Redstate

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

Come back home.:)

www.mymanmitt.com
www.race42008.com
www.illinoisreview.com

Bon, I'm not the kind of guy that jumps on and off of bandwagons, so I'm with Fred till he drops out or finishes his second term in office. My reasons are policy related, esp as per several of his bold policies and willingness to take on birthright citizenship, drilling for oil even in the Everglades, soc sec benefit reductions and when he was the first call Iran's acts in Iraq acts of war against the US.

Having said that, I am proud that I defended Mitt for over a year and correctly predicted that he would do well with Christians and Southerners and so-cons generally, as he is and will do. The endorsments in SC and now Bork. Plus his truly historic and even better than JFK freedom of religion speech all make me proud of him.

One thing people are missing now, is how that Iowa is often irrelevant. I think Huck has surged beacuse Mitt was there too long! Its almost like he already won Iowa and has served a term as President there!

Then Huck preaches some good sermons in debates while Mitt and Rudy bore our asses off about lineitemveto.

Mitt needs to look in the camera and spill his guts more, rather than nip at Rudy as mayor.

Nobody cares so much about what they did as governors or mayors. They care about their vision for the future.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

See my post below. I appreciate your loyalty to your candidate. Please also consider the ramifications of splitting the legal conservative vote . . .

Rudy--who says strict constructionist could uphold Roe v. Wade

Huckabee--whose objections to Roe v. Wade are strictly moral objections. (I happen to share those moral objections, but if our president is to get judges right, it is more important that he understand the constitutional objections to Roe.) Does Huckabee understand the difference between Judge Roy Moore and Judge William Pryor?

McCain--this guy will give us judges like Occonor, Kennedy and even Stevens. No way will McCain give us Borks or Scalias.

I think folks staying with Fred until he officially drops out could do a lot of damage. Fred isn't done yet--he can reignite his campaign in Iowa--but campaigns usually hang on past the time they should.

I'll be voting for whoever is on top of McCain, Romney, or Thompson when my primary rolls around. Otherwise, barring some unlikely scenarios, my vote is counterproductive.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

Fred Thompson is the next most credible choice and he should be the party's VP nominee.

Certainly. A Mitt/Fred ticket would mark the commencement of Rapture.

With a Huck/Huck candidacy.

A Huck/Huck ticket would be pure hell.

If Joe Lieberman can legitimately take the Shabbat off, does that mean that Mike Huckabee could run as both President and Vice President? President Huckabee could legitimately take Sunday off and let his alter-ego, Nice President Huckabee, run the shop as Vice President. Is there an actual constitutional requirement that the President and Vice President be different people, or can they be merely different instances of the same person? In an increasingly virtual world, the public needs to know.

but both Huckabee and Huckabee are from Arkansas. VP and Pres need to be from different states.

Sorry, kow, it's a pipe dream :)

.

A delegation to the Electoral College must vote for at least one candidate from a different state, but this only means that Arkansas Electors could not vote for both. The other 49 states could.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

Actually, there is no bar on having both officers from the same state.

The bar is that no elector (the guys that vote in the electoral college) can vote for two people from the same state (designed to prevent people from going in and only picking people from their home state). Hence, if Cheney died today, there would be nothing to stop W from appointing a Texan to be VP.

Now, in practical terms, this means that you're unlikely to have that situation - since once a majority votes for, say a Georgian as president, there could be no majority for a Georgian as VP, but why quibble. And in the event of an election thrown to the House and Senate, there would be no prohibition in picking two people from the same state (for instance if Rudy got the VP nod for us, and Hillary were the Dems' girl, and the election led to nobody getting 270, the House could pick Hillary and the Senate could pick Rudy and that would be just fine, even though both would call NY their home state).

Amendment 12: "The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;"

So all it means is that Arkansans couldn't vote for Huckabee for both. A Georgian could. Or a Texan could. But if Huck/Huck got enough EV so that it wouldn't matter how Arkansas's voters voted, then conceivable Huck and Huck could be POTUS and VPOTUS. Freaky.

Too much pressure on the Rooster. Heh. ;)

In any case don't fret so much about it. Romney really is the best candidate and you were right to defend him. That's not to say the other candidates don't have some great qualities, but what we really need in this election is the "total package."

Or at least the best we can get.

Listen, it's like evaluating things with an area graph: zero is at the center of the coordinate system and all of the "points" exist at 1 on the perimeter of the circle. If you're smart, you pick the person with the largest area approaching the circle.

