DO THE LIMBAUGH ROCK
With apologies to Chubby Checker, and to you, dear readers. I saw the above picture at www.truth-serum.blogspot.com , and I couldn't help myself:
DO THE LIMBAUGH ROCK
Every Limbaugh boy and girl
All around the Limbaugh world
Gonna do the Limbaugh rock
All around the Limbaugh clock
Jack be Limbaugh, Jack be quick
Jack go unda Limbaugh's stick
All around the Limbaugh clock
Hey, let's do the Limbaugh rock
Limbaugh lower now
Limbaugh lower now
HOW LOW CAN YOU GO?
First you spread your Limbaugh feet
Then you move to Limbaugh beat
Limbaugh ankolimboneee,
Bend back like a Limbaugh tree
Jack be Limbaugh, Jack be quick
Jack go unda Limbaugh's stick
All around the Limbaugh clock
Hey, let's do the Limbaugh rock
Get yourself a Limbaugh girl
Give that chic a Limbaugh whirl
There's a Limbaugh moon above
You will fall in Limbaugh love
Jack be Limbaugh, Jack be quick
Jack go unda Limbaugh's stick
All around the Limbaugh clock
Hey, let's do the Limbaugh rock
Don't move that Limbaugh bar
You'll be a Limbaugh star
HOW LOW CAN YOU GO?
7 Comments:
How low can you go? Well, your post certainly went there. The Concerned Alumni of Princeton had another member you probably like: Senator Bill Bradley. I guess that means he hates women and minorities too, right? If one were a leader or contributing member to an organization, one would think that one's name would be in their documentation. Dude, where's Alito? Senator Kennedy couldn't find it, but then again, he can't find anything unless it's a liquor bottle.
Abortion? Based on the merits of the individual cases, he's ruled what could be construed as both sides of that issue, and in fact, ruled "pro-choice" in three out of the four cases that came before his court.
First Amendment rights? He's golden. In closing, I submit this Wikipedia article about Judge Alito.
P.S. In case you missed the first hundred or so memos, I have very strong libertarian leanings, though I have absolutely no faith in the Libertarian Party. As such, his membership in good standing in the Federalist Society is something I view as a positive, though I'd be happier if he had more ties to the Cato Institute.
Hmmmm...
I was never a particularly big fan of Bill Bradley to begin with, mainly because I didn't view him as electable. I don't know if he hates women and minorities or not... he at least seemed not to when he was running for president.
Membership in an organization like this CAP thing doesn't mean one necessarily hates women and minorities anyway now, does it? Come on, MC. Don't you think that all it really does is raise questions about WHY these guys were members? If they were, but "can't recall" anything about it, doesn't that raise more questions about them? I don't know about you, but I believe it should.
I'm sure Kennedy probably couldn't personally find Alito's name in the CAP records, and you're right about him being unable to find much, probably including his own butt with a flashlight. But at least Kennedy asked Alito some tough questions... instead of gently verbally massaging him like the Republicans seemed to do. Did you listen to any of the hearings?
What a great strategy the GOP Senators used. If all you do is lavish glowing comments on your adored nominee, then by contrasting the other side's approach (i.e. asking tough questions) with your basic approach of sugary praise, it will make the opponents look vicious and ornery. The Republicans didn't ask him any tough questions... I think they know he will basically be something akin to a servant of their political ideology.
Alito may have actually ruled "pro choice" in his past, but I'm not looking at individual issues like abortion as much as I am at a composite picture of the man. I believe from what I have heard him say (or not say, when questioned) that it appears fairly obvious that he will end up approaching things from the right, as Scalia and Thomas do, and as Roberts probably will. That forms a solid bloc of four guys that are quite likely going to be solidly on the right in just about every issue.
Of course I know you have strong libertarian leanings, MC! Geez! Like I never noticed? Heehee! 8-)>
I have mixed opinions about the Cato Institute. The Cato folks don't care much for modern American liberalism, but at least at its site it says they are not in favor of foreign military adventurism, and I think that is a plus. I wouldn't say I agree with their idea of lower taxes, but the support of civil liberties is sure fine. Welfare? I'm not as skeptical about it as they may be, because for some Americans I think it is necessary (and that's just for some people, not big bunches of people, and also not for some corporations or occupations or industries). I disagree with them in their assertion that government planning is "too clumsy" for the modern world. They say "The simpler the society, the less damage government planning does". But is their way to make society more simple... to starve the beast of big government and subsequently getting rid of lots of government programs?
