Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. It’s Important to Them, So It’s Important to Us

 

Going from no nukes, to union power, to baby seals, to open borders, to trans-sexual marriage, to whatever is next, it can be hard to pin down an underlying system of ethics for modern progressives. Their lack of any apparent overriding ideology offers flexibility in dealing with the matters of the day according to what is convenient at the time, but it can also result in such a remarkable lack of consistency that they can lose the support of even their more ardent supporters from time to time. But there is one central issue upon which progressives have maintained absolute consistency over the past several decades: abortion.

Whenever a Republican runs for Congress or nominates someone for a position as a judge, the Democrat rallying cry is nearly always, “This Republican wants to take away your abortion rights!” Why they chose abortion as their rallying cry, I can’t imagine. Only around 30 percent of American women support abortion. Even though abortion support is higher among men, it would never pass in a general election, and Democrats know it. Why is it so important to them? I just don’t understand.

Since they know that voting on a law creating a Constitutional right for abortion would be political suicide for a lot of Democrat Congresspeople who live more than 50 miles from an ocean or a major city, they had to pass that law via the Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade. That worked fine, except now they find themselves entirely dependent on the Supreme Court to maintain the most vital policy to their party. Since Supreme Court justices are nominated by the President, this made presidential elections important to Democrats as well. Vitally important.

Abortion is their central priority but they do have other priorities, which can get in the way of their central mission. For example, when they argue that the right to bear arms is not a Constitutional right, that can weaken their argument that abortion is a Constitutional right, since the right to bear arms is in the Second Amendment and abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution. Their lack of an overriding ideology makes Democrats flexible in such matters, but some voters lack such flexibility.

All of this means that the Supreme Court is extremely important to the Democratic Party. Everyone knew that whomever Trump nominated to replace Justice Kennedy would be accused of horrible things by the Democrats. When the Republicans did not want to put Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court at the end of Obama’s term, they played some political hardball to avoid that, using Robert Byrd/Harry Reid style procedural techniques to get what they wanted. They did not personally destroy Merrick Garland or accuse him of being a sexual deviant. They used Senate rules to try to get an outcome they wanted, and in that case, it worked.

Democrats also use procedural shenanigans, of course, generally even more ruthlessly. They invented many of these tricks. But they also use the politics of personal destruction. Clarence Thomas was accused of sexual deviancy (not sexual assault or rape, like Bill Clinton), despite the testimony of many women who had worked with him for years, saying that such accusations were ridiculous. When Democrats say that we should believe women in matters of sexual assault, they don’t mean women who defend Republicans.

Kavanaugh, I’m sure, knew this was coming. Democrats will tend to use accusations of sexual deviancy against Republican nominees, because:

  1. They can’t accuse them of murder (that involves actual evidence, like a dead body).
  2. The daily stream of various salacious sexual stories will be widely covered in the press because it’s good for ratings.
  3. Republicans tend to be socially conservative, so accusations of sexual deviancy fit perfectly for Democrats’ goals, such as:
    1. Showing that Republicans shouldn’t be judgmental, because we’re all freaks.
    2. Showing that Republicans are hypocrites. Hypocrisy is the left’s cardinal sin.
    3. Showing that Republicans are evil, and thus any effort to defeat them is laudable, no matter how unethical it may appear at the time.

I find the hypocrisy angle to be the most fascinating here. Why would a group of people with no apparent system of ethics find hypocrisy to be so egregious? Conservatives are bothered by hypocrisy as well, but most of us understand the fallen nature of all people, and we tend to admire the effort to live an ethical life, understanding that we will all fail to one degree or another. But progressives, in general, are much less forgiving of hypocrisy for some reason. I have a few theories on this, which is probably best left to another post. But again, I find this absolutely fascinating.

Anyway, there’s a great thread going on right now, with 350 comments or something, started by EJ Hill (Where’s Your Hill?). He asks if the Kavanaugh nomination is a hill you’d be willing to die on. Is this really worth the trouble?

As a conservative, I don’t view government as central to my existence, so it can be hard for me to get worked up about procedural stuff such as this.

