Dear Dominick,
"You can think, do you think leaving the party is the best way to overturn Roe vs Wade?"
I don't know, Dominick. That's why I said "I will re-evaluate."
Just how would Roe be overturned? By appointing more Nazgul by Republicans? Like O'Connor (nominated by a Republican president, confirmed by a Republican Senate), Souter, Stevens, or Kennedy? I remember when Kennedy went to the Court. He was against Roe. What changed?
Well, he's still against Roe. But he is more FOR judicial supremacy. He is a moral monster.
I know that the Democrat Party will not bring us to a place where the three branches of government exist in some kind of balance, and where life is respected in law. But I'm no longer sure that the Republican Party can, either. Like I said, I'll have to do some thinking.
If the Republican Party can't or won't get it done, we'll have to try something else. Remember the Whigs.
As for Jeb and law enforcement authorities, he could have told the state troopers, go in with overwhelming numbers, arrest anyone who resists you, take Terri into protective custody. I doubt any of the local police would have opened fire on state troopers, but if any had, then prosecution for capital murder of law enforcement authorities would seem to be in order. If the individual miscreant lived to tell the tale.
"Thinking that Gov Bush is more culpable than the Senate,..."
Gee, I don't think I've ever said anything like that. Although I think the Bush boys (all hat, no cattle) have shown themselves to be proper politicians, and nothing more, certainly it is the murderer greer, the psychopath felos, and the vermin m. schiavo who are the principal bad actors in this whole affair. The courts, up and down, certainly come in a close second in the measures of perfidy, followed by a weak Florida state legislature.
The Bush boys come in a far distant fourth. They are not the principal murderers. They are merely holding the coats of those doing the murdering. The US Congress approached the threshold of decency, but fell back. In fairness, the Legislature, unlike the Executive, has no enforcement authority of its own. However, a very public request by the leaders of the US Congress to the Executive to enforce the legally-binding subpoena of the US Congress by arresting the murderer greer would have been nice.
But they, too, have proven to be little else but proper politicians.
I can see that the Democrats are likely near-ecstatic at the whole turn of events, but I suspect there isn't much Democrat or DNC involvement. When your enemies decide to shoot themselves, the best thing to do is to just stay out of the way.
And if the Democrats are smart, they will see some basic, fundamental fissures in the conservative coalition. Perhaps they will figure out how to exploit those fissures. I don't know.
For me, there are two questions: How to we return respect for life to the law? How do we recover self-rule from the lawlessness of the judges? The two questions are intertwined, I think.
Maybe the monarchists are right. ;-)
sitetest
Of course we are : )
I think the fury over the judiciary is nothing more than a smokescreen - the judges are just the latest scapegoats of a governmental philosophy that denys the Kingship of Christ. Pointing at the judiciary, which is unelected, lets the democratists agitate for even more democracy as it weren't democracy that got us in this predictament in the first place.
Ya lets directly elect federal judges - that'll make everything all better /sarcasm
Interesting article by Thomas Fleming yesterday in his Hard Right blog on the topic.
Hints From Aristotle: Politics IV
The most relevant paragraphs
Aristotle’s emphasis on law may sound sterile or even hollow. After all, the people, if they are really sovereign, can pass an law they like, but an Athenian would have called that kind of law a psephisma, a decree or enactment, while the word Aristotle uses is nomos, a word that can refer to a law passed by the Assembly, so long as it is consistent with justice and custom. The primary sense is that sense of rightness we have inherited from our ancestors. Nomos covers some of the territory that in English is covered by such terms as natural law and divine law as well as tradition and Common Law. Aristotle concludes that it is reasonable to say that government by popular will is not actually a constitutional commonwealth, because legitimacy depends on our observance of nomos.
If Aristotle were to look at the customs and practices of Anglo-Americans from 1700 to 1860, he might have to conclude that the American system is not a constitutional commonwealth. Both elected assemblies and magistrates (governors as well as presidents) feel free to turn over long-standing customs and legal institutions, so long as they have popular support as measured by opinion polls, while unelected judges have obliterated the Constitution’s separation of state and federal powers, declared many traditional forms of punishment constitutional, legalized infanticide, taken away guns, and nullified the Constitutional safeguards against illegal search and seizure and invasions of due process. We have mob rule without democracy and oligarchy without even the shadow of an aristocratic principle.