That's Romney. He's just better than the rest.

I've liked you from Day 1 because you are not a divisive Republican.

Because of you, I will keep Fred T. as my #2 choice if Romney should drop out of the race.

But keep this in mind, Fred does not have the kind of organization that Bush had in 2000. Being left off of the ballot in Delaware is the kind of indicator that makes me wonder what other mistakes his campaign might make.

However, that said, Fred T. did a great job on Face the Nation today. Bob Schiffer is a partisan hack. Ditto for Tim Russert who is attacking Mitt Romney as I write these lines.

Romney/Barbour 2008

in the campaign so far. The same three ways that I have leaned, which shows his good judgement. I know other disagree, but I think the GOP has a very strong field to choose from. Only one of the top five would lead to my column endorsing a Bloomberg independent run.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

I have been lukewarm on Mitt, but there is no conservative I have higher regard for than Judge Bork. His endorsement carries a lot of weight with me.

I'd like to hear from someone who's read Bork's book, "Slouching Toward Gomorrah". If you've read it, please let me know what you think about it.

I've got Nassim Taleb's "The Black Swan" on CD right now. When I finish that, I may buy Bork's book on CD.

Romney/Barbour 2008

I have ever read. It was one of the books I read when i moved to Atlanta in 2000 that led to my conservative epiphany.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

Bork doesn't have a Ronald Reagan temperament. He's a depressed man and it shows in the book. But the advantage that gives him is he doesn't paper-over our real problems.

.

This is a situation where you need to look at people who have "been there" in the middle of judicial battles against the Left. Bork's endorsement should carry some weight, given his committment to bringing our judiciary back to its proper role.

I expect Romney to beat Huck in Iowa and then beat McCain in New Hampshire.

Once that's done, every Republican will either be on the Romney, Rudy, or Freddy bus.

If Fred finishes 4th or lower in both Iowa and NH, then I hope that the Fred-heads and Hucksters will consider Romney as an alternative to the pro-choice, pro-gay rights, anti-gun Giuliani.

Romney/Barbour 2008

It's huge because:

a) He didn't have to. He could have sat it out.
b) Bork doesn't fool. You can't pull the wool over his eyes. He studied Romney and likes what he sees.
__________________________________________
First State Politics

You are enabling Rudy.
Fred or Mitt, please.

Huck is campaigning well in Iowa, but he doesn't have the kind of organization that Bush had in 2000 or Kerry had in 2004.

In other words, an Iowa win would not put Huck out in front in NH. And it wouldn't catapult him into front-runner status.

Therefore, he's just a spoiler for Mitt in Iowa.

Which helps Giuliani more than it helps Huck.

But take your time in choosing your candidates. For the record, I could vote for Huck if I had to choose between him and the winner of the Hill-a-bama primary. But Huckabee has played the bigot card in order to appeal to Iowa evangelicals and that really doesn't sit well with me.

Romney/Barbour 2008

the NRO endorsement and the James Bopp (National Right to Life general counsel) endorsement.

And then you add in the fact that Rudy has a "non-dorsement" from evangelical leaders like James Dobson, etc.

If we can't go for Rudy, Mitt seems like a reasonable candidate who, unlike small fry like Huck, can beat the Hillary machine.

Romney/Barbour 2008

Iowa is where Mitt needs the most help, though.

Hopefully, Mitt's ground organization will give him a win that will surprise everyone but those who helped Mitt win the straw poll in August.

I wish the polls being done in Iowa today were restricted to "likely caucus-goers". General polls don't tell us much as 70% of registered Republicans in Iowa didn't show up at the caucuses in 2000.

Romney/Barbour 2008

I just gave my first financial support of this election season to the Romney campaign. It's a modest amount, but I trust they'll use it well, and I'm sticking with him.

There's a great conversation with Robert Bork at the Hoover Institution's website. You can watch it here.

And thanks for chipping in for Mitt. I'm single-mindedly focused on making sure a true conservative gets the GOP nomination next year. And Rudy does not even pretend to be a conservative on the issues that I care about.

Romney/Barbour 2008

The more I feel that Roe vs. Wade will not be overturned for the simple reason that I don't see the Court saying that people don't have a constitutional right to privacy. The Constitution does not state "people have a right to privacy" but it is implied. I mean, the language about "search and seizure" clearly implies a right to privacy. I just don't see the Court reversing itself on this.

