Replies

Congressman Billybob asked that I ping my conservative stalwarts list to this.

I have some concerns I ought relay to you all.

I've often questioned Billybob's (John's) sanity (IMHO, he profers to my "favorite" elitist FReeper, Common Nightshade, too much esteem), but I'm willing to grant John some rope with which to work here.

I believe this effort ought actually be labeled not as conservative or liberal, but as anti-statist, anti-tyranny The form that tyranny has taken here is judicial mostly; but our erstwhile political class benefits IMMENSELY, and they passed this thing in the first place begging that they didn't want to be thrown into that there briarpatch -- "OH PLEASE DON'T" -- and claimed the dastards made 'em do it, and besides "the SCOTUS will bail us out."

I know I am not the only one to think "we've been had."

You all will hafta tell me if John here was a big dubya booster before this episode. Was he amongst those telling us to wait and see how the Prez would stand firm against Leftist forces despite what he was saying and with whom he was allying?

As most of you who know me, I think that Statist forces are far too chummy with the Left, and even count on the Leftist bogeymen to help them make gains at the expense of true conservatives (and true liberals and true libertarians too if anybody here notices yet). Together they form the party of the elite Establishment, the RepublicRats™. (Does anybody need me to post my cartoon again?)

Anyway, here is Congressman Billybob's Hugh & Series effort to challenge CFR. I wish us luck.

I believe this effort ought actually be labeled not as conservative or liberal, but as anti-statist, anti-tyranny The form that tyranny has taken here is judicial mostly; but our erstwhile political class benefits IMMENSELY, and they passed this thing in the first place begging that they didn't want to be thrown into that there briarpatch -- "OH PLEASE DON'T" -- and claimed the dastards made 'em do it, and besides "the SCOTUS will bail us out."

I know I am not the only one to think "we've been had."

Well said, and quite correct. Correct on all counts.

Thanks for your ping to your colleagues.

In response to your various questions -- I use the word "conservative" for shorthand, but you are right that this is a "statist" problem. (Yep, there are times that conservatives go for larger government and slip into the dark side.)

Negative truth: I was one of those who assured everyone that the Court would NEVER approve this law. That mistake will lead to my resignation from the Bar of the Supreme Court, but that's a subject for another day.

I said when Bush signed this thing that he was wrong on the Constitution but that I understood the politics of his decision. Of course, that position depended on the Court not going squish on the First Amendment. Bush was wrong. I was wrong. I'll make amends. We'll see about him.

Feel free to raise any other questions you might have.

John / Billybob

I think it's not enough just to challenge a law. Look at the experience in California. What eventually "worked" is replacing the top guy in charge. That put all the little guys and little gals in the California legislature on notice, and they began to respond a little better to the people's will in the immediate aftermath of the recall.

Really, the easiest way to have avoided the problem was for Bush to have refused to sign the bill or veto it. Bush is the point at which the pressure is most conveniently applied.

By the way, Bush is coming up for re-election. If there were to be any print ad campaign, it should place his picture at the top and label him as part of the problem. If he doesn't figure out how to solve the problem he was responsible for enabling, then, ...