The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
Why Roy Moore Matters
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Why would Christian conservatives in good conscience go to the polls Dec. 12 and vote for Judge Roy Moore, despite the charges of sexual misconduct with teenagers leveled against him?

Answer: That Alabama Senate race could determine whether Roe v. Wade is overturned. The lives of millions of unborn may be the stakes.

Republicans now hold 52 Senate seats. If Democrats pick up the Alabama seat, they need only two more to recapture the Senate, and with it the power to kill any conservative court nominee, as they killed Robert Bork.

Today, the GOP, holding Congress and the White House, has a narrow path to capture the Third Branch, the Supreme Court, and to dominate the federal courts for a decade. For this historic opportunity, the party can thank two senators, one retired, the other still sitting.

The first is former Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

In 2013, Harry exercised the “nuclear option,” abolishing the filibuster for President Obama’s judicial nominees. The Senate no longer needed 60 votes to confirm judges. Fifty-one Senate votes could cut off debate, and confirm.

Iowa’s Chuck Grassley warned Harry against stripping the minority of its filibuster power. Such a move may come back to bite you, he told Harry. Grassley is now judiciary committee chairman.

And this year a GOP Senate voted to use the nuclear option to shut down a filibuster of Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, who was then confirmed with 55 votes.

Yet the Democratic minority still had one card to play to block President Trump’s nominees — the “blue slip courtesy.”

If a senator from the state where a federal judicial nominee resides asks for a hold on proceedings, by not returning a blue slip, the judiciary committee has traditionally honored that request and not held hearings.

Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota used the blue slip to block the Trump nomination of David Stras of Minnesota to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Franken calls Stras too ideological, too conservative.

But Grassley has now decided to reject the blue slip courtesy for appellate court judges, since their jurisdiction is not just over a single state like Minnesota, but over an entire region.

Thus have the skids been greased for a conservative recapture of the federal judiciary unseen since the early days of FDR.

Eighteen of the 179 seats on the U.S. appellate courts and 119 of the 677 seats on federal district courts are already open. More will be opening up. No president in decades has seen the opportunity Trump has to remake the federal judiciary.

Not only are the federal court vacancies almost unprecedented, a GOP Senate and Trump are working in harness to fill them before January 2019, when a new Congress is sworn in.

If Republicans blow this opportunity, it is unlikely to come again. For the Supreme Court has seemed within Republican grasp before, only to have it slip away because of presidential errors.

ORDER IT NOW

Nixon had four nominees to the Supreme Court confirmed and Gerald Ford saw his nominee, John Paul Stevens, unanimously confirmed. But of those five justices confirmed from 1969 to 1976, Stevens and Harry Blackmun joined the liberal bloc, and Chief Justice Warren Burger and Lewis Powell voted for Roe v. Wade.

Of Reagan’s three Supreme Court nominees confirmed, Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy cast crucial votes in 5-4 decisions to defeat the strict constructionists led by Antonin Scalia.

George H.W. Bush named Clarence Thomas to the court, but only after he had elevated David Souter, who also joined the liberal bloc.

Hence, both Trump, by whom he nominates, and a Republican Senate, with its power to confirm with 51 votes, are indispensable if we are to end judicial dictatorship in America.

And 2018 is the crucial year.

While Democrats, with 25 Senate seats at risk, would seem to be facing more certain losses than the GOP, with one-third as many seats at stake, history teaches that the first off-year election of Trump could prove a disaster.

Consider. Though Ike ended the Korean War in his first year, he lost both Houses of Congress in his second. Reagan enacted one of the great tax cuts in history in his first year, and then lost 26 seats in the House in his second.

Bill Clinton lost control of both the House and Senate in his first off-year election. Barack Obama in 2010 lost six Senate seats and 54 seats and control of the House. And both presidents were more popular than Trump is today.

If the election in Virginia this year is a harbinger of what is to come, GOP control of Congress could be washed away in a tidal wave in 2018.

Hence, this coming year may be a do-or-die year to recapture the Third Branch of Government for conservatism.

Which is why that Dec. 12 election in Alabama counts.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Copyright 2017 Creators.com.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Republicans, Roy Moore 
Hide 52 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. I too hope Alabama voters elect Roy Moore, but it’s mostly to put a thumb in the eye of the Republican Establishment and Conservatism, Inc. Pat’s comments about the federal judiciary are not without their weight, but hoping that a judiciary filled with strict constructionists is going to save us from being demographically overwhelmed is simply grasping at straws. If politics is downstream from culture, then the judiciary is downstream from politics.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    I too hope Alabama voters elect Roy Moore, but it’s mostly to put a thumb in the eye of the Republican Establishment and Conservatism, Inc.
     
    That's a perfectly good reason to support him (and as a bonus his election would be a perfectly good thumb in the eye of the pc leftist establishment as well).


    Pat’s comments about the federal judiciary are not without their weight, but hoping that a judiciary filled with strict constructionists is going to save us from being demographically overwhelmed is simply grasping at straws. If politics is downstream from culture, then the judiciary is downstream from politics.
     
    Pat's point, I suppose, is that electing Moore might help avoid a ten year delay by the left of the cultural uprising that gave rise to the political revolt that was the election of Trump making the necessary and appropriate downstream changes to the judiciary.

    And the judiciary does appear to be one major and grossly unconstitutional plank of the leftist opposition to Trump at the moment.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /pbuchanan/why-roy-moore-matters/#comment-2096044
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Brabantian says: • Website

    Pat Buchanan’s article avoids discussing the elephant in the room, that one of the greatest problems in the USA, is the un-democratic fact of how much political and thus arbitrary power resides in the hands of its 865 appointed-for-life federal (national) and supreme court judges

    This is an extremely oligarchic system, with the judges groomed by the USA’s corrupt, bribery-enmeshed law firms, to the point that USA lawyers apparently openly walk around laughing, as quoted in European court filings, ‘Bribed American judges, motherf-cker! What the f-ck are you gonna do about it?’

    We also have the fact that US federal judges seem to turn up dead when they rule against the oligarchy. On 8 Jan 2011 in Arizona, Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was wounded in a street assassination, but media barely mentioned that US Federal Judge John Roll was shot dead at the scene … shortly after Judge Roll had ruled against Obama

    Also, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ruled against Obama on the global warming scam … he ordered a stay of Obama’s orders on Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines … then he was found dead with a pillow over his face 13 February 2016 …’natural causes’ declared hurriedly over phone without examining the judge’s body, no autopsy of course … another phrase from European court filings re USA law firms and judges, ‘Same thing’s gonna happen to you, motherf-cker!’

    One of the many proofs that Julian Assange and ‘Edward Snowden’ are both CIA frauds, is that both of them have extensive files on USA federal judge bribery in Virginia, in fact regarding the same Virginia federal judges who would allegedly put Assange & Snowden ‘on trial’ there … yet Wikileaks, Snowden, Greenwald etc., all refuse to discuss these files, even though they would clearly make the extradition of Assange & Snowden impossible, given the proof of politically-related bribery of the judges … but like good little CIA assets, they don’t dare ‘leak’ about US federal judge corruption, Assange and Snowden strangely unconcerned about their own legal ‘defence’

    Read More
    • Agree: Hank Rearden
    • Replies: @Hank Rearden
    Yours is a good summary of the mess the judiciary branch has become. I would assume Mr. Buchanan is aware of the corruption, but concentrated on immediate solutions, like getting Judge Moore elected. Then we can work on long term solutions.
    , @Corvinus
    Buchanan is being hypocritical here. He has complained about liberals "legislating from the bench", then has the gall to say let us end "judicial dictatorship" by working to dominate federal courts for a generation. Then, he calls on Christian conservatives who have been at full throat regarding the moral cesspool known as Hollywood and their sex scandals, yet pleads with them to legitimate claims lobbed at Moore's own conduct. It's just as bad as Hannity, who a month ago had Newt Gringich on his program, and they were both talking about how people must stand up to sexual harassment in the workplace and to the cheating of spouses. Not that Newt or the departed Bill O'Reilly would be involved in such salacious activities. But as Hannity stated "Many women who report sexual harassment 'will lie to make money.'"

    " how much political and thus arbitrary power resides in the hands of its 865 appointed-for-life federal (national) and supreme court judges."

    It's not arbitrary. Congress created the court system with the intention to review laws and executive decisions. Hence, checks and balances.

    "We also have the fact that US federal judges seem to turn up dead when they rule against the oligarchy."

    No, we have conspiracy theories.
    , @Grandpa Charlie

    "On 8 Jan 2011 in Arizona, CongresSCswoman Gabby Giffords was wounded in a street assassination, but media barely mentioned that US Federal Judge John Roll was shot dead at the scene" -- Brabantian
     
    Yes, Brabantian, the assassination of Judge Roll was quite likely the primary objective of the shooting, the facts of which have been largely covered up. Judge Roll had a beautiful and unblemished record, so he could well have been SC material ... but because he was an honest and uncompromising judge, he was a threat to the PTB.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. KenH says:

    Notice how conservatives say we must capture the federal judiciary and SCOTUS not to finally put an end to the lunacy and unconstitutionality of birthright citizenship for illegal aliens, but to strike down Roe vs. Wade which would likely increase black and Latino birthrates and compound the demographic crisis facing whites in America. So called conservatives have always suffered from misplaced priorities which will probably lead them to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again.

    Read More
    • Agree: Kevin C.
    • Replies: @expeedee
    Couldn't agree more.
    , @map
    Sorry...you think you pulled a fast one on the left with Roe v. Wade?

