 |
| Main Menu
|
 |
| Online
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Now, today, the Republican-led Senate and House have stripped away Habeus Corpus protection. Now the freedom and justice that we stood for, that we founded this nation on, that kept us noble through civil war, world wars, cold wars, and the threat of global nuclear annihilation - is gone.
Now we've decided we're not going to be noble any more - because terrorism scares us too much.
Those soldiers who died in WWII fighting Nazis - died swearing allegience to the Constituion - how does this treat their sacrifice? How do you think they would feel, that we signed away nobility because we were too, too scared after being attacked by a bunch of thugs who took over some planes?
Your Republican party did this. Did this to America, to us and to YOU.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Posted by: Super
on Thursday, September 28, 2006
|
22 Comments 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I am someone who conservatives would probably characterize as being "of the Left". I also do not "wish God didn't exist", and I am also not trying to "erase him from our public history". Also, I am not a Communist, am not gay, and I'm not interested in sacrificing American kittens to Satan while shooting up on welfare.
Putting words and actions in other's mouths, is a sure way to exaggerate misunderstandings. And there's too much of that as it is.
I'd like to know what is specifically meant by "leftists". I've seen this term used as a blanket description for widely differing sets of values and beliefs. From Anarchists, to moderate liberals, to faithful Christian liberals, moderate Democrats, and even conservative Democrats like Harry Reid.
Some would call essayist Paul Krugman conservative, because he has a basic faith in the power of the marketplace to improve human lives. Some would call Hillary Clinton a conservative because she is on record approving of some conservative policies, including the Iraq invasion. Some would call George Bush not really conservative at all, but instead a radical extremist. In fact, conservative Pat Buchanan has basically said as much, in a book he wrote about the Bush administration a couple of years ago.
I do feel that, because of our increasingly divided times, Leftist is used more and more by conservatives to tar moderate beliefs that conservatives disagree with. I'd like to avoid that with specifics and clarity...
For those of you who may be Christian conservatives, I can tell you right now, with no polling - among my "Left" friends, not too many go to Church, and not that often. And my conservative friends and family don't do much Church either. I can't speak for them, but for me, this is because I never felt God any more strongly in church, than outside it. Even less inside it, really. I've felt the presence of God much more in libraries. In forests. In dancing with happy people.
But I have no wish that God did not exist, and no interest or desire in erasing God from public history. And as far as I know, none of my friends or family do, either.
And I don't know of anything in the Bible that says that's "Real Christians go to Church". Or that the indwelt Holy Spirit can *only* be found in a church, either. Certainly nothing said by Jesus.
I think a lot of liberals want to help the poor, help children, help those in prisons. A lot of things Jesus himself would want to do. I think a lot of those defined as Leftists are concerned core Christian issues, that some conservatives who call themselves Christians are simply not.
The terms "leftist" should mean a bit more than "disagrees with me", doesn't it?
Otherwise it would be more honest just to use the phrase "you there, who dares to disagree with me."
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Posted by: Super
on Tuesday, September 26, 2006
|
37 Comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Follow the Commander in Chief, no matter what...as long as he's Republican.
After Clinton's re-election, I remember Republicans going after Clinton with every bit of ammunition they could find.
And in fact when we militarily intervened in Kosovo, the Republicans continued and even stepped up their hatred of Clinton - even though he was now the Commander in Chief and we had soldiers on the ground.
Democrats, liberals, an increasing number of conservatives, and more and more political independants feel President Bush and the GOP that put him in office are doing awful things to this country and it's future.
And we feel that by trying to stop the actions of the Bush administration and his GOP, we are putting our country first - because they are bad for America.
We can disagree about whether the Democratic, liberal, and independent assessment of the facts is correct - but suggesting the entire opposition to the Bush administration is solely due to unreasoning hate is, well, unreasonable. For that to be true, on 1/20/2001, 1/2 of the country would have to have suddenly and completely gone insane.
If the Democrats had *not* argued and fought with George Bush and the Republican Senate, there would have been:
a) no Homeland Security Agency
b) no improvements in airplane security
c) no investigation into the intelligence failures of 9/11
d) shamefully slashed budgets, including health care, for our veterans
e) our military, while in combat, would be even *more* pathetically underequipped, than they currently are.
