ethos.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — October 31, 2005 @ 11:53 pm - October 31, 2005
GayPatriot Bruce,
I don’t consider myself “pro-abortion” but I want to say that there is defonitely a reason every gay person should be concerned about Roe v Wade being overturned.
A Supreme Court majority first found a right to privacy in the Constitution when it ruled in Griswold v Connecticut. Right to privacy was pretty much cast in concrete in the majority’s Roe decision. In writing the majority opinion in Lawrence v Texas, Justice Anthony Kennedy relied on the right of privacy instead of applying the equality before the law clause of the 14th Amendment.
If the theocrats succeed in overturning Roe they’ll also be dumping the right of privacy. If there’s no right of privacy can the Lawrence v Texas decision survive? Hell, Scalia would like to criminalize masturbation! Do you really believe the Bork-lites on the Court (including Alito, if confirmed) would someday revisit the issue and apply the 14th Amendment?
I get tired of arguments about “activist” judges. The Connecticut legislature could have, should have voided the ridiculous law on adult contraception rights that led to Griswold. Years before that, Chief Justice Earl Warren saw no movement by either the Congress or state legislatures to end racial segregation in the public schools. For the sake of equality and decency, the Court had no choice but to end segregtion in its 1954 Brown v Board of Education decision. It took the people’s legislators in Washington a full decade after that to finally enact a major civil rights bill and another year to enact a voting rights act — neither of which would have passed the Senate had northern Republicans not helped President Johnson. It took the Supreme Court to end the cruel state bans on inter-racial marriage. It took the Supreme Court to finally wipe out the remaining laws criminalizing gay sexual relationships.
I say thank God for an activist court.
Comment by Jack Allen — November 1, 2005 @ 12:41 am - November 1, 2005
WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP! Damn, look at the Lefties panic! Holy smokes, youd’ve thought the President just nominated a solid, unrepentant conservative to the Supreme Court or something. Oh…he did? Well, that explains the apoplexy then. Pull it together ladies. You don’t wanna pop a blood vessel in your empty heads!
Plamegate? Katrina? Harriet Miers? Never heard of ‘em. I’m the American public…my memory is short. All I know today is Sam Alito.
Yep, it’s gonna get ugly. Both sides have been looking forward to this but only one side’s really ready to fight. And when it’s all over, Alito’s on the Court, the Dem Party’s in shambles, and the liberals are in shock at the shape of things to come for many, many years. For all their tiny victories of late, they lose when it really counts. They always do.
Lord, George W. Bush has got to be the most brilliant “idiot” ever to occupy the White House, God bless him.
Comment by glisteny — November 1, 2005 @ 1:11 am - November 1, 2005
A Supreme Court majority first found a right to privacy in the Constitution when it ruled in Griswold v Connecticut. Right to privacy was pretty much cast in concrete in the majority’s Roe decision. In writing the majority opinion in Lawrence v Texas, Justice Anthony Kennedy relied on the right of privacy instead of applying the equality before the law clause of the 14th Amendment.
If the theocrats succeed in overturning Roe they’ll also be dumping the right of privacy.
Actually no, Jack; if Roe is overturned, what will happen is that the states will be allowed to decide for themselves what they will allow in terms of abortions. The reason abortionists are desperately fighting that is because they know that most states will ban abortion except in the cases of rape, incest, or imminent threat to the life of the mother; a very few will allow unrestricted abortion, and a very few will completely ban it. This represents a potential loss to the abortion-pushers like NARAL and Planned Parenthood of hundreds of millions of dollars in abortion fees and donations; without money, they have no political power or influence.
Griswold was an eminently-sensible decision based on the simple logic that it was impossible and foolish to attempt to control the in-bedroom activities of two consenting adults and to force people NOT to use contraception. However, Roe was legal folderol that desperately attempted to use the excuse that, since the government couldn’t control activities inside the bedroom, it could not choose to protect the end result of what came out of the bedroom.