    Sorry...you didn't.

    The Democrats will always help black people have as many children as they want.
    , @Thirdeye
    Excellent point. For all the excesses of the liberal judiciary, Roe V. Wade doesn't register for me. But then I'm not someone who, like Buchanan and Moore, believes that a man in the sky plants a human soul into cells the moment they start dividing.

    Moore is a creep and a jackass, but the shitlord in me wouldn't mind seeing Moore elected in the teeth of the current liberal witchhunt over mostly trivial matters of public expression of sexuality.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. “whether Roe v. Wade is overturned. The lives of millions of unborn may be the stakes.” says Pat

    I have never found focus on Roe v. Wade to make sense. The decision did set a standard (concerning trimesters and all that) but only pending the states stepping up to the plate to establish standards state by state.

    The core of Roe v. Wade said that there is a constitutional ‘right’ that demands that government interference in the private lives of citizens must be limited. The decision is in the spirit of the tradition establishing rights by by putting limits to legislative power — as in “Congress shall make no law … ” and so forth. Roe v. Wade was (and is, so far) a decision to limit the power of government.

    Now Pat may make this, that or the other argument about that there is no right to privacy, “strict constructionism” and the correct reading of the Constitution, but … Nonetheless, the effect of judicial repeal of Roe v. Wade will be to say that Yes, the government CAN interfere in the private lives of citizens without limit respecting citizens reproducing. That means, if you think about it, that the government can decide to institute a one-child policy … and that will be upheld by the Court as constitutional. Call me a libertarian but is that what we want?

    Talk about setting a precedent that “may come back to bite you”!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Nonetheless, the effect of judicial repeal of Roe v. Wade will be to say that Yes, the government CAN interfere in the private lives of citizens without limit respecting citizens reproducing. That means, if you think about it, that the government can decide to institute a one-child policy … and that will be upheld by the Court as constitutional. Call me a libertarian but is that what we want?
     
    My understanding is that the basis for Catholic (and other) opposition to abortion is nothing to do with any constitutional issues, but rather the fundamental moral position that personhood begins at conception, and hence once you have a pregnancy you have two people to consider rather than, as the feminists would like to have it, only one person.

    On that basis, there's no reason to suppose that overturning Roe v Wade (on the basis that it wrongfully legalises the murder of unborn children) creates any precedent whatsoever for other interference in private lives, least of all a one child policy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. I call the GOP the Stupid Party, but after hearing their protestations over Moore and their rather deafening silence over Frankenstein and Conyers, I’m starting to think they actually long for the days of being the Country-Club-Always-in-the-Minority Party so they can go back to having fun at taxpayer expense while the Democrats run the show.

    OTOH, the Dems have run the show for my entire lifetime, whether they had the official majority or not, so I’m starting to wonder if I should stop caring too and simply head for the clubhouse myself.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. @Brabantian
    Pat Buchanan's article avoids discussing the elephant in the room, that one of the greatest problems in the USA, is the un-democratic fact of how much political and thus arbitrary power resides in the hands of its 865 appointed-for-life federal (national) and supreme court judges

    This is an extremely oligarchic system, with the judges groomed by the USA's corrupt, bribery-enmeshed law firms, to the point that USA lawyers apparently openly walk around laughing, as quoted in European court filings, 'Bribed American judges, motherf-cker! What the f-ck are you gonna do about it?'

    We also have the fact that US federal judges seem to turn up dead when they rule against the oligarchy. On 8 Jan 2011 in Arizona, Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was wounded in a street assassination, but media barely mentioned that US Federal Judge John Roll was shot dead at the scene ... shortly after Judge Roll had ruled against Obama

    Also, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ruled against Obama on the global warming scam ... he ordered a stay of Obama's orders on Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines ... then he was found dead with a pillow over his face 13 February 2016 ...'natural causes' declared hurriedly over phone without examining the judge's body, no autopsy of course ... another phrase from European court filings re USA law firms and judges, 'Same thing's gonna happen to you, motherf-cker!'

    One of the many proofs that Julian Assange and 'Edward Snowden' are both CIA frauds, is that both of them have extensive files on USA federal judge bribery in Virginia, in fact regarding the same Virginia federal judges who would allegedly put Assange & Snowden 'on trial' there ... yet Wikileaks, Snowden, Greenwald etc., all refuse to discuss these files, even though they would clearly make the extradition of Assange & Snowden impossible, given the proof of politically-related bribery of the judges ... but like good little CIA assets, they don't dare 'leak' about US federal judge corruption, Assange and Snowden strangely unconcerned about their own legal 'defence'

    Yours is a good summary of the mess the judiciary branch has become. I would assume Mr. Buchanan is aware of the corruption, but concentrated on immediate solutions, like getting Judge Moore elected. Then we can work on long term solutions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Corvinus says:
    @Brabantian
    Pat Buchanan's article avoids discussing the elephant in the room, that one of the greatest problems in the USA, is the un-democratic fact of how much political and thus arbitrary power resides in the hands of its 865 appointed-for-life federal (national) and supreme court judges

    This is an extremely oligarchic system, with the judges groomed by the USA's corrupt, bribery-enmeshed law firms, to the point that USA lawyers apparently openly walk around laughing, as quoted in European court filings, 'Bribed American judges, motherf-cker! What the f-ck are you gonna do about it?'

    We also have the fact that US federal judges seem to turn up dead when they rule against the oligarchy. On 8 Jan 2011 in Arizona, Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was wounded in a street assassination, but media barely mentioned that US Federal Judge John Roll was shot dead at the scene ... shortly after Judge Roll had ruled against Obama

    Also, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ruled against Obama on the global warming scam ... he ordered a stay of Obama's orders on Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines ... then he was found dead with a pillow over his face 13 February 2016 ...'natural causes' declared hurriedly over phone without examining the judge's body, no autopsy of course ... another phrase from European court filings re USA law firms and judges, 'Same thing's gonna happen to you, motherf-cker!'

    One of the many proofs that Julian Assange and 'Edward Snowden' are both CIA frauds, is that both of them have extensive files on USA federal judge bribery in Virginia, in fact regarding the same Virginia federal judges who would allegedly put Assange & Snowden 'on trial' there ... yet Wikileaks, Snowden, Greenwald etc., all refuse to discuss these files, even though they would clearly make the extradition of Assange & Snowden impossible, given the proof of politically-related bribery of the judges ... but like good little CIA assets, they don't dare 'leak' about US federal judge corruption, Assange and Snowden strangely unconcerned about their own legal 'defence'

    Buchanan is being hypocritical here. He has complained about liberals “legislating from the bench”, then has the gall to say let us end “judicial dictatorship” by working to dominate federal courts for a generation. Then, he calls on Christian conservatives who have been at full throat regarding the moral cesspool known as Hollywood and their sex scandals, yet pleads with them to legitimate claims lobbed at Moore’s own conduct. It’s just as bad as Hannity, who a month ago had Newt Gringich on his program, and they were both talking about how people must stand up to sexual harassment in the workplace and to the cheating of spouses. Not that Newt or the departed Bill O’Reilly would be involved in such salacious activities. But as Hannity stated “Many women who report sexual harassment ‘will lie to make money.’”

    ” how much political and thus arbitrary power resides in the hands of its 865 appointed-for-life federal (national) and supreme court judges.”

    It’s not arbitrary. Congress created the court system with the intention to review laws and executive decisions. Hence, checks and balances.

    “We also have the fact that US federal judges seem to turn up dead when they rule against the oligarchy.”

    No, we have conspiracy theories.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Moore is much better than his pro-homosexual opponent who supports LGBT education for little kids.

    End of story.
    , @Grandpa Charlie

    "Congress created the court system with the intention to review laws and executive decisions." -- Corvinus
     
    Nor really, Art. III of the Constitution created the Court to review "cases and controversies" (Art. III, Section 2, Clause 1) -- where the latter specifically included controversies between two or more states. Art. III limits federal judicial power, should not be thought to authorize expansion of federal judicial power.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Randal says:
    @Grandpa Charlie

    "whether Roe v. Wade is overturned. The lives of millions of unborn may be the stakes." says Pat
     
    I have never found focus on Roe v. Wade to make sense. The decision did set a standard (concerning trimesters and all that) but only pending the states stepping up to the plate to establish standards state by state.

    The core of Roe v. Wade said that there is a constitutional 'right' that demands that government interference in the private lives of citizens must be limited. The decision is in the spirit of the tradition establishing rights by by putting limits to legislative power -- as in "Congress shall make no law ... " and so forth. Roe v. Wade was (and is, so far) a decision to limit the power of government.

    Now Pat may make this, that or the other argument about that there is no right to privacy, "strict constructionism" and the correct reading of the Constitution, but ... Nonetheless, the effect of judicial repeal of Roe v. Wade will be to say that Yes, the government CAN interfere in the private lives of citizens without limit respecting citizens reproducing. That means, if you think about it, that the government can decide to institute a one-child policy ... and that will be upheld by the Court as constitutional. Call me a libertarian but is that what we want?

    Talk about setting a precedent that "may come back to bite you"!

    Nonetheless, the effect of judicial repeal of Roe v. Wade will be to say that Yes, the government CAN interfere in the private lives of citizens without limit respecting citizens reproducing. That means, if you think about it, that the government can decide to institute a one-child policy … and that will be upheld by the Court as constitutional. Call me a libertarian but is that what we want?