That's what results from constructive dissent in a Democratic nation - leaders are pushed to bring us things that work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Posted by: Super
on Friday, September 08, 2006
|
44 Comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Good ol' Wikipedia has the main facts on Deism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
I'd like to note the specific language in the Declaration of Independence - it specifically embraces Deism.
"...the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."
Thomas Jefferson wrote that, and all the others agreed to it.
From
http://history.hanover.edu/hhr/h...hr/ hhr93_1.html
Jefferson's specific personal beliefs:
"Jefferson...rejected most Christian doctrine [and] did not believe in the divinity of Jesus but he viewed him as a "human teacher."
The importance of "Nature's God":
"Nature's God" was clearly the God of deism in all important ways. That Jefferson included God in the "Declaration of Independence" is very significant because it helped lay the foundation for a civil religion in America...the United States was unique because all religious beliefs were respected. People were more concerned with "moral conduct rather than dogma." So Jefferson helped create a society in which different religions could coexist peacefully because of the emphasis on morality over specific belief.
So, the signers had different individual opinions as to Christianity in general. But the basic principle they signed onto from the beginning, and which was then further built into the structure of our nation as it developed, is that the state will in no way recognize one church as being more right than others - and that the state will in no way let any church dictate *state* policy on the basis of that church's beliefs.
King George, among his many other powers, was also the legal head of the Church of England. And many of early Americans had fled from the force of persecution this combining of Church and State made possible. Once here, some, like the Puritans, sadly didn't learn their lesson fully, and just turned to persecuting others.
Declaring independence from King George and future tyrants like him, means not only keeping power away from unelected leaders - it also means preventing any church or religion from having formal political power.
I feel that and the expression of Deist phrases in the Decl. of Independence, show the seeds that would eventually flower in the secular framing of the Constitution, and the explicit and formal separation of Church and State shown in the First
Amendment.
There is just a very clear distinction that must be made, between being under God, and under Church. We may or may not have our rights from being under God - that's all faith. But we certainly will not retain those rights, if we are under a combined Church and State.
It occurs to me that what most Christian conservatives see as an attack on their religion, is liberals fighting for what we feel makes this country work - that the United States has no officially recognized religion that is involved directly in making policy.
The liberty that our country now enjoys is a direct result of keeping the powers of church and state as far apart as possible.
And so, on Independence day, we celebrate the success of this policy, very wisely engaged in from the beginning by our founding fathers. It is part of what has made this country so great, and part of what I in particular love about the USA.
I say, "May God continue to bless America, and may God continue to save us from a combined Church and State."
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Posted by: Super
on Wednesday, September 06, 2006
|
8 Comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Our invasion of Iraq has killed anywhere from 30,000 to 100,000 innocent Iraqis civilians. We don't even know how many for sure, because the Pentagon claims not to keep track of civilian deaths.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ast/ 3672298.stm
One group, http://iraqbodycount.net/ , adds up the number of reported deaths reported in the media. They count a current minimum of 22,787 reported. No one has disputed this.
Unreported deaths are almost certainly higher.
Clear statistical evidence and the opinions of scores of bipartisan, impartial foreign policy experts with decades of professional experience and personal dedication, shows that this occupation has made worldwide terrorism much, much worse.
Yet Conservative Christians still support the occupation of Iraq, and the President who caused it, and has horribly mismanaged it to boot.
The only conclusion I can draw is that Conservative Christians are just as willing to kill strangers as everyone else.
Bush and Blair's policies have not been effective in reducing terrorism. This is simple fact. From the State Department's own figures, worldwide terrorism has increased both in the number of attacks and the deadliness, every year since we invaded Iraq.
This 'flypaper' strategy clearly is not working. If a treatment does nothing but continue to make the disease get worse, and you really want to get rid of the disease, at some point you have to try another way to get rid of it.
Does that mean we should just pull out of Iraq? No. We need to stabilize it first.
But, realizing what you're doing isn't working, and trying to develop a different strategy, is not bowing down to terror. Quite the opposite - it's trying to find a way to eliminate it, that will actually work.
