The blog of engineers who once upon a time spent sleepless nights procrastinating on or near the New Mexico Tech campus and share the ideals of conservatism.
The 'Compassionate Conservative' term is an insult to us 'non-compassionate conservatives.' We hate compassion... Actually, conservatives are the most compassionate folks out there, but I suppose that's another topic... In regards to the SCOTUS, no matter who he nominates on the right side of the spectrum will generate 'buffering.' For something this important, he needs someone with simply more experience in constitutional law. Oh, and that person should probably be conservative, too. Nuff said.
Yeah, yeah, "Bush said". We trusted Bush I, and we got Souter. It seems like Bush just wanted her because she'd be anti-Roe. Sorry, but that's not good enough. If she legislates from the bench, but for our side, that's wrong too. The fact is, there wasn't enough evidence of her judicial philosophy, and the spotty evidence available suggested she would be activist. That would have been disastrous.
Muz is right, there is no nominee that wouldn't generate opposition. He needs to suck it up and nominate an originalist. I don't even care if they aren't politically conservative, as long as they don't "find" rights that don't exist in the Constitution.
Hmm... There was plenty of satire in your comment, as there was in mine... :)
Roe? Litmus test? Yes, for some, probably me included. However the MSM has successfully turned RvW from an ethics issue into a religious one. What better way to garner political support from women than to steer the argument away from "Can we really chance taking a life since not one scientist can tell us if it's human life yet?" -- to -- "Those damn religious yayhoos are trying to take away my rights again..."
Actually, engineers have to be quite creative, although in a well defined way. We can't waste time since we're being paid for results.
To me, Roe V Wade is a constitutional travesty. It is not a religious or an ethical issue, and it shouldn't be in determining a nominees fitness for sitting on SCOTUS. I don't know about you, but I voted for Bush because he said he would nominate an originalist in the mold of Scalia or Thomas. Not a conservative - and yes, there is a difference. I could care less if a nominee is a conservative or not. Oliver Wendell Holmes had extremely questionable ethics as a human, and yet as a SCOTUS justice he was a perfect exemplar of originalist jurisprudence.
The difference between a conservative and an originalist is this, regarding abortion: a "conservative" justice would say that a federal law banning abortion in the US would be constitutional. An originalist would strike it down for the constitutional violation that it was. When Roe gets overturned, abortion won't become illegal - it will be rightly turned over to the states to be regulated, as it was pre-Roe. Originalists have faith in the democratic process as it is outlined in the Constitution to eventually enact the morally correct statutes into being.
That's how a proper (Burkean) conservative ought to be - one who understands the need for change but eschews the sudden and almost dogmatic change demanded by those who lack the faith and feel compelled to "make it happen". Slow, continuous rise, not Heaviside or Dirac.
5 comments:
I agree. If he really wanted to stir up the pot, nominate Bork again...
The 'Compassionate Conservative' term is an insult to us 'non-compassionate conservatives.' We hate compassion... Actually, conservatives are the most compassionate folks out there, but I suppose that's another topic...
In regards to the SCOTUS, no matter who he nominates on the right side of the spectrum will generate 'buffering.' For something this important, he needs someone with simply more experience in constitutional law. Oh, and that person should probably be conservative, too.
Nuff said.
Yeah, yeah, "Bush said". We trusted Bush I, and we got Souter. It seems like Bush just wanted her because she'd be anti-Roe. Sorry, but that's not good enough. If she legislates from the bench, but for our side, that's wrong too. The fact is, there wasn't enough evidence of her judicial philosophy, and the spotty evidence available suggested she would be activist. That would have been disastrous.
Muz is right, there is no nominee that wouldn't generate opposition. He needs to suck it up and nominate an originalist. I don't even care if they aren't politically conservative, as long as they don't "find" rights that don't exist in the Constitution.
Hmm... There was plenty of satire in your comment, as there was in mine... :)
Roe? Litmus test? Yes, for some, probably me included. However the MSM has successfully turned RvW from an ethics issue into a religious one. What better way to garner political support from women than to steer the argument away from "Can we really chance taking a life since not one scientist can tell us if it's human life yet?" -- to -- "Those damn religious yayhoos are trying to take away my rights again..."
Actually, engineers have to be quite creative, although in a well defined way. We can't waste time since we're being paid for results.
To me, Roe V Wade is a constitutional travesty. It is not a religious or an ethical issue, and it shouldn't be in determining a nominees fitness for sitting on SCOTUS. I don't know about you, but I voted for Bush because he said he would nominate an originalist in the mold of Scalia or Thomas. Not a conservative - and yes, there is a difference. I could care less if a nominee is a conservative or not. Oliver Wendell Holmes had extremely questionable ethics as a human, and yet as a SCOTUS justice he was a perfect exemplar of originalist jurisprudence.
The difference between a conservative and an originalist is this, regarding abortion: a "conservative" justice would say that a federal law banning abortion in the US would be constitutional. An originalist would strike it down for the constitutional violation that it was. When Roe gets overturned, abortion won't become illegal - it will be rightly turned over to the states to be regulated, as it was pre-Roe. Originalists have faith in the democratic process as it is outlined in the Constitution to eventually enact the morally correct statutes into being.
That's how a proper (Burkean) conservative ought to be - one who understands the need for change but eschews the sudden and almost dogmatic change demanded by those who lack the faith and feel compelled to "make it happen". Slow, continuous rise, not Heaviside or Dirac.
Post a Comment