«

»

The Left Loses it on SCOTUS

Imagine the most bizarre rant you’ve ever heard about “judicial activism”. Imagine it being delivered by Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly simultaneously while drunk. Imagine them delivering it in Esperanto, a language they don’t know. You will still not reach a thousandth of the anger and spittle and incoherence being spewed out by the Left Wing commentariat over the possibility that the Supreme Court will overturn Obamacare. And remember, this is just days after saying the lawsuits were frivolous, stupid and a waste of time and there was no way the Court would even consider overturning the mandate.

Here is Paul Krugman in a bizarre rant lurching from one topic to another, saying “it became clear that several of the justices, and possibly a majority, are political creatures pure and simple, willing to embrace any argument, no matter how absurd, that serves the interests of Team Republican.” This from a hearing in which in which the Solicitor General did such a horrible job, the liberal bench started to make his arguments for him. Jon Walker, in a more coherent vein, predicts that Obama would simply defy the Court. Andrew Koppelman has a bizarre comparison of Obamacare to a 1918 decision on child labor. David Dow says we should impeach the court if they rule against it (and you think the country is divided now). Dow, incidentally, is the author of a book praising judicial activism. And here is Maureen Dowd, ranting about how liberals focus on process while conservatives focus on results in and article that … concentrates on the results she wants rather than the process. And to cap it all off, you had the President himself calling for judicial restraint.

All of these proclamations follow the same pattern: How dare the Supreme Court even consider overturning this law. If they do, it will be because they are partisan hacks. It will permanently maim the institution.

This is such sanctimonious hypocritical bullshit that I don’t even think they believe it (indeed, the Fifth Circuit asked the Administration to clarify that they believe in judicial review and they did). I don’t recall such outcries over Kelo or Roe or Griswald, all of which set new precedents for federal power. I don’t recall them screaming like this over Boumediene, which limited President Bush’s power. But suddenly, when it looks the Court may overturn their sacred cow, the Courts are supposed to be restrained? Please.

(A few have gotten in some digs at SCOTUS’s bizzarre 5-4 decision allowing strip searches for any arrest. They have a point; but it’s not relevant to the Obamacare case. And they’d be silent on it if they didn’t think they could somehow link it to Obamacare. After all, they’ve been silent every other time the Court has eroded the fourth amendment.)

The claim that the Court should not overturn a piece of legislation passed by Congress is simply ridiculous. That’s what the courts are for. If Congress outlawed abortion, I severely doubt anyone on the Left would beg the Courts to not, in the President’s words, take the “unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” They’d be screaming for the courts to overturn the law.

Let’s also take a step back and consider the strange idea these people have of “democracy”. If the US were a democracy — and thankfully we’re not — what would matter most is that the majority of the American people oppose the law. If we are a constitutional Republic, which we thankfully are, what matters is whether this law is compliant with the rules that we laid down delineating what our federal government can and can not do. But the Left is going for a very bizarre model — that legislation should be ultimately judged by whether the Democrats managed to wheedle 60 votes out of the Senate. That’s not democracy. And it certainly isn’t a constitutional republic. It’s floundering around, looking for any sort of justification for why a law should stand.

The thing is, all of these arguments are bullshit. Every word of the articles linked above is garbage and the writers know it. They are using these weak soulless arguments because they daren’t use the one that is really motivating them. They just can’t admit that something they have wanted for fifty years — semi-universal healthcare — may not be Constitutional, at least not the way it was implemented. They were so elated when Obamacare passed that the idea of losing it makes them, well, lose it. Moreover, they despise the idea that the Court may act to limit the government’s power. When the Court has extended the government’s power, they have never objected. But the idea that the Court can say, “Hey, you’re not allowed to do this” fills them with rage. They can not tolerate the notion of a federal government that is limited in its powers.

You are going to hear a lot more of this if the Court indeed overturns Obamacare. It won’t matter that they went to far or erred in how they constructed the law. It won’t matter that this was pretty much set up for any reasonable Court to take issue with. No, what will matter is the eeevil Scalia has taken away Obama’s signature achievement.