    My understanding is that the basis for Catholic (and other) opposition to abortion is nothing to do with any constitutional issues, but rather the fundamental moral position that personhood begins at conception, and hence once you have a pregnancy you have two people to consider rather than, as the feminists would like to have it, only one person.

    On that basis, there’s no reason to suppose that overturning Roe v Wade (on the basis that it wrongfully legalises the murder of unborn children) creates any precedent whatsoever for other interference in private lives, least of all a one child policy.

    Read More
    • Agree: lavoisier
    • Replies: @Grandpa Charlie

    "there’s no reason to suppose that overturning Roe v Wade (on the basis that it wrongfully legalises the murder of unborn children) creates any precedent whatsoever for other interference in private lives," -- Randal
     
    Nonsense, Randal. Nonsense! A judicial precedent (especially at the SCOTUS level) does not carry any or all the arguments made in the majority opinion with it! If you would think about it, you are suggesting a kind of judicial activism that not even the most rabid of activists would openly support. In effect, your theory of judicial review would elevate the power of the Court to allow it to legislate and even place it totally above any legislation by the legislative branch -- because what you propose is that majority opinions would have the force of law!

    It seems that Pat might even agree with you, should the take-over of the Court by activist radical reactionaries become complete. (Pat Buchanan has always been a cynically unprincipled political opportunist!) But that hardly justifies your idea of how judicial review works under the Constitution. Although you attempt to portray your idea as harmless, you are actually proposing the final and complete overthrow of government under the Constitution.

    And again, Randal, if you have your way, that would surely come around to bite you in the end!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. bjondo says:

    moore wins. minimum 68%.
    senator moore.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Judge Moore’s opponent is known for supporting the crazy LGBTQXYZ agenda.

    That agenda aims to convert as many children as possible to becoming homosexuals or bisexuals as adults.

    This is true. It is being taught in schools.

    That is worse than anything Moore has done or could do.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Corvinus
    Buchanan is being hypocritical here. He has complained about liberals "legislating from the bench", then has the gall to say let us end "judicial dictatorship" by working to dominate federal courts for a generation. Then, he calls on Christian conservatives who have been at full throat regarding the moral cesspool known as Hollywood and their sex scandals, yet pleads with them to legitimate claims lobbed at Moore's own conduct. It's just as bad as Hannity, who a month ago had Newt Gringich on his program, and they were both talking about how people must stand up to sexual harassment in the workplace and to the cheating of spouses. Not that Newt or the departed Bill O'Reilly would be involved in such salacious activities. But as Hannity stated "Many women who report sexual harassment 'will lie to make money.'"

    " how much political and thus arbitrary power resides in the hands of its 865 appointed-for-life federal (national) and supreme court judges."

    It's not arbitrary. Congress created the court system with the intention to review laws and executive decisions. Hence, checks and balances.

    "We also have the fact that US federal judges seem to turn up dead when they rule against the oligarchy."

    No, we have conspiracy theories.

    Moore is much better than his pro-homosexual opponent who supports LGBT education for little kids.

    End of story.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Randal says:
    @Diversity Heretic
    I too hope Alabama voters elect Roy Moore, but it's mostly to put a thumb in the eye of the Republican Establishment and Conservatism, Inc. Pat's comments about the federal judiciary are not without their weight, but hoping that a judiciary filled with strict constructionists is going to save us from being demographically overwhelmed is simply grasping at straws. If politics is downstream from culture, then the judiciary is downstream from politics.

    I too hope Alabama voters elect Roy Moore, but it’s mostly to put a thumb in the eye of the Republican Establishment and Conservatism, Inc.

    That’s a perfectly good reason to support him (and as a bonus his election would be a perfectly good thumb in the eye of the pc leftist establishment as well).

    Pat’s comments about the federal judiciary are not without their weight, but hoping that a judiciary filled with strict constructionists is going to save us from being demographically overwhelmed is simply grasping at straws. If politics is downstream from culture, then the judiciary is downstream from politics.

    Pat’s point, I suppose, is that electing Moore might help avoid a ten year delay by the left of the cultural uprising that gave rise to the political revolt that was the election of Trump making the necessary and appropriate downstream changes to the judiciary.

    And the judiciary does appear to be one major and grossly unconstitutional plank of the leftist opposition to Trump at the moment.

    Read More
    • Agree: Rurik
    • Replies: @Grandpa Charlie

    "as a bonus [Moore's] election would be a perfectly good thumb in the eye of the pc leftist establishment" -- Randal
     
    You don't get it, do you, Randal? The problem is that of unintended consequences. You and Pat go so easily from Moore's election to take-over of the SCOTUS and from there to the overthrow of the system of separation of powers (balance of powers). You intend to stick a "perfectly good thumb in the eye of the pc leftist establishment," but the lasting effect likely would be a thumb in the eye of constitutional government itself -- not the effect of Moore's election but the effect of a take-over of the Court by radical judicial activists, that Pat says would result from that election.

    Thumb in the eye of the pc leftist establishment, that's good, but you and Pat are trying to pump it up into some kind of cultural war to further divide the country, and you don't seem to care about long-term damages resulting from that war. I don't live in Alabama, but I do live in this country. I'm talking about USA, where I was born, as were my father, grandfather, and so on. I am opposed to any scheme to destroy what is left of my country and the Constitution for the sake of any crackpot ideology, including yours or Pat's.

    My impression is that Moore's election has to do with the populist movement, the national question and immigration -- not about take-over of the Court for the sake of overturning a particular precedent -- if it is some kind of evil precedent, which I sincerely doubt.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. @Randal

    Nonetheless, the effect of judicial repeal of Roe v. Wade will be to say that Yes, the government CAN interfere in the private lives of citizens without limit respecting citizens reproducing. That means, if you think about it, that the government can decide to institute a one-child policy … and that will be upheld by the Court as constitutional. Call me a libertarian but is that what we want?
     
    My understanding is that the basis for Catholic (and other) opposition to abortion is nothing to do with any constitutional issues, but rather the fundamental moral position that personhood begins at conception, and hence once you have a pregnancy you have two people to consider rather than, as the feminists would like to have it, only one person.

    On that basis, there's no reason to suppose that overturning Roe v Wade (on the basis that it wrongfully legalises the murder of unborn children) creates any precedent whatsoever for other interference in private lives, least of all a one child policy.

    “there’s no reason to suppose that overturning Roe v Wade (on the basis that it wrongfully legalises the murder of unborn children) creates any precedent whatsoever for other interference in private lives,” — Randal

    Nonsense, Randal. Nonsense! A judicial precedent (especially at the SCOTUS level) does not carry any or all the arguments made in the majority opinion with it! If you would think about it, you are suggesting a kind of judicial activism that not even the most rabid of activists would openly support. In effect, your theory of judicial review would elevate the power of the Court to allow it to legislate and even place it totally above any legislation by the legislative branch — because what you propose is that majority opinions would have the force of law!

    It seems that Pat might even agree with you, should the take-over of the Court by activist radical reactionaries become complete. (Pat Buchanan has always been a cynically unprincipled political opportunist!) But that hardly justifies your idea of how judicial review works under the Constitution. Although you attempt to portray your idea as harmless, you are actually proposing the final and complete overthrow of government under the Constitution.

    And again, Randal, if you have your way, that would surely come around to bite you in the end!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Randal says:

    Nonsense, Randal. Nonsense! A judicial precedent (especially at the SCOTUS level) does not carry any or all the arguments made in the majority opinion with it!

    Nonsense, yourself!

    An SC overturning of Roe v Wade on the grounds that (contrary to the explicit decision of that court) a human being counts as a person from conception would in no way serve as a precedent to justify any further interference in private business other than in cases involving foetuses. It would, however, presumably result in a nationwide ban on abortion (assuming, contra the self-serving demands of feminists, it were to be accepted that the right to life of the foetus must outweigh any privacy or other issues for the woman who (in the vast majority of cases) had chosen to have sex in the first place, short of an actual imminent threat to her own life).

    It seems that Pat might even agree with you, should the take-over of the Court by activist radical reactionaries become complete. (Pat Buchanan has always been a cynically unprincipled political opportunist!) But that hardly justifies your idea of how judicial review works under the Constitution. Although you attempt to portray your idea as harmless, you are actually proposing the final and complete overthrow of government under the Constitution.

    This is hysterical nonsense, of course. It would be no more and no less “judicial activism” than was the original case. One primary purpose of the judiciary is precisely to decide such issues. It was a bunch of leftist judges motivated by feminist political dogma that decided in the first place that the only issue of importance must be a woman’s “right to privacy”.

    And again, Randal, if you have your way, that would surely come around to bite you in the end!

    I’m genuinely in two minds on the issue. My inclination towards moral absolutism tempts me to respect the idea that conception is the only really viable point for the initiation of personhood, while I have to accept that it would cause some hardship for some women, not all of whom were necessarily responsible for their own situation. Meanwhile, my practical political sense is that it’s not a fight that could be won, and also that contrary to some expectations the easy availability of abortion is probably eugenic in its effects rather than dysgenic.

    I can respect the validity of some of each side’s arguments, but I certainly don’t like the feminist and leftist dogmas often used to justify abortion on demand.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Whatever happened to respect for the autonomy of States and localities under the Tenth Amendment? Which clause in the US Constitution purports to authorize the federal government to legislate, regulate, or in any way interfere with the States' laws regarding abortion?

    Abortion, marriage laws, healthcare insurance laws, seat-belt requirements, speed limits, etc., should all be left to the people of each of the fifty States to decide for their own State, and not for the rest of us.

