Patterico's Pontifications

12/29/2011

Only Republicans Will Name Decent Justices

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:56 pm

And — pay attention — hardline conservatives sometimes name weak justices while milquetoast conservatives sometimes name strong constitutional conservatives.

Let’s start with the premise outlined in the title. Name me the last decent justice named by a Democrat. The answer is Byron White, named by President Kennedy nearly 40 years ago. JFK also cut taxes. Those were different times, folks.

Now, for the justices named by Republicans. I think we can agree that Ronald Reagan is our Gold Standard for a Republican president in recent times, whereas tax-raising George H.W. Bush is likely the weakest Republican of modern times.

And Reagan gave us Antonin Scalia and Robert Bork, solid nominees both.

But he also gave us Sandra Day O’Connor and (God help us) Anthony Kennedy. Bad and worse. (And yet still better than any Democrat appointee since Kennedy.) So having a solid conservative in office is no guarantee of uniformly solid justices.

Is a weak Republican a guarantee of weak judicial nominations? Well, the biggest Supreme Court disasters of recent times were David Souter (a George H.W. Bush pick (although you can thank John Sununu for that one) and John Paul Stevens (nominated by the never-elected Gerald Ford). So that would seem to support the idea that weak conservatives nominate terrible justices.

Except that the best Justice sitting on the Court is probably Clarence Thomas, and he was a George H.W. Bush appointee.

What have we learned from this brief examination of recent Supreme Court appointments? That having a Republican in office could mean disaster, whether he is solid or weak — while having a Democrat means certain disaster.

So look. I’d rather have a Reagan over a Pappy Bush any day. I’d rather have a Rick Perry over a Mitt Romney any day. But you can bitch and moan about Mitt Romney all you like, but if you think Obama’s justices would be better than Romney’s then you’re either exaggerating for effect, or you’re not to be taken seriously. I understand the backlash against Mitt. I really do. But to refuse to vote for him if he’s the nominee, and thereby surrendering to Obama, is in my view little different from raising your leg and pissing on the Constitution.

I saw a great quote on Instapundit yesterday from one of his readers:

You know, I just wish that my friends on the Right—whom all say that they detest the policies of Barack Obama and his supporters—would just soldier their way through this next election. I’m afraid they will sit it out, in a electoral fit of pique because the nominee isn’t conservative enough or is too conservative or whatever.

After we get this gang (and I use that word intentionally) out of the Oval Office, then, my friends on the Right can form their Third Party, or push a candidate that they feel is “conservative enough” and so forth.

2012 is too important. And sitting out the election, or carping about a particular candidate…well, it just makes Axelrod smile. And it smooths the path not toward “Four More Years,” but “Four Worse Years.”

That’s a very good point. I would just add that, if we surrender control of the Supreme Court to Democrat appointees, we are looking at far more than four bad years. We’re looking at decades of Constitution-shredding hell.

We can’t let this happen, folks. We can’t.

212 Responses to “Only Republicans Will Name Decent Justices”

  1. How much more scrutiny do Supreme Court nominees receive now as compared with 20-30 years ago? I would think that we are less likely to be surprised by a justice’s behavior nowadays.

    aunursa (0687cf)

  2. You are of course correct on the importance of which president makes Supreme Court nominations. One vote made the difference in the Heller and Citizens United decisions. One vote could make the difference in the Obamacare ruling.

    aunursa (0687cf)

  3. A quibble:
    I believe that JFK wanted to cut taxes, but his tax-cut bill didn’t move until after he was shot.

    And, “Whizzer” White was a wonderful Justice.

    AD-RtR/OS! (140483)

  4. A second term will bring us a bid to move Goodwin Liu from the CA-SC to SCOTUS if the opportunity presents itself, and absent GOP control of the Senate.
    I’m sure there are one or two others out there who are just as bad for Teh Won to consider.
    Afterall, Sotomayor and Kagan aren’t real high bars to exceed, but can easily also be high-points in Obamster Jurisprudence.

    AD-RtR/OS! (140483)

  5. Look, just because the GOP is the loyal opposition doesn’t mean its going to stay that way. Lincoln was Whig elect to state legislature when he won the national election.

    Just because a leper is appointed doesn’t mean the Senate Judiciary doesn’t rubber stamp them or eviscerate a decent one into withdrawing.

    We will live, my daughter will survive. CA and IL won’t but that has nothing to do with POTUS.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  6. There’s a difference between raising your leg and pissing on the Constitution and realizing that anyone you cast a vote for will raise his leg and piss on the Constitution – and subsequently refusing to be an accomplice to that.

    Leviticus (dd1d7b)

  7. Are we really going to argue about what color piss we want rained on our Constitution? Piss is piss.

    Leviticus (dd1d7b)

  8. Another question to ask the crazies on the right: wouldn’t there be a far greater chance of Obamacare being ruled unconstitutional if Obama hadn’t won and gotten to name two justices?

    steve (254463)

  9. The hell with that, we need eight solid years to start the process of undoing the damage of Obama and Bush.

    Make your third party after the mess is mostly cleaned up, please. We don’t need President Hillary in 2016 just because the more conservative factions say “well, we toed the line in 2012, now we’re outa here!”

    Ronnnnn Paul. Doctor. (ea26b9)

  10. “California and Illinois won’t survive.”

    – Gary “Nostra” Camus

    Colonel Haiku (c26934)

  11. Inconceivable, Steve.

    Colonel Haiku (c26934)

  12. How are the crazies on the right responsible for Barcky winning in 2008, Steve?

    JD (5e8dfe)

  13. George H W Bush named Clarence Thomas because politics was tied up in it. There was a plan for a while going back into the Reagan Presidency to name somebody black to succeed Thurgood Marshall, so Bush probably just picked from that narrow field. Which may have had only one name on it.

    Romney would be likely to name someone like Anthony Kennedy rather than Alito, and could even name someone like Souter but he could also name others and there’s no chance with almost any Democrat and that’s where someone like Lawrence Tribe woudl come from.

    All the bias is for liberal justices.

    Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb)

  14. Obama replaced two liberal justices named by Republican presidents.

    Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb)

  15. Romney would be likely to name someone like Anthony Kennedy rather than Alito, and could even name someone like Souter but he could also name others and there’s no chance with almost any Democrat and that’s where someone like Lawrence Tribe woudl come from.

    Any of these R candidates would be “better on judges and justices” than Obama, Hilly Clinton, etc..

    Colonel Haiku (c26934)

  16. Comment by steve — 12/29/2011 @ 1:29 pm

    Illogic alert. Illogic alert. Illogic alert.

    If Obama had not been elected, Obamacare would not have been ruled constitutional. Or unconstitutional. You do see why, don’t you?

    McCaincare, otoh, would have not have been ruled constitutional because the GOP establishment would fall into lockstep supporting whatever a GOP president decided to do. As they did with Medicare Part D. And therefore no one would have challenged McCaincare in court, even though it would have likely been worse than Obamacare since the GOP establishment would have supported it.

    JBS (60aae7)

  17. JD: they claim they sat home. And note that the crazies have to claim that they did so; had they turned out in force for McCain, the only way McCain could have lost is by (as was the case) not winning enough of the middle… showing that the middle is more important than the fringe.

    JBS: first point, sure, no Obama, no Obamacare, no challenge to Obamacare. On your second point, no one would have challenged McCaincare in court? Tell Cuccinelli that, I’m sure he’d be surprised to know the only reason he challenged Obamacare was because it was signed by a Democrat. And it is just ridiculous to argue that a GOP program would have been worse than a program written entirely by liberals. As bad as some GOP programs have been, they’ve all been better than the liberal alternatives.

    steve (254463)

  18. Another question to ask lefty romneyturd steve-Does anyone think Romney will repeal Obamacare?

    Romney is just another obama-lite except for the fact he loves Israel and sees nanny statism as the evil it is.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  19. Leftyromneyturd. Wow. What can I do but bow down in awe of your obviously superior rhetorical skills? I just hope you didn’t have to tax your brain too hard coming up with such a witty rejoinder.

    steve (254463)

  20. Yes and I hope you don’t have to tax your brain too hard coming up with a comeback involving my mom.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  21. Steve–the GOP establishment would have lined up behind whatever McCain came up with; whatever pushback there might have been would have been far weaker, and without the cooperation of the GOP establishment. Which means a lot of the objectionable items that were left out of Obamacare in an effort to bring Republicans on board (futile, obviously, but it was done) or backpedaled or left fuzzily in the details, would have been in Mccaincare because there would have been no effective opposition, and whatever opposition there would have been would have been suppressed by the GOP establishment.

