Our Saving Grace: A Return To First Principles Found In The Constitution
"There now ... nominating a conservative to the Supreme Court wasn't that scary, was it? Hey, who wants to go again?" –Ann Coulter, Feb 01, 2006
There are few places in the world—never mind the Internet—where conservatives and liberals (and the rest of us caught in between) can engage in discourse, dialogue and debate without it being boiled down to the proverbial urination competition. Ann Coulter, like Rush Limbaugh, Robert Novak and others, always seem to start the conservative side of the…. Well, what can we call it? Oh, yes, the urination competition… with snide remarks and in your face comments. Some of what Coulter has said is so far outside of touch with Constitutional principles that one wonders how she is so esteemed within the conservative communities.
But Coulter and other conservatives are not guilty by themselves. Far too many liberals, especially those with an extreme agenda, employ the same approach. It sometimes seems that the effort has the goal of goading one side or the other of this urination competition into making outlandish comments rather than genuine analysis based on principles, values and issues.
But to answer Coulter’s question, it is damn scary that we now have Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court. It is not scary because he is a conservative. I have no quibble with anyone being a conservative or liberal. I have genuine respect and love for a lot of my friends and colleagues that are from both sides of the spectrum. What I do not respect is ungrounded ideology that places partisan loyalties above principle, reason and actual hard work examining the way things are.
My problem with Alito is that he is one of those zealots. His passion for the ideology goes beyond principle and firmly held values to allegiance to a personality, a party or a slogan. His judicial scholarship and the conclusions of that effort is suspect because he almost always favors business, government or an interpretation of the law that usurps the rights of individuals. His writings—both legal and otherwise—belie a bias that is not in keeping with the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the inherent principles that are derived from reason, natural law and human nature theory.
But what scares me even more is the stacking of the decks that seems to be dealt to us. The executive branch is completely dominated by ultra-conservatives—to such a degree that even moderate views and perspectives are ignored or dismissed—that are entrenched in an ideology that is inherently unconstitutional, scandalous and, quite frankly, criminal. The legislative branch is dominated by ultra-conservatives that hold to a double standard and hypocrisy of great proportions. The scandals that are rocking the Republican party—which is almost exclusively held captive by ultra-conservative—not only at the rank and file level, but throughout its leadership. The judicial branch is essentially a marked deck. Seven of nine sitting justices are conservative, and five of them are ultra-conservative with agendas to roll back established precedents on privacy, medical care, access to government, search and seizures, and basic civil liberties. The addition of Alito tilts the balance to such an extreme that no ordinary citizen has a fair and equal footing before the law.
But rather than approach these concerns on the basis of constitutional principle, both the ultra-conservatives and the ultra-liberals have flung excrement, painted each other as being out of touch with reality, and lobbied anyone willing to listen to their out-of-proportion rhetoric. Neither side of this urination competition have done justice to the intellectual and principled foundations our forefathers and framers laid out for us in our Constitution. There is supposed to be room for all views to be expressed in the marketplace of ideas and that marketplace is supposed to be open to all of our citizens, not just those of one particular ideology. But the ultra-conservatives won’t rest until their exclusive view—usually evangelical Christian in nature—is completely in place. The ultra-liberals won’t rest until their exclusive view—usually an exaggeration of civil liberties—is completely in place. There is a balance: it is found in the Constitution.
"Democrats have the most exaggerated reputation for fearsomeness since Saddam Hussein's vaunted "Elite Republican Guard" -- the ones who ran like scared schoolgirls when U.S. forces toppled Iraq in 17 days flat." – Ann Coulter.
We must remember that Ms. Coulter is a paid entertainer. She isn’t a reporter or news analyst. She makes her money by keeping her conservative admirers rolling in the aisles with laughter about how she undercuts the standing of those that do not adhere to the ultra-conservative ideology. But Coulter is not concerned with real scholarship. Her comments, even her books—How To Talk To A Liberal (If You Must)—belie her efforts to entertain the ultra-conservatives. She has been booed during lectures and guest presentations because of her ultra-conservative humor and lack of genuine scholarship. Now, we have to point out that those that were doing the booing were participating in behavior that was as un-American as the ultra-conservative drivel Coulter was there to deliver. Coulter and those that protest her presence and lectures only serve to extend the bovine excrement that is inherently present in the urination competition.
