Either the folks at Kos aren’t getting it, or they are just trying to keep hope alive:
In 1993, when Justice Byron White retired from the bench, President Clinton was thinking of nominating Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, who was not necessarily the most popular choice, to fill the seat. Did Clinton try to ram the appointment through? He could have – he still had a pretty sizable majority in the Senate at that point.
But in fact, Clinton decided to discuss the vacancy with the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), who was “not surprised” that the President reached out to him…
The post then goes on to list the history of advise and consent. Which is all well and good, if you are a history major studying judicial nominees. But it matters not a whit. The rules have changed (literally and figuratively), advise and consent is now up-or-down votes, and the folks who appear to be in the driver seat of my party just don’t care:
Focus on the Family Action Chairman James C. Dobson, Ph.D., issued the following statement today in response to the resignation of Sandra Day O’Connor from the U.S. Supreme Court:
“Today marks a watershed moment in American history: the resignation of a swing-vote justice on the Supreme Court and the opportunity to change the Court
SomeCallMeTim
Well, then, now is the time for you and yours to reclaim the Party. In that, Democrats can be an ally. But you guys have to lead the charge.
Sav
Dobson and the cultural conservatives talk about interpreting the Constitution, they mean they want a judge who will interpret it the same way the religious right interprets and quotes the bible-
Cultural conservatives? Didn’t you just go ape shit over Rove’s broad use of the word “liberals” in describing people who wanted law enforcement techniques over military ones after 9/11? How is this any different?
John Cole
Does social con make you feel any better>?
And btw, since distinctions don’t seem to be a strong point: Dobson et. al. will readily admit to being cultural conservatives or social conservatives. Most liberals would reject the notion they are traitors and want only to aid the enemy.
Just to help you out on what may be the worst analogy I have seen in years.
Lee
John: quoting you “Have you ever tried to debate abortion with someone from the far religious right? There is no debate.” You’ve gone completely Andrew Sullivan. Amazing. The abortion advocates are the real nutjobs. I get you have a slight disliking for Christianity and J.Dob., but to remain somewhat legit, you’ve got to at least make sense.
John Cole
Lee: Ok, then. So, other than in cases of incest, rape, and when the life of the mother is on the line, when would the anti-abortion lobby and their friends in the religious right agree to ‘some abortion.’
They won’t Period. And not only that, there are plenty on the fringe who think that abortion should be illegal even in the cases I have listed above (8% according to this poll).
Eight percent of the public thinks abortion should be illegal, even when a woman is raped or could die from the pregnancy. And you think I misstate the facts?
Pretending otherwise may make you feel good, and facing that may make me Andrew Sullivan, but it is simply where the ‘debate’ is.
And I understand why they feel that way- abortion is an offense against a transcendent God, and there is no room for compromise. But just because you want to pretend that I am demon or have jumped the shark for recognizing this doesn’t make me wrong.
KC
John, this kind of post is why I think your blog is one of the best on the net. Your post earlier about the Dems was spot on; so is this one. The fact of the matter is the rules have and are changing. Old precedents don’t matter, it’s the new ones that do. Dems need to wake up and realize that signing petitions to impeach Bush and screaming about judicial extremism isn’t going to do anything. Likewise, Republicans, like former Senator Danforth, who are concerned about the direction of their party are no long full players in the game either. The power’s where Tony Perkins is at. A new game plan must be devised and new friends must be made or our country is simply going to be a radically different and much more restrictive place. That’s just the way things are.
Profbacon
She cried to the southern wind
About a love that was sure to end
Every dream in her heart was gone
Headin’ for a Showdown
Bad dreamer, what’s your name
Looks like we’re ridin’ on the same train
Looks as through there’ll be more pain
There’s gonna be a Showdown
And it’s rainin’ all over the world
It’s raining all over the world
Tonight, the longest night
She came to me like a friend
She blew in on a southern wind
Now my heart is turned to stone again
There’s gonna be a Showdown
Save me, oh save me
It’s unreal, the suffering
There’s gonna be a Showdown
And it’s rainin’ all over the world
It’s raining all over the world
Tonight, the longest night
ELO Showdown
I want to see way fewer abortions, making them illegal won’t make them rarer, just more dangerous.
My big question John. If you could redo November 2, would you?