    I’ve always thought that it was telling that McConnell gave his primary reason for opposing Obamacare as seeing in the battle to defeat it a good way to make Obama a one term president. You would think he would have mentioned that he opposed it because Obamacare was a really bad idea–but that wasn’t his motivation, apparently, because he didn’t.

    jbs (1b86f1)

  22. “Which means a lot of the objectionable items that were left out of Obamacare in an effort to bring Republicans on board”

    jbs – I don’t remember the above part. I remember Republicans being left out of negotiations and Democrats bribing their own side to get enough votes to get the thing passed.

    What are you talking about?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  23. What are you talking about?

    Sorry Jbs gotta dumb it down for Romneyrocks.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  24. Well, Patterico, you tried. Tell me again how this isn’t a “purity of essence” issue?

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  25. There’s a difference between raising your leg and pissing on the Constitution and realizing that anyone you cast a vote for will raise his leg and piss on the Constitution – and subsequently refusing to be an accomplice to that. . . . Are we really going to argue about what color piss we want rained on our Constitution? Piss is piss.

    Cute but nonresponsive.

    I argue that an R may or may not screw up the nominations while a D absolutely will. So the dog piss analogy goes more like this:

    Fido absolutely will piss on the Constitution, and Rover might. You refuse to vote for Rover because he might.

    If that’s what you’re doing, you might as well lift your own leg and piss on it yourself. Because it’s going to end up getting ruined anyway.

    Patterico (1c6e81)

  26. What I find most interesting about this, Patterico, is how the people who are so rabid about this generally know, well, not very much about the details of the issues they claim inflame them so.

    Sort of like the people who love Obama, even as he does things he himself used to oppose.

    Can’t we all agree, again, to “purify” the “movement” after Obama is out of the Oval Office?

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  27. So raising property taxes on the middle class is what the unions want to line their pockets in Nassau County?

    Sorry for the O/T.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  28. Furthermore, I have never been part of a Presidential election where I was enthusiastic about the person for whom I voted. It has always been about the “least bad” person for the job.

    When Reagan was running, he was viewed quite differently than he is now. Especially during his re-election. And he had issues with “litmus test” topics that folks get so riled up about today.

    But he was a whole lot better than Carter.

    There is an awful lot of childish name calling, personal attacking (even of family members), and what I can only call ego-puffing going on on this topic, here and elsewhere. We all need to be on the same boat: get the current administration out of the Oval Office, and writing books and making speeches.

    But heck, what do I know? It seems like a lot of people posting here are just experts.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  29. SJ: how can or why would you ever hope to purify the movement when the number of purists (however that is defined) is too small to attain critical mass? What’s the benefit of getting relegated to the sidelines while the other side (by definition, everybody else) gets to do what they want?

    Since there aren’t enough purists to be able to both win elections and enact their agenda, I’d think the better strategy would be to welcome those who are slightly less pure. Why not accept getting at least some of what you want instead of none? Why, if you’re anti-tax, would you exclude those who are also anti-tax but impure on some other position?

    steve (254463)

  30. Well, the point of the post is well taken, but the whole Constitution has pretty much been wrung inside out by pulling it through the Inter-state Commerce clause already.

    Half our federal and case laws should be demolished.

    It is a shame to say that our Constitution is a parody at the moment. The chickens are already loose.

    Jim (67cacc)

  31. Romney would be likely to name someone like Anthony Kennedy rather than Alito

    George W. Bush was more likely to nominate someone like Harriet Miers than Sam Alito. And in the 80s he might have gotten away with it. After the advent of the Internet, opponents of Miers — and I proudly count myself among them — revealed problems with her nomination in a rapid-fire fashion, leaving him no choice but to backtrack and name somebody better.

    If Mitt screws up, we can pressure him. We have no leverage over Obama.

    Patterico (1c6e81)

  32. Well, the point of the post is well taken, but the whole Constitution has pretty much been wrung inside out by pulling it through the Inter-state Commerce clause already.

    There is something to that, and it started during FDR with Wickard v. Filburn, still one of the scariest decisions on the books.

    But it still matters who is there. A lot.

    Patterico (1c6e81)

  33. Both steve and Jim (sadly, in the latter case) make good points.

    I think some people have a “burn it all down” sentiment, thinking that a “purer” nation will “rise from the ashes.”

    I don’t think so. And even the most ardent of those folks seems to shrug off the horrific costs of such a course…even if it worked out, “Atlas Shrugged” style.

    Oh, well. I guess that makes me not an “Outlaw!” and a “squish” and “rino” and all kinds of clever faux tough guy things.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  34. It is a shame to say that our Constitution is a parody at the moment. The chickens are already loose.

    The chickens are being choked in the town square, courtesy of the Obama/Dimocrat-sanctioned Occupy crowd.

    Colonel Haiku (c26934)

  35. I seriously seriously doubt a cowardly poofter like catalog model Wall Street Romney can beat Obama once his media joins the fray in earnest.

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  36. brave Sir Happy said
    no to blowfish he favors
    spicy Thai fishsticks

    Colonel Haiku (c26934)

  37. say fishsticks three times
    fast you will appreciate
    happyfeet’s dilemma

    Colonel Haiku (c26934)

  38. I keep wondering what precisely makes Mr. Feet “brave” and not a “hootchie.” You know? I only bring this up because he literally cannot help saying those things, or attacking people who aren’t even running. Each election cycle. Weird, huh?

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  39. And it’s nice to see Mr. Feet actively helping Obama’s media. Again, I would add.

    Because that’s brave. And not-hootchie-ish.

    Outlaw!

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  40. today was special cause of my new year’s resolution is to not eat out for lunch for a whole year, which is a very long time indeed

    so we went to oki-dog! I never been before my whole life… it’s in West Hollywood just over the hill on Fairfax

    it started in 1970 and it’s something of a time warp to visit but anyway we got an oki-dog and an oki-burger and a very intriguing vegetable burrito… also we got chili cheese fries

    it was all freaking delicious and well worth the trip

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  41. I like it when you talk about food.

    About clown-car uteruses, not so much.

    Maybe you will pledge to have a cilantrocentric New Year?

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  42. Mitt Romney and the Rasmussen Numbers… you know who this helps!

    “My first question is about these rather stunning numbers from Rasmussen, which show Romney leading Obama by 6 points among likely voters –45%-39%– with former Speaker Gingrich and former Senator Santorum 10 points behind the president, 37%-47%. That is quite an electability gap and I open the interview by asking the former Massachusetts governor what he attributes that to. We also cover the president’s credibility gap, the slide of Egypt towards Islamist extremism, his expectations in Iowa and the Keystone XL pipeline.”

    http://www.hughhewitt.com/blog/g/083df91d-8a01-4fa0-8b2c-a23eb20a1389

    Colonel Haiku (c26934)

  43. this is a big ask already about the lunchings

    but dinners are still ok it’s just that dinners don’t break up the boring bits of the day

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  44. so we went to oki-dog! I never been before my whole life… it’s in West Hollywood just over the hill on Fairfax

    I bet those are some colorful doggies…

    Colonel Haiku (c26934)

  45. But to refuse to vote for him if he’s the nominee, and thereby surrendering to Obama, is in my view little different from raising your leg and pissing on the Constitution.

    *******

    Who here has made that argument?

    madawaskan (89a442)

  46. they’re in burrito-form! wif pastrami!… and chili!

    it’s very fascinating how they roll it to where it’s compartmented with a dog and chili in one and a dog and pastrami in the other

    the oki-burger is also a burrito, but it’s more like a ground beef casserole… delicious and it had the chili too, in just the right measure, and was very home-cooked texas-tasting… reminded me of a southern living casserole recipe

    the vegetable burrito has sweet slightly crunch cabbage and onion and … it was hard to pin down, but very very tasty and easily a meal itself

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  47. *crunchy*

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  48. O’ Connor was not “bad”, in fact she was very, very good. Her apprehension of the limits of procedural searches everyone ought to read

    Sarahw (3c17d8)

  49. And on the contrary, Thomas is not an appointee to crow about.

    Sarahw (3c17d8)

  50. I’ll grant in contrast to Kagan and Sotomeyer, he is a paragon of judicial temperament and legal scholarship….

    Sarahw (3c17d8)

  51. Um…madawaskan, you are reading the threads, right? There have been several who say they will refuse to vote for a particular candidate against Obama.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  52. Ok, I don’t get that part, Thomas has written certainly some of the best decisions, probably
    in the last twenty years.

    narciso (87e966)

  53. “Cute but nonresponsive.

