Quotes of the day
posted at 9:30 pm on November 14, 2009 by Allahpundit
“All in all, Ms. Palin emerges from ‘Going Rogue’ as an eager player in the blame game, thoroughly ungrateful toward the McCain campaign for putting her on the national stage. As for the McCain campaign, it often feels like a desperate and cynical operation, willing to make a risky Hail Mary pass in order to try to score a tactical win, instead of making a considered judgment as to who might be genuinely qualified to sit a heartbeat away from the Oval Office…
“Yet, Mr. McCain’s astonishing decision to pick someone with so little experience (less than two years as the governor of Alaska, and before that, two terms as mayor of Wasilla, a town with fewer than 7,000 residents) as his running mate and Ms. Palin’s own surprisingly nonchalant reaction to Mr. McCain’s initial phone call about the vice president’s slot (she writes that it felt “like a natural progression”) underscore just how alarmingly expertise is discounted — or equated with elitism — in our increasingly democratized era, and just how thoroughly colorful personal narratives overshadow policy arguments and actual knowledge.”
***
“The Palin problem, then, might be that she cynically incites a crowd that she has no real intention of pleasing. If she were ever to get herself to the nation’s capital, the teabaggers would be just as much on the outside as they are now, and would simply have been the instruments that helped get her elected. In my own not-all-that-humble opinion, duping the hicks is a degree or two worse than condescending to them. It’s also much more dangerous, because it meanwhile involves giving a sort of respectability to ideas that were discredited when William Jennings Bryan was last on the stump. The Weekly Standard (itself not exactly a prairie-based publication) might want to think twice before flirting with popular delusions and resentments that are as impossible to satisfy as the demand for a silver standard or a ban on the teaching of Darwin, and are for that very reason hard to tamp down. Many of Palin’s admirers seem to expect that, on receipt of the Republican Party nomination, she would immediately embark on a crusade against Wall Street and the banks. This notion is stupid to much the same degree that it is irresponsible…
“Once again, one is compelled to ask which would be worse: a Sarah Palin who really meant what she merely seemed to say, or a Sarah Palin who would say anything at all for a cheap burst of applause?”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 4 5 6
How many of them would you wager have actually read a Scalia opinion, or a Thomas Opinion? The genius of Scalia BTW is to make opinions accessible to non lawyer types. So I imagine he would not be the best example. Look at the skewering one of the brightest living conservative minds got when he told Palin that her narrative was damaging the debate. He was skewered as a sexist and eletist and blah blah blah. It didnt change the fact that he was right.
Squid Shark on November 15, 2009 at 9:49 AM
I agree with the criticism of lionization. I really do. JtP, Prejean and certainly others down the road.
But what I am suggesting you are missing is that this is a reactionary force, not an avocation of elitism. What we have learned from countless legislative battles is that the people feel 1) that their representatives do not attend to their constituents concerns 2) the media is an active lobbing force 3)in the lobbying, they attempt to mock and destroy. Of course there is going to be a push-back, some name calling, some ‘get out my house’ behavior. It’s Newtonian physics. But does not mean that the behavior is rooted in elitism; it’s a reactionary force.
Spirit of 1776 on November 15, 2009 at 9:49 AM
LOL
beachgirlusa on November 15, 2009 at 9:50 AM
The fact that you backed away from those two specific people, was it because both apparently don’t embrace the current gay agenda or that they become stories unto themselves. And what happened at the July 4th tea party that changed your mind? Kieth Olbermann’s Worse People In The World?
Cindy Munford on November 15, 2009 at 9:53 AM
So does Thomas, but that’s exactly my point. People aren’t afraid of ideas, and talking about ideas. What they don’t like is the pretention that if you don’t use “my language” you cannot talk about ideas. For example, Gibson asks Palin about “Bush Doctrine” – this is a language game. He isn’t about to define it either but he attempts to use language to separate wise/stupid – he’s not talking about the idea, but the language. That is elitism. What’s the CodeWord?
The fact that Scalia, Thomas, etc speak in language that is accessibly to the everyman should indicate to you the openness of the mind of the everyman.
To whom are you referring? The biggest skewering has been to Noonan, Buckley, Frum, and Parker. The reason they were skewered is because their reasoning is/was emotional. They got caught up in the hype, and were mocked relentlessly for that because they try to lead opinion and were merely followers of the media narrative.
If you are referring to Krauthammer, people did disagree with him, but in no where near the same tone, because his criticisms had a basis in logic and electability. Until he mocked the ‘death panel’ thing and then, within the same column, expressed this passage on care would lead to a regulatory body – well he earned scorn for that. And that’s not unfitting.
Spirit of 1776 on November 15, 2009 at 9:56 AM
He wasn’t able to define it either.
Spirit of 1776 on November 15, 2009 at 9:57 AM
Boy, it sure would have been nice to have seen this level of examination of Barack Obama anytime last year.
rockmom on November 15, 2009 at 10:00 AM
Who and what are you talking about re: “damaging the debate?”