...between privacy and Supreme Court created "privacy."

is all we need, and Roe v. Wade will be overturned. Nobody is saying that saying that the privacy afforded by the constitutional prohibition against "search and seizure" will be done away, only that Roe v. Wade has nothing to do with "search and seizure" privacy.

What makes you think one more justice would do it? We only know of two right now who would (and one of them may not last by the time a new justice replaces him and a case makes its way there). Also, any of them can deny cert without ruling either way. Do you honestly think they would grant cert?

Do you honestly think the only way for the court to reverse itself on abortion is to deny a "right to privacy?" First of all, it is questionable whether the court still even bases abortion on a "privacy" right. O'Connor did not mention the word in Casey, which really overruled Roe sub silentio, and is the primary ruling that needs to be overruled. It cites instead a "right" to "define the mystery of life" and "of the universe." It sounds even more bizarre and legally unsound than a right to "privacy!"

However, the same holds true even with a continued "right to privacy." Abortion has nothing whatsoever to do with privacy. Neither does contraception for that matter. If it did, then most federal and state laws today would be invalid. The assertion in Roe that the right to privacy "is broad enough" to cover abortion (with no further logic, elaboration, or proof) makes not one bit of sense in the English language. Second, and perhaps more importantly, the court need only alter the standard of review for the phony "right," as they almost did in Casey in 1992 and actually did appear to do in Lawrence in 2003. By adopting rational basis rather than strict scrutiny or undue burden, the state's interest in protecting human life is sufficient to infringe on any "right to privacy." Lawrence ruled that the state's interest in prohibiting certain sexual acts was not sufficient to limit a "right to privacy" under that standard. Granted, protecting human life should have been a compelling interest in strict scrutiny standard, but the Roe and Casey courts didn't think so. I suppose that would be another way to overturn the ruling.

That said, the reason I think Roe or Casey will never be overruled is the same reason Griswold or Lawrence never will be. No state or federal government cares to challenge it, much less defy the courts. If any state cared that much, its government and law enforcement would have ignored the deceitful and diabolical judiciary. Likewise, no pro-life President would allow enforcement of such a court ruling.

Back to the original matter, there is no right to privacy. One can't take a right and then find a broader category of rights under which it fits, and then use that broader right to make new ones. That opens the door for absolute chaos and anarchy.

would win against any dem. As well as Rudy or John or even Huck for that matter.

I am a political veteran. I was an activist dem for many years and Bork was a main factor in my conversion to the GOP in 2000.

I DO take Bork's endorsment seriously.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

Random

That's a pretty nasty charge, got link or did this just come to you in a dream or something?

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

No, it comes from some friends of mine who have met him a few months ago at some federalist event. They told me he seemed easily confused and was falling asleep all the time.

I'm not trying to be harsh, that's just what they told me.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

Random

I really object to that sort of stuff, "I heard it from a friend".

I met Judge Bork at the DFW airport back in the 80's after his failed confirmation hearings. He was a gentleman and we had a short but pleasant conversation. That proves nothing about the man today.

The use of the sort of this sort of second hand gossip towards anyone, D or R is pretty useless, you should be more careful and respectful in my view. It ain't funny.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

I didn't mean to be disrespectful. I don't quite understand how saying an 80+ year-old man showing signs of age is disrespectful, very few wouldn't.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

I agree. Random's description of why Bork is "losing his mind" is nothing short of silly. "They told me he seemed easily confused and was falling asleep all the time" can easily be explained by short-term fatigue or jet-lag. Unless you have medical proof, such a comment was only made to reduce the effectiveness of one man's stature and judgement for this political endorsement. Quick Random, check your fly, your bias is showing.

The video below (1 hour, 4 minutes long), taken from the 25th Anniversary celebration of the Federalist Society on June 26, 2007, and honoring Judge Robert, should soundly debunk any claim challenging Bork's mental capacity.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4712759829958253746

I didn't say he had completely lost his mind or his wits, I just said he's got some problems and I'm not sure his judgment is what it once was.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

RandomGuy said:

"he's been losing his mind (I mean that in a purely medical, non offensive way) for a while now"

"seemed easily confused and was falling asleep all the time"

Your comments were an attack on his mental capacity. You were clearly implying that his mental capacity is diminished. I disagree. In the video, Bork sounds as sharp as ever.

I congratulate you on giving a Huckabee style excuse for a Huckabee style remark. You should vote for Huckabee.

I mean, he must be, if he isn't endorsing Rudy, right?

Transparent much?

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

RandomGuy,

You challenge Judge Bork's intellectual integrity without pointing to any evidence and despite contravening evidence?