    I argue that an R may or may not screw up the nominations while a D absolutely will. So the dog piss analogy goes more like this:

    Fido absolutely will piss on the Constitution, and Rover might. You refuse to vote for Rover because he might.

    If that’s what you’re doing, you might as well lift your own leg and piss on it yourself. Because it’s going to end up getting ruined anyway.”

    – Patterico

    There is no logical connection between the first half of your argument and the second. You lay forth a premise, which is fine… and then you state a conclusion, without arguing how it stems from that premise. What is the connection between refusing to vote for someone who might piss on the Constitution and pissing on it yourself? How is the one as culpable as the other? To say “if you do X, you might as well do Y” is to beg a question – to veil the meat of an argument which I would like to see laid out in explicit terms so that we can discuss it point by point. In fact, I think it’s critically important that the argument does get discussed point by point, because I don’t think any of this country’s problems are going to be solved so long as the argument you’re advancing is prevalent.

    I understand the argument, of course – that since we have this ridiculous two party system, a non-vote for one sh*thead is a vote for the other; but I reject as self-defeating the idea that someone seeking to do right by avoiding wrong is as culpable as an active, intentional wrongdoer. There’s a reason intent matters in, say, criminal law; a non-vote for one sh*thead may be an actual cause of the election of another, but to treat that non-vote as a proximate cause is lend an air of moral rightness to participation that our system no longer deserves.

    Leviticus (dd1d7b)

  54. I agree, Patrick.

    Anita Busch (a025dd)

  55. I suppose I should more accurately say that there’s no logical connection between the first half of your argument and the second as it’s currently stated; there is of course a logical connection more broadly, even if it’s a connection I find tenuous and objectionable. Should clarify that.

    Leviticus (dd1d7b)

  56. I understand the argument, of course – that since we have this ridiculous two party system, a non-vote for one sh*thead is a vote for the other

    You do not understand the argument.

    You’re making a good faith effort, and you’re part of the way there. But you’re missing an important part.

    See if you can restate it more accurately.

    Patterico (1c6e81)

  57. Don’t forget that JFK also appointed Arthur Goldberg to SCOTUS. Goldberg started contending that capital punishment is unconstitutional, and started pushing for new unenumerated rights under the Ninth Amendment. White and Goldberg were very different justices.

    Andrew (37e8a7)

  58. It’s less of an argument, than an instance of abuse,
    we saw how ‘Poppy’ gave us Souter, because Rudman
    and Sununu vouched for him, Ford picked Stevens for reasons passsing understanding, and the less said
    of Blackmun, who brought to our long national nightmare, the better.

    narciso (87e966)

  59. There have been several who say they will refuse to vote for a particular candidate against Obama.

    I thought I read most of the last thread on this subject, and I read this thread.

    I tell you what when an issue to me was paramount-winning the wars- Michelle Malkin and a few others were all too ready to scream Impeachment t a critical time over issues near and dear to them.

    Patterico might think you can have the same leverage over Romney but the internet is not what it use to be and Michelle Malkin and a few others have lost credibility.

    That’s what happens when you go to DEFCON Eleventy to easily.

    madawaskan (89a442)

  60. too easily.

    madawaskan (89a442)

  61. Now that:

    “…That’s what happens when you go to DEFCON Eleventy to easily….”

    is funny. In an ironic sense.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  62. everybody use your inside voice and practice active listening

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  63. I thought the soccer scrum over Miers was over blown, but that Gang of 14, almost mandated that choice,

    narciso (87e966)

  64. Insisting people STfU and demanding they support a candidate that does not reflect their politics is a lousy strategy for victory. Blaming said lousy strategy on someone else is equally lousy.

    JD (318f81)

  65. Some people think a candidate should be given a vote. Others think that the candidate should earn it. And others put party ahead of principle. But those who do not are mocked for purity.

    JD (318f81)

  66. IIRC I think the first time they went screaming Impeachment! was over dock security.

    madawaskan (89a442)

  67. “I’m happy to stand by the things I believe,” Romney told Fox News. “I’m not going to change my positions by virtue of being in a presidential campaign. What we did was right for the people of Massachusetts. The plan is still favored there by 3:1 — and it is fundamentally a conservative principle because the people take personal responsibility rather than turning to the government for free care.”

    this is not a man who wants my vote even a little

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  68. -And the Harriet Miers thing was spearheaded by David Frum who said that Harriet Miers wasn’t anti-abortion enough and now….

    David Frum has a whole website dedicated to how Republicans should really drop that “anti-abortion” stuff.

    There’s your real irony.

    madawaskan (89a442)

  69. Mitt Romney is as authentic as a Korean in a snowstorm crying at Kim Jong Il’s funeral.

    madawaskan (89a442)

  70. Actually that’s insulting to the Koreans.

    madawaskan (89a442)

  71. No labels is founded upon the idea of labeling those that do not share their views as extremists fringe crazies, lime steve would call them.

    JD (318f81)

  72. that dock security thing absolutely shattered malkin’s credibility like when you’re a CW character and you throw a brandy snifter into the fire for dramatic emphasis

    a shrieky shrieky ass-showing baboon of a woman

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  73. happyfeet

    You gotta way with the words.

    madawaskan (89a442)

  74. Have a great New Year, folks. Maybe 2012 will bring less rancor.

    JD (318f81)

  75. OK. How about:

    1. Like it or not, we have a two party system.

    2. A failure to vote for [insert Trending GOP Candidate here] will increase the probability that Obama wins the presidency in 2012.

    3. Anyone who consciously fails to vote for the GOP candidate (for whatever principled reason) realizes that their non-vote increases the likelihood that Obama wins the presidency in 2012.

    4. Therefore, anyone who consciously fails to vote for the GOP candidate would rather increase the likelihood that Obama is elected than vote for the GOP candidate, and, ultimately, when the rubber hits the road

    5. Anyone who consciously fails to vote for the GOP candidate would rather see Obama elected than vote for the GOP candidate.

    6. Obama will piss on the Constitution.

    7. Therefore, anyone who consciously fails to vote for the GOP candidate would rather piss on the Constitution than vote for the GOP candidate.

    Leviticus (dd1d7b)

  76. demanding they support a candidate that does not reflect their politics is a lousy strategy for victory

    Telling them they shouldn’t support the nominee is a better strategy for victory?

    In any event, there’s no demanding. Patrick and others are making the case that is to our collective advantage to support the nominee, and even if it is someone with whom we don’t agree on 100% of the issues. You’re free to ignore their advice.

    steve (254463)

  77. Maybe here, no not really, can we stop burning strawmen,

    http://tomflocco.com/fs/Sensenbrenner.htm

    narciso (87e966)

  78. Guess who did go there, though;

    http://blog.mises.org/4756/ron-paul-predicts-impeachment/

    narciso (87e966)

  79. Leviticus: I’d modify it to modify “Anyone” to read “Anyone who lives in one of the few states that is truly up for grabs”.

    For the majority of people who live in a state that is guaranteed to go one way or the other, they get a pass, they can make whatever protest vote or non-vote they like…. just as long as they show up to vote for the other GOP candidates running.

    steve (254463)

  80. and even if it is someone with whom we don’t agree on 100% of the issues. You’re free to ignore their advice.

    Comment by steve — 12/29/2011 @ 5:04 pm

    And just what are Romney’s core issues? He flip flops so much, that you can’t tell where he stands from one minute to the next. He is democrat one minute, and then Repub lite the next. We call them folks wishy-washy where I come from, and learn not to business with ’em.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  81. Mr. Feet just cannot help himself:

    “…a shrieky shrieky ass-showing baboon of a woman..”

    Why not just call her a “mashed up bag of meat”?

    Courage!…I mean, Outlaw!

    And you were the guy who thought folks were getting overly personal about Shirley Sherrod?

    Please, back to your oki-dog.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  82. F*ck that noise. An omission is only culpable where there’s a concurrent duty. You owe a duty to your country; you don’t owe any duty to support a particular politician, ever. That would defeat the republican purpose altogether.

    If you have a genuine, good faith belief that the best way to help our country is to vote for [whoever], then you should do it as a matter of duty. If you have a genuine, good faith belief that the best way to help our country is to refuse to vote for (whoever), then you should do that as a matter of duty too.

