Well, Bush has made his second choice for the Supreme Court. And you know what? I am kinda happy about it. Now don't worry. I haven't gone crazy. I am not suddenly changing my mind and becoming a Bushite. Don't fret, dear reader, I will not be following a bizarre code of ethics in which the pursuit of wealth through needless death is viewed as being Christian. I will not be ignoring poor people in their time of need and in general ignoring reality.
No, folks I am actually happy with the nomination of Harriet E Miers to the Supreme Court. Do you know why? Because the Christian Conservative voting block is nervous and some are downright pissed off. And anytime that happens, well, it's time to break out the kettle of boiling oil and have ourselves a clam bake!
Apparently conservatives feel betrayed that Bush did not pick someone in the mold of Clarence Thomas or Anthony Scalia (as if even the two of them would overturn Roe V Wade.) They are dismayed that Miers (gasp!) contributed money to the Al Gore campaign and the Lloyd Bentsen campaign. And (oh no no no) Harry Reid recommended her to the president. And, sin of sins, she was the head of the Texas lottery and we all know what a work of the devil gambling has become. Satan himself must be somehow involved.
I know that all of you evangelical Christians out there are dying to force your monochromatic God on all of us but it will not happen this time. The court, while flawed in many ways, is going to stay exactly the same it always has. Your dreams of a world, which bears NOTHING IN COMMON WHATSOEVER WITH JESUS CHRIST, that treats half of our population like criminals will not come to fruition.
The president has made a choice based on the fact that he does not want any kind of fight. With approval ratings in the low 40s, Bush knows if he has any hope of retaining a majority in the mid-terms, he needs a down the middle choice for Justice. And that means, for the time being anyway, ejecting the Fundies from the capsule.
And that makes me a happy man.
6 comments:
That was my first reaction too. Then, wait, ... is that the familiar stench of Mike Brown? Isn't it just as likely we're just looking at another unqualified crony? Do we really want someone's very first experience as a judge to be on the SUPREME COURT? There must be other similarly unqualified cronies with judicial experience that would also pacify the liberal left, mustn't there?
What did you do upon waking up this morning? Take a dump….eat some breakfast….go to the gym….lay the kids down for a nap….watch some TV…..post a blog article….ate dinner….watched baseball. If that is so then you ignored poor people today. Just an observation.
You’re writings are pure speculation and nothing more…especially this gem…“The president has made a choice based on the fact that he does not want any kind of fight. With approval ratings in the low 40s, Bush knows if he has any hope of retaining a majority in the mid-terms, he needs a down the middle choice for Justice.”
With regards to that paragraph I have 2 words – John Roberts. Also, you don’t know her position on anything yet and you weren’t in any of the meetings at the White House…unless you really didn’t go to Chicago last weekend.
The President’s smashing victory in obtaining 78 votes for the confirmation of John Roberts must have had him shaking in his boots alright. Of course Harry Reid likes ol Harriet - the taste of Democrat defeat could have cooled his fire for confirmation hearing combat. You think Teddy Kennedy wanted to battle it out with someone like Janice Rogers Brown??? Myself, I would have loved to see those democratic hacks on the Judiciary Committee be put in the position to oppose an eminently qualified black female. She would rip them to shreds just like Roberts did and they damn well know it because she is off the intellectual plantation that liberal blacks are still a prisoner to.
Maybe the collective SILENCE from the reflexive loyal opposition groups on the left (ie the base of the democratic party) should be noted as well. By presenting a female nominee, GWB shuts the feminists up. Not just a female nominee but a career woman, one who has not raised children, not married, and has a number of “firsts” to her credit as a pioneer of women's achievement in Texas law.
So her lack of judicial experience is evidence of a second rate mind? Practicing high level law in the real world and rising to co-managing partner of a major law firm isn’t exactly easy. She actually managed a business, a substantial one with hundreds of employees, and has had to meet a payroll and conform to tax, affirmative action, and other regulatory demands of the state. She has been in a position that has demanded real world results rather than some guy (judge) who has been sitting on his ass, coasting on auto-pilot for life.
Perhaps the left decided to restrain their scorn for an evangelical Christian Sunday school teacher from Dallas (Harriet Miers) that would impose a religious test against a member of a group accounting of a third of the US voting base. Then we get the usual general claim that the Christian right is trying to “hijack religion”…feminists, gay activists, and others on the left invoke their belief system to advance their political agenda all the time. Speaking of "dreams of a world", maybe you should reserve your outrage for the muslim nutjob who blew himself up about 100 yards from the stadium where 78,000 people were watching the Oklahoma football team play KSU. Haven't heard much about that one yet have we? Naw - those Christians are the problem!
I’d like to remind you all that one Clinton appointee to the SC had attacked the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts as organizations that perpetuate stereotyped sex roles and had proposed abolishing Mother’s Day and Father’s Day and replacing them with a single androgynous Parent’s Day. She also called for an end to single-sex prisons on the theory that if male prisoners are going to return to a community in which men and women function as equal partners, prison is just the place for them to get prepared to deal with women. She also had stated that a manifest imbalance in the racial composition of an employer’s work force justified court-ordered quotas even in the absence of any intentional discrimination on the part of the employer. But then it was discovered that while operating her own office for over a decade in a city that was majority-black, this nominee had never had a single black person among her more than 50 hires. The nominee was Ruth Bader Ginsburg (a lawyer for the ACLU). The Senate confirmed her appointment to the Supreme Court by a vote of 96-3. What a fucking nut job…..single androgynous parents day?
About 40% of past and current SC justices were never judges before being nominated…including Rehnquist. So far the kneejerk reaction has been "Gay", "crony", and "unqualified". I will withhold judgment till I hear more about her views.
It's funny that you have simplified my life so easily. I would expect nothing less from a conservative. Everything has to be black and white and oh, btw, there's nothing wrong with the world. We're all fine.
As to my relationship with poor people, I tend to keep that sort of thing private because, in my mind, doing nice things for people less fortunate than myself is not something I like to broadcast. It belittles the gesture to brag about it.
You are so off base about Roberts it's not even funny. Time will tell. And once again I will be right (or is it left?)
Roberts didn't rip any one to shreds. He just didn't answer any questions. So, really no one knows anything about him.
And the rest of your diatribe is the same old tired stereotypes that people on the right have for people on the left. I think that maybe you should take a break from the hate radio that esentially drives your opinions and colors your facts.
I never said we’re all fine but I don’t believe the sky is falling.
My dad agreed with you - that he didn’t answer questions…but he saw no problem with it because the questions he didn’t answer were related to how he would rule on future cases brought before him….a precedent set by Ruth Bader Ginsburg (read – dems made their bed, now they have to lay in it). My dad also noted that Roberts is brilliant – he said that Roberts knows the law upside down and that he talked all day about every aspect of law without a single note in front of him. Sounds like about half the democrats knew enough about him to confirm him.
It is not a stereotype from hate radio when I state the fact that John Roberts got 78 votes and one political party was divided on that one and it wasn’t the Republicans. Could it be that Harry Reid is trying to divide Republicans this time? Who knows – it’s all politics.
It is not a stereotype from hate radio when I state the facts about Miers’ achievements thus far in Texas Law.
It is not a stereotype from hate radio when I state the fact that a muslim suicide bomber blew himself up very close to a college football stadium where 78,000 were in attendance. If you ever wonder why “hate radio” has listeners it is because the mainstream media will not report on stories like our muslim friend who assumed room temperature….perhaps he was on his way to the stadium in order to take as many of us with him because it doesn’t fit their agenda. Don’t you think it was worth a mention at least? Even on page 18 of the New York Times?
It is not a stereotype from hate radio when I post facts about Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I know the left just looooooves a good taunt of hypocrisy – racial quotas are good enough for every office except hers. Aaaaaahaahaa. 97-3 for that nutjob = fact.
It is not a stereotype from hate radio when I post the fact that 40% of past and current SC justices were never judges before being nominated…including Rehnquist.
With regards to what you will be right about….well, in the year 2000 you told me I should vote Libertarian…..then you supported the Iraq war….now you oppose GWB and the Iraq war. All that change in positions and stances took place within a 4 year time span. I still have all those email discussions in my Hotmail and the things you said 2 years ago are very different than what you say now. Could be that the reality of war has cause the change and I agree with you that Bush has made mistakes….war is never easy….if it was easy they would call it National Transition.
