What is a Win?
As we begin getting used to the words "Chief Justice Roberts", many are focusing on the next nominee, the size of the victory, or what Roberts' impact on the Court will be. Since that ground is well-covered over at RedState.org and ConfirmThem.com , Jayson at Polipundit looks at the confirmation from a different angle. (I have previously discussed this perspective here).
As I have said, I do not think that Judge John Roberts should have been confirmed. I consider it a loss. Not a single Senator shared my view. Essentially, I lost 100-0. Left wing groups who opposed Judge Roberts for other reasons also lost. Sure, it was closer - not close, but closer - 78-22. I would have considered "victory" the defeat of the nomination. They would have considered "victory" a majority of Democrats voting against confirmation. Well, that didn't work so well either. Now, as Jayson pointed out, the National Abortion Federation is claiming post facto that having more than twenty Senators vote against Roberts constitutes some sort of victory.
Far from an isolated incident, this is becoming the norm for the left. First, Sen. Schumer said Democrats will try to make progress in the Senate in '06, not take it back. Then, the lefty loonies said that it'd be a win for Hackett to come close in the OH-2 Special election. Now this.
So what does this mean? The left is defeated. They are done, finished, completed, finito. Unless...
Unless the Republicans become like them. Conservatives have beaten liberals left, right, and sideways since 1996. We are in a position to finish them off by taking back the Courts, the last remnant of those whose thirst for power supercedes their desire for the rule of law rather than the rule of men and whose childish desire to do anything any time supercedes any sence of values. Now is not the time to play not to lose.
Let's play for the win, not for overtime.
posted by Sean @ 9:22 PM
3 comments
3 Comments:
The only nominee you will accept is a judge who will say he'll over turn Roe. Well that will never happen. Also there other forces in the GOP tent than just the social conservatives. These other groups have to be heard also, not just the social conservatives. No Roberts was not a "red meat-anti-Roe" candidate. He was a well
balanced candidate that appealed to the business conservatives and social conservatives. Besides he may well turn out to be a Thomas or Scalia. It is people like you that are hurting the conservative voice in the administration. If you will never be satisfied then
why try to please you? You won’t take Roberts, who will you take?. And also, you have missed a major point. Roberts said he did not support using foreign law in American. This is a major boost for the social conservatives. Using this statement Roberts will not make decisions like the Lawrence v. Texas. We need judges who will read the constitution and the constitution ONLY This is a win. Roberts will be a good
conservative, but not the fanatical right-wing judge that you might want.
anon,
Please show me where the right to marital privacy appears in the Constitution, the US Constitution. I'll help you out. Here ya go: http://findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/. Resume complaining when you find it.
Where is forgien law mentioned in the constitution? It’s not in their. Besides it does not mater if marital privacy appears in the constitution or not. The point is that foreign law was used. America rebelled from Britain. We don't need or want their laws. Just look at Europe. Their economies are in decline and their populations falling. We need judges that will read the constitution only, and not bring any foreign law into America. Judge Robers will not allow foreign law in American writings. That makes Judge Roberts a win for the court, America, and the conservatives.
Post a Comment
<< Home