"Why would we instead agree that the playing field the Liberals created is an appropriate one and therefore we will do all we can to get 'our guys' on the bench, trusting that 'our guys' will overturn the precedent?"
What are you talking about "we," Kemosabe?? ;-)
Seriously, your point is well-taken, and my answer is, I don't.
In my view, the entire Terri Schindler murder-debacle pointed up something in bright, clear relief: we live in a judicial tyranny.
The judicial branch has usurped the authority of the other two branches, and the other two branches are too timid, or not desiring, of taking back that authority and smacking the daylights out of recalcitrants jackas - uh, er,... judges.
I'd vote to impeach the whole lot of 'em, convict 'em, then try 'em for treason and hang 'em.
In this, I am not engaging in hyperbole. I believe that most judges believe in the doctrine of judicial supremacy, as do most lawyers, and likely most politicians. I believe judicial supremacy leads to tyranny, and thus is treason. And the penalty for treason is, and should be, death.
That being said, my slightly,... uh, progressive program against judicial activism might raise an eyebrow or two among the less... progressive. ;-)
By the way, who is your husband (that I complimented)?
sitetest
sitetest, my husband is TigersEye, and you complimented his post on abortion earlier today. I found you here by your find-in-forum, happily, discussing this issue. TigersEye can defend his solidly pro-life position well. I'm very proud of him for that, and happy when others also acknowledge it.
As far as the "we" in "why would we agree..." I'm glad you don't count yourself in that group! I actually considered a different phrasing, because I'm not a part of that "we" either, truthfully. As you doubtless concluded, I was grouping all conservatives into that "we" category because that is the trend of the majority of conservative politicians, pundits, and FReepers we hear from daily. Or that is what the majority of them have settled upon, as if this solution, this desperate campaign, is the last, best hope of our nation.
Dr. James Dobson is counted among these: I've been struggling with a way to reply to his most recent Focus Family letter in a way that shows my respect for his position and accomplishments but at the same time tells him that I do not agree with his strategy. (If you could only see the notations I made in that letter's margins while I read it!) Since the Senate's recent "upholding of tradition" my guess is that Dr. Dobson has begun to see some former things differently. (I personally can't help but picture Tevia shouting "TRADITION!" in Fiddler whenever I read the word in its current political context! As I recall he could hardly even mumble it by the end of the movie.)
Diva Betsy Ross,
Thank you for the clarification on the original impetus and resulting discussion of Roe v. Wade. I'm happy to count myself alongside you in not "being sold".
The whole party could come "unglued"....
Or is it the whole nation, I wonder?
Or, unlikely event, could Liberals and Conservatives jointly come to fight for the restoration of the Constitution despite the stoking of fires of our differences? And what would that outcome look like?
I came upon a great verse in Lamentations 4:17 completely by accident the other day, but it was just the word of the Lord I'd been searching for to try to describe what Americans - even solidly Christian Americans, who read their Bibles - are doing:
Still our eyes failed us,
Watching vainly for our help;
In our watching we watched
For a nation that could not save us.
I wonder if we are not witnessing the "shaking of all that can be shaken" which will show forth that which can not be shaken?
These are all part of what's been on my mind lately. I appreciate having some good FReepers to talk it over with.