Posted on 10/20/2005 9:56:38 PM PDT by quidnunc
The bile accumulating on the right toward the White House has reached China Syndrome proportions and is starting to melt through the floor.
Suddenly, conservatives are starting to question whether George W. Bush is even a one of them at all. One of my heroes, Robert Bork, recently wrote in The Wall Street Journal that "George W. Bush has not governed as a conservative. This George Bush, like his father, is showing himself to be indifferent, if not actively hostile, to conservative values." Conservative columnist Bruce Bartlett opines: "The truth that is now dawning on many movement conservatives is that George W. Bush is not one of them and never has been." Even at National Review Online — where I hang my hat most of the time — several of our contributors have echoed these concerns.
I think this goes too far. Two factors contribute to this misdiagnosis: confusion and disappointment.
Let's start with confusion. Contrary to most stereotypes, conservatism is a much less dogmatic ideology than modern liberalism. The reason liberals don't seem dogmatic and conservatives do is that liberals have settled their dogma, so it has become invisible to them. No liberal disputes in a serious philosophical way that the government should do good things where it can and when it can. Their debates aren't about ideology, they're about tactics. Indeed, the chief disagreement between leftists and liberals over the role of the state is almost entirely pragmatic. Moderate liberals think it's not practical — either economically or politically — to push for a dramatic expansion of the role of the state. Leftists think it would be a good idea politically and, despite all the evidence to the contrary, think it would work economically.
Within conservatism, however, there are enormous philosophical arguments about the proper role of the state. This debate isn't merely between libertarians and social conservatives. It's also between conservatives who are "anti-left" versus those who are "anti-state." Neoconservatives, for example, are famously comfortable with an energetic, interventionist government as long as that government isn't run by secular, atheistic radicals and socialists (I exaggerate a little for the sake of clarity).
-snip-
Yeah, and the dreaded Boxer writes in her book that today's Republicans are "snakes."
As if Boxer could care about the metaphor, the instruction involved in it.
Yeah, and the dreaded Boxer writes in her book that today's Republicans are "snakes."
As if Boxer could care about the metaphor, the instruction involved in it.
It just makes me sick to see his name thrown around as the next great Republican offering for president. He's no conservative and I'm in serious doubt about the Republican party.
Ever since Bush was elected the Democrats have called him a liar about many things. Then when election time comes around the Democrats offer up an even bigger liar as an alternative.I think Republicans are fixing to do the same.
My ass is really tired of nominations who are the lesser of two evils, who aren't really conservative but are the only ones that can win. That says a lot about we the people. Way too many of us are willing to settle for mediocre at best because the party designation is the correct one.
Any other National Enquirer stories you wanna pimp while you're at it?
Sheesh.
There is not measurable "anti immigrant sentiment" but there IS anti-illegal alien sentiment.
Important to state the facts correctly.
Do you actually believe THAT?
If not, then why post such tripe?
C'mon he is getting rid of the Death tax isn't he !
She'd know about snakes. She one of 'em.
Out of 30M republicans... what are the odds of ever even identifying the "best" let alone electing them?
C'mon...
I was born at night, but not last night.
It's anti-Mexican sentiment, pure and simple!
And they are willing to bring down this president to accomplish this goal.
I don't know if I believe it. The fact is, President Bush seems to have gone through a dramatic change over the past several weeks. He seems to have lost his confidence, he's been on the defensive -- without fighting back -- and he's acted like he's being led by the nose by his advisors.
You can draw your own conclusions, as I am drawing mine.
1. My point is that he may believe that it is not the place of the judiciary to determine whether or not any amendment protects rights. As Harriet Miers stated (and was sharply to the right of Renquist and Scalia in so stating), the proper role of the Supreme Court is to settle disputes about the interpretation of law among the branches of the government. It may be his OPINION that the Congress and the President are derelict in their sworn oaths to protect the Constitution, but that it is not the place of the Supreme Court to make that determination.