In terms of gay rights, consensual sexual activity between adults is generally protected by the decision in Griswold. Even if the removal of Roe meant states were able to re-criminalize sodomy, realistically, how many do you think would?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 1, 2005 @ 1:49 am - November 1, 2005
It’s true.
The Lawrence decision rested on Griswold, more than Roe.
Griswold represents a sensible baseline of privacy. From there, Roe went out on a limb of its own. Even liberal scholars say it was badly reasoned.
Roe’s demise does not have to kill Griswold or anything else depending on Griswold.
Comment by Calarato — November 1, 2005 @ 2:09 am - November 1, 2005
No need to worry, Bob…..you’re a Democrat, so you know your national leaders will never stand up for you.
Again, I’m not a Democrat, but then I guess to you even RINOs are commies. Yeah, I’d rather have national leaders indicted for money laundering, insider trading, perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to federal investigators. That’s some moral high ground you’re preaching from. About an inch under the mud?
Comment by gaycowboybob — November 1, 2005 @ 2:39 am - November 1, 2005
Correction, you only bet on someone else’s guilt. You were unwilling to bet specifically on the guilt of Rove, DeLay, and Frist. Thus demonstrating that you do, in fact, understand that the charges against them are BS.
You took my bet which has always, since the beginning, been if any of your cast of clowns is convicted, you go away. If none of them are convicted, I go away.
We’re talking about the highest level of leadership in the country. We should be able to depend on their innocence.
Comment by gaycowboybob — November 1, 2005 @ 2:41 am - November 1, 2005
The difference between judicial review vs. activism has been explained.
The latter referring to positive acts of legislation from the bench.
Ah, the truth comes out huh? If it’s a “positive” act of legislation from the bench, it’s good judicial review. If it’s a “”negative” act of legislation from the bench, it’s activism.
Well who, praytell, decides what’s positive and what’s negative? Like I mentioned before, in a new book called Freakonomics, the authors found a strong correlation between the insitution of abortion rights from Roe v. Wade and the huge drop in crime in the early 1990s. No other explanation could be solidly proven as affecting the drop in crime as this one factor. Is that a positive effect or a negative effect?
Comment by gaycowboybob — November 1, 2005 @ 2:45 am - November 1, 2005
I think when a court orders a legislature to write a gay marriage law, as happened in Massachussetts, and dictates the terms of that law, as happened in Massachussetts — that is clearly activism. When courts order a legislature to raise taxes and dictate the terms under which taxes are dispersed — as has happened in Kansas and some other places — that is clearly judicial activism. When a court uses foreign law to enforce what it can not find in American law, as the SCOTUS did in a recent capital punishment ruling, that is judicial activism. When a court rejects the plain language of the Constitution in order to force a result favorable to government … as happened in Kelo, that can also be called judicial activism. I happen to think the court’s increasingly expansive interpretation of the Establishment and Commerce Clauses is also a form of activism, but that can be argued either way.
Overturning laws passed by a legislature is not, in and of itself, judicial activism, especially if there is a sound Constitutional reason for doing so.
Comment by V the K — November 1, 2005 @ 7:08 am - November 1, 2005
GayCow -
So you agree with Bob Bennett that killing off black babies reduces the crime rate?
Comment by Frank IBC — November 1, 2005 @ 8:51 am - November 1, 2005
Why do liberals take it for granted that legislators, whom the people elect directly, will pass laws that violate their rights, but that unelected, life-tenured judges, will protect them from the bad laws that the bad legislators enact?
Comment by Frank IBC — November 1, 2005 @ 8:53 am - November 1, 2005
My, people are talking…nothing like a SCOTUS appointment and the smell of partisan “battle” (as Bruce put it) to stir the loins of the Gay Patriots. That’s what it’s all about for you, isn’t it, mon petains – partisan warring, or as the witless glisteny (who is apparently now off probation since pretending to be Monty and acting evil toward Bruce in his Romper grief post) put it so well in No. 17, the chance to “watch the teeth and elbows fly.” Looking for one good fight to wipe away all the bad memories of your “horribilus annus”, eh? Fat chance of that, for there’ll be an arraignment on Thursday.