Jimmy Jazz
Can somebody remind me why we got upset the South left the Union, again? If these folks want to remake the country, why’d they have to pick Alabama as the model?
Sav
Does social con make you feel any better>?
Not really. Why do you assume they all want what James Dobson wants?
This is what you said:
I’m socially conservative on several issues, yet I don’t want what you claim “social cons” want. Thus, the analogy is perfectly legitimate.
Most liberals would reject the notion they are traitors and want only to aid the enemy.
Well sure, and I believe that. However, that’s not what Rove said. He could’ve been more specific as to who he was referring to, but it doesn’t take a genius to figure it out.
Doug
Abortion-advocates? I know of darned few Democrats advocating abortions.
But, anyway, that was a fine rant Mr. Cole. Dead accurate. I’m glad I found this site. I was born and raised a Main Street Business Republican. Massive deficits, the impeachment nonsense, and the buttinski social conservatives have driven me over to the Democratic camp. If guys like you were running the GOP, I’d probably cross back over into the light. ‘Cuz I’m not really sensitive enough to be a liberal.
Russ
Apart from the dollar amount, how does this differ in any way from, say, the behavior of Ralph Neas or Planned Parenthood?
Both sides of the political spectrum have their desires, and both fight to get them. The only difference between then and now is that the gloves seem to come off much earlier.
John Cole
He was real specific, Sav:
John Cole
Russ:
There is no difference between the two- which is why the ‘Constitutional deference’ nonsense is so silly. I have no illusion that if the roles were reveresed, things would be different.
There is, after all, just as large a segment of the population who really would like to remove all references of religion from all public spheres. There are plenty of idiots who really do get the vapors over ‘under God” in the pledge. Or who just have absolute fits that people swear on a bible in court. Who get so mad when they see a nativity scene in public that they almost wreck their car.
One caveat to that, though- Ralph Meas et. al. are pushing radical secularism, where you still get to choose your own poison. Not so with Dobson, who is quite content to make the decision for you.
Jimmy Jazz
Extending rights is never the same as removing them. Period. Allowing abortions is not forcing abortions. Allowing gay marriage does not remove rights from heterosexuals. The only time this type of equivalence can be considered reasonable is something like affirmative action, where inevitably a formerly privileged group suffers at the expense of a non-privileged group. That’s why affirmative action, or at least quotas, is soundly rejected by the majority of Americans, including most liberal ones like me.
Bush has succeeded with what I consider to be a radical agenda because most of the actual consequences are deferred, and most Americans are simply too cozy and comfortable to worry about them. I strongly suspect that this is has emboldened the fundies to overreach. The backlash will be harsh. Whether Democrats will be prepared to take advantage of it is an entirely different question.
Russ
Indeed not.
But it’s not the job of the courts to “discover” previously unknown rights. It’s the job of the courts to read the Constitution, the Amendments and the law and apply them. Anything beyond that is opinion disguised as jurisprudence.
Jess
“Extending rights is never the same as removing them.” –Thank you, Jimmy; I’ve been waiting for someone to say this as clearly and forcefully as you just have. I think it’s time for all of us supposedly “freedom-loving” Americans to think long and hard about what this means and why so few countries have succeeded in creating or maintaining a free society. It really sucks having to extend freedom to those who make different choices than your own.
Russ
You seem to be implying that any court nominee acceptable to social conservatives would have to be so strict a constructionist that they would ignore the establishment clause.
Dobson isn’t ever going to be on the bench, and I think you’re overestimating his influence.
Sav
He was real specific, Sav:
With a comment like that, there’s no doubt Rove should have defined who he meant. It’s too inflammatory to be that general.
He could’ve made his point by using “fringe” or “far left”: people like those at the anti-war rallies with the “We Support Our Troops, When They Shoot Their Officers” banners, some of the nuts from Democratic Underground who make similar comments, or Michael Moore—he of the following comment:
Kim
It can just as easily be said, if conservatives would stop cheering Rove, Moore wouldn’t have ammo for his propaganda “films”
John Cole
It won’t be the last time I am accused of overestimating Dobson’s influence, because I know I get the vapors when I think about them. And I hope you are right.
