Sunday, July 03, 2005

Lincoln, Pryor Call for "Consensus" Court Nominee

By Mark Moore (click "comments" below for article).

18 Comments:

Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Arkansas Senators Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor have both called on President Bush to appoint a "consensus" nominee to the Supreme Court position left open by the impending retirement of Justice Sandra Day-O'Connor.

O'Connor was appointed by President Ronald Reagan. She staunchly opposed overturning the infamous Roe v. Wade decision, and in many decisions helped the court overturn state laws enacted by elected legislatures. One of her more recent controversial positions was that the Supreme Court should look more and more to "international law" as a source for their rulings, rather than the Constitution of the United States alone. These comments came after the Lawrence decision, in which the Court threw out all laws against sodomy. See this article http://www.cparkansas.org/sodomy_ruling.htm for a detailed deconstruction of that decision.

Despite these shocking actions, the Old Media continues to describe O'Connor as a "moderate", and hopes along with said senators that the President will nominate another "moderate" to replace her. In today's Old Liberal and Democratic dictionary, a "moderate" is someone who thinks all states must allow people who want to suck baby's brains out to do so. A person who thinks the people of each state should be able to stop people from sucking baby's brains out is an "extremist".

Please mark me down as one of those "extremists". In the same way, a person who thinks that the American government should look to the Constitution of the United States of America as it's source for law is an "extremist". A "moderate" believes that if a judge cannot twist the Constitution around enough to find a "right" to commit sodomy, then the judge should be allowed to find "law" from Denmark, or Nambia, or wherever, in order to bench-legislate the desired outcome. Again, please mark me down as one of those "extremists". Preferably a "bigoted" one, since I believe that some ideas are actually better than others.

Speaking of the Constitution, Senators Pryor and Lincoln imply that in order to comply with the Constitution's requirement that the Senate give "advice and consent" for court appointments, the President needs to nominate a "consensus" pick. I see where the Constitution requires advice and consent, but I DON'T see where it says the consent must be unanimous, nor does it require all advice to be heeded. Those Founder guys were pretty sharp.

On the important issues that Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor DO NOT want to talk about, like abortion, a consensus is not a reasonable possibility. Some things are digital, not analog. The bit is either set to zero or one. There are no other possibilities. Should Roe be overturned or should it stand? What kind of "compromise" can you have on an issue like that? Maybe it should be overturned in states that start with the letters A-L and stand in those that start with M-Z?

Either Pryor and Lincoln don't understand this, or they are merely using words like "consensus" in order to appear "moderate". I think they understand, but are trying to assume moral high ground to which they are not entitled. They do this by using the words and phrases of a reasonable person even though the things they are actually supporting are anything but reasonable.

8:23 AM, July 03, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A couple of thoughts on the Supreme Court nominee:

1. How quickly you folks forget the Court's intervention in a state election(Florida-2000) that elected our President. You'd think the "conservatives" of the world would be roundly denouncing Kennedy and O'Connor for twisting the constitution to elect President Bush.

2. If the President appoints a "strict constructionist", please tell us what rights you believe the court should take from us. I'm sure you'd say abortion, but what else? You do understand, that if the court eventually overturns Roe, that abortions will still happen, don't you?

I certainly appreciate your sincerely held beliefs, however, I do not think it best to take this country back to the Lochner era jurisprudence of the early 20th century.

6:18 AM, July 04, 2005  
Blogger terrymcdermott said...

I wish John Ashcroft or Roy Moore could get appointed to the Supreme Court. But I doubt that either will even be considered.

7:13 PM, July 04, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

terrymcdermott - Would be nice, but definitely not with Bush at the helm.

5:33 AM, July 05, 2005  
Anonymous Maumelle 03 said...

Bush had better not pick a "concensus" nominee. When Pryor an Lincoln say that they mean a liberal judge. Why does Bush owe them anything. He owes the conservatives who elected him.

6:12 AM, July 05, 2005  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Anonymous 6:18

It seems to me that the courts were in a no-win situation. No matter what they ruled, they had to have a ruling that would give one side or the other a victory. The other side would could then, if they wanted to be sour grapes about it, claim the other one was imposed by the courts. I am not a Republican and Bush is not a conservative, but the way I see it you can't blame the courts that your voters were too stupid to figure out how to mark their ballots. I don't think I want my president picked by the narrow number of voters who are too stupid to correctly mark their ballots! Bush narrowly won on the correctly marked ballots cast.

As to your second question, it's premises are so flawed that one cannot give an answer. A constructionist court would not take ANY rights away from us. Abortion is not a fundamental God-given right. It is not in the constitution, but was hallucinated into existence by a run-away court. In fact, the reverse is true. The state has a duty to PROTECT innocent life- because life is a fundamental, God given right.

A "right" is not a want or a wish list. Anyone who is perplexed about "rights", what they are and what they are not, should go to this link...

Is
it a Right?


A constructionist court will restore the observance of our rights that have recently been suppressed- including the right of people in states and localities to order their society as they see fit.

As for "abortions will still happen", I suppose they will at a reduced rate. Convienince store robberies still happen, but no one is suggesting we make robbing them legal because "they will happen whether we make them illegal or not". It is abundantly clear that the number of robberies is greatly reduced over what it would be if there were no penalties for robbing stores.

If 90% of the innocent lives now taken are spared, I will rejoice.

