Skip to comments.How Democrats lost the political battle
Posted on 02/01/2006 7:15:56 AM PST by AZRepublican
With the confirmation of Associate Justice Samuel Alito, the Bush administration has managed to win both the battle and the war over the future of the Supreme Court.
Under the leadership of new Chief Justice John Roberts, the court almost certainly will take a sharp turn to the right on issues such as women's rights, environmental protection, gun control, separation of church and state, presidential power and the relationship between the federal government and the states. It is no exaggeration to say that 10 years from now Americans may be living in a society with less privacy, less autonomy, less democracy (at least at the federal level) and less respect for science.
It did not have to be that way. Unfortunately, Senate Democrats consistently misplayed, overplayed and underplayed their strengths, until they virtually assured their own defeat.
(Excerpt) Read more at signonsandiego.com ...
Let's hope they lose their ass in the 2006 congressional elections, too.
Now we need at least one more SCOTUS nominee and we can beging to roll back the socialist state being imposed on us by liberal judges and congressmen.
That's what this guy does for a living. Wow, look how important he is. /sarcasm off
[Snicker]. A bit overwrought, aren't they?
Yes, it is. It is extreme exaggeration.
Proving once again that "D" is for Demagog.
The RATS just cannot adjust to not being in control.
Once upon a time, the dims mainstream puddle stretched from horizon to horizon. Now it's down to a mere 25% -- and drying up fast.
Life is good!
Wading through the liberal sobs in this story....the author has indeed tripped over one truth..Ifd they had NOT filabustered the circuit court nominees..they could have successfully blocked the SCOTUS nominees...as usual, being Dems, they overreached..
Between that and Howard Dean running the Party into the ground in terms of Fundraising, I think that the Dims stand VERY little chance of winning much if anything in 06!
The article states"
It is no exaggeration to say that 10 years from now Americans may be living in a society with less privacy, less autonomy, less democracy (at least at the federal level) and less respect for science.
Maybe a better way of saying this is that Americans will be living in a scoiety that has more respect for the constitution, less rulings against the will of the people and congress because it differs from the "supreme" views of a nine appointed individuals and more freedom on state and local levels.
"D" is for "Stupid beyond belief"
"Let's hope they lose their ass in the 2006 congressional elections, too."
Don't take the elections for granted. Dem control of the House would be a disaster.
Less gun control and a weaker federal government = less autonomy?
I love all these DemoCRAP fortune tellers...
I've never heard of him, but he certainly thinks he has it all figured out, including just where Roberts and Alito will come down on cases that have yet to be heard by the S.C. After listening to the Judiciary hearings on both these men, I would not want to make a bet on how they would vote on any given case (unlike Lubet.) I am, however, content to think that both men are as qualified or more qualified than the justices they are replacing which I believe is what the constitution means by "advice and consent," not "gotcha" as advocated by Lubet.
What the heck is meant by "less privacy?" And does "privacy" really mean?
Does he mean liberal Mayor 'Dumbass' Daley installing video cameras everywhere in Chicago?
Exactly - very well said. Thank you.
I think he forgot to take his medication.
Wow. This guy is really smart to know what our life will be like in 10 years.
And that brought us Alito, a nominee who, though modest and affable, is a literal avatar of right-wing jurisprudence.
OK. Let's just give up now and say that a supreme court justice who believes in a strict interpretation of the consititution really doesn't believe in individual liberty, and the Founding Fathers were a bunch of freedom-hating right-wingers.
Overwrought much? Let me parse this sentence, as much as I can.
less privacy Abortion has been misconstrued as a privacy issue. It is not. It is a medical ethics issue, which the state can regulate like any drug or other medical procedure.
less autonomy Not sure about that one, possibly "right to die", if so see abortion.
less democracy Since the "Warren Court" of the 50's, the Supreme Court has become more and more something which it was never meant to be, an oligarchy. Alito will bring more democracy, not less. The "Alito Court" will likely force issues like abortion into the legislature, not the courts.
less respect for science Maybe. However, the left's hatred of science is probably greater than the religious right's hatred of The Theory of Evolution, which is only one theory. The left's rejection of the idea of "Truth" itself is much worse.
"Less Privacy" is a codeword for "Less Abortion".
Imagine that. A Republican president elected because of his Republican ideals would seek to place a Republican minded judicial candidate. Those revelations are earth shattering. Perhaps we should convene scientific studies at our universities to study the phenomenon. I can't help but think that perhaps President Bush had an agenda in his pick. The arrogance.
Almost miraculously, the nomination of Harriet Miers presented the Democrats with one last chance to keep a centrist on the Supreme Court. [...]I thank Schumer and Leahy for doing the dirty work and ditching Miers. Alito is a godsend.
Miers' fate was sealed when it became clear that neither Patrick Leahy nor Charles Schumer would vote for her in the Judiciary Committee, thus ending the possibility of a bipartisan defense against the fundamentalist barrage.
When liberals say "democracy", they mean "taking money from some people and giving it to others". So I certainly hope for less "democracy".
"Under the leadership of new Chief Justice John Roberts, the court almost certainly will take a sharp turn to the right "
I could never understand how upholding the Constitution is a 'sharp turn to the right'.
Unless, of course, they mean upholding the Constitution is the 'RIGHT' thing to do?
Ya think that's what they mean?
Bush's nominations increasingly came from the far right, and the filibuster was the only way to defeat the most extreme among them.
"far right" - less radical than Cindy Sh--han
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.