Posted on 10/02/2014 11:16:52 PM PDT by right-wing agnostic
The transcript of my interview yesterday on the Hugh Hewitt show is now up at Radioblogger. By analogy to that great Congressional tradition, I want to use this post to revise and extend my remarks. In particular, I want to pick up on the baseball analogy. (In the course of doing so, I may also be able to at least indirectly answer some of the questions Beldar posed to me the other day.)
The Supreme Court is the big league. Those nine old men and women have arrogated to themselves not only the powers historically exercised by jurists in the Anglo-American legal tradition but also, through the interpretation of Constitutional ink blots, the sole right to decide a host of political, social, and cultural issues that in every other democratic society are resolved legislatively via political processes. For better or worse, and I think it is much the worse, the Supreme Court has become and will remain a critical ideological battleground. A President cannot squander the opportunity to reshape history when the rare chance to make a lifetime appointment to the Court comes around.
Accordingly, and unabashedly, I wanted George Bush to hit a home run; i.e., a young, committed movement conservative possessing one of the greatest legal minds of his/her generation. Based on everything George Bush had said about appointing judges, going back to the 2000 Presidential campaign, I expected Bush to hit a home run or, at least, go down swinging for the fences.
What I got was a single. Or maybe a double. But no home run.
If I can switch metaphorical gears for a minute, do you remember what Crash Davis told Deke about the big leagues in Bull Durham?
(Excerpt) Read more at professorbainbridge.com ...
A little analysis on your part (e.g., a few statements on why this topic is still relevant today, what motivates you personally to post it, etc.) would be appreciated.
Regards,
How about you at least give us all the courtesy of listening to your take on this (7-year-old) issue, rather than just posting articles without taking a stance yourself?
<><><><
Interesting take, given that you comment only on the motivations of the poster and not on the topic itself (exactly like the poster).
Someone uploading an article / originating a thread has, I think, more of a duty to act responsibly.
I was, in essence, raising both hands in order to make a point of order (see "Robert's Rules of Order"). According to "Robert's Rules of Order," such a motion (i.e., a point of order) does not have to refer to the subject at hand - i.e., the person calling attention to a point of order need not "take a stance" on the issue. He might instead note that, e.g., the microphone is too weak for people in the back of the auditorium to understand the debate, that someone should close the doors because of the awful draft, etc.
In fact, the standards here at Free Republic are even laxer - posters often comment only upon, e.g., the irrelevancy of the topic; the suspicious nature of a newbie initiating five threads in ten minutes, all on the same nine-year-old topic; etc.
You have a problem with that?
Regards,
bttt
It’s 2005 all over again
And somewhere in the world it is 5:PM so I guess I could have a drink.
You have a problem with that?
<><><><
LOL. Not at all.
Anonymous internet forums are not like the places where Robert’s Rules of Order apply.
We follow JimRob’s rules of order.
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.