No insult intended. Your comments in #3 above, about sheathing the sword, came after a paragraph where you identified both republicans and democrats in the plural, mentioned the left and the right in the aggregate, and ended with reference to “…us as a liberal party.”

So, you might see how I took your meaning to be general in nature. At most it’s only a misunderstanding. I didn’t put words in your mouth and you haven’t been insulted.

But, how about my suggestion that you address the racism Dems have used to smear Justice Thomas, Secretary Rice, and Lt Governor Steel. I don’t want to argue about it with you. But you brought up the KKK and republicans. That’s how the issue came up. It’s objectionable and I want it to stop. Racism has no place in the public political debate.

However, I think there is a larger group of Republicans/conservatives/libertarians for whom faithfulness to the original intent of the Constitution and its limits on government authority is the central issue. This group wants a Supreme Court which will not act as an unaccountable super legislature and impose its policy preferences on the nation, but rather as a neutral arbiter of the Constitution and the law.

This latter group wants brilliant, knowledgeable, experienced Justices on the Supreme Court, regardless of any specific decisions they may make regarding abortion. As long as the USSC follows the Constitution instead of making things up, it will get things right most of the time. And that would represent a huge improvement over the recent history of the Supreme Court.

That’s why the Harriet Meirs nomination had people threatening to jump off ledges. The cronyism of her selection, and her inexperience and stealth judicial philosophy and questionable competence as an appointment to the highest court in the land, and the availability of so many far superior candidatees, made her a terrible choice, irrespective of her views on abortion or any other policy matter. Coming on the heels of the excellent nomination of John Roberts, Meirs constituted a horrible disappointment and let-down.

Samuel Alito, like Roberts, has all the qualifications and qualities to be a superb Supreme Court Justice. That’s all I want, and I think that’s all that most people want, exclusive of the two groups who are fixated on abortion. And that’s why the attacks on Alito aren’t getting any traction.

If President Bush will stay on track and just keeping “packing” the Supreme Court with superior nominees like Roberts and Alito, the far-left special interest groups and the Democrats in the Senate who are closely entwined with them will continue to find themselves impotent to block confirmations.

What happens if Alito and/or Roberts vote to uphold Roe, Lawrence, et al? Will conservative activists and bloggers praise their judicial restraint and respect for precedent, or label them Souters?

This is why there’s no fight. Because everyone knows that Roe/Grutter/Bakke/Atkins/Roper/all the other liberal precedents are safe,

Why do you think the left cares so much about stare decisis? because they’re now fighting a holding action. the plan is to allow people like Alito and Roberts who won’t mess with the status quo and then get a Dem elected president and appoint people who will further the status quo.

The right got suckered once again.

RaiNews 24’s lies about “white phosphorous flares” used by US Army at Fallujah were peddled to everyone (AdnKronos, AGI, Corriere della Sera, L’Unità, Repubblica) and they are the opening title at Google News. But this “terrible chemical weapon”…

First, I was pointing out that Patterico could probably sheath his sword regarding Alito’s nomination in particular. I made no such outlandish statement that the deep divisions between left and right are absolved, so he could let down his guard in general. Your weak attempt to put words in my mouth is insulting.

Second, I said that the KKK statement would be unfair; but you’re going off about it anyway? You’re just being over-the-top unreasonable.

Third, I can’t imagine how an argument between you and me about racism would be productive. Not all republicans are racist and not all democrats are racist – so what would be the point? If you have to go nuclear just because I used the words “KKK” and “republicans” in the same sentence, then that’s your problem – not mine.

Permit me to doubt.

Tillman, you ostensibly call for a cease fire yet you use the opportunity to cast stones. In one sentence, you say republicans point out “…the most extreme liberal positions” and use them to beat “…democrats over the head with them.” And, in the next sentence you say such efforts are “…about as fair as claiming that all republicans are in the KKK …”

Well, Tillman, that’s not especially persuasive. Sort of like neglecting to mention the outrageously unfair Dem tactic of calling GWB ugly names, or using racist attacks on Justice Thomas, Secretary Rice, and Lt. Governor Steel, and neglecting to mention it’s Dems who are in bed with the Kluckers. Check with KKK Kreagle, Robert Byrd, Democrat Senator from West Virginia.

If you want to call for calm, you can start with a little honesty and call for an end to Dem racism.