The last few days have destroyed the notion that the Left Wing is entirely comprised of reasonable cool-headed people who make arguments and consider all sides. The above articles, written by some of the most popular liberal writers, are no different than the worst anti-judiciary rants of Newt Gingrich. They are no more coherent than Michael Savage on a bad day. It took only the possibility of an overturn for the facade to crumble and for the petty, partisan individuals to be revealed.

If you thought the Republicans were crazy, just wait until this shit hits the fan.

Update: One other thing. I can’t help but think that some of this rage is misdirected anger at the Democrats. The Democrats made two fatal mistakes in constructing Obamacare. First, they put the mandate in as a mandate, not a tax. As a tax on the uninsured, it might have passed the Court. But they wanted to pretend they weren’t raising taxes. They are now trying to retroactively pretend this was a tax hike, but the law says otherwise.

The second mistake, which was really amateur, was not including severability in the law, so that striking down one part would not affect the others. Almost all sweeping legislation is severable precisely to insulate it from the Courts. If the law was severable, striking down the mandate would pin the Republicans in a corner where they either had to support a mandate or face a situation where people could wait until they were sick to get insurance.

You want to talk about partisan hacks, Mr. Krugman? Try a man who blames the other party for the failing of his own.

40 comments

No ping yet

  1. Kimpost says:

    I’m curious. Does anyone here remember how the Obamacare mandate differs from the old suggested Heritage foundation mandate? The one that many republicans supported in the 90′s?

    I guess what I’m getting at, is if republicans today support a mandate, but want it formed in some other way? I’m asking because I don’t see that, which surprises me.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  2. Hal_10000 says:

    I’m curious. Does anyone here remember how the Obamacare mandate differs from the old suggested Heritage foundation mandate? The one that many republicans supported in the 90′s?

    We’ve been over this. It doesn’t. The GOP supported a mandate for years and if McCain had been elected or Romney were president now, we’d probably have something similar to Obamacare. Only they wouldn’t have screwed it up badly enough for the Court to toss it.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  3. Kimpost says:

    And the republican plan now is to go back to the old system, couple that with some kind of tort reform and then allow for competition over state lines. The CBO has looked at possible savings from such reforms. Wouldn’t make a dent.

    Anyway, I still think that the mandate has a 50-50 chance. But if the mandate’s out, they might not toss the entire bill. True there was no severability clause, but there was no non-severability clause either. We’ll see.

    I agree with you that the people going crazy about this, should shut up. At least wait for the ruling.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  4. JimK says:

    That mandate, and the goddamned politicians that supported (and still support) it today, was a big part the beginning of my disillusionment with the Republican Party.

    I still can’t believe my choice is between Obama and the RomBot now. Mitt goddamned Romney? And it was almost Gingrich or Santorum? What in the fuck? Sweet Jesus how I long for anything else. How about a Hillary/Perry battle royale. Shit I’d rather vote for Princess Aww Shucks Gee Whiz You Betcha over Romney, Santorum or a guy named, in all seriousness, Newt. It blows my mind that our president might be named “Mitt.”

    Here’s what I think this election is coming down to for reasonable right-minded Americans:

    “You can continue to have this arm shoved up your ass, sans lube – while the fist at the end of it is gloved in barbed wire – which has the ultimate goal of destroying you from the inside, or, you can accept this gentle fingering that will, we promise, never be a full fist. Maybe two or three fingers. And it will be wearing rings. But still, I mean, you know that other one will hurt a lot more, so really, you’re out of options, chief, so just suck it up and vote for this guy.”

    Which pisses me off. And makes me want to take my ball and go home. But I see what happened when we did that with McCain. We got Captain Community and shit went directly south in a hurry.

    FUCK I HATE POLITICS NOW.

    Anyway…the GOP mandate hypocrisy is not unnoticed, Kim.
    JimK recently posted..My brand new 2012 Star 950 TourerMy Profile

    Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

      
  5. InsipiD says:

    JimK, I agree with your assessment of the GOP for the last few years 100%. Voting for Romney is literally like voting for Bill Clinton when it comes to the issues (without the cheating or the bitchy wife).

