Posted on 09/12/2005 1:00:45 PM PDT by FarRockaway
Now, the Senators can be counted on to piously chastise people and reject judges for “deeply held beliefs”? Ah. Schumer and Babwa and DiFi all hold their beliefs in abortion deeply. Do they regard abortion as an absolutely Sacred (Leftist) right? (or rite) (right?) (right!) (rite?) (rite.) (Rightist? Oh no, definitely not.) Do they have spiritual motivations for these convictions (new age ladies please rise or levitate according to your “view” of that word)? (It’s a completely valid view of the word ‘view’ to not be able to see the word at all. In that case Annenberg CPB will provide closed captioning for home viewers, distant viewers, viewing relatives, relative viewing, and non-participating participants, but absolutely not ever for dogmatists as it’s illegal to waste public funds on people who just can’t see important things clearly.)
Do they find that there is a spiritual underpinning for any of their decision making ever? Oh, no, they insist. They don’t have deeply held spiritual beliefs on abortion do they? But if they are not deeply held beliefs Schumer Babwa and DiFi are expressing, why should we listen to them? If they don’t think them deeply held, should they be embraced? Especially since the congress, seized with convictions, has greatly squeezed the types of deeply held embrace that FCC can embrace and will allow ‘viewers’ to grasp on all encompassing TV? I just can’t get my arms around it.
Hillary will break down sobbing on national TV during the hearing saying, “No one hugs me, no one hugs me!” and all the left will logically conclude she’s deeply suited for everything.
“Yossarian strode away, cursing Catch-22 vehemently even though he knew there was no such thing. Catch-22 did not exist, he was positive of that, but it made no difference. What did matter was that everyone thought it existed, and that was much worse, for there was no object or text to ridicule or refute, to accuse, criticize, attack, amend, hate, revile, spit at, rip to shreds, trample upon, or burn up.…?” -Catch-22
So let me get this straight. You are deeply, and as a matter of ideological principle, committed to not letting your deep ideological commitments get in the way of establishing your principles? If so, should we trust you to keep your deeply held beliefs out of the process? Are you committed by your constituencies to provide absolute convicted defense of the idea that absolute convictions in the nominee are indefensible? How exactly will you defend that to your constituents with conviction? Good thing we’re not defending your deeply held secretary’s testimony in confirmation of you as, say, secretary of Defense, or something, eh? That would just mean you were full of government fertilizer. I mention this as a public intellectual unfunded by Annenberg CPB which uniformly distributes government fertilizer in a non-discriminatory fashion.
Ah! You’ve got a way out! You’ve got a way with words! You are convictionless, you reply! Perfect safety is ours due to your complete abandonment of, in principle, every principle! Nothing is big and important to you! So you are safe as public officials and everyone who doesn’t absolutely agree with you is unsafe! Relief! You are perfectly committed to the principles of relativism. Um, absolutely? Perhaps you and your relatives are all from the same family but you think that this can be viewed in different ways? I have to cry Uncle. But if you cry Uncle, what then? You think it is exceedingly important and a very big idea to stress that stressing any personal belief , you believe strongly, is simply out of bounds and definitely unconfirmable. Mr. Schumer, if you believe this strongly, will you recuse yourself from the confirmation process or will you assure us you believe nothing strongly and so will be qualified to suggest that no one should believe in anything you say? If they want to get confirmed? The thing I like about you is your bracing and definitive presence. Em, Have I ever told you that without qualification? But the thing I really want to know is if you are free of holding anything deeply what does it mean to be deeply held? Diane? Tell me Boxer, I need to know! On the phone while waiting for Schumer’s aide, “Hold on loosely but don’t let go” played in the speaker phone with assurances that “We absolutely hold your call in the highest regard. We’ll answer your call when we confirm what state you’re from” I guess they mean they have no hang ups. Click.
I can see it now! “Judge Roberts, do you strongly believe a thing I say?” “No Senator Schumer, I don’t.” “And Mr. Roberts, that’s why I’m a trustable public official and you should emulate me.” “But not too fervently?” “Is that an insult?” “No sir, it’s strategery.” “But if you are strategizing then do you deeply believe in getting this job?” “Oh no sir. I don’t believe I believe so.” “Strongly?” “Well…” “Good answer!” “You’re not being definitive-emphatic, are you sir?” “No. Artistic. That comment was co-produced in an inclusive partnership with the NEA.” “Ah.”
High-Karate, we’re free! Government has been demonstrated with moral tests to be almost completely amoral! Hallelujah! Thank God! (I say those last two sentences as a private citizen which in no way implies that practicing my voting franchise for the winning candidate affirms or creates endorsement of or an association with that same winning candidate of my own values or even of the candidate’s values themselves.)
“Under Colonel Korn's rule, the only people permitted to ask questions were those who never did. Soon the only people attending were those who never asked questions, and the sessions were discontinued altogether, since Clevinger, the corporal and Colonel Korn agreed that it was neither possible nor necessary to educate people who never questioned anything.” Catch-22
I’d like to make inquiry about that sometime but first I have conclude our attention to our national and sincere convictions.
In the national religion of no religion there is a religious test which requires, as a matter of confirmation, whether it can be confirmed that a candidate’s deeply held beliefs qualify him to serve in the public office – this by public officials who hold deeply that the only allowed religious test is one in which deeply held beliefs would in fact disqualify a public official, if this can be confirmed, but that this particular form of inquiry firmly does not constitute a religious test. This is exactly true without qualification. I think it is religiously assumed that no one has any religion and so if it is demonstrated that a person does have some this might constitute heresy. Of course if the heresy is bad enough no religion can be established and so the religious establishment clause is upheld and after the non-religious religious test is impartially and piously applied everything will be shown to have been heretical, thus secular, and moot (so OK!) from the beginning. But if it’s secular then it must be OK and no further investigation is warranted despite the fact that it then cannot possibly then have been heretical. And that, my friends, is the honest real goal of the whole thing.
Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.
"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.
"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.
I won't be in my office for the rest of the day.
Beautiful! Now promise me the little men in white coats will not come to get me for agreeing with you.
What if Roberts just read about
Major Major to the minor miner commission?
You may or may not have expressed desire to agree with me. That's a serious offense if it can be shown to be
in agreement with established principles.
Then he really didn't dig much of a hole for himself today !
Ping
Yeah, and what kind of name is Yossarian anyway Poppinjay?
Sorry, I'm fully invested in Minderbinder Enterprises.
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.