    Neither a "pro-life" law imposed from Washington nor a "pro-choice" regime imposed from Washington, is constitutional.
    , @Grandpa Charlie

    "would in no way serve as a precedent to justify any further interference in private business other than in cases involving foetuses." -- Randal
     
    If the precedent is reversed, there will be no precedent to be cited by future courts -- on the contrary, the precedent will be established that no one who wishes to object to a one-child policy could possibly cite to the precedent, because that would be proscribed by the reversal of Roe v. Wade. They might make some other argument -- but they would have a hard time bringing back the reasoning of "the Roe Court."

    If you want the law of the land to be that a foetus is a human being, then I suggest you need to promote an amendment to the Constitution. Any other approach is not only to allow judicial activism (or further weakening of Amend. X) but to demand such! Be careful what you wish for -- unintended consequences!

    I do see merit in your argument that the original decision (Roe v. Wade) was judicial activism, and look what the result was! We could also cite Brown v. Board in that regard. However, two or even three wrongs do not make a right. But to form a movement around Roe v. Wade and attempt to dictate to the Court through partisan Senate hearings on appointments will only make matters worse. Congress needs to step up and establish limits for the Court, as has been authorized (for Congress) by Art. III itself. Indeed, Congress needs to step up in general to restore some semblance of constitutional government, particularly regarding Amendments IX and X (and Amends. V and VI)

    What interests you is anything that will, you suppose, sneak your radical "pro-life" theories and agenda into the law, doing so by way of circumventing the Constitution -- not to mention avoiding democratic process and procedure. The truth is that your problem is the 19th Amendment. Alright, then organize, not around court appointments as a back door to Roe v. Wade but around amending the Constitution. And I suspect that you might want to begin by striking the Establishment Clause.

    Oh, I'm sorry. Did I forget that the means justifies the end? That's your absolutist morality that you seek to impose on all of us .... for our own good, of course!

    Go ahead: call me a libertarian.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. @Randal

    I too hope Alabama voters elect Roy Moore, but it’s mostly to put a thumb in the eye of the Republican Establishment and Conservatism, Inc.
     
    That's a perfectly good reason to support him (and as a bonus his election would be a perfectly good thumb in the eye of the pc leftist establishment as well).


    Pat’s comments about the federal judiciary are not without their weight, but hoping that a judiciary filled with strict constructionists is going to save us from being demographically overwhelmed is simply grasping at straws. If politics is downstream from culture, then the judiciary is downstream from politics.
     
    Pat's point, I suppose, is that electing Moore might help avoid a ten year delay by the left of the cultural uprising that gave rise to the political revolt that was the election of Trump making the necessary and appropriate downstream changes to the judiciary.

    And the judiciary does appear to be one major and grossly unconstitutional plank of the leftist opposition to Trump at the moment.

    “as a bonus [Moore's] election would be a perfectly good thumb in the eye of the pc leftist establishment” — Randal

    You don’t get it, do you, Randal? The problem is that of unintended consequences. You and Pat go so easily from Moore’s election to take-over of the SCOTUS and from there to the overthrow of the system of separation of powers (balance of powers). You intend to stick a “perfectly good thumb in the eye of the pc leftist establishment,” but the lasting effect likely would be a thumb in the eye of constitutional government itself — not the effect of Moore’s election but the effect of a take-over of the Court by radical judicial activists, that Pat says would result from that election.

    Thumb in the eye of the pc leftist establishment, that’s good, but you and Pat are trying to pump it up into some kind of cultural war to further divide the country, and you don’t seem to care about long-term damages resulting from that war. I don’t live in Alabama, but I do live in this country. I’m talking about USA, where I was born, as were my father, grandfather, and so on. I am opposed to any scheme to destroy what is left of my country and the Constitution for the sake of any crackpot ideology, including yours or Pat’s.

    My impression is that Moore’s election has to do with the populist movement, the national question and immigration — not about take-over of the Court for the sake of overturning a particular precedent — if it is some kind of evil precedent, which I sincerely doubt.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    The problem is that of unintended consequences. You and Pat go so easily from Moore’s election to take-over of the SCOTUS and from there to the overthrow of the system of separation of powers (balance of powers).
     
    No, I don't (and neither does Buchanan, who, I'll venture, knows a lot more about this than you or I do).

    You intend to stick a “perfectly good thumb in the eye of the pc leftist establishment,” but the lasting effect likely would be a thumb in the eye of constitutional government itself — not the effect of Moore’s election but the effect of a take-over of the Court by radical judicial activists, that Pat says would result from that election.
     
    In addition to fantasising about issues for the separation of powers which simply don't exist, you conflate two separate issues in my separate comments above. The election of Moore, should it occur, will be a thumb in the eye for the establishment leftists (both Republican and Democrat), but it's unlikely to by itself result in a rebalancing of the courts away from their current leftist activist dominance. It is merely a necessary precondition for any such rebalancing to occur - there would be an awful lot of political jiggery pokery to go before such a return to sanity could be achieved. Not least, the serious question of whether Trump himself would actually want to do it or really care about the issues involved.

    you and Pat are trying to pump it up into some kind of cultural war to further divide the country
     
    You either don't understand that your country is already in the midst of a cultural war which the non-leftist, non-radical and non-anti-white racist side is losing comprehensively, as it has been for decades now, or you are on the wrong side of that war. Hence things like abortion on demand, the normalisation of homosexual behaviour, gay "marriage" and the active criminalisation of opposition to it, ongoing mass immigration and the active demonization (and probably soon outright criminalisation) of opposition to it and of dissent from pc antiracism and all the other isms, the ongoing undermining of the family and of masculinity etc.

    My impression is that Moore’s election has to do with the populist movement, the national question and immigration — not about take-over of the Court for the sake of overturning a particular precedent — if it is some kind of evil precedent, which I sincerely doubt.
     
    Yes, I'm sure this is correct (see my point above about the likely political impracticability of overturning Roe v Wade). Pat sees Roe v Wade as an important issue in the culture war, but it's not one that is currently a priority for the majority of Americans as far as I can tell. In reality, the return of the judiciary to sanity is desperately needed to prevent leftist activism obstructing the will of the electorate on more important issues, such as mass immigration, as it has been doing recently. Overturning Roe v Wade (which would likely not be on such an apocalyptically absolute terms as I described above anyway) would be a mere side effect in reality. And more likely the decision would be framed in terms that would throw the matter into the hands of individual states.

    My point was merely that your response to the very notion that the feminists on the Supreme Court in 1973 might have been wrong was incorrect as a matter of fact, in that it is not the case that overturning that particular decision would have grave wider consequences for privacy, still less that it would "destroy ... the Constitution".

    I suspect that a finding of the kind I hypothesised might well lead to secession by several states and the end of the US, because leftists and feminists are generally unable to bear the idea that they might have to actually abide by the rules of the game, but that's another matter, and relates to the political impracticability I mentioned previously.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. @Randal

    Nonsense, Randal. Nonsense! A judicial precedent (especially at the SCOTUS level) does not carry any or all the arguments made in the majority opinion with it!
     
    Nonsense, yourself!

    An SC overturning of Roe v Wade on the grounds that (contrary to the explicit decision of that court) a human being counts as a person from conception would in no way serve as a precedent to justify any further interference in private business other than in cases involving foetuses. It would, however, presumably result in a nationwide ban on abortion (assuming, contra the self-serving demands of feminists, it were to be accepted that the right to life of the foetus must outweigh any privacy or other issues for the woman who (in the vast majority of cases) had chosen to have sex in the first place, short of an actual imminent threat to her own life).


    It seems that Pat might even agree with you, should the take-over of the Court by activist radical reactionaries become complete. (Pat Buchanan has always been a cynically unprincipled political opportunist!) But that hardly justifies your idea of how judicial review works under the Constitution. Although you attempt to portray your idea as harmless, you are actually proposing the final and complete overthrow of government under the Constitution.
     
    This is hysterical nonsense, of course. It would be no more and no less "judicial activism" than was the original case. One primary purpose of the judiciary is precisely to decide such issues. It was a bunch of leftist judges motivated by feminist political dogma that decided in the first place that the only issue of importance must be a woman's "right to privacy".

    And again, Randal, if you have your way, that would surely come around to bite you in the end!
     
    I'm genuinely in two minds on the issue. My inclination towards moral absolutism tempts me to respect the idea that conception is the only really viable point for the initiation of personhood, while I have to accept that it would cause some hardship for some women, not all of whom were necessarily responsible for their own situation. Meanwhile, my practical political sense is that it's not a fight that could be won, and also that contrary to some expectations the easy availability of abortion is probably eugenic in its effects rather than dysgenic.

    I can respect the validity of some of each side's arguments, but I certainly don't like the feminist and leftist dogmas often used to justify abortion on demand.

    Whatever happened to respect for the autonomy of States and localities under the Tenth Amendment? Which clause in the US Constitution purports to authorize the federal government to legislate, regulate, or in any way interfere with the States’ laws regarding abortion?

    Abortion, marriage laws, healthcare insurance laws, seat-belt requirements, speed limits, etc., should all be left to the people of each of the fifty States to decide for their own State, and not for the rest of us.

    Neither a “pro-life” law imposed from Washington nor a “pro-choice” regime imposed from Washington, is constitutional.

    Read More
    • Agree: Grandpa Charlie
    • Replies: @Randal

    Which clause in the US Constitution purports to authorize the federal government to legislate, regulate, or in any way interfere with the States’ laws regarding abortion?
     
    If a human being is a person from conception then the matter does not arise, since the states do not have the power to authorise murder.