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      
  6. Seattle Outcast says:

    I’m sticking with my version of what the two parties currently are:

    Democrats = Eurosocialists/Marxists/Eco-terrorists

    Republicans = Christian Socialist Party

    This is a result of gerrymandering districts to create highly polarized candidates that can’t lose an election as long as they cater to the extreme.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  7. Section8 says:

    Well I still think Ron Paul would have been a great choice. Yeah, he’s nuts on some issues, but there is no way he would be able to go to the extreme, but he could have made a dent in issues that matter if the people played their cards right. Now we’re back to bitch and complain mode, and it will be no different 10 years from now.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

      
  8. Mississippi Yankee says:

    A simple question for anyone who has ever, and constantly pissed, moaned, and/or whined about presidential election choices:

    When have you ever not had the choice between the lesser of two evils? EVER? I’d really like to know… as my voting history goes all the way back to Nixon’s 2nd term. And with the possibility of Reagan’s 2nd term for me it has always been between a bad and a worse choice. Yet this ‘sandy vagina’ issue comes up every four years, ad infinitum. Probably started with Thomas Jefferson’s long drawn out win.

    If you don’t do your homework in the years before the nomination you will always get their choice, this isn’t rocket surgery ferchrissakes…

    And letting the DNC dictate who, what and will be concerning Romney is beyond ignorant. His pluses DO outnumber his naughts, all you have to do is get up off your sore butt and look. In any case he’s not Obama. And at this stage I’d vote for Hal before I’d vote for Obama, but that’s just me.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  9. Mississippi Yankee says:

    Even in death Andrew

    says it much better than I ever could.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  10. InsipiD says:

    Democrats = Eurosocialists/Marxists/Eco-terrorists

    Republicans = Christian Socialist Party

    This is a result of gerrymandering districts to create highly polarized candidates that can’t lose an election as long as they cater to the extreme.

    Your first part is accurate, but the second is contradictory. The two parties have put out nearly indistinguishable candidates who would do the same things while talking like the other is an extremist. Show me anything significant that George Bush did that Bill Clinton would’ve done differently. The fact that he went to church instead of diddling the help made him an “arch conservative” who still spent big on Medicare and put together the bipartisan NCLB package. Mitt Romney, John McCain, and even Mike Huckabee are literally different versions of Bill Clinton’s policies.

    The Democrats are catering to the extreme left, and the Republicans are catering to the near-left while being portrayed as far right. If you’re buying into the GOP catering to the extreme to get elected, you need to look past the first layer.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  11. mrblume says:

    While ultimately everything is ideological, the overt politics of the Supreme Court hurt it’s image in my mind. Repeatedly handing down 5-4 decisions where the same justices are always on the same side makes it hard to believe that anyone of those guys actually looks at the law. In that sense, the whole thing, oral arguments, submitting briefs etc. seems like a big sham.

    Also, after listening to the audio recordings of the first two days of hearings, I really don’t understand what anyone is talking about the Solicitor General not doing it’s job.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      
  12. AlexInCT says:

    While ultimately everything is ideological, the overt politics of the Supreme Court hurt it’s image in my mind. Repeatedly handing down 5-4 decisions where the same justices are always on the same side makes it hard to believe that anyone of those guys actually looks at the law.

    Actually that we see so many 5-4 decisions reinforces my belief that what we have is 5 of them that do look at the law and 4 that vote for whatever the left likes. Of course, you can say that is all just my opinion. But my opinion seems to be far closer to reality than otherwise.

    Take Obamacare for example. It is just another, in a slew of horrible such power grabs by our federal government, where they try to reinterpret the commerce clause as giving them the power to do everything and anything. The commerce clause has become the fed’s excuse to basically circumvent the fact that the US constitution enumerated what could be done by them, and excluded anything not enumerated.

