True believers in constitutional restoration should read this post and consider all of its implications.
I’ll just ponder old Mr. Spooner:
But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.
Locust: The Coming Amerikan Civil War, its simple as that, what we want in not compatible with what those on the left desire, and only one can rule.
Kagan’s non-recusal and what it means
It is remarkable that Elena Kagan apparently plans to hear and judge the Obamacare lawsuits, although there is a documentary record of her acting as an advocate within the administration for strategies to get the bill through Congress.Of course, many Republicans are calling for her recusal, which is absolutely required by the appropriate rules for judges.
It’s interesting that no Democrats agree. That they do not agree tells us much about who and what they are.
They don’t agree because they believe it would be wrong of her to follow the rules. They think it would be wrong because, for them, the purpose of Presidential appointment and Senate confirmation is to overthrow the republican system of a government with limited powers.
For the Democrats in Congress, it would make no more sense for Kagan to recuse herself that it would for her to appear in purple underwear and deliver her opinions in Norwegian.
Well put. The two parties are not playing the same game. They play different games, under different rules. What are these different rules? The Republicans more or less follow the laws and constitutional procedures, the Democrats deliberately and consciously break them. But the Republicans, while they complain incessantly about the Democrats, never identify this underlying fact. Why? Because that would show that the system is no longer legitimate. And the function of the Republicans, as “patriotic, conservative Americans,” is to uphold the goodness and legitimacy of the system, a legitimacy which rests on the belief that everyone in American politics shares the same basic principles and loyalties. So the Republicans, as defenders of the system and its presumed basic unity, cannot expose what the Democrats are. If they exposed it, politics would be replaced by open war between two radically incompatible parties and America as we know it would come to an end.
– end of initial entry –
Tim W. writes:
You are correct. The Republicans can’t bring themselves to admit that the Democrats are trying to destroy our nation. This reminds me of a funny story. In Mexico, both the good guy and bad guy pro wrestlers get cheered. The good guys are cheered for following the rules. The bad guys are cheered for cheating. Each side gets cheered for doing what they’re supposed to do to make the event entertaining. The fans only boo if a good guy, frustrated by the cheating of his opponent, starts cheating as well. In that case someone is cheating who isn’t supposed to cheat, so he gets booed. Staged pro wrestling thus becomes a perfect analogy to our two party system.
This is also why Republicans, and mainstream conservatives in general, can’t properly respond to the never ceasing charge that they’re “racist.” The only response is to frantically deny the charge, and possibly to point out that the Democrats were racist back in the old days. This latter is a favorite at Free Republic and among commentators such as Sean Hannity. I wish I had a dollar for every time the phrase “Robert ‘KKK’ Byrd” has been invoked at Free Republic or on Hannity’s show. I could retire today.
The correct response to the liberal charge that the GOP is racist is to point out that the Democrats currently are racist against white people. VDare reports that Jonathan Capehart (Washington Post writer) has accused Rick Perry of racism for saying that Obama grew up privileged and therefore doesn’t understand what many people today are going through. According to Capehart, Perry was alleging that Obama got into Harvard via affirmative action and that a more qualified white was thus excluded from admission. Now, obviously, Perry wasn’t saying that, but it brings up a great opportunity for a Republican with guts to note that Obama did indeed benefit from AA at Harvard, and that by definition every AA benefit doled out to a minority does come at the expense of a more qualified white. The gutsy Republican could then note that such AA programs are racist and discriminatory against whites.
But that won’t happen. That would require admitting that white people have rights and interests worth protecting, and the GOP will never admit that, just as they won’t admit that the Democrats are playing by different (underhanded) rules. So if there’s any response to Capehart, it will be for Perry to deny, deny, deny, and then deny again that he meant anything racial, while Hannity and Free Republic remind us that segregationist Pitchfork Ben Tillman ran for office as a Democrat in 1896.