"A few years ago, the Democrats wouldn't allow a vote on Bush's Hispanic, black and female judicial nominees. Sen. Bill Frist was afraid of what the Democrats might do, so he backed down. Scary Democrats! And not just Joe Biden's hair plugs -- all of them were scary to Sen. Frist!" –Ann Coulter
When all else fails, those holding extreme indefensible views will resort to name-calling and ad hominem attacks. Whether done by Coulter or Kennedy, ad hominem attacks only serve to expose the weak-minded arguments present in the rhetoric. As a result of poor debate skills and flawed scholarship, our political debates are limited to empty rhetoric, barren slogans and polemic nonsensical statements. Truly, the lack of qualified discourse on the issues we face is undermining our freedom and our standing in the world. Coulter is the ultra-conservative symptom of the disease that grips our nation. Kennedy may well represent the liberal symptom, but there are others that represent the ultra-liberal symptoms. But for all the rhetoric, no one is being persuaded into seeing the principles that lead us toward liberty and justice. Instead, we are further polarized and further afflicted with the disease of mediocrity that is eroding the history of our evolving freedom.
"Only because of the grassroots revolt against Miers were Republicans in Washington finally forced to face their worst nightmare. Terror, thy name is Samuel Alito. Or as he is now known: ‘Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.’" – Ann Coulter
Miers was such a bad choice, so obvious a crony, so obviously unprepared, and so much an inside "yes man," that even the ultra-conservatives saw the danger in her nomination. But the real issue was that Miers was not far enough inside the ultra-conservative camp. After all, she was a woman. Ultra-conservative Christian thinking has a problem with women that are not one hundred percent focused on "family values," which includes being submissive to the authority of her husband. Being a career woman obviously gave many of the ultra-right cause to pause.
Alito was just the sort of candidate the ultra-right wanted. He had the experience. He wasn’t a great enough scholar that he would actually read the Constitution and fully understand that rights are inherently invested in the individual first, then the society and never in those elected to represent us. Alito was not enough of a scholar to understand that big business is a guest (i.e. fictitious person) in our societal structure and corporations have an obligation to support our nation by providing jobs, job security (whenever possible), contribute to the GNP, balance out trade and share the wealth with those that are actually contributing capital (investors) and sweat equity (employees). Just the type of "scholar" the ultra-right prefers.
But to be honest, the ultra-left has always wanted to go to the other extreme. That is why the last democrat nominations and appointments to the Court (Ginsburg and Breyer) are moderates. (There is a hint there.) But let us be realistic. Alito, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas are justices formed by the ultra-right. Roberts, Stevens and Souter are conservative enough to be persuaded to side along conservative lines in a majority of cases. Ginsburg and Breyer are moderate enough to view some of the arguments made by conservatives as having some validity. The Supreme Court is weighed down by its ultra-conservative members. The fear that any reasonable person should have is that there will be conservative judicial activism in the form of overruling an unprecedented number of long-standing case precedents, a bias in favor of business (especially big businesses like Ford, GM, United Airlines, US Steel, etc.), and a regular pattern of erosion of civil liberties. Under the current court, Miranda, Gideon, Marbury and Griswold would probably never been granted cert.
"Alito is everything Washington weenies have been petrified of since -- well, probably since the Bork nomination." – Ann Coulter
Bork was wrong for the position and the country. There was enough balance of partisan thinking to avoid the mistake of placing him on the court. Alito was equally wrong, but the balance in both the executive and legislative branches was so far tilted to the ultra-right that even moderate voices were quieted with the roar of partisanship. Unfortunately, the clarion calls from the other side were equally unbalanced and poorly thought out. The focus became a one-issue campaign regarding Roe v. Wade (abortion). But the left side of the equation could not get out of their own entrenched mindsets to successfully make the arguments that were directly relevant and on point. The voice of moderates was drowned in the partisan extremes. The constitutional arguments were drowned in the polemic rhetoric. As a result, we are stuck with a lemon of a Supreme Court justice. The Supreme Court bench now sits like an unbalanced see-saw (teeter-totter for mid-westerners), with 5 firmly seated on the far right side, 2 sitting far enough on the right not to be in the middle, and 2 sitting smack-dab in the middle.
Our founders and framers were people of reasoned thought. They were open to debate and discourse, even when such was raucous and spirited, and perhaps even tilted. But in the end, they knew how to compromise in favor of principle. As a result we were given a legacy that provided a framework that was so brilliant an effort that it has endured as a single form of government for over 200 years despite a continual change of leadership, a standing military force capable of governmental coup, and politicians that have lied and produced more scandals than practically any other nation on earth. The Constitution is our saving grace and is not dependent upon partisan ideology. We need to return to its core values and first principles.