    If our federal government can make us buy health insurance, even if it is for our own good, then what can it not make us buy/do? Anyone that ponders this question and then still thinks that this statute currently under review, and in dire need of striking down, is constitutional, because they can come up with some excuse or another for why some other mandate wouldn’t be constitutional while this one is, is either an idiot or a partisan hack. People need to be aware of that. If they are the slew of 5-4 decision suddenly isn’t a sign of something so ominous, but something to be happy for, and definitely worried about should the balance shift the other way.

    Note that I am not saying the SCOTUS gets it right all the time, but so far they have done it on most of the real big ones, and hopefully they will do it on this one as well.

    And yes Jim, both parties are terrible. The difference is that one wants to strap us to a 5 stage rocket and fire us off the cliff, while the other is strapping us to a turtle to do the same. For now my option is to pick the turtle. It’s preservation basically dictating my choice. I will hold my nose and vote for Romney simply because he is not Obama. I don’t expect much from him, but nobody can do the damage Obama has done, either on purpose or simply because of incompetence, stupidity, and/or lack of experience, and that’s a bonus.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  13. Seattle Outcast says:

    Actually that we see so many 5-4 decisions reinforces my belief that what we have is 5 of them that do look at the law and 4 that vote for whatever the left likes.

    Far too obviously that is the situation. Whenever it goes the other way it is only because one of two things has happened.

    1) The left is actually right about something – it’s rare, but it does happen

    2) Someone has stepped so far over the line that not even the left-leaning judges can ignore it

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  14. Mook says:

    Actually that we see so many 5-4 decisions reinforces my belief that what we have is 5 of them that do look at the law and 4 that vote for whatever the left likes.

    In the case of Justice Ginsburg, she recently expressed outright disdain for our Constitution, going so far as to warn off Egypt from using our Constituion as a role model. What Ginsburg did there was unprecendented.. it demonstrates how extreme her ideological bias really is… she’s a bitter old ACLU commie spinster living on planet utopia. Yet she sits on the highest court in the land

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  15. Seattle Outcast says:

    The two parties have put out nearly indistinguishable candidates who would do the same things while talking like the other is an extremist.

    That was exactly my point – they are the same, with the critical difference that one side wants to shove their version of religion down your throat, while the other side hates the country while claiming to love it.

    Massive big government, massive programs, massive taxes, massive waste, but it’s the little details that sorta make a difference. Shitheads like Santorum will attempt to enact evangelical based policy, while Obama will his best to serve the country up to our enemies on a silver platter

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  16. Mook says:

    Shitheads like Santorum will attempt to enact evangelical based policy

    I think you’ve bought into the leftist narrative with that comment. The difference between the left and social consdervaitives like “thou shalt not ride bareback” Santorum is, and it’s a HUGE difference, is that with few exceptions social conservatives don’t try to legislate their beliefs, they try to persuade. Leftists on the other hand try to force you through legislation.

    Liberal Dems say you must: 1. Provide and pay for contraception.2. Provide and pay for abortion. 3. Enact laws providing for same sex couples to adopt young children.4. Enact laws taking end-of-life decisions away from families and giving them to the State.5. Enact laws publicly funding instruction in the public schools in regards to homosexual lifestyles and practices.6. Soon to enact laws restricting health benefits for those deemed “less-than” like they’re alreadying doing the UK.

    Social conservatives: Ah, no thanks.. which somehow mysteriously translates into “Social conservatives = pushing their agenda on everyone else.”

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  17. InsipiD says:

    Shitheads like Santorum will attempt to enact evangelical based policy
    I think you’ve bought into the leftist narrative with that comment.

    Bigtime.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  18. mrblume says:

    If they are the slew of 5-4 decision suddenly isn’t a sign of something so ominous, but something to be happy for, and definitely worried about should the balance shift the other way.

    I never intended to mean for the Republican side to be on the left of that equation. Clearly, plenty of such cases have gone the other way, and more will in the future. If one feels at home in the highly divided political system, I suppose you wouldn’t see a problem here. But I would prefer a highest court that transcends petty “our side – their side” politics.