If the Federalist Society believes and trusts that "individual citizens can make the best choices for themselves and society" (from their website), then maybe they would not be opposed to Supreme Court positions being elected positions. I don't necessarily mind that the Federalist Society's members want to interpret the law as "what it is and not what it should be"; I love and respect the Constitution. I don't believe the Federalist Society views the Constitution as a living document, which I do. I believe the Bible ought to be a living document as well, but fundamentalists tend to disagree. I disagree with Constitutional fundamentalists. I don't want to change the Constitution, but I believe the document as it stands provides a basis for solutions to most issues, and that there is a bit of wiggle room in there for interpretation. This group also actively disses orthodox liberal ideology, so I'm obviously not in their camp. If Alito is a Federalist Society member in good standing, I'm obviously not in his camp either.
I would agree that him being a member of the Cato Institute would be preferable to the Federalist Society.
I think he is extremely bright in all matters legal, I have no doubt that he loves his fellow Americans, and that he loves his country. Looking at it from that angle, he might make a decent Supreme Court Justice. On the other hand, I also have little doubt about which side of the political spectrum he will call home. While I wouldn't want to see our country swing too far to the left, I would be much more concerned about it swinging too far to the right... and given a right-wing Supreme Court, I think it might be tough for our country to avoid swinging too far to the right.
I view the Constitution as a living document subject to interpretation to a degree. However, I also believe that words have meanings, and to do that which is in direct contradiction to the laws of the United States of America, the several states, and the Constitution of the United States of America which lays out the powers and the limits of the federal government's powers, and by later case law, the limits of the state and local governments; is not only a rejection of the ideals upon which our nation was founded, but a breach of the Constitution. The Federalist Society has both conservative and libertarian members, and in some ways, I respect them more than the Cato Institute because they stay the hell out of politics.
Finally, I'm in favor of nothing more than recall elections for positions in the federal, state, and local judiciary. I probably have a very different frame of reference than you on this issue, since I've seen what happens when judges actively campaign for their benches. You need look no further than search for the Roy Moore rants on my blog. If a judge is a renegade and shows a systematic disregard for the laws of the land, and is consistently overturned by higher courts, yet has not committed an impeachable offense, I believe a mechanism should be in place to remove him or her. Should a judge be removed in such a manner, I believe his or her replacement should be appointed with legislative review. I think the same could be accomplished by laying out specific terms, with the judges being eligible for renomination and reconfirmation at the end of their terms.
In closing, I do think that judges, once they join the bench on the Supreme Court, tend to surprise people. What I've read about Alito leads me to believe that any surprises will be good.
I hope Alito will be a pleasant surprise, since he will undoubtedly be confirmed. You obviously support the confirmation of Alito, and I obviously am highly skeptical of the man. Your arguments appear well-reasoned, but I don't trust that Alito's political leanings won't color his decisions.
Words certainly do have meanings, thus I believe it is up to people to interpret the meanings of the words. Not all interpretations will be the same as yours or mine or others. I believe that simply saying something is literally exactly what it says is fine in some cases, but maybe not all cases. Applying interpretations of those words to things that happen in our country make the words a living thing, a tool, a guide for us.
I haven't seen the Federalist Society active in politics in a widely publicized sense, but I do seem to recall them being active on college campuses, attempting to fight what they view as a takeover of colleges by liberals. I will have to look for references to that, as my memory isn't always too good. They just seem like an ultra-conservative outfit to me. Alito being a member doesn't necessarily mean he is an ultra-conservative, but I would say the chances of it are pretty high.
Recalls could be good, but I tend to be skeptical of what I see as a growing trend toward recall elections, particularly in the area where I live. In the NE corner of Oregon it has gotten so there are usually one or two recalls ongoing at any given time. These local-area recalls are all being done by Republicans and/or right wing "watchdog groups" whose candidates didn't win elections against other Republicans, or whose friends didn't get onto city councils or into mayorships through appointments. Don't like the appointees made by the guy in charge? Recall the guy, and/or his appointees. My skepticism arises from what I see as an abuse of the recall process where I live.
I can see your point. I was looking it from the standpoint of the problems my state's had, and you've had a very different, but troubling, problem. Gray was a mistake as California's governor, and he left behind a mess that a better man than Schwarzenegger would've had trouble cleaning up.
In that case, I suggest a renomination process every eight years or so with legislative review, or, after reviewing the judge's record, a simple up or down vote without hearings.
Excellent points. I totally agree about California... sheesh! Oregon's legistlature is totally polarized and hardly anything ever gets done there, but California? Aieeeee...!
Making these Supreme Court nominations less-than-lifetime does sound like a very good idea. I like your suggestion, about reviewing these folks every so often... and if your thinking is that hearings don't really accomplish much, I'd say sure, why bother having them!
Snave you rock! Excellent add-on to my post!
Post a Comment
<< Home