October 18, 2004
THERE'S NOTHING DEMOCRATS HATE MORE THAN DEMOCRACY:
Imagining America if George Bush Chose the Supreme Court (ADAM COHEN, 10/18/04, NY Times)
Abortion might be a crime in most states. Gay people could be thrown in prison for having sex in their homes. States might be free to become mini-theocracies, endorsing Christianity and using tax money to help spread the gospel. The Constitution might no longer protect inmates from being brutalized by prison guards. Family and medical leave and environmental protections could disappear.It hardly sounds like a winning platform, and of course President Bush isn't openly espousing these positions. But he did say in his last campaign that his favorite Supreme Court justices were Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, and the nominations he has made to the lower courts bear that out. Justices Scalia and Thomas are often called "conservative," but that does not begin to capture their philosophies. Both vehemently reject many of the core tenets of modern constitutional law.
Conserving isn't appropriate until you restore the status quo ante. Posted by Orrin Judd at October 18, 2004 12:26 PM
As sure as the sun coming up tomorrow the Dems start their end of the election scare tactics. I've see elsewhere Kerry saying Bush will kill social security and anecdotes about how Bush will bring back the KKK to get African Americans to vote Dem.
Posted by: AWW at October 18, 2004 12:33 PMAbortion might be a crime in most states.
He seems to think that would be a bad thing.
Posted by: Mike Morley at October 18, 2004 12:39 PMThe Constitution is protecting prison inmates from being brutalized by prison guards ?!?
When did that happen ?
Before WW II the US had the same Constitution, and prisoners were routinely brutalized. Now prisoners are being better treated, by and large, by the prison staff, but plenty of abuse still goes on, under that same Constitution.
There's nothing Democrats hate more than democracy.
Quite an ironic headline, Orrin, since you're not too keen on democracy either.
You just dislike other things more.
Michael-
I think oj means "democracy" in the traditional American sense, i.e., constitutionally based, de-centralized, democratic-republicanism where dependance on the folks who hold the power in Washington, D.C. is a non-issue.
In that sense Democrats do indeed hate democracy, particularly when it extends beyond themselves and their supporters.
Posted by: Tom C, Stamford,Ct. at October 18, 2004 1:02 PMIs OJ keen on de-centralized democratic-republicanism? I'm under the impression he would greatly prefer to keep it centralized - just with social conservatives in power.
How about Bush? Does he prefer concentrated republican power or de-centralized power?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Posted by: Bret at October 18, 2004 2:43 PMBret:
People demand certain things that only the Federal government can offer--defense, a social welfare net, etc. The rest can be left to states.
Posted by: oj at October 18, 2004 2:51 PMSo then I can conclude that means you would support leaving the following to the states?
1. Abortion?
2. Sex laws (including prostitution, gay sex/marriage, etc.)?
3. Drug laws?
Not drug laws--that's a security issue.
Posted by: oj at October 18, 2004 3:10 PMHow about the other 2 points?
Posted by: Bret at October 18, 2004 3:21 PMSex matters are surely up to the states. The Right to Life precedes the Constitution, but banning abortion probably requires a constitutional amendment, which I'd support but which wouldn't pass right now.
Posted by: oj at October 18, 2004 3:31 PMMichael:
Yes, our Constitution sensibly allows only a narrow democracy. But where it is allowed you accept the decisions. You don't turn to five judges to achieve your own desires. It is indeed ironic that you have to have democracy but it doesn't work very well--such is the plight of the Fallen.
Posted by: oj at October 18, 2004 3:49 PMQ: What's the difference between the Democrats (TM) and the Communists?
A: There's a difference?
Posted by: Ken at October 18, 2004 4:41 PMoj:
The last line of your last post is the kind of insight and prose that keep me coming back.
Tom C:
Orrin doesn't like states' referendums, either.
Too much direct democracy for his taste. Bit of an elitist, is Orrin.