And what does reading legal opinions have to do with it?
Have you ever read those by Learned Hand?
Oliver Wendell Holmes?
Brandeis?
Must all our Presidents be lawyers or our citizens be well-read in legal opinions?
As I noted, our great President, Lincoln, never went to law school.
Jenfidel on November 15, 2009 at 10:00 AM
This Obama video has been making the rounds.
Obama lies?
Spathi on November 15, 2009 at 10:00 AM
I know Lenny Curry, he is a good man and not the WPITW, that was a bum rap, so no KO did not change my mind, despite the fact that I thought a greater awareness of the signs was necessary. I talked with alot of people at that Rally and I noticed a lack of focus on the issue, alot of misdirected rage and alot of birther/he is a muslim kind of business. I saw that the movement, while basically noble had taken a turn toward rabble. Rabble by its very nature is counter productive so I left.
As for Carrie, while I do not share her assessment (I am for states deciding the issue) It was more them being put on this pedestal when you just knew they were going to fall off. JTP doing correspondent work in the Mid East was the last straw :)
Squid Shark on November 15, 2009 at 10:01 AM
The discussion about legal opinions was related to the post I was responding to (not yours).
And yes, yes and yes of course I have read all of those mens opinions and far more.
Lincoln was a genius and you would probably call him an elitist too. Clearly he had opinions that he knew better than the souther legislatures.
Squid Shark on November 15, 2009 at 10:04 AM
I think you’re being awfully hard on your fellow citizens, including Joe the Plumber and Carrie Prejean.
Sounds like lots of judging is going on.
We’re not going to play Jeopardy! at these Tea Parties; we’re there to stop ObamaCare, cap and trade and higher taxes.
You would no doubt be shocked at the “ignorance” of our colonial ancestors when they met to carry out the original Tea Party.
If you want an intellectual talking shop, move to New York and join the Algonquin Club.
Jenfidel on November 15, 2009 at 10:05 AM
Can you read?
I’ve done everything but call him an elitist!
I don’t know that he “knew better” than Southern legislatures, he just knew differently and I’m speaking as the great-granddaughter of 2 families who fought on the side of Dixie.
Jenfidel on November 15, 2009 at 10:07 AM
Let me rephrase then.
Had you been living at the time without the benifit of historical perspective, you would probably call him an elitist.
Squid Shark on November 15, 2009 at 10:14 AM
I didn’t make it to the July 4th event, that’s why I asked. While I agree the promoters don’t have any control on the signs that show up, it would have been smarter not to post them on the local Republican website. A co-worker has joined the local Tea Party and I intend to go to meeting after the first of the year to get a better handle on what they are promoting. She’s pretty no nonsense and everything she has shown me so far deals with the fiscal aspect of government. I wouldn’t let the fact that two people who deserved support but that now have been turned into things they are not, perpetual victim or broadcast star, keep me from joining. We have to be the voice of reason that stops that from happening. Sympathy sometimes carries helpful people too far.
Cindy Munford on November 15, 2009 at 10:18 AM
Would you please quit judging every one?!
I doubt I would have called Lincoln an elitist–he strikes me as infinitely down-to-earth, with nothing elitist about him.
I might have thought he was a tyrant: the Civil War was about states’ rights as much, or more so, than slavery.
I think you are contentious and just want to fight with folks.
Not good.
Jenfidel on November 15, 2009 at 10:18 AM
Squid Shark, you still haven’t answered my question: Who said Palin was “damaging the debate?”
BTW, I think you are at the least, a hothead, and at worst, not very mentally stable.
Get help.
Jenfidel on November 15, 2009 at 10:19 AM
Jenfidel on November 15, 2009 at 9:28 AM
Home schooling with the finest tutors and greatest library is commendable. It’s been a long tradition amongst royalty in the past.
You observe that a great education requires reading and discussing all the classics which our Founding Fathers and gentry did as a matter of course, regardless of where or when they lived. A true scholar then was valued highly, and one could not get away with Cliffs Notes growing up when all were expected to learn and be the best productive and positive people possible.
Had our American Founders all attended Oxford and Cambridge themselves, they likely would never have produced the American Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution and our Constitutional Republic. Creativity and originality are not acceptable characteristics in the hallowed halls bound by submission to the Ivy status quo of uniform conformity to only tolerate the progression of those possessing the greatest wealth, power and above all else, prestigious bloodline. Ingenuity plays second fiddle to acceptability amongst aristocrats and wannabe imitators in politics, regardless of era.
Today, the ancient old guard are simply using Marxism to regain all their Medieval authoritarian powers that were limited by the creation of the USA.
Those who created the USA amalgamated classicism with romanticism. Of course stability is dependent upon everyone being responsible to vanquish corruption. It is the Ivy League itself that has sold out to producing corruption rather than securing responsibility to the rule of law amongst Ivy League graduates. The propaganda wool is off the eyes of the public.
