The GOP: Staunch Defender of Traditional Marriage!

…appointed the judges who just struck down DOMA.

But we urgently *must* vote for Romney because he’s going to give us the judges who, this time for sure, will overturn Roe–such as Kennedy, Souter, and O’Connor.

Trust them. This time for sure. No. Really.

  • Sean O

    You are such a nit picker Mark.

    Don’t you know that we now judge people by what they say, not by what they do.

    The rules are just fine for the GOP. Why would you mess with them?

    Talk Pro-Life and Family values deliver Corporate protections and tax cuts for the rich.

    Strenuously avoid military service yourself, then when older, wave flags, talk tough and send others into great sacrifice and death in wars of choice. It’s the chickenhawk way. Don’t forget your flag pin and support the troops ribbon.

    Do as I say, not as I do. Get with the program Mr Shea.

  • David K. Monroe

    So when a judge is appointed, the President who appoints must have a 100% guarantee that the judge will make decisions that the President agrees with? Or do you think that Republicans make secret deals with potential appointees that they will hold off with “liberal” decisions until a certain point, then let loose?

    The fact is, no matter what these judges look like going in, some do have a tendency to go off the rails later. I really don’t think you can blame “Republicans” for that, unless you believe that there’s some sort of secret Republican cabal to advance the agenda of the Democrats behind the scenes. The more likely explanation is that these judges are kicking the issue to the curb so that it will go to the Supreme Court, and they won’t have to face angry DOMA opponents at cocktail parties.

    • ivan_the_mad

      I have no idea whence you inferred the items in your first paragraph. I’m pretty sure this post intends to point out the absurdity of the exhortation to vote for Romney on account of all the judicial picks, especially because as you point out “some do have a tendency to go off the rails later”. Fool me once etc.

    • Ted Seeber

      “unless you believe that there’s some sort of secret Republican cabal to advance the agenda of the Democrats behind the scenes.”

      Not exactly on topic- but refusal to pass a personhood amendment in 1974 proved to me that there IS a Secret Republican Cabal to advance the agenda of the Democrats- and it’s gotten worse every time they’ve had control of the Presidency since Nixon.

      • David K. Monroe

        Refusal to pass one piece of legislation proves a conspiracy? Dang, that was easy.

        Well, don’t buy into the Evil Republican Conspiracy to advance the Democratic platform. Just vote Democrat and…wait, that can’t be right…

        • Ted Seeber

          Well, if you consider that one piece was *recommended by the Supreme Court that Decided RoeVWade* and *has been introduced several times over the past 40 years in Republican legislatures and NEVER passed*….it shows a pattern. A pattern of avoiding solving the abortion problem once and for all in favor of playing political keep away with it.

          I actually didn’t realize this until 2005- when my son was diagnosed with CP and the scales fell from my eyes…..

  • dfp

    David: I think the point is that GOP candidates promise, or at least strongly imply, that they WILL appoint justices to overturn Roe v Wade or stop gays or whatever, knowing that those promises cannot be kept. But lots of gullible people vote based on the strength of those promises, not realising how empty they are. People shouldn’t vote based solely on what somebody says he’s going to do: they should filter all promises based on what somebody has actually done, and on what can actually be done in office. Every presidential candidate who promised to put in judges who would overturn Roe v Wade, or get a Constitutional amendment banning abortion, was just playing the people for suckers, making promises he could never keep.

    • David K. Monroe

      Once again, the point about judicial appointees is that if we return Obama to office, we can be sure that his judicial appointees will be hard left. This we can believe with confidence. For my part, I’ve never heard a GOP candidate promise that he will appoint judges that will overturn Roe v. Wade, only that he will appoint judges that have evidenced a conservative approach to the law. In any case, it seems strange to me to blame Republicans for appointing judges who sometimes make bad decisions and apparently give a pass to Democrats who appoint judges who make those bad decisions every time.

      • ivan_the_mad

        “it seems strange to me to blame Republicans for appointing judges who sometimes make bad decisions and apparently give a pass to Democrats who appoint judges who make those bad decisions every time”

        Whether their decisions are “good” or “bad” being your opinion, of course ;)

        • David K. Monroe

          Yes, I am aware that everything I write reflects my own opinion. Thanks.