But progressives take a different view. For good reason. The Supreme Court is vital to the maintenance of the central plank of the Democrat party platform: abortion. And since so many Democrat policies are unpopular with the American people, it’s much easier to institute such policies through the unelected judiciary than through to popularly elected legislative branch.

So the Democrats find the Kavanaugh nomination to be of absolutely vital importance.

Therefore, I agree.

Let the battle continue. It matters, so it’s worth it. And if you think this is bad, just wait until Justice Ginsberg wanders off and Trump nominates a replacement. Oh, my goodness. That will be brutal. This should be easier.

Right now, the Republicans have the votes. And they had better use them. If the Republican party can’t pull this off, that would be an enormous victory for the progressive movement. And it would clearly demonstrate, to the American voter, the benefits of electing Republicans to Congress.

Or lack thereof.

There are 36 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Kozak Member
    KozakJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Dr. Bastiat: Whenever a Republican runs for congress, or nominates someone for a position as a judge, the Democrat rallying cry is nearly always, “This Republican wants to take away your abortion rights!” Why they chose abortion as their rallying cry, I can’t imagine.

    It’s the highest sacrament in the Progressive Church. All else must yield to it.

    • #1
    • September 27, 2018, at 9:42 AM PDT
    • 6 likes
  2. Dr. Bastiat Member
    Dr. Bastiat

    Kozak (View Comment):

    Dr. Bastiat: Whenever a Republican runs for congress, or nominates someone for a position as a judge, the Democrat rallying cry is nearly always, “This Republican wants to take away your abortion rights!” Why they chose abortion as their rallying cry, I can’t imagine.

    It’s the highest sacrament in the Progressive Church. All else must yield to it.

    Yeah, but why? Killing babies is not likely to be universally popular. Makes for lousy bumper stickers. What an odd thing to base a political movement on.

    • #2
    • September 27, 2018, at 9:48 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
  3. Stad Thatcher

    Dr. Bastiat: Why is it [abortion] so important to them? I just don’t understand.

    It is the left’s sacrament. It’s what they believe every woman wants – the ability to decide what to do with her body.

    Never mind the “thing” she’s carrying is a human being with inalienable rights. Her right to her body means the baby has to go if she chooses to abort. Never mind she has a responsibility not to get pregnant in the first place. If a woman decides abortion is her method of birth control, so be it.

    However, a funny thing has happened over the last few years. Pro-life arguments have made inroads in changing women’s attitudes about abortion. Maybe this has resulted in the large numbers of single mothers today, I don’t know.

    • #3
    • September 27, 2018, at 9:58 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  4. Dr. Bastiat Member
    Dr. Bastiat

    Stad (View Comment):
    ThatcherStad  

    Dr. Bastiat: Why is it [abortion] so important to them? I just don’t understand.

    It is the left’s sacrament. It’s what they believe every woman wants – the ability to decide what to do with her body.

    But why base an entire political movement around a “women’s issue” that is so unpopular with women?

    There must be another reason. A really good one, one would think…

    • #4
    • September 27, 2018, at 10:07 AM PDT
    • Like
  5. Locke On Member

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):
    ThatcherStad

    Dr. Bastiat: Why is it [abortion] so important to them? I just don’t understand.

    It is the left’s sacrament. It’s what they believe every woman wants – the ability to decide what to do with her body.

    But why base an entire political movement around a “women’s issue” that is so unpopular with women?

    There must be another reason. A really good one, one would think…

    The other possibility is that you are wrong, and trying to fit observations into an incorrect framework. 

    30% of women may back abortion on demand (source?) but it’s their 30%:

    The progressives’ problem is keeping together a ‘coalition’ of tribes that they themselves helped fragment, when in fact many of their interests conflict. For example, their interest in importing illegal immigrants is in direct conflict with their supposed support for native-born African-Americans, who compete for entry level (and off the books) jobs. To keep their intersectional coalition together, they have to come up with hot-button issues that will keep each group on the plantation, and not looking to #walkaway. They very much need to keep white, suburban women on the plantation, now that they have successfully alienated working class whites. They think they have a hot button issue to do so. And here we are.

    I suggest my theory fits the observed behavior better than postulating an abortion ‘religion’.