Now, whether in public education or private elitist formal education, the indoctrination of ideology occurs rather than the exposure to all historical knowledge and the intellectual development, and the cultivation of the genius of originality that must be organically at one with historical origination. Extricating that genuine quality from the elitist formal education began in earnest after 1848.
Revisionism erases knowledge, destroys truth, and is false grounds for liberty. Where revisionism is taught, do not entrench it further with a child’s mind and life. Ask why we sell out, to fit in, thinking that it will only be for “a time” until some later date when it is more convenient; then someone can address what is forfeited and forever lost. Independent conservatives hold our Constitutional truths to be self evident and refuse to forfeit.
maverick muse on November 15, 2009 at 10:20 AM
+100
Geochelone on November 15, 2009 at 10:26 AM
Wow. Good stuff.
Although I have 3 degrees, I’ve found that a good deal of my learning has taken place after my formal education.
The best a good school can do for you is give you the tools and point you in the right direction (something few schools seem to be doing these days, all taking their lead from the Ivy’s).
I’m still reading and learning every day.
(Thank God for the internet, which makes it all a lot easier!)
Jenfidel on November 15, 2009 at 10:28 AM
Geochelone, it took a while to spit it out.
maverick muse on November 15, 2009 at 10:28 AM
I’m sorry, I can’t let this stand. Lincoln was not a tyrant, nor was he a war-monger. He didn’t see things “differently”, he saw them as they were. He’s great political contention was the fathers thought that 1) slavery would die it’s own death 2) the Union was more important then allowing this issue to divide the 13 colonies (which as bad as slavery was, alone the 13 colonies would have been re-assimilated by European powers).
He was right in his contention, not different. He tracked the votes of the signers and they didn’t not vote in a manner that indicates they had any intention of allow slavery to expand past it’s initial borders. He did not attempt to tell these states what they could do (he didn’t infringe on state’s rights).
If you are honestly interested, I’ll dig up his speech(es) where he lays out his political philosophy and you can see for yourself. The man was a scholar, not a tyrant.
Spirit of 1776 on November 15, 2009 at 10:35 AM
Jenfidel 10:28, like you, I properly earned my degrees only to realize when all was said and done that it can be done independently GIVEN a listening ear for discussions where the real learning takes place beyond the formal education. And like Geochelone wrote (he’s a quick draw):
maverick muse on November 15, 2009 at 10:35 AM
I basically agree with you.
Lincoln was driven by a larger vision to preserve the Union at whatever cost and means necessary.
As a daughter of the South, however, and as someone who lives in a state where our Governor has to constantly warn Obama about federal encroachment right now (TX, Perry & his problems with Obama), I can see how my ancestors saw it as Washington overreach.
The argument could be and is made that the separate states would have abolished slavery on their own given more time and opportunity.
As an American, I respect Lincoln greatly and feel he did the right thing.
As a Southerner, I’m not flying the Stars & Bars, but merely saying that I understand why the South fought for states’ rights.
Jenfidel on November 15, 2009 at 10:47 AM
What towns and States was Obama mayor and Governor of, again?
Punditpawn on November 15, 2009 at 10:50 AM
Based on the posts I had read of yours over the months, I didn’t think we would knock heads. What you wrote makes sense to me. I am a little reactionary, I think, because of all the crap people write about him, and I think their disgust is misplaced from ‘Reconstruction’ onto Lincoln. Incidentally, my roots are also in the South, it has produced some great men (and women).
Spirit of 1776 on November 15, 2009 at 10:54 AM
Former examples include Common Sense by Thomas Paine, and both of our nation’s founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, accessibly readable to be understood by the everyman.
Our nation was founded upon such clarity, and prospered given such clarity.
Claiming that the very sophistry of corruption impeding American ingenuity is what America needs more of is false, unless that message is intended to promote progressive Marxism to defeat the USA with the authoritarianism that exists today.
Sophistication of itself is not a virtue but a vice. Simplicity is a virtue.
Bravo, Spirit of 1776.
maverick muse on November 15, 2009 at 10:57 AM
What a great way to put it.
I believe it was John Adams who said that ‘America’s religion is politics’, meaning that Americans were extremely engaged in political thought. I personally think that has waned through the years and people are less informed, but it certainly speaks to the nature of the foundation of the Republic.
Spirit of 1776 on November 15, 2009 at 11:11 AM
Since when did comments here become personal discussions about everything but the topic ?
There’s thousands of forums you can join and argue on the
Internet all day and night.
Better yet, start your own blog. You can read how silly your comments are daily.
woogs on November 15, 2009 at 11:16 AM
Lincoln was assassinated for those very reasons you mention.
The powers of the victors that replaced Lincoln with Grant ASAP corrupted all that was fought to defend while simultaneously raping the South.