Almost all of the Middle East doesn't see our occupation of Iraq as having anything to do with the War on Terror. Which is another huge part of the problems caused by our invasion.
They see our invading Iraq as yet another Christian crusade to kill Muslims and take their land. And this is part of what is enabling Al Qaeda to recruit in greater numbers and form attacks that increase in number and deadliness.
If invading Iraq was actually doing being effective in reducing terror, I would support it. But if we are serious about eradicating, or even reducing, terrorism, we need another strategy. This way that we are going about things is simply not working.
Listen up, Christian soldiers - there's a difference between being "a Christian nation" - a nation defined by Christianity - and "a nation with a lot of Christians" - where Christians are a large group of the population, among others.
Our founding fathers were wise enough not to define us as a Christian nation, even though we were mostly Christian by population back then.
Second, Bush, the chief leader of this war effort of our nation is, in his own words, a born-again Christian. Almost all of the members of the Senate and Congress are Christian. Almost all of our military's leadership are Christians.
So it's just not accurate to say that Christians are peace-loving people. Christians kill plenty of people.
The facts say today's policies aren't reducing it for now, that's certain. And the logic of how they're supposed to reduce terrorism, is twisted.
Personally it seems like the latest in a series of moving goalposts, for justifying the Iraq war. First it was WMD. Then it was Saddam may some day have WMD. Then it was Saddam supports Al Qaeda. Then it was Saddam supports other terrorists and maybe Al Qaeda. Then it was watch democracy flower in the middle east, and terrorism will go down. Then it was the 'flypaper' theory.
I don't think Bush went into Iraq with any real intention of fighting terrorism, to begin with. I think that was his rationale, and he figured everything else would work out. Well, it hasn't.
Terrorism is unique among crimes, in that it is politically motivated. Remove the political motivation, and the crime decreases. Increase the political motivation, and the crime increases.
The crime may never disappear - but if it's jumping like this, if it's more than doubling worldwide in the course of a year, and getting deadlier all the time, that seems to me to be a clear message, that we need to change strategies.
As for the oft-mentioned talking point, "But we haven't been attacked at all since 9/11!" By that yardstick alone, Clinton's policies were much more effective. The only attack on US soil under his watch, only killed 9 people.
But besides that, the Bush State Department's own figures - which they had to be forced to release - show worldwide terrorism tripling in the past year, and at the same time getting deadlier.
Even if you remove all the attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan, the number has more than doubled.
That's why I say that Bush's policies have not been effective. The facts indicate that they haven't been.
Those of you who are Conservative Christians don't believe me - just look at Bush's own statements, you can see his public reasons for invading Iraq shift, as each previous one is discredited. That's not my opinion - that's his own statements, on public record. He has continually attempted to rewrite history. That causes me to trust him even less.
During the buildup to the Iraq invasion, I was personally sure there were no WMD's. Then Bush invaded. I thought to myself, well, maybe he actually does know something I don't. Maybe he is doing the right thing, and I'll just see how this turns out.
No WMD's.
It's not a pleasant thing, to think the leader of our nation is doing things wrong. It's actually pretty frightening. I'd like to believe otherwise. That's just not the evidence I see.
This attack on London is a tragedy caused by terrorism. Terrorism is not an opinion - it is *real*. If we want to reduce these sorts of tragedies, we have to pay attention to the *real facts*.
Sigh.
Do I really have to post a list of links documents now, showing how often the Bible has been used to justify things that are horrible, and theories that just didn't make sense?
Some self-defined Christians might like to think that they are willing to die for their faith, but not to kill. While "Jihadists" or "Islamofascists" are willing to die in order to kill for theirs....therefore Christians have the higher ground.
But the facst are that there are many American Christians who really believe this is a war of religions, and that to win they have to kill anyone who calls their God 'Allah'.
What else am I supposed to think, when I see that some soldier has scrawled "New Testament" on a missile, and the picture's proudly displayed on the Pentagon's website? What am I supposed to think when Bush's hand-picked general to pursue Bin Laden, says that the enemy is Satan?