    • #5
    • September 27, 2018, at 10:17 AM PDT
    • 6 likes
  6. JoelB Member

    Abortion is a dog-whistle signaling the progressive need for legislation from the court. If conservatives can back track abortion, they can back-track other stuff too or prevent new changes from happening.

    The ability of government to act situationally rather than constitutionally is a hallmark of totalitarianism.

    When I was a teenager our denomination (at the time) had a bunch of progressive types discuss situational ethics at the main sessions of its national youth conference. Like many denominations, the people who ran the institution were much more liberal/progressive than the people in the local churches. It was pretty confusing to a lot of teens and really angered a lot of parents.

    We see the results of the situational ethics dogma being carried out today in the ends justify the means approach of the Democrat party.

    Regarding Clarence Thomas, in this anything-goes era, one begins to wonder just what is considered sexual deviance. Perhaps it is totally situational for purposes of the narrative.

     

     

    • #6
    • September 27, 2018, at 10:18 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
  7. Amy Schley, Longcat Shrinker Moderator

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):
    ThatcherStad

    Dr. Bastiat: Why is it [abortion] so important to them? I just don’t understand.

    It is the left’s sacrament. It’s what they believe every woman wants – the ability to decide what to do with her body.

    But why base an entire political movement around a “women’s issue” that is so unpopular with women?

    There must be another reason. A really good one, one would think…

    Because abortion isn’t the highest sacrament. The orgasm is. Abortion is merely the method by which men and women can have consequence free orgasms. 

    And quite frankly, an awful lot of the right agrees … why else are we so loath to condemn fornication and divorce? When even people on Ricochet admit their advice to their knocked up daughter was “don’t marry the guy and compound your problems,” it seems safe to say that we accept the Left’s premises on sex and marriage. Our pathologies manifest differently, but we work on many of the same assumptions.

    • #7
    • September 27, 2018, at 10:21 AM PDT
    • 9 likes
  8. Steve C. Member

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    Kozak (View Comment):

    Dr. Bastiat: Whenever a Republican runs for congress, or nominates someone for a position as a judge, the Democrat rallying cry is nearly always, “This Republican wants to take away your abortion rights!” Why they chose abortion as their rallying cry, I can’t imagine.

    It’s the highest sacrament in the Progressive Church. All else must yield to it.

    Yeah, but why? Killing babies is not likely to be universally popular. Makes for lousy bumper stickers. What an odd thing to base a political movement on.

    Not really. People who place abortion as a central plank of the party platform represent a significant and more importantly influential, element of the party.

    • #8
    • September 27, 2018, at 10:24 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  9. Hank Rhody, Freelance Philosop… Contributor

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):
    ThatcherStad

    Dr. Bastiat: Why is it [abortion] so important to them? I just don’t understand.

    It is the left’s sacrament. It’s what they believe every woman wants – the ability to decide what to do with her body.

    But why base an entire political movement around a “women’s issue” that is so unpopular with women?

    There must be another reason. A really good one, one would think…

    See, that’s why you use the word ‘sacrament’. The leftist base aren’t politicians choosing issues based on what will get them the most power, they’ve got positions and then they scramble for power. Some things can be compromised as necessary to get power, some things can’t. Abortion is one they can’t sacrifice.

    Still leaves the question of ‘why’ open. Me, I think it’s to maintain the illusion that they’re still good people. If a baby is just tissue then killing one doesn’t carry any moral weight. If it’s a baby then anyone who kills one is evil. The fact that abortion is legal gives them some amount of emotional cover.

    • #9
    • September 27, 2018, at 10:27 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  10. I Walton Member

    Yes abortion is their only enduring issue, but that is a fraud as well. Overturning R v W and Casey changes nothing in the short term. It throws the issue to state legislatures where pro abortion groups would have to spend more money and would lose Federal subsidies. It will be allowed in all states in some form, but some states will stop giving Planned Parenthood a free ride, won’t allow partial birth abortion and some will stop it in all cases not rape or incest or medical complications that would likely kill the mother. Liberal states will make it easy at any time and subsidized for some folks, i.e. poor minorities which of course were the target all along. Planned Parenthood and others who want to make sure minorities can get abortions will pay for people to go to those states and will happily take donations but their net will go way down for years, and the slaughter will subside rather considerably.