My families pioneered originally from the North prior to the Revolutionary War, and some of those stayed while others migrated South and some West to farm, to practice medicine and law, and to educate prior to the Civil War.
As can be witnessed from the recorded reunions of old Civil War Veterans from both sides, the rancor between regions was personally forgiven by the end of these soldiers’ lives, despite the stoking of anti-Southern prejudice by those who continue exploiting the South to this day. A superiority complex does not make the bearer better than the target of ridicule, but worse.
The loss of regard for Constitutional States Rights resulting after the Civil War is the fault of bigotry in courts. Constitutionally, America deserves States Rights. The prejudices that produced the precedences effectively erasing sovereign powers of state must be addressed and our contemporary wrongs resulting from PC be redressed rather than ignored or compounded into further corruption.
maverick muse on November 15, 2009 at 11:21 AM
woogs on November 15, 2009 at 11:16 AM
It’s yesterday’s quote of the day.
Write what you will of it.
maverick muse on November 15, 2009 at 11:25 AM
Krauthammer. Remember leave the room = sexist.
A teaprtier calling me a hothead is classic, though. Thanks.
Squid Shark on November 15, 2009 at 11:35 AM
The only way to battle effectively against a bloated Fed is by the clash of Titans. If the states do not start rattling sabres as a sign of their true sovereignty what other power is there to stave off the complete dominance of a centralized authority.
Aren’t republican’s Jeffersonian republicans? We should be. TJ understood the dilemma. The Fed is totally out of control like a run away avalanche.
Geochelone on November 15, 2009 at 11:35 AM
One could say that the bloody secessionist movement necessitated the judicial neutering of states rights.
Squid Shark on November 15, 2009 at 11:38 AM
One would be in error then. All governments exist by the consent of the governed, so taking away rights can not be judicial.
Spirit of 1776 on November 15, 2009 at 11:42 AM
It’s easy to see how people would be less informed given that they must be trained in the law to attempt making sense of nonsense being legislated as “transparent” governance.
I repudiate the permeation of corruption that assassinates virtue while coercing strife. That it would control from the judicial branch is all the worse, given the legislative and present executive are anti-Constitution.
I believe in the power of rebirth, the renaissance of our founding principles. That is the natural order of things, as seasons come and go. Keep it simple and utilize the balance of symmetry. Deflect and redirect negative energy into itself rather than accept destruction without a will.
maverick muse on November 15, 2009 at 11:47 AM
So why did you have to use a sump pump? Not enough trunk for the job?
Geochelone on November 15, 2009 at 9:38 AM
You try sticking your trunk into hundreds of gallons of filthy, freezing water and see what happens to it.
And if you’re still alive after that, try snorting all of that.
I prefer la sump pump at a hundred decibels. Thank you very much.
Loxodonta on November 15, 2009 at 11:52 AM
I do not disagree, as Conyers (I believe) said that it was pointless to read the bills. I was commenting that watercooler talk has shifted toward entertainment over the years, whether Survivor or American Idol, etc. It seems apparent to me that immigrants (legal of course) are often more well-versed in our history and civics then natural-born citizens. In someways I think pax Americana has been so great that appreciation of the toil of making the country great has been diminished.
But as to your points, I agree. The first line of your second paragraph is very well-said.
Spirit of 1776 on November 15, 2009 at 11:58 AM
The rights of the unborn were taken away by the judicial against the consent of the governed, even against the evidence of science.
Today, the Legislative and Executive Branches of government coercing WITHOUT the consent of the governed. Given that, we also observe the Judicial Branch consider its role to legislate from the bench, to revise our Constitution without the consent of the governed.
That this current US Federal Government exists in anti-Constitutional measures against its citizens (who make objections but are refused Constitutional Rights) would prove that at present, this administration is definitely governing without the consent of the governed. This government has the armed force at hand to coerce submission; that confronts law abiding citizens (but not illegal aliens, enemy combatants, or enemies of the state).
“Speak now or forever hold your peace” was never more poignant than politically today.
maverick muse on November 15, 2009 at 12:03 PM
Palin’s facebook post…
The book tour starts this week, and I look forward to it! I’m most looking forward to meeting many of you, shaking your hands, and telling you,”Thanks for loving America.” I’ll give you a scoop here and tell you what’s on the book’s Dedication Page – it’s dedicated to you – Patriots – who love the U.S.A. as much as I do.
Amazingly, but not surprisingly, the AP somehow nabbed a copy of the book before it was released. They’re now erroneously reporting on the book’s contents and are repeating many of the same things they spewed during the campaign and afterwards. We’ve heard 11 writers are engaged in this opposition research, er, “fact checking” research! Imagine that – 11 AP reporters dedicating time and resources to tearing up the book, instead of using the time and resources to “fact check” what’s going on with Sheik Mohammed’s trial, Pelosi’s health care takeover costs, Hasan’s associations, etc. Amazing.