    See my further comment above - in reality I suspect any overturning of Roe v Wade would in any case be framed precisely in order to return the issue to individual states, for reasons of political practicability if for no others.
    , @Carroll Price

    Whatever happened to respect for the autonomy of States and localities under the Tenth Amendment?
     
    Lincoln successfully waged a war to eliminate states rights, along with all other rights found in the Bill of Rights. Since 1865, the Constitution has been a meaningless document. You have no rights, you have privileges.
    , @whorefinder

    Whatever happened to respect for the autonomy of States and localities under the Tenth Amendment?
     
    The Supreme Court long ago declared the Tenth Amendment redundant and therefore not a source of argument to limit the government, since the Constitution limited the government before. Then the Supreme Court went about helping to expand the government and ignoring 10th Amendment arguments.
    , @WorkingClass
    Any literate person can read the Constitution and know what is says. But only nine people, appointed for life, know what it means. See a problem there? The Supreme Court should be replaced by a jury.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @Corvinus
    Buchanan is being hypocritical here. He has complained about liberals "legislating from the bench", then has the gall to say let us end "judicial dictatorship" by working to dominate federal courts for a generation. Then, he calls on Christian conservatives who have been at full throat regarding the moral cesspool known as Hollywood and their sex scandals, yet pleads with them to legitimate claims lobbed at Moore's own conduct. It's just as bad as Hannity, who a month ago had Newt Gringich on his program, and they were both talking about how people must stand up to sexual harassment in the workplace and to the cheating of spouses. Not that Newt or the departed Bill O'Reilly would be involved in such salacious activities. But as Hannity stated "Many women who report sexual harassment 'will lie to make money.'"

    " how much political and thus arbitrary power resides in the hands of its 865 appointed-for-life federal (national) and supreme court judges."

    It's not arbitrary. Congress created the court system with the intention to review laws and executive decisions. Hence, checks and balances.

    "We also have the fact that US federal judges seem to turn up dead when they rule against the oligarchy."

    No, we have conspiracy theories.

    “Congress created the court system with the intention to review laws and executive decisions.” — Corvinus

    Nor really, Art. III of the Constitution created the Court to review “cases and controversies” (Art. III, Section 2, Clause 1) — where the latter specifically included controversies between two or more states. Art. III limits federal judicial power, should not be thought to authorize expansion of federal judicial power.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Randal says:
    @Grandpa Charlie

    "as a bonus [Moore's] election would be a perfectly good thumb in the eye of the pc leftist establishment" -- Randal
     
    You don't get it, do you, Randal? The problem is that of unintended consequences. You and Pat go so easily from Moore's election to take-over of the SCOTUS and from there to the overthrow of the system of separation of powers (balance of powers). You intend to stick a "perfectly good thumb in the eye of the pc leftist establishment," but the lasting effect likely would be a thumb in the eye of constitutional government itself -- not the effect of Moore's election but the effect of a take-over of the Court by radical judicial activists, that Pat says would result from that election.

    Thumb in the eye of the pc leftist establishment, that's good, but you and Pat are trying to pump it up into some kind of cultural war to further divide the country, and you don't seem to care about long-term damages resulting from that war. I don't live in Alabama, but I do live in this country. I'm talking about USA, where I was born, as were my father, grandfather, and so on. I am opposed to any scheme to destroy what is left of my country and the Constitution for the sake of any crackpot ideology, including yours or Pat's.

    My impression is that Moore's election has to do with the populist movement, the national question and immigration -- not about take-over of the Court for the sake of overturning a particular precedent -- if it is some kind of evil precedent, which I sincerely doubt.

    The problem is that of unintended consequences. You and Pat go so easily from Moore’s election to take-over of the SCOTUS and from there to the overthrow of the system of separation of powers (balance of powers).

    No, I don’t (and neither does Buchanan, who, I’ll venture, knows a lot more about this than you or I do).

    You intend to stick a “perfectly good thumb in the eye of the pc leftist establishment,” but the lasting effect likely would be a thumb in the eye of constitutional government itself — not the effect of Moore’s election but the effect of a take-over of the Court by radical judicial activists, that Pat says would result from that election.

    In addition to fantasising about issues for the separation of powers which simply don’t exist, you conflate two separate issues in my separate comments above. The election of Moore, should it occur, will be a thumb in the eye for the establishment leftists (both Republican and Democrat), but it’s unlikely to by itself result in a rebalancing of the courts away from their current leftist activist dominance. It is merely a necessary precondition for any such rebalancing to occur – there would be an awful lot of political jiggery pokery to go before such a return to sanity could be achieved. Not least, the serious question of whether Trump himself would actually want to do it or really care about the issues involved.

    you and Pat are trying to pump it up into some kind of cultural war to further divide the country

    You either don’t understand that your country is already in the midst of a cultural war which the non-leftist, non-radical and non-anti-white racist side is losing comprehensively, as it has been for decades now, or you are on the wrong side of that war. Hence things like abortion on demand, the normalisation of homosexual behaviour, gay “marriage” and the active criminalisation of opposition to it, ongoing mass immigration and the active demonization (and probably soon outright criminalisation) of opposition to it and of dissent from pc antiracism and all the other isms, the ongoing undermining of the family and of masculinity etc.

    My impression is that Moore’s election has to do with the populist movement, the national question and immigration — not about take-over of the Court for the sake of overturning a particular precedent — if it is some kind of evil precedent, which I sincerely doubt.

    Yes, I’m sure this is correct (see my point above about the likely political impracticability of overturning Roe v Wade). Pat sees Roe v Wade as an important issue in the culture war, but it’s not one that is currently a priority for the majority of Americans as far as I can tell. In reality, the return of the judiciary to sanity is desperately needed to prevent leftist activism obstructing the will of the electorate on more important issues, such as mass immigration, as it has been doing recently. Overturning Roe v Wade (which would likely not be on such an apocalyptically absolute terms as I described above anyway) would be a mere side effect in reality. And more likely the decision would be framed in terms that would throw the matter into the hands of individual states.

    My point was merely that your response to the very notion that the feminists on the Supreme Court in 1973 might have been wrong was incorrect as a matter of fact, in that it is not the case that overturning that particular decision would have grave wider consequences for privacy, still less that it would “destroy … the Constitution”.

    I suspect that a finding of the kind I hypothesised might well lead to secession by several states and the end of the US, because leftists and feminists are generally unable to bear the idea that they might have to actually abide by the rules of the game, but that’s another matter, and relates to the political impracticability I mentioned previously.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen

    The election of Moore, should it occur, will be a thumb in the eye for the establishment leftists (both Republican and Democrat) ...

    You either don’t understand that your country is already in the midst of a cultural war which the non-leftist, non-radical and non-anti-white racist side is losing comprehensively, as it has been for decades now ...

     

    I wish you would refrain from writing such as this. It is very unsettling to me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Randal says:
    @RadicalCenter
    Whatever happened to respect for the autonomy of States and localities under the Tenth Amendment? Which clause in the US Constitution purports to authorize the federal government to legislate, regulate, or in any way interfere with the States' laws regarding abortion?

    Abortion, marriage laws, healthcare insurance laws, seat-belt requirements, speed limits, etc., should all be left to the people of each of the fifty States to decide for their own State, and not for the rest of us.

    Neither a "pro-life" law imposed from Washington nor a "pro-choice" regime imposed from Washington, is constitutional.

    Which clause in the US Constitution purports to authorize the federal government to legislate, regulate, or in any way interfere with the States’ laws regarding abortion?

    If a human being is a person from conception then the matter does not arise, since the states do not have the power to authorise murder.

    See my further comment above – in reality I suspect any overturning of Roe v Wade would in any case be framed precisely in order to return the issue to individual states, for reasons of political practicability if for no others.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @Randal

    Nonsense, Randal. Nonsense! A judicial precedent (especially at the SCOTUS level) does not carry any or all the arguments made in the majority opinion with it!
     
    Nonsense, yourself!

    An SC overturning of Roe v Wade on the grounds that (contrary to the explicit decision of that court) a human being counts as a person from conception would in no way serve as a precedent to justify any further interference in private business other than in cases involving foetuses. It would, however, presumably result in a nationwide ban on abortion (assuming, contra the self-serving demands of feminists, it were to be accepted that the right to life of the foetus must outweigh any privacy or other issues for the woman who (in the vast majority of cases) had chosen to have sex in the first place, short of an actual imminent threat to her own life).


    It seems that Pat might even agree with you, should the take-over of the Court by activist radical reactionaries become complete. (Pat Buchanan has always been a cynically unprincipled political opportunist!) But that hardly justifies your idea of how judicial review works under the Constitution. Although you attempt to portray your idea as harmless, you are actually proposing the final and complete overthrow of government under the Constitution.
     
    This is hysterical nonsense, of course. It would be no more and no less "judicial activism" than was the original case. One primary purpose of the judiciary is precisely to decide such issues. It was a bunch of leftist judges motivated by feminist political dogma that decided in the first place that the only issue of importance must be a woman's "right to privacy".

    And again, Randal, if you have your way, that would surely come around to bite you in the end!
     
    I'm genuinely in two minds on the issue. My inclination towards moral absolutism tempts me to respect the idea that conception is the only really viable point for the initiation of personhood, while I have to accept that it would cause some hardship for some women, not all of whom were necessarily responsible for their own situation. Meanwhile, my practical political sense is that it's not a fight that could be won, and also that contrary to some expectations the easy availability of abortion is probably eugenic in its effects rather than dysgenic.