    The answer here of course is compromise. Stop with the dissents and try to come out with unanimous decisions that everyone is equally unhappy with.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  19. mrblume says:

    Santorum is, and it’s a HUGE difference, is that with few exceptions social conservatives don’t try to legislate their beliefs

    You need to have a serious case of ideological blindness to believe that. Legislating their believes is the defining quality of the political moniker “social conservative” (otherwise, it would have no meaning in the political context that would differentiate it from libertarian, i.e. there would be no reason for the term to exist).

    Here are just some things that social conservative want to legislate:

    1. Making abortion illegal.
    2. Enact laws preventing same sex couples adopting children (it’s artificially constructed as a legislative issue – the government could stay out of it)
    3. Enact laws to take end-of-life decisions away from individuals (ah yes, Santorum is well known as a fan of right-to-die legislation; he would like to visit the Netherlands next chance he gets).
    4. Enact laws to ban pornography.
    5. Support laws that outlaw prostitution.
    6. Enact laws forcing schools to teach evolution (“both sides of the issue”).
    7. Legislate what type of sex people may have (Wikipedia cites Santorum as favoring laws against sodomy).

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  20. hist_ed says:

    While ultimately everything is ideological, the overt politics of the Supreme Court hurt it’s image in my mind. Repeatedly handing down 5-4 decisions where the same justices are always on the same side makes it hard to believe that anyone of those guys actually looks at the law

    So there is no way that 9 people, with different core philosophies about the law, would look at vague language and come up with different conclusion? Naaah, gotta be political.

    The four lefties have the philosophy that the government gets to do whatever it wants, except ban abortion or other sex related things. The four conservatives generally have the philosophy that the words in the Constitution are kind of a big deal and maybe we should pay attention to them. Kennedy, maybe he’s political.

    You dismiss written opinions and such. Have you ever read one?

    The President, by the way, is the one politicizing the Court. He is just a whiney little bitch that can’t take it when someone syas “no” to him.

    And that, gentlemen is why this election is important. There are some old judges on that Supreme Court. If you don’t think there will be a difference between Romney and Obama on Supreme Court appointments then you are nuts.

    I am not happy with Romney. I prefer him to Gingrich, Santorum and even Paul. President Romney will be a hostage to Congressional Republicans. Given Harriet Miers, he knows that he will have to toe the line on judicial apppointments. Because of his flip floppin’ he also knows that he will need to be consistant or lose any chance of governing. The GOP now is a bit more conservative than it was under Bush, hopefully they will keep Romney in line.

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

      
  21. InsipiD says:

    7. Legislate what type of sex people may have (Wikipedia cites Santorum as favoring laws against sodomy).

    Does Wikipedia still quote Santorum as saying he’d ban porn? I don’t consider them a trustworthy source when it comes to political topics.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  22. mrblume says:

    So there is no way that 9 people, with different core philosophies about the law, would look at vague language and come up with different conclusion? Naaah, gotta be political.

    No, it’s that the conclusion the judges come up with is always, coincidentally, the same that politicians, pundits and voters on the respective sides have arrived on long ago. It’s not that they don’t look at the law, it’s that it certainly seems like it wouldn’t make a difference if they didn’t.

    The requirement to provide a written opinion is of value, of course, but it’s ultimately not that limiting. In ideological questions, argument has a lot of latitude. Would anyone think that today’s court would declare slavery compatible with the constitution, even one lacking the 13th or 14th amendments? The idea is preposterous. And yet, it read just fine in the written opinion.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  23. Seattle Outcast says:
    Shitheads like Santorum will attempt to enact evangelical based policy

    I think you’ve bought into the leftist narrative with that comment.

    I came to that conclusion about Santorum without having to hear the left’s version of him. He’s an evangelical bigot (which is really odd for a catholic), and based on his own statements it is quite obvious he believes that his religious views trump everything else.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  24. balthazar says:

    I came to that conclusion about Santorum without having to hear the left’s version of him. He’s an evangelical bigot (which is really odd for a catholic), and based on his own statements it is quite obvious he believes that his religious views trump everything else.

    Too bad the way he voted while in congress proves this view wrong about him eh? But why let facts get in your way, did CM take over your keyboard?