We’ll keep setting the record straight, and we’ll keep reminding some in the media that Americans are very tired of their non-objective reporting. A great, recent post that accomplishes this is a Conservatives4Palin post. It’s got some nice fact checking included. As always, they did a great job holding some of the media accountable for spreading more misinformation and for making things up. You can read it here. Enjoy!
And I can’t wait to see you! God bless the fight for freedom! Keep up the great work, Patriots who love this country.
- Sarah Palin
http://www.conservatives4palin.com/2009/11/fact-checking-fact-checkers.html
njpat on November 15, 2009 at 12:13 PM
No. The rights are taken away by their biological parents.
No. Everyone who pays taxes, etc, consents. They, as you yourself state (“I believe in the power of rebirth, the renaissance of our founding principles.“), hold out hope to change things via ballot box. They consent to the rule of law (ie to be governed).
They have not used armed force – other then black panthers, seiu, etc. The armed forces that are under oath haven’t been tested in a manner which their response can be extrapolated from.
Spirit of 1776 on November 15, 2009 at 12:14 PM
I hope you don’t experience too much shrinkage, keep that thing warm. I don’t even have a trunk if that makes you feel any better. I could be jealous. Is there such a thing as trunk envy. :)
Geochelone on November 15, 2009 at 12:16 PM
Spirit of 1776 on November 15, 2009 at 11:58 AM
When popular culture assassinated its heritage, the liberally “I’m OK, You’re OK” tolerant era proved to have produced PC cannibals rather than thinkers exercising logic. Study how popular culture devolved into ghetto rap.
Classics have a habit of sticking around for the long haul (to the chagrin of Obamalot). The tea party movement expressing the Silent Majority opinion in support of our Constitution is alive and well.
For clarity and preference, the US Founding Fathers take Socialist Rousseau any day, just as Barzun takes Marx to the woodshed.
maverick muse on November 15, 2009 at 12:19 PM
Physician, heal thyself: He’s the one always telling Sarah Palin to leave the room.
There is justified citizens’ outrage to oppose tyranny (Tea Partiers) and then there’s someone spoiling for fight for imaginary reasons (you).
Big difference.
Jenfidel on November 15, 2009 at 12:29 PM
maverick muse, Geochelone, Spirit of 1776: Gentleman!
This is too intellectshul fer me and my turrible Southern edumacation! LOL
Seriously, nice discussion.
I may have to read some of it several times for it to sink in…deep stuff for a Sunday morning.
(Can’t we have a nice boring sermon like church?!)
Jenfidel on November 15, 2009 at 12:32 PM
Your concept of “consent” differs with mine.
As per abortion, I merely gave an example (termination) to rebut a point that every government enjoys the consent of the governed.
The gestating life is taken away by the biological mother’s choice whose “right” was judicially granted supremacy over the life carried within, all as a matter of convenience.
I do not quibble that the responsibility per abortion is ultimately the abortive mother’s onus. But you wrote that no government exists without the consent of the governed. And I am pointing out the obvious disclaimer, that eugenics clears the board of any inconvenient truths and lives that do not consent to banishment from their current state of existence. For the US Government to pay for the execution of lives as non-entities is not the right of government, and does not enjoy my consent, nor the consent of the majority being governed.
That responsible American citizens obey the rule of law does not prove consent to un-Constitutional legislation. Again, recognize the significance of conservatives protesting, i.e. Tea Party. Attempting to prevent more of the same socialism proves non-consent to authoritarian rule under the monopoly Obama/Pelosi/Reid with Holder/Sotomayor et.al.
maverick muse on November 15, 2009 at 12:37 PM
Jenfidel on November 15, 2009 at 12:32 PM
It is a beautiful day out at the moment. Winds are churning up the falling leaves prior to the storm front.
Time to enjoy the beauty in life, you’re right.
/Enjoy your church while I walk the dog.
maverick muse on November 15, 2009 at 12:40 PM
Half the crowd at the tea party on 4 July did not even know what the hell they were protesting. I also saw people who defended with a straight face all of President Bush’s deficit spending. I also had no fewer than 10 discussions about the President being a Kenyan-born Muslim with the attendant signs being on full display (along with the Hitler signs that got us on Olberman). That is when I determined that the tea party (at least locally) had gone from righteous outrage to sour grapes and just plain crazy.
Squid Shark on November 15, 2009 at 12:45 PM
You guys/gals are great Americans.
Geochelone on November 15, 2009 at 12:48 PM
What your argument is that the government is not fulfilling it’s responsibilities as listed here:
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
You are really arguing is that the government is not securing the rights of the unborn. Which is an argument I agree with. But they are not taking away the consent of the unborn, that is the responsibility of those who kill them.
Yes, even the protests show consent. The consent to use the rule of law to petition the government for a redress of grievances. You can consent and have grievances at the same time. When you don’t consent, you are no longer operating within the law, because you are not consenting that the law has power over you.