Russ
I don’t get the vapors, per se – I reserve my gassiness for the day after Mexican food night. ;-)
But I am reasonably certain we’ll never see anyone on the court ordering mandatory Southern Baptist or Methodist or Episcopalian (or whatever) attendance for everyone. I’m Reformed, myself, and wouldn’t take too kindly to being mandated to change my beliefs.
Mike Jones
Every time I hear someone talk about “discovering new rights”, I think that perhaps the folks in 1788 who were opposed to the Bill of Rights on the grounds that they would eventually come to be interpreted as saying that the people only had those rights were correct.
Halffasthero
“The power’s where Tony Perkins is at. A new game plan must be devised and new friends must be made or our country is simply going to be a radically different and much more restrictive place. That’s just the way things are.
Posted by: KC on July 1, 2005 07:51 PM”
I could not have said it better. KC, I think we are starting to speak the same language.
Jimmy Jazz
It’s all “opinion”, Russ. These are human beings, most of whom are trying to be as objective as they can be, but “judicial activists” are going to exist on both sides. To take just one example, virtually all Americans believe that the federal government should regulate meat production (especially in these mad cow days). They don’t care that such regulation was enabled by the judicial branch. Democrats (predominately) got abortion rights via the Supremes. Republicans (predominately) have hidden behind that decision for years as a reason for not appeasing their base.
If Republicans are so gung ho about political and not judicial solutions, where’s the constitutional amendment to ban abortion?
KC
John, that last comment of yours brings up a good point about people like the guy we have living here in Sacramento who keeps suing to get religion out of everything. Honestly, I’m no longer relgious, having made my drift away from Tony Perkins and his ilk long ago, but I still get angry when I see guys like that doing what they’re doing. I understand about standing up for rights, etc., but the “under God” part of the pledge, well, that really isn’t hurting anybody. When people like him start suing for wrongs that don’t really hurt, aren’t really all that wrong, they’re only asking for trouble. Eventually, people get tired of that kind of thing. I know I do.
smijer
Well, at least one group has proposed an amendment to ban abortion… but the big reason you don’t see the political types pursuing this avenue is that they know that an anti-abortion amendment will never pass, and the effort will reveal facts inconsistent with the message they want to promulgate: that being that “the majority of Americans oppose (you pick: elective or unrestricted) abortion”. So they would be shooting themselves in the foot. If they thought such a measure had a ghosts chance of passing, they would be on it like stink on dookey.
texas dem
I was with you until the update, to which I respond with a resounding NO.
I’d like to squash this dangerous application of relativism. The Far Religious Right is not simply another legitimate constituency if they have no respect, at a really serious level, for the Constitution and liberal democracy. A willingness to abide by the principles of constitutional government used to be a prerequisite to being allowed into the hallways of serious politics. Political groupings who do not respect the basic role of the Constitution in American life should be cast into the cold: by the press, by their natural party, even by the officials who would likely receive their votes. The Oath of Office is to defend the Constitution; actors who do not respect it have no business running for office, no business engaging with constitutionally-provided government, and no business receiving a hearing from those who do. They are not just another constituency, with as much right to seek their desired outcomes as any other. They are radicals who work within the system to undermine it, completely different from those who work within the system and care to see it preserved.
I like your writing a great deal, so it pains me to see you write, in effect, “These people have no respect for the limited, liberal, constitutional republic, but hey, they’ve got as much right to political power as anyone.” No, they don’t. This is not a democracy, and numbers aren’t the only thing that matter; it’s a constitutional republic. If they don’t like the rules, they can pack up their ball and go home, but they can’t just break them and get a pat on the head for playing. Not from me.
Sojourner
Check out the Ninth Amendment. A right doesn’t have to be in the Constitution in order to be a possession of American citizens.
John Cole
TexasDem- I have no problem with them pursuing their agenda (lots of problem with the agenda, though) if they play by the rules. I should make that clearer.
smijer
KC – I kind of react emotionally the same way you do to Newdow and his ilk. I’m a “no harm, no foul” kind of guy. On the other hand, you know, he is making a stand on principle. I give it the Golden Rule test… I imagine my parents (many years ago) having to send me to school to pledge allegiance to one nation “under Allah”, and the severe injustice they would feel at such a situation. I do see value in sticking by the Constitutional principals that protect people from something like that. So, while it’s easy to think ill of Newdow and the political liability that he is, it’s not so easy to dismiss his stance. I’d rather have somebody who’s willing to fight for a good principle, even if its one that will have a very small practical benefit for a very few if any people (after all, atheists, muslims, and buddhists are pretty much used to the lip-service Americans give “God” in their pledge, on their money, etc… and probably aren’t nearly as put off by it as my parents would have been in their shoes). My feelings toward Newdow are far more kind than my feelings toward Roy Moore on the other end of the spectrum, who is fighting to make Christianity the symbolic – and perhaps the actual – state religion.