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  25. HARLEY says:

    Too bad the way he voted while in congress proves this view wrong about him eh? But why let facts get in your way, did CM take over your keyboard?

    The same thing was said about Obama…………………………………and we know how that turned out, er is turning out…

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  26. Kimpost says:

    Too bad the way he voted while in congress proves this view wrong about him eh? But why let facts get in your way, did CM take over your keyboard?

    Wtf? Are you seriously suggesting that Santorum has not been a social warrior poster boy for, well for a long time now? He was a creepy bigot in my mind, years before this primary. Forming that opinion has had nothing to do with any kind of leftist narrative. He did it to himself.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  27. Seattle Outcast says:

    Too bad the way he voted while in congress proves this view wrong about him eh? But why let facts get in your way, did CM take over your keyboard?

    I haven’t examined his voting record, I listen to the hatred that spews out of his mouth. He hasn’t bothered to run on his record that I’ve noticed, just on how the world needs some of that good old-fashioned christianity (his version) to get right.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  28. Mississippi Yankee says:

    Here we have a Euro-socialist and a right-leaning anti-theist peering into Santorum’s soul and seeing the same thing. Neither having any regard for his past voting record. It’s almost like ‘dogs and cats ‘ have started to mate – a sure sign of the apocalypse BTW.

    If either of you DO look up some facts you may find that Santorum, indeed, puts the “INO” in the RINO. And has been a typical east coast elitist his whole political life.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  29. HARLEY says:

    indeed, puts the “INO” in the RINO. And has been a typical east coast elitist his whole political life.

    and ditto on Rommny.

    Welcome to hell guys, my advice invest in precious metals.. gold silver, lead, brass and copper.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  30. CM says:

    did CM take over your keyboard?

    Didn’t take long for the leg-humping to start up again.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  31. Mississippi Yankee says:

    and ditto on Rommny.

    HARLEY, you do realize Romney isn’t even from the east coast right? He never even lived there until after all his college and graduate schooling.

    He only moved there to work at Bain Financial in Massachusetts. And being in the finance business he became acutely aware that the state (MA) was broke, and I mean broker than California. He ran for governor in the liberal-est state (at that time) as a republican and won. And within two years, and against an overwhelming democrat majority in the house and senate, completely turned around the failed and totally broke state budget. And BTW that budget remained solvent well into his democrat successors second year.

    Yes RomneyCare was an utter failure but the again that’s what states are supposed to do… try things, be petri dishes for programs, test drive them if you will. That’s the way this United States is meant to work. It’s just civics 101.

    But letting the enemy, in this case the DNC, define the GOP candidate that we will most likely support is just playing into their hands if not IMHO fool-hardy.

    HARLEY, Romney certainly wasn’t my first choice a year ago either but to call him an elitist is misguided. He left Michigan AND his family wealth to move to Boston and make it on his own. Yanno the American dream? And he fuckin’ DID too.

    Once you fore-go the propaganda and look into the facts a much clearer picture emerges of a man I hope will beat Lord Smug in November.

    /steps off soap box now/

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  32. balthazar says:

    Wtf? Are you seriously suggesting that Santorum has not been a social warrior poster boy for, well for a long time now? He was a creepy bigot in my mind, years before this primary. Forming that opinion has had nothing to do with any kind of leftist narrative. He did it to himself.

    Go take a look at how he has voted on things like federal funding for BC other than abortion. Facts are facts, hes voted FOR BC coverage etc. Your “argument” holds no water.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  33. JimK says:

    A word of warning: I would blame the person that may engage CM in a lengthy personal bitchfest as much as I would blame CM. So when he posts his “I’m a victim” bullshit: IGNORE IT. He’s trying to get the focus on him so he can do his usual thing. Let it go. Fire dies without oxygen, ya get me?
    JimK recently posted..My brand new 2012 Star 950 TourerMy Profile

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  34. Kimpost says:

    Go take a look at how he has voted on things like federal funding for BC other than abortion. Facts are facts, hes voted FOR BC coverage etc. Your “argument” holds no water.