    I can respect the validity of some of each side's arguments, but I certainly don't like the feminist and leftist dogmas often used to justify abortion on demand.

    “would in no way serve as a precedent to justify any further interference in private business other than in cases involving foetuses.” — Randal

    If the precedent is reversed, there will be no precedent to be cited by future courts — on the contrary, the precedent will be established that no one who wishes to object to a one-child policy could possibly cite to the precedent, because that would be proscribed by the reversal of Roe v. Wade. They might make some other argument — but they would have a hard time bringing back the reasoning of “the Roe Court.”

    If you want the law of the land to be that a foetus is a human being, then I suggest you need to promote an amendment to the Constitution. Any other approach is not only to allow judicial activism (or further weakening of Amend. X) but to demand such! Be careful what you wish for — unintended consequences!

    I do see merit in your argument that the original decision (Roe v. Wade) was judicial activism, and look what the result was! We could also cite Brown v. Board in that regard. However, two or even three wrongs do not make a right. But to form a movement around Roe v. Wade and attempt to dictate to the Court through partisan Senate hearings on appointments will only make matters worse. Congress needs to step up and establish limits for the Court, as has been authorized (for Congress) by Art. III itself. Indeed, Congress needs to step up in general to restore some semblance of constitutional government, particularly regarding Amendments IX and X (and Amends. V and VI)

    What interests you is anything that will, you suppose, sneak your radical “pro-life” theories and agenda into the law, doing so by way of circumventing the Constitution — not to mention avoiding democratic process and procedure. The truth is that your problem is the 19th Amendment. Alright, then organize, not around court appointments as a back door to Roe v. Wade but around amending the Constitution. And I suspect that you might want to begin by striking the Establishment Clause.

    Oh, I’m sorry. Did I forget that the means justifies the end? That’s your absolutist morality that you seek to impose on all of us …. for our own good, of course!

    Go ahead: call me a libertarian.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    You appear to have reading comprehension issues on this issue. Once again, I don't have any particular commitment to a "radical pro-life agenda" (as I explained above) and once again your theories about the effects of an overturning of Roe v Wade are simply wrong for the reasons pointed out above. There seems little point writing any more, since you appear to make a practice of ignoring what is written so that you can respond to what you would prefer to have been written.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. RobinG says:

    BRAVO to ROY MOORE for breaking this open…..
    The crack in the mirror…. flaw in the matrix… loose thread….

    Dr. Steve Pieczenik About Charlie Rose, Trump and ……

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. expeedee says:
    @KenH
    Notice how conservatives say we must capture the federal judiciary and SCOTUS not to finally put an end to the lunacy and unconstitutionality of birthright citizenship for illegal aliens, but to strike down Roe vs. Wade which would likely increase black and Latino birthrates and compound the demographic crisis facing whites in America. So called conservatives have always suffered from misplaced priorities which will probably lead them to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again.

    Couldn’t agree more.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. @RadicalCenter
    Whatever happened to respect for the autonomy of States and localities under the Tenth Amendment? Which clause in the US Constitution purports to authorize the federal government to legislate, regulate, or in any way interfere with the States' laws regarding abortion?

    Abortion, marriage laws, healthcare insurance laws, seat-belt requirements, speed limits, etc., should all be left to the people of each of the fifty States to decide for their own State, and not for the rest of us.

    Neither a "pro-life" law imposed from Washington nor a "pro-choice" regime imposed from Washington, is constitutional.

    Whatever happened to respect for the autonomy of States and localities under the Tenth Amendment?

    Lincoln successfully waged a war to eliminate states rights, along with all other rights found in the Bill of Rights. Since 1865, the Constitution has been a meaningless document. You have no rights, you have privileges.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @Brabantian
    Pat Buchanan's article avoids discussing the elephant in the room, that one of the greatest problems in the USA, is the un-democratic fact of how much political and thus arbitrary power resides in the hands of its 865 appointed-for-life federal (national) and supreme court judges

    This is an extremely oligarchic system, with the judges groomed by the USA's corrupt, bribery-enmeshed law firms, to the point that USA lawyers apparently openly walk around laughing, as quoted in European court filings, 'Bribed American judges, motherf-cker! What the f-ck are you gonna do about it?'

    We also have the fact that US federal judges seem to turn up dead when they rule against the oligarchy. On 8 Jan 2011 in Arizona, Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was wounded in a street assassination, but media barely mentioned that US Federal Judge John Roll was shot dead at the scene ... shortly after Judge Roll had ruled against Obama

    Also, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ruled against Obama on the global warming scam ... he ordered a stay of Obama's orders on Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines ... then he was found dead with a pillow over his face 13 February 2016 ...'natural causes' declared hurriedly over phone without examining the judge's body, no autopsy of course ... another phrase from European court filings re USA law firms and judges, 'Same thing's gonna happen to you, motherf-cker!'

    One of the many proofs that Julian Assange and 'Edward Snowden' are both CIA frauds, is that both of them have extensive files on USA federal judge bribery in Virginia, in fact regarding the same Virginia federal judges who would allegedly put Assange & Snowden 'on trial' there ... yet Wikileaks, Snowden, Greenwald etc., all refuse to discuss these files, even though they would clearly make the extradition of Assange & Snowden impossible, given the proof of politically-related bribery of the judges ... but like good little CIA assets, they don't dare 'leak' about US federal judge corruption, Assange and Snowden strangely unconcerned about their own legal 'defence'

    “On 8 Jan 2011 in Arizona, CongresSCswoman Gabby Giffords was wounded in a street assassination, but media barely mentioned that US Federal Judge John Roll was shot dead at the scene” — Brabantian

    Yes, Brabantian, the assassination of Judge Roll was quite likely the primary objective of the shooting, the facts of which have been largely covered up. Judge Roll had a beautiful and unblemished record, so he could well have been SC material … but because he was an honest and uncompromising judge, he was a threat to the PTB.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. whorefinder says: • Website

    I support Moore (the claims against Moore are patently false and clearly a political tactic), but Buchanan, unfortunately, is still stuck in the mindset that respect for the judiciary will continue.

    Not so. Alt-Right has realized the judiciary is nothing more than a political animal, a legislator. Except it has no teeth—the bench commands no armies or military or police to enforce it’s edicts.

    So the Alt-Right has been vocal enough that we need to pack the courts as the Left has done for decades, but also talking about presidents not following judicial commands. Andrew Jackson has been cited for this numerous times.

    Buchanan still believes in an America where the voters take the institutions with respect and obedience. That America is no longer here in force; the voters who put Trump in realize institutions have been corrupted and are no longer worthy of respect.

    In short, whatever happens to Moore and abortion, the Supreme Court will not be telling the Alt-Right what to do.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. whorefinder says: • Website
    @RadicalCenter
    Whatever happened to respect for the autonomy of States and localities under the Tenth Amendment? Which clause in the US Constitution purports to authorize the federal government to legislate, regulate, or in any way interfere with the States' laws regarding abortion?

    Abortion, marriage laws, healthcare insurance laws, seat-belt requirements, speed limits, etc., should all be left to the people of each of the fifty States to decide for their own State, and not for the rest of us.

    Neither a "pro-life" law imposed from Washington nor a "pro-choice" regime imposed from Washington, is constitutional.

    Whatever happened to respect for the autonomy of States and localities under the Tenth Amendment?

    The Supreme Court long ago declared the Tenth Amendment redundant and therefore not a source of argument to limit the government, since the Constitution limited the government before. Then the Supreme Court went about helping to expand the government and ignoring 10th Amendment arguments.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    You're right, but they were wrong and we need to challenge that nonsense. One extremely simple and compelling argument against their view is the venerable canon of construction that we should endeavor never to treat language in a constitution or statute as superfluous or meaningless.

    A judicial nominee's views on the Ninth and Tenth Amendments should be considered far more important than his views on Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in themselves.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. iffen says:
    @Randal

    The problem is that of unintended consequences. You and Pat go so easily from Moore’s election to take-over of the SCOTUS and from there to the overthrow of the system of separation of powers (balance of powers).
     
    No, I don't (and neither does Buchanan, who, I'll venture, knows a lot more about this than you or I do).

    You intend to stick a “perfectly good thumb in the eye of the pc leftist establishment,” but the lasting effect likely would be a thumb in the eye of constitutional government itself — not the effect of Moore’s election but the effect of a take-over of the Court by radical judicial activists, that Pat says would result from that election.
     
    In addition to fantasising about issues for the separation of powers which simply don't exist, you conflate two separate issues in my separate comments above. The election of Moore, should it occur, will be a thumb in the eye for the establishment leftists (both Republican and Democrat), but it's unlikely to by itself result in a rebalancing of the courts away from their current leftist activist dominance. It is merely a necessary precondition for any such rebalancing to occur - there would be an awful lot of political jiggery pokery to go before such a return to sanity could be achieved. Not least, the serious question of whether Trump himself would actually want to do it or really care about the issues involved.

    you and Pat are trying to pump it up into some kind of cultural war to further divide the country
     
    You either don't understand that your country is already in the midst of a cultural war which the non-leftist, non-radical and non-anti-white racist side is losing comprehensively, as it has been for decades now, or you are on the wrong side of that war. Hence things like abortion on demand, the normalisation of homosexual behaviour, gay "marriage" and the active criminalisation of opposition to it, ongoing mass immigration and the active demonization (and probably soon outright criminalisation) of opposition to it and of dissent from pc antiracism and all the other isms, the ongoing undermining of the family and of masculinity etc.