      • Ted Seeber

        So let me get this straight- Republican candidates for the judiciary can go off the rails, but Democratic candidates can’t?

        • David K. Monroe

          Well, you tell me. I can’t recall any examples of Democratic-appointed justices turning into strict constitutionalists after appointment, but I may be uninformed.

          • Ted Seeber

            I’m aware of several. There’s no guarantee that *any* judge won’t form new opinions over a career that spans decades.

            • David K. Monroe

              Please, do tell. Don’t leave me on tenterhooks here.

  • David K. Monroe

    The point about judicial picks is, you know that if Obama picks them, they are not going to be “swing voters” – they are going to be hard left. At least there’s a chance that a Romney appointee is going to interpret the law conservatively. There’s still a choice, but if one thinks that a Republican appointee is guaranteed not to turn in a disappointing decision ever, then one is clearly being unrealistic. Any reasonable adult should understand that judges are not guaranteed to render decisions that are comfortable to the official who appointed them.

  • Kubrick’s Rube

    “The point about judicial picks is, you know that if Obama picks them, they are not going to be “swing voters” – they are going to be hard left. At least there’s a chance that a Romney appointee is going to interpret the law conservatively.”

    It’s funny how these things work; as a liberal I find the exact opposite to be likely, that, “you know that if Romney picks them, they are not going to be “swing voters” – they are going to be hard right. At least there’s a chance that an Obama appointee is going to interpret the law progressively.”

    • David K. Monroe

      Can you name any Democratic-appointed justices that have proved to be as disappointing to “progressive” causes as Republican appointees such as Anthony Kennedy and David Souter have been to “conservative” causes?

      • Mark Shea

        You mean besides the 9-0 Supreme Court smackdown against Obama’s attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of a church on behalf of gender equality?

        • David K. Monroe

          And this is the same as Kennedy and Souter’s record compared to the expectation of their performance having been appointed by Republican presidents? Or is it perhaps just one of those times when an administration so overreached itself that none of the justices could tolerate it?

          • ivan_the_mad

            LOL!!! Somebody nail those goal posts down already.

          • Mark Shea

            Potato. Potahto. The point is, the Progressives on the Court failed to get in line with the Administration’s Truly Enlightened[TM] agenda.

            • David K. Monroe

              Seems more like “non-responsive deflection” to me.

              The goalposts are firmly set at Republicans Suck. I’m sure everybody’s happy.

              • Mark Shea

                And here I thought that excoriating Dems for their love of abortion, their fealty to the tyrannical God King who is at war with the Catholic Church, and their disgusting hypocrisy at turning a blind eye to his contempt for the Constitution made pretty clear that I have my quarrels with Dems too. Your self-pity is showing.

                It appears you listen like the dog in the Far Side Cartoon: Blah blah blah Republicans blah blah blah. Voila: All I ever do is criticize Republicans.

                • David K. Monroe

                  I never said nor implied that you never criticized Democrats. I simply take the position that your attempted criticism here of Republicans is not entirely fair.

                  And you did move the goalposts on me, or you didn’t really understand the point I was making about Kennedy/Souter.

                  Your own self-pity is not entirely camouflaged.

                  • Mark Shea

                    I never said nor implied that you never criticized Democrats.

                    Sure you did: “The goalposts are firmly set at Republicans Suck”. Your whole line of argument was calculated to try and prove that I think Republicans worse than Dems. I hold both parties in equal disdain.

                    • David K. Monroe

                      I meant the goalposts were firmly fixed in this particular conversation. And they are. Republicans appointed judges, those judges make decisions contrary to Republican philosophy, therefore Republicans are dishonest and we can’t trust them to appoint judges. The whole argument is fallacious. In regard to this particular issue, your position is Republicans Suck. And that may be, but I believe that the way you’ve worked to establish that point here is unfair.

