Because I don’t care. Well, perhaps a little, but not much. I have no faith that John Roberts or anyone George Bush selects will do anything to help the conservative cause during their tenure on the Supreme Court.
We’ve had a so-called conservative court for years, and look what’s happened. Child killing is still “law of the land” (Child killing as state law is just as atrocious, but the power to decide yea or nay belongs to the states), government confiscation of private property for the dumbest of reasons is “law of the land,” and unelected justices will continue to function as lawmakers instead of law interpreters.
But who cares what I think anyway, right? Listen to Star Parker:
In the conservative approach, the law we have is a product of the wisdom of the ages, and the only surprises today are how the law might apply in new situations. In a liberal world, we live forever in a social experiment and our reality is the result of whatever thinking happens to be in vogue among the social engineers.Using this approach, I hereby declare myself to one and all that I’m a conservative.
Citizens don’t need their lives defined by others. They need protection. And the vulnerable particularly need protection. Protection means having a legal code that has integrity and having judges that see their job as relating to that law to protect people from the unjust encroachment by others. I would say a society of tyranny is one in which it is never clear what the law is and how I am protected. Ironically, this also characterizes a liberal society.
Also see The Supreme Court Nomination Blog.
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 27 comments }
It is terrifying to raise children in a land that changes the fabric of society and the rule of law with the same whim as your average starlett changes her wardrobe. Listen to any little group of vapid, young people, and you will hear them discussing liberal social “causes” with the same lightheartedness as they talk about the newest band. Despising traditional American values is the ultimate in hipness. I fear it is going to take something devestating to destroy the grip this destructive cult has on our society. The barbarians are at the gate and Islam threatens both traditional Americans and the liberal cult members alike. I don’t know how things are going to turn out, but I firmly believe God is testing us. What is left is to find out if we are going to repent and shake off the shackles of liberal trends or rise up and reclaim what is righteous.
La Shawn, I think that the non-coverage of John Roberts’ nomination may be coming to an end. There was a filthy piece in the Washington Post on Friday by Robin Givhan attacking Roberts’ family (including his small children). Several in the MSM have begun to attack Roberts of the case of the “French fry girl”, in which a 12 year old girl was arrested by D.C. Metro police for eating a French Fry while waiting for the Red Line train. Roberts wrote an opinion upholding the law, although he did not think much of the law itself.
I suspect this might be an effort by the far Left to create an image of Judge Roberts as some sort of molester. “Bush = Hitler” is well established in the la-la land of the Left, and we might soon see “John Roberts = John Couey” or something similar.
If that happens, we may all long for the relative calm of the Bork and Thomas confirmation hearings.
Mwalimu, I meant my non-coverage.
We haven’t had a “conservative” court at all. Thomas, Scalia, and Rhenquist, and that’s it. The rest have all been liberals (despite the MSM’s desperate attempts to portray O’Connor as a conservative).
I stand corrected, La Shawn – forgive me. Still, there has been a lot of quiet (relatively speaking) about the Supreme Court lately in the MSM and the Internet, at least in my opinion. I had expected a whole lot more by this time. Maybe it is a good sign that things won’t get too ugly?
You are also correct about our courts. There is a general leftward drift of most who reach the Promised Land of the SCOTUS (and the lower courts). O’Conner is a good example. I doubt that Roberts will be different – I think he will probably uphold abortion in all cases, for example.
When Jesus was tempted by Satan, He was offered power over all the kingdoms of the world (Matthew 4:8-10). I think it is significant that Jesus did not dispute Satan’s authority to make this offer. Thus, I don’t put much faith in the princes of this world.
“In the conservative approach, the law we have is a product of the wisdom of the ages, and the only surprises today are how the law might apply in new situations. In a liberal world, we live forever in a social experiment and our reality is the result of whatever thinking happens to be in vogue among the social engineers.”
