See, This is Why It’s Important to Actually Think About Stuff Before You Write It
Let’s see if we can spot the logical flaws in JB Williams’ latest column:
Liberals Commit Political Suicide
By JB WilliamsIt?s common knowledge that even long before Republicans won control of the Executive and Legislative branches of government, Democrats relied upon the Judicial branch to advance their agenda.
Yes, long before the Republicans ran the government, the Democrats used the judicial branch to undermine the power of the legislature that they themselves controlled.
Makes sense so far.
Abortion rights – the secularization of society – affirmative action – limiting the gun rights of ordinary law abiding citizens – while defending the rights of convicted felons – even seeking their right to vote in Presidential elections – promoting a constitutional right to equal stuff in place of unrestricted equal opportunity. All of this exists mostly due to judicial fiat, not any legitimate legislative process.
Hmmm, let’s see here. I’ll give him abortion rights- those were largely established by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade. But let’s look at the other ones.
The separation of church and state is outlined in the First Amendment- you know, the one that says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion?” Affirmative action was first enforced by a executive order in 1964, not by the judiciary. Stricter gun laws have been achieved through legislative initiatives like the Brady Bill. Convicted felons do have rights, believe it or not. Check out the Eighth Amendment, for starters. And finally, if there’s a constitutional right to getting free stuff, I’d really like to know what it is- I need a new stereo, baby!
Yet in the struggle for control over the third branch, overzealous Bush-bashers stepped out on a limb and attacked Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, calling her a ?Bush crony?, a ?private secretary? to Bush ?completely unqualified? for the Supreme bench, setting up a litmus test based road block to her confirmation, before any hearings for advice and consent had even begun.
Yeah, you’re right, JB- we shouldn’t require the President to appoint competent people to positions of power. That’s way too harsh of a litmus test.
Right-wing conservatives sawed that limb off this morning! Harriet Miers withdrew her own nomination this morning. But she did so not because she didn?t have enough support from the left-wing of the minority party, not needed for her confirmation. She did so because it was becoming very clear that her nomination would not have the support of the right-wing of the majority party, without which, there would be no hope for confirmation.
I’m still trying to figure out why this is such a big defeat for the Democrats.
The right-wing element of the Republican Party, those who are not just conservatives seeking a conservative constitutionalist on the bench, but rather those who seek a justice that will be an activist for their agenda, (just as Ginsberg and others have been for the liberal agenda for years), now want more. These folks are the people directly responsible for the Harriet Miers withdrawal.
However, they could not have done it alone, without the help of liberals who were publicly unwittingly doing the dirty work of right-wing conservatives who preferred to lay low in opposition to the President. God bless those unrelenting Bush-bashers!
Yes, I’m sure nominating a full-blown wingnut will do wonders to help the President’s already-rock solid approval ratings.
It?s now clear that the mood of the Republicans has dramatically changed since the Ginsberg confirmation of 97-3. They are no longer willing to settle for a traditional conservative justice who would simply uphold the constitution as written. They now seek to join liberals in the process of actively pursuing their agenda in the courts.
Hey, at least JB’s willing to admit that his party’s controlled by a bunch of lunatics.
Bush tried to seat a new justice without a fight. But Republicans seem eager to have this national debate and equally eager to force a filibuster from the liberal side of the aisle. Sounds extreme, right?
Uhm, yeah?
Not if you put it into proper context.
The left has applied an ideological litmus test to every Republican nominee for years. The days of tolerance from the conservative right are over. They too, now have a litmus test of their own and there will be no more 97-3 confirmations of ACLU lawyers to the Supreme bench. BRAVO!
I remain committed to the belief that the courts are no place for activism from either side of the political aisle.
Oh please. You get a boner just thinking about Chief Justice Ann Coulter…
But it?s about time conservatives who really do represent the mainstream interests of every American, a right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, (not abortion, socialism and free stuff), got into the game?
That should totally be our slogan for 2008: “Democrats: We Like Abortion, Socialism and Free Stuff.” Got a nice ring to it, no?