These are individuals, yes. They're also Christians, who somehow manage the trick of believing in Jesus Christ, singing hymns and 'love thy nieghbor', and also believe in killing for Christianity.
And there have been so many examples, historically, of Christians killing people specifically for their faiths. The Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials, forced conversion of American Indians...it should just be beyond question.
It's a dangerous mistake to think that *any* group is so pure as to be above killing, whether it's mine, yours, or someone elses, simply because of their philosophy. That mistake always leads to denial, and eventually to murder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Posted by: Super
on Wednesday, September 06, 2006
|
9 Comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Here's a great, conservative inflammatory 9/11 quote:
“The ACLU’s got to take a lot of blame for this [9/11]...The abortionists have got to bear some burden...the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way – all of them who have tried to secularize America – I point the finger in their face and say, ‘You helped this happen. [9/11]’” - Jerry Falwell
Nuts sure come in all shapes and sizes, don't they?
I find it interesting that Winston Churchill had more than a few warts. He had at least one long-time mistress in his life, and was a borderline alcoholic.
He was also unquestionably an incredible orator, and a brave, able, effective, and hard-as-nails leader when his country needed him.
All people are complicated, and those who lead us even more so.
Falwell did apologize for this stupid remark. It's scary to me that he would even think and then publicly state, in a prepared sermon, such a thing in the first place. It goes a bit beyond stupid to me; it shows an underlying philosophy of blaming anything bad on people he doesn't like, even in the total absence of any logical connection. But, whatever. He did apologize.
I just wanted to post something ridiculous from a right-wing loony, 'cause I'm getting a little tired of a loudmouthed fool like Ward Churchill being quoted, seemingly to tar all liberals who disagree with Bush by association. Maybe that isn't the intent, but it sure comes across that way. If that's going to be done, at least use someone like Noam Chomsky. Agree or disagree with Chomsky, but there's no arguing that he's a brilliant academic...Ward Churchill has about the same credibility as a bum yelling at the bus.
I think most of this country's political left and right can be united in that feeling towards Ward.
Just to make it totally clear: Ward Churchill doesn't speak for "the other side", be it liberals, Democrats or the left, any more than Jerry Falwell speaks for conservatives, Republicans and the right.
If it weren't for Churchill's convenience to the Right, as a shrill symbol of the Left, he would be just as ignored as he deserves to be.
*No one* of any import on the Left *or* the Right is arguing that action *shouldn't* be taken about terrorism.
The differences of opinion of the Left and the Right, are solely about what are the best ways to go about fighting terrorism. About which are the best strategies and tactics. Not, whether or not we should fight terrorism. That's a given from the get-go.
I just want on record, that Ward Churchill in no way speaks for the Left, any more than Falwell does for the Right.
There are even some people so deluded that they look at Ward Churchill as a hero, just as there's a lot of people who look at Jerry Falwell as their hero.
All I'm saying is, neither of their expressed views towards 9/11, are anywhere near the average views of the Left or the Right. So I'm just making sure, that neither of their statements should be taken as such.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Posted by: Super
on Wednesday, September 06, 2006
|
9 Comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The real main issue here behind the SCOTUS nomination, is whether or not Bush will nominate judges who will roll back Roe v. Wade.
So, I feel it's unfair and inaccurate to say "the Left" will demonize *anyone* Bush nominates. All Bush has to do to avoid Democrats, liberals and independents going ballistic over his nominee, is to nominate a moderate who states that he will support Roe v. Wade as it stands.
Which Bush almost certainly will not do, because of a) what appears to be his personal beliefs, and b) that the GOP will lose the support of Christian conservatives, who they've been heavily reliant on for over 20 years now.
As a side note, what does the phrase "the Left" really mean, as used currently? The phrase has become so vague, to me.
Is Paul Krugman a Leftist? Is Hillary Clinton a Leftist? Is Harry Reid a Leftist?
In my original, pre-Roberts' nomination scenario, I predicted that Bush would nominate Alberto Gonzales for the SCOTUS. This nomination would have brought up his record. There's a lot that would come from the following questioning which moderates on both sides would find objectionable. Specifically as regarding Gonzales' definitions of torture.