Liberals always hold the “high ground” of the elite class that looks down on the populace and is somehow moved to use the power of the taxpayer’s purse to rearrange the things that bother them most.
Since they can not get elected by the populace to carry out their elitist schemes through legislation, they rely on controlling the courts to order it.
An honest jurist reads the text of the law. A liberal jurist envisions the outcome of a liberal decision and then constructs a creative combination of words to create the illusion of having found the text to support it.
The classic example of building a case for what you want the Constitution to say was in Griswold v Connecticut Justice William O. Douglas found that privacy was a constitutional right, one that was a “penumbra†emanating from the specific guarantees of the constitution.
Roe v Wade rests upon this case.
The liberals most fear that the court will be returned to justices who find privacy rights only in the specific words of the Constitution, not in the penumbra emanating from the crystal ball version of the Constitution.
Liberals have cast abortion as a privacy right: The woman’s (private) right to choose.
If you get twenty people together who are pulled off the sidewalk at random and ask each to right down what privacy is and how it should be protected, you will discover very quickly how impossible it is to define the word.
Another point about liberals and abortion. Believe it or not, if they want a Supreme Court case that will back their abortion rights claims, it would be the Dred Scott case!
Think about it, the woman is choosing what to do with her ….. PROPERTY. She owns it, so she can destroy it if she wishes. That is their argument.
Well, that was Sanford’s argument about his property, Dred Scott.
Liberals must have like-minded judges to keep over riding the Constitution in order to maintain their basic agenda.
Some of the leftie misrepresentation of Roberts’ “french fry” decision is either astoundingly ignorant of the Constitution and our system of law, or brazenly deliberate in the attempt to mislead.
Roberts correctly decided that the case had no merit, based upon the fact that it was the result of simple dissatisfaction with a local ordinance, and that the court had no authority to overturn such an ordinance, no matter how silly and inappropriate the ordinance might be.
Roberts understands that the remedy for silly ordinances is the ballot box, not the courts.
When the not-so-Supremes foisted their Kelo atrocity upon Americans, people were stunned, outraged, and surprised. Yet, the decision was simply a natural progression in the horrendous philosophy of the left that has so permeated our society. While the left professes a ‘love for the masses’, it expresses a disdain for the rights and dignity of the individual (and thus an utter disregard for personal property rights and the right to life). Because they view themselves as having a superior vision of the ‘greater good’ of society, but cannot achieve their societal engineering through concensus, they use coercion; ie. taxation, litigation, regulation, and the JUDICIARY. Empiricism never interferes with the Faustian ‘vision of the annointed’, as Thomas Sowell deems it.
An ultimate irony of the Robert’s nomination is the fixation of the left on his religiosity. While they scream over the separation of church and state, they insert religion as an integral part of a candidate’s qualifications…or should I say disqualifications. They simply cannot seem to separate church and state in a constitutionally acceptable way. Amazing! Why does the left have to keep sticking religion in everywhere????
Chuckie Schumer and Dianne Feinstein are both on record at a June 11th judiciary hearing on Bill Pryor, ignorantly stating that Pryor’s ‘religious beliefs are so well known, that it is hard to believe that they are not going to influence him on the bench’. I truly believe that liberals so often project the awful truth about themselves onto others, and are then horrified by what they see. I would be, too.
Our Founding Fathers must be turning over in their graves at the abhorrent notion that someone’s deeply held religious beliefs should not form any aspect of their judicial philosophy, or that being deeply religious should disqualify them from sitting on the bench. (As we know from history, none of our Founding Fathers ever expressed any religious convictions whatsoever, and would have been horrified at the mention of God in the public sphere….) Further, there is no evidence that Robert’s judcial renderings have been ‘tainted’ in any way by his religious beliefs. He seems to adhere to the law as it is written, not as he wishes to see it written. Ergo, there is reason to suspect that he may be an originalist, thank God. Frankly, there is something maniacal about a system that praises an individual who supports sucking the brains out of the crushed head of a fully formed infant, while condemning an individual who publicly professes a relationship with God….
