Posted on 07/21/2005 10:14:19 AM PDT by cogitator
Do we really "KNOW"? Once upon a time, that argument could have been used in another case. The left had the same response to Souter when he was proposed.
If she had been confirmed, when she first was nominated, yes. But it's too soon after her confirmation for her to be nominated to the Supreme Court.
The next time, however.... Well, put it this way, I expect Rehnquist will resign before the end of Bush's term. How does Chief Justice Janice Rogers Brown grab you?
Despite the conspiracy, a gem is revealed here. E.J. admits the 2000 race was largely about the Surpreme Court makeup, and admits by default they were frightened of G.W.'s possible appointments. G.W. pegged Souter when his father considered him. This made him a threat, they trust the president's judgement on court nominees FAR more than some of the right do for good reason.
"You raise a very interesting point. Like a recent book by Newt Gingrich and Bill Forstchen, you posit one change and then write the alternative history that would have resulted. I'll raise that very subject with Bill, tomorrow afternoon."
Here is a turning point that I'd love to see someone explore: the 1939 'U.S. v. Miller' decision (the only recent pure 2nd Amendment case), which Miller lost because his attorney never submitted a brief or appeared in front of the USSC, so that the Court relied on the government's (less than honest) representations, and ruled that no one has a 2nd Amendment right to own a short-barreled shotgun (which is restricted under the '34 NFA). Subsequent to that, no one has ever successfully challenged the NFA, and in '86 the government permanently limited the number of machine guns that the public could own by closing the NFA registry.
Note that there is a very long and detailed description of this case in John Ross' book, "Unintended Consequences." The case and all documentation itself appear at http://www.rkba.org/research/miller/Miller.html
I'm curious what a good historian could do with this. Maybe, if the 'Miller' case had been decided differently, the '68 Gun Control Act wouldn't have passed, or would've been ruled unconstitutional. Maybe the whole War on (Some) Drugs would be vastly different. Maybe our society would be full of very self-reliant, independent (from the government) people - as used to be the case - due to there being millions of machine guns in public hands. I don't know, but I'd love to see some informed speculation.
The actual loss of the Civil War by the North(ern aggressors) is detailed in Turtledove's book, "The Guns of the South." FYI, it occurs because some pro-Apartheid South Africans in an alternate future take a trainload of AK-47s and ammo for them to General Lee. A very interesting (if implausible) read, which I found better for its analysis of a Southern victory's effects than for the technological/sci-fi aspects.
For those Yankees that may disagree about who started the War, please note that I used to be one of you. A fair analysis of the facts leading up to the War of Northern Agression, which was instrumental in the destruction of the federalism set up with great care and deliberation in the now-dead U.S. Constitution, shows that events were very much different than the history books represent. Oh, and BTW, if you Yankees ever try to repeat that event, the thing will turn out quite differently. The South is far more populous, industrialized and armed than 144 years ago.
Let's hope the invisible toothed Dionne will calm those among us still doubtful President Bush made a brilliant pick.
Only if they are defended........
From the Library Journal: "In 1862, the Confederacy won the War of the Rebellion (not by interference of time travelers, as in Turtledove's Guns of the South, LJ 9/1/92, but by their own skillful military and diplomatic efforts). The defeated North has stewed for nearly 20 years. In this alternate history, the South exercises an opportunity to purchase Sonora and Chihuahua from the bankrupt Mexican Empire, having already wrested Cuba from Spain. James G. Blaine, now president of the United States, arrogantly seizes upon this pretext and invades with the aim of reunification. Lincoln has become an outcast of the Republican Party and preaches socialism while Custer is a frustrated and embittered colonel on the frontier, Samuel Clemens a fiery newspaper editor in San Francisco, and Rosecrans the inadequate head of the Union Army. Turtledove is an accomplished professional at this sort of thing and has given us an entertainment that makes us think somewhat about why we are the way we are."