That's very poor form.

I hadn't heard that, do you have a link? I do know that he is 80 yrs old or so and that he filed a tort action against the Yale Club earlier this summer. From what I've read, however, his claim doesn't appear to be frivolous, regardless of the slip and fall stigma.

In absence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I think it is wise to take this endorsement at its full strength rather than to diminish it on speculation of dementia.

See comment above.

Anyhow, I didn't say I thought he was seriously demented or anything, I merely mean that I'm not sure his powers of reasoning are at the point to where I'd give his endorsement a lot of weight.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

over just about any other judicial endorsement at 100%.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Good grief, how is saying an 80+ year old man might be showing the signs of age an unfair attack?

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

concrete evidence to support it, other than hearsay. Why don't you stop while you're ahead?

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

If you're going to challenge the significance of Judge Bork's endorsement by challenging his "intellectual integrity," you better have some evidence to back it up. You have produced none, fluffy anecdotals from your friends don't count.

---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Fred is my #2. My concern is that if legal conservatives split between Fred and Mitt, we may end up with one of the other candidates who, so far, appear to be oblivious to the movement for originalism in constitutional interpretation. Loyalty towards your candidate is good; please also consider the potential ramifications of your loyalty on our courts.

And why is it that the Fred supporters have to abandon their man in order to prevent this effect? Why don't the Mitt supporters come over to Fred?

And if you say "Mitt polls better" - save your breath. If the "court watchers" in the Mitt camp came over to Fred he'd be polling just as well as Mitt had been.

I love how compromise and "solidarity" always wind up meaning "drop your guy and come over to mine."

that Mitt's path to the nomination is clearer right NOW than Fred's, given the current polls in IA, NH, MI, WY, and even SC and FL.

However, I emphasize NOW for good reason, as much can change on a dime in this volatile primary, and I agree that Fred cannot be ruled out, and it is premature for Mitt supporters, Fred supporters, or Huck supporters (God help us), to claim that the "writing is on the wall, so join us now or forever hold your peace."

When that point comes (and it ain't too far off, probably at the conclusion of the NH primary) I do hope that reasonable minds will prevail, and to me that means either a coalescence around Mitt or Fred, whoever of the two is more viable at that point.

from now on. Huck could lose Iowa. Fred could win Iowa. But the real battlefeilds are NH and SC.

Huck will not win NH. And SC likes to go with winners!!!

Huck will not win SC. I'll bet $100 on that now.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

I'd be very happy with a Fred/Mitt ticket :D

==== 13 ====

Fred needs to finish 2nd in Iowa to prove that he's really in this race. Otherwise, Romney might be the one that across the board conservatives need to get behind.

and SC will be critical to Fred. Fred must win SC. By then, Huck will be discredited, and either Mitt or Rudy will come into SC with momentum. If Fred wins SC, then theb race will be Fred vs either Mitt or Rudy.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

Keep dreaming it is good for you.

GOP nomination. I am a former Dem. Activist and party official from 1976-1998. Converted in 2000.

The GOP will not nominate this liberal. It will nominate someone else. Iowa usually is irrevant. Huck is TOO liberal. Heck, I am serious when I say, that after his foreign policy seminar, Hillary is better!

Now, Fred is now engaged. When Huck falls (which is imminent), either his supporters split or go to either Mitt or Fred en masse.

What is your dream?

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

I think, GC, that you meant "irrelevant" and not "irrevant."

That said, I wonder why you think that IA will be irrelevant? I don't disagree with you - I just wonder what your thoughts are on the matter.

Personally, I think that IA will be practically forgotten by SC - with NH and MI coming in during the interim between 1/3 (when half the country will still be getting over the holidays and not paying attention) and 1/19. The news by SC time will be the results of a far more "wide base" contest in NH and MI (wide base as in will have greater voter participation than is typical of the caucuses), and in both states Romney continues to hold an advantage (MI is hard to call but since I have not seen a second poll confirming Huck's surge I'm dubious even of Rasmussen).

If Romney takes 2nd in IA and wins NH against Huck winning IA and placing 4th (if current polls hold) in NH, then I think he will re-solidify some skittish folks in MI and win there as well. At which point people will not be talking about IA, and the polls will be readjusting in places like SC and FL to account for the shifting landscape.

1 - Their repubs are much more liberal than most repubs, including their evangelicals.

2 - They have a pacifist tinge

3 - History shows that who they pick is much less predictive thatn who SC picks

4 - Huck is rising now. He has not beeen vetted like Mitt and Rudy. He will be, and I speak mainly of policy, and he will fall.

