The New York Times has an unintentionally revealing headline “Democrats Warn Bush on Choosing Successor to O’Connor”.
It’s quite clear that the Democrats want to determine the successor to Justice O’Connor. Apparently reading the Constitution is too strenuous for them, since they’ve managed to ignore both the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and Article II, Section II, Clause 2 of the Constitution in the space of less than two weeks.
The audacity of the Democratic Party is boundless. President Bush has the Constitutionally-enshrined right to select Justices to the Supreme Court, just as President Clinton did. Justice Ginsberg, who is far, far to the left of the American political mainstream passed the Senate by a vote of 97-3.
The horrendous Kelo decisions has illustrated how vitally important it is to get a principled defender of basic Constitutional principles into the Supreme Court – and if the Democrats don’t like that, then the elected Republican majority should tell them to go to hell. The GOP has already compromised its basic principles in the ultimately futile hopes of achieving political comity once this year — that foolish notion will be smashed soon enough.
Politics is a slightly more civilized form of warfare. It’s time for the Republicans to defend the values that made this country what it is. President Bush needs to find a solidly conservative nominee who will defend rather than ignore the Constitution, and the Senate Republicans should support that nominee to the utmost. It’s going to get ugly, but the value of a party is not in merely playing it safe but in transforming American politics and society for the better.
It may be a political risk for a President and a political party with approval ratings in the high-30’s to low-40’s to nominate somebody who 60% of Americans oppose….and then to wave the finger in the face of the majority who wants a moderate in the court. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was nominated in a different time under a different circumstance. First of all, Clinton’s initial nominee (Lani Guinere???) was torpedoed by conservatives before she got a vote, so Ginsburg was the Plan B. Secondly, she was replacing Blackmun, another liberal vote, so the stakes were irrelevant, just as they would be if it was Rehnquist we were replacing instead of O’Connor. Thirdly, the nation wasn’t anywhere near as bitterly polarized then as it is now.
Even if the GOP is able to maintain its stranglehold over the executive and legislative branches by bare margins, it’s moments like these where your arrogant intoxication of power could blow up in your face if you push too far, as it appears you and you ilk intend to do. The blue states WILL secede if it comes down to taking orders on how to live their lives from people who don’t pay taxes. At this point, I think secession might be just what the doctor ordered for this country.
Wow, that is the most singularly stupid thing you’ve ever said, and that’s one hell of a feat? Seccession? Red states don’t pay taxes?
Just more proof of the delusional nature of the Democratic Party…
Jay, with rare exception, the red states take in more government loot than they pay in in taxes. Your state of South Dakota would be among the top of the list of “handout states”. When the blue-staters who pay for South Dakota highways, Medicare outlays and crop subsidies get their sacred freedoms hijacked by the people whose livelihood they singularly prop up, what incentive is there for them to continue identifying themselves as Americans? Do you really expect a different outcome when war is declared on the values of 49% of Americans. If Roe vs. Wade is overturned, America’s second civil war begins….that’s a guarantee.
Well, that’s the same kind of crap I used to hear from Michigan Militia kooks. Throw in the black helicopters and the “Zionist Occupation Group” and you’d have yourself a lefty version of The Turner Diaries, wouldn’t you?
A government that moves this fiercely against the will of nearly half of its residents is one that will not be tolerated. The red states have the whip hand in elections, but their political power is meaningless if they’re not propped up the financial generosity of the very blue states they despise, and whom you believe should be on the receiving end of a “slightly more civilized form of warfare.” If blue voters have enough backbone to fight back with some ferocity, and I suspect the revocation of Roe v. Wade will be the 2005 equivalent to the Rodney King verdicts in Compton, red-staters are gonna find their paradise isn’t what it’s cracked up to be.
A government that moves this fiercely against the will of nearly half of its residents is one that will not be tolerated. The
red statesNorth have the whip hand in elections, but their political power is meaningless if they’re not propped up thefinancial generosityagriculture of the veryblue statesSouthern states they despise, and whom you believe should be on the receiving end of a “slightly more civilized form of warfare.†IfblueSouthern voters have enough backbone to fight back with some ferocity, and I suspect the revocation ofRoe v. WadeDredd Scott will be the20051860 equivalent to theRodney King verdicts in ComptonBloody Kansas,red-statersnortherners are gonna find their paradise isn’t what it’s cracked up to be.Attempting to undermine my argument, you make a curious choice of analogies. By replacing just a few words, you have managed to frame my argument within the very cultural divide that inspired the original Civil War. Mocking my prediction would be alot more convincing if you were NOT so easily able to interchange 1861 era historical conflicts with those of 2005.
Nice to see how seriously you’re taking your mentor’s long forgotten call to “unify the country” amidst talk of “warfare.”
Mark, what’s your source for ‘red states get disproportinate shares of tax money?’ I’ve always thought exactly the opposite, particularly since my state (pretty-damn-red Indiana) seems to consistently come out on the short end.
Chris, Lawrence O’Donnell from MSNBC (at least I think that’s the alphabet soup where he hails) was profiling it after the election, showing that all but a handful of red states take in more federal dollars than they pay out in taxes, in some cases substantially more. Perhaps industry-heavy Indiana would be one of the handful that give more than they take, but I’m guessing all those crop and ethanol subsidies add up alot faster than non-agriculture Indiana would suspect.
i apologize for not reading your posts back and forth mark and jay. from the artile i wanted to ask what conservative republicans are doing to influence the vote. is there anything we can do legally?
also, is politics really more civilized thn warfare? (playing devil’s advocate) some would argue that politics can institute legislation that garuntees oppression for an extended amount of time while war stops when the fighting is over.
Sending (paper) letters to key Senators never hurts. E-mails and faxes don’t count for much, but if key Senators start getting scads of letters coming into their offices they tend to take notice – especially if the majority of those letters are polite and articulate.