That’s not important to them. I think those in charge could care less about the general welfare of the people, or such things as leadership in technology and research. Consider all the poor Southern and Modwestern whites who voted against their economic interests, valuing the President’s religion, and his promotion of it more than his policies. “Kicking ass” and Bible thumping seem to matter more now, but it’s easy to understand why; such qualities register better with the base instinct of the voters.
Nope … the general economy, general health, leadership in technology … not an issue. Instead it’s faith, “family values,” and laissez-faire capitalism that even Adam Smith would think goes too far. They care more about principles and their political philosophy than outcomes or quality of life; even if the outcome is bad for society as a whole, they don’t care because there is no conflict with their principles. Who cares if people don’t have jobs and adequate health care, as long as they’re going to church , not diddling others of the same sex, and keeping the satanic engine oiled, no matter how poorly it’s running. Who cares if the US is not a leader in technology or education, as long as the Dow and GDP are up.
I’m feeling helpless as well. I may be threadjacking, so I’ll cut it short.
Republicans have a terrrible record with their SCOTUS appointees turning left after they are on the bench. Since his confirmation is a certainty, I say give us time, we’ll turn him to the dark side.
Come now. There are a lot of business lobbyists who have consistently advocated positions that will arguably make pollution worse. They are in effect pro-pollution, though I’m sure not one othem would be so foolish as to come right out and say so.
[Homer Simpson]We can’t conserve energy, Lisa, because whenever we conserve energy, the environmentalists win!"[/Homer Simpson]
Metacom -partisan hack? [sarcasm] Now, there’s a unique and stinging characterization.[/sarcasm] Do you extract such blighting phrases from other works, or do you rely on inspiration? absolute-giving it a rest was the point of my post. The whole no rage left for my umb bit. I’ll wait until you put it together.
On preview: elmwood I think you are correct. There is no substance to their “platform”, but a whole lot of “style”. Appearances matter much more than actualities. How like a bad movie we’ve become.
Yeah, one of the radio commentators this a.m. was remarking how much Sandra Day O’Connor changed during her tenure on the court, from right to left (tho unpredictable). Being on the court doubtless changes people, and not many justices end up knee-jerkers. At least one thing everyone has said about Roberts is that he’s “intelligent”; while this means different things to different people, it does seem to be a good sign…
Rosen argues that the “important distinction is between principled conservatives (who believe in deference to legislatures through judicial restraint) and conservative activists (who are determined to use the courts to strike at the heart of the regulatory state). The activists want to resurrect what they call the ‘Constitution in Exile,’ enforcing limits on federal power, that have been dormant since the New Deal, in part through narrow interpretation of the interstate commerce clause.” We had to expect a conservative from W, but at least Roberts sounds smart, principled, and consistent. We could’ve done a lot worse.
I think with the Rove/Plame business heating up, W wanted to choose someone who wouldn’t stir things up too much–picking a well-qualified, articulate candidate is going to make better press at this point. Things might turn pear-shaped with Roberts after all, but you’ll see no hand-wringing from this leftie quite yet.
Could it be that the interests of justice and the interests of conservatism are much more often at oods than the interests of justice and the interests of progressivism, thus the justices simply respond to the demands of their role once they are freed from the poltiical hegemony of the right?
No, it seems to me like the point of your post was to wallow in exaggerated misery, and perhaps score some sympathy from someone else who enjoys chronic, mindless pessimism.
If you wanted to give it a rest, you wouldn’t have posted that whiny bit of drivel at all.
And what the hell is an umb? You’re too “depressed” to get the word right on your second try, too?
Actually, while you’re just having a bit of a joke, Reuters and a couple of other news sources last night pointed out that this faster-than-expected nomination might serve to do exactly that.
I’m cautiously optimistic. I’m absolutely a Democratic liberal, but it appears that this guy’s smart. And he’s pro-life, but what Bush appointee wouldn’t be? That much was a given. I’m encouraged by his statement about Roe being well-established and he’d uphold it. Not that there won’t be continual attempts to erode it from the pro-life side (there always well be), but those attempts aren’t Roberts’s fault - he only decides what’s brought before him.
The fact that he worked with the team of lawyers who fought over the 2000 election does give me pause. Not so happy about that. But it’s not like that’s out of character for Bush, either.
At least he seems to be lauded as quite capable and very bright. And, as pointed out before, at least he’s got some experience as a judge. There’s potential here.
You know, Bush could have nominated either the Risen Christ or a one-legged leper for the SC position and you libs would bitch about his choice. It doesn’t matter one bit what the candidate’s judicial philosophy is, you’ll bitch simply because *Bush * made the nomination.
Jumpin’ Jesus on a pogo stick, get a grip, will you? All we’ve heard since 2000 is how fucking miserable your lives are since Bush took office. And it’s getting MORE than a little tiresome and annoying. You sound like a bunch of three year old brats squalling and throwing a temper tantrum because you didn’t get your way about something.
