[« From the "Have you ever wondered?" department.] [Great days in baseball history: »]
10/15/2005: Dead Rules?
From Jerry Politex at Bush Watch, we get these:
Dead Rules For Opposing Judicial NominationsWhile I normally don't disagree with Jerry on a lot, I'm not so sure these rules are dead; more likely they're not being honored in the Miers case because they're inconvenient. Over at Lean Left, KTK gave us this pointer to this post at Bottle of Blog which points out that the Rethugnicans can't be accused of being inconsistent in adhering to their principles, since they don't really have any principles but one: do whatever it takes to maintain their hold on power:
Republicans from moderates like David Brooks through right wingers such as Trent Lott and George Wills and neocons such as William Kristol to far right wingnuts such as Robert Bork have gone on record opposing Bush's Supreme Court nominee, Harriet Miers. Thus, the following typical "rules" Republicans have used to defend other presidential judicial nominees and kill Democratic opposition are now hypocritical and forever dead:
1. One shouldn't prevent the President from having the judges he wants, because the American people have given him that right.
2. The nominees shouldn't have a judicial record that Democrats could attack, and if they do, it should not be made public nor be closely questioned.
3. There should not be a litmas test for judicial nominees.
4. Judicial nominees should not be considered on the basis of their position along the liberal-conservative spectrum.
5. Knowledge about the nominees' political position is irrelevant, since they may change after being sworn in.
When are these people going to get it? You can't consistently defend the...um...principles of the modern Republican party because they don't have any. They don't believe in anything--not anything they can tell you, anyway, and still get re-elected. They have no convinctions.Are those two mutually exclusive?
They have propaganda.
And if you stupidly adopt one of their "talking points" today as a principle, as a conviction, as a value today, you're going to look like a fucking idiot tomorrow.
You're outraged that John Kerry said "fuck" today? Tomorrow, Dick Cheney says it on the floor of the Senate. You're appalled at the 82nd Airborne providing security in Kosovo today? Tomorrow, they're directing traffic in Baghdad. You're incensed at governement spending today? Tomorrow, you're going to have to defend the biggest deficits in the history of the world and the unheard of increases in discretionary spending.
You're pulling your hair out at the unheard of gall of Democrats asking a Supreme Court nominee to disclose his political and judicial positions? Tomorrow, you'll be demanding a Supreme Court nominee to disclose her political and judicial positions.
Yesterday, you're all for the "rule of law". Today? The world is full of prosecutors out of control!
Don't these people get it? Or don't they care?
Len on 10.15.05 @ 04:03 PM CST