Finally, the Democrats would let him pass without filibustering. (As they later did with both Roberts and Alito.)
When Rehnquist quits, it will be the GOP's last chance to prove to the pro-Life activists who've been such loyal and aggressive supporters of the GOP, for the past 25 years or more, to prove that the GOP will fulfill.
To do this, Bush will have to nominate a judge who will pass the litmus test -let's call it what it is - that he will likely invalidate Roe V. Wade, or so water it down as to be unenforceable.
At this point, I lost hold of my logic. I had the right points, but didn't follow them through. I originally felt the Dems wouldn't filibuster, but changed my mind; and I knew Gonzales was pro-Choice, and knew that this would be unacceptable to Bush's most loyal Christian soldiers.
So much for predictions. That's why we have reality instead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Posted by: Super
on Wednesday, September 06, 2006
|
9 Comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
What follows is another distilled set of statements on political principles, that I originally got into right after the nomination of John Roberts for the SCOTUS, at http://christianconservative.blogspot.com .
********
Personal opinions or the rule of law?
Our Democratic Senators want someone who will apply the Rule of Law - as defined as: not trying to overturn or water down a) Roe V. Wade, b) the Federal power to enforce environmental rules, via the EPA and other ways, c) anti-trust laws, d) rules and traditions against using Federal funds to support private religious initiatives.
This is because the values the judges rule from are *specifically and solely* the spiritual principles woven into the Constitution.
Otherwise you have anti-Constitutional religious ideology being inserted into the mix of the Constitution. And that is dangerous.
For a judge to overturn the laws and sets of laws I mentioned specifically, would to a Democrat be going against the Rule of Law.
This shows how slippery a phrase like "Rule of Law" is. Valid laws are often just laws that we ideologically agree with. This goes for liberals and conservatives both.
Court cases set a precedent, and as such is defining what people can and can't do - so that's the definition of law I'm using here.
The phrase "Rule of Law" can mean quite different things, depending on the ideology of the person who's speaking it. And "bad law" and "bad court decision" are also highly subjective. To me, an acceptable judge leaves those laws I mentioned alone, and rules on future cases *without* an eye to
a) undermining or weakening the effect of or the enforcing of those other previous laws,
b) approving other laws specifically to work against those laws.
We'll see what Roberts looks like in the coming months...
It's up to him, now, to prove his worthiness for the Supreme Court. I hope and expect that he will satisfy all the answers that will now be put to him without evasion, and with honesty and forthrightness.
What little I have heard about Roberts, is that he has a long record as a lawyer of opposing Roe V. Wade. This makes me think that Roberts is a tacit gift to right-wing conservatives. But I'm very willing to wait and see what comes out of his confirmation hearings.
Certainly the religiously ideological, hard right-wing conservatives, including the extremely anti-choice "Family Research Council", are very approving of Roberts. This makes it more likely to me that he will rule in ways hard-right conservatives will ideologicall approve of.
Bush has chosen not to propose a moderate. He's proposed someone who appears to be an ideological right-wing conservative.
If Roberts is an ideological right-wing conservative, then Bush has made ideology the centerpiece of this nomination. Thus Democrats will respond in kind.
Roberts will of course consider himself as not ruling in a partisan fashion...But so did Sandra Day O'Connor, and Thurgood Marshall. We can disagree with their results, but from their words they all felt they were upholding the Constitution.
The question becomes, how does Roberts define what does and does not fit in the Constitution?
We'll see how Roberts fits on all these points, in the upcoming months that he is interviewed by Congress for the SCOTUS' new job opening.
The Constitution should and does evolve. That's all the Constitution has done. That's what Amendments are for.
If Roberts promised not to reverse any part of Roe V. Wade, and to interpret any cases that do *not* involve Roe V. Wade in a "strict Constitutionalist" fashion - would conservatives support Roberts for the SCOTUS?
Would they support a "strict constitutionalist" SCOTUS nominee, who said s/he would not alter the current state of Roe V. Wade?
If Roberts made the promise, sincerely, that he would not in any way undermine Roe V. Wade, and would as justice support the right to choose abortion as it stands, and in all other cases was a strict constitutionalist - would you support him for the SCOTUS?