Comment by Queer Patriot — November 1, 2005 @ 8:55 am - November 1, 2005
Is GP on Atlantic Time or did he just forget to change the server to Standard Time?
Comment by Frank IBC — November 1, 2005 @ 8:57 am - November 1, 2005
Frank (No. 62), it was WILLIAM Bennett — Reagan’s Secy of Education — who stepped into that one. BOB is his brother, a lawyer in DC representing, most recently, Judy Miller.
Comment by Queer Patriot — November 1, 2005 @ 8:58 am - November 1, 2005
wipe away all the bad memories of your “horribilus annus”
I assume you meant to type “annus horribilis”, or are you talking about the abuse you heaped upon an aging body part during a lost weekend?
Comment by Frank IBC — November 1, 2005 @ 9:02 am - November 1, 2005
Kewpie is right, I meant BILL Bennett, not Bob Bennett.
Comment by Frank IBC — November 1, 2005 @ 9:03 am - November 1, 2005
there’ll be an arraignment on Thursday
Frog march!!! Frog march!!!
Comment by Frank IBC — November 1, 2005 @ 9:07 am - November 1, 2005
My 14 year old son was born to a homeless, unemployed woman with a history of drug abuse. I suppose he should have been killed for the sake of lowering the crime rate.
Comment by V the K — November 1, 2005 @ 12:38 pm - November 1, 2005
Come to think of it, he was also born in Arkansas in 1991. I wonder if his mother had a run in with the State troopers in 1990… maybe followed by a late night trip to the governor’s mansion.
Comment by V the K — November 1, 2005 @ 12:39 pm - November 1, 2005
Why do liberals take it for granted that legislators, whom the people elect directly, will pass laws that violate their rights, but that unelected, life-tenured judges, will protect them from the bad laws that the bad legislators enact?
Because that’s the general tendency?
Legislators tend to be individuals that want to control and direct other people and also have a direct dependence on those that helped get them elected to help get them re-elected. We install them for that very reason actually – that we put trust in them to create a government environment that helps regulate and lubricate society in our image of what that represents. Unfortunately, these individuals have a tendency to get a god complex, thinking they have some “mandate,” to go beyond the will of the people. That’s why I personally feel that term limits should be law rather than an occasionally good idea to which elected individuals pay lip service. Serving in government was never intended to be a career.
Judiciary, however, have a very different role. When they’re installed to a supreme court, for example, they’re no longer dependent on trying to please any particular focus group to remain installed in their position. They therefore have the opportunity to focus on issues unfettered by the day to day push and pressure of pleasing anyone. That allows them the opportunity to repond to issues in a way they never explored before. Some justices become more liberal, some become more conservative, some stay the same, but in general they tend to fly their own conviction rather than having to worry about the concerns of others. That’s why an issue of character, conviction, intelligence and reasoning are so much more important in a justice rather than the charisma of an elected official. People need to have faith that a justice, for the long-term, holds the ethical concerns of the nation in esteem over positions on particular issues that may win him his next election.
Elected officials please the influential, judiciary please the constitution. Maybe that’s why conservatives, typically with more financial and society influence, take it for granted that legislators will pass laws that favor their interests over the greater good and that life-tenured judges will trample self-serving laws enacted by an easily bent electorate to benefit the few.
Comment by gaycowboybob — November 1, 2005 @ 1:16 pm - November 1, 2005
My 14 year old son was born to a homeless, unemployed woman with a history of drug abuse. I suppose he should have been killed for the sake of lowering the crime rate.