    Leviticus (dd1d7b)

  83. You left out Nixon’s abysmal pick of Blackmun (who proved unqualified).

    Kevin M (563f77)

  84. He ain’t Obama. As much as I would like him (or any nominee) to share more of my thinking, that alone is good enough for me this time around.

    steve (254463)

  85. If you have a genuine, good faith belief that the best way to help our country is to refuse to vote for (whoever), then you should do that as a matter of duty too.

    And if you conclude that refusing to vote for Romney if he is the nominee is the best way to help our country, then you have a truly warped sense of what is means to help.

    steve (254463)

  86. And just what are Romney’s core issues? He flip flops so much, that you can’t tell where he stands from one minute to the next. He is democrat one minute, and then Repub lite the next. We call them folks wishy-washy where I come from, and learn not to business with ‘em.

    It t’aint my bidness POA, but do they allow book-learnin where y’all come from? Can ya read? Each of the candidates have documented their positions on various issues and that information is available on each of their web-sites and on various political sites.

    Colonel Haiku (c26934)

  87. Steve likes his purity test better.

    JD (5e8dfe)

  88. Colonel – Mitt’s positions are written in pencil. Perry’s are written in crayon.

    JD (5e8dfe)

  89. Leviticus,

    It is your #6 that I think gives short shrift to the importance of the argument I am making.

    In what sense will he (really his justices) piss on the constitution? What will be the long lasting importance of that?
    How likely is it that Republican nominees will do the same?

    Patterico (1c6e81)

  90. No, I didn’t, I just didn’t want to go into detail;

    and the less said of Blackmun, who brought to our long national nightmare, the better.

    narciso (87e966)

  91. “It t’aint my bidness POA, but do they allow book-learnin where y’all come from? Can ya read? Each of the candidates have documented their positions on various issues and that information is available on each of their web-sites and on various political sites.”

    – ColonelHaiku

    hahahahahahahahaha…

    Yeah. Okay.

    Hmmm, I see that each and every candidate is decidedly in favor of both freedom and prosperity. That’s good, cause I wasn’t gonna support any of those anti-freedom types…

    Leviticus (dd1d7b)

  92. I would never vote for Wall Street Romney and Miss Mittens better understand that people voted against Obama and that should he win, he hasn’t received a mandate for the pursuit of his cowardly and whorish state-glorifying policies – he should just smile like the pretty catalog model he is and be a good little placeholder until the day comes that Team R can produce someone respectable.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  93. Patterico,

    I do understand that argument. I do.

    But I think – despite the severity of any abuse that you may fear – that you are thinking small potatoes.

    The most fundamental premise of our Constitution is that the people are sovereign, and that the government serves their will. The greatest abuse of the document is to allow the people’s supremacy – their voice – to be subverted to the self-serving ends of their supposed representatives. It’s the purest corruption of the system, and the one that we should fight most furiously to avoid (or, more accurately, to reverse).

    It’s a matter of our fundamental dignity as a self-governing people. To consciously loose our hold on that principle is a greater abuse of the spirit of the Constitution than any politician would care to dream up, and it’s one that we really would be culpable for, in a direct, proximate sense.

    Leviticus (dd1d7b)

  94. Black Jesus, JD! Cut Perry a break, will ya?!?!

    Colonel Haiku (c26934)

  95. Let me alter the hypothetical to ridiculously overemphasize the parts to which I think Leviticus is giving short shrift.

    (Before I do so, let me state clearly that, based on past interactions, I have the highest respect for Leviticus and his sense of fairness and ability to reason. I understand where he is coming from and want to see if I can get him to see where I’m coming from.)

    So:

    Let’s say the building is burning. Leviticus’s most treasured infant, whether it be a niece, nephew, sister, brother, or cousin, is inside.

    I am told I can choose one of two firefighters to save the infant.

    Goofus will certainly fail to save the infant due to his laziness, lack of courage, and general lack of character.

    Gallant might save the infant, but might screw it up.

    I am angry with Gallant based on his past fuck-ups, and angrily refuse to decide.

    If I fail to make a choice, the default choice will be Goofus.

    I choose not to decide, making my Grand Moral Choice that I will not actively participate in a corrupt system that forces me to take responsibility for a flawed firefighter.

    Leviticus’s treasured infant dies, but I get to Hold My Head High, having Maintained My Principles.

    OK: it’s a ham-handed example. But it makes a point. Which, to belabor it, is this:

    One can choose to prioritize one’s refusal to take part in a system they believe is flawed. That, I believe, is Leviticus’s point.

    Or one can take part, under protest, arguing that the consequences of failing to act are so dire as to make inaction irresponsible. This is my argument.

    I believe it truly matters who is on the Court. That the meaning of our Constitution is up in the air. There is a grand struggle between those who would properly apply it, and those who would trash it.

    The balance of power is thin. The margin for error is nonexistent. We cannot lose at this moment in time.

    We have been lucky that Obama has replaced only liberals. In the next four years we will not be so lucky. The consequences of inaction are beyond repair.

    As the rock band Rush once said: “If you do choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.”

    Patterico (1c6e81)

  96. Our comments are crossing. Let me also ask Leviticus these questions:

    1) What do you hope to accomplish by sitting out the election?

    2) How do you think you can solve the Constitutional problem you have identified?

    Patterico (1c6e81)

  97. Rick ain’t runnin’ to be a judge on the Supreme Court and he ain’t memorizing every guldurn case!

    Colonel Haiku (c26934)

  98. Perry’s coming out of this in substantially worse shape than he started. Same as Herman Clown. And Huntsman is become this guy.

    Michele with one l has definitely proven she can tamp down her baser instincts, so she’s coming out way ahead of where she started.

    Santorum still has that nasty google problem.

    Ewwwww.

    The jury’s out on Mr. Newt still.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  99. Short-shrift?

    To hell with Perry’s First Amendment rights..he’s a double dipper!

    madawaskan (89a442)

  100. google problem?

    Is it bigger than a bread box?

    madawaskan (89a442)

  101. Patterico: you are pretty young to remember “Highlites” with Goofus and Gallant.

    What happens with examples like the one you posed is that others will become uncomfortable, saying that your choice you set up is unrealistic.

    And they are right: the actual situation is far more dire and far reaching.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  102. Patterico,

    I can see where you’re coming from, absolutely. It’s just that I believe that the nature of our electoral process matters even more than something as important as who’s appointed to the Court.

    In the terms of your hypothetical (and this won’t make total sense in those terms, because a firefighter isn’t an elected representative), my argument is that being forced to choose either of those firefighters will kill that beloved infant on the spot, before either firefighter steps foot through the door.

    And of course it’s not quite as bad as all that. But it’s getting there. We’re getting to the point where out candidates are dictated to us, and there’s a positive correlation between choice and freedom.

    So:

    1) I hope to preserve my dignity as a citizen of a one-time republic.

    2) You know my answer to this one, because I’ve been harping on it forever. There’s no better place for free market principles than the realm of political ideas and parties; our system is split into two markets, and each of those markets is run by a self-serving cartel. You have to break the cartels before you can get back to optimal operation of the market.

    Leviticus (dd1d7b)

  103. It’s good to talk to you again, by the way. It’s been a while.

    Leviticus (dd1d7b)

  104. Sweet Cheesus!!! Poor old opressed Mittypie can’t catch a break.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  105. oppressed*

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  106. Who wrote your dang book, Governor Perry?

    “Asked by Ken Herman, a columnist with the Austin American Statesman, for clarification on whether he knew what the case concerned, Perry responded, “I’m not taking the bar exam…I don’t know what a lot of legal cases involve.”

    When told that the Supreme Court case struck down the Texas sodomy law, Perry said, “My position on traditional marriage is clear, it’s the missionary position, and I don’t, ya know… need a law. I don’t need a federal law case to explain it to me.”

    The Texas governor referenced Lawrence v. Texas in his 2010 book Fed Up!, calling it one of the court cases in which “Texans have a different view of the world than do the nine oligarchs in robes.”

    Colonel Haiku (c26934)

  107. To hell with Perry’s First Amendment rights..he’s a double dipper!

    Huh?

    Remember: I am a Perry supporter. And I acknowledged that the rule I complained about is apparently a federal rule and not a state one. Maybe go back and look at the comments?

    And First Amendment what now?

    Patterico (1c6e81)

  108. Ah, Facepalm with an Octopus,

    narciso (87e966)

  109. In the terms of your hypothetical (and this won’t make total sense in those terms, because a firefighter isn’t an elected representative), my argument is that being forced to choose either of those firefighters will kill that beloved infant on the spot, before either firefighter steps foot through the door.

