• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

There are no moderate republicans – only extremists and cowards.

This has so much WTF written all over it that it is hard to comprehend.

“Cheese and Kraken paired together for the appetizer trial.”

Proof that we need a blogger ethics panel.

Let’s not be the monsters we hate.

They love authoritarianism, but only when they get to be the authoritarians.

Every one of the “Roberts Six” lied to get on the court.

I’d try pessimism, but it probably wouldn’t work.

Well, whatever it is, it’s better than being a Republican.

I’ve spoken to my cat about this, but it doesn’t seem to do any good.

Narcissists are always shocked to discover other people have agency.

We are aware of all internet traditions.

Michigan is a great lesson for Dems everywhere: when you have power…use it!

Black Jesus loves a paper trail.

Imperialist aggressors must be defeated, or the whole world loses.

You come for women, you’re gonna get your ass kicked.

Be a traveling stable for those who can’t find room at the inn.

How can republicans represent us when they don’t trust women?

The poor and middle-class pay taxes, the rich pay accountants, the wealthy pay politicians.

We need to vote them all out and restore sane Democratic government.

If you are still in the gop, you are either an extremist yourself, or in bed with those who are.

It’s all just conspiracy shit beamed down from the mothership.

If you tweet it in all caps, that makes it true!

… riddled with inexplicable and elementary errors of law and fact

Mobile Menu

  • Four Directions Montana
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2024 Elections
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Open Revolt

Open Revolt

by John Cole|  July 5, 20059:36 am| 28 Comments

This post is in: Politics

FacebookTweetEmail

Lots of SCOTUS speculation up at Red State, including this warning:

Attention White House: Plan on conservatives revolting if you do pick Gonzales.

Gotta apply the Dobson Test and the Perkins Proof. Maybe Bush is a united, after all- because you just know Democrats are also going to have a fit if Gonzalez is nominated. Well, certain Democrats are going to have a fit regardless who is nominated.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « And One More Question
Next Post: The Responsible Media »

Reader Interactions

28Comments

  1. 1.

    Stormy70

    July 5, 2005 at 9:41 am

    I don’t like Gonzales’ stance on the 2nd amendment.

  2. 2.

    John Cole

    July 5, 2005 at 9:44 am

    From what I have read, Gonzalez is a pretty reliable vote for statism, period.

    Of course, we have to figure in who and what I have been reading…

  3. 3.

    Stormy70

    July 5, 2005 at 9:52 am

    I prefer waiting for the actual nomination, since it is all hot air until then. All this fury signifies nothing… :)

  4. 4.

    Andrew J. Lazarus

    July 5, 2005 at 9:55 am

    I think the Dems just might be smart enough to lay low and let Dobson do the screaming.

    I don’t expect gonzales, though. I think Roy Moore is more in keeping with Bush’s screw-you style.

  5. 5.

    Tim F

    July 5, 2005 at 9:55 am

    Since I learned that Gonzales had scolded Priscilla Owen for ‘unconscionable judicial activism’ I’ve warmed up to him somewhat. The whole condoniung torture thing makes him repulsive, but not any more so than any other Republican defender of torture.

  6. 6.

    Stormy70

    July 5, 2005 at 10:00 am

    TimF – He did not scold her, it was someone else.

    I paid for their Korans, so I don’t care if a soldier looks wrong at it. That seems to be what the detainees are calling torture, anyway.

  7. 7.

    Tim F

    July 5, 2005 at 10:09 am

    Funny how memory works. Was it Gonzales who scolded someone else, or someone else who scolded Owen?

  8. 8.

    Sojourner

    July 5, 2005 at 10:45 am

    Stormy:

    Get your head out of your ass and read the descriptions of what’s being done to the detainees. Intentional ignorance is no defense for stupid comments.

  9. 9.

    Sojourner

    July 5, 2005 at 10:47 am

    Gonzales chastised Owen for making up her own versions of the law. I believe the conservatives call that judicial activism.

  10. 10.

    Andrew J. Lazarus

    July 5, 2005 at 10:48 am

    It was Gonzales scolding Owen; Stormy is wrong. (Why didn’t you think of that first?)

  11. 11.