    My impression is that Moore’s election has to do with the populist movement, the national question and immigration — not about take-over of the Court for the sake of overturning a particular precedent — if it is some kind of evil precedent, which I sincerely doubt.
     
    Yes, I'm sure this is correct (see my point above about the likely political impracticability of overturning Roe v Wade). Pat sees Roe v Wade as an important issue in the culture war, but it's not one that is currently a priority for the majority of Americans as far as I can tell. In reality, the return of the judiciary to sanity is desperately needed to prevent leftist activism obstructing the will of the electorate on more important issues, such as mass immigration, as it has been doing recently. Overturning Roe v Wade (which would likely not be on such an apocalyptically absolute terms as I described above anyway) would be a mere side effect in reality. And more likely the decision would be framed in terms that would throw the matter into the hands of individual states.

    My point was merely that your response to the very notion that the feminists on the Supreme Court in 1973 might have been wrong was incorrect as a matter of fact, in that it is not the case that overturning that particular decision would have grave wider consequences for privacy, still less that it would "destroy ... the Constitution".

    I suspect that a finding of the kind I hypothesised might well lead to secession by several states and the end of the US, because leftists and feminists are generally unable to bear the idea that they might have to actually abide by the rules of the game, but that's another matter, and relates to the political impracticability I mentioned previously.

    The election of Moore, should it occur, will be a thumb in the eye for the establishment leftists (both Republican and Democrat) …

    You either don’t understand that your country is already in the midst of a cultural war which the non-leftist, non-radical and non-anti-white racist side is losing comprehensively, as it has been for decades now …

    I wish you would refrain from writing such as this. It is very unsettling to me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    Why unsettling? And what aspect of it has that effect?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Randal says:
    @iffen

    The election of Moore, should it occur, will be a thumb in the eye for the establishment leftists (both Republican and Democrat) ...

    You either don’t understand that your country is already in the midst of a cultural war which the non-leftist, non-radical and non-anti-white racist side is losing comprehensively, as it has been for decades now ...

     

    I wish you would refrain from writing such as this. It is very unsettling to me.

    Why unsettling? And what aspect of it has that effect?

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I am used to disagreeing with much in your comments and when I see stuff that I agree with it discombobulates me. It makes me wonder if something has gone wrong with my thinking. :)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Randal says:
    @Grandpa Charlie

    "would in no way serve as a precedent to justify any further interference in private business other than in cases involving foetuses." -- Randal
     
    If the precedent is reversed, there will be no precedent to be cited by future courts -- on the contrary, the precedent will be established that no one who wishes to object to a one-child policy could possibly cite to the precedent, because that would be proscribed by the reversal of Roe v. Wade. They might make some other argument -- but they would have a hard time bringing back the reasoning of "the Roe Court."

    If you want the law of the land to be that a foetus is a human being, then I suggest you need to promote an amendment to the Constitution. Any other approach is not only to allow judicial activism (or further weakening of Amend. X) but to demand such! Be careful what you wish for -- unintended consequences!

    I do see merit in your argument that the original decision (Roe v. Wade) was judicial activism, and look what the result was! We could also cite Brown v. Board in that regard. However, two or even three wrongs do not make a right. But to form a movement around Roe v. Wade and attempt to dictate to the Court through partisan Senate hearings on appointments will only make matters worse. Congress needs to step up and establish limits for the Court, as has been authorized (for Congress) by Art. III itself. Indeed, Congress needs to step up in general to restore some semblance of constitutional government, particularly regarding Amendments IX and X (and Amends. V and VI)

    What interests you is anything that will, you suppose, sneak your radical "pro-life" theories and agenda into the law, doing so by way of circumventing the Constitution -- not to mention avoiding democratic process and procedure. The truth is that your problem is the 19th Amendment. Alright, then organize, not around court appointments as a back door to Roe v. Wade but around amending the Constitution. And I suspect that you might want to begin by striking the Establishment Clause.

    Oh, I'm sorry. Did I forget that the means justifies the end? That's your absolutist morality that you seek to impose on all of us .... for our own good, of course!

    Go ahead: call me a libertarian.

    You appear to have reading comprehension issues on this issue. Once again, I don’t have any particular commitment to a “radical pro-life agenda” (as I explained above) and once again your theories about the effects of an overturning of Roe v Wade are simply wrong for the reasons pointed out above. There seems little point writing any more, since you appear to make a practice of ignoring what is written so that you can respond to what you would prefer to have been written.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. iffen says:
    @Randal
    Why unsettling? And what aspect of it has that effect?

    I am used to disagreeing with much in your comments and when I see stuff that I agree with it discombobulates me. It makes me wonder if something has gone wrong with my thinking. :)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    Well as far as the issues raised in my quoted comments are concerned, you appear to be very much part of the problem and not part of any solution, given your failure to oppose the ongoing trend towards criminalisation of "hate speech" via demonization and your divisive obsession with criticising "antisemites" instead of just accepting the important truths about many of the individuals driving some of the worst aspects of the culture war and their motivations that many of those supposed "antisemites" seek to highlight.

    That should have rectified any concerning tendency for you to be "unsettled" by my words.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Randal says:
    @iffen
    I am used to disagreeing with much in your comments and when I see stuff that I agree with it discombobulates me. It makes me wonder if something has gone wrong with my thinking. :)

    Well as far as the issues raised in my quoted comments are concerned, you appear to be very much part of the problem and not part of any solution, given your failure to oppose the ongoing trend towards criminalisation of “hate speech” via demonization and your divisive obsession with criticising “antisemites” instead of just accepting the important truths about many of the individuals driving some of the worst aspects of the culture war and their motivations that many of those supposed “antisemites” seek to highlight.

    That should have rectified any concerning tendency for you to be “unsettled” by my words.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Thanks.

    A paragraph like that one is just what I needed to get back on kilter.

    , @KenH
    It looks like you made a (((snowflake))) melt. Keep up the good work!
    , @iffen
    your divisive

    Is my divisiveness different from the divisiveness that your PM accused my Prez of in regard to his re-tweet of the videos?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. iffen says:
    @Randal
    Well as far as the issues raised in my quoted comments are concerned, you appear to be very much part of the problem and not part of any solution, given your failure to oppose the ongoing trend towards criminalisation of "hate speech" via demonization and your divisive obsession with criticising "antisemites" instead of just accepting the important truths about many of the individuals driving some of the worst aspects of the culture war and their motivations that many of those supposed "antisemites" seek to highlight.

    That should have rectified any concerning tendency for you to be "unsettled" by my words.

    Thanks.

    A paragraph like that one is just what I needed to get back on kilter.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/29/media/matt-lauer/index.html

    Charlottesville declared war on Alt Right.

    Harlotsville declared war on Men.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. I am in agreement with voting for Roy Moore, were I an Alabama citizen, for the reason of sticking it to the man cntrl-left and their minions alone. I understand Mr. Buchanan’s theorizing on political strategy and all regarding the Supreme Court and lower Feral courts.

    First of all, I doubt this country will be around in the same form, during the time frame he is writing about (not the appointments, but any concrete results from those appointments). Secondly, things are not as civil politically as he is used to from all his American political history and experience, and they are quickly getting even less civil.

    However, in this very article, my main argument with his point is backed up by Mr. Buchanan right there in the same article. He lists 5 (or 7, if your main issue is abortion) S.C. justices that were appointed by Republicans that went native. What is to say every single one of the new appointees would not do the same, or at least a significant number, and same with the lower courts?

    Because I don’t want to make super-long comments, I will list 4 reasons or so for the disappointing decisions made, and general lefty/unconstitutional views that result from supposedly “good guys” that were appointed by the R – “good guys”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. (Continued from my previous comment:)

    Why do these politicians, and, yes, judges at that level are basically politicians, switch views and loyalties, almost always toward the left, after they get in power?

    1) Some may actually have a change of their views over time, however, most times it is from living too long in the elitist bubble that they enter.

    2) Some just don’t like being one of the bad guys as far as almost all of the Lyin’ Press is concerned. They want to be the good guy on TV, and get invited to all the best dinners and cocktail parties in Washington, FS. It’s peer pressure over principles for these ones.

    3) Some may be ringers, in that they may be held up to the public as conservatives when the people behind the scenes know that what their real, anti-constitutional views are. Sure, there is a history, but that history may be pretty good, but the guy has already turned to the dark side. What, don’t you think that these guys can lie with a straight face?

    4) Some may have plenty of sordid things they have done in the recent past (usually after they have been in some type of office, as that’s when they pick up the psychopathy). They can be blackmailed very easily, cough, cough, John Roberts, cough, to rule in favor of whatever the elites want.

    It may not have been the case only 25 years back, but I would say now that my reasons for going native are in least-likely to most-likely order.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Yes, and COUGH perpetually-unmarried-and-childless "heterosexual" David Souter, COUGH....

    The Lindsey Graham of the "Supreme" Court.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Ben Frank says:

    It’s simple folks. The people who hate America hate Roy Moore, so vote for Roy Moore.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Yes. Do what the Dems would do if one of their own were subject to seemingly credible serious charges at the eleventh hour: vote for Moore, then if he is removed from office or convinced to resign, the Republican governor of Alabama can appoint a successor. Likely far better than gun-grabbing immivasion-apologist Doug Jones.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. KenH says:
    @Randal
    Well as far as the issues raised in my quoted comments are concerned, you appear to be very much part of the problem and not part of any solution, given your failure to oppose the ongoing trend towards criminalisation of "hate speech" via demonization and your divisive obsession with criticising "antisemites" instead of just accepting the important truths about many of the individuals driving some of the worst aspects of the culture war and their motivations that many of those supposed "antisemites" seek to highlight.