Mike
This is what I say:
Screw ’em.
They got Ruth Bader Ginsberg, ex-ACLU lawyer and
Souter (formerly worked for Kennedy). both hard core liberals.
If the Democrats want the right to nominate justices, then they need to figure out a way to win elections.
I’m tired of saying we should “play nice”.
I say nominate a Conservative and make ’em deal with it.
As for those that say the ‘far religious right” shouldn’t have a voice, bullshit. They are a constituency just like the blithering idiots over at Kos, DU, WashingtonMonthly and all the other lefties, and they are no more “radical” than these clowns.
Sojourner
I agree with Mike that we should follow the strategy used by the Clinton Administration. Clinton got Hatch’s approval on Ginsburg and Breyer before they were officially nominated. Bush should do the same thing. It would save the country a good deal of turmoil.
Great idea, Mike!
Jimmy Jazz
His approval? Hatch proudly admits he suggested those nominees to Clinton! Read that book excerpt again.
albedo
“I say nominate a Conservative and make ’em deal with it.”
No, no, I’m sure they’ll nominate Alan Dershowitz or maybe Eliot Spitzer…
“As for those that say the ‘far religious right” shouldn’t have a voice, bullshit. They are a constituency just like the blithering idiots over at Kos, DU, WashingtonMonthly and all the other lefties, and they are no more “radical” than these clowns.”
No, they are even more radical and clownish than the radical clowns you cite. A good portion of the Dominionist Dobsonite crew would very much like to see a bona fide American Christian theocracy, and at a minimum, most of them want Christianity to be the de facto state religion. This is much more radical than even the silliest shit on Kos – I have yet to see, for example, a petition to make Wicca the national religion making the rounds over there.
Jimmy Jazz
Uh, yeah.
Amsterdam or Tehran. Extrapolate and reconsider your position.
Doug
A digression, but I’d have less problem with “under God” if it had been in the original pledge and hadn’t been jammed into the pledge in 1953 or thereabouts. I think Newdow is legally correct. But, as a practical matter, save your ammo.
Sojourner
Thanks, Jimmy! I stand corrected.
So much for Clinton’s radical nominees.
ppgaz
Aside from the fact that the embedded suggestion is just nonsense, if the writer can point me to the parts of the Constitution that deal with the rights of citizens before they are born, I’d be glad to consider them. The only reference I can find speaks to the issue of where a person is born. So, if I “apply” the Constitution, I have to conclude that citizenship and the rights that pertain thereto begin at birth.
Call it “strict construction,” if you like.
Jimmy Jazz
I don’t frankly give a shit about the pledge, “In God We Trust” on money, or Bush channeling Tiny Tim. I’d love to be living in a post-Christian society like those lucky duckies in Northern Europe, but that ain’t the case. General expressions of a generic “God” in a society made of primarily theistic individuals is inoffensive and probably even appropriate. Specific references to a Judeo Christian God in an increasingly multicultural and increasingly pluralistic society are what get most people’s Spidey senses tingling.
ppgaz
For you strict constructionists, or originalists, where does the Constitution grant authority to any government, state or federal, to prescribe any pledge at all?
It seems to me that any government-approved pledge is a direct violation of the First Amendment, without or without the Under Dog phrase.
Jimmy Jazz
And those pretending to care about an “impartial non political” judiciary are well served not to use Antonin ‘Quack Quack’ Scalia as your role model.
jcricket
So this is what we’ve come to, eh John? Your party made a deal with the devil and now the devil wants his due. Tell us what you’re going to do to get us out of this? As long as moderate Republicans (ha) keep voting Republican, you’re just enabling the far Right to encroach on the rest of us. It’s really hard for a minority party to fight back by appealing to “reason” (or moderation), as you say:
As you pointed out during the filibuster debate, it’s complete ignorance of history and the Republicans own part in the current toxic atmosphere to claim that the Democrats are now doing things somehow “unfairly”. They’re simply isn’t an equivalence between the actions of the right and the left, or the power of the extremists on both sides. The ELF, for example, holds absolutely no sway over any part of the Democratic party platform, where as Terry Randall & James Dobson are welcome with open arms in Republican-ville.