Incidentally, do any of you know anything about the spouses of souter, Kennedy, Breyer, O’Connor, Ginsberg? Just asking….
Heliotrope said, “Think about it, the woman is choosing what to do with her ….. PROPERTY. She owns it, so she can destroy it if she wishes. That is their argument.
Well, that was Sanford’s argument about his property, Dred Scott.”
I’ve heard liberals make this argument before. Some liberals believe that they should have used the precendent of property rights (slave ownership) instead of the right to privacy to secure abortion rights.
For me, that is just more evidence that liberalism is a change in tactics of all those that have fought against basic human rights. Just think about their tactics:
1. Trasfer power from local communities to the federal government; thereby, thwarting the will of the the people.
2. Create federal legislation to lower standards, maintain the status quo of race and gender preferences, and inspire further race divisions. (In other words, keep the people dumbed down and squabbling amongst themselves.)
3. Pervert the constitution to legalize the murder of unborn children. (How better to keep the “undesirable” population in check and insure the power elites their position.)
4 Institute “diversity” and “multi-culturalism” propaganda throughout the land. “Divide and conquer” at its finest. Did you ever notice that while the liberal base is spouting off about “tolerance” and “unity”, the Democrats in federal power are a pretty monolithic bunch? They even have a past grand wizard of the KKK as one of their most “honored statesmen.”
5. Take as much money from the pockets of the people as possible. Put it into useless “initiatives, grants, and federal programs.” Basically take away the money that people might use to build their communities and use it to build federal bureaucracies that insure the “right people” have the power.
6. Bombard the people with psychobabble and “victimology” think. Accuse anyone that questions their victim status of being self-haters. Accuse anyone that questions the system of being racist.
We’ve been duped. The left is at war to maintain all that our constitution meant to guard against. The majority of the population is too entrenched in the mentality to see the truth. The right is too afraid of the backlash to take a real stand that might end this tyranny.
It may sound dramatic or even a little (alot) crazy, but I think a revolution is brewing. I would like to think it will just be a political movement, but with the external war of “Islamic Extremism” thrown into the mix – a recipe for something bloody and violent is in the making.
Independent;
You are so so right. We have got to stand up and say we have had enough!.The left is staking everything on the supposed studpidity of those masses they profess to love so much, so they can keep the votes coming their way. Meanwhile, we are all left wallowing in the muck they leave behind. We races need to get together, hold hands, stand up for truth and dignity, and stop the tyranny of the left!
The left will conjur up whatever message of character assassination they can. It is the only method they have left since they cannot carry a majority on their merits alone. This court battleground is where our society will gain its direction, for good or bad. Good, if law making is returned to the populace and the people they elect. Bad if law making remains as a function of the courts.
Roberts, in his limited number of rulings has shown to be a constructionist. He will rule based on the law and not what he thinks the law should be. I doubt this will be the red herring foisted upon us like David Souter.
Governors appointing Senators…What do you guys think about returning to the days when the winning Governor (as per the people’s mandate) appointed the Senators sent to Washington, who by definition represented the interests of the people of his State rather than national or federal gubmint issues?
Appealing to the “center” is one thing. Having a lying, Democrat, two-faced, socio-communist, military and America-hating liberal like Hillary Clinton do it is a whole other issue.
Are there people really buying this trick’s shift to the right?
I actually hope the Democrats make a scene with this nominee. I think even public school “educated” people understand now that the courts and certainly not nine, old, sick, morons should be telling the rest of us how to live. We have elected morons for that.
I sincerely feel that most Americans are fed up with the Democrats’ childish whining, hysterics, obstructionism, lack of leadership and standing for absolutely nothing of worth. Nothing American anyway.
This would be just another show that demostrates they have no principle nor honor and why they are not mature enough to run the country.