    No, my hypothetical was plenty simple. Goofus will lose the infant. Gallant might not.

    (Do these Highlights names mean anything to anyone?)

    You can choose to prioritize the Process over the life of the infant. Just understand that some of us disagree with your priorities.

    Great to talk to you too.

    Patterico (1c6e81)

  110. you have to find all the hidden pictures before the doctor comes

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  111. I have to disagree with Patterico’s premise because I think he’s too optomistic. I don’t think the United States will survive Obama’s 2nd term, so the judges thing isn’t critical to me.

    I do, however, agree with his conclusion.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  112. what I don’t like about the post is how it posits that you can feel good about going to a polling place and pulling a lever for Wall Street Romney cause of the reason about the judges

    No. When you go to vote for Wall Street Romney you should feel like your mom just walked in and caught you abusing your self. Dirty and ashamed.

    But yeah you have to vote for Wall Street Romney if he’s the nominee. You have to do it for America.

    No matter how wrong it feels.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  113. Simon,

    Missed your comment. You got the Highlights reference!

    I guess I am not as young as you think!

    Patterico (1c6e81)

  114. And the romney posse grows.

    sickofrinos (44de53)

  115. And the romney posse grows.

    It does?

    How so?

    — Perry supporter

    Patterico (1c6e81)

  116. what I don’t like about the post is how it posits that you can feel good about going to a polling place and pulling a lever for Wall Street Romney cause of the reason about the judges

    No. When you go to vote for Wall Street Romney you should feel like your mom just walked in and caught you abusing your self. Dirty and ashamed.

    But yeah you have to vote for Wall Street Romney if he’s the nominee. You have to do it for America.

    No matter how wrong it feels.

    I don’t give a shit how you feel when you pull the lever.

    As long as you pull it for any Republican on the ticket who isn’t Ron Paul.

    Patterico (1c6e81)

  117. a quick comment: SCOTUS nominations are also a function of the perception of who the Senate is likely to confirm. See Souter, David. Anthony Kennedy was also such a nomination in the wake of the Bork experience.

    deskbox

    deskbox (2a72fe)

  118. AD,

    I think JFK did cut taxes. Can you send me a link if you disagree?

    Patterico (1c6e81)

  119. In the final analysis, I voted for Dole over the Razorback Grifter, maybe with some enthusiasm for
    Kemp,and for the Dotty wingman with the moosehunting gal, I still don’t get RS McCain’s quixotic Barr gambit,

    narciso (87e966)

  120. No, my hypothetical was plenty simple. Goofus will lose the infant. Gallant might not.

    A more realistic parallel would be to say that Gallant would make a great show of saving the baby, making sure to appear in the local news as a heroic would-be baby saver, but would not actually save the baby.

    And more realistically, the baby was already dead by the time either firefighter showed up.

    The Constitution as you think it exists went out the window a long time ago. If you want to talk about how to replace our current system and what to replace it with, fine. But don’t think it’s possible to reform it. The rot is far too deep.

    JBS (46fd97)

  121. This isn’t a difficult decision if one keeps the bigger picture in mind and the potential long-term consequences.

    I remember reading Goofus & Gallant in the dentist’s office when I was in grade school…I think it was in the Highlights magazine. I suppose there’s no longer the old fashioned choice of whether to help the neighbor take in her groceries or stay in the treehouse and play, but rather something more current and urgent, like should I work in that meth kitchen or not…

    Dana (4eca6e)

  122. A counter-hypothetical, Patterico:

    A man – an enterprising, honest small-businessman – is approached by representatives from two Mafia protection rackets: the Tattaglia Racket and the Corleone Racket.

    The Corleone rep tells the man that unless he pays his dues to the Corleone Racket, the Corleone Racket won’t be able to protect the man from the Tattaglia Racket. The Tattaglia Racket makes the inverse claim.

    The man has three choices:

    1) He can choose to pay his dues to the Corleone Racket, and be a racket-serf for the rest of his days (forced to patch together Sonny’s dead carcass and whatnot).

    2) He can choose to pay his dues to the Tattaglia Racket, and be a racket-serf for the rest of his days.

    3) He can choose to rebuff the advances of both rackets, and risk the wrath of one, the other, or both – risking the safety of his wife, his children, his business, himself.

    I’m taking #3. You can’t stop an extortionist by accommodating him, only by refusing him (and, maybe, threatening to destroy him). If there really were only two options, both involving racket-serfdom, then I would probably choose the Corleones (since the Tattaglias are peddling drugs and whatnot, and the Corleones don’t approve of such behavior). But there is a third option, one that avoids racket-serfdom and preserves my freedom as an entrepreneur; and that’s why I opened my small business in the first place, so that’s where I land.

    I don’t have any contempt for your position, though. It’s perfectly possible that my own position is rooted in the naivete of having nothing to lose.

    Leviticus (dd1d7b)

  123. You’ll be sleepin’ with the fishsticks, Leviticus.

    Colonel Haiku (c26934)

  124. Of course.

    And the leftys are insisting union concessions are impossible.

    Too effing bad Muslims if you don’t like it here go back to your third world hellholes.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  125. Well, self-government has always been a risky business.

    Leviticus (dd1d7b)

  126. Muslims are being profiled as terrorists because they act like ones.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  127. Every excuse has been given as to why it will be ok to vote mittens.
    Judges, are the latest scare tactic to grow his posse. My voting nose-plug is pretty much wore out and am getting to old and broke to buy a new one.

    sickofrinos (44de53)

  128. at the end of the day people have to recognize that the system failed in whatever way they like to see it as failing… you can’t put lipstick on this pig and pretend that this is glorious democracy in action

    This is a coronation of the establishment whore, what we’re seeing. A coronation contrived primarily by the fact that Wall Street Romney spent 6+ years, an obscene amount of resources, and evinced an eagerness to jump in the gutter and slime anyone what might oppose him, and he deterred any serious candidates from running against him… and he did so with many cheerleadings from establishment whorelings hither and yither.

    Watching doddering CIA fop Bush senior slobbering over Wall Street Romney was about as nauseating a spectacle you can hope to find outside of googling “santorum.”

    This was embarrassing for democracy, this sham what is as grotesque as it is interminable.

    And people need to feel that in their bones I think Mr. Patterico. Otherwise it’s really not a very meaningful exercise at all I think.

    Cause of, as Mr. Kevin noted, the extent to which our sad little country is already well on its way to being doomedy doomedy doomed does not afford us the luxury of being patient with this ungodly process.

    But yes I would vote for bigoty Bachmann and even Santorum if they were the nominee. I would even vote for Ron Paul. Cause four more years of this rape and plunder is not something our poor little country can endure.

    That is a certainty.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  129. This is a coronation of the establishment whore, what we’re seeing. A coronation contrived primarily by the fact that Wall Street Romney spent 6+ years, an obscene amount of resources, and evinced an eagerness to jump in the gutter and slime anyone what might oppose him, and he deterred any serious candidates from running against him… and he did so with many cheerleadings from establishment whorelings hither and yither.

    While there is some truth to this, happyfeet, by not voting for Romney (if he’s the one) and sitting this one out (essentially a vote for Obama), just put off the reform that is necessary? Doesn’t it just allow the left more time fill the courts and do more long-term highly consequential damage?

    Dana (4eca6e)

  130. Dana I’m a vote for Romney if he’s the nominee… that’s been my thinking for… several moons at least. Earlier this year I didn’t think I could ever do it, but now I know I can.

    It’s been an exciting journey of personal discovery.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  131. The elite have already made their excuses for mittens failure.
    Blame the romney bashers. Pathetic,just like republicans.

    sickofrinos (44de53)

  132. I’m glad to hear that, happyfeet. (…and glad that in spite of my poorly worded comment, you grasped the gist of it).

    Dana (4eca6e)

  133. sick at heart losers abound…

    Colonel Haiku (c26934)

  134. “Watching doddering CIA fop Bush senior slobbering…”

    I’ve been wondering, happyfeet… can you name any political people who meet your exacting standards?

    I can’t recall anyone you’ve actually praised, it’s always misogyny, debasement and questioning the motivation of everyone else. I’m curious to know what makes a guy like you tick.

    Colonel Haiku (c26934)

  135. I don’t know if I could stomach voting for Obama again. No conservative judge can hurt me as much as I can hurt myself.

    Leviticus (dd1d7b)

  136. Highlights magazine and Goofus and Gallant still exist, though not as popular as at one time because I don’t think there is a video game version.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  137. Just give Mr. Feets his fetus flensing, sodomy solemnities and atheism and he’ll be happy. Griefing candidates is hard work.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  138. Did Gubnor HeeHaw read his own book?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  139. I think JFK did cut taxes. Can you send me a link if you disagree?

    Kennedy was talking tax cuts as early as 1961, but it wasn’t passed until 1964</a/

    Chuck Bartowski (490c6f)

  140. can you name any political people who meet your exacting standards?

    I like Mitch Daniels and I would trust Paul Ryan to do his best. I also respect Bobby Jindal but for his grotesque Perry-like social con panderings.

    I also like South Korean hip-hop hoochies 2NE1 and Nina Dobrev and fellow texan Jared Padalecki and people what oppose SOPA.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  141. Leviticus,

    I’m curious why you voted for Obama last election? You may have posted why back then, but I can’t remember… I’m curious if your thinking then was similar to what you’ve expressed in this thread.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  142. Mr. Feets – You were complaining about the lifeydoodleness of Mitch Daniels back in the day. You have a short memory.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  143. Also about his hoochie wife telling him what to do.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  144. I don’t remember complaining about Mr. Mitch’s lifeydoodle penchant but I still wanted him to be president… even though yes I was always very aware of his dark flirtations with social conservatism.

    Cause yeah unlike simpleton lifeydoodles I’m not a single issue voter.

    I’m a big picture kinda pikachu.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  145. Jeez I’ve dropped or spammed the threads here with the parts of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in Nader v. Blackwell-referring to the Seventh Circuit Court’s opinion in Krislov v. Rednour which both reference the Supreme Court’s decision in Buckley.

    I’ll go fetch it again…

    ****

    Nader v. Blackwell.

    Here’s a fun part:

    In addition, we find the Seventh Circuit’s analysis in a similar election case, Krislov v. Rednour, 226 F.3d 851 (7th Cir. 2000), particularly persuasive. The Seventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs, who were political candidates, had standing to challenge Illinois’s circulator registration and residency requirements, even though the candidates had actually acquired enough valid signatures to appear on the ballot. See id. at 857-58. The court reasoned that the candidates had been injured in two ways. First, “being denied use of non-registered, non-resident circulators, they were required to allocate additional campaign resources to gather signatures and were deprived of the solicitors (political advocates) of their choice. This in itself can be an injury to First Amendment rights.” Krislov, 226 F.3d at 857 (citing Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 424 (1988)). Second, “because they were prohibited from using non-registered and non-resident circulators, they were limited in the choice and number of people to carry their message to the public.” Ibid. As Meyer makes clear, limiting the size of a candidate’s audience and reducing the amount of speech about his views that he can generate is a cognizable injury. See Meyer, 486 U.S. at 421-22.

    madawaskan (89a442)

  146. Why can’t we drill for our own oil but Brazil and others can?

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  147. There’s also this:

    *****

    We must decide the extent to which the principles that Buckley established regarding initiative-petition circulators and registration requirements may be extended.

    There appears to be little reason to limit Buckley’s holding to initiative-petition circulators. As the Supreme Court noted: “Initiative-petition circulators also resemble candidate-petition signature gatherers . . . for both seek ballot access.” Buckley, 525 U.S. at 191. Indeed, common sense suggests that, in the course of convincing voters to sign their petitions, candidate-petition circulators engage in at least as much “interactive political speech” – if not more such speech – than initiative-petition circulators. Some of our sister circuits have concluded the same and have applied Buckley to invalidate state laws requiring that candidate-petition circulators be registered voters See Lerman v. Bd. of Elections, 232 F.3d 135, 148 (2d Cir. 2000) (stating that there was “no basis to conclude” that the level of interactive political speech of candidate- and intiative-petition circulators differed); Krislov, 226 F.3d at 861-62 (noting that the burden on candidates is even greater than the burden on initiative proponents because a candidate’s circulators must “speak to a broader range of political topics”); see also Nader, 531 F.3d at 1035-36 (applying Buckley to case involving candidate-petition circulators). We agree with these courts that we should not categorically exclude candidate-petition circulators from Buckley’s analysis of registration requirements. Thus, we hold that Blackwell’s enforcement of the registration requirements against Nader’s circulators violated Nader’s First Amendment rights.

    ******

    To you guys it might not mean much-but there are “idiot” members of the military that supposedly die for these rights and the quaint notion of democracy. ( I know, I know I’m an idiot it’s a Constitutional Republic..)

    Do you think you can honestly look a soldier serving his country in the eye and say-if you are voting by absentee ballot overseas and you vote in Virginia-here are your two choices-

    Mitt Romney or Crazy Man?

    And-yes Rick Perry’s First Amendment rights are being violated as our the rights of those that signed the petitions in good faith.

    Remember-the VA GOP has still not bothered to inform the public of the specifics of how or why the rest of the 11,900 signatures were invalidated.

    Oh by the way these are the same guys and gals who if they die in service to their country you allow the Westboro Baptist to protest at their funerals all in the name of-

    “Free Speech”….

    except when it comes to getting one of the only candidates that still gives a flying fig about them-it’s no big thing.

    Perry deserves it because-even though the blogging world doesn’t have all the facts-we haven’t got the full debrief yet-the in crowd of the twitter verse let by the Michelle Malkin neutered Allah Pundit have all decided it’s Perry’s fault.

    And it gets them brownie points with the NRO gang that are embarrassed and ashamed of Perry-the only candidate that really served his country in uniform.

    Screw the First Amendment-becasue we’re all about that when it comes to the internet-and internet porn or what ever-and journalist’s rights=-we’re just not so up about it when it comes down to the very fundamentals of-

    government for the people, by the people and of the people.

    madawaskan (89a442)

  148. McCaincare, otoh, would have not have been ruled constitutional because the GOP establishment would fall into lockstep supporting whatever a GOP president decided to do. As they did with Medicare Part D. And therefore no one would have challenged McCaincare in court, even though it would have likely been worse than Obamacare since the GOP establishment would have supported it.

    Comment by JBS — 12/29/2011 @ 1:42 pm

    McCain didn’t even vote for the Medicare drug plan. I’ve been realizing there’s a large segment of idiocy on the right that matches anything on the left and I’m not talking about the Ron Paul loons. Or maybe you are a Ron Paul loon.

    Gerald A (9d78e8)

  149. as ^are^ the rights of those..

    madawaskan (89a442)

  150. Leviticus,

    I’m curious why you voted for Obama last election? You may have posted why back then, but I can’t remember… I’m curious if your thinking then was similar to what you’ve expressed in this thread.

    Comment by Dana — 12/29/2011 @ 7:47 pm

    Gee maybe it’s because he’s a liberal.

    Gerald A (9d78e8)

  151. “I’m curious why you voted for Obama last election? You may have posted why back then, but I can’t remember… I’m curious if your thinking then was similar to what you’ve expressed in this thread.”

    – Dana

    It was the first time I could vote – I had turned 19 that July. I was a young (I’m still young, but four years feels like a lifetime when you’re as young as I am), and on the fine edge of the then-unarticulated realization that the two parties were identical in the key respects and that our political system no longer offered the choice of meaningful alternatives essential to a representative democracy.

    It was a nose-plug vote, even at the time. I’ve found journal entries from fall 2008 where I’m trying to justify it, trying to justify buying into the whole mess by actively supporting Tweedle(D) over Tweedle(R). What it came down to was, I was raised liberal, I was disgusted by the intellectual vacuum of the debates (on both sides), McCain was (frankly) a pathetic candidate, and I was in the position to have a hand in the election of America’s first black president.

    It was a confluence of circumstances. I wished (after the fact) that I’d been more principled. The feeling was formative.

    Leviticus (dd1d7b)

  152. Pat could also have talked about Nixon’s SCOTUS nominees, which included Renquist, a solid conservative. I assume Nixon was solidly establishment according to the people who keep wailing about “the establishment”.

    Gerald A (9d78e8)

  153. Perry has his day in court set for Jan 13

    Thursday, U.S. District Judge John A. Gibney scheduled a hearing for a preliminary injunction for Jan. 13. He said that if Perry prevailed, Virginia might have to do another printing of the ballot, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported (http://bit.ly/s5gXmq ).

    […]

    At Thursday’s hearing, Gibney questioned Perry’s attorney on why he brought the challenge in federal instead of state court.

