Posted on 07/08/2005 12:27:20 PM PDT by dangus
The unelected people cancelled my vote in Alabama. We will change that next year in the Governor's race.
Point 1: Truth is, I don't know much about the role of a chief justice. Does the chief justice have a large influence on what cases are decided?
Point 2: Reaching out to the left must be tangible. If you ever want to gain inroads to the left, that requires joining them on a number of issues.
Point 3: The real way to reach the middle regarding the courts is to express a true desire to change. So little has been done to hurt the right in the courts, and so much has been done to hurt the left.
Examples:
Victims' rights is the right. Criminal rights is the left.
Life is the right. Freedom to kill is the left.
Free speechi is the right. Free to be publicly nude and lewd is the left.
Defund Piss Christ is the right. Force people to pay for Piss Christ is the left.
God back in the country is the right. 'Take God out of it' is the left.
Eminent domain: the right so far is expressing more concern. The left wants to keep the status quo in the courts.
Gun rights-- the right all the way.
Gay marriage-- the right all the way.
Perhaps you think most Americans are on the side of the left in any one of these issues. The left has only one issue in the courts: abortion rights. But most Americans only want abortions legal in the most extreme situations: life, incest, rape. And such people, even then, have mixed feelings on the matter [except for life of mother]. It's not something that fires them up.
They are sickened by all the abortions, especially late term and partial-birth abortions.
Um, yeah. She meant, "Have to wonder if it might work." (or that's how her colleagues took it). Which is pretty darn close to how I characterized it myself: "a wacky idea."
I proposed an unusal idea, and got people considering its pros and cons. A few thousand people. That's the creative process. Another part of the creative process is brushing aside small-minded little turds who can't even put together a rational critique.
By "small-minded turds," I don't mean the dozens of thoughtful challenges to my position, by men such as Edward Whelan. They have furthered the creative process, helping me to further develop the idea. I mean people whose soul contribution to the world is making unthinking comments such as "'Wacky'? I think you misspelled 'Really Stupid.' "
Ed Whelan and Kathryn Lopez simply ignore 'really stupid.' She published the letter because she believed it would interest her viewers. I would, too, ignore your comments, except I've encountered you in the religion thread and have wondered whether our attitudes expressed there translated in general into the very sort of petulance and narrow-mindedness you are displaying here.
It makes me think of a Shakespearean phrase. You know the one.
So, you'll have to find a way to live with the fact that I just think that elevating a destructive moron to a position of greater influence and power is nothing more nor less than a really stupid idea (cf. Proverbs 26:1, 8). You don't reward blithering idiocy; you overcome it. Elevating a destructive moron does not accomplish that end. (From my forthcoming Things To Which Most People Would Say "Duh!", vol. 14, p. 1347, footnote 12).
Actually, for all O'Connor's flaws...that was a well-written dissent.
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.