Liberal Lessons Learned
edification through the unraveling
By haystack Posted in Liberals — Comments (4) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
If you're looking for another expert legal analysis of the SCOTUS PBA Decision , you won't find it here. A genuine expert, our own Dan McLaughlin, covers it better than I ever could.
I do, however, find the reaction to the Court's decision very enlightening, highly insightful, and in certain circles very entertaining.
We have all been given an excellent opportunity to see just what makes the "liberal mind" tick in the aftermath of this outstanding "victory for Life, Decency, Humanity" as Dan put it, and it's worth peeking in to the scrambled heads of our dear, misguided friends in the Liberal world that sees this as a defeat, not as the chance to save many many lives and restore a little sanity to this otherwise crazy world.
More below the fold...
I won't give the Kossacks any more undeserving bandwidth by providing links...AlexHam's piece says it all anyway, but I can tell you that they are having fits and contortions over this. The railings against judicial activism, loaded courts, stolen elections, and the death of Roe by a thousand cuts are, quite frankly, hysterical.
It made me wonder if we appear this way to them when WE lose elections or court decisions, and whether we stick OUR thumbs in OUR mouths and tug on OUR other ear when WE go through these things...and I'm gonna go with YES, just to TRY and be fair and balanced.
What amazes me here is not so much the tantrums, but the thinking processes behind them.
It is quite clear that the fight between the Liberal and Conservative minds in this country is a fight with two VERY different sets of sidelines. The fight for the left is one over winning at all costs; right versus wrong, or good versus evil, or being fair and decent are not their cheerleaders.
And, if you think about it (given they are doing a LOT of winning lately), the cause for celebrations when they win are easy to understand. What is not quite so clear is whether they understand the consequences when they actually do win.
I'm going with no.
The PBA decision is cause to celebrate for Conservatives if for no other reason than to hear the Supreme Court FINALLY suggest that "the government has a legitimate and substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life."
Liberals, in railing against the decision can only muster the old drip-dry blather about privacy rights...or women's health concerns being ignored...or whether it is fair to call this abortion procedure what it really IS - killing a viable fetus.
My favorite quote(well, one of them anyway):
It was entirely framing this as elective murder of a viable baby that made "most of the public" against this procedure. When in reality it's almost always done as a means to protect a mother's health.
While I abstain from any commentary on the Virginia Tech horror, a similar lesson can be learned from that as well. The quintessential response, was a tirade about gun control.
Conservatives?
Prayers. Then, a reaffirmation that self-defense used to actually MEAN something.
In light of the Professor that gave his life protecting his students, was there any mention of the fallen heroes on 9/11? The "let's roll" folks?
Nope.
To be honest, a lesson can be learned here. Conservatives, while well-based in ideals and altruisms and concern for the effect on "we the people" by our Government, really really SUCK at fighting to win.
Unfettered by right and wrong and good versus evil, Liberals are content to fight for the sake of the blood. And, they are better fighters.
We need to do better. We need to fight harder. If ever there was a time to effect a thousand MORE cuts to Roe, this is surely it.
If ever we saw a chance to strengthen the 2nd amendment through things like mandating some percentage of educators be trained and issued concealed carry permits, or students on campuses likewise, perhaps this might be it as well.
If ever there was a chance to kill earmarks, get clean war funding, kill embryonic stem cell research, stop Universal Helthcare, reform Social Security, or any OTHER of the varied initiatives the Conservatives are making SOME modicum of progress with...it is now.
When we WIN something, we shouldn't sit back and wallow in it. The things we HAVE accomplished against the Dems, while somewhat pleasurable given their majority status, should perhaps encourage us to "double down" on going in for the kill rather than sitting back, air high-fiving each other and waiting for the next Dem contortion.
« Do Nothing Dem Congress Slow-Bleeding US Auto Industry — Comments (46) | We Don't Need No Stinkin' President — Comments (9) »
Liberal Lessons Learned 4 Comments (0 topical, 4 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
Did somebody over at Kos really call this "judicial activism"? I suppose it ought not surprise me. People get so mixed up in their terminology and such these days....Howard Dean even claimed to be a "fiscal conservative" way back when.
I suppose if a term has a positive connotation, use it -- if it has a negative connotation, tar your opponents with it....meaning, schmeaning.
To call the upholding of a piece of legislation "activism" just shows how utterly stupid some people are. A law may or may not be constitutional, of course. But, obviously, activism is when a judge says something's in the Constitution that isn't (or vice versa).
I don't know why they can't just defend judicial activism on its own merits -- as opposed to originalism -- rather than try to call any decision they don't like "activist."
This is the logical outflow of basing your arguments on "framing" and other aesthetic foundations...rather than simply arguing your worldview on their merits.
Liberalism's deathly ill, IMO.
In the rush to celebrate this decision, let's not lose sight of the fact that the law upheld exists at the expense of what should be another cherished value, federalism. There ought to be countless policies which we favor but which we favor less than a federal government constrained to its proper, constitutional limits. Only if we view ends and means as entirely seperate, with the former trumping the latter, can we be pleased that a Congressional foray into what should be deemed beyond its reach has been upheld. Happily, Thomas and Scalia at least acknowledged the issue, though whether it will ever draw more than lip service is questionable.