The days of tolerance from the conservative right are over.
Aw, man, just when I was starting to get used to it.
Aw, man, just when I was starting to get used to it.
I know- and they’d been so supportive of minority rights for so long!
While we’re at it, let’s sponsor this:
The Sadly, No! Center For Wingnuts Who Want To Learn To Read Good and Do Other Stuff Good Too.
It’s genius!
Wait, I still don’t understand how the left-wing made conservative Republicians not back Miers. Is this article supposed to be a koan?
Roe v. Wade was the Burger court, Republican majority. The Warren Court, which decided numerous civil rights cases is also known as the Eisenhower court. Those Democrats were so nefarious they could get the judicial branch to undermine the power of the legislature that they themselves controlled even when the judicial branch was mostly made up of Republicans!
Somebody left an italics tag open. And you call yourselves a bog.
It’s almost like a trammeling of power was written into the constitution, or something.
How DARE those founding fathers dilute power and retard unilateral action?
Idiots like JB aside, Miers’s withdrawal is bad news for us. Bush is going to nominate a wing-nut to placate his base, and if the D’s threaten filibuster then it’ll be the “nuclear” debate all over again.
Idiots like JB aside, Miers’s withdrawal is bad news for us. Bush is going to nominate a wing-nut to placate his base, and if the D’s threaten filibuster then it’ll be the “nuclear” debate all over again.
Bring it. Bush nominating a wingnut will further isolate centrists from the Republicans, especially when they see how much influence the lunatic right like Schlafly and Keyes have over the party.
(And incidentally, I don’t think the wingnuts were the main reason Miers was withdrawn- I think just about everybody thought she was horribly unqualified.)
Seriously, guys, I want a drag-out fight with Wingnut Nation. Once most people see how extreme these fuckers are- i.e., their desire to overturn the right to privacy, which will not only jeopardize abortion rights, but rights to buy contraception as well- they’ll flee the GOP like nothing else.
Please, Mr. President, nominate a raving-ass nutcase to the Supreme Court. Bring. It. On.
Yeah, Harriet started to get into trouble because she wouldn’t stay that she opposed Griswold: the case that established the right of married couples to use contraceptives. I have great difficulty believing that anybody outside the brain-damaged 28% who think Bush walks on water and pees gasoline would support that position.
And, honestly, I can’t wait. I want to see Bush et al squirm and writhe when they are forced to choose between the Focus on the Family crowd and Pfizer…
Then we can all ask why Merck hates ‘murka!
Why do so many of these anti-contraception righties have so few children? Golly, that’s a real stumper.
Three words: Janice. Rogers. Brown. Frankly, I’m afraid that no matter how insane the next nominee is, they’ll breeze through, as long as not the slightest hint of moderation comes into view. When the consequences of this are finally clear, practically every Rethug Senator or Representative is voted out of office–but it’s too late by then. The court is in place.
What I want is, someone who Bush hates to double-dog dare him to nominate Judge Roy Moore. Then Bush will, of course, the fundies will love it, everyone else will hate it, and it’ll be on!
It’s seems silly to focus on just one thing, but the biggest enemy of affirmative action has been the Supreme Court. The legislative and executive branches have had to fight hard to find any kind of affirmative action program that doesn’t violate the Equal Protection clause (at least as this Court understands it). If there’s been judicial activism on this issue, it’s been in conservatives’ favor.
There was a day of tolerance from the Right? I must have missed it.
Most of the time I’m pissed at the Dems for not being more vocal opponents of the wing-nut agenda and having no spine. but for the last few month, keeping their head down and letting the Republican party self-implode has been pretty effective. it limits the ability of the wing-nuts to call the dems “obstructionist”. and the dems can therefore save the political ammunition for the important fights (e.g. the insane lunatic that bush will now inevitably nominate to the SCOTUS)
and the dems can therefore save the political ammunition for the important fights (e.g. the insane lunatic that bush will now inevitably nominate to the SCOTUS)
That’s precisely my thinking. The Dems can say, “Hey, we didn’t blow up the last nominee- the far right did. And now they expect us to put a rubber stamp on whatever crazed winger freak they want?” Bring it, bitches. Bring. It.