It’s like comparing evolution vs. creationism, or people who believe in perpetual motion machines vs. actual physicists. Just because there are two opposing sides to a debate with equal intensity and maybe even equal numbers, doesn’t mean each side has equally valid arguments.
Further, I agree with texas_dem, who makes a more important point:
If the Far right gets its way, even if they start by using legitimate democratic processes (i.e. elections), they will work to eliminate the protection the “minority” has from the tyranny of the majority. The Far right has no respect for the Constitution or rule of law. They only view it these rules of democracy as temporary tools they can use and then discard after warping America to their theocratic world view (just look at all the Constitutional Amendments they want – abortion, marriage, flag burning. I’m sure blue laws, prohibition and stoning of adulterers is next). Give ’em an inch and they’ll take a mile.
Democrats basically have to abandon all previous precedent of compromise, civility, bipartisanship & even consider flouting the rule of law (see the House bending of ethics rules, or the Terrio Schiavo mess, for example) to have a chance of merely stopping the right-wing onslaught on civil liberties in this country. And that says nothing of advancing a positive agenda of their own (which is something Republicans always tar the Democrats for).
Frankly, I don’t think it’s far fetched to say that America will never be pure enough of a country for the far right until all the rest of us “infidels” have been driven out or all our rights stripped, hmm… this all sounds strangely familiar? Perhaps comparing the Far Right to the Taliban isn’t that extreme.
eileen from OH
Re: the pledge. Newdow was painted as a total nut, and, really, when you watched it unfold, he did come across as a guy who was a tad whacky to go after this itty bitty thing with such a vengeance. But, then there’s the ol’ dammit, he’s also right. The phrase wasn’t in the original pledge and doesn’t belong. It’s because it’s in the pledge and because we’ve got “In God We Trust” on our money and because we have a chaplain opening Congressional sessions and because “God Bless America” virtually replaced the National Anthem after 9/ll and on and on that have given the Religious Right a peg to hang their “this is a Christian Nation” hat on.
I’ve never been a slippery slope kinda person (unless it involved a roaring fire and hot chocolate at the bottom) but it’s exactly because no one challenges these kinds of things that we find ourselves STILL struggling with that pesky church/state thing.
Are agnostics citizens? Are atheists? Do they have the same rights? Could any of ’em be elected dogcatcher in this country? Can we be Christians or religious without having the government affirm it? Do we forget to live by the Ten Commandments if there isn’t a monument handy to remind us what they are?
I think I will probably vote for the very next politician who exhibits honesty, integrity, and common sense and who, when asked about his religion, says “It’s personal and private.” Period.
eileen from OH
Kimmitt
I say nominate a Conservative and make ’em deal with it.
And I say nominate a Conservative after consultation with Senator Reid and enjoy your swift and major victory, with little collateral damage.
Sav
Add to this the danger that a Bush Court will vote to legalize riggable electronic voting machines
The new influx of Atrios/Kos-like denizens on this blog has not been a change for the better.
Jimmy Jazz
If it helps, I’m one of “those” and I didn’t understand WTF that comment meant, either.
p.lukasiak
Either the folks at Kos aren’t getting it, or they are just trying to keep hope alive:
consider a third possibility — making sure that if an ugly and divisive nomination battle happens, that the blame gets placed squarely where it will belong — on Bush.
What better way to show how easily such battles can be avoided than pointing out what occurred between Clinton and a far-right wing icon like Orrin Hatch. Hatch made suggestions to Clinton that were sufficiently moderate that they would prevent divisive confirmation battles, and Clinton wisely took his advice.
EVERY Democrat who is asked about the Supreme Court needs to know about this Hatch quote, and use it every time they show up on the cable and network gabfests. That way, when Bush’s nominee is announced, the first person everyone will go to will be Harry Reid, and the first question that will be asked is “Did Bush ask your opinion of this nominee? Did you approve of him/her?” If the answer is “no”, the confirmation battle will be framed as a battle over “Bush’s controversial and divisive nomination to the Supreme Court”
carot
“His approval? Hatch proudly admits he suggested those nominees to Clinton! Read that book excerpt again.”
