The success of Proposition 8 shows that the California Supreme Court overreached back in May and was slapped down by the voters – just as President Jackson once slapped down Chief Justice Marshall (not Jackson’s best moment, but a good exam…

On May 26th, 2009 at 5:11 pm, lgm said:

Economic impacts are important only because they lead to impacts on actual people. There are other ways to impact people. Anti gay laws impact gays, for example.

What the hell are “anti gay laws?” What laws are in the books that discriminate against gays? Marriage is regarded as a religious and holy institution. The United States Constitution is supposed to have a hands-off policy with regard to such matters, and the courts likewise cannot rule upon what people of faith can or cannot do with regard to their rites and ceremonies.

If you want to get married to your same-sex partner, then you need find a way to get a religious institution to accept the concept of same-sex marriage. I know that you constitution-hating statists want to bring about an oligarchy that can dictate whatever policies you want to bare down upon everyone, but at the moment, there is still a precarious notion that we have a rule of law, and it is still supposed to protect our institutions and communities from deviant ideas that threaten them.

* Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) – SCOTUS decision pending as of 5/26/2009

* Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) – Reversed 6-3 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg)

* Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) – Upheld, but reasoning was unanimously faulted

* Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) – Reversed 8-0

* Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) – Reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Alito)

* Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) – Reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)

* Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) – Reversed 7-2 (Dissenting: Stevens, Breyer)

* The European Community vs. RJR Nabisco, 355 F.3d 123 (2004) – Judgment vacated and sent back to appeals court

On May 27th, 2009 at 12:43 pm, atheling said:
Yeah, in the meantime, while you vote for someone who has no chance of winning, you hand the victory to the Left.

Way to go.

There you go again, blaming me for you and your candidate’s shortcomings.

Also I’m not evading your question about the alliance with your Uncle Joe, I had just forgotten about it because
of the nonsensical comparison you had made. I trust that Winston made what he deemed an absolutely vital choice for the fight against a superior and unrelenting deadly foe (in no sane way comparable to a Presidential campaign). But I must ask, is this before or after Uncle Joe was known to have systematically murdered millions of civilians and political dissidents?

People like Rogue and myself actually practice what the founding fathers envisioned. We evaluate all candidates based on their policy stands and choose the one that best mathches our own vision of the country. Not what some party hack tells us to think.

Yes. The Founders had a name for people like atheling: party men. At that time in American history, that was one of the more insulting labels you could give a person. Now party politics is everything, to the detriment of us all.

You are engaging in a straw man.

No, it is you who is engaging in a strawman. You are the one claiming that those of us who refused to vote for your “lesser of two evils” candidate did so entirely because he wasn’t “perfect.” You act as if McCain was one or two issues short of conservative purity. But in reality he was nothing of the sort. Indeed, the man was and is a full fledged liberal who sold out conservative principles on countless fronts (immigration being one of the biggest) and who takes delight in stabbing conservatives in the back any chance he gets.

The man has no honor, no principled conservative integrity. His liberalism is leading us toward the very same kind of tyrannical oppression that you fear from the left, albeit at a slightly slower, less noticeable pace. And yet this is the kind of man you think conservatives should have supported.

You are delusional. You say we must embrace the “lesser of two evils” for the greater good, but I say where has that bankrupt pragmatic strategy gotten us over the years? No where good.

It was once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. This perfectly captures the mindset of atheling.

Well, I and others like me reject your insane, suicidal way of thinking. Supporting liberalism lite every election cycle may slow down the progressive agenda a bit, but the train will reach the same destination nonetheless. That is why mindlessly supporting the “lesser of two evils” every single time out, no matter how much worse the evils become, is nothing but a guaranteed losing strategy. It’s suicidal and insane.

What’s needed is a rejection of liberalism altogether, not just the more radicals elements and agents of it. In the short-term things may very well get worse, but it is the only way that in the long term things can ever hope to get better.

Someday, hopefully, atheling will grow up and realize this before its too late.