I’m just telling you what these economists found. And once he was born, I think we’re talking infanticide and not abortion. It’s a distinction your side has trouble reconciling. The economists found a correlary, not a cause and effect scenario.
Another interesting correlary they found was that active parenting, like taking kids to the museum or reading to the kids over letting them watch TV, seems to have little to do with positive affects on school test scores in early childhood. In early life, it seems that kids are mostly influenced by the genetics of their parents. Smart, effective parents results in smart effective children. So it’s likely that your son probably dealt with a lot of adjustment issues in elementary school. However, they note that good parenting takes over as a child ages to high school level and beyond – that these genetic factors v. nurturing factors balance out as a child ages with continued good parenting influence.
So at 14 and beyond is really the time to have a positive nurturing influence on your kids to help them succeed. The fact that he had the opportunity to be adopted into a loving and positive home situation will make all the difference in the world. The problem is in that so many children won’t have that opportunity. They will be born into unloving, poor homes destined to remain unloved and poor. And the likely indicators point they will continue the cycle, to bear more unloved and poor children.
Comment by gaycowboybob — November 1, 2005 @ 1:36 pm - November 1, 2005
It’s a distinction your side has trouble reconciling.
A bit like your side has trouble explaining how traveling through a birth canal magically transforms an undifferentiated tissue mass into a human being.
Your side also has people in it like Pete Singer who think there’s nothing wrong with killing children up to 2 years old if parents and/or doctors want to. Not to mention the origin of the pro-choice movement goes back to Margaret Sanger, who argued for birth control as a means of eliminating Blacks and other undesirable races. And I have had many pro-choice libs argue to me personally in favor of abortion as a means of controlling the population of undesirables. You are not the first.
But, hey, you think it would have been okay, even preferable, to kill my son in the womb. We already knew that.
Comment by V the K — November 1, 2005 @ 2:00 pm - November 1, 2005
But, hey, you think it would have been okay, even preferable, to kill my son in the womb. We already knew that.
I don’t know how you could know it, since I’ve never said anything of the sort. You seem to know my “heart and mind” without me even expressing it. Seems to be the way the Republicans operate in general, assuming the morals or lack of of others and at the same time ignoring their own moral failings.
Like I said, I think your son is very lucky to be in a good home situation, but many others are not. And while Republicans are desperate to insitutionalize and protect unborn life, they lack a similar conviction to supporting societal reforms to ensure that life is appropriately cared for once it leaves the womb in at-risk women and families. They want to force women to have children they’re neither able or interested in in supporting, and once born they subsequently want to ignore these children were ever born in the first place. Unless you’re a gay man who couldn’t have children otherwise and then it’s a convenient adoption strategy.
Low blow but on the same level as you assuming I’d want your son to have been aborted.
Comment by gaycowboybob — November 1, 2005 @ 4:11 pm - November 1, 2005
#75 — You said.
And once he was born, I think we’re talking infanticide and not abortion.
And abortion is okay with you. Therefore my statement “you think it would have been okay, even preferable, to kill my son in the womb” is accurate. QED.
Comment by V the K — November 1, 2005 @ 4:26 pm - November 1, 2005
And abortion is okay with you. Therefore my statement “you think it would have been okay, even preferable, to kill my son in the womb” is accurate. QED.
Your losing major points in my book as far as being a suitable parent if you have such trouble assessing simple statements.
I’ve not committed to anything in this thread thus far, but feel free to look up previous threads where I very specifically spelled out my thoughts on abortion instead of ASSuming.
Comment by gaycowboybob — November 1, 2005 @ 6:00 pm - November 1, 2005
RE: V the K in #61
I think judges who step up to the plate and enforce the people’s constitutional rights when they are neglected or abused by legislators should be applauded.