From Booklist: "The year is 1881. Lincoln, since losing the Civil War and then the presidency, is an itinerant socialist speech-maker. In the Confederate States of America, President James Longstreet buys northern Mexico, and the U.S. president declares war, the course of which operates through several historical figures. In San Francisco, antiwar newspaper publisher Samuel Clemens talks himself out of seditious trouble with William Sherman, while the British fleet reduces the city to rubble. The British/Canadian invasion of Montana is stopped by Teddy Roosevelt, yelling "bully" constantly, and by George Custer, whose brother Tom dies, reappears, and then is later referred to as dead. The War in Mexico goes worse for the bluecoats, as would be expected, since they face the dashing, slashing J.E.B. Stuart and his "camelry" --whether their mounts are dromedaries or Bactrians is unclear. At Louisville, Stonewall Jackson reprises his successes by repelling the Union attack and capturing Frederick Douglass, war correspondent."
It's worth the read for anyone interested in history.
My reaction to reading the entire article: remarkable honesty from the hard-far-left. Roberts's intelligence, experience, demeanor, acclaim, professionalism, integrity and commitment to principle don't matter. All that matters is that he is conservative, and if he gets praise from conservatives, he's "guilty" by association. Everything else is irrelevant. Conservatives are unfit to serve. Coversely, I would presume, a dumb, unqualified, misbehaving, misanthropic nominee would be ok by Dionne, so long as he or she was a leftist or "pragmatist" (read: unprincipled). Am I reading this right?
So now the leftist Dionne wants to bork a judge based on the crystal ball theory of how he might vote. Qualifications do not matter.
"If Americans were truly concerned and upset with their country being "defined consistently by Scalia's choices", they would have voted for John Kerry and a Democratic Senate in 2004."
And if Democrats and blue states alone were truly concerned, they wouldn't have registered **stronger** support for Bush than they did in the 2000 election.
From the 2000 to 2004, percentages of the electorate voting for Bush went up in all but 6 states and the District of Columbia. And the 3 biggest increases were in BLUE STATES: Hawaii, New York and Rhode Island. Blue states posted 4 of the top 6 increases and five of the top eight. Bush's margins of victory widened and his margins of loss narrowed in all but 15 states and the District of Columbia.
An overwhelming number of blue states became less blue and an overwhelming number of red states more red from 2000 to 2004. In essence, the country became *less* divided, less polarized.
What the heck is Dionne talking about?
How would that effect the position of Slave owners that their Negroes were property worth fighting for? If an escaped slave made it to a free state, he'd be legally free. Would John Brown still have gone to Harper's Ferry? IMHO, the Scott decision locked the inevitability of the Civil War into place. By confirming the a black man was and always would be property no matter where he lived and how his neighbors treated him, the need for radical abolitionists to preach violence and revolution to blacks was set, and even if they didn't, for Southerners to worry that they would.
Then again, the decision to declare Scott a free man could have accelerated the Succession by a couple of years.
This is so wrong. I know the left sees the SC as a super legislature, but by golly, that is not what it's supposed to be. THIS HAS JUST GOT TO END, and we need to appoint judges who will end it, wherever they are on the spectrum.
Well, if the present group of Northerners (e.g. Schumer, Lautenberg, Corzine, Feinstein, Hillary, Daley, etc.) get the opportunity to ban guns (i.e. if they win power), they will certainly try it. Heck, most of them are in a distinct minority and they haven't stopped trying. I can't see that being a very popular thing down here. I didn't leave NJ and its draconian gun laws, high taxes, overcrowding and pollution for the freedom, low taxes, open spaces and cleanliness of South Texas, only to have the same thing happen again. I have to believe that others feel similarly, and that the native born are not favorably inclined to a bunch of Yankees trying to take away their freedom and their property.
If you liked that Turtledove book, you really should read the new series (up to 9-10 novels now, I think). Start with "How Few Remain."
I've read most of them, and haven't read the first for a while - so I forgot about the legitimate Southern win in that novel. The series is phenomenol. Turtledove is, IMHO, the very best alternative history writer around now, and possibly ever. Have you also read his series about an alien invasion during the height of WW2? It is really two series, the first called "Worldwar" and the second "Colonization." It is, as all Turtledove books are, excellent alternative history.
"...and the persuit of happiness." To me, there's the reason they are so important!!!
Just how happy do any of you Americans and Freepers think you would be without "Property Rights," including the right to control the uses of it as an individual??? Riddle me that!!!
Not a one. :-)
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.