Quote:
Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The one [and only] area where our "big tent" HAS been united is on appointed state' rights/federalist jurists. The putrid decisions [possibly] expanding the Takings Clause and the nonsensical jibberish involving the Establishment Clause will only further embolden the federalist side to insist on new Justices not beholden to Hollywood, George Soros, Babs and the PC police.
People on th right want both Kennedy and O'Connor dead after this term. A bit extreme, I think. But their opinions boggle the mind.
Within the next 6 months, expect the following:
1) Thomas (unfortunately, not Scalia) tapped for CJ after Rehnquist resigns;
2) The Reps to go "nuclear" on the Dems illegal fillibuster tactics, especially after they broke the "compromise" less than 28 hours later by refusing a vote on Bolton;
3) Bush taps - and gets tapped - 2 new SCOTUS Judges by 2007;
4) Stevens and/or Ginsberg both retire due to illness/death right before the 2008 election; It becomes the decisive POTUS issue (more so than Iraq, a nuclear North Korea, renegade China, or the resurgent Soviet Union of non-elected Putin)
FWIW - I hope I'm wrong on #4
|
The tent is cclearly not united. How can a Federalist President force his Justice Dept to pursue a case against states' rights to regulate marijana use within their borders? How is that not directly contradictory to everything states' rights stands for? I know this does not include you, but many in your party are FINOs - federalists in name only. They scream about states' rights on issues regarding religious expression which they favor, but when the federalism would allow the states to do something they don't like, they admit their hypocrisy and scream for federal intervention. You can't have it both ways. You can't cry for the ten commandments on the courthousse steps on one hand and then demand a federal amendment defining marriage on the other. I agree that the states should control drugs, abortion and the definition of marriage. I'm no fan of consistency, but in this circumstance, its the only way to be fair and intellectually honest in the administration of our laws. Picking and chooisng what the states can and can't do based on the insane ideologies of the looniest mouths in your party makes a mockery of the whole states' rights issue. You can't be a full of steamin shit shit hypocrite and advocate anything effectively.
The article in which NR tried to "explain" hypocrisy" is in the recent issue with Mitt Romney on the cover. The article has the word "hypocrisy" in it, so it shouldn't be hard to find.
Threaded Mode