Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Bush nominates Puritan to Supreme Court; Pat Robertson gets first hardon since the McCarthy Era

You happy, you hard right, Christian nutjobs? You got your man. You finally got your hardcore conservative, as your blatant hypocracy won out over our lame duck President. The ideals of America's founding fathers means nothing to you, as long as you win political support. And you're a united front (kinda HAVE to be; have you seen what's happened to Cheney's political opponents over the years?!?), so this will happen.

I picture the Republicans as being like a four year old in a toy aisle. They tug Daddy George's pant leg, and go "Daddy George! Can we have Roe vs. Wade?" And George goes "I'm sorry, we can't afford that, we're going to have to settle for this balance thing...", and the Republicans start screaming "MINE! MINE! MINE!" in the aisle.

"We've been through this before, you can't have it..."
"C'mon, stop it now, you're embarrasing me..."
"Now stop it! I gave you a brand new Miers toy a few weeks ago, and you broke it! You're being bad!"

And then George, who's getting stares now by the rest of the people in the store, and mocking looks from those snobby Democrats, tries to take them out of the store, saying something along the lines of "I'm not letting you do this to me again...", and the Republicans fall down, kicking and screaming, saying they're going to tell the police, and this goes on for a few minutes, until George goes "Fine! OK! You can have Roe vs. Wade, if only it'll make you be quiet...", and the Republicans spring back up, like nothing's happened, saying "Thank you Daddy George! ^_^"

It's a weird parallel, but it makes sense. The same people that were saying that Miers was everything but the Devil's Advocate herself are saying that this is the right way to do things; that poor woman's going to have foot prints on her ass for a long time.

You women out there, I hope you enjoy your rights while you have them; pretty soon, you're going to go back to working out of the house as being taboo, as you sit around, barefoot in the kitchen, making a four course meal for your goodly Christian husband. If these people get their way, you're going to go back to being little more than child-birthing contrivances; borderline property. And you'd better get married before you're 20, too! If you don't, there's something wrong with you. You whore. But look at it this way; at least they don't cut off your clits, so you won't stray. Yet.

Canada looks better everyday. At least they can control their weirdos (Quebec).


( 25 comments — Leave a comment )
Oct. 31st, 2005 08:08 pm (UTC)
I saw the headline on the New York Times website...and I read the article and now I'm going to quote some things from the article (considering that it's still open :D)

"He said he was also filled with a sense of awe for what the court stands for as an institution: equal justice under law."

>_> No. Not everything is equal justice under law when you're a conservative because it goes against everything you stand for. Considering that bringing about "equal justice" means that change must occur and change is something that the definition of the word "conservative" doesn't accept.

" But Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, fired back, saying that any filibuster would not stand, a warning that had some significance because he played a crucial role earlier this year in helping block a Republican effort to change the Senate rules - known as the nuclear option - so that Democrats could not filibuster judicial nominees."

Errr...what? :D So what you're telling me is that Democrats can't try and stop you from nominating someone whom they feel is not adequate? That really doesn't sound very fair. I don't know, I'd be pretty pissed off if I was a member of Congress and I was told that someone will be chosen to make decisions that could possibly change the face of the United States...and that I have no say in whether or not he is going to be appointed? I'm not going to lie...that's incredibly fucked up. You're metaphor (Bush being a parent and having tons of spoiled brats asking for everything they want and the parent obliging...) isn't that far from the truth and it scares me...because this is something I'll probably be dealing with for a long time...as will the youth of the United States.
Oct. 31st, 2005 09:02 pm (UTC)
Damn right we can control Quebec. We've got the Atlantic Provinces. *nods, nods*
Oct. 31st, 2005 09:26 pm (UTC)
Out of curiosity, is there anything more objectionable about this guy other than the fact that he opposes abortion rights? The description in the Yahoo article makes him out to be less of a prick than Scalia, at least.
Oct. 31st, 2005 10:00 pm (UTC)
That's like saying you're less of a prick than Hitler, though; you can definately do better.

We had a moderate, and now we've got a hardliner.

Oh, and he was compared to Scalia in that same article.
Oct. 31st, 2005 10:05 pm (UTC)
Well, it remains to be seen whether he'll actually manage to get in. Maybe the Democrats will shove him out or filibuster him or something.
Oct. 31st, 2005 10:08 pm (UTC)
Filibusters are dangerous; if you do that, you basically end up with a pissing contest, and NOTHING gets done. I'd only try a filibuster if I was SURE the balance was going to turn on the Court.
Oct. 31st, 2005 09:53 pm (UTC)
Alito's mother shed some light. "Of course, he's against abortion,"90-year-old Rose Alito said of her son, a Catholic.

Thank you for explaining that so thoroughly and eloquently, Mrs. Alito. O_o


I don't understand something, and this might be a stupid question but I can't help it; I haven't learned much about our government.
What's wrong with the President putting someone who he agrees with in the Supreme Court? Aren't Presidents naturally going to select those who they agree with? :S
Oct. 31st, 2005 10:03 pm (UTC)
The ideal is to have a balanced court; an even number of liberals and conservatives, with a few moderates/swing votes thrown in there.

