We are a group of friends and acquaintances -- a merry band of pranksters indeed -- who have been arguing about politics on-and-off, then really on, then a little off... since 1998. On email. But that meant literally thousands of emails a year. That was too many. So here's the blog dedicated to carrying on that spirit of political and pop culture argument and dialogue. You might think of us as "schmoliticians", because while we take politics seriously, we try not to take ourselves quite so.
The Wahington Post article is here.
posted by Sean @ 7/01/2005 11:44:00 AM
2 comments
2 Comments:
Some of Bush's conservative base (Operation Rescue, National Clergy Council, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family) have publicly demanded that Bush keep his pledge to appoint conservative judges who are along the lines of Scalia and Thomas. In fact, they actually specifically reference Scalia and Thomas as models. Bush has shown in the past that he is very influenced by these groups. So, no doubt, he will appoint a nominee with a very conservative track-record, probably one endorsed by the conservative groups. Of course, the Democrats will protest and dust off the filibuster. The Republicans will accuse them of abusing Senate rules and dust off the nuclear option. Its going to be ugly, folks.
On another note, I don't agree with Democrats who want to question nominees about how they would vote on potential issues (like abortion or gay marriage). Historically, judges appointed to the Supreme Court often become more pragmatic, independent and less predictable, after they spend some time in that position. Why force them to publicly take a side on a hypothetical issue, making it harder for them to change their minds later?
I would guess b/c many politicos don't want judges to act in a pragmatic, independent fashion. They want them to be predictable and to walk down a very specific ideological and political path... their own path.
Post a Comment
<< Home