Join Ricochet or renew and get 1 yearof National Review/Digital as a bonus!
Where was this President who "stands with all women" when cowards took to Wikipedia and vandalized Mia Love's entry merely because she is a woman, an African American, and a conservative? The terms thrown at her were much worse than what Sandra Fluke was called.
I would say go to support a conservative leaning documentary, but the film was ultimately unpersuasive for me. My biggest criticism was that the DP needed a SteadiCam. My second biggest was the D'Souza's "test" of his theory was not persuasive. He said that, if three things came to pass, it would prove his theory. Unfortunately, in my opinion, those three things coming to pass only prove that Obama is a Democrat, not that he is an anti-colonialist bent on imposing the world view held by his father and far-left, socialist mentors.
C. U. Douglas--I accept and understand that, and that's a rationale and logical argument in response (and one I have made). My point is only a retort to the claim that a tax cut adds to a deficit. All other things being equal in the "debt argument," I have trouble accepting that as a logical position. If we accept that as true, then one can say that the failure to impose a 100% tax rate "adds to the debt." Or the failure to impose a 64.715% tax rate "adds to the debt." Or the failure to tax widgets at a higher rate "adds to the debt." It's simply not true (and, my ultimate point, wholly and fundamentally misleading). The failure to collect additional tax revenue does not "add to debt;" it merely slims the government's check book. Similarly, my employer's failure to offer me a raise does not add to my debt; my personal debt only increases when I spend as if I did get the raise.
ConservativeWanderer: You're assuming facts not in evidence.
To wit, that Chris Matthews was ever rational. · 3 hours ago
Point -- you.
What I find most interesting in this whole thing is the change in his wording--and not about gay marriage.
In the interview, he talked about troops "who are out there fighting on my behalf," yet in the letter he refers to "gay and lesbian troops who are serving our country with honor and distinction." Seems to me we can learn a lot more about this President than just his views on gay marriage.
There may be a provision of federal law which prohibits a member of one branch of the government from simulataneously serving in another branch. I mean, there must be a reason we don't have President Sen. Barack Obama.
I'd venture that, at the time, New York Times v. Sullivan, or the so-called "Pentagon Papers" case, got lots of press, though likely because it involved the press and their ability to print classified, stolen government documents.
United States v. Nixon, where the Court ruled that executive privilege did not justify President Nixon's refusal to turn over tapes of conversations that occurred in the Oval Office, was probably a hot-button item at its time, too.
While I disagree with absolutely every word in this piece, anyone with a passing familiarity with this Court will find this statement shockingly obtuse:
"Inexplicably mute 20 years after he lied his way onto the court, Clarence Thomas didn’t ask a single question during oral arguments for one of the biggest cases in the court’s history."
Oh, Ms. Dowd! Are you completely unaware that Thomas hasn't spoken in any case in at least six years?* His view on questions from the bench are well-documented and, by the definition of any rational intellectual or even passing thinker, not "inexplicable." This is yet another example of the New York Times being completely oblivious to law or facts; you know, those pesky things that get in the way of conservative-bashing.
*(Perhaps if Ms. Dowd read the august New York Times [which their circulation numbers would suggest she does not] she would know this: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/us/13thomas.html.)
If you want to debate if the law is a good idea, that's one thing. (In fact, that is Congress's job, and one they did.) But this debate is over whether Congress can even do it--which has nothing to do with the propriety of the law. And that is the Court's job.
(Just to be clear: I recognize that the jobs of the respective branches are not so simplistic as I've conveniently made them. I personally believe that members of Congress are duty-bound to vote against a bill if they believe they do not have the authority to pass such a bill. After all, the swear to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution," just like the President. The Court should police that boundry, but Congress should truly be the first line of defense.)
This is the same argument my liberal friends keep making--the law was passed by Congress, so why should the Court step in and overturn what the people clearly want? (This ignores what the people actually want, but that hurts their argument so it is conveniently ignored.) The easy response is that a lot of things were once popular, but no one would dare say it was Constitutional. Moreover, the Court has done exactly what President Obama is advocating before. Now, he says that the Court shouldn't overturn something because "lots of people want it." That's what the Court did in Dred Scott v. Sanford. Not our best moment.
But it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of why the law is being challenged and a total lack of knowledge regarding what the Constitution says. I say that anyone who had then-Prof. Obama for constitutional law in law school should ask for their money back, because sixth-grade civics students at least know that our government is one of limited powers. I know because I've heard them recite it for lollipops.
Didn't he already do that, when he openly criticized the Citizens United decision in front of SCOTUS at the State of the Union? How many Justices refused to attend the next one as a result of this blatant attack?
To be fair to Ms. Coulter, I did not see the piece in its entirety, but only heard her one line at the end of the video posted above. She may very well agree with your analysis; unfortunately I cannot say for sure why she feels a woman, or Dr. Rice in particualr, is not a valid option for VP.
I agree with your contention that Gov. Palin was ravaged by the MSM for being a conservative female, and that the same result would ensue for any conservative female. There is this perception among liberal prognositcators that a female must only vote based on her right to abort her child, or her "right" to have the government pay for birth control. I know many thoughtful, intelligent women who conclude that, even if they diagree with conservatives on these discrete issues (and there are others issues, and not all women agree on them either), a conservative direction for the country is better than the alternative.
It may well be that she is not a good choice for the Republican base, though what I know of her positions would seem to belie that argument. But that's neither here nor there. Ms. Coulter's position seemed to be that the selection and subsequent drubbing of Gov. Palin by the MSM foreclosed the possibility of a female VP candidate. So even if we alter the query and say "a female Ronald Reagan," Ms. Coulter's theory would still seem to preclude such a VP choice. I'm just curious as to "why."
As an attorney, you should appreciate the conflagration of various and independent Constitutional theories thrown together in a smorgasboard of an attack against SCOTUS by, you guessed it, the New York Times.
Notice that, at the end of the piece, they essentially make a Due Process argument in the absence of a Due Process challenge. Seems like the NY Times could use someone with a minimum of two days of Constitutional Law to proof their editorials.
Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:
Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place. Join today!
Already a Member? Sign In