5 - The GOP, unlike the dems, is much more focused ultimately on policy, not personality.

6 - Huck leads due to debate performance, not religion, plus the fact that McCain and Rudy didn't even try and Fred came in late.

7 - SC is practical. They pick conservative WINNERS. They have an advanyage over Iowa as well, since they are later.

I think SC will pick between the NH winner and Fred because by then Huck will have fallen. He is simply too liberal.

I watched the 2000 SC GOP primary as a totally objective, still a Dem, lifelong South Carolinian. I knew Bush would beat McCain, and it had nothing to do with any rogue push pollers. It was issues. SC will NOT pick Huckabee. I lost too many elections as dem to the GOP in SC from 1980-1998 to not know this.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

Let's go back to 1980. Reagan lost Iowa, won New Hampshire, won the nomination.

1988. George H W Bush came in third in Iowa behind Bob Dole and Pat Robertson, won New Hampshire and South Carolina and won the nomination.

1996. Bob Dole won Iowa, lost New Hampshire, won the nomination.

2000. George W Bush won Iowa, lost New Hampshire, won South Carolina, won the nomination.

So, it seems, by my count, that Iowa "predicted" the winner of the GOP nomination 2 out of the last 4 times, as did New Hampshire.

But you are correct. It seems that South Carolina does a better job of voting for the ultimate winner of the nomination.

Iowa is far from irrelevant. It does not necessarily settle who wins, but frequently settles who loses. In 2008, it will play an important role in settling who goes on to challenge Rudy on Feb fifth. In the Dem caucuses it will decide who (if anyone) goes on to challenge Clinton.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

Iowa is far from irrelevant. It does not necessarily settle who wins, but frequently settles who loses. In 2008, it will play an important role in settling who goes on to challenge Rudy on Feb fifth. In the Dem caucuses it will decide who (if anyone) goes on to challenge Clinton.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

Rudy must compete and do well in NH. He can't wait till Feb 5.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

If Rudy does well in NH and MI it is certainly a major boost to his campaign. But the main factor for him is keeping the rest of the field fragmented. If two or more candidates win states before Florida - even if Rudy isn't one of them - I would still think he is the favourite. If Romney sweeps all the early states he probably becomes the favourite. If Huck sweeps the early states (and, btw, I share your view he has probably peaked) it is much less of a threat to Rudy. Not sure I see anyone else winning a sweep. If Romney wins Iowa, Nevada, Wyoming; McCain wins New Hampshire and Michigan; Thompson wins South Carolina and Rudy wins Florida; Rudy will probably clean up on 05 Feb.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

would translate into a Florida win for him. I really think Rudy's strategy is very risky. But you make good points.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

If you'd been here more than 3 hours, you'd know that gamecock does not just shoot his mouth off. Unlike you.

I don't know that I always agree with him. And he's not always right, but he typically has some pretty solid reasons for what he says.

So, maybe you should spend some time checking out who you're basically summarily calling an idiot. Since failure to do so is liable to put your idiocy on full display.

please.

I think the question is which one will be what. Either would be a great choice for the office.

be the nominee. Huck will fall hard, fast and soon.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

I'm surprised you think the race will be over after SC, though. I think it is likely to go at least until Feb. 5, and quite possible it will go for several weeks beyond that.

W.C. Fields for President!
http://www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm

probably reduce the race to 2, and the odds are that who wins SC will eventually win the nomination.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

to say "GC told us all" if it happens.

W.C. Fields for President!
http://www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

W.C. Fields for President!
http://www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm

Thompson's campaign is a disaster. He has failed to even get on the ballot in Delaware and DC. He's trailing pretty badly in SC now, and if Huck wins Iowa and Romney wins New Hampshire with Thompson not finishing in the top three in either place, I fail to see how the winner of NH will be mostly concerned with Fred in SC. Heck, at this point I'd be shocked if he's still walking (can't really call it running) by the time SC comes up.

www.republicansenate.org

Did you fail to see how Huck could lead now?

Huck is about to fall hard and fast. He is being found out. He is too liberal to win the nomination. His supporters will go somewhere, and Fred is poised, maybe just in time to get them. Fred is being founbd out too, just now, and he is the conservative.

I've been thru these things many times. All the yakyak over polls here on RS over the past year have been irrelevant, as I have said all along. Its just been something to pass the time before the real game.

wait and see.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

While Robert Bork is unquestionably one of the greatest intellectual giants in legal theory of his generation, he is well versed in many matters beyond the law - including economics.

