tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post8227789110485018511..comments2023-10-24T11:23:31.580-04:00Comments on Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion: Pat Buchanan, Multi-CulturalistWilliam A. Jacobsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16433685588536441422noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-44211329455544354322010-05-17T15:13:58.048-04:002010-05-17T15:13:58.048-04:00What ever happened to the real litmus test for a S...<i>What ever happened to the real litmus test for a Supreme Court appointee - strict interpretation and adherence to the US Constitution, ensuring the balance of powers?</i><br /><br />You could have written that just after Lincoln attempted to jail the Chief Justice...Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-34507368585447641102010-05-17T14:11:45.192-04:002010-05-17T14:11:45.192-04:00"At the arguments in January, Ms. Kagan said ..."At the arguments in January, Ms. Kagan said the power to confine such prisoners was implicit in the government's duty 'to run a responsible criminal justice system.' The law aims 'to make sure that sexually dangerous, mentally ill people don't fall through the cracks between federal custody and the re-establishment of state control," she said.'" -- Jess Braven WSJ 5/17/10<br /><br />Off topic, but related: What in the US Constitution makes this acceptable?! And, Ms. Kagan, what "implicit" part of the US Constitution was used to justify this argument? Does this represent the average American? A ruling 7-2 is shocking, to me, as this type of argument can be made now for anyone at the federal level, if they are considered "mentally dangerous" by the federal government and/or courts. Outrageous!DINORightMariehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01067345219054999889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-20321094950197052662010-05-17T08:48:48.687-04:002010-05-17T08:48:48.687-04:00The president has said he wants the Court to repre...The president has said he wants the Court to represent America, but it is also his discretion to define what America looks like, I guess. It is not about religion or culture, but governance. He has not been shy about his lifelong appreciation of collectivist views. That is why he can appoint a Jewish woman with socialist views and snub historic ally Israel without apparent conflict. <br /><br />I have also noticed that Jews are typically not pro life, so that is more significant in defending Roe v Wade in the future.Ralphhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06320105485736052679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-29524782553838297682010-05-17T08:41:51.467-04:002010-05-17T08:41:51.467-04:00In the context of the article, Buchanan is indeed ...In the context of the article, Buchanan is indeed making the point that the Liberal Leftist Democrats are hypocrites. It is all too predictable that they would be snatching the few sentences out to decry, "anti-Semite" and try to smear him. Alinskyites are well-trained to find these exact phrases to exploit, after all. What did Sarah Palin say? "....[S]o predictable it is almost boring."<br /><br />What ever happened to the real litmus test for a Supreme Court appointee - strict interpretation and adherence to the US Constitution, ensuring the balance of powers? Yeah, I know. That went out waaaaay back in the 1900's with Progressivism. It died in 2008 when the House, Senate and Executive branch became one big oligarchy of Leftists. <br /><br />I can only hope and pray the Republicans will do their job and evaluate this woman on her qualifications (or lack thereof) until after the November elections, when we will hopefully see a shift in the House and Senate majorities. Perhaps then this appointee will have a thorough questioning on her stands on all the issues, rather than a rubber-stamp of Liberal Left approval.<br /><br />I can dream, can't I?DINORightMariehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01067345219054999889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-65630477557278021722010-05-17T06:55:55.376-04:002010-05-17T06:55:55.376-04:00Mike T...
Point taken, just don't think mockin...Mike T...<br />Point taken, just don't think mocking diversity is what Buchanan's purpose was. As far as Liberation Theology and La Raza are concerned they are a whole different bunch of loons, albiet all with the same end game.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-46725295804103659282010-05-16T22:23:21.369-04:002010-05-16T22:23:21.369-04:00IP
Even assuming that Buchanan is some sort of Na...IP<br /><br />Even assuming that Buchanan is some sort of Nazi, what difference is that from some nut who says the same thing from a Liberation Theology perspective? Or how about from a La Raza perspective? In other words, Buchanan was mocking the diversity nonsense whether he knew it or not.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17811151015927634363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-2207391496880641072010-05-16T19:12:46.220-04:002010-05-16T19:12:46.220-04:00Maybe the reason that people picked up on Buchanan...Maybe the reason that people picked up on Buchanan's Jewish remark is because he is a died in he wool Nazis and everyone with half-a-brain knows that that SOB isn't thinking from a fairness issue, he's thinking from a Jewish-conspiracy-nut-case-moron level.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-46723165251785095112010-05-16T18:39:39.659-04:002010-05-16T18:39:39.659-04:00Nothing can be nailed down by race, religion, nati...Nothing can be nailed down by race, religion, national origin or viewpoint. <br /><br />There have been justices that have been approved as liberal and have become more conservative and vice versa. These days, everything but race may be changed! <br /><br />Happily, you cannot assign talent and judgment according to race, religion, etc. I'm a WASP but I am not insisting that there be WASPS in proportion to my demographic profile. <br /><br />I think I can trust 3 persons of the Jewish faith to decide issues. Of course their backgrounds MAY color some of their decisions but the bottom line is that they are fellow travelers down the highway of human experience (the essence of most of the cases that come before the court or are they only 33% human - I'm confused, LOL) and cannot be asked to pull over to the side of the road because on arriving home, they kiss their fingers and tap the mezuzah on the lintel of their doorway. How can anyone object to a practice that reminds the faithful of God's presence and commandments? They have respect for the law on all levels. <br /><br />No, just keep the Bloods and the Crypts off the court. That should be sufficient.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-22227493669727145612010-05-16T17:56:21.077-04:002010-05-16T17:56:21.077-04:00It is such a dreary way to look at the Court -- as...It is such a dreary way to look at the Court -- as if it were a politically appointed city commission of some sort -- and that's why it's right for Buchanan to deride and lampoon the whole idea of racial or ethnic "balance."<br /><br />Besides, it should be more than a little obvious that most of Court's modern decisions that liberals love the most were decided by a Court that had not yet become a target of identity politics. The Warren Court that decided unanimously in 1954 to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson and outlaw segregated schools was composed of nine white men -- eight Protestants and one Jew (Frankfurter). (Justice Minton is sometimes erroneously described as having been a Catholic Justice but he was a Protestant while on the Court and converted to his wife's RC Church after retiring.) No one objected to the imbalance then.J. E. Burkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08682657792334163396noreply@blogger.com