The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

So, When Ginsburg Retires. . .

Posted on | July 22, 2010 | 13 Comments

by Smitty (h/t The Corner)

Thanks to Lindsey Graham’s latest abdication of courage, the decay of the SCOTUS into a bowl of Progressive mush continues apace.
NRO points to an NYT article on the Christian Legal Society suit against Hastings Law School, and Justice Ginsburg’s argument, that is truly disquieting:

Part of the irony of this argument is that the majority in the CLS case propounds a theory of the (enumerated) right of religious liberty that looks a lot like a status/conduct distinction — the Christian organization is free to believe what it wants but cannot act on that belief by requiring organization members to adhere to its Christian beliefs.

From the NYT:

The decision in which the statement appeared, Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, considered whether a public law school could deny recognition to a student group that excluded gay men and lesbians. The majority decided the case on narrow grounds that barely acknowledged the clash between anti-discrimination principles and religious freedom.

The concern is that, by the time all of the Obama appointees become fully ensconced, they will be re-defining what ‘the meaning of is is’ in ways that defy common sense, the principles informing the US Constitution, and societal stability.

Lindsey Graham, your decisions suck on the surface, and would likely make you look an even greater fool if your real motives were laid bare. At least Arlen Specter had enough guts to be a plain turncoat.

By drawing a line in the sand at Elena Kagan, Americans could have possibly forced the Administration to nominate a suitable candidate. The departure of Ginsburg will now bring on yet another genius trying to sell apples as if they were oranges: ‘Just concentrate on feeling something about fruit.’

Category: Uncategorized

Comments

13 Responses to “So, When Ginsburg Retires. . .”

  1. jefferson101
    July 23rd, 2010 @ 1:24 am

    Lindsey Graham is a complete and total attention whore. His commitment to any principle goes just about as far as the publicity for it does.

    There are a whole lot of Democrats out there that I want to see defeated and sent home without a job.

    Lindsey Graham, OTOH? I would prefer to see him tarred and feathered before he’s sent home without a job. I’d say the same for his role model, who would be John McCain, but I honor JMac for his service to our Nation. Just send him home, Retired.

    Lindsey doesn’t deserve that much honor.

    I’ll bring the feathers, if you can get the tar. Or the other way around, as it suits.

    Flush him now, please. He’s starting to smell! Lindsey is a Yellow that one does not need to let mellow.

  2. jefferson101
    July 22nd, 2010 @ 9:24 pm

    Lindsey Graham is a complete and total attention whore. His commitment to any principle goes just about as far as the publicity for it does.

    There are a whole lot of Democrats out there that I want to see defeated and sent home without a job.

    Lindsey Graham, OTOH? I would prefer to see him tarred and feathered before he’s sent home without a job. I’d say the same for his role model, who would be John McCain, but I honor JMac for his service to our Nation. Just send him home, Retired.

    Lindsey doesn’t deserve that much honor.

    I’ll bring the feathers, if you can get the tar. Or the other way around, as it suits.

    Flush him now, please. He’s starting to smell! Lindsey is a Yellow that one does not need to let mellow.

  3. Rhymes With Right
    July 23rd, 2010 @ 4:56 am

    So, does this mean a public law school could tell homosexual students that their status as homosexuals is acceptable, but they are prohibited to engage in homosexual conduct on pain of expulsion? After all, religious liberty is enshrined in the Constitution explicitly, while the right to sodomy is not…

  4. Rhymes With Right
    July 23rd, 2010 @ 12:56 am

    So, does this mean a public law school could tell homosexual students that their status as homosexuals is acceptable, but they are prohibited to engage in homosexual conduct on pain of expulsion? After all, religious liberty is enshrined in the Constitution explicitly, while the right to sodomy is not…

  5. Estragon
    July 23rd, 2010 @ 5:05 am

    The idea that Graham somehow stopped us from drawing a line in the sand with Kagan is not supported by the evidence. We had nowhere near 60 votes – Brown at least would support his MA colleague, and the Maine sisters, how do you get to 60 besides in some fantasy?

    Again, it is pure speculation that even if Kagan were blocked, Obama would send up a more moderate choice. Where is the evidence for this? When has he EVER, once rebuked, backed down? He never backs down, he doubles down on his far-left agenda.

