Much Ado About.....
Several interesting items this morning. The usually clear headed Michael Barone gets tied up in his own facts and logic. After once more displaying the incredible depth of his political knowledge, he arrives at two diametrically opposed conclusions.
1. The Republicans SHOULD worry about the results of special election in Ohio.
2. Special election results are notoriously poor predictors of general election results.
Newt Gingrich also weighs in and so I wonder if maybe this is just a case of Barone and Newt making sure that the GOP brain trust is awake.
In any case I would argue that the narrow victory by the Republican in the special election in Ohio's second district is virtually worthless as a harbinger of the '06 general.
The "out" party is motivated to go for the upset in these special elections while the "in" party is bored and satisfied with all its goodies. When only 20% or so of voters bother to come out, you naturally should be prepared for the possibility of wacky results.
George Will has a piece out today that in the main makes a thoroughly logical case for Bill Frist's stem cell position. However in his rush to show what a broad minded fellow he is, Will takes a swipe at conservatives that just does not hold up under scrutiny.
"Some "social conservatives" purporting to speak for "values voters" - what voters do not intend their political choices to advance their values? - insist, simultaneously, that Frist made a gross political blunder, and that he sacrificed principles to politics. This train wreck of logic makes one's head hurt."
This train wreck of a paragraph serves to prove beyond all doubt that Will has completed his multi-year transition from conservative to moderate. His decision to enclose in quotation marks "social conservatives" and "values voters" clearly transmits his disdain for both groups. His lame attempt to cast ALL voters as "values voters" sounds like something he read in Jon Stewart's Snarky Things To Say About Conservatives manual.
Finally his snide implication that Frist's decision CAN'T be both politically motivated AND a political blunder is simply dishonest and embarrassingly stupid. Below is a short list of well known events that fit both descriptions.
3. Gary Hart(pence)'s invitation to reporters to follow him for proof of his upstanding life style.
2. Jimmy Carter's cloying reference to his nuclear war advisor, daughter Amy.
1. Mike Dukakis' ride in a tank to show what a bad mamajama he was.
Unprincipled actions for political gain that turn into blunders happen pretty much every day in Washington. Will's snippy tone serves only underline the bankrupt state of his truth and logic cupboard.
Monday, July 25, 2005
Idiots On All Sides
I think one of the great discoveries I made along the way is that some people who I agree with, almost completely, are none the less jerks.
Perhaps that is part of the essential difference between Conservatives and Liberals. Liberals tend to paint ALL Liberals as lilly white and heroic, and all Conservatives as dark and evil.
Conservatives on the other hand understand that there are good people who are liberals and complete dumb-asses who are Conservative.
Case in point is this post (and others like it) at Confirm Them and Red State et al. (WHY do they need to cross post things in nine different places?) What has drawn my ire is the line at the bottom:
"BTW, if you don’t know who Leonard Leo is, then you have no business commenting on the Roberts nomination in the first place."
Well kiss my down home ass. Leonard Leo might be a great fellow doing great deeds but he is one of many and earns no special consideration from me in the GOP Hall of Sucking Up and General Obsequiousness.
Geesh what a twit "Feddie" must be to post such nonsense. Grow up boy.
I think one of the great discoveries I made along the way is that some people who I agree with, almost completely, are none the less jerks.
Perhaps that is part of the essential difference between Conservatives and Liberals. Liberals tend to paint ALL Liberals as lilly white and heroic, and all Conservatives as dark and evil.
Conservatives on the other hand understand that there are good people who are liberals and complete dumb-asses who are Conservative.
Case in point is this post (and others like it) at Confirm Them and Red State et al. (WHY do they need to cross post things in nine different places?) What has drawn my ire is the line at the bottom:
"BTW, if you don’t know who Leonard Leo is, then you have no business commenting on the Roberts nomination in the first place."
Well kiss my down home ass. Leonard Leo might be a great fellow doing great deeds but he is one of many and earns no special consideration from me in the GOP Hall of Sucking Up and General Obsequiousness.
Geesh what a twit "Feddie" must be to post such nonsense. Grow up boy.
Saturday, July 23, 2005
Stare Decisis and Whistling Past the Graveyard
Among the churning mass of Liberal convulsions brought on by the John Roberts nomination, we are seeing a heretofore little known "legal doctrine" mentioned, with numbing regularity, by the Liberal media and commentariat.
"Stare decisis" translated into American (as Floyd R. Turbo might say) means "let the decision stand". Further translating, a judge who strongly adheres to stare decisis would be a judge who generally would frown on attempts to overturn prior decisions of the Supreme Court.
While stare decisis has an important role to play in the broad application of constitutional law, it is by no means a trip wire that one must avoid at all costs.
Where were the proponents of stare decisis when Earl Warren, William Brennen and Harry Blackmun where running amuck in the 50's, 60's, & 70's? Where were the sensibilities of the great Liberals of the day when the Warren Court smashed long standing precedent after long standing precedent in pursuit of their political agenda?
If stare decisis were preeminent among legal principles and guideposts, wouldn't Dred Scott still be the law of the land? And if stare decisis is inviolate as a principle of constitutional law then shouldn't we apply it as well to criminal proceedings? A little stare decisis would go along way toward lessening the load on our overburdened courts of appeal.
Almost anyone with a dash of common sense realizes that a Supreme Court that constantly revised and meddled with decided cases would undercut the stability of the entire system. Imagine that if each time a new justice was sworn in the court would revote on all the 5-4 decisions of the past 30 years. Chaos would ensue.