                    • Mark Shea

                      If you want to try to make the case that the GOP (you know, Limbaugh, Gingrich, Barr, O’Reilly) has demonstrated seriousness about the sanctity of the family, or that the record of GOP court appointees has demonstrated seriousness about family and life issues, knock yourself out. I don’t take this latest betrayal as “proof” of anything. I take it as one more data point in an overall picture of GOP unseriousness and exploitation of social conservatives with slick talk and practical disinterest. I think social conservatives should stop letting themselves be played for suckers by these people, so I point out that the myth that Next Year the GOP Will Do Something About the Court and It Will All be Better is just that: a myth. We have very little evidence that the GOP leadership cares about the family or the unborn. What they care about is power and getting your vote with empty promises and minor token gestures. In return, they get Christian court prophets for torture, unjust war, bombing toddlers, and excusing gross mismanagement of the economy, as well as a President (no, not Obama, his predecessor) who gave millions to Planned Parenthood. At least the Dems don’t pretend: they are frank and open enemies of the Church. Conservative pol are more insidious, corrupting from within rather than assaulting from without.

                    • David K. Monroe

                      Limbaugh, Gingrich, Barr, and O’Reilly? Wow, it’s nice when you can stack the deck. Did you not notice when Bob Barr became a Libertarian? Or when Limbaugh and O’Reilly never ran for office? Or when Gingrich ultimately failed to secure the Republican nomination for President?

                      Mark, I recognize that you are an intelligent man, but when you make you argument in this way, you lose me. If you’re going to posit Limbaugh, Gingrich, Barr and O’Reilly as The Real Face Of Republicans, then I think you’re just trying to stoke your own anger. Now, maybe you don’t care about convincing me, and that’s fine, but if you do care about truly convincing others, you might want to try pursuing the argument in a different way.

  • SecretAgentMan

    Let’s not overlook the fact that the First Circuit got this one right. AWOL Schwarzenegger v. Perry is the case that got it wrong.

  • JimPV

    Does *anybody* still buy into the scheme that we can get a republican in the white house, and he’ll stack the court with conservatives who will overturn Roe v. wade?

    • Mark Shea

      Yes. Thousand of conservative Christians still deeply believe this. It’s like belief in the Loch Ness Monster, but with less evidence.

      • Alois

        You’re not using logic Mark. The Republicans gave us Roe vs. Wade, only they can take it away!

    • David K. Monroe

      I believe that if we get a Republican in the White House, he’ll appoint judges that are more likely to render conservative rulings than any that a Democrat will appoint.

      Evidence: Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito, Antonin Scalia, John Roberts. All somewhat more realistic than the Loch Ness Monster.

      Next, someone will offer some ruling that one or more of these judges have rendered that is not conservative, failing to note the “more likely” in my statement. Baby and bathwater will be all out the window once again.

      • ivan_the_mad

        “I believe that if we get a Republican in the White House, he’ll appoint judges that are more likely to render conservative rulings than any that a Democrat will appoint.”

        In other news, sun rises in east :P

        • David K. Monroe

          My point exactly. Seems to be as controversial as the Loch Ness Monster to some.

  • LV

    Mark–

    Every time you mention Kennedy and Souter without mentioning Bork and that other Kennedy, you torpedo your own case.

  • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

    Using this logic, couldn’t we question the Church that stands for traditional Christian values but appoints priests who abuse children and bishops who cover it up? There’s a certain ‘wanting to find problems’ when this is the big slam. I would need to know: did the GOP appoint this judge because they knew this is his stance, or did this surprise them?

  • kenneth

    Judges don’t owe squat to the ideological agendas of those who appoint them. If they did, there would be no point at all in having an independent judiciary, and we’d be no different than Iran or pre-Mubarak Egypt. The law is what the regime in power says it is. All judges owe anybody is their best legal thinking on issues. In this case, that thinking determined that DOMA was an overreach of federal power with insufficient justification. The principles applied in this case are actually those core principles which USED to be at the heart of conservatism in this country; respect for state and local determination and limitation of federal powers and the nanny state. Once the GOP became the Christian version of the Egyptian Brotherhood, then the governing philosophy evolved to the belief that the federal government was wise enough to act as pater familias to every household in America.

  • Pattymelt

    Of course, we can be sure that President Obama will appoint judges who will really respect life from conception until natural death— oh wait, his appointments will be no better, and really a lot worse—
    so why don’t we all just move up north to Canada—
    oh wait, they arrest people who speak from the pulpit against “gay marriage”—
    So let’s just opt out of the world altogether because those we elect won’t do our bidding 100% of the time—
    Oh wait, Jesus prayed that we would not be tainted by the world, not that we would leave it.
    What to do, what to do!!!

  • SecretAgentMan

    And thus we bid farewell to a federal republic of free and responsible individuals . . . .


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X