Just a few weeks ago after it came out that John Roberts played a role in the appeal of Colorado’s Amendment 2 to the U. S. Supreme Court, Fox’s Sean Hannity went ballistic because he felt it was so wrong for the court to overturn the voter-approved Amendment 2. What, I ask, was wrong with the Supreme Court — in a nation of laws not the popular whims of men — applied the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
As I understand it, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled on the basis of an “equality before the law” provision in that state’s constitution. Don’t blame judges for enforcing a constitution, condemn legislators for ignoring it.
Yes, here in Kansas, our Supreme Court did order an increase in appropriations for public elementary and secondary schools but not for the evil reasons you suggest. The justices didn’t sit around thinking of ways to interfere in legislative affairs. The Kansas Legislature established discrimination in the distribution of funds. The court decided the children of Kansas had eqiual rights to quality educational opportunities. When the “conservative” majority in the legislature refused to vote in the interest of the children’s future, the court stepped in and ordered a solution. That’s what has to happen with the elected officials of government abuse the rights of its citizens.
Comment by Jack Allen — November 1, 2005 @ 10:15 pm - November 1, 2005
Exactly, Jack. You are completely comfortable with judges dictating their policy preferences to elected legislatures (provided, of course, that you agree with what they are dictating.) I, on the other hand, am not.
Comment by V the K — November 1, 2005 @ 11:02 pm - November 1, 2005
Translation: Throw money at the problem while mumbling mystical incantations.
Comment by Frank IBC — November 1, 2005 @ 11:42 pm - November 1, 2005
The court decided the children of Kansas had eqiual rights to quality educational opportunities.
No; what the court decided was that jealous schools who envied the fact that Johnson County districts can afford swimming pools and they can’t should get to determine what constitutes “quality educational opportunities”.
Nice parroting of the KNEA line, Jack. Perhaps you can tell us what standard the court used to determine that schools were underfunded?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 2, 2005 @ 1:40 am - November 2, 2005
They want to force women to have children they’re neither able or interested in in supporting, and once born they subsequently want to ignore these children were ever born in the first place
Ask the children if they want to live.
Comment by John — November 2, 2005 @ 1:47 am - November 2, 2005
I don’t know how you could know it, since I’ve never said anything of the sort.
Again, V the K’s son’s situation:
My 14 year old son was born to a homeless, unemployed woman with a history of drug abuse.
I quote from #73 why GCB supports abortion for these children:
The problem is in that so many children won’t have that opportunity. They will be born into unloving, poor homes destined to remain unloved and poor. And the likely indicators point they will continue the cycle, to bear more unloved and poor children.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 2, 2005 @ 1:56 am - November 2, 2005
The court decided the children of Kansas had eqiual rights to quality educational opportunities.
Does that mean all children are entitled to be place in AP classes? Because it seems that children in AP classes are getting more ‘quality educational opportunities’ than kids in regular classes. Also, I’m betting that kids who get A’s are getting more ‘quality educational opportunities’ than kids who get D’s. Should the Supreme Ct. of Kansas order the legislature to mandate that all kids be put into AP classes, and all kids should be given B’s to equalize their access to ‘quality educational opportunities?’ Why would this be any less silly than the court dictating a tax policy to the legislature?
Comment by V the K — November 2, 2005 @ 6:16 pm - November 2, 2005
The problem is in that so many children won’t have that opportunity. They will be born into unloving, poor homes destined to remain unloved and poor. And the likely indicators point they will continue the cycle, to bear more unloved and poor children.
“Poor” and “unloved” go hand and hand, huh?
Typical liberal.
Comment by Frank IBC — November 2, 2005 @ 9:22 pm - November 2, 2005
Great point. I second that.
This is a terrific site and certainly will visit again!
Comment by notebook computers repair — March 29, 2006 @ 8:21 am - March 29, 2006
[...] the joy of the battle of ideas. As Bruce put it in his post on the president’s pick, “the battle is on.” We conservatives are glad to be back in the game, ready and raring to fight for the [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Republicans of Rohan — July 8, 2008 @ 12:07 am - July 8, 2008