I seriously doubt that you have the credetials to tell Robert Bork of all people what business he has commenting on politics.

buck up your own credentials around here before questioning the credentials of others.

W.C. Fields for President!
http://www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm

Just maybe not in his current incarnation.

W.C. Fields for President!
http://www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm

HTML Help for Red Staters

While Robert Bork is unquestionably one of the greatest intellectual giants in legal theory of his generation, he is well versed in many matters beyond the law - including economics.

I seriously doubt that you have the credetials to tell Robert Bork of all people what business he has commenting on politics.

I can't beat you on seniority NKBG, but I enjoyed your ditto. :)

W.C. Fields for President!
http://www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm

You must have graduated from the Roy Moore School of Law. That equals anarchy. Robert Bork has more business commenting on electoral politics then you have commenting on law, that's for certain.

No. Anarchy is letting a judge invent and dictate new laws.

is letting judges get away with subverting the law.

Anarchy is opposing them by extra-legal means. Which you are advocating.

Even Lincoln agreed that the government had to accept the Dred Scott decision as applied to Dred Scott, though he argued forcefully that it should be overturned.

I prefer Lincoln to you.

to the rest of the government as well as to Dred Scott.

In MA, the court ordered the legislature to change the law within a certain period of time.

The argument isn't that the MA court's decision wasn't valid for the parties to the case, but that it wasn't valid for all those who were NOT parties to the case.

I prefer Lincoln to you.

W.C. Fields for President!
http://www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm

So, let me get this straight. Are you seriously advocating here that if an executive does not agree with a supreme court decision, he/she would be justified in simply refusing outright to comply with the decision? Are you ready to accept the notion that if Her Hillaryness were elected and didn't agree with a SCOTUS decision that she would be in the right if she stridently rebelled and rebuffed? Do you really want to set such a precedent?

Thank goodness Romney has a level head and a sense of trust and respect for our republican system of government. You conveniently leave out that Romney did everything he could within constitutional bounds to overturn the court's decision, including the following:

- He pushed for an amendment to Massachusetts’ constitution to overturn the same-sex “marriages” imposed by the courts

- He scoured the law books and found and ordered enforcement of a little-known 1913 law to prevent out-of-state gay couples from getting “married” in Massachusetts and provoking a national constitutional crisis

- He testified before Congress and wrote to senators in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment

Your line of argument is in lock step with that of MassResistance, a known anti-Romney fringe group that has been banned as a reference on this site. The reasoning also happens to be deeply flawed.

Romney did all in his power to fight the good fight against same sex marriage, and complied with the "interpretation" of the Mass. Supreme Court in the interim. This claim that Romney somehow voluntarily forced gay marriage down the throats of Mass citizens is ridiculous on its face, and it needs to stop.

First off, Romney wouldn't have been "refusing to comply" by not ordering the clerks who issued marriage licenses. The legislature was the one ordered. Romney was not ordered by the court to do anything.

What Romney did WAS totally voluntary, and he acted improperly here. He showed by his actions that he truly favors same-sex marriage.

"Agree" is too mild a word here. What would you advise if the court ordered people to jump off bridges? Compliance? Enforcement? I guess you'd be asking how high.

When the court does something this sweeping and outrageous and so clearly CONTRADICTORY to the law, their opinion should NOT be enforced. And I cannot respect any attempts to enforce it, especially by someone who is not even being ordered to do so!

There are times when the court simply loses it. This is not much different than an order for people to jump off bridges. Common sense should dictate that such a ruling as this (like so many in the federal courts) is simply too crazy to be taken seriously.

the constitution is silent on the question of who gets to decide what is and is not constitutional.

there is age-old precedent for judicial review, and not quite so old precedent for exclusive judicial review. but there is nothing in the constitution indicating that the supreme court should have the last word on interpreting the constitution.

the other branches can interpret the constitution for themselves.

and the people can also interpret it, and ultimately, they will state through elections which position they agree with.

i'm surprised that you, a conservative, think that judicial supremacy is just fine.

W.C. Fields for President!
http://www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm

issue than one of the most widely reknowned conservative legal minds in the country smacks of either complete and utter ignorance or complete and utter arrogance. Or both.

A "better read" on the issue? I don't follow how I suggested that. Bork is entitled to his opinion as much as I am entitled to point out that I disagree and am surprised by what he said. It may seem ignorant or ignorance-based by your standards, but I cannot see a hint of arrogance by any standard.

