Redstate

Posted at 10:38pm on Jan. 11, 2008 Calling for a Moratorium on Funerals and Coronations

By stealthlawprof

There is a popular move by virtually everyone to figure out how to bury the other candidates so their guy can win. McCainiacs want to put the kill on Romney in Michigan; Fredheads hope to pull out SC and eliminate Huckabee; Rudy becomes irrelevant before Florida; Thompson fades after whatever; etc.

I’m not buying it.

This is uncharted territory for us. We have five viable candidates. The races are occurring in a wide range of states, many of which have open primaries, no democratic primary, or other quirky features that may skew the individual state’s results. The internet makes it easier to stay in a campaign even when money is tight. This is going to take a while to shake out, and it should, and that’s okay.

Posted in Archived — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 1:53pm on Jan. 7, 2008 Why the idea of John McCain appointing Supreme Court Justices worries me even more than Rudy Giuliani appointing them.

By stealthlawprof

I continue to read posts indicating that McCain has voted favorably on conservative judicial candidates and thus should be trusted to appoint the same. That reasoning is faulty.

For John McCain, the single most important issue before the Supreme Court is campaign finance. That issue has been at the Court for a number of years, and it will be there through the foreseeable future. Anyone who believes McCain will appoint Justices who will harm his handiwork (his prime example of a change he has created) is hallucinating.

Now, I believe McCain is wrong on campaign finance, but that is not the reason for this post. I also believe that the vast, vast majority of conservative lawyers, scholars, and jurists -- whom I would define for now as those who reject Roe v. Wade and its underlying doctrine of substantive due process -- believe McCain is wrong. That is the reason for this post.

Posted in Archived — Comments (75) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 6:45pm on Dec. 14, 2007 Here's the Deal: I won't question your intelligence if you won't insult mine.

By stealthlawprof

I want an answer.

Here is the quote: "In 2003, Huckabee said that the U.S. Supreme Court was probably right to strike down anti-sodomy laws."

(The quote is not out of context. If you want to check, it is the first half of the second sentence in the penultimate paragraph of the infamous AIDS quarantine article.)

Someone who supports Governor Huckabee please explain how this is a socially conservative position.

Posted in 2008 — Comments (187) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 2:20am on Dec. 12, 2007 Is Huck Redefining Social Conservative?

By stealthlawprof

I am willing to play the game on Huckabee's home turf. He claims to be a social conservative, and his strongest supporters cite that as their chief (and sometimes only) reason for supporting him. Fine.

I always thought the essence of a social conservative was someone who objected to Supreme Court cases like Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas -- cases in which Hollywood's social standards are forced upon the rest of the nation without a vote. If my definition is correct, Huckabee fails because he agrees with the decision in Lawrence. (See Mahler's post entitled "Huckabee and Judges" for citations and further discussion.)

Posted in 2008 — Comments (3) / Email this page » / Read More »