Posted on 12/26/2004 3:08:49 PM PST by Aetius
"I've never had a lot of respect for Morris's intellect, but this demonstration of his cluelessness astonishes even me"
Took the words right out of my mouth!!
Besides, Bush plans to renominate 20 of those who were not allowed to get a vote. I believe they are all strong Constitutionalists. No wonder Dickey is whining.
Knee-jerk reactionary? When I hear that I think of Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, Ginsburg, Earl Warren, Felix Frankfurter and William O. Douglas
'so most want abortion to continue to be legal,"
Um, no, I don't believe "most" want that.
Morris is lost on this one...
Good idea. Here we go:
Is Dick Morris an idiot?
Current vote: Yes 1. No 0.
Sometimes I wonder if Morris is playing with a full deck so to speak. I think he is reflecting his own lack of morality rather than any supposed knowledge of the public pulse on these issues.
Any one who would help inflict the Clintons on the citizens of the United States strictly for money is amoral and evil.
The nation will not tolerate seeing an electoral victory impelled by terrorism hijacked to put another William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas on the court.
It sounds like he's trying to intimidate President Bush into appointing only Morris approved candidates. The idea of Morris intimidating President Bush is hysterical.
Unfortunately, Hannity usually (at least in my perception of when I've listened to his show) just sits there and laps up Morris' inane comments; whether its his parroting of the Bush performance with Hispanics that most people suspected was exaggerated by the initial exit polls, or his comments that the GOP has maximized its share of the white vote. Hannity wanted to believe that Bush got 44% of the latino vote so he just accepted it w/o any critical examination.
I too think that at a minimum O'Connor would join the Left on this, and that most likely Kennedy would as well, if for no other reason than to give the decision more public weight by having it be a comfortable 6-3 margin. Of course, when the Sup Court imposes something so radical it doesn't matter if the vote is 9-0; its still radical. I mean, the thought that 9 people could rule us in such a manner can't be what the Founders intended for the 3rd branch.
Another possibility that I think is quite likely would be for O'Connor, Kennedy, and the far-left 4 to try and give a so-called compromise decision that they think, and the media tells us respresents the alleged moderate, mainstream, consensus position of Americans; i.e they will impose either gay marriage or civil unions, and try and placate us by giving us the choice of which. Of course its like picking your poison, as logic makes opposition to gay marriage, but support for civil unions to be an inconsistent position. Yes its true that the word "marriage" has symbolic value, and its a sad commentary on the state of affairs that simply denying the Left/radical gay lobby this word would constitute some form of victory. But practically speaking, civil unions is gay marriage w/o the word, its a euphemisitic substitute, a semantic deception, and its effect on the public (i.e. tax funded) realm would be the same -- we would be forced to recognize and subsidize gay unions via public benefits, educational curriculum, etc.
But anyway, the point I was getting at is that O'Connor and the gang just might (I know its unlikely) actually take heed of the overwhelming public rejection of gay marriage via ballot initiatives, and instead latch on to those polls that show a majority in favor of either gay marriage or civil unions, and take that a greenlight to impose the linquistically less-threatening of the two. The media would of course hail this as a moderate and sensible compromise, but to the majority of states whose populations would reject any legal recognition of same-sex unions no matter what they are called, this would be no compromise or exercise in moderation at all. Others may disagree, but does anyone think that any state in the South would have even a plurality in favor of civil unions? Or the Rocky Mtn West? Or the Sunbelt? Or the Breadbasket? Or much of the Midwest? I think most people in these areas would view the imposition of civil unions with just as much disdain as they would gay marriage, but I fear the Sup Court would take no measure of this regional division and instead impose a one-size fits all solution as they have with abortion, knowing that the media's celebration of such a move would make it much harder to pass an Amendment to overturn an imposition of civil unions than it would if they went for gay marriage.
And I agree that whether or not states should have sodomy laws is not the question, but rather whether the Courts have the power to arbitrarily overturn them is the true issue.
I believe that most people would choose not to have it, but would not want it outlawed. As Bush himself says we must change the hearts and minds of Americans.