Raymond;
I take it that you don’t care for Ms. Hillary….I concur with your sentiments and think she would be very dangerous for America. She is not, never has been, and never will be, a centrist…..To be totally honest with you, I am devastated by the damage that our beautiful country has undergone during the two and a half decades that I was overseas. We, the people, need to seize our country back from those who would sell it for a cheap piece of silver.
Raymond, I’m there with you regarding the original selection of senators who are supposed to represent their home state & governnor.
Unfortunately, under the guise of giving voice to the people, these ‘boardmembers’ have succeeded in creating a perpetual/long-tenured shadow government that seeks to upsurp the proper role of the CEO & his Chairman of the board (Veep).
Years later, we now operate under the notion that a Senator trumps the governor and that they may even make or break a governor. And we wonder about our broken system of states rights and federalism? If a senator doesn’t like his governor, he only needs to go over his head to speak directly to the people — well actually intrastate, interstate, extrastate and even multinationl corporations, lobbies, NGOs etc.
Forget term limits, bring back the original — tho I’d settle for term limits as opposed to this current parade of incumbent napoleons. The latest McCainism — regarding a proposal for congressional oversight and control of gitmo — has me fit to be tied.
La Shawn,
Can I get you to rethink this comment?
“Child killing is still “law of the land†(Child killing as state law is just as atrocious, but the power to decide yea or nay belongs to the states)”
Is child killing “power” really something that states should decide? Should the state decide if the handicapped can be killed? Should the state decide if Jews should be killed?
If we really believe abortion is the murder of a child (which it is), then it isn’t something the states have a right to decide. They *have* the duty to protect those children. I don’t think most of us “pro-lifers” really stop to think what it would mean if we truly believed that those where small children being tortured and murdered.
I guess it comes down to the classic example. A rino has the power to charge through a china shop, that doesn’t mean it has the authority.
What do you think?
Justin
The best way to defeat wayward elected officials is for the people to get up off their sorry rears and write strong, iron clad, enforceable, recall provisions.
If the person you elect doesn’t do what he is told to do then he comes home to go to work for a living.
Simple.
Justin, why do you think it’s worse to let the states decide the abortion issue than to allow the feds to decide? It’s much more likely that many states will act to curtail the use of abortion as birth control than to think the feds will do so, thereby resulting in a net loss for the abortion pushers. That’s a good thing.
From a purely legal standpoint, the most urgent concern is the misuse of the Constitution by Roe v. Wade. Overturning that lousy decision will immediately throw the matter back to the states, so that is the battleground, by default.
Presidential, Congressional and GOP Senate Scorecard to date. The following grades indicate how officials YOU elected are performing:
- Presidential leadership on the War on islam: D
- Presidential conduct of Iraq battle operations: D+
- Presidential integrity: A
- Presidential and GOP leadership on stopping illegal immigration: F-
- Presidenttial leadership on Veteran’s Affairs: B-
- Presidential leadership on race relations: A
- House GOP Congressional performance in working for the what the people have asked for: A
- GOP Senatorial effectiveness: F-
- GOP Senatorial Courage and Conviction: F
- GOP Seantorial performance in working for the what the people have asked for: F
- Quality of laws passed by GOP Senate Leaders: C-
- Handling and confronting of Democrat minority opposition in the Senate: F
- GOP Senate protection of Christianity, its symbols and ability to practive freely: F
- GOP Senate jurisdictional oversight and review: F
- GOP behaving as a true conservative entity: F-
- GOP leadership on the economy: C+
- GOP leadership on taxes: B-
- GOP Senate leadership on trade policy: F
- GOP candidate for President in 2008: F-
- GOP Senate leadership on slapping down gay rights and gay marriage: B
Now, this how they stack up in my eyes. If you agree, will you please explain how you could possibly even be thinking about voting for a GOP incumbent in 2006 or ‘08?