Do conservatives approve of Roberts for SCOTUS, because they hope he'll overturn or weaken Roe V. Wade? And is the condition of being a "strict constitutionalist" really a means to that specific end?
That's why I'm asking questions that separate the two. To find out where your commitment is. *If* you hypothetically had to make a choice between either overturning Roe V. Wade, or having a strict constitutionalist interpretation that left Roe V. Wade standing - which would you prefer?
I ask this, because I think that a lot of conservatives hate Roe V. Wade, and other federal laws, because of conservative beliefs and ideology. I never hear these "strict constitutionalist" and "state's rights" objections over laws that conservatives approve of. So from that it appears that conservatives are only raising hypothetical constitional objections to Roe V. Wade and other laws, because that helps to camouflage the ideological nature of these conservative's objections.
Roberts' work in Roe V. Wade -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp...1601049_pf.html
"..a brief he wrote for President George H.W. Bush's administration in a 1991 abortion case, in which he observed that "we continue to believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled."
Roberts won the case -- Rust v. Sullivan -- in which the Supreme Court agreed with the administration that the government could require doctors and clinics receiving federal funds to avoid talking to patients about abortion."
He also worked for the Bush team in the original 2000 election - although to be fair, probably every worthwhile constitutional lawyer in the US went to Florida that year.
Still, hence some of my reluctance to accept Roberts as a truly impartial judge in this and other matters, concerning differences of conservative and liberal opinion.
Those Conservatives who say you are against Judges making the law -
How do you feel about the Supreme Court decision that shut down the 2000 Florida recount, by overruling the Florida state supreme court's decision to continue counting? Was that strict constitutionalism?
Those Conservatives who feel the Federal government should never ever affect State's rights - how do you feel about the Bush administration taking California to court, to try force the state of California to *lower* its emission and pollution standards to Federal levels? Do you feel that is a violation of state rights?
I see such selective interest in "strict constitutionality" and "state's rights". It appears that these are big problems when they can work againt laws conservatives don't like - and not at all problems for laws conservatives do like.
So if a SCOTUS case occurred, where the result was that all states were *forbidden* to allow abortions, which would be a clear violation of state's rights - judges making law as you say, with no pre-existing Congressional legislature - would you approve of that?
I may be painting with a large brush - but, tell me, how do you feel about those situations that I mentioned? Because it seems to me that the positions taken by conservatives in those cases, very specifically violate the ideas of "strict constitutionality" and "state's rights". And yet I see no conservatives of note having any problems with them, on those or any other grounds.
From those two cases I mentioned, and others, what I see is conservatives decrying legislation emanating from the bench that they disagree with. And with legislation emanating from the bench, or attempts to violate state's rights, where conservatives like the results, somehow those aren't problems.
It would be great if Roberts was actually an 'originalist' - if "originalist", "strict constitutionalist", and "state's rights" aren't principles that will only be applied to laws and precedents that conservatives don't like.
Such as, for perfect example, Roe v. Wade.
There is legislation coverning national elections, not court enacted legislation, but actual legislation from congress and signed into law by a president....legislation that came into conflict with state's rights. Hence it went to the Supreme Court. And the 5-4 SCOTUS decision was that federal power trumped State's rights.
Why wasn't this violation of state's rights a problem for conservatives?
As for the California case:
California adopted its own car pollution standards before the Federal Government did, in the 1960's. Nearly 40 years later, the Bush administration attempted to make it so that California could not enforce their own standards, and that *only* the Federal government could set and enforce these standards. This was an attempt to overturn established precedent that worked fine, and it was an attack not only on California's state rights, but would have set a precedent for all state's rights, with the ultimate effect of making pollution worse. (!!) Fortunately it failed.
How you as conservatives feel about it, as a conservative, is precisely the point.
These "strict constitutionalist" and "state's rights" arguments only seem to be applied to laws that conservatives don't like. Laws that bend or break these principles, which happen to be laws that conservatives do like, don't appear to have any such problem.
And that's what makes me suspicious when I hear that Roberts will "faithfully interpret the Constition". I'm suspicious that will means "We don't like Roe V. Wade, and we can say it's not in strict line with the Constitution".