    I think it holds water, even if his voting record might not reflect his social conservatism 100%. Here’s a couple of troubling points just from his Wiki page. And you know there’s more.

    In an interview with the National Catholic Reporter, Santorum said that the distinction between private religious conviction and public responsibility, espoused according to Santorum by President John F. Kennedy, had caused “great harm in America.” He said: “All of us have heard people say, ‘I privately am against abortion, homosexual marriage, stem cell research, cloning. But who am I to decide that it’s not right for somebody else?’ It sounds good, but it is the corruption of freedom of conscience.”

    Sound like he wants to legislate some morality there to me.

    In his 2005 book, It Takes a Family, Santorum advocated for a more “family values”-oriented society centered on monogamous, heterosexual relationships, marriage, and child-raising. He opposes same-sex marriage, saying the American public and their elected officials should decide on these “incredibly important moral issues”, rather than the Supreme Court, which consists of “nine unelected, unaccountable judges.”

    Never mind the Constitution. Let’s legislate freely.

    Santorum has stated that he does not believe a “right to privacy” is part of the Constitution. He has been critical of the Supreme Court decision in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), which held that the Constitution guaranteed that right and overturned a law prohibiting the sale of contraceptives to married couples. He has described contraception as “a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be,” and said in 2003 that he favors having laws against polygamy, adultery, sodomy, and other actions “antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family”.

    “Favors having laws…”

    Neither of the above means that I wouldn’t choose Santorum over Obama, if I was a conservative. I probably would. But I still think he’s a bigot.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  35. JimK says:

    Neither of the above means that I wouldn’t choose Santorum over Obama, if I was a conservative. I probably would.

    I won’t. Santorum is the GOP nominee that would make me not vote for that office this time around. Then again, I’m not a “Conservative.” I’m a conservatarianal. Yeah. Parse THAT one out. :)

    But I still think he’s a bigot.

    I’m not sure if he’s a card-carrying bigot per se, but I know that my values and his values are pretty far apart, and in ways that truly matter to me. I’ll settle for some of the other potentials, but not the Ricker. He and I are fucking done professionally. /bale
    JimK recently posted..My brand new 2012 Star 950 TourerMy Profile

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  36. balthazar says:

    Sound like he wants to legislate some morality there to me.

    Yet he hasnt, and has never voted that way. ITS YOUR OPINION, the FACTS are he hasnt done it.

    Never mind the Constitution. Let’s legislate freely.

    Again OPINION, he would LIKE something to be done, but hasnt actually voted for or proposed law that would do so.

    He would favor the laws, like the gun grabbers favor gun restriction, the difference is HE HASNT VOTED OR PROPOSED ANY LAW THAT WOULD DO SO. Those 2 facts are the real point here, he has an OPINION on these issues, but is NOT forcing them thru legislation on anyone else.

    You are full of supposition, innuendo and your OPIONION of what you THINK he would do. Yet you dont take his actual RECORD into account.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  37. Kimpost says:

    I’m sorry, but what a president would LIKE to do, matters a great deal to me.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

      
  38. CM says:

    A word of warning: I would blame the person that may engage CM in a lengthy personal bitchfest as much as I would blame CM. So when he posts his “I’m a victim” bullshit: IGNORE IT. He’s trying to get the focus on him so he can do his usual thing. Let it go. Fire dies without oxygen, ya get me?

    Don’t conflate “pushing back” with “I’m a victim”. They’re very different. Suggesting everything is the second one is just lazy.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  39. HARLEY says:

    HARLEY, you do realize Romney isn’t even from the east coast right?

    yeah i do, but it is obvious hes got the big blue blood republican act down pat………

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  40. Mississippi Yankee says:

    yeah i do, but it is obvious hes got the big blue blood republican act down pat………

    How so?
    If, through your own efforts, you became a millionaire would you consider yourself a “big blue blood republican”? libertarian… independent…conservatarianal.. person thing? Or just a rich Missouri good ole boy?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      

Comments have been disabled.