Dobson Blasts Filibuster 'Betrayal'
Of course, as with most compromises, it leaves something to be desired for people on both ends of the argument (after all, the three nominees that have NO business being justices in this country are going to get their chance at a vote). But as long as narrow-minded a-holes like this are unhappy about the outcome, I can't say I'm not pleased.
In the steaming mess of illogic that I generally expect from this end of the political spectrum, I have to appreciate this one:
Let's see… the compromise that so infuriates Mr. Dobson wasn't in place at the time of Thomas, Scalia & Rehnquist's nominations, but the filibuster was. And yet they somehow survived the process and actually DID get appointed to the court.
AND, as for the filibuster being unconstitutional… don't you think the Senate would have gotten rid of the thing sometime in the past hundred years or so if it really was unconstitutional? (I'm going to enjoy this one… The Long, Illustrious History of Filibusters. Yes, I'm actually quoting Fox News.) It may piss people off, but unconstitutional? Somehow, I doubt it.
Of course, as with most compromises, it leaves something to be desired for people on both ends of the argument (after all, the three nominees that have NO business being justices in this country are going to get their chance at a vote). But as long as narrow-minded a-holes like this are unhappy about the outcome, I can't say I'm not pleased.
In the steaming mess of illogic that I generally expect from this end of the political spectrum, I have to appreciate this one:
Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist would never have served on the U. S. Supreme Court if this agreement had been in place during their confirmations. The unconstitutional filibuster survives in the arsenal of Senate liberals.
Let's see… the compromise that so infuriates Mr. Dobson wasn't in place at the time of Thomas, Scalia & Rehnquist's nominations, but the filibuster was. And yet they somehow survived the process and actually DID get appointed to the court.
AND, as for the filibuster being unconstitutional… don't you think the Senate would have gotten rid of the thing sometime in the past hundred years or so if it really was unconstitutional? (I'm going to enjoy this one… The Long, Illustrious History of Filibusters. Yes, I'm actually quoting Fox News.) It may piss people off, but unconstitutional? Somehow, I doubt it.
Comments
Of course, my question would be why do they have NO business serving on a high court? I've looked at all their info on the web - they're all pretty clean, with well-established, extinguished careers. If you are talking about their opinions regarding law, the Constitution, or Roe v. Wade in particular - those issues have no bearing on whether or not they have any business on the bench. Those are simply their opinions/views. All judges have 'em.
Q
"Those 3 justices are going to get more than a vote - they will be confirmed". Is that supposed to make me feel good or something? One's already been confirmed and the other two probably will as well. Sad news, but hardly surprising.
As for "no business serving on a high court", well, as with justices, I too am entitled to opinions (hence the name of the blog). I don't know where you're doing your research, but allegations of "unconscionable acts of judicial activism", "activist legal extremism and disregard of precedent", records of opposition to civil rights, personal rights, personal privacy and, of course, abortion rights lead me to reject them as candidates and causes me to call into question your "pretty clean" comments. (I assume, by the way, that you mean "distinguished careers". I can only hope for "extinguished careers".)
As for an opposition to Roe vs. Wade, well, lets address that for one moment. Abortion has been legal in this country most of my adult life. I don't know any woman who's had to risk her life with a self-inflicted abortion or back-alley abortion by an unlicensed MD. I don't want to see that change, and I have yet to see any polls, surveys or other documentation that show that the majority of people in this country do want that. But the President has a very vocal minority constituency that would like nothing better. And so we get judicial nominees like these.
And, finally, I assume you can agree the country would ultimately be better off with a balanced judiciary. Appointing right-wing extremists only serves to further polarize the courts (assuming that you're of the opinion that our courts are too liberal at this point). But the President's administration and the Republican party have shown they have no interest in balance right now and are more than willing to shove their agenda down the country's throat, 'cause they've finally got the power to do it. (I'm sure that you're going to tell me that the Democrats were worse, but I respectfully disagree. As is my wont. At least for now.)
And so I rant. Because sitting back quietly accepting this crap is worse.
Judicial activism, disregarding precedent, and opposition to privacy laws are all things several judges in the present and history of this country have excelled in. The high courts do it now and will continue to do so. While I do support the idea of a balanced judiciary, my comments had nothing to do with that.