    KC

    July 5, 2005 at 11:02 am

    Gonzales is who Bush wants, lets face it. He’s a safety choice. His authorship of the EO overturning the Presidential Records Act, the torture memos, and generally his guidance of executive branch legal issues makes him one person if he gets to the Court, that will always favor expanded executive powers, at least as long as Bush is in office. I’m really worried about the potential collapse of executive branch oversight (not that there is a lot now) and the rise of an unchallengable presidency if he becomes the swing vote on the court.

    That said, I don’t think there is anything that Dems can do about Gonzales. In fact, whether it’s Gonzales or note, I think they should give Bush his nominee–they have little choice anyway–and let the American people decide how they like the way the country is headed. I know my girlfriend, who was a big Bush supporter this last election, is not enamoured at all of the possibility of her right to privacy being tossed.

  12. 12.

    Rick

    July 5, 2005 at 11:16 am

    Talk nice.

    Cordially…

  13. 13.

    Stormy70

    July 5, 2005 at 12:01 pm

    Read this.

    I really enjoy the personal attacks from you stellar thinkers on the left, by the way.

  14. 14.

    Kimmitt

    July 5, 2005 at 12:49 pm

    I’m not fond of Gonzales’s stance on the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments.

  15. 15.

    Rick

    July 5, 2005 at 1:58 pm

    Actually, if Gonzales presumed to “scold” Owens, my inclination is to think less of him. That damned, jerking knee thing.

    Cordially…

  16. 16.

    Andrew J. Lazarus

    July 5, 2005 at 3:31 pm

    Not everything you need to know about Judge Owen can be found in the article Stormy linked to, but this nugget is:

    Justice Owen’s dissent also criticized what she considered the undue and unnecessary haste with which the Supreme Court acted.

    Now, for ten points, can anyone suggest why the Texas Supreme Court acted quickly in a pregnancy case?

    You can read Gonzales on Owen here, criticizing her position in many cases.

  17. 17.

    Sojourner

    July 5, 2005 at 4:23 pm

    I really enjoy the personal attacks from you stellar thinkers on the left, by the way.

    Have you taken the time to review the facts on exactly what is being done to the detainees that you so disdainfully describe as nothing more than a

    a soldier looks wrong at

    the Koran?

  18. 18.

    Darrell

    July 5, 2005 at 5:19 pm

    I know my girlfriend, who was a big Bush supporter this last election, is not enamoured at all of the possibility of her right to privacy being tossed.

    KC, nowhere in the constitution is there mention of a ‘right to privacy’. Not to be snarky, but this is an important point. We have had Supreme court justices inventing such “rights” out of thin air. Are you concerned with judicial activism, treating the Constitution as a “living document” to be interpreted as they see fit?

  19. 19.

    Tim F

    July 5, 2005 at 5:52 pm

    Child labor doesn’t appear anywhere in the Constitution either. Would Darrell prefer if we struck that down as well?

  20. 20.

    BinkyBoy

    July 5, 2005 at 5:57 pm

    Darrell, the SCOTUS disagrees with you, stating that the Constitution does indeed provide for the right to privacy.

    Almost all recent Supreme Court nominees, including Justice Clarence Thomas, have been willing to discuss the right to privacy and we should expect future nominees to do the same. Justice Anthony Kennedy testified that “the concept of liberty in the due process clause is quite expansive, quite sufficient to protect the values of privacy that Americans legitimately think are part of their constitutional heritage.” Justice Souter testified that “the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does recognize and does protect an unenumerated right of privacy.” Even Justice Thomas testified “that there is a right to privacy in the Fourteenth Amendment.”

    So will you please stop spouting lame Ditto head talking points and keep up with society?

    You’re welcome to your opinion, such as encouraging a new SCOTUS Judge to re-evaluate the Constitution so that a Citizen’s Right to Privacy can be taken away, something that Junior Goerrings like youself seem to want to do. I would encourage you to look at the possible changes to your own life should a new SCOTUS Judge be amenable to repealing the rights to privacy. You and your partner wouldn’t be able to do that “thing” you like so much, for fear that your neighbor might turn you in for it.

  21. 21.

    Sojourner

    July 5, 2005 at 6:07 pm

    Are you concerned with judicial activism, treating the Constitution as a “living document” to be interpreted as they see fit?

    Darrell: Read the 9th Amendment.

  22. 22.