Back to Ms. Miers….there has been a lot of snap judgments and demeaning rhetoric made with regards to her since this all started. I haven’t offered up either support of opposition yet because GWB is not obligated to nominate someone with a stated philosophy that can be relied on to produce predictable votes on the issues of the day like the conservative critics are stating. The president said he would nominate justices who would interpret the law strictly and not legislate from the bench. He believes Ms. Miers would be such a justice and I think that entitles her to be heard. Maybe conservative critics need to stop measuring Miers against their ideal of a Justice and actually listen to what she has to say.
I think I should try to make you understand why my position on the War in Iraq has changed....or sort of changed.
If you look back over my original emails, I argued for the war because I believed that Iraq posed a threat to us. I said from the very beginning that they were 3rd or 4th on the laundry list but a threat nonetheless.
From the beginnning, I was angry and frustrated with Bush for not attacking the country that actually attacked us 9/11: Saudi Arabia. I still am frustrated but all the hand holding he does with those people lead me to believe that we will never have justice.
I also think that Iran and North Korea, two countries that actually have nuclear weapons, were more of a threat to us. We have said some harsh words to them but it is pretty much known that these countries are supplying interests that are against us. Again, where is the so called conservative toughness here?
So, in my mind at the time, I thought well, Saddam is a threat and as with most people in that part of the world you can get a lot farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with just a kind word. Israel knows what I am talking about.
Remember this was all before the war started.
Then the war started and B
General Schensheke was fired. Why? Because he asked for 500,000 troops. Rumsfeld said no. We can do it with 100,000. Miskake #1 which began to make me wonder how effectively this war was going to be fought.
Then, when no WMDs were found due to bad intelligence (mistake #2), I began to wonder why we were there and it became pretty obvious. You yourself have admitted that we are not over there to give the gift of freedom.
Meanwhile, where is Osama bin Laden? Or more importantly, al Zawahari? Why do we always seem to catch the number 3 man and not the number 1 and 2? As far as I know they are still out there trying to figure out a way to attack us again. So, again I am left with frustration.
I am against this war now because of the fact that a president who has no understanding of military matters has pissed away the lives of our beloved soldiers so he and his supporters here can get oil and development contracts.
And people say that because I am against the war, I am not supporting our troops?
Which do you find more offensive: a peace loving liberal who is too weak to stand up to evil or an inept, money grubbing liar who has abused the gift our armed forces have given him? Either way, in my mind, is weak.
Basically I didn't have any idea before the war started that things would be fucked up this badly. People that I know personally that have been in Iraq have said as much and more. And I am not just talking about the one person we both know. There are others.
I still think you should vote libertarian. How you can support an administration and group of people that have so little in common with you is amazing to me. But then again, I feel that way about most people that voted for President Bush.
So you’re asking for consistency in “conservative toughness” yet in the exact same post your position on the use of force varies just as much depending on which country we are talking about. The goal posts just keep on moving - how is any president supposed to satisfy you guys? The war critics bitch about taking Saddam down and at the same time they bitch about not taking action in NK, Iran, Saudi Arabia or other places in the world. I wish they would pick a side and stay on it. If it would have been Saudi Arabia or Iran we would have heard the same anti-war folks saying “No blood for Oil” and “Well, Iran never attacked us…what about Iraq and North Korea” and so on, you get the picture.
You said “my position on the War in Iraq has changed....or sort of changed” then you hold me to every word I have said thus far with regards to the war being about the war being about freedom. Are you under the impression that the only goal of the terrorists in Iraq is to force the US to leave? If that were their only goal then they would do better to just stop all violence...make everybody think that it is all secure and just wait till the US leaves. We both agree that those terrorists are not stupid.
I think the very basic idea that a lot of anti-Iraq war people are missing is that the main goal of the terrorists is to prevent the establishment of a Democracy in Iraq. Why? Because they know that a free Democracy would be a threat to all of the dictatorships in the region. Back in January, the terrorists released a statement that any Iraqi that tried to vote would be targeted. If the terrorists are just Iraqi citizens that are tired of the US occupation....why would they intentionally target Iraqi citizens? Especially for doing something like....voting? Then they released a statement that any official that signs the Iraq constitution would be targeted as well as their families. Again...why are they so hell bent on stopping the formation of an independent Iraqi Democracy if all they want is the US to leave?