There are few places in the world—never mind the Internet—where conservatives and liberals (and the rest of us caught in between) can engage in discourse, dialogue and debate without it being boiled down to the proverbial urination competition. Ann Coulter, like Rush Limbaugh, Robert Novak and others, always seem to start the conservative side of the…. Well, what can we call it? Oh, yes, the urination competition… with snide remarks and in your face comments. Some of what Coulter has said is so far outside of touch with Constitutional principles that one wonders how she is so esteemed within the conservative communities.
But Coulter and other conservatives are not guilty by themselves. Far too many liberals, especially those with an extreme agenda, employ the same approach. It sometimes seems that the effort has the goal of goading one side or the other of this urination competition into making outlandish comments rather than genuine analysis based on principles, values and issues.
But to answer Coulter’s question, it is damn scary that we now have Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court. It is not scary because he is a conservative. I have no quibble with anyone being a conservative or liberal. I have genuine respect and love for a lot of my friends and colleagues that are from both sides of the spectrum. What I do not respect is ungrounded ideology that places partisan loyalties above principle, reason and actual hard work examining the way things are.
My problem with Alito is that he is one of those zealots. His passion for the ideology goes beyond principle and firmly held values to allegiance to a personality, a party or a slogan. His judicial scholarship and the conclusions of that effort is suspect because he almost always favors business, government or an interpretation of the law that usurps the rights of individuals. His writings—both legal and otherwise—belie a bias that is not in keeping with the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the inherent principles that are derived from reason, natural law and human nature theory.
But what scares me even more is the stacking of the decks that seems to be dealt to us. The executive branch is completely dominated by ultra-conservatives—to such a degree that even moderate views and perspectives are ignored or dismissed—that are entrenched in an ideology that is inherently unconstitutional, scandalous and, quite frankly, criminal. The legislative branch is dominated by ultra-conservatives that hold to a double standard and hypocrisy of great proportions. The scandals that are rocking the Republican party—which is almost exclusively held captive by ultra-conservative—not only at the rank and file level, but throughout its leadership. The judicial branch is essentially a marked deck. Seven of nine sitting justices are conservative, and five of them are ultra-conservative with agendas to roll back established precedents on privacy, medical care, access to government, search and seizures, and basic civil liberties. The addition of Alito tilts the balance to such an extreme that no ordinary citizen has a fair and equal footing before the law.
But rather than approach these concerns on the basis of constitutional principle, both the ultra-conservatives and the ultra-liberals have flung excrement, painted each other as being out of touch with reality, and lobbied anyone willing to listen to their out-of-proportion rhetoric. Neither side of this urination competition have done justice to the intellectual and principled foundations our forefathers and framers laid out for us in our Constitution. There is supposed to be room for all views to be expressed in the marketplace of ideas and that marketplace is supposed to be open to all of our citizens, not just those of one particular ideology. But the ultra-conservatives won’t rest until their exclusive view—usually evangelical Christian in nature—is completely in place. The ultra-liberals won’t rest until their exclusive view—usually an exaggeration of civil liberties—is completely in place. There is a balance: it is found in the Constitution.
"Democrats have the most exaggerated reputation for fearsomeness since Saddam Hussein's vaunted "Elite Republican Guard" -- the ones who ran like scared schoolgirls when U.S. forces toppled Iraq in 17 days flat." – Ann Coulter.
We must remember that Ms. Coulter is a paid entertainer. She isn’t a reporter or news analyst. She makes her money by keeping her conservative admirers rolling in the aisles with laughter about how she undercuts the standing of those that do not adhere to the ultra-conservative ideology. But Coulter is not concerned with real scholarship. Her comments, even her books—How To Talk To A Liberal (If You Must)—belie her efforts to entertain the ultra-conservatives. She has been booed during lectures and guest presentations because of her ultra-conservative humor and lack of genuine scholarship. Now, we have to point out that those that were doing the booing were participating in behavior that was as un-American as the ultra-conservative drivel Coulter was there to deliver. Coulter and those that protest her presence and lectures only serve to extend the bovine excrement that is inherently present in the urination competition.