    • #10
    • September 27, 2018, at 10:31 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  11. Danny Alexander Inactive

    I think #6 JoelB is driving at what is possibly the key issue: Protecting and fortifying the regime of legislating from the Supreme Court bench not only as a last-resort and/or end-run around actual legislative processes, but also — strangely enough — as a means of *spurring* those real-deal legislative processes, with the end-result being that actual black-and-white *laws* are passed.

    Gay marriage’s path to the lawbooks in Massachusetts would be a gold-standard example of this. 

    The chief of the state’s supreme judicial court, Margaret Marshall, leads a ruling that gay marriage not only does not contravene the Bay State’s constitution but in fact is a positive good, the absence of which requires legislative memory. 

    Lo and behold, major MA-headquartered corporations weigh in with the cohort of geniuses on Beacon Hill, claiming that employee benefits are a make-or-break issue for competitive hiring and/or employee retention of the LGBT community within the Commonwealth. 

    (Apparently the entirety of which is secretly a fan-base for Kevin Williamson, meaning they wouldn’t think twice about following his dictum that a person can and should just immediately bolt their community and state of residence if they’re getting a raw deal economically.)

    Hey presto: Gay marriage becomes instant settled law in the cradle of the American Revolution — how poetic! And how contagious…

     

    • #11
    • September 27, 2018, at 11:19 AM PDT
    • 6 likes
  12. Stad Thatcher

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):
    But why base an entire political movement around a “women’s issue” that is so unpopular with women?

    It’s still popular with enough women.

    Even a woman who wouldn’t want an abortion herself might be of the opinion, “I’m not going to deny some other woman who wants an abortion the right to have one.”

    • #12
    • September 27, 2018, at 11:46 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  13. Ray Gunner Coolidge

    Dr. Bastiat: Why they chose abortion as their rallying cry, I can’t imagine. Only around 30% of American women support abortion. Even though abortion support is higher among men, it would never pass in a general election, and Democrats know it. Why is it so important to them? I just don’t understand.

    Here’s a thought. As long as there is abortion on demand, women (and men) are free to avoid the serious business of family formation. And the seriousness of family responsibility changes one’s thinking. We have data on this. Married men vote Republican 80% of the time. Married women vote Republican 60% of the time. That means a national population comprised 100% of intact families means death to leftist policies in general and the careers of Democratic party politicians in particular. So why do they love abortion? Guilt free abortion on demand is a great way to keep intact families from ever forming. Fewer families forming means the kind of family oriented thinking that manifests in conservative voting does not develop. That means longer, more secure careers for leftist/Democratic politicians and the propagation of their policies.

    • #13
    • September 27, 2018, at 11:48 AM PDT
    • 6 likes
  14. Stad Thatcher

    Locke On (View Comment):
    I suggest my theory fits the observed behavior better than postulating an abortion ‘religion’.

    Yes, it’s not a true “sacrament” in the strict sense of the word, but the left pursues and defends it with all the fervor of a religious zealot. Abortion, as sanctioned by the Supreme Court, is the left’s hill to die on. Never mind that dozens of states will still allow it if Roe v. Wade is overturned.

    Roe v. Wade is the pinnacle of courts writing law instead of legislatures. If it’s overturned, then the left’s strategy of courts writing law instead of unwilling state legislatures or Congress shrivels up and dies on the vine . . .

    • #14
    • September 27, 2018, at 11:52 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  15. Dr. Bastiat Member
    Dr. Bastiat

    Ray Gunner (View Comment):

    Dr. Bastiat: Why they chose abortion as their rallying cry, I can’t imagine. Only around 30% of American women support abortion. Even though abortion support is higher among men, it would never pass in a general election, and Democrats know it. Why is it so important to them? I just don’t understand.

    Here’s a thought. As long as there is abortion on demand, women (and men) are free to avoid the serious business of family formation. And the seriousness of family responsibility changes one’s thinking. We have data on this. Married men vote Republican 80% of the time. Married women vote Republican 60% of the time. That means a national population comprised 100% of intact families means death to leftist policies in general and the careers of Democratic party politicians in particular. So why do they love abortion? Guilt free abortion on demand is a great way to keep intact families from ever forming. Fewer families forming means the kind of family oriented thinking and manifests in conservative voting does not develop. That means longer, more secure careers for leftist/Democratic politicians and the propagation of their policies.