I am referring to a "better read" on the "law" and the "rule of law" which is exactly where you doubted Judge Bork:

"Bork thought this "respected" the rule of "law," when the actual law was to the contrary?"

You may disagree with the decision of the court, as do I. You may have a different opinion as to how Romney dealt with the decision or Bork's assessment of Romney as a leader. Fine.

But to question Judge Bork's understanding of the law and respect for the rule of law by parroting MassResistance is to pose quite a challenge indeed.

Maybe it is quite a challenge, but I think a challenge can be a good thing sometimes. Questioning something is not ignorant or arrogant though. It is quite the opposite.

FYI, I've never heard of MassResistance, and I'm not parroting any person or group. I simply don't believe courts get to make law. Something should not be considered "law" just because a judge says it. Indeed I question the whole concept of judicial review.

claim that you've never heard of MassResistance. However, you make the same arguments as they do and very enthusiastically endorsed a post of one of their trolls the other day.

http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/national_review_to_endors...

Scroll to the end of the thread.

So what are courts supposed to do? Whenever a constitutional issue comes up are they supposed to ask the President to decide it for him?

You do realize that in your world the Supreme Court would have to refuse to hear the challenge to the DC gun ban? And it would be impossible to bring a takings case.

Look at what the Constitution says the Supreme Court should do...

Judicial Review isn't one of them. There's a reason that Supreme Court justices when they first started the Court rode circuit, they had the time!

Unless there is an issue between two lower federal appellate court cases or two supreme court cases that could cause interstate commerce issues, then they shouldn't be involved.

OR...as per the Constitution, let the President and Congress determine what they want the Court to be able to hear if it's not expressly allowed in the Constitution.

nt

W.C. Fields for President!
http://www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm

And no matter how stupid I think the decision was, I can't say I want to see executives in every state and at the Federal level just deciding they will ignore decisions they don't agree with. If they can ignore bad decisions, they can ignore the good ones just as well. This is a Pandora's box that I really, really don't want to see opened.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Judges would have their minds concentrated on the fact that their only power is that of respect for their reasoning, and would realize that the ride on the real Pandora's Box that they opened in the 60's was being shut.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

But I don't trust people to only use it one time. Once the precedent is established, I would expect it to become a regular occurrence.

It may be necessary to go down this road at some point, but I don't think SSM is anywhere near important enough reason to do it. It would have to be some kind of truly horrendous court decision like none we have yet seen.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

encroached on the President's power to defend the country as commander in cheif at the federal level.

What is ironic about the above discussion is that Mitt's strong stance against the Mass court is what really caused me to admire him so much, but I must say that I do think Mitt very easily could have gone further, and when you look at the actual language of the decision, Mitt could have refused to issue new marriage apps without violating the decision.

One area where I think Governors and legislatures could (and I think one did) defy courts (depending on their state constitutions) is when they order the state to raise taxes.

You do understand Z, that given my signature quote below, that this is a pet peeve issue of mine. Jackson, Jefferson and Lincoln all defied the court once.

You should read Bork's "The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law."

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

Mitt could have refused to issue new marriage apps without violating the decision.

I wish he had done that. Simply get government out of marriage altogether.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

.

There are statues concerning the issuance of marriage licenses. I don't see how it's in the power of the executive to say "Nah... we aren't going to issue any of those any more." The executive ignoring the legislature is as bad as ignoring the courts... maybe even worse.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

That's why Romney was unjustified in his actions. The court had directed its orders to the legislature. If anything, Romney should have threatened to fire the legislators if they didn't take up the matter. It wasn't his job to direct the issuance of marriage licenses. It wasn't even ordered by the court.

to include marriage for same sex couples. It gave the legislature 180 days to make any changes it saw necessary, but did NOT "order" the legislature to do anything. There is a difference between an option and an order.

If it was optional, then the whole "ruling" was useless. It might as well have been tossed in the trash (or recycling bin) the day it was made public. It had about as much value as an editorial, a blog entry, a letter from a citizen, or some liberal media publication.

Certainly if the ultra-liberal legislature there wasn't even going to act, why should anyone else?

That's not a far cry from the ruling earlier this year that the U.S. paper money violates laws that protect the blind. Would anyone expect President Bush to order the appropriate agencies to redo the money or be fired?

If they didn't act, it would SSM would go forward anyway. They gave them a grace period to make any accommodations they wanted to make to the law, but even if they didn't bother, SSM was still going to happen in 180 days. That's my understanding of the ruling.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Then there was no need for Romney to order the state's clerks to issue them licenses.