Thoreau did not consent, and he was put in jail.
Spirit of 1776 on November 15, 2009 at 12:49 PM
You are just plain making things up!
I’m one of the biggest Bushies you’ll ever hope to meet and even I don’t defend the deficit spending.
You’re still judging others too quickly and couldn’t possibly know the state of mind of every person in a large crowd.
From what I’ve seen of the Tea Parties, most people know *exactly* why they’re there, which is to stop ObamaCare, stop Crap and Trade and to stop all the Big Government Spending and Big Federal programs.
You don’t have to have a law degree in Scalia’s opinions to know Tyranny when you see it.
Stop b*tching and start helping solve the problem.
Jenfidel on November 15, 2009 at 12:50 PM
& maverick muse,
I think the way you want to go on abortion is that Roe v. Wade was an abrogation of states’ rights.
By creating the “right to privacy” out of whole cloth and proclaiming that abortion on demand was a federal “right” thereby, they overrode the rights of the several states, as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment, to decide such matters on a state-by-state basis.
Roe v. Wade should be overturned because it’s bad law.
That it is a carte blanche for infanticide that deprives the unborn of their Right to Life goes without saying.
Jenfidel on November 15, 2009 at 12:55 PM
Before you paint with such a broad brush why not go to a meeting? The gathering on the 4th was an open forum, anyone can come and say what they want. Did the speeches from the stage echo what those people in the crowd were saying? I can find crazies and not even leave the neighborhood.
Cindy Munford on November 15, 2009 at 1:00 PM
LOL–no kidding!
I still haven’t been able to face my neighbor across the street who voted for Dope and Change.
I’m afraid I still might punch her in the face (and we’re both women!).
Jenfidel on November 15, 2009 at 1:05 PM
We had one neighbor so unhappy with the choices that he/she put out a Kerry/Edwards sign. Your neighbor is probably still happy with the outcome. Freedom is messy.
Cindy Munford on November 15, 2009 at 1:09 PM
I wonder…
My next door neighbor became my new BFF because of my Sarah! sign.
He’s closer.
And next time the Obama voter’s burglar alarm goes off while she’s out of town, I might not notice it and call the police.
(I am bad.)
Jenfidel on November 15, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Not me. If governments are instituted among men to secure their rights, and the unborn have the right not to be terminated at the whim of another person, then the government should, by definition, secure those rights. Why should it fall to the state level – if it falls to the state level the government is not doing the job it is established for.
If it is not a moral issue, i.e. if it there are not rights to the unborn, then why should the government be involved at all, it’s not in the purview of their power. If the unborn have no rights, then it’s like Bloomberg regulating cooking oil: encroachment.
But I agree that RvW is bad law.
Spirit of 1776 on November 15, 2009 at 1:14 PM
It is encroachment and yes, it’s a moral issue.
But it’s extremely unlikely that having decided that abortion was “legal” and that women had the “right” to have one based on the “right to privacy,” taking away the several states’ determinations that abortion was indeed murder, they won’t reverse themselves and back up into their own illogic very readily.
Restoring the 10th Amendment rights of the states by setting Roe aside is the way to go, don’t you think?
Abortion should never have been decided by SCOTUS, but they’ve been as taken over by the Left as any of our other institutions.
Dammit.
The Founders never set up our government to decide such things which is why there is the 10th amendment.
Abortion (like same sex “marriage”) shouldn’t have been made into a political issue.
It’s a medical procedure that amounts to murder, but the Left triumphs where they can work these new and peculiar issues through the cracks of the Law and the Constitution where they are mute (hence the need for SCOTUS to create the “right to privacy” from thin air to justify their ruling in Roe. Similar situation with Lawrence v. Texas, which kicked open the door to same sex “marriage.”)
Jenfidel on November 15, 2009 at 1:31 PM
If it is a moral issue as one citizen taking the rights away from another, it is the responsibility of the government on the federal level because it exists to secure those rights.
It is my opinion that RvW will not be changed until challenged by states repeatedly, but I do not think it is consistent with our Constitution to say that the states have the right to determine whether murder is cool or not. If it’s not murder, then sure they can regulate it as much as they want on the state level. To argue that is both a moral issue and a state issue is a counter-intuitive argument, imo, but it will likely be the argument that gets to the SCOTUS and what will eventually undercut RvW.
Let me ask you a question, in response. Do you think murder should be defined by each state individually?
(I agree that manufacturing rights of thin air is complete BS)
Spirit of 1776 on November 15, 2009 at 1:39 PM
Short answer: Yes because the states define murder in terms of the penalty that the law imposes for its committal (hence the reason you find the death penalty varying from state to state) and what constitutes “degrees” of murder.
The Federal Government was meant to confine itself to larger problems like national defense (macro-level).
Clearly, the Constitution relegates the guarantee of natural rights on a personal level to the state (micro-level)in the 10th Amendment.