I think that the pols are trying to hoodwink us by telling us that the issue of gay marriage has not already been decided. I can't point you to any particular Supreme Court decision, but I'm a lawyer, and I recall that when I studied Constitutional law, one of the examples cited of the full faith and credit clause was that each state is bound to give full faith and credit to marriages formed in the other states. It may not have been based on a particular Supreme Court decision, but it was apparently decided law. That being the case, I would be surprised if the Court rules otherwise just because the "marriage" happens to involve a gay couple.
What am I talking about when I say "hoodwink?"
Very simply, both sides of this debate are arguing that MA gay marriages are not valid in other states. Even Kerry repeated his mantra over and over. He said that other states were not bound to honor MA gay marriages, and therefore, there was no gay marriage problem. Of course, he was just trying to defuse the issue long enough for him to get into office. Once there, he would have flip flopped, saying something like, "As I always said, we have a Constitution."
My response would be something like, "Didn't we have a Constitution when you told us that other states weren't bound to recognize these gay marriages? What's changed since then?"
President Bush was elected by tens of millions of social conservatives, and his #1 priority must be nominating, and seeing confirmed, judges who will overturn Roe vs. Wade.
If someone seeks to kill a child, it is necessary to employ the law to stop them...not tiptoe about hoping that their "heart and mind" will change in a moment of goodwill. First, the law has to step in and save the child...in the circumstance at hand, from death via dismemberment, the process called abortion.
The position of John Kerry, the Dem party, and many "moderate" Republicans is indeed disingenuous. You are right that the talk of the states being perfectly capable of handling the matter is just an effort to bide their time. They all know full well that it is just a matter of time before some federal Court, and eventually the Sup Court imposes gay marriage or civil unions on the entire nation, and that such an outcome is even more likely if the likes of John Kerry (or Hillary) is making judicial picks. Then once the Courts do the Left's dirty work for them by imposing what they can't win in a fair democratic fight, then all talk of states rights will disappear with lightning speed. Then the mantra will be that "the courts have spoken, its now a matter of settled law that we must accept".....just as they have done with abortion post Roe.
Adding to the disingenuousness, is the fact that many of these people, like Kerry, opposed the Federal Defense of Marriage Act that explicity empowers states to handle the matter and that protects states from the actions of those taken by state courts. Kerry said he opposed it because it was mean-spirited (which can be dismissed as typical leftwing demagogic rhetoric), and because it ran afoul of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. In other words, he took a position in the 04 election that the 1996 version of John Kerry would have deemed mean-spirited and unconstitutional. I kept waiting for Bush to bust him on this and expose his inconsistency and hypocrisy, but sadly Bush only made a passing comment about Kerry voting against DOMA w/o really exploiting that out-of-the-mainstream vote.
But yes, I agree that the media and the Dems are trying to fool the public into thinking that their actions on the state level are enough to settle the matter, and distract them from the imminent threat posed by the federal courts who will strike down their state laws w/o hesitation.
This is what totally pisses me off. I followed this election as close as anyone on this forum if not more. This election, as Morris says, was about safety and terrorism. The morality issue was gay marriage. IT WAS NEVER ABOUT ABORTION. And to hijack it now and make this the line in the sand is outrageous. You're out and out lying. That's what liberals do, not us. You feel strong about this issue, fine. Go do what you have to do. But don't bring me into it and the millions of others who voted for Bush because of his stand on fighting terrorism.
That's another one: "We don't need a Constitutional Amendment because the federal defense of marriage act already bans gay marriage... And I'm opposed to gay marriage, personally, but when people tell me we should ban gay marriage, I remind them that we have a Constitution...."
How many times can one guy flip flop on this issue in one interview?
Social conservatives are the base, and the mandate is ours.
The rather loud minority of several thousand people who voted for the President despite being social liberals are irrelelevant and need to get out of the way.
The election was absolutely about abortion, in tandem with other social issues. Any other consideration is secondary.
By the way, anyone who isn't pro-life isn't conservative, and should exit the GOP ASAP.
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.