    Wow, that’s horrifying.

    But I think that’s why they want open borders too – if Mexicans tended to vote Republican we’d already have a wall.

    Endorsing the killing of babies to achieve this political objective seems a bit much, but since I just wrote an essay suggesting that progressives have no ethics, I guess I can’t argue with you.

    • #15
    • September 27, 2018, at 12:10 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  16. Ekosj Member

    I don’t think it’s just about abortion. Abortion is an emblem of the guilt free – consequence free licentiousness they misconstrue as freedom. And it’s a deliberate bit of misdirection, because Progressivism is all about control not freedom. So they get their adherents to trade freedom for license-called-freedom. What they really want is power and control.

    I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating I think.

    They absolutely need the Court and the bureaucracy. Politicians come and go. Policies can be reversed. But the Court! And the bureaucracy! Those are the prizes they’ve been angling for for almost 100 years … since FDR was a youngster.

    In 1926 a young FDR made a speech at The Milton Academy that was published as short book titled ‘Whither Bound’. In it, FDR bemoans the fact that the legislative gains made by Progressives are impermanent and prone to reversal when Progressives are out of power. What to do? FDR’s answer … control the unelected branches of government. Yes… subvert the democratic process to enact Progressivism without popular consent and make it irrevocable.

    They want elective offices, sure. But they need the Court. And the bureaucracy. Both are central to their political philosophy. Rule by Progressive fiat. That’s why Trump has got the incredible reaction that he has from them. His ‘drain the swamp’ mantra is an existential threat to 100 years of Progressive effort and governing philosophy, He has to be stopped at all costs. Kavanaugh will tip the Court for what could be 40 years. And the precedents have impact far after that. They cannot and will not have a Conservative Court.

    Even if Kavanaugh survives this, the ground is prepared for his impeachment. They are already using the term “illegitimate” if he gets seated. When the day comes when they control both House and Senate … he’ll be gone. And after seeing this horror show, who will acquiesce to be his replacement? If it’s a Republican President at the time, which Conservative jurist will volunteer for this? They wouldn’t get confirmed regardless. So the nominee will be squishy in the extreme. And if it’s a Democrat President the replacement will be a young Progressive ideologue.

    This is coming. Guaranteed. The Left cannot exist without the Court and will do whatever it takes by any means necessary to keep it.

    • #16
    • September 27, 2018, at 12:21 PM PDT
    • 7 likes
  17. Stad Thatcher

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):
    Endorsing the killing of babies to achieve this political objective seems a bit much

    Remember, it’s an “unwanted fetal tissue” or a “tissue mass”. As long as the left makes women forget there’s a baby in there, they win . . .

    • #17
    • September 27, 2018, at 12:26 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  18. Dr. Bastiat Member
    Dr. Bastiat

    Ekosj (View Comment):

    I don’t think it’s just about abortion. Abortion is an emblem of the guilt free – consequence free licentiousness they misconstrue as freedom. And it’s a deliberate bit of misdirection, because Progressivism is all about control not freedom. So they get their adherents to trade freedom for license-called-freedom. What they really want is power and control.

    I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating I think.

    They absolutely need the Court and the bureaucracy. Politicians come and go. Policies can be reversed. But the Court! And the bureaucracy! Those are the prizes they’ve been angling for for almost 100 years … since FDR was a youngster.

    In 1926 a young FDR made a speech at The Milton Academy that was published as short book titled ‘Whither Bound’. In it, FDR bemoans the fact that the legislative gains made by Progressives are impermanent and prone to reversal when Progressives are out of power. What to do? FDR’s answer … control the unelected branches of government. Yes… subvert the democratic process to enact Progressivism without popular convent and make it irrevocable.

    They want elective offices, sure. But they need the Court. And the bureaucracy. Both are central to their political philosophy. Rule by Progressive fiat. That’s why Trump has got the incredible reaction that he has from them. His ‘drain the swamp’ mantra is an existential threat to 100 years of Progressive effort and governing philosophy, He has to be stopped at all costs. Kavanaugh will tip the Court for what could be 40 years. And the precedents have impact far after that. They cannot and will not have a Conservative Court.

    Even if Kavanaugh survives this, the ground is prepared for his impeachment. They are already using the term “illegitimate” if he gets seated. When the day comes when they control both House and Senate … he’ll be gone. And after seeing this horror show, who will acquiesce to be his replacement? If it’s a Republican President at the time, which Conservative jurist will volunteer for this? They wouldn’t get confirmed regardless. So the nominee will be squishy in the extreme. And if it’s a Democrat President the replacement will be a young Progressive ideologue.

    This is coming. Guaranteed. The Left cannot exist without the Court and will do whatever it takes by any means necessary to keep it.

    What a wonderful, horrible comment.

    Brilliant.

    And horrifying.

    • #18
    • September 27, 2018, at 12:31 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  19. Stad Thatcher

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    Ekosj (View Comment):

    I don’t think it’s just about abortion. Abortion is an emblem of the guilt free – consequence free licentiousness they misconstrue as freedom. And it’s a deliberate bit of misdirection, because Progressivism is all about control not freedom. So they get their adherents to trade freedom for license-called-freedom. What they really want is power and control.

    I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating I think.

    They absolutely need the Court and the bureaucracy. Politicians come and go. Policies can be reversed. But the Court! And the bureaucracy! Those are the prizes they’ve been angling for for almost 100 years … since FDR was a youngster.

    In 1926 a young FDR made a speech at The Milton Academy that was published as short book titled ‘Whither Bound’. In it, FDR bemoans the fact that the legislative gains made by Progressives are impermanent and prone to reversal when Progressives are out of power. What to do? FDR’s answer … control the unelected branches of government. Yes… subvert the democratic process to enact Progressivism without popular convent and make it irrevocable.

    They want elective offices, sure. But they need the Court. And the bureaucracy. Both are central to their political philosophy. Rule by Progressive fiat. That’s why Trump has got the incredible reaction that he has from them. His ‘drain the swamp’ mantra is an existential threat to 100 years of Progressive effort and governing philosophy, He has to be stopped at all costs. Kavanaugh will tip the Court for what could be 40 years. And the precedents have impact far after that. They cannot and will not have a Conservative Court.

    Even if Kavanaugh survives this, the ground is prepared for his impeachment. They are already using the term “illegitimate” if he gets seated. When the day comes when they control both House and Senate … he’ll be gone. And after seeing this horror show, who will acquiesce to be his replacement? If it’s a Republican President at the time, which Conservative jurist will volunteer for this? They wouldn’t get confirmed regardless. So the nominee will be squishy in the extreme. And if it’s a Democrat President the replacement will be a young Progressive ideologue.

    This is coming. Guaranteed. The Left cannot exist without the Court and will do whatever it takes by any means necessary to keep it.

    What a wonderful, horrible comment.

    Brilliant.

    And horrifying.

    I agree. The Constitutional lifetime appointment of judges means the left’s use of the Federal court system is always their weapon of last resort when elections don’t go their way.

    Not to sound as if I’m on the left, but maybe the founding fathers didn’t realize how the judiciary would become corrupted even with the so-called “insulation” provided by lifetime appointments. Maybe now is the time to lower the bar for removing judges who do not follow the Constitution. From what I’ve read, it doesn’t have to be impeachment . . .

    • #19
    • September 27, 2018, at 1:20 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  20. Amy Schley, Longcat Shrinker Moderator

    Stad (View Comment):
    Not to sound as if I’m on the left, but maybe the founding fathers didn’t realize how the judiciary would become corrupted even with the so-called “insulation” provided by lifetime appointments. Maybe now is the time to lower the bar for removing judges who do not follow the Constitution. From what I’ve read, it doesn’t have to be impeachment . . .

    Alternately, in a world where life expectancy for men was in the 50s, the Founding Fathers didn’t expect lifetime appointments to last for three decades.

    I’m increasingly in the “staggered 18 year terms” camp. It lets every president get two nominees per term, and no one president can get seat a majority. Making this process more regular and predictable could help lower the tension a bit, because every senator knows they’ll have to go through this whole ringamarole in two years. There won’t be a push to find the youngest and healthiest possible qualified candidate, and we can end the grotesque death-watch to figure out how soon a justice we don’t like will get escorted out in a pine box.

    • #20
    • September 27, 2018, at 1:29 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  21. kylez Member
    kylezJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    I Walton (View Comment):

    Yes abortion is their only enduring issue, but that is a fraud as well. Overturning R v W and Casey changes nothing in the short term. It throws the issue to state legislatures where pro abortion groups would have to spend more money and would lose Federal subsidies. 

    I think this is part of it, the contempt Progressives have for the values of those who don’t support them. It isn’t enough for states where most of the liberals live to have legal abortion, they have to make people in “flyover country” have it too, even if they never go there.

     

    • #21
    • September 27, 2018, at 2:57 PM PDT
    • Like
  22. DonG (skeptic) Coolidge

    Dr. Bastiat: so accusations of sexual deviancy fit perfectly for Democrat goals,

    Standard tactic to accuse the enemy of your misdeeds. It provides a foolproof defense. It also disorients your opponent, because they are not expecting to be accused of the other’s sins. The great Decon Jones explains in this helpful video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lm2l0pxYw-4

    • #22
    • September 27, 2018, at 4:12 PM PDT
    • Like
  23. Ekosj Member

    Amy Schley (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):
    Not to sound as if I’m on the left, but maybe the founding fathers didn’t realize how the judiciary would become corrupted even with the so-called “insulation” provided by lifetime appointments. Maybe now is the time to lower the bar for removing judges who do not follow the Constitution. From what I’ve read, it doesn’t have to be impeachment . . .

    Alternately, in a world where life expectancy for men was in the 50s, the Founding Fathers didn’t expect lifetime appointments to last for three decades.

    I’m increasingly in the “staggered 18 year terms” camp. It lets every president get two nominees per term, and no one president can get seat a majority. Making this process more regular and predictable could help lower the tension a bit, because every senator knows they’ll have to go through this whole ringamarole in two years. There won’t be a push to find the youngest and healthiest possible qualified candidate, and we can end the grotesque death-watch to figure out how soon a justice we don’t like will get escorted out in a pine box.

    It’s also not clear that the Court’s intended role was that which it has become. John Marshall asserted a role for the Court that is probably a far greater role than that intended by the founders.

    • #23
    • September 27, 2018, at 4:25 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  24. Randy Webster Member

    Ekosj (View Comment):
    Even if Kavanaugh survives this, the ground is prepared for his impeachment. They are already using the term “illegitimate” if he gets seated. When the day comes when they control both House and Senate …

    Removal from office requires 67 votes. They’ll never get that.

    • #24
    • September 27, 2018, at 5:41 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  25. Henry Castaigne Member

    Ray Gunner (View Comment):

    Dr. Bastiat: Why they chose abortion as their rallying cry, I can’t imagine. Only around 30% of American women support abortion. Even though abortion support is higher among men, it would never pass in a general election, and Democrats know it. Why is it so important to them? I just don’t understand.

    Here’s a thought. As long as there is abortion on demand, women (and men) are free to avoid the serious business of family formation. And the seriousness of family responsibility changes one’s thinking. We have data on this. Married men vote Republican 80% of the time. Married women vote Republican 60% of the time. That means a national population comprised 100% of intact families means death to leftist policies in general and the careers of Democratic party politicians in particular. So why do they love abortion? Guilt free abortion on demand is a great way to keep intact families from ever forming. Fewer families forming means the kind of family oriented thinking that manifests in conservative voting does not develop. That means longer, more secure careers for leftist/Democratic politicians and the propagation of their policies.

    That is just too calculating. They really believe in abortion for non-pragmatic reasons. According to Whittaker Chambers, ideology is a very real and very pervasive thing.

    • #25
    • September 27, 2018, at 5:53 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  26. Henry Castaigne Member

    Everything goes back to Rousseau. If humans are freed from social constraints they will be free, beautiful and happy. Capitalism, the family, and religion all get away in way of becoming what we naturally are. Abortion lets us have more of the sex we want without the constraint of biological reality and family and religion and all that useless cultural junk. In The Road to Wigan Pier, Victor Gollancz of Orwell mentioned that he supported birth control because,

    Mr. Orwell paints a most vivid picture of wretched rooms swarming with children, and clearly becoming more and more unfit for human habitation the larger the family grows: but he apparently considers anyone who wishes to enlighten people as to how they can have a normal sexual life without increasing this misery as a crank!