Which you seem to think is an awesome idea. I don't agree. I think once one branch starts to defy the others, everything starts to fall apart. The judiciary steps over the line on occasion, but there's a way to fix that... appoint decent justices.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

There's a fine and grand tradition of disobeying courts in this country, some of the finest advances of freedom come from that tradition. It only matters if you are unwilling to take the punishment that comes with that disobedience due to a lack of conviction in your beliefs.

Of course Mitt was running for office so need to practice some civil disobedience.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

If you run the executive, there is no punishment. You are the law enforcement branch. Unless the courts are going to start to build their own police force and prison system, there isn't a punishment. I don't see anything romantic about one branch defying another.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

zuiko

I realize that your Romneybotness keeps you from seeing this, but as a leadership role, civil disobedience is a virtue.

Romney being the Velveeta Cheese politician sort of guy that he is and not running for office couldn't be bothered.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

Romneybotness? Please. He's never even been my favorite candidate. Fred would be my first choice if he can get his act together and get a clear path to the nomination. Otherwise I'm voting anybody-but-Huckabee. I will vote for whoever is best positioned to kill him off in the primary.

Civil disobedience is something *the people* do... not something the government does. Our system of government depends on each branch respecting the others. If you don't have that, you end up with a Hugo Chavez style banana republic, where the executive does whatever it wants and just ignores the courts and legislature if he doesn't like what they are saying. I would take legalized SSM over that outcome.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

1 - denial of re-election by the voters
2 - denial of re-election of one's party
3 - denial of legislative agenda
4 - impeachment

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

No, Romney would not have defied the courts since they did not order him to do anything and he was under no obligation to do anything.

this. I, like Bork, admire Mitt's actions in trying to overturn the ruling via amendment, but I do think he should have done more, given the text of the ruling.

I would say this though. The reason Andrew Jackson is famous is due in large part to his uniqueness in being willing to do what Mitt would not, for you see, One man with COURAGE, makes a majority. So, I don't so much condemn Mitt as I do admire Jackson.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

I agree, and I'd still vote for Romney over Hillary. I'd even vote for him over McCain, Rudy, or Huckabee in the primary.

BTW, appointing good justices is not a fix because they could not or would not ever undo the damage already done. Simply making their appointments to achieve a particular outcome really is not any different from defying the court in the first place.

Thank you may I have another?

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

If anything, Romney should have threatened to fire the legislators if they didn't take up the matter.

Are you crazy? Fire the legislators? Holy hell, you really do want to live in a dictatorship, don't you? You've got to be kidding.

nt

I was commenting really on the ultimate result rather than the route to achieve it. I have no opinion or knowledge on the question of whether it would have been legal for Romney to act in this way. I just think that getting government out of marriage altogether is the best overall solution.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

In 1832, Andrew Jackson said of a decision by the Supreme Court, "they have made their decision, now let them enforce it." Now, the provenance of that quote is somewhat in question (some versions have him addressing it directly to the chief justice, John Marshall, others say he never said it at all).

But what's clear is that he did exactly what you describe. Faced with a direct Supreme Court decision, he encouraged them to go pleasure themselves.

Merits of his opposition aside (the issue was the Indian Removal Act), it didn't undermine the court. That said, if a president were to try a similar move today in our far more established republic, it would cause a major crisis the results of which would be entirely dependent on the issue the president chose to stand up for.

sorry, didn't realize Gamecock already pointed this out.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

While the issue may not have been important enough to actively defy, bear in mind that the MA legislature DID defy the courts. Romney wasn't ordered to do anything, nor should he have.

That said, we've already seen a "truly horrendous" decision (making mass murder a "choice") that any elected official would be more than justified in defying and should be actively encouraged to defy. That's certainly more than important enough to "go down that road."

what it did do was take action to deny the people of Massachusetts from voting on a referendum to amend the constitution to supercede the supreme court and preserve traditional marraige.

Romney led the referendum effort and went as far as to file suit against the legislature that resulted in the legislature complying with its constitutional responsibilities and sending the marriage amendment on to the next stage of the ratification process.

.

for sure, and a lot fewer bad precedents would still be around.

W.C. Fields for President!
http://www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm

the saddest are these, what might have been.

I don't know what that's from, but it sure sounds like something Vin Scully would quote, heh. Sounds nice.

HTML Help for Red Staters

You can stop spamming this crap any day now...
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman