Friday, July 01, 2005

O'Connor Thoughts from the Fringe Left!

Wow.

Time to dissect this bizarre rant (having experience with the supply side of such rants, I should be in good shape!):
So the pessimist in me--which is usually, though not always, right when it comes to predicting the success rate (or lack thereof) rate for the Dems--fears that after all the ugliness transpires Bush will win out, and the court will veer further to the right.
Further to the right? When did I fall asleep and the Court started veering to the right? In the Reagan-Bush days the Court got a reprieve from the whacko-activist leftism that held sway before, but after Clinton's firmly liberal appointments, the Court got back into its old habits. It's too bad we don't have an example of a recent extreme-leftist decision to put this into perspective...
It took a tilted-to-the-GOP compromise fashioned by so-called moderates in both parties to thwart (perhaps temporarily) Frist's desire to eliminate the judicial filibuster.
That compromise was tilted to the GOP?! Ooooh really? This guy admits in the previous sentence that the GOP had the votes to exercise the nuclear option; therefore, any compromise would have been in favor of the Democrats. Logic - it does a mind good.
...these Republicans will not be saved by the bell of a compromise...
The Republicans were saved by the compromise that only compromised their interests and the interests of their constituents? Or maybe this guy thinks that ending the newly-conceived judicial filibuster, and doing nothing about filibusters in other areas, would have been political suicide for the Republicans. Hard to see how the Dems can throw away centuries of tradition and get no criticism from the media, while the Republicans get it not for restoring tradition but simply for talking about restoring it. It's almost like the media are so slanted to the left...

Oh right. That can't be it.
Or will he reward Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, a Bush loyalist who conservatives suspect (for whatever paranoid reasons they have) might turn out to be another David Souter?
Ouch! That hurts. When I think paranoia, I think...disconnect from reality, assumption of wild conspiracies against oneself, casually assuming that fantastical conjecture is actually well-established fact - you know, basically, if you looked up "paranoia" on dictionary.com, there would be a link to this guy's article.
In any event, the Democrats and progressives may be placed in the position of having to oppose an experienced jurist whose opinions they do not like on policy grounds.
The position they've been taking with all these filibusters? Yeah, how will the Democrats muster the audacity to do that?...again.
...Bush could nominate a true conservative whacko, a Bork II.
So was Bork's only problem that he actually thought the Constitution meant something, or is this hate based on some other concocted vision from a paranoid left-wing moonbat?

Tough call. Go ahead and vote in the comments section below!

2 Comments:

At 7:23 PM, July 01, 2005 , Blogger Hunter said...

This could be a great opportunity for Bush to nominate a principled conservative who believes in states' rights and limits on the federal government, but I have a sinking feeling he will nominate someone who will blindly support the administration when it comes to terrorism cases.

 
At 8:52 PM, July 01, 2005 , Blogger Vernunft said...

I don't believe that is inevitable.

In other words, I hope Gonzalez is not nominated :(

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home