(You realize we’ve almost circled back to the question of slavery again…)
Abortion should be returned to the states due to the overturn of Roe v. Wade.
While there may be a “right to privacy,” it in no way justifies the complete license to have or perform abortions.
Nor should the President be telling a national audience that it is “a discussion in which we can all disagree.”
The states should be allowed to construct their own laws again about whether or not to allow abortions, with the full recognition that it is, indeed, infanticide.
This is not a matter of “disagreement,” Obama, but scientific fact that an abortion kills a living human being.
Laws requiring parental consent for underage abortions,those requiring a 48-hour waiting period and even laws requiring that those seeking abortions look at an ultrasound of their baby should all be put in place, too, if possible.
Roe v. Wade and the pro-abortion lobby have made the whole bloody business too easy (for everyone but the baby).
Jenfidel on November 15, 2009 at 1:55 PM
No. This is a common misconception. The 10th Amendment is about powers, not rights. Rights are retained by the people, and secured by the government.
So the states might have the power to decide what punishment to mete out, but they do not have the power to take away rights. If the federal government allowed one state to make null rights of the unborn, and another to protect those rights, it is failing it’s mandate.
Spirit of 1776 on November 15, 2009 at 2:04 PM
Spirit of 1776: Further thought: When SCOTUS inserts themselves into these places where they have no business and rules badly, you get something like RvW or Dred Scott.
Curiously, I’ve been doing a little research and Justice Scalia himself (!) has compared Roe to Dred Scott.
“Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.”
Judicial activists will be the death of us, if strict constructionists don’t save us, particularly if we pass ObamaCare and SCOTUS has to shut it down because it’s unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court did a good job ending some of FDR’s more statist programs, so we can only hope.
Jenfidel on November 15, 2009 at 2:06 PM
I should add, I agree that this can exist on the state level. But it is with the tacit acknowledgment that abortion is not associated with the rights of the unborn, because otherwise (if it acknowledges those rights) the federal government has an obligation to keep the states from trampling those rights, as it is part of the agreement that all the states made to all other states upon entry that they would uphold the Constitution and it’s Amendments.
Spirit of 1776 on November 15, 2009 at 2:07 PM
No argument from me:)
Yeah. Unfortunately, sometimes the executives don’t do their responsibility either. GWB passed CFR on the assumption that some of it would be ruled unconstitutional when challenged. He should have vetoed it and had them passed a bill that wasn’t unconstitutional.
Spirit of 1776 on November 15, 2009 at 2:09 PM
The federal judiciary is failing its duties in 2 ways:
1.) By nullifying the rights of the unborn on a federal level
2.) By abrogating the rights of the states to declare that abortion is a crime and/or murder punishable by criminal law.
By inventing the “right to privacy,” they were able to circumvent both the moral and criminal aspects of abortion.
Privacy trumped any other consideration in their minds.
It is pure Evil.
Jenfidel on November 15, 2009 at 2:12 PM
Yes.
No.
Two wrongs don’t make a right. It is wrong of the federal government to not uphold the rights of the unborn, but it is wrong to grant powers to the state to determine the rights of individuals.
Having said that, I think challenges by the states will be the key, but I don’t think constitutionally speaking that power will be retained (nor should it) by the states.
Spirit of 1776 on November 15, 2009 at 2:15 PM
Haven’t read the Federalist Papers recently, but the Founders had compelling reasons to leave the determination of criminal laws to the states.
Much of it has to do with the establishment of police duties, jurisdictions and penal institutions, I’m sure.
Once you have SCOTUS establish its power as the federal enforcer and guarantor of constitutional rights, it’s a slippery slope and not a pretty one.
That being said, A ruling (contra Roe) that babies are human beings with the right to live would be like overturning Dred Scott, as Scalia notes.
This, I would heartily endorse.
Is the next logical step to declare abortion illegal again?
Works for me.
But the Liberals will howl like the jackals they are.
Jenfidel on November 15, 2009 at 2:23 PM
I think their are distinctions in civil law that should certainly be left to be determined by the states. But that is not true for the rights that originate in natural law. These rights are unalienable – not to be determined by states.
Yeah, the executive branch must be the enforcer, but the SCOTUS must determine whether the legislation doesn’t abridge the rights. It must be the guarantor of these rights, in the legal sense.
No argument. That would be the best case scenario. Should this happen, though, the states will not have the power to ignore that right. It is not reserved to them.
Spirit of 1776 on November 15, 2009 at 2:32 PM
Spirit: Further thoughts after I took a quick afk break:
I see where you’re going with this more clearly and it syncs with your argument about Lincoln, slavery and the Civil War(of course!).
Decisions like whether or not slavery or abortion should be considered “legal” should not be decided by the several states because it involves the violation of basic liberties and freedoms guaranteed at the federal level.
Did I get that right?
The only problem is, SCOTUS comes out with their own deluded rulings like Dred Scott and Roe, declaring abortion and slavery permissible.