Sure, you think the right to privacy is inherent and you support Roe v. Wade. For the most part, so do I - so you don't have to make an argument for them (though I would argue with you that Roe v. Wade has been exploited for political purposes and there SHOULD be a law against partial-birth abortion).
BUT, some judicial minds disagree with us. That's ok. It's their right. It is a perfectly defendable position to claim the Constitution does not provide for the right to privacy. You and I disagree with that stance, but it is, nonetheless, a valid and supportable stance. Thus, a judge with these opinions, while being "wrong" in our opinion, still has "business" serving on a high court.
I do find it humorous that you would claim the majority opinion to back up your support of Roe v. Wade. It IS accurate - I believe the majority of our country do support legal abortion (the majority also do NOT support partial-birth abortion). However...the majority of our country also do NOT support gay marriage. Funny, I hear democrats often pointing to the majority opinion of the country who want to keep Roe v. Wade, claiming that the judiciary should keep their noses out of it; but, when a high court rules that gay marriages should be allowed DESPITE the same majority against it...not a word. I sense hypocrisy at work.
For the record, I support legalized abortion, oppose partial-birth abortion, and could care less about gay marriage. In fact, my opinion on marriage is - how/why did it ever become law when it is a religious concept in the first place? But, that is another debate for another day.
As for gay marriage, it's more that I'm opposed to a constitutional amendment banning it than anything else. I have no problem with gay marriage and support the idea. I think that if two people want to be together, pledge their troth, etc., then who the hell are we to stand in their way? I don't give a damn about their sexual orientation and don't think it should enter into the discussion. The notion that "marriage needs to be protected" is absurd, certainly in reference to gay marriage. If people are really worried about the state of marriage in the US today, there's a lot of other things to get worked up about than whether gay couples want to participate.
As for the law getting involved, it's always been a part of the equation. Sure, marriage is, traditionally, a religious ceremony. But there are so many legal issues that are related (inheritance being the biggie) that the law inevitably gets mixed up in it. Frankly, the two sides need to be addressed individually, I think. Each religion will have its reason to accept or reject the notion based on their dogma and moral bias. But I can't see how our government should give a damn.
Law and marriage has not always been "part of the equation". Not until the Married Women's Property Acts of the 1840's did law really have a serious part of marriage in the U.S. Add onto the backs of those Acts, and you now have a slew of laws and rights that are tied to marriage. It's a mess.
But, that wasn't what I REALLY wanted to get into...
What I wanted to point out is that the opinion of the majority of the country is to BAN gay marriage and support a constitutional amendment "protecting the sanctity of marriage." I am not among this majority and neither are you.
BUT, it sure seemed like you were arguing that because the majority of our country was opposed to overturning Roe v. Wade, that the government should not try to subvert this public majority through the courts. It's a good argument. It's the "will of the majority" argument that should hold up well in a democracy. It's an argument I hear from "the left" supporting Roe v. Wade and tearing down judges who oppose it.
It is NOT the argument I hear from "the left" regarding gay marriage. The argument "the left" makes on that issue is that the majority needs to join us in the 21st century. That the majority will needs to be subverted in order to "civilize" us.
I was trying to point out the hypocrisy between those two arguments.
As for law and marriage, I was talking more in historical terms (at least Western European Historical)—all romanticism about love and other BS aside, one of the main purposes for marriage, socially and historically speaking, was to establish who owned what (including the wife) and who inherited what. Since the Church was so much a part of the state, it didn't matter what was legal and what was religious, it could all be handled by the same entity. Our concept of separation of church and state eventually necessitated the laws you talk about.
And finally, regarding hypocrisy… yeah, I can see your point. But for me, it's also an issue of timing/longevity. The argument over Roe v Wade has gone on for decades and public opinion has been pretty steady all along… most people don't want to see it overturned and never have. The "ban gay marriage" battle's really only heated up in the past few years (and I'd LOVE to meet the morons in the gay rights movement that figured THIS was a good time to force this issue in front of people). Not that I doubt that the majority of the people in this country are opposed to the idea… sadly, I'm not particularly surprised by that. But taking it the next step to amending the Constitution seems a drastic and unnecessary step, and that's what I'm opposed to.