That path would be roughly as absurd as the one now being suggested (demanded?) by the avid supporters of stare decisis. These jokers would have us fall for the notion that there are SUPER DECISIONS that shall never be over turned. Naturally Roe V. Wade is first in line on their list of SUPER DECISIONS.
Nonsense and phooey.
Among the churning mass of Liberal convulsions brought on by the John Roberts nomination, we are seeing a heretofore little known "legal doctrine" mentioned, with numbing regularity, by the Liberal media and commentariat.
"Stare decisis" translated into American (as Floyd R. Turbo might say) means "let the decision stand". Further translating, a judge who strongly adheres to stare decisis would be a judge who generally would frown on attempts to overturn prior decisions of the Supreme Court.
While stare decisis has an important role to play in the broad application of constitutional law, it is by no means a trip wire that one must avoid at all costs.
Where were the proponents of stare decisis when Earl Warren, William Brennen and Harry Blackmun where running amuck in the 50's, 60's, & 70's? Where were the sensibilities of the great Liberals of the day when the Warren Court smashed long standing precedent after long standing precedent in pursuit of their political agenda?
If stare decisis were preeminent among legal principles and guideposts, wouldn't Dred Scott still be the law of the land? And if stare decisis is inviolate as a principle of constitutional law then shouldn't we apply it as well to criminal proceedings? A little stare decisis would go along way toward lessening the load on our overburdened courts of appeal.
Almost anyone with a dash of common sense realizes that a Supreme Court that constantly revised and meddled with decided cases would undercut the stability of the entire system. Imagine that if each time a new justice was sworn in the court would revote on all the 5-4 decisions of the past 30 years. Chaos would ensue.
That path would be roughly as absurd as the one now being suggested (demanded?) by the avid supporters of stare decisis. These jokers would have us fall for the notion that there are SUPER DECISIONS that shall never be over turned. Naturally Roe V. Wade is first in line on their list of SUPER DECISIONS.
Nonsense and phooey.
Friday, July 22, 2005
And Then There Were Four
Reliable conservatives on the Supreme Court, that is. Following the likely confirmation of John Roberts, the Supreme Court will have a near majority of honest to goodness conservative justices for the first time in over a decade. Since Ruth Ginsberg replaced Byron White, the Court has been made up of three groups. The Liberal Four (currently Breyer, Souter, Ginsberg & Stevens) the Wishy Washy Two (Kennedy & O'Connor) , and the Conservative Three (Rehnquist, Thomas & Scalia).
Fortunately for Conservatives (and the Republic) The Wishy Washy Two never completely succumbed to the blandishments of The Dark Side and thus we have had a dozen years of moderation/compromise/goulash. It seemed that for ever really awful ruling, there was one that was fairly decent, and thus an uneven stasis was maintained.
It has been amusing to watch both Liberals and Conservatives take turns being happy and gloomy the past few days. Neither side seems quite able to decide whether this "stealth" candidate is Santa Claus or the Bogey Man.
Amongst all the breathless chatter about how Roberts' votes will differ from O'Connor's almost no one has publicly considered how Roberts' personality will affect the OTHER Justices. Only on this Liberal web site have I seen anyone put their finger on this important issue. The closing lines say it well:
"Kennedy probably won’t budge on the core issue of reproductive rights, but in other areas, he may be up for grabs. In fact, should Roberts be confirmed, his impact on Justice Kennedy is likely to be the most important near-term effect of his arrival at the Court. "
Robert's effect on Kennedy is THE most profound short term question.
Reliable conservatives on the Supreme Court, that is. Following the likely confirmation of John Roberts, the Supreme Court will have a near majority of honest to goodness conservative justices for the first time in over a decade. Since Ruth Ginsberg replaced Byron White, the Court has been made up of three groups. The Liberal Four (currently Breyer, Souter, Ginsberg & Stevens) the Wishy Washy Two (Kennedy & O'Connor) , and the Conservative Three (Rehnquist, Thomas & Scalia).
Fortunately for Conservatives (and the Republic) The Wishy Washy Two never completely succumbed to the blandishments of The Dark Side and thus we have had a dozen years of moderation/compromise/goulash. It seemed that for ever really awful ruling, there was one that was fairly decent, and thus an uneven stasis was maintained.
It has been amusing to watch both Liberals and Conservatives take turns being happy and gloomy the past few days. Neither side seems quite able to decide whether this "stealth" candidate is Santa Claus or the Bogey Man.
Amongst all the breathless chatter about how Roberts' votes will differ from O'Connor's almost no one has publicly considered how Roberts' personality will affect the OTHER Justices. Only on this Liberal web site have I seen anyone put their finger on this important issue. The closing lines say it well:
"Kennedy probably won’t budge on the core issue of reproductive rights, but in other areas, he may be up for grabs. In fact, should Roberts be confirmed, his impact on Justice Kennedy is likely to be the most important near-term effect of his arrival at the Court. "
Robert's effect on Kennedy is THE most profound short term question.
Monday, February 21, 2005
Yeah, what I said!
Several months ago I held forth on the damage Al Gore chose to inflict on the American electoral system.
Now, via RealClearPolitics, the ever outstanding Michael Barone has taken the point even farther.
I am thankful I won't be called upon to decide the Washington State case. It is very thorny and has immense implications.
In this political "off-season" I will be sporadic at best with my posts but I am here!
Several months ago I held forth on the damage Al Gore chose to inflict on the American electoral system.
Now, via RealClearPolitics, the ever outstanding Michael Barone has taken the point even farther.
I am thankful I won't be called upon to decide the Washington State case. It is very thorny and has immense implications.
In this political "off-season" I will be sporadic at best with my posts but I am here!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)