It’s seems silly to focus on just one thing, but the biggest enemy of affirmative action has been the Supreme Court.
Heh indeedy. Believe it or not, the justice who’s most often voted to overturn legislation is none other than Clarence Thomas.
The day of toleration from the right? Wasn’t that February 30th???
Let’s see, The white House…check,
the Congress…check,
the Supreme Court…check,
We have no more worlds to conquer, Boo Hoo
Have a nice life,
Your Prez,
W
I think mediamatters has already discussed the judiciary make-up a while ago.
Basically, conservatives DO control the judiciary in every single level except for like one. So about %99 of the judiciary is dominated by conservative appointments. So much for his thoery that liberals rely on the judiciary to get their way.
Can I make a somewhat heretical point? From a strictly cynical political perspective, a sharp turn to the right (i.e. a court that overturns Roe) would be the best thing that could happen to the Dems. In the short term, 25 or 30 states would move to restrict abortion rights (though aside from Texas, they would all be states with relatively small populations, thereby having relatively little impact). But the judicial act would, by itself, take a lot of the steam out of the social conservative movement, and enrage many moderate-liberal Americans. Remember, surveys have consistently — for 30 years– shown 75% support for at least some right to abortion. Those states legislatures that act too restrictively would soon turn Democratic, with abortion rights being reinstituted through political processes, and therefore seen as more legitimate. Seriously, overturning Roe would have little impact on abortion, but would be the first big step toward the establishment of a permanent Democratic majority.
Seriously, guys, I want a drag-out fight with Wingnut Nation. Once most people see how extreme these fuckers are- i.e., their desire to overturn the right to privacy, which will not only jeopardize abortion rights, but rights to buy contraception as well- they’ll flee the GOP like nothing else.
Please, Mr. President, nominate a raving-ass nutcase to the Supreme Court. Bring. It. On.
I hear you on that, Brad, but I have to tell you – part of me is deadly scared of that option. This is the exact same bet that von Papen made when he appointed a certain mustachioed Austrian chancellor of Germany in an attempt to appease his own lunatic right wing. After all, what’s the worst that could happen? Putting him in a respectable position like that would be sure to calm his ass down, wouldn’t it? And if he did continue with his batshit-crazy rhetoric once he was in office, he and his wingnut friends would be shown as total freaks before the whole country, who would rapidly move to distance themselves from him, right? And Germany had an older, more strongly established liberal constitutional democracy than any other country in Europe at that point.
Making the bet you want to make requires having a hell of a lot of faith in the American populace. And this is the same populace that by and large cannot find their own state on a political map of the U.S. I’ve spent the last year wrestling with the terms of the bet you propose, and I have to say honestly that I really don’t know which side to lay my money on. This is a thoroughly nervewracking time to be a history major, I tell you.
Jillian, that’s quite true, but then again, USA has already had its reichstag moment, and another one might be harder to achieve, since I think we can assume that very substantial segments of the military and law enforcement sectors are looking out to prevent one (despite the many rolling purges going on, which are trying to stack all the top echelons with bushies).
Democrats: We Like Abortion, Socialism and Free Stuff. Also, Bush sucks.
PS:Michael Moore isn’t so fat.
Democrats: We Like Abortion, Socialism and Free Stuff. Also, Bush sucks.
PS:Michael Moore isn’t so fat.
jillian – “And Germany had an older, more strongly established liberal constitutional democracy than any other country in Europe at that point.”
Is Britain not part of Europe? Also, gosh, Germany didn’t even exist before 1871. Are you excluding all constitutional democratic governments in Europe before that time?
Incidentally, Poland adopted the first written democratic constitution in Europe in 1791, eighty years before Prussia conquered the rest of Germany…
“right-wing conservatives who preferred to lay low in opposition to the President.”
Exactly. Like George Will who cleverly hid his opposition in a column on the opinion page of the Washington Post.