    I love that line about a normal sexual life. As if normal sex did not makes babies. But Rousseau and his heirs have convinced the lefty Victor Gollancz, as they have convinced the left today, that the natural human frustration of wanting consequence-free sex isn’t a natural part of the human struggle. It’s somehow part of our corrupt and backward society and if society were only more enlightened there would be more sex and happiness.

    In modern times, social determinism says that almost every bad thing that people do is a result of society despite there being a plethora of biological evidence suggesting that humans have a nature. Masculinity and femininity are constructs that have no basis in biology according to social determinism.

    It surprises me that atheists believe in this so much more deeply than Christians. Christians believe that the world is made by a moral G-d but accept that this world is cruel and amoral. People who worship Darwin think human beings are naturally good.

    But moving onto the why of abortion, abortion in the left’s view frees us from the soul-crushing restraints of our past and uplifts us into a freer and more noble version of our true Noble Savage. Abortion is a religious act celebrating the self and humans are religious creatures.

    • #26
    • September 27, 2018, at 6:29 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  27. Amy Schley, Longcat Shrinker Moderator

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):
    People who worship Darwin think human beings are naturally good.

    Only because they are as ignorant of the theory of natural selection as the average prosperity gospel “Christian” is of actual Christianity.

    I mean really … how can one possibly know anything about the natural world and think peaceful, happy, lazy coexistance with one’s fellow animals (two legs and four) is possible?

    • #27
    • September 27, 2018, at 7:07 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  28. Henry Castaigne Member

    Amy Schley (View Comment):
    Amy Schley  

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):
    People who worship Darwin think human beings are naturally good.

    Only because they are as ignorant of the theory of natural selection as the average prosperity gospel “Christian” is of actual Christianity.

    I mean really … how can one possibly know anything about the natural world and think peaceful, happy, lazy coexistance with one’s fellow animals (two legs and four) is possible?

    Why do people have such strong weltanschauungs when they do no reading and have reviewed no evidence? Whittaker Chambers discussed how many of his fellow Communists were willing to die for their beliefs but were not willing to read Marx. It is baffling to me. (That being said, having read Marx I can somewhat understand half of their situation.) 

    • #28
    • September 27, 2018, at 7:50 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  29. Amy Schley, Longcat Shrinker Moderator

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Amy Schley (View Comment):
    Amy Schley

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):
    People who worship Darwin think human beings are naturally good.

    Only because they are as ignorant of the theory of natural selection as the average prosperity gospel “Christian” is of actual Christianity.

    I mean really … how can one possibly know anything about the natural world and think peaceful, happy, lazy coexistance with one’s fellow animals (two legs and four) is possible?

    Why do people have such strong weltanschauungs when they do no reading and have reviewed no evidence? Whittaker Chambers discussed how many of his fellow Communists were willing to die for their beliefs but were not willing to read Marx. It is baffling to me. (That being said, having read Marx I can somewhat understand half of their situation.)

    Humans are tribal. We aren’t blank slates that soak up information, think critically about what we think is right, and then find the group that matches us. We are born into a tribe and internalize its rules. If we leave that tribe, the vast majority of us “tribe shop” until we feel accepted by a tribe and then change ourselves to match the tribe. 

    Most people don’t think deeply about any part of their life, including their religion. That doesn’t change when the religion in question is neopaganism or Marxism. 

    • #29
    • September 27, 2018, at 7:59 PM PDT
    • 5 likes
  30. Stad Thatcher

    Amy Schley (View Comment):
    I’m increasingly in the “staggered 18 year terms” camp.

    Definitely an idea worthy of discussion. However, we need to change the process of advice and consent from that of a public forum for Presidental candidate wannabes to one of quiet deliberation. Maybe private, one-on-one meetings are the way to go . . .

    • #30
    • September 28, 2018, at 6:21 AM PDT
    • Like

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.