Replies

Schlafly makes an excellent point - that the big issue is not so much whether we get conservative or liberal judges (even the best of judges tend to drift leftward once on the bench) but whether we reign in judicial power.

It's as if the football referees for Ohio and Michigan State football games were going past the rule book, and inventing rules on the fly, in order to be fair and insure an equitable outcome. If Ohio has been scoring too much lately, then lets count their touchdowns as five points, and Michigan as seven, instead of the traditional six points. The rule book becomes a "living document", and what matters is no longer equal opportunity, but equal outcomes. If the game is not close, it must be that it is not fair.

If this became accepted practice, then what had been a boring selection of referees for the big game would become a hotly contested decision, as each school maneuvered to get referees selected that they thought would be favorable to their side. The news that a nephew of one of the candidate judges had once attended Michigan State would be a proper cause for outrage amongst the Ohio fans.

The answer, which would (hopefully) be obvious in college football, but that seems to escape us (well, all but a few perceptive ones, such as Schlafly) is not to raise the ante for getting favorable referees in place, but to return referees to their traditional role - applying the rules in the book.

If and when one of the rules is getting to be a bother, follow the procedures in place to change the rules. Meanwhile, until the rule is changed, the ref enforces it as written, with modest discretion and the usual human fallibility.

Unfortunately, Schlafly then wanders off this most excellent point, to expound on some manifestation of the hypocrisy of the left. A tiger is a tiger, and leftists are hypocrites. When will we ceased be surprised at this?

[Although the IRD took no official position on judicial filibustering, Wisdom wonders, "Why do critics cry 'theocracy' when conservative parachurch groups, funded by people who share their political convictions, speak up for those convictions?" And why, he asks, do the same critics "accept the liberal political advocacy of mainline church officials, who use offering plate money to oppose the political convictions of most of their active members?"]

Liberal evangelical denominations are the same people who also vote liberal democrats politicians and liberal God hating perverted judges into positions of power and expect to overturn the American bill of rights.