By establishing a democracy in Iraq, we establish an environment where we might turn the tide of terror that the long history of oppression in the region has established. Even if it isn’t the rationale it may be the consequence. I don’t think Iraq was a major threat to us but they were definitely a threat to the stability of the middle east.
I have my own complaints about how the war has been handled. Our mutual friend said that they were not allowed to even point their weapon at any Iraqi civilian unless fired upon and that makes our boys sitting ducks over there. Any war that demands civilians not be killed is doomed from the start. WMD’s….If Saddam did get rid of them then there was no reason for him to not let the inspectors back in and get out from under the sanctions that were put in place against his nation.
GWB’s supporters getting oil and development contracts….well, unless you want higher body counts you’d better get to love those no bid Halliburton contracts. Contracts, especially large ones, can take months to complete. Secondly, the logistics contracts tell the suppliers where the army is supposed to be, at what times, and the armaments they will need to fight a battle. Want to give that information to the enemy since free and open bidding means any firm from any country can get hands on that contract? Frankly, unless you want even higher body counts from allowing the enemy to get a logistics bid and seeing where we'll be, when we will be there along with what military hardware we're bringing, not to mention where it will be delivered enroute so they can sabotage it, then learn to love those contracts for GWB’s pals.
Not sure when anyone has ever told you that you don’t support the troops. On this blog though, you did call for images of our dead soldiers to be splashed across TV screens in this country in the hopes that it will sway the public to your side. I can understand support for the troops but I also understand dancing on the graves of dead US soldiers for the sole purpose of political opportunism. Cynical opportunism and moral superiority are mutually exclusive.
There are many reasons I don’t vote democrat. Their entire economic agenda for one which seems to only include higher taxes and more lawsuits. We all know that more gas refineries need to be built. Well guess which political party killed a bill last week that would have built more refineries?
The anti-war left having a field day with footage of a battle weary marine making the correct decision in shooting a wounded enemy terrorist scumbag. The New York Times printing 53 front page stories about Abu Gharab which was nothing more than fraternity hazing in my eyes.
Also, I’m still not sure what liberals want - an Administration to protect us in these troubled times or tie their hands up in civil liberties? They can't have it both ways. Had there been a no fly list prior to 9/11, they would have been screaming about civil liberties. I love how the left fights for civil liberties and at the same time, they want protection with no legal vehicle to protect us from hijackers. You want protection, but not give anyone the tools for protection.
For Democratic Senator Dick Durbin to compare Gitmo to Nazi concentration camps on the senate floor is completely insane. The point is that it is DANGEROUS to say things like this on the Senate floor, not only because of its hysterical inaccuracy, and not because it will affect the morale of our troops, but because it is ammunition for the enemies themselves. In fact, this little speech was played on Al Jazeera the next day. Way to go, Dick. Hitler and Stalin were master practitioners. What's unusual about Durbin's lie is that it slanders his own country. Normally that kind of slander is uttered only by revolutionaries seeking the violent overthrow of the government. Yet Durbin purports to be part of a loyal opposition.
Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi called for the closing of the GITMO in order to give us "a clean slate in the Muslim world”. The idea of a clean slate with Muslims is pretty stupid. Some of the Muslims from whom Pelosi would like to receive a clean slate are still upset about the reconquest of Spain. And then there's the small matter of the existence of Israel. Pelosi's comment also reveals the self-hating belief held by so many on the left that Muslim antagonism towards the U.S. is our fault. If only we would avoid stepping on the Koran, all would be well.
I heard this on hate radio today – Former FBI director Louis Freeh spilled some info about Clinton with regards to the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. After promising to bring to justice those responsible for the bombing that killed 19 and injured hundreds, Freeh says Clinton refused to personally ask Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to allow the FBI to question bombing suspects the kingdom had in custody – the only way the bureau could secure the interviews, according to Freeh. Freeh writes in the book, “Bill Clinton raised the subject only to tell the crown prince that he understood the Saudis’ reluctance to cooperate and then he hit Abdullah up for a contribution to the Clinton Presidential Library.” Says Freeh, “That’s a fact that I am reporting.”
So in the current climate of endless carping about GWB’s handling of the war against Islamic terrorists, please don’t bother telling us that the answer to it all lies somewhere in the democratic party.
Post a Comment