2. I am not sure that he does. Although conservatives hate it because it is a narrow reading of the law, the "collective right" is at least textually sound. But here is where we get into why Roberts was not being liberal when he refused to absolutely subscribe to originalism or strict constructionism:
There is a VERY persuasive thought that finds that the Second Amendment protects an INDIVIDUAL right, as opposed to a collective right: There are plain-spoke historical bases for asserting that the second amendment is the ultimate fail-safe for the Constitution; should the government become too oppressive, the people retain the right to resist the goverment's use of force; and this power to resist the government not only lies among the states' rights to resist the federal government, but more fundamentally, among the individuals' right to collectivise into UNOFFICIAL militia, like Sam Adams' and Paul Revere's Sons of Liberty, or the Michigan Militia.
The problem was that in 1787, a successful repulsion of the government was all that was necessary to live free of its tyranny. If one is to sucessfully hold back the government today, and one holds the position that the second amendment should make that feasible, than one also must be able to deploy weapons of mass destruction. Muskets won't cut it; A-Bombs are necessary. Our society has evolved around the notion that there are reasonable limits to an unofficial body's ability to make war.
How do we resolve this problem?
John Roberts' answer (echoed by Harriet Miers) was that the present courts must be tolerant of past courts' mistakes. A justice must be humble enough to permit a ruling he considers to have been in error to stand. His prescribed basis for determining whether an errant ruling should be allowed to stand is how workable is it. If it comes into increasing conflict with later, more correct rulings, the incorrect ruling must be overturned. On the other hand, if society and subsequent legislation have grown around the ruling, and changing a very important and long-standing ruling would create massive disruptions in government, it should be permitted to stand.
This reasoning gives Roberts a basis for asserting the general principle that people should be able to bear arms, while still reserving for the government some amount to limit outrageous weapory, like nuclear weapons. This reasoning would also be parallel to the way the courts, including conservatives, have interpreted other rights: that they are limited when they would deny others of even more fundamental rights. ("My right to freedom of expression ends at your nose."; "There exists no right to yeall "Fire!" in a crowded theater."; "Regardless of whether one's own religion permits an act, one is obliged to conform to the law.")
Bork was much more ideological, and more likely to be threatened by assertions that originalism or strict constructionism are merely useful guidelines, not absolutes. Without re-reading his writings, I can't assert this positively, but I wouldn't be surprised if he held that gun rights are collective; it would be a forced reading of the federalist papers, and a narrow interpretation as opposed to the very broad interpretations liberals have for the second half of the first amendment. But Bork doesn't read individual rights terribly broadly.
Yes, it is important to state the facts correctly.
There is a significant "anti-immigrant" force here. "illegal" immigrant is used as a convenient cover... but all you gotta do is watch any thread where there is a "Gonzales" name in the story... and it'll turn into an anti-immigrant thread inside of twenty posts. That all parties in the story are citizens will not matter.
In a footnote on page 166, Judge Bork writes that ``the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that there is no individual right to own a firearm. The Second Amendment was designed to allow states to defend themselves against a possibly tyrannical national government. Now that the federal government has stealth bombers and nuclear weapons, it is hard to imagine what people would need to keep in the garage to serve that purpose.''
Robert Bork - On Larry King Live July 21,1994
"Well, it's a little ambiguous. It sounds in the first part as if it's, like, a right to join the militia, have a militia. And it sounds, in the second part, like an individual right to bear arms. ...I've always viewed it as a militia amendment, but there is an argument about that. I have to admit, it's not entirely clear... I don't know what-- today, I don't know how you would solve the question of what arms you're entitled to bear. Now that the Feds have nuclear weapons and stealth bombers, I don't know what it is you have to keep in the garage to fight them off."
Well, he was also better than John McCain. I was a Keyes man, myself, until he flaked out worse than Buchanan.
He's not drinking, so it's snarky to mention that.
Most drunks are bold.
A political movement doesn't amount to a hill of beans unless it can get electoral power.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.