Rambling thoughts on who knows what... Because not everything is as the conventional wisdom would have it...
BLOGS I REALLY LIKE...
OxBlog
Volokh Conspiracy
ProfessorBainbridge MarginalRevolution Patterico
QandO
Powerline
RightWingNutHouse
Ace
Lorie Byrd
PoliPundit
LGF
Wizbang
INDCJournal
JustOneMinute
RightWingNews
Three Sheets
LaShawn
XRLQ
Betsy's Page
OTHERS NICE ENOUGH TO LINK ME...
SortaPundit
Don Luskin
California Yankee
Let It Bleed
TechieVampire
SecureLiberty
BenedictBlog
StopTheACLU
ProteinWisdom
Election Projection
The LiberalWrong
Autonomoussource
RatherGate
HE WHO USED TO LINK ME EVERY NOW AND THEN InstaPundit
AND EVEN THOUGH HE'S USUALLY WRONG...
Mark Kleiman
HE WHO DOESN'T LIKE BEING CALLED A HYPOCRITE The Moderate Voice
Email Steve
![[Powered by Blogger]](http://buttons.blogger.com/bloggerbutton1.gif){kind=small}
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Over at XRLQ, I just finished a comment in which I argued that the Democrats ought not just vote against Roberts, they ought to filibuster him as well...
Roberts on the Supreme Court would be bad news for Democrats. Democrats and Roberts have differing views on issue after issue. And the way Roberts views the role of the Supreme Court is 180 degrees opposed to the way Democrats want the Court to function.
Democrats ought to vote against things (and people) that they think are bad. They ought to use every (legal) trick available to keep (what they view as) bad things from happening. They may not win. But to do otherwise is a betrayal of the people that voted for them.
Just because the WaPo and the LAT fell for the GOP kool-aid about Roberts' intelligence, temperament and fitness for the job doesn't mean that the Democrats have to go along. I know they're in the minority and that there's a limit to what they can accomplish (or, in this case, stop). But being outnumbered didn't stop the Greeks at Thermopylae. Being outnumbered didn't stop Custer at the Little Big Horn. And it shouldn't stop the Democrats from fighting now.
And there's nothing wrong with the Democrats fighting to the last to keep Roberts off the bench. As I am sure all the strict constructionalists out there would agree, if our founders wanted to outlaw judicial litmus tests, they would have included language to that effect in the Constitution.... and the last time I checked, there is nothing of the sort in there... and it is surely not for us to re-interpret the Constitution as we go along, is it?
It's no secret that I don't like much of what the Democratic Party stands for. But I gave them credit and admired them for standing true to their beliefs.... even when it resulted in outcomes not to my liking.
To those Democrats who plan on voting against Roberts, good for you. And for those Democrats who voted in favor of Roberts today, and those who plan to vote for him on the floor of the Senate, I say shame on you! What a bunch of cowards you are...
|
Roberts on the Supreme Court would be bad news for Democrats. Democrats and Roberts have differing views on issue after issue. And the way Roberts views the role of the Supreme Court is 180 degrees opposed to the way Democrats want the Court to function.
Democrats ought to vote against things (and people) that they think are bad. They ought to use every (legal) trick available to keep (what they view as) bad things from happening. They may not win. But to do otherwise is a betrayal of the people that voted for them.
Just because the WaPo and the LAT fell for the GOP kool-aid about Roberts' intelligence, temperament and fitness for the job doesn't mean that the Democrats have to go along. I know they're in the minority and that there's a limit to what they can accomplish (or, in this case, stop). But being outnumbered didn't stop the Greeks at Thermopylae. Being outnumbered didn't stop Custer at the Little Big Horn. And it shouldn't stop the Democrats from fighting now.
And there's nothing wrong with the Democrats fighting to the last to keep Roberts off the bench. As I am sure all the strict constructionalists out there would agree, if our founders wanted to outlaw judicial litmus tests, they would have included language to that effect in the Constitution.... and the last time I checked, there is nothing of the sort in there... and it is surely not for us to re-interpret the Constitution as we go along, is it?
It's no secret that I don't like much of what the Democratic Party stands for. But I gave them credit and admired them for standing true to their beliefs.... even when it resulted in outcomes not to my liking.
To those Democrats who plan on voting against Roberts, good for you. And for those Democrats who voted in favor of Roberts today, and those who plan to vote for him on the floor of the Senate, I say shame on you! What a bunch of cowards you are...
|