    Darrell

    July 5, 2005 at 6:32 pm

    You’re welcome to your opinion, such as encouraging a new SCOTUS Judge to re-evaluate the Constitution so that a Citizen’s Right to Privacy can be taken away, something that Junior Goerrings like youself seem to want to do

    Junior Goerrings? Oh my, did you have to go and do a Godwin’s law on your 1st post moron? NOWHERE in the constitution is there any mention of a ‘right to privacy’. The SCOTUS simply invented that ‘right’ out of thin air.

    Ninth amendment:

    “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

    i.e. Just because we didn’t mention all of the rights in this constitution, doesn’t mean they might not exist.

    IMO, the courts have abused this open ended language. For example, how about the ‘right’ of the unborn baby not to be killed? No ‘ditto head talking points’ here.. just wondering if the left can be honest enough to admit there is no such “right to privacy” mentioned in the constitution, because there’s not.. Junior Goerrings notwithstanding

  23. 23.

    Kimmitt

    July 5, 2005 at 6:41 pm

    For example, how about the ‘right’ of the unborn baby not to be killed?

    Hey, citizenship begins at birth, and conservatives are against granting non-citizens due process, so where’s the problem?

  24. 24.

    Darrell

    July 5, 2005 at 7:01 pm

    Hey, citizenship begins at birth, and conservatives are against granting non-citizens due process, so where’s the problem?

    Tsk, tsk Kimmitt, the US Constitution does in fact guarantee due process to all “persons” (see 5th amendment), not just US citizens.. exceptions being POW’s captured during wartime.. or unlawful combatents caught fighting out of uniform

    Step right up with you $$ and try your luck again to win that cupie doll

  25. 25.

    Sojourner

    July 5, 2005 at 7:34 pm

    Hey, citizenship begins at birth, and conservatives are against granting non-citizens due process, so where’s the problem?

    Best quote of the day!

  26. 26.

    Bob

    July 5, 2005 at 9:37 pm

    I agree with the rumor about the land that all the anti-Gonzales chaff from the religious right is to: 1.) make Gonzales more palatable to those on the left who disapprove of torture and secret governments, and the general gutting of the Bill of Rights; and, 2.) to make Bush look strong when The Torture Guy squeaks through.

    That is, it’s all orchestrated by Bush.

    It could’ve been worse. He could have nominated Rove. Maybe when the prosecutor moves in.

  27. 27.

    Kimmitt

    July 6, 2005 at 4:29 am

    exceptions being POW’s captured during wartime.. or unlawful combatents caught fighting out of uniform

    The Fifth Amendment:

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    There is exception for impanelment for a grand jury, but there is no exception whatsoever for deprivation of life or liberty without due process.

    So, like I said — conservatives are against due process for noncitizens; therefore, even if I were to accept for the sake of argument that fetuses were human at any arbitrary point up to and following fertilization, they are stateless individuals who are, in current conservative thinking, rightsless.

    To put it another way, the President could simply declare all fetuses, viable and unviable, to be suspected terrorists. This would legally resolve the matter fully.

  28. 28.

    Darrell

    July 6, 2005 at 3:44 pm

    Kimmitt, the 5th amendment citation you quote is not referring to POW’s, but instead, to cases arising in the military services with OUR OWN military members.. dealing with how criminal acts committed by our OWN SOLDIERS would be handled differently from cases arising in civilian life. No due process rights for POW’s or unlawful combatents

    If your point had a shred of validity, full due process would have to have been given to every one of the millions of POW’s taken by our forces in WWI, WWI, Korean war, etc.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • 3letterjon on Righteous Rant Open Thread (Apr 15, 2024 @ 5:49pm)
  • Martin on Righteous Rant Open Thread (Apr 15, 2024 @ 5:46pm)
  • lowtechcyclist on Take the Fucking Win (Apr 15, 2024 @ 5:46pm)
  • Ken on Henry Would Like His Lunch Right Now, Please (Open Thread) (Apr 15, 2024 @ 5:44pm)
  • Baud on Righteous Rant Open Thread (Apr 15, 2024 @ 5:42pm)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Talk of Meetups – Meetup Planning
Proposed BJ meetups list from frosty

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8
Virginia House Races
Four Directions – Montana
Worker Power AZ
Four Directions – Arizona
Four Directions – Nevada

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
Positive Climate News
War in Ukraine
Cole’s “Stories from the Road”
Classified Documents Primer

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Political Action 2024

Postcard Writing Information

Balloon Juice for Four Directions AZ

Donate

Balloon Juice for Four Directions NV

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2024 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!