In other words, it's a tactical masking of the real intention, under the guise of constitutionality.
Have a little faith in Liberals. We don't just oppose Bush because we hate him or think he's evil. We mostly just think his policies are bad for America.
My suspicions could go away a little, if some conservatives would say they care more about "strict constructionism" than Roe v. Wade. Such that, if it was a choice between strict constructionism than Roe v. Wade.
Is there any self-defined conservative here who will say that?
I'm asking you to state which is more important, because I want to find out which of the two you're more committed to.
I'm asking this because I want to know, is the overall principle of "strict constructionism" really what matters to you?
Or is this commitment to "strict constructionism" merely a tool in the larger effort to overturn Roe v. Wade?
I wonder if Christian conservatives approve of Roberts, because they view Roberts' nomination as a step to overturning Roe v. Wade.
But Christian conservatives do not say this. Instead they say they approve of Roberts because he is a "strict constructionist".
There doesn't necessarily have to be an ulterior motive. But I am suspicious that there is one, because the *only* time I hear these consitution-based arguments from conservatives, is in reference to laws that conservatives don't like. For example, the Bush trampling of State's rights that I brought up earlier. The attempt of the GOP Senate to overturn the Florida courts in the Schiavo case, is another example. Suddenly, when a conservative cause is on the line, state's rights just don't seem to be brought up.
Do you conservatives want a judge who will apply "strict constructionism" to ALL cases - even if it would result in a decision you don't agree with? Specifically one you care very much about - Roe v. Wade?
Because that's the only way you can tell if a principle really matters to someone - whether or not they will follow that principle when faced with a difficult choice.
If "strict constructionism" and "Roe v. Wade" were hypothetically not linked, and you could only choose one and not the other, which would you choose?
A similar ethical choice is presented, in the way that the Conservative doctrine of "State's rights" was violated by the SCOTUS' overruling of the 2000 election in Florida.
IF you had to choose either the constitutional arguments ('strict constructionism', 'originalism', or 'state's rights') or 'Roe v. Wade' on the other, WHICH would you choose?
Because some day will come when this doctrine of 'originalism', and/or 'strict constructionism', will go against Christian conservative wishes, regarding some law or action. It's statistically certain. This has already happened several times with State's rights. And I have heard nary a single complaint from conservatives, when States rights have been trumped in Conservatives' favor.
So I feel that for Christian Conservatives to claim the Constitutional high ground in RvW and other cases, is a bit disingenuous. I feel that Christian Conservatives are using these Constitutional arguments to further their agenda; and if these Constitutional arguments went against soemthing that Christian Conservatives like, these arguments would just disappear.
Now, it's fine for Chistian Conservatives to pursue their agenda. It's a free country, and we all benefit from people who care, engaging in an open debate.
And I'm not saying that what you see as violation of the Constitution isn't deeply troubling to you also. But I just want to be clear about it. What I see as really driving this whole thing, is trying to overturn RvW. Everything else is secondary.
Doesn't mean your agenda is wrong or right; or that it's the only agenda or set of goals you have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Posted by: Super
on Wednesday, September 06, 2006
|
9 Comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Other Stories
|
|
· The GOP loves you like an abusive husband.
(Sep 28, 2006)
· Hey conservatives - thanks.
(Sep 28, 2006)
· "Leftist" and other near-useless terms
(Sep 26, 2006)
· Obey the Commander-in-Chief - unless he's a Democrat
(Sep 08, 2006)
· WBP Rocks!!!
(Sep 06, 2006)
· Christianity, Deism and the Roots of the US Constitution
(Sep 06, 2006)
· Onward Christian Soldiers! Denail Brigade reporting.
(Sep 06, 2006)
· from cc - Our policy (winston churchill vs. ward churchill)
(Sep 06, 2006)
· Conservatives V. Gonzales V. Roe V. Wade
(Sep 06, 2006)
· Senate, Congress, the Judiciary, and Political Agendas
(Sep 06, 2006)
|
| Categories Menu
|
|
| Poll
|
|
| Login
|
|
| Past Articles
|
|
|
|