People need to ask themselves why we have judges at all. If Dobson is right and judges are defying the will of the people with their legal knowledge then why have judges? Just have representatives appointed by the ruling party to say what the Party thinks. It worked well for the Communists, the judges did what the party said or were replaced.
The legal profession is more than and different from politics. It has evolved to be a usually consistent view regardless of the politics of the country involved. The only criteria for appointing judges is what the legal profession thinks. Despite what the Christian Conservatives may believe, the legal profession has built up solid precedent over centuries for their decisions today, and often against Conservative and Liberal Christians then.
Mike
“Add to this the danger that a Bush Court will vote to legalize riggable electronic voting machines without paper trails — the one decision it could make that would endanger electoral democracy itself — and we have much worse things to fear than the repeal of Roe vs. Wade. (Although I doubt the Dems will ever show the elementary political sense to talk about them, rather than making the discussion All Abortion, All The time.)”
One thing we should definitely fear is the take over of private property by private entities for the “greater good”.
Oh wait…the Lefties in the Court already did that didn’t they?
But I guess that’s not “radical” is it?
Mike
“The new influx of Atrios/Kos-like denizens on this blog has not been a change for the better.
If it helps, I’m one of “those” and I didn’t understand WTF that comment meant, either.”
I think his point is the continuing silly notion many of you types have with regards to thinking that only a conspiracy could have resulted in Bush getting elected (hence the voting machine reference, etc.). Whereas most moderates and conservatives feel the reason he got elected is due to the fact that Democrats offered nothing different that people were willing to buy. The Kos Krowd looks down their noses and says “well the reason people voted for Bush is because a) they’re stupid or b) we didn’t get our message out. The rest of us say, no we’re not stupid, we heard your message just fine, and it sucks.
Hokie
But I guess that’s not “radical” is it?
Actually, it’s not. It’s a perfectly natural corollary of a century’s worth of uncontroversial precedent. Anyone who was surprised by this ruling wasn’t paying attention to it until the media did its masterful job of misreporting the actual ruling.
I assume this explains the excitement in some circles over that idiotic “proposal” (since I don’t know if it was a joke or not) to get Justice Souter’s house seized.
Anyway, I actually wouldn’t mind someone like Attorney General Gonzalez, as much as I loathe what he did as White House Counsel. He seems to have been a good judge, albeit one I disagree with, on the Texas Court, and I can deal with good judges I disagree with, such as, in general, Justices Kennedy and O’Connor (and even sometimes Scalia, though like most “originalists [scare quotes used because they give originalism a bad name by not doing the work originalism requires], he tends to bend “original intent” and “original understanding” to fit whatever outcome he wants, e.g. Bush v. Gore). From his record, I get the feeling the torture-related memos were the result of his being told “Find a way to justify this” rather than something he necessarily believes.
I’m ok with conservative judges, though I’m not an originalist (I think this is an incomplete “school” of interpretation, though original intent and original understanding are of course important tools) or a strict constructionist. But dang, everyone seems to want someone whose ideology is going to trump a fair reading of the law (and not just on the right), and that’s oh so very dangerous.
Jill
John, I quote from and link to your blog frequently, because your posts remind me of what it used to be like when intelligent people of goodwill could disagree about how to get to where we all pretty much want to go — or at least did, until the economic extreme right decided that a return to the Gilded Age of income redistribution upward was the way to go.
Your party made a Faustian bargain with this American Taliban — religious fanatics who hate what this country stands for and want to turn it into Jeebo-Saudi Arabia, only without the oil. The Republican party wanted Dobson’s and Perkins’ foot soldiers and their dollars, and so they sold out to them completely. Now you guys are going to have to find a way to wean your party away from that or else people are going to wake up. There are plenty of conservatives who understand that theocracy is not what this country is supposed to be about. Time for them to speak out.
Jay
If anyone doubts that the GOP is actually the Party of God in dyslectic mufti, go read the 2004 Texas GOP Platform http://www.texasgop.org/library/RPTPlatform2004.pdf
If God really does bless America, these guys are being celestially cross-haired for targeted Rapture.
