Refisking the Refisking
Observe.
Anachronism, that lovable awkward wanker, has fisked my refisking. Now, I fisk his refisking. Is this sounding dirty yet?
There are people criticizing her lack of judicial experience; I don't care whether you're one of those people or not. One of the points that I have made, and that other conservatives have made, is that several prominent and successful justices were appointed to the Supreme Court without a single day of judicial experience. If you're not contesting that point, then let's move on.
As I said in my refisking, the Constitution was designed by the Founding Fathers to be a simple document, understandable by individuals with a reasonable amount of education. Neither you nor I have experience or qualifications in Constitutional law, but both of us can understand the Constitution and agree that opinions such as Roe v. Wade and the recent Eminent Domain case were unconstitutional. Why should we expect Harriet Miers, who has extensive legal credentials, to be any different?
Clarence Thomas' record was not especially conservative; he was more of a moderate, and he became a solid conservative. We can agree to disagree on this point, but I still contend that history lends more support to my position than it does to yours.
Regarding Bush v. Gore, I know my analysis was oversimplified, but it wasn't the primary point. As for your thoughts on Constitutional law, it may sound idealistic, but law is not supposed to be as complicated as it is; if it were, the Founders would have made the U.S. Constitution like that thousand-page abomination that the European Union tried to introduce earlier this year. The Constitution, which is essentially the only legal document that the Supreme Court should be worried about, is a simple document, and when you're looking at a simple document to answer a "yes" or "no" question, I don't think an extensive knowledge of the history of blood sucking partisan lawyers and their attempts to circumvent the Constitution should be a prerequisite. What we need is justices who have the balls to call "shenanigans" on people who misinterpret or want to circumvent that simple document.
I don't think it's major enough to accuse President Bush of not being a conservative. That's just crazy talk. And let's be honest, it doesn't take that much to be the biggest entitlement expansion since LBJ. If a massive meteor falls from the sky and hits Casper, Wyoming in 2005, and then in 2025 a boulder falls out of the cargo hold of a plane flying over the same locale, it's still the biggest rock to hit Casper since that massive meteorite, even if it's tiny by comparison.
For one thing, because it happened with Clarence Thomas, only the other way around. Second, I don't care if she's a rock-ribbed conservative, as long as she understands the intent of the Founders and judges accordingly. She could be Mrs. Ralph Nader for all I care; I want justices without an agenda, without a preconceived opinion on the issues, who will rule according to what the Constitution says, and nothing more. If you want a "rock-ribbed conservative", then isn't it you who's looking for the "outcome-based approach" that you tried to condemn in me?
It's all about context, my friend. When the RNC used "W" on its campaign materials in 2004, it was largely in defiance against the partisan liberals who denigrated President Bush by calling him "W" instead of by his proper title. The context that you used it in was pretty much in the same context that partisan liberals use it in; at least, that's how it came off. So, if that's not how you intended it, perhaps you could stand to introduce a bit more nuance to the mix in order to get your actual tone across more effectively?
Thus saith the Fly.
Anachronism: I fisked your fisking of my fisking
The Fly: I tried load your fisking, your fisking wouldn't load.
Anachronism: huh?
The Fly: It looks like it's trying to load now.
The Fly: There we go.
The Fly: Magic shrooms, eh?
Anachronism: yep
The Fly: Hmmm.
The Fly: Did you see my edited comment about Ariadne?
Anachronism: no
The Fly: Okay.
Anachronism, that lovable awkward wanker, has fisked my refisking. Now, I fisk his refisking. Is this sounding dirty yet?
Fly, you just attacked the straw man again, after I told you it was a straw man. The complaint is not lack of judicial experience, it's lack of experience with constitutional law. The two are not equivalent. Roberts, after all, only had two years experience on the bench, but he had oodles of experience with constitutional law.
There are people criticizing her lack of judicial experience; I don't care whether you're one of those people or not. One of the points that I have made, and that other conservatives have made, is that several prominent and successful justices were appointed to the Supreme Court without a single day of judicial experience. If you're not contesting that point, then let's move on.
As I said in my refisking, the Constitution was designed by the Founding Fathers to be a simple document, understandable by individuals with a reasonable amount of education. Neither you nor I have experience or qualifications in Constitutional law, but both of us can understand the Constitution and agree that opinions such as Roe v. Wade and the recent Eminent Domain case were unconstitutional. Why should we expect Harriet Miers, who has extensive legal credentials, to be any different?
Fly, some Justices with conservative records stay solid, some don't. But how many with moderate, liberal, or nonexistent records become solid conservatives? I'll stick with my limb, despite your misinterpretation of what I wrote.
Clarence Thomas' record was not especially conservative; he was more of a moderate, and he became a solid conservative. We can agree to disagree on this point, but I still contend that history lends more support to my position than it does to yours.
In both of these points, your main argument is that constitutional law isn't an arcane body of knowledge, and any person of good sense is qualified for the Supreme Court. I, well, I can't really think of anything to say, because such a claim in based on profound ignorance. Yes, there are a few abominations that anyone of reason can recognize as such (i.e. Roe), but most cases aren't nearly so cut and dried. (You also revealed some serious ignorance of the specific issue the Supreme Court ruled on in Bush vs. Gore, when you discussed it later on).
Regarding Bush v. Gore, I know my analysis was oversimplified, but it wasn't the primary point. As for your thoughts on Constitutional law, it may sound idealistic, but law is not supposed to be as complicated as it is; if it were, the Founders would have made the U.S. Constitution like that thousand-page abomination that the European Union tried to introduce earlier this year. The Constitution, which is essentially the only legal document that the Supreme Court should be worried about, is a simple document, and when you're looking at a simple document to answer a "yes" or "no" question, I don't think an extensive knowledge of the history of blood sucking partisan lawyers and their attempts to circumvent the Constitution should be a prerequisite. What we need is justices who have the balls to call "shenanigans" on people who misinterpret or want to circumvent that simple document.
The greatest entitlement expansion since LBJ is "minor"?
I don't think it's major enough to accuse President Bush of not being a conservative. That's just crazy talk. And let's be honest, it doesn't take that much to be the biggest entitlement expansion since LBJ. If a massive meteor falls from the sky and hits Casper, Wyoming in 2005, and then in 2025 a boulder falls out of the cargo hold of a plane flying over the same locale, it's still the biggest rock to hit Casper since that massive meteorite, even if it's tiny by comparison.
Here's a question for you: if Miers is such a rock-ribbed conservative, why are you worried that she'll be pushed left by some friendly fire?
For one thing, because it happened with Clarence Thomas, only the other way around. Second, I don't care if she's a rock-ribbed conservative, as long as she understands the intent of the Founders and judges accordingly. She could be Mrs. Ralph Nader for all I care; I want justices without an agenda, without a preconceived opinion on the issues, who will rule according to what the Constitution says, and nothing more. If you want a "rock-ribbed conservative", then isn't it you who's looking for the "outcome-based approach" that you tried to condemn in me?
And is it really disrespectful to call the President "W" when his own campaign signs, stickers, etc... used that extensively?
It's all about context, my friend. When the RNC used "W" on its campaign materials in 2004, it was largely in defiance against the partisan liberals who denigrated President Bush by calling him "W" instead of by his proper title. The context that you used it in was pretty much in the same context that partisan liberals use it in; at least, that's how it came off. So, if that's not how you intended it, perhaps you could stand to introduce a bit more nuance to the mix in order to get your actual tone across more effectively?
Thus saith the Fly.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home