As for things being like they were in the early 20th century, I don't want to take us back, but forward. Still, not forward blindly, but forward based on the mistakes and successes of our past to guide us. These runaway courts are a mistake that needs to be corrected.

9:50 AM, July 05, 2005  
Anonymous Lee said...

This fight over the Supreme Court raises the question, What would happen in Arkansas if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, which they are on the verge of doing?

I think it would be the fight of the century and I for one want Asa to lead the fight rather than Rockefeller whose friends at Planned Parenthood will be throwing everything including the kitchen sink at us.

3:52 PM, July 05, 2005  
Anonymous Mark Moore said...

Unfortunately we are not on the verge of overturning that horrendous bench-legislation.

I expect President Bush to be consistent. That is to say I expect him to betray the conservative Christian base that put him in office. I hope and pray I am wrong, but an objective look at the past five years leads me to no other conclusion.

Even if he nominates, and really backs, a good person, the court is still one Justice shy of overturning Roe. O'Connor and Kennedy are BOTH swing votes. Replace her with Judge Roy Moore and there are still only four conservatives on the court.

6:47 PM, July 05, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark--you must know Pryor and Moore have no core values. They are torn between appeasing the Democratic leftists in Arkansas (mostly state government lifers in Little Rock)and the radical left interest groups in DC on the one hand, and the conservative Democratic voters of Arkansas. They play this game exactly they way Bumpers and Pryor's daddy played it-----------------talk conservative in Arkansas, vote liberal in DC. IOW, pull the wool over voters' eyes.

Seems to work pretty well. The idea Pryor/Lincoln are "moderates" is well established, notwithstanding the fact that they are down the line Ted Kennedy/Howard Dean Democrats on when the rubber meets the road on key votes in the Senate.

Shame on us here in Arkansas for letting them get away with this scam.

11:21 PM, July 05, 2005  
Blogger kw's blog said...

Lincoln/Pryor will first stick their finger in the Arkansas political wind to see if they need to pretend to be undecided. In the end, they will vote against any Bush nominee getting the chance for a vote that is not a pinko-sandal wearing-treehugging-ACLU-homosexual-socialist-liberal. They'll claim that any nominee is too extreme, just like the more liberal Senators. They'll do the same crap they did with Miguel Estrada. Lincoln's office met with Estrada supporters twice as Lincoln was suppossedly thinking about voting to let Estrada have a vote. Of course her vote was no to end the fake filibuster.

We need to make sure that not only democrat Senators but the democrat party as a whole pays for what will be a partisan war.

3:05 PM, July 06, 2005  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

I think you mean Lincoln and PRYOR have no core values- I think they do, and those values are the opposite of those of many of the yellow-dogs who voted them in.

However, high on their list of "values" is maintaing power. Pryor can especially be turned and we should keep up the pressure.

To quote Regan, "They don't have to see the light, just feel the heat."

8:49 PM, July 06, 2005  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

I am surprised that some of the more ardent Bush defenders did not attempt to take me to task for my statement:

"I expect President Bush to be consistent. That is to say I expect him to betray the conservative Christian base that put him in office. I hope and pray I am wrong, but an objective look at the past five years leads me to no other conclusion.
"

Perhaps some eyes have been opening. I only hope any anger of betrayal is taken out on the betrayers, and not the messengers.

8:52 PM, July 06, 2005  
Blogger terrymcdermott said...

Bush is not a true Conservative. He is what I call a Neo-Conservative. True Conservatives are people like Howard Phillips, Roy Moore, and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas.

3:37 PM, July 07, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gosh, the glass is always half-empty for you folks. The Repos control all the levers of government. Of course, not your type of Republican, but my goodness, you get 3/4 of your agenda now as it is. Remember there are millions of folks who explicitly rejected the President's agenda last fall. What has made our great so strong for so long is that we respect the rights of the minority. We forget that at our peril.

7:39 PM, July 07, 2005  
Anonymous Mark Moore said...

I beg your pardon, what part of "my agenda" has been enacted? Republicans do control all branches of government, but they are not enacted a conservative agenda. It is just another type of statist agenda.

8:48 PM, July 07, 2005  
Anonymous H Mercer said...

anonymous 739... can you name any of the 3/4 agenda for which "we folks" (I assume you mean the fringe conservatives) advocate rallied by the Republican Party lately? During the election last year, voices for the Republican Party tried to scare the conservatives into voting for Bush because it would have been scarier if Kerry were to win, and that electing Bush would be key to restoring the integrity of the Supreme Court. What has happened since Bush got elected? So far he turned a blind eye on the illegal Mexican immigration issue (he even pledged $4 billion to help hospitals in Arizona to treat the illegal Mexicans) and expanding the federal government even further, instead of working on the more pressing issues like the runaway judicial system (hard to do when he is asking the conservatives to "tone down" their criticisms on Gonzales) and real immigration reform that is constitutionally sound!

When I observe the current situation, I wonder if many Republicans fall prey to the mindset of which they accuse the Democrats do, and that is, "my boy can do no wrong!". As a result, they get really defensive when others do shine the light on the questionable irregularities within the Bush administration. Maybe it's time for the Republicans (and the Democrats) to start using their thinking caps and really see things as they really are, instead of always going with the flow of their respective parties!

12:28 PM, July 08, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Robert Novak: Bush is biggest obstacle to a conservative court

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak07.html

2:55 PM, July 08, 2005  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Amen Brother Mercer!

7:35 AM, July 10, 2005  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home