Let us Pray….
Anne
Well, somebody has collected quotes from some of those on the far religious right, and if these bozos are serious, they are a great threat to Constitutional protections.
Jimmy Jazz
Mike: I meant I didn’t understand what the original poster’s comment meant. State election boards “legalize” voting machines, the Supremes have nothing to do with it. I understood what Sav meant.
That being said, I am very suspicious of:
1) voting machine companies owned by partisan Republicans
2) Republicans seem very blase about the fact that these machines have no verifiability and are easy to hack.
If you’re a Dem, there is plenty with this issue to keep you legitimately concerned without getting close to paranoia. If these machines create a reasonable doubt about the fairness of the process then that it is an issue that concerns all Americans.
dd
Lots here, I’ll keep it short.
Believe and have faith in whatever you want. In the case of God Almighty, of course, it’s merely conjecture that there is any. As such, keep it out of my schools, my government, and my face. Go worship as Jesus suggested, in your quiet place, or in the privacy of your own home or church. Don’t you dare try to contaminate my children or my country with such speculative nonesense.
I’ll will fight to the end to keep this so. Dobson and his ilk are raging psychopaths and represent some of the worst mankind has to offer.
Robbie
Here’s what I’d like to know, and I think everyone should know. Just exactly how much in taxes do these “religious” people pay? If not, why not? I have a big problem with these folks not paying taxes. Does anyone else?
Delbert G
Ya know, there’s a simple solution to this. If the democrats would just listen to the DLC and move to the center they’d win elections in landslides. But the base of the party and the country’s liberal elites are too radical left. So Im afraid the republicans will continue winning, AND continue, as a side effect, to be hijacked by the religious right. If democrats would moderate, republicans would have to too. For voters its the lesser of two evils, and right now, as much as they dislike the theocrats, theyre preferable to the far-left.
Sojourner
I have to laugh when people complain about the “far left.” The radical right is so far right that a moderate Dem would have to be the conservative Republican of 20 years ago.
The reality is polls show that most liberal policies are very popular with the American people: Social Security, health care, etc.
But Bush won in 2004 on the war on terror. And the first indications of buyer’s remorse are already appearing. Does that bode well for 2006? Not necessarily because of all the district gerrymandering that has gone on.
So the U.S. will continue as a highly divided country where snarking constitutes political discourse. This country will continue to weaken while other countries, such as China, strengthen. It will take a real leader (of either party) and an international crisis to unite the country and undo the damage the Bush administration has infliced through its highly divisive governing strategy.
Jess
Delbert,
Just out of curiousity, how would you define a moderate Dem position? And which radical lefties do you see in positions of political power? Where do you draw the line between moderate left-of-center and radical?
Spud1
Lee: no one that I know of is an abortion advocate (except maybe the government of China). Those that are pro-choice advocate for a woman’s right to choose. No one is in favor of forced abortions, nor is anyone even encouraging women to have them.
J. Caesar
Russ wrote: “But it’s not the job of the courts to “discover” previously unknown rights. It’s the job of the courts to read the Constitution, the Amendments and the law and apply them. Anything beyond that is opinion disguised as jurisprudence.”
Hmm. Perhaps the Courts read Amendment 9?
**** The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ****
I think it’s now ok for me to call all Republicans who believe this clap trap idiots.
J. Caesar
Russ wrote: “But it’s not the job of the courts to “discover” previously unknown rights. It’s the job of the courts to read the Constitution, the Amendments and the law and apply them. Anything beyond that is opinion disguised as jurisprudence.”
Yeah! Oh, except for this little thing called the 9th Amendment.
**** The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ****
From a strict constructionlist point of view… If it doesn’t say in the Constitution that the people give up a right to the government… then strictly speaking, the government can’t take it away by passing a law.
yellowdogdem
Russ said:
“But it’s not the job of the courts to “discover” previously unknown rights. It’s the job of the courts to read the Constitution, the Amendments and the law and apply them. Anything beyond that is opinion disguised as jurisprudence.”
Sir, when was the last time you actually read the Bill of Rights? I suggest you turn to the 9th Amendment and give that a read.
John Cole
test
Mr Furious
Too long a comment thread for me to read the whole thing (I’ve got days of catching up to do), but John, your post is freaking brilliant. Nice job, as usual.