    If we successfully filibustered Kagan, he would follow form and send an even more radical nominee – and he has a couple dozen available – figuring there will be a limit to public tolerance of Republican filibustered, especially thanks to the media arm of the Democratic Party.

    So it is NOT correct to either ascribe to Graham’s actions – stupid as they may be – effects and powers which they do not have, or to overestimate his influence.

    I wonder . . . all these folks blasting Graham and calling for filibuster of Kagan, where were they during the Gang of 14 period when Democrats blocked great judges like Estrada for purely ideological reasons? Were you saying then, as I was, that judicial nominees deserved an up-or-down confirmation vote?

    Tell the truth! Even if you won’t publicly, deep inside your hypocrisy will eat at you, destroying your moral fiber, tainting your very soul until you are willing to support big-spending crooked politicians like J.D. Hayworth . . .

    Oops. Never mind.

  6. Estragon
    July 23rd, 2010 @ 1:05 am

    The idea that Graham somehow stopped us from drawing a line in the sand with Kagan is not supported by the evidence. We had nowhere near 60 votes – Brown at least would support his MA colleague, and the Maine sisters, how do you get to 60 besides in some fantasy?

    Again, it is pure speculation that even if Kagan were blocked, Obama would send up a more moderate choice. Where is the evidence for this? When has he EVER, once rebuked, backed down? He never backs down, he doubles down on his far-left agenda.

    If we successfully filibustered Kagan, he would follow form and send an even more radical nominee – and he has a couple dozen available – figuring there will be a limit to public tolerance of Republican filibustered, especially thanks to the media arm of the Democratic Party.

    So it is NOT correct to either ascribe to Graham’s actions – stupid as they may be – effects and powers which they do not have, or to overestimate his influence.

    I wonder . . . all these folks blasting Graham and calling for filibuster of Kagan, where were they during the Gang of 14 period when Democrats blocked great judges like Estrada for purely ideological reasons? Were you saying then, as I was, that judicial nominees deserved an up-or-down confirmation vote?

    Tell the truth! Even if you won’t publicly, deep inside your hypocrisy will eat at you, destroying your moral fiber, tainting your very soul until you are willing to support big-spending crooked politicians like J.D. Hayworth . . .

    Oops. Never mind.

  7. Estragon
    July 23rd, 2010 @ 5:25 am

    For the record, I don’t like Graham either, didn’t vote for him in ’08 (although I didn’t vote for the Democrat either), and have had several heated exchanges with him over the years, beginning with the Gang of 14. He’s a self-important, bloated jackass – but he is no RINO. His lifetime ACU rating is 89. He just chooses high-profile issues to go off the reservation, a result of his eight years serving as McCain’s valet in the Senate.

  8. Estragon
    July 23rd, 2010 @ 1:25 am

    For the record, I don’t like Graham either, didn’t vote for him in ’08 (although I didn’t vote for the Democrat either), and have had several heated exchanges with him over the years, beginning with the Gang of 14. He’s a self-important, bloated jackass – but he is no RINO. His lifetime ACU rating is 89. He just chooses high-profile issues to go off the reservation, a result of his eight years serving as McCain’s valet in the Senate.

  9. Joe
    July 23rd, 2010 @ 5:34 am

    I am all for blocking Kagan if you are going to hold the line for blocking the next candidate (because I assure you the Dems will never replace a Bork with a Kennedy). But if you do not have the stones for that, then you might as well give in on Kagan.

  10. Joe
    July 23rd, 2010 @ 1:34 am

    I am all for blocking Kagan if you are going to hold the line for blocking the next candidate (because I assure you the Dems will never replace a Bork with a Kennedy). But if you do not have the stones for that, then you might as well give in on Kagan.

  11. Christians to Hang, Beat, Burn Lindsey in Effigy | The Pink Flamingo
    July 23rd, 2010 @ 8:33 am

    […] Why do Libertarians losertarians hate Lindsey Graham?  Is it because he has Ron Paul’s number?  We all know the white supremacist bunch hates him. […]

  12. Adobe Walls
    July 23rd, 2010 @ 5:09 pm

    Principals.

  13. Adobe Walls
    July 23rd, 2010 @ 1:09 pm

    Principals.