    “It looks to me like it’s asking the federal government to get involved in state affairs,” Gibney said.

    One of Perry’s attorneys, Joseph M. Nixon, responded that the case “may have national implications.”

    that doesn’t sound very promising

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  154. Washington and Baylor are setting back defense by centuries.

    JD (318f81)

  155. I see Fred Armisen and I see a convincing Obama.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  156. Hope and change and doing things different in DC sounds good when young.

    Then you get cynical and think it doesn’t matter.

    Then you think it hardly matters, but you can’t sit by and watch it get worse without trying to do something.

    This sequence has happened before, it has. I actually voted for Jimmy Carter…for his re-election….

    My sons are still in stages I and II. My 11 yo daughter knows not to vote for Obama, though.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  157. JD,

    Did you see Tommy Rees’ meltdown earlier? Dude’s a mess…

    Leviticus (dd1d7b)

  158. Notre Dame is gonna turn Brian Kelly into even more of a grumpy bastard.

    Leviticus (dd1d7b)

  159. In California starting next year your kid has to ride in a car seat until they’re 8 years old or the state will rape your wallet to the tune of $475.

    The quota for how many drivers the cops have to ticket will vary depending on where you are, so if you’re in California you should take this extremely seriously and do your utmost to comply with the whims of the state.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  160. Leviticus – that last interception was horrific. Bad beyond words. The kid that was red-shirted this year will be the QB next year. Plus, Kelly has a great couple recruiting classes coming in. They will be fine. Their schedule is brutal next year.

    JD (318f81)

  161. In Rick Perry’s Texas by the way the state mandates a car seat until your kid is 7. But for your first offense for defying this law they will only charge you $25 and then after that they get you for $250. [PDF]

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  162. Thank you for your response at 154, Leviticus.

    It’s a credit to you that you felt compelled to vote at 19, and that cynicism hadn’t taken root. I know several young men who are stuck in that place of “What’s the point, it’s all corrupt”.

    It was a confluence of circumstances. I wished (after the fact) that I’d been more principled. The feeling was formative.

    I suspect most of us here who are older totally relate to this. I know I do. Your honesty in recognizing and articulating what your justifications were (and that you needed to try and justify it to yourself), is precisely what will assure that you are more principled next go-round.

    I hope I don’t sound like a mom saying this.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  163. wait wait wait the age requirements are the same in CA and TX – up to 8 years old

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  164. happyfeet

    Thanks for the link…

    That’s weird though because the Nader v Blackwell case parallels this pretty well-except he was trying to get on as a Third Party candidate to the general election ballot, and it was the Democrats fig hint to keep him off of it.

    If you read the Nader v. Blackwell backwards..one of the concurring judges stated that if anything like this happened in the future a candidate would be entitled to rapid relief due to the overbreadth doctrine.

    Also at the time they said the only reason Blackwell would enjoy immunity is because Buckley had not been well established since it was only decided in 2004.

    It’s now 2011.

    Supposedly VA added a clause to their rules to be in compliance with Buckley -stating that a circulator of the petitions only needed to be qualified to vote in VA not registered-but that’s ludicrous-in the beginning of the opinion or near the beginning of the opinion-once they get past recording the timeline of events-one of the first things they address is how absurd it is to think a clause like that works because being able to vote is depended upon instate residency.

    Anyways off to follow your link.

    madawaskan (89a442)

  165. Dana,

    I don’t understand how my cohort sees corruption as an excuse to check out. If anything, seeing corruption oughta be the thing that makes you check in.

    That is, I do think our system is corrupt; but to say “what’s the point”? The existence of the corruption is the point. That should be more motivation than anything to try to make things different.

    Leviticus (dd1d7b)

  166. the LAT lurvs the nanny-statism… but bless their unsigned-editorial hearts they’re confuzzled

    The law isn’t a bad idea, and California is only doing what 29 other states have already done by raising the requirement to 8…

    […]

    More to the point, though, the logic of Gov. Jerry Brown’s veto decisions is escaping me.

    This fall, Brown vetoed a bill that would have required kids under 18 to wear helmets while snow skiing or face a $25 fine. As we’ve said on the editorial page, this would have helped prevent serious injury or brain damage on the slopes. Brown’s justification: “I am concerned about the continuing and seemingly inexorable transfer of authority from parents to the state.” This not only ignores that child-safety laws are commonplace (there’s already a law on the books requiring minors to wear bicycle helmets, for example) and effective, it’s logically inconsistent. As my colleague Karin Klein has pointed out, after Brown vetoed the helmet bill, he signed a bill outlawing the use of tanning beds by minors even if they have their parents’ consent. What is that, if not a transfer of authority from parents to the state?

    […]

    Sometimes when a kid kicks and screams over minor frustrations, such as being put in an uncomfortable car seat, the best response is to lay him down for a nap. The next time the governor is tempted to veto a worthwhile bill, he should maybe do the same.

    So there you have it… the LAT openly applauding what they themselves characterize as “a transfer of authority from parents to the state.”

    also you are welcome Mr. awaskan!

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  167. oops here is link

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  168. Gibney is an Obama nominee.

    madawaskan (89a442)

  169. that’s definitely not promising then

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  170. Leviticus,

    Of course you are right. I think it’s easier to be cynical and throw out the blanket excuse ‘It’s all corrupt’ rather than doing the hard work of both working out one’s individual political point of view and doing the homework necessary to understand who the candidates are and what they represent.

    Ultimately, I chalk it up to laziness. (But on a number of levels, that quality is what is fostered by the state and in some cases, rewarded… but that’s another matter altogether.)

    Dana (4eca6e)

  171. _______________________________________________

    It was the first time I could vote – I had turned 19 that July.

    I didn’t realize you were that relatively young. By contrast, the guy now in the White House is 50 years old. So you — per the following — at least have an excuse. Obama doesn’t:

    “If you’re not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you’re not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”

    ^ That concept also goes double for certain, and also rather old, justices on the Supreme Court. Justices who appear to be as foolishly liberal today as they apparently were when they were in high school or college. A sign of stunted maturity and an innate lack of common sense.

    Mark (411533)

  172. Aaron has a very good post up on his blog responding to Brett Kimberlin’s efforts to get google and Comcast to reveal his identity. It brings in the whole clown posse, Kimberlin, Brynaert, Rauhauser and Friedman.

    Heckuva job.

    http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2011/12/i-respond-to-brett-kimberlins-motion.html

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  173. Crappyfeet Your the best.

    And I’am partially anti-statist as I believe the state should get involved in the stuff it should be involved in and not economic affairs.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  174. The answer is Byron White, named by President Kennedy nearly 40 years ago.

    50, I think.

    Icy (800ea2)

  175. 53. Whoa, Levi growing up tall.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  176. “This is the Romney dream scenario,” Miringoff says. “When you look at the Tea Party and conservatives, they are all splintered.”*

    This is true. The Tea Party never launched a credible candidate. Mostly cause a lot of them spent their energy tearing down anyone they thought was a threat to the screechy moose hoochie, who took their money and then at the last minute said later, losers.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  177. the LAT openly applauding what they themselves characterize as “a transfer of authority from parents to the state.”

    They so admired the Ceausescu Regime.

    AD-RtR/OS! (304b67)

  178. “screechy moose hoochie”?

    You secretly own every one of those “Nailin’ Palin” X-Rated DVDs, don’t you!

    Icy (800ea2)

  179. that’s a non sequitur I think Mr. Icy

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  180. Or a rhetorical

    Icy (800ea2)

  181. or you might could have just been being facetious

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  182. As usual you have it precisely backwards, pikachu,
    when the media pushed ‘the two minute hate’ after Tucson, who came to her aid, for the slander against
    the tea party, I do recall even Gingrich, said she had to be ‘weigh with her words before spoke’ not Gov. Goodhair or the Minnesota gal, they used it as an excuse to step right on over her, Punctuating the point, the latter hired a cynical operator like Rollins, and the carny that ultimately stabbed her
    in the back, this week,

    narciso (87e966)

  183. If the repulicans nominate Romney, I will have the satisfaction of seeing them rot in the wilderness as Obama runs wild on them for four more years.

    No pro-life person should vote in the general election with a Romney candidate. I certainly will not.

    And the GOP will suffer up and down the ticket for its treachery. This is why even now you will not find any consistent poll showing Romney beating Obama even though he has been the one preeminent favorite of the republican establishement.

    Bush senior lost because of his perfidity. The GOP should take a lesson from his endorsement of Romney.