"A few years ago, the Democrats wouldn't allow a vote on Bush's Hispanic, black and female judicial nominees. Sen. Bill Frist was afraid of what the Democrats might do, so he backed down. Scary Democrats! And not just Joe Biden's hair plugs -- all of them were scary to Sen. Frist!" –Ann Coulter
When all else fails, those holding extreme indefensible views will resort to name-calling and ad hominem attacks. Whether done by Coulter or Kennedy, ad hominem attacks only serve to expose the weak-minded arguments present in the rhetoric. As a result of poor debate skills and flawed scholarship, our political debates are limited to empty rhetoric, barren slogans and polemic nonsensical statements. Truly, the lack of qualified discourse on the issues we face is undermining our freedom and our standing in the world. Coulter is the ultra-conservative symptom of the disease that grips our nation. Kennedy may well represent the liberal symptom, but there are others that represent the ultra-liberal symptoms. But for all the rhetoric, no one is being persuaded into seeing the principles that lead us toward liberty and justice. Instead, we are further polarized and further afflicted with the disease of mediocrity that is eroding the history of our evolving freedom.
"Only because of the grassroots revolt against Miers were Republicans in Washington finally forced to face their worst nightmare. Terror, thy name is Samuel Alito. Or as he is now known: ‘Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.’" – Ann Coulter
Miers was such a bad choice, so obvious a crony, so obviously unprepared, and so much an inside "yes man," that even the ultra-conservatives saw the danger in her nomination. But the real issue was that Miers was not far enough inside the ultra-conservative camp. After all, she was a woman. Ultra-conservative Christian thinking has a problem with women that are not one hundred percent focused on "family values," which includes being submissive to the authority of her husband. Being a career woman obviously gave many of the ultra-right cause to pause.
Alito was just the sort of candidate the ultra-right wanted. He had the experience. He wasn’t a great enough scholar that he would actually read the Constitution and fully understand that rights are inherently invested in the individual first, then the society and never in those elected to represent us. Alito was not enough of a scholar to understand that big business is a guest (i.e. fictitious person) in our societal structure and corporations have an obligation to support our nation by providing jobs, job security (whenever possible), contribute to the GNP, balance out trade and share the wealth with those that are actually contributing capital (investors) and sweat equity (employees). Just the type of "scholar" the ultra-right prefers.
But to be honest, the ultra-left has always wanted to go to the other extreme. That is why the last democrat nominations and appointments to the Court (Ginsburg and Breyer) are moderates. (There is a hint there.) But let us be realistic. Alito, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas are justices formed by the ultra-right. Roberts, Stevens and Souter are conservative enough to be persuaded to side along conservative lines in a majority of cases. Ginsburg and Breyer are moderate enough to view some of the arguments made by conservatives as having some validity. The Supreme Court is weighed down by its ultra-conservative members. The fear that any reasonable person should have is that there will be conservative judicial activism in the form of overruling an unprecedented number of long-standing case precedents, a bias in favor of business (especially big businesses like Ford, GM, United Airlines, US Steel, etc.), and a regular pattern of erosion of civil liberties. Under the current court, Miranda, Gideon, Marbury and Griswold would probably never been granted cert.
"Alito is everything Washington weenies have been petrified of since -- well, probably since the Bork nomination." – Ann Coulter
Bork was wrong for the position and the country. There was enough balance of partisan thinking to avoid the mistake of placing him on the court. Alito was equally wrong, but the balance in both the executive and legislative branches was so far tilted to the ultra-right that even moderate voices were quieted with the roar of partisanship. Unfortunately, the clarion calls from the other side were equally unbalanced and poorly thought out. The focus became a one-issue campaign regarding Roe v. Wade (abortion). But the left side of the equation could not get out of their own entrenched mindsets to successfully make the arguments that were directly relevant and on point. The voice of moderates was drowned in the partisan extremes. The constitutional arguments were drowned in the polemic rhetoric. As a result, we are stuck with a lemon of a Supreme Court justice. The Supreme Court bench now sits like an unbalanced see-saw (teeter-totter for mid-westerners), with 5 firmly seated on the far right side, 2 sitting far enough on the right not to be in the middle, and 2 sitting smack-dab in the middle.
Our founders and framers were people of reasoned thought. They were open to debate and discourse, even when such was raucous and spirited, and perhaps even tilted. But in the end, they knew how to compromise in favor of principle. As a result we were given a legacy that provided a framework that was so brilliant an effort that it has endured as a single form of government for over 200 years despite a continual change of leadership, a standing military force capable of governmental coup, and politicians that have lied and produced more scandals than practically any other nation on earth. The Constitution is our saving grace and is not dependent upon partisan ideology. We need to return to its core values and first principles.
posted by Jim Downey at 8:14 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home