Don't stop believing....
If I hear that fucking gay-ass Journey song again, I'll probably kill myself.
------
Time for politics. I know that I initially gave my (meaningless) support for the Miers nomination, citing what I guessed was Bush's conscious effort to avoid another public failure. Now, after a couple more weeks of reading and digesting, I believe that this nomination was ill-advised. Apparently, there are murmurings that the administration may be ready to concede the same.
Of course, if you accept the framing of a story like that, you would get the impression that the Bush staff is simply looking to sidestep what would be a massacre in the hearings process. I don't buy it.
What needs to be stated first and foremost and taken as an irrefutable premise is that this empty seat is about Roe v. Wade. Period. There can be no argument about that. I prematurely labelled as brilliant Bush's foresight to nominate someone without a paper trail. How could the Dems turn down a nominee who was effectively innocuous? The plan was great until the unfathomable (to Bush) occurred: he never expected the overwhelmingly negative backlash from the pro-life population.
As I stated before, pro-lifers won the last two elections for him. I stand by that. In return, they expected him to nominate a judge that would be rational enough to overturn Roe, unquestionably one of the worst decisions on record from our nation's highest court. (It is "not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be," and as a constitutional interpretation, it "is virtually impossible to defend.")
Bush might know a lot about Miers that we don't, but that is not a good thing in the eyes of the pro-life populace. The war to take back the courts has been waged for decades now. Equal parts strategy, patience, and prayer have brought us this close to finally ending legalized genocide. For Bush to effectively take matters into his own hands and say "trust me," it's no wonder that those who have fought tooth and nail for so long are in more than a bit of an uproar. They expect the absolute best, most qualified nomination, and Miers, obviously, is not that.
If her nomination isn't withdrawn (and I don't think it will be), I don't think Miers survives the hearings. And that's not a bad thing.
----------
My "ashamed to call myself a Horns fan" anecdote of the weekend:So there we were, the second half just underway. Two stumbling drunk broads find their way into our section and start throwing ice at a guy they know a couple rows down. Well, they tried to, at least. In reality, they kept missing wide right and nailing some other dude's girlfriend. Eventually, he turns around and gives them the "Hey tramp, fuck off" spiel.
I was engrossed, to say the least.
It was at this point that I heard the roar from the crowd, and before I could even find the ball on the field, Ol' Smokey went bang and the touchdown was recorded. Yeah, it was Pittman's 75 yard TD reception, only the longest of the season.
Damn my affinity for drunken drama.
posted by Anonymous @ 8:29 AM
10 comments
10 Comments:
Legally speaking, Roe v. Wade is a privacy case (woman's right to privacy). It really doesnt have much to do the act of abortion.
A true "judge" should not allow personal opinion to enter into his interpretation of legal argument.
My professors are complementing our Longhorns. I have received several "hook 'em horns" in the hallways.
While Roe v Wade is a "privacy case", there is no constitutional basis to award American citizens the penumbraic "right to privacy". I agree that a justice should not let his/her personal opinions to inform their intrepretation of the Constitution - but that is precisely what happened in Roe v Wade. There is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution and I defy anyone to find it. This "right" was established as a precedent in Griswold v Connecticut and this "right" couldn't be found in Constitution then either. It was the Supreme Court's desire to "find" this right in the Constitution because their personal policy preferences were to legalize abortion. Whether or not one thinks abortion should be legal, Justice Blackmon's opinion in Roe v Wade is quite possibly the worst argument one can provide for justifying abortion's constitutional legality. This is why Miers is an unsatisfying nominee. Conservatives don't just want the Roe v Wade decision to be replaced by an equally bad argument with a different outcome. Conservative's want a different outcome buttressed with an accurate interpretation of the Constitution. This interpretation may not be able to be presented by Miers, but could surely be presented by one of names that have been suggested for nomination.
Props Vince.
By the way, Justice Blackmon was a Nixon appointee who the American Right were to trust would be a Justice who would uphold conservative principles in a liberal court...
Hook 'em and on to Pasadena.
My brother told me about that song. It is enough to make you throw up a little bit in your mouth.
Well stated Cole
According to today's BCS poll, the Longhorns have now knocked off USC as the #1 team in the nation
i smell bad karma...
roe v wade was just another example of legislating from the bench. if anything, "the right to privacy" is a state matter (the 9th and 10th amendment-those powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states and the people.)
it's kind of laughable for any branch of the government to talk about a right to privacy anyway- I don't recall ever asking for a social security number which would follow me my whole life.
I love that picture of you and your wife. How long have you two been together?
I was in a beer tent outside of the stadium for the pass. I wanted to be there but my susceptability to peer pressure caused me to cross the street and drink during halftime
Post a Comment
<< Home