That’s an easy one, Raymond. I’ll most likely vote for GOP incumbents because, bad as they might be, the Dem opposition is guaranteed to be worse. Voting for the lesser of evils is a valid plan. Sad, but necessary and valid.
Redbeard my friend, then repectfully, you are part of the problem. By posing that question, I was trying to see how many so-called “fed-up” people are actually going to support a GOP challenger!
Sorry for the trickeration. In no way did I ever want anyone to think that I would ever vote for a Democrat, but I wanted to see who was going to support the spineless, pink panty wearing, ignore-the-people, GOP incumbents as opposed to going out and working hard for a true conservative challenger who is willing to sign a strict recall contract if he doesn’t do as he is told when he gets to DC.
Voting for a Democrat my man was NEVER an option.
You can rest assured that I already fired the GOP elected officials as they stand now. I can think of only one who may get my vote. Her name is Ronda Storms. She is a true conservative county commissioner in Hillsborough County (Tampa. She offered a bill in response to Tampa Public Libraries putting up highly offensive displays in the main areas of Tampa’s Public libraries to celebrate “gay pride month.” The backlash was immediate. Her bill to deny funding, support and recognition of gay activites passed 6-1. I usually don’t vote for women (of any party), but I think I may give her a vote this time. Based on her other accomplishments, she is a true conservative. I’d love to send her to DC to pimp slap Snowe and Collins.
Raymond wrote, “Sorry for the trickeration.”
Trickeration doesn’t matter.
RedBeard and I probably think similarly and I will not hand the security of this nation to the Democrat leadership. While I disagree with the President and Republican senators on some issues.. I well know that on MANY MORE issues I disagree with the Democrat leadership. You’ll never get 100% agreement.
Heck. You’ll never find a candidate to take up your alternative border security policy. Therefore you’ll NEVER have anyone to vote for.
While RedBeard and I will move this country forward towards the future, you will be sure to make this nation less safe (by ensuring people who are weak on security get into office).
How’s that for rhetoric. More responsible I’d say.
BTW, Your comments on the other thread about “broads” and on this thread about not usually voting for women makes you someone that I am not fond of. I believe and I’ll state again that you probably are a liberal plant. There is no way that you are a conservative with the best interest in moving conservativism forward. Period.
Bak, I was wanting to say something about Raymond’s derogatory terms and low esteem of women in general. Thanks for speaking out.
Didn’t catch that earlier.
– Admin
Bak, you’re a rhetorical powerhouse. I like that in a person.
As for Ray, I can’t quite figure out his political leanings, but I agree that there is a question. Perhaps he’s a Buchananite. Ol’ Pat used to be a conservative, but in recent years has gone around the back of the scenery, banged about a bit, and emerged on stage as a sort of a confused and angry right-wing liberal.
Part of the problem with Ray’s question was that I assumed he was talking about the general election, not the primaries. But even in the primaries I’ll support a moderate conservative who can win the general election against a Democrat instead of a true-blue conservative who can’t win. Half a loaf, and all that.
Btw, just as an aside, I like Ronda Storms, but without any qualifiers about her gender, one way or another. I like her because she’s usually right on the issues.
Hey, I’ll take that one. Thanks.
I’m trying to figure out how three conservatives, two moderates, and four liberals makes a conservative court. It just doesn’t. There hasn’t been a conservative Supreme Court since before FDR almost singlehandedly replaced the whole SCOTUS with liberals. There was never a time when there was a whole court appointed by him, but Truman replaced the last Republican appointee not too long after FDR died, and the Republican appointees since then haven’t all been conservatives despite the fact that Democratic nominees have all been liberal. This will actually be the first time there has even been a balanced court since FDR. It still won’t be a conservative court when it moves from 4-2-3 to 4-1-4, but it will be a move from a clearly liberal court to a clearly balanced or moderate court, with Justice Kennedy ultimately determining the course of many of the important decisions.
Comments on this entry are closed.