Why in the world do people have to be so stupid??
I'm talking about democrats this time...don't get me started on stupid republicans (Tom Delay).
Mr. judge honorable what's-his-bucket Samuel Alito finished sitting for the second day of questioning by the senate and all he got was a stick up his rear by Schumner and bloated pontificating by the very bloated (physically) Kennedy. Which, by the way, if you want conflict of interest, you should look at him and his state of Massachussetts. But I digress...
I am surprised that the firebrands and fat lards of the democratic party continue to obliviate about nothing when Samuel Alito will be confirmed. Why?? Well, because the Republican party has been burned. They've been burned bad by Harriet-I look like the emperor from Star Wars-Miers and the Valery-who really cares-Plame affair that caught Karl Rove just enough to delay return fire about Iraq.
Ok, so I'm in an epithet mood. I just changed jobs and now I teach English (rather poorly). So sue me. But I digress...
The republicans have 55 seats in the senate. Democrats argue about filibustering. They need republicans to break rank for it to work. It won't happen because the republicans are retrenching. They must work together to overcome Tom-I'm an idiot and sleazy-Delay's stupidity as well as Iraq or they will lose seats in the midterm elections this year--and nobody wants to lose their seat, because then they don't get the Senate stipend and free trips to play golf at St. Andrews.
So the republicans won't break rank and Alito, yes, conservative Alito, will be confirmed. What does this do?? Well, two real things:
1. It makes the democrats look like idiots, eroding their power with the crucial moderates and independants in society, thereby effectively negating their ability to steal seats in the elections coming up.
2. The erode their logic base by arguing he's so far outside the mainstream.
Mainstream is not the point of a supreme court justice. If that was it, we'd vote. And it wouldn't be a lifetime position. Has anyone ever met a 90 year old who's in the mainstream?? I haven't. I had grandparents that still called people "colored," for one example. Not mainstream.
The point of a supreme court justice is to interpret the laws reliably and logically, and provide the victorious party which holds the presidency its spoils. THAT is the point of a justice. As long as justice can look at the problem in front of him/her and make a logical sound argument as to why he/she rules the way he/she does, then the law of averages states that in most cases, the 9 justices will provide a ruling that fits the view of the constitution best for that generation. Does it always happen that way? No. Should it? No. For just as we got stupid rulings like Kelo, we also got Brown vs. Board of Education. Neither are "mainstream" for their time.
So, if the left continues on it's bent that Alito isn't mainstream, then next time, when the democrats have the white house (which might well be in two years) and they get to pick a justice that supports full marriage rights for homosexuals (which, by the way, is still opposed by 70-80% of America), they will be open to the same illogical attack that they shot at Alito. And I will laugh it down as well.
For in the law of averages, that hypothetical judge and Alito will influence a result that will be remarkably mainstream.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
There's a huge gap between mainstream America and the "legal mainstream". Legal thinking among academics generally skews way to the left of the rest of the country, and that's worth taking into account here, since the Democrats have been emphasizing his distance from the "legal mainstream".
You know, it's a lot like comparing your or my political leanings relative to the mainstream thought among of liberal arts profs, and noting that we're out of "the mainstream".
I hadn't thought of that--good comment.
I think it just adds to my argument, that the Democrats are really grasping for straws here and opening themselves to a lot of illogical arguments later.
If we acknowledge that legal mainstream is different from regular mainstream, and that supreme court justices are appointed by an elected president and confirmed by an elected senate, who are by nature of their offices held accountable to the people, and their mainstream, then you will rarely get "judicial mainstream" judges appointed because they are outside the regular mainstream. Instead, what you will get are 9 judges to the left or right of the populace's mainstream thought, and therefore ALL outside the "legal mainstream."
Does this line of reasoning hold water??
Post a Comment