Remember that an appointment to the Supreme Court is PERMANENT; they have to die, or retire, to leave. That's why, even though Bush might agree with a guy, you can't always go by that; it could swing the balance of the court, and the country, for 10, 20 years.
Oct. 31st, 2005 10:07 pm (UTC)
Ah I see. Thank you. ^_^ So, there are more Conservatives in the court now than Liberals and Bush needs to appoint a Liberal? =/ If he is really that against apointing a Liberal, he should just appoint a Moderate if it's possible. Or he should just come to terms with the fact that he and his Administration aren't fit to rule this nation.
Oct. 31st, 2005 10:15 pm (UTC)
See, here's the issue:

He's replacing two Court members: Rhenquist, who dies, and O'Connor, who retired. Rhenquist was a conservative, while O'Connor was a moderate. He replaced Roberts with Rhenquist; Roberts is less conservative, but he's a conservative (and a good one; I like this whole "I don't let my ideals decide how I judge" thing).

Naturally, that would mean you replace O'Connor with a moderate, right? O'Connor was a champion of women's rights, and a crucial swing vote on a lot of issues. It would make sense to replace her with another champion of women's rights who could be a swing vote, right?

That's what Miers was. But politics - and DIRTY politics - are what lampooned her; basically, the right-leaning Republicans - and there are too many - were saying they were going to shoot her down; it might have been enough to do it, with all the loyalist Democrats. They basically used excuses to get rid of her; she was his lawyer (therefore, a lot of things they talked about are client/lawyer privilage), so they painted her as a croony, she was never a judge, so they figured she couldn't do it at the highest court, etc.

The reality of the situtaion is that the Republicans - the Hard Right - wouldn't let anyone through that didn't fit their ideal description: someone to overturn Roe vs. Wade. "MINE! MINE! MINE!
Nov. 1st, 2005 01:07 am (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks; I was getting confused. ^_^

Now that I understand it...

the lack of common sense and justice in our government is astounding. @_@
Nov. 1st, 2005 08:40 pm (UTC)
XD And the point I brought up from the NYTimes article...they're greedy enough to where they've already made sure the Democrats can filibuster it. "No no no. No taking out Grapes of Wrath...Daddy Dubya's choice stands ;D"
Oct. 31st, 2005 10:07 pm (UTC)
To me abortion is killing and I don't understand how women can do that, it is like having a child who is 10 and you can not afford to eat and so you kill your child, I believe it is wrong. I am however pro choice, it is up to the woman, but then at the same time I don't think it should be allowed.
Oct. 31st, 2005 10:55 pm (UTC)
My god, may I metaquote you?

*headdesks* I hate politics sometimes. I really, really do.
Oct. 31st, 2005 10:57 pm (UTC)
It's public for a reason. ;)

(I'm proud of this piece - I know good work when I do it - so I figured I'd be linked somewhere. I'm so modest! XD)
Oct. 31st, 2005 11:11 pm (UTC)
You've been metaquoted, Chris. :D :D

Oh, yeah. Typo. "Embarassing". Typo. ^^

Oct. 31st, 2005 11:12 pm (UTC)
... I have no idea why I said "typo" twice. I think I'm going to go do homework now.
Oct. 31st, 2005 11:13 pm (UTC)
You rock either way, sis. XD
Oct. 31st, 2005 11:21 pm (UTC)
Over from metaquotes, and that is hilarious. Sad, but true, and freaking hilarious.

Also, your icon is disturbing. Amusing, but disturbing nonetheless. :)
Oct. 31st, 2005 11:48 pm (UTC)
Yours is just as awesome, though. XD

(And you, of all people, judging by your username, should appreciate my normal one. XD)
Oct. 31st, 2005 11:53 pm (UTC)
HOLY CRAP, Mr. Met has a lightsaber! That's fantastic!
Oct. 31st, 2005 11:59 pm (UTC)
Put on your life preservers; it's time for a partial court.
Nov. 3rd, 2005 11:38 pm (UTC)
Ahhh... Now I remember why I've come close to renouncing the democratic party. Ignorance and close-mindedness come to together in such an ugly way.
1.The man is qaulifies for the job. 15 years at the appelate court is perfectly good qualification for a nominee. The Presidents job is to nominate someone who is qualified not to nominate a moderate.
2.Roe v. Wade does not need to be a "litmus test". The fact that most Americans still support it show how well the Democrats would do if it's repealed and that it would remain legal in most states anyways. Basically for a few years now the Democrats have been relying on the courts to legislate for them. Bad for the Democrats and bad policy in general.

You women out there, I hope you enjoy your rights while you have them; pretty soon, you're going to go back to working out of the house as being taboo, as you sit around, barefoot in the kitchen, making a four course meal for your goodly Christian husband. If these people get their way, you're going to go back to being little more than child-birthing contrivances; borderline property. And you'd better get married before you're 20, too! If you don't, there's something wrong with you. You whore. But look at it this way; at least they don't cut off your clits, so you won't stray. Yet.
Scare tactics are stupid.

I still don't see the whole point for raising such a shitstorm about this. Bush is a conservative- so he appoints conservative nominees. Shcking. Miers was an idiotic move to make but there's nothing wrong with appointing a smart well qaulified candidtae.
Nov. 30th, 2005 03:49 am (UTC)
... I love that quote.

Stealing that for my journal, hope you don't mind. ^_^
Nov. 30th, 2005 03:54 am (UTC)
Yeah, sure, go ahead. XD
( 25 comments — Leave a comment )


Mr. Met
Superbus the BRAVE!!!

Latest Month

July 2013
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner