Now this is funny, you say what is possible on the Federal level, and then use a state example to back it up. But to your points, I like all four of your ideas, would vote for each of them, yet none of them have a snowballs chance with this Senate and this President of ever happening.
In the meantime, the victory in NC, as imperfect as it is, stands. And THATS my point. And I think it may be Glenn’s point too, although that’s just a theory.
And you have just highlighted the problem with the current primary election process.
With GW Bush's judicial appointments, conservatism was near the end of a long few decades of shaping the SCOTUS in a conservative direction. (So, of course, Obama isn't voting for P-Marlowe's proposed laws.)
The time was ripe in 2008 for a hugely significant exit from the Scotus that would make possible a 5-4 majority with Kennedy a ringer that would occasionally make votes 6-3. That election was the culmination of decades of preparing the ground.
It was a totally fractured republican party that nominated John McCain, with McCain losing substantial portions of the base to Huckabee and Romney. In contrast with GWBush who had won nearly 2/3rd of the vote in 2000, and who had taken all states except one, we had in 2008 McCain getting roughly 48% of the base. (Romney this year got only 52%)
This says to me that Bush was a consensus while McCain and Romney were tainted by some great divisiveness (squishy moderates?).
2008 and 2012 were also similar in that they held promise of finally turning the Scotus in a 5-4 conservative direction.
What fractured the base? What led to consensus giving way to a 50/50 split? What made it possible for 2 of the potential Scotus seats to be filled between 2008-2012 with radical liberals? I'd say a large portion of the answer was that both McCain and Romney were perceived to be moderate-liberal. They both shied away from social issues, and they both were disengaged from actually fighting for a victory.
In other words, they turned off a large portion of the base.
Reflecting back over GW Bush's terms, there was a time when all of those things mentioned by Marlowe were within the realm of possibility. In 2004, the Republicans won 55 Senate Seats, and were only 5 seats away from a filibuster proof majority.
That final approach to a conservative majority was within reach, and then it was blown up. Was it intentional by the GOP-E, a group that would not want a conservative Scotus?
It's within the realm of possibility.
Oh, then because most of the planks of the National Republican Party Platform have a snowball's chance in hell of ever being enacted, lets just drop them from the platform and only have things on the party platform that have a snowball's chance in hell of getting past Reid and Obama? Is that your strategy? Is that Glenn Becks strategy?
Lets just drop such silly ideas as a balanced budget, smaller government, states rights, fiscal responsibility along with such stupid things as the right to life and traditional american values and just have the same platform as the democrats. Why if the Republican platform just mirrored the Democrat platform, why we might win some national elections and even end this terrible gridlock we have in Congress. Why we could become like Denmark or Greece in less than a decade if we just stop trying to enact legislation that can't get past Reid and Obama.
In the meantime, the victory in NC, as imperfect as it is, stands.
LMAO!!!!
You call that a victory? What happens when the FEDERAL COURTS rule on it? You think you have a victory in NC? The battle hasn't even begun in NC and you want to surrender the entire Federal field to Obama and Reid and the principalities and powers and the rulers of the darkness of this world, and spiritual wickedness in high places? Just give up because we don't have a snowball's chance in hell against them?
Yeah just surrender all Dorothy. America. It was a good idea, but it's time has come and gone. With Conservatives like Beck and you, it's pretty much over. Turn out the lights.
Oh, BTW, Judgment day is coming. Or maybe that was November 6.
CEW, of course Marlowe used a state example to back up his contention that states can do what they want but the Fed will work to counter-act it.
His example was: California passed same sex marriage law AND the Fed then went and overturned it.
That was his point.