Yep, even Hillary says she's for Motherhood and Apple Pie (don't believe it of course).....and now you've provided a couple of examples that we can agree could be considered heroic.
image borrowed from Southack:
Posted on 07/08/2005 12:27:20 PM PDT by dangus
With O'Connor already announcing her intention to retire, Rehnquist leaving us with only a question of when, and the strong likelihood of 85-year-old Stevens or Ginsburg retiring by 2008, I propose that Bush should consider nominating Anthony Kennedy to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Don't get me wrong: I'd love to watch Nancy Pelosi's head explode as Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia were promoted. But the viscreal thrill of it aside (and yes, I know I'm a junkie when I can refer to the "visceral thrill "of a Supreme Court nomination), it wouldn't do much. "Chief Justice" has become merely an honorary title.
The Democrats are clamoring for nominations in the mold of O'Connor. Kennedy, while having a different focus than O'Connor, is just about exactly as conservative or liberal as O'Connor. And, until a third vacancy occurs, Kennedy will be the swing vote on just about every issue, since Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg and Stevens are all essentially left-wing partisan hacks, and hopefully Renquist's and O'Connor's replacements will join a staunchly conservative bloc with Scalia and Thomas. So, Kennedy will be the de facto chief of the Supreme Court anyway.
Essentially, it buys Bush a perception of centrism at almost zero cost. The public perception will be of a perfectly balanced court being created by Bush: four liberals, four conservatives, and the Chief Justice as the ideological centrist. And yet, Bush will have steered the court as hard to the right as is presently possible.
Comments?
Well, that IS unusual and NOT the rule in most other places; sadly.
The "so weird you just have to wonder", leaves it open for the rest of us to fill in the blanks,in our own minds, which if posted, would probably get us banned.
You are so right. It is the job and the duty of a lower court judge to obey the finding of a higher court no matter what the principle at stake is. Judge Moore disobeyed a Federal Court ruling and as far as I'm concerned disqualified himself from consideration of future office. I might agree with him in principle but it was not his decision to make. I do not want Liberals on the courts to enact civil disobedience to suit their agenda and I do not have a double standard.
State Court judges need to follow the law set by the higher courts. When that is wrong it is up to us to change it, not individual judges. No matter the cause.
I agree with you 100% and I am having a hard time on here figuring out the so-called conservatives that would want anything less.
Norman Public Schools have a really good school system that actually prepares kids for college.
It is scarey -- noticed that on several issues that they cannot see the forest for the trees. There seems to be a general lack of knowledge how Government works on here as well in recent months. I have sat here shaking my head more in the last few months then I ever have before and thought I had seen it all.
We no longer like NR or NRO. Tell them to shape up.
Karl Keating on the Decline of the National Review and Other Matters
I can't abide determining that the entire outfit is in terminal decline because there is one contributor who doesn't seek to make a big deal about abortion and other pro-life issues.
Sounds like it!
The Constitution of the United States of America is more important than the next guy's agenda. If a judge rules contrary to the Constitution it is perfectly appropriate to disobey them.
"My problem was the examples as well."
The core issue was that Dave S equated deviance with heroism.
Deviance is negative, antinormative behavior, while
Heroism is courageous role modeling, spine, backbone, fighting for what's right.
I disagree with his examples and equating of concepts but it's clear that he does NOT endorse such deviance.
Bottom line: the several of us surely agree that public pervesion and aberration doth not a hero make.
pervesion = perversion
OK, the examples werent so good. I was trying to come up with something that you wouldnt agree with to help make the example it doesnt take courageous action to fight for or stand up for what the common man is demanding. If virtually everone is for something, how courageous an act can it be to defend it. At that point, it could almost become pandering. Maybe better examples would be coming out against slavery in 1856 Alabama or taking part in a civil rights sit-in at a lunch counter in Alabama during the early 60's.
We sure do agree that deviance does not make a hero or make them courageous. Dave S had the right idea with bad examples, and it sure did get a response! :) I have done that before in other areas and spent the rest of the thread trying to say why I said something -- not easy.
But, see, what we want Bush to do with respect to the Supreme Court - make is as pro-life as possible, Buckley failed to do with respect to the National Review. If it is all right for deathist opinion to be printed there, then may be it is allright for a pseudoconservative like O'Connor or Gonsalez to sit on the Supreme Court. It is the same accomodationist mentality that is killing us, -- sometime literally.
You think of KLo's "so weird you just have to wonder" as a gold star on your report card?
Well, there always have been those kids who feel they've scored when they attract attention, no matter what have to do to get it.
We like to hope they usually grow out of it, though.
Dan
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.