    You have been warned.

    Pasha (f01d97)

  184. Thanks for all of your non-help, Pasha.

    Icy (800ea2)

  185. Romney is way way way more of a lifeydoodle than Obama, who loves abortion a lot, especially in cases of icky rape and icky icky incest.

    So Pasha sweetheart if you heart teh fetuses you should vote for Romney.

    This message brought to you by the Happyfeet for LIFE! Foundation

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  186. That BS doesn’t fly anymore.

    Bush Jr saw his ratings go to the toilet when he tried to pull another Souter.

    Souter, remember that one? A justice so liberal he left to ensure Obama could appoint the replacement.

    Bush Sr. destroyed his presidency by betrayal. Bush Jr. gave you 2008 and a full Congress of liberals and socialists.

    And still there are so called “conservatives” that think that they can betray the pro-life portion of the coalition that Reagan built.

    Instapundit is a libertarian. If he had his choice Ron Paul would be the nominee. Big chance of winning there, eh?

    They are right. The GOP is the stupid party.

    Pasha (f01d97)

  187. Romney is a flipflopper Fetusfeet.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  188. Pasha, have you been in this country a long distance?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  189. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

    This is Romney.

    The only think certain about him is that he looses to Obama.

    Why? He cannot break 50 because he does not carry the Reagan coalition base.

    He may be many things to many people but he has never been and he will never be pro-life.

    Enough!

    Go with Romney and lose. If you were smart, you would find someone else.

    Pasha (f01d97)

  190. Pasha has been in this country since before the wall came down–when only the most accomplished could make the travel to the US.

    I have studied US politics very closely and I am amazed as such stupidity as I see in the GOP.

    How they can think to vote for Paul? This tell much. It is amazing to me that the republicans can think that in the years of Tea party uprising that the answer is a ruthless venture capitalist from the most liberal state in the US — and one that instituted RomneyCare!

    Ha. No one can even say why they like Romney except that he is “electable”–a proven lie. THe truth is that they simply think that he looks like a president and they care only for their own vanity.

    Much of the GOP only defines itself as simply “not liberal” simply because it is difficult for them to think of themselves as crass as the democrats–transparent failures. However, these rockefeller republicans are not in touch with the fundamentals of the political power. They like the trapping of power but they do not understand where it comes from.

    So I am amazed that so many people care for what they say. Proven failures are generally discredited in working political systems. Here, we see zombie politics. The old husk of rockerfeller walks again in Romeny.

    Pasha (f01d97)

  191. i still do not understand how it is that Obama will be better for the wee small baby fetuses

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  192. At least then there is hope that you will learn from your mistake.

    People do not vote to shoot themselves in the feet. If all there is to choose from is Romney and Obama, they stay home.

    When they stay home, you lose.

    Pasha (f01d97)

  193. wouldn’t surprise me a bit

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  194. Democraps are the party of the rich.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  195. This is true. The Tea Party never launched a credible candidate. Mostly cause a lot of them spent their energy tearing down anyone they thought was a threat to the screechy moose hoochie, who took their money and then at the last minute said later, losers.

    Comment by happyfeet — 12/30/2011 @ 8:31 am

    The Tea doesn’t launch candidates at all. How would they do that?

    Gerald A (9d78e8)

  196. Pasha maybe you belong on the sock puppet thread.

    Gerald A (9d78e8)

  197. however you want to look at it, the “movement” didn’t produce crap as far as a candidate goes

    unless you count Miss Tardasil, which nobody does… it might could have been Perry but moose hoochie promptly informed us that he’s a dirty dirty crony capitalist

    so that leaves bigot Santorum… and his Arlen Specter-loving ass is about as Tea Party as Wall Street Romney

    Gingrich probably understands the Tea Party better than any of the candidates, but he’s not a Tea Party candidate at all he’s more like a freaky semi-conservative ivory tower candidate, which is a very very strange candidate indeed for the modern Republican Party to produce

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  198. oh. my comment must’ve gotten filtrated Mr. A.

    I think the Tea Party – as a movement – failed to draw a candidate into the race what was recognizable as someone who identified with Tea Party issues and shared those concerns and was willing to run a campaign that spoke to fiscal sustainability.

    Michele with one l came closest, but I think most people understand she’s just a rabid social con what decided to hop on the Tea Party’s wagon, plus she’s just a representative, which is not a very impressive credential to most people with respect to the presidency I don’t think.

    Looking at the lackluster roster of Tea Party primary challenges set for 2012, I think it’s pretty much a husk of a movement anymore.

    And the nomination of Wall Street Romney will be nothing if not a rejection of all things Tea, and this will be a rejection what has the imprimatur of the Republican Party.

    It wasn’t supposed to be this way, and we’re in big big trouble.

    Yes.

    Even if we elect Wall Street Romney.

    2010 showed that the spirit of liberty and independence is stirring anew, that a growing number of Americans still hear Lincoln’s mystic chords of memory. But their number will have to grow, and do so swiftly. Change of the dimension we need requires a coalition of a dimension no one has recently assembled. And, unless you disbelieve what the arithmetic of disaster is telling us, time is very short.*

    As our friend Kesha would say tik tok.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  199. No, this is the way Mike ‘Iceberg’ Murphy wanted it, they didn’t want to challenge the status quo, neither does Red Rover or Dr. K, these pointless
    losing baccarat matches with Obama, on the budget really have been more shameful than the last, The most recent move fumbling a tax change that Tapper
    himself pointed out couldn’t work, was Bill Buckner
    worthy.

    narciso (87e966)

  200. it’s dire and none of these Team R third stringers are speaking the language of calamity… Wall Street Romney seriously thinks the problem is Obama I think.

    No.

    The ungodly fail is so so much bigger than wee little Obama, and bigger than wee Willard too.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  201. oops… Michele with one l has a very nice editorial written in the patois of calamity where she puts her lifeydoodle nonsense dead last on her agenda.

    This is definitely not an editorial Wall Street Romney could put his name to. Not without giving doddering CIA fop Bush senior a coronary.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  202. I agree with happyfeet for the most part.

    If the GOP nominates Romney, very little will be at stake. This will be the least important election of our lives. Romney’s better than Obama and worthy of showing up to vote, but he won’t solve the problems the way other candidates have the potential too. His core value to the establishment is he is stupid enough to keep the ball rolling the way it already is.

    I get the impression some know we’re hopelessly in debt, and think we might as well live it up while we can. There’s no other rationale behind supporting Romney or Obama at this point. The country is in extremely serious trouble and must be reformed by a leader who A) wants to and B) has a spine.

    Romney fails on both counts. Better than Obama is not good enough. But the other candidates mostly suck too. The problem is clearly much deeper than just a few progressives like Romney or Obama.

    Dustin (cb3719)

  203. Pasha has been in this country since before the wall came down–when only the most accomplished could make the travel to the US.

    — Pasha the Prognosticator was referring to Pasha in the third person prior to Pasha Reagan’s election to the Pasha Presidency! Precocious pretenders to Pasha’s patented pro-life position pale precipitously and push Pasha’s prodigious patience. Their perfidy will practically procure those people punishment in purgatory! Never mind the pointed protests from prancing pantywaist peons, propping up with practiced precision their preferred pick in parallel to The Great Pachyderm Communicator, proclaiming that Reagan personally “flip-flopped” on the issue. Puhleeaze!!! Stop projecting, you pathetic personages of the polyglot populace, and pawn that pap somewhere else! Perhaps the proceeds produced from that posh pity party should be parlayed on the ponies. A poor pole-pounding pundit plumber pushing plush piles of poop past a painted pipe in Punjab with a potato peeler pees prettier possibilities into a putrid pastel purple pail than Mitt “the painfully perfect pulchritudinous politician with perhaps the most pretentious pearly whites and his precious peach and pecan pie partner-wife” Romney could ever pretense to promise.

    Icy the Alliteration Avenger (826c59)

  204. that was really very genuinely epic

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  205. Thanks, feets!

    Icy (826c59)

  206. Pasha’s poison pen passionately protects pet projects, punctuates pixillated pack puppies, pontificates purely petrified pusillanimous pan-flute playing panther panderers — Project Panda proceeding per plan. 
    Pax populi!

    Icy (Jane, stop this crazy thing!) (826c59)

  207. Feets on a scrivening tear, distilling, assessing, prophesying, and evenhandedly almost, holy cr*p.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  208. Bravo, Icy, Hugo Weaving should read that outloud,

    narciso (87e966)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.7271 secs.