At the same time, they’ll overrule jury verdicts and issue stays of execution with the full acknowledgement that the death penalty involves killing a human being, but refuse to do the same about abortion, although they did uphold President Bush’s Partial Birth Abortion Ban recently (Thank God!)
But your point is well taken that the Supremes should protect basic human rights for all states and that truth be told, neither abortion nor slavery should ever have been relegated to the states for individual legal determination.
Jenfidel on November 15, 2009 at 2:39 PM
Ach! You work for Akin, Gump and write SCOTUS blog?!
I live in the birthplace of Akin, Gump and went to school with Ted Akin’s daughter…
I am not worthy to discuss these deep legal issues with you, though.
Jenfidel on November 15, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Yes. This is why, in my opinion, slaveholders like Jefferson and Washington were internally tortured by the slavery issue when they werew. Their turmoil came as a consequence the Declaration of Independence and with the establishment of the Federal government, not (for example) the establishment of the Virginian government. Also Jefferson’s work in the Virginian legislature to guarantee freedom of religious expression was important to him be elevated and guaranteed at the federal level as we see in the 1st A.
Yeah.
Yes, that’s pretty much exactly my point, actually, though I do get the inherent irony that the challenge arising from the states (like SD) have the best chance of righting the wrongs.
Spirit of 1776 on November 15, 2009 at 2:46 PM
Ha. No, I don’t. I just linked it to my handle since HA used to be my homepage, so I wouldn’t have to bookmark it. :)
Don’t sell yourself short!
Spirit of 1776 on November 15, 2009 at 2:48 PM
I went to law school for half-a-year, then left because it wasn’t for me.
Now I’m just a very concerned citizen.
Thanks so much for the discussion–it’s really helped me to firm up my thoughts on the subject of abortion and the role of the Supremes.
I think I’ve been so used to watching out for federal encroachment by the “men in black” that it was difficult for me to see that in crucial ways, the intervention of SCOTUS is not only good, but in regards to the protection of basic and natural rights, necessary.
Kind of an epiphany.
(Of course, this beneficent role is what I think the Founders intended in the first place and the activist usurper role is the one manufactured by the Left.)
Let’s hope Sotomayor is our only new judge until President Palin is sworn in! :-)
Jenfidel on November 15, 2009 at 3:04 PM
It’s a club that is getting bigger! :)
Ditto. I enjoyed the conversation with you. Have a great day.
Nice:)
Spirit of 1776 on November 15, 2009 at 3:07 PM
There are truly people out there who truly don’t get Palin, her broad base of supporters, and the ideas and common threads that bind them all together.
The knee-jerk polarization continues.
itzWicks on November 15, 2009 at 3:19 PM
TRC is a black Republican, unabashed, courageous, and one of the most brilliant around here, and in general. He is “annoying” because he has the steely nuts to nail stupidity from all directions, including from the right.
Ann is not a troll, nor is she stupid (in relative terms, compared to TRC, she’s still Michael Moore).
If by “clever of all” you mean that she is a most deceiving liberal, we agree. Her only aim is to suck us in and to derail the threads which are adverse to her causes.
Lately she has changed tactics to pretend to not be such a leftie. If you fall for it, it’s your falt, not you Lox, anyone’s here.
I’d rather fight the trolls, if need be, and the honest lefties. Deception works with the ignorant, and, thus, Ann is callous. It’s also a dishonest ‘fight’ and/or ‘mission’ on her part.
Schadenfreude on November 15, 2009 at 4:52 PM
What happened to the discussion on Palin?
texanpride on November 15, 2009 at 5:21 PM
Lox, proof to the Michael Moore comparable..
The thread is dead. Lots of discussion on Palin on newer threads on HA…
Schadenfreude on November 15, 2009 at 5:23 PM
“Brilliant”? All I ever see from the guy is snark. “Steely nuts”. Come on.
ddrintn on November 15, 2009 at 7:51 PM
Snark is all some people see from Allahpundit, but he offers much more: The routine gloom that is so depressing it can cause mass suicidal ideation; frequent admissions of ineptitude that are cringingly pathetic; and the occasional brilliance, once in a blue moon.
But even if you continue denying TRC’s brilliance, you have to admit he’s nuts. Both of him.
Loxodonta on November 15, 2009 at 9:52 PM
Threads go through various stages of development, and then they die.
Loxodonta on November 15, 2009 at 9:53 PM
Do you have any proof to back this up? Video Audio?
So you talked to half the people there ?
I’m calling BS
kangjie on November 16, 2009 at 4:31 PM
Let’s all just calm down and be honest about the basic facts
And the basic fact is Palin rocks!! It’s her world and you my friend are paying rent and the rent payment will be going up for Rinos in 2010.
suck on a Palin/person to be named later ticket in 2012.
If she doesn’t rock then Cheney rocks.
kangjie on November 16, 2009 at 4:36 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 4 5 6