    That should have rectified any concerning tendency for you to be "unsettled" by my words.

    It looks like you made a (((snowflake))) melt. Keep up the good work!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @whorefinder

    Whatever happened to respect for the autonomy of States and localities under the Tenth Amendment?
     
    The Supreme Court long ago declared the Tenth Amendment redundant and therefore not a source of argument to limit the government, since the Constitution limited the government before. Then the Supreme Court went about helping to expand the government and ignoring 10th Amendment arguments.

    You’re right, but they were wrong and we need to challenge that nonsense. One extremely simple and compelling argument against their view is the venerable canon of construction that we should endeavor never to treat language in a constitution or statute as superfluous or meaningless.

    A judicial nominee’s views on the Ninth and Tenth Amendments should be considered far more important than his views on Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in themselves.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. @Achmed E. Newman
    (Continued from my previous comment:)

    Why do these politicians, and, yes, judges at that level are basically politicians, switch views and loyalties, almost always toward the left, after they get in power?

    1) Some may actually have a change of their views over time, however, most times it is from living too long in the elitist bubble that they enter.

    2) Some just don't like being one of the bad guys as far as almost all of the Lyin' Press is concerned. They want to be the good guy on TV, and get invited to all the best dinners and cocktail parties in Washington, FS. It's peer pressure over principles for these ones.

    3) Some may be ringers, in that they may be held up to the public as conservatives when the people behind the scenes know that what their real, anti-constitutional views are. Sure, there is a history, but that history may be pretty good, but the guy has already turned to the dark side. What, don't you think that these guys can lie with a straight face?

    4) Some may have plenty of sordid things they have done in the recent past (usually after they have been in some type of office, as that's when they pick up the psychopathy). They can be blackmailed very easily, cough, cough, John Roberts, cough, to rule in favor of whatever the elites want.

    It may not have been the case only 25 years back, but I would say now that my reasons for going native are in least-likely to most-likely order.

    Yes, and COUGH perpetually-unmarried-and-childless “heterosexual” David Souter, COUGH….

    The Lindsey Graham of the “Supreme” Court.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @Ben Frank
    It's simple folks. The people who hate America hate Roy Moore, so vote for Roy Moore.

    Yes. Do what the Dems would do if one of their own were subject to seemingly credible serious charges at the eleventh hour: vote for Moore, then if he is removed from office or convinced to resign, the Republican governor of Alabama can appoint a successor. Likely far better than gun-grabbing immivasion-apologist Doug Jones.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Answer: That Alabama Senate race could determine whether Roe v. Wade is overturned. The lives of millions of unborn may be the stakes.

    I would prefer that Roe v. Wade stand. But I would vote for Judge Moore if I could. Because he is running against the lying, thieving, murdering traitors that are the political establishment in Imperial Washington. Make this about the unborn and you lose just like you always have Pat.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  42. iffen says:
    @Randal
    Well as far as the issues raised in my quoted comments are concerned, you appear to be very much part of the problem and not part of any solution, given your failure to oppose the ongoing trend towards criminalisation of "hate speech" via demonization and your divisive obsession with criticising "antisemites" instead of just accepting the important truths about many of the individuals driving some of the worst aspects of the culture war and their motivations that many of those supposed "antisemites" seek to highlight.

    That should have rectified any concerning tendency for you to be "unsettled" by my words.

    your divisive

    Is my divisiveness different from the divisiveness that your PM accused my Prez of in regard to his re-tweet of the videos?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Randal says:

    No evident reason to suppose any connection whatsoever.

    Your Prez ought to have told my PM that the practice by her kind of suppressing such truths rather than facing up to them was precisely why he was elected.

    And then told her to go make him a sandwich.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    No evident reason to suppose any connection whatsoever.

    Okay. No connection doesn't exactly answer my question. I want to know if you are against divisiveness in general or just my kind. Is the divisiveness that Trump was accused of okay, or do you condemn it as well?

    And if you want to go on a roll can I get a little more info on these "important truths"? I really don't want to miss anything that falls into that category.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. iffen says:
    @Randal
    No evident reason to suppose any connection whatsoever.

    Your Prez ought to have told my PM that the practice by her kind of suppressing such truths rather than facing up to them was precisely why he was elected.

    And then told her to go make him a sandwich.

    No evident reason to suppose any connection whatsoever.

    Okay. No connection doesn’t exactly answer my question. I want to know if you are against divisiveness in general or just my kind. Is the divisiveness that Trump was accused of okay, or do you condemn it as well?

    And if you want to go on a roll can I get a little more info on these “important truths”? I really don’t want to miss anything that falls into that category.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    No connection doesn’t exactly answer my question
     
    Yes, it does.

    I want to know if you are against divisiveness in general or just my kind. Is the divisiveness that Trump was accused of okay, or do you condemn it as well?
     
    So what you mean is you wanted to ask a slightly different question.

    Whether or not divisiveness is a good or bad thing is clearly dependent upon the context.

    And if you want to go on a roll can I get a little more info on these “important truths”? I really don’t want to miss anything that falls into that category.
     
    A simple first approximation would be that "important truths" includes anything the likes of May and the kinds of people making a fuss about Trump are outraged at being communicated to the public because it tends to motivate resistance to their radical anti-nationalism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. map says:
    @KenH
    Notice how conservatives say we must capture the federal judiciary and SCOTUS not to finally put an end to the lunacy and unconstitutionality of birthright citizenship for illegal aliens, but to strike down Roe vs. Wade which would likely increase black and Latino birthrates and compound the demographic crisis facing whites in America. So called conservatives have always suffered from misplaced priorities which will probably lead them to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again.

    Sorry…you think you pulled a fast one on the left with Roe v. Wade?

    Sorry…you didn’t.

    The Democrats will always help black people have as many children as they want.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH

    Sorry…you think you pulled a fast one on the left with Roe v. Wade?
     
    Considering I was barely out of my birthday suit in 1973, I couldn't pull a fast one on this or anything. It was the liberals/left that demanded abortion on demand, not the right. The Christian right is trying to convince black welfare queens that they can have even more children if they vote Republican and get Roe V. Wade overturned.

    If the Democrats try to increase black birthrates the cucks of the right will be right there with them to take credit.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Randal says:
    @iffen
    No evident reason to suppose any connection whatsoever.

    Okay. No connection doesn't exactly answer my question. I want to know if you are against divisiveness in general or just my kind. Is the divisiveness that Trump was accused of okay, or do you condemn it as well?

    And if you want to go on a roll can I get a little more info on these "important truths"? I really don't want to miss anything that falls into that category.

    No connection doesn’t exactly answer my question

    Yes, it does.

    I want to know if you are against divisiveness in general or just my kind. Is the divisiveness that Trump was accused of okay, or do you condemn it as well?

    So what you mean is you wanted to ask a slightly different question.

    Whether or not divisiveness is a good or bad thing is clearly dependent upon the context.

    And if you want to go on a roll can I get a little more info on these “important truths”? I really don’t want to miss anything that falls into that category.

    A simple first approximation would be that “important truths” includes anything the likes of May and the kinds of people making a fuss about Trump are outraged at being communicated to the public because it tends to motivate resistance to their radical anti-nationalism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    So what you mean is you wanted to ask a slightly different question.

    That’s one way to put it. Another would be that you didn’t answer the question that I thought that I asked. But that is of little consequence because you have clearly answered it here:

    Whether or not divisiveness is a good or bad thing is clearly dependent upon the context.

    This is my exact point of view.

    This explains how you can support Trump against May’s accusation of dividing people while disapproving of my divisive criticism.

    A simple first approximation would be that “important truths” includes anything the likes of May and the kinds of people making a fuss about Trump are outraged at being communicated to the public …

    Again, I am in serious agreement here. One definitely wants to take a very close look at what is being suppressed or maligned. You are correct to qualify with the “first approximation” because one needs to guard against getting into a position of allowing the other side to define "the truth" as just being one’s reaction to what the other side says or does.

    , @iffen

    The group did so in response to a campaign group called Stop Funding Hate which lobbies companies to stop advertising in the Mail, the Express and the Sun, supposedly because those titles are spreading hate against immigrants and other marginalised groups. Now that the group have scored such a big success they will no doubt be emboldened.

    I wonder if the people behind this have any idea of the dark road they’re leading us down.
     

    Ed West thinks that this is bad divisiveness. I think I like the idea.

    Because of this:


    But what about those millions of consumers who don’t share those progressive views, who would like to buy a coffee without knowing the money is going to something with which they profoundly disagree? Well naturally they can turn to 2ndVote, a conservative group which informs consumers about the companies they are funding and, by implication, makes those corporations pay the price.
     
    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/11/stop-funding-hate-are-leading-us-down-a-dangerous-path/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. iffen says:
    @Randal

    No connection doesn’t exactly answer my question
     
    Yes, it does.

    I want to know if you are against divisiveness in general or just my kind. Is the divisiveness that Trump was accused of okay, or do you condemn it as well?
     
    So what you mean is you wanted to ask a slightly different question.

    Whether or not divisiveness is a good or bad thing is clearly dependent upon the context.

    And if you want to go on a roll can I get a little more info on these “important truths”? I really don’t want to miss anything that falls into that category.
     
    A simple first approximation would be that "important truths" includes anything the likes of May and the kinds of people making a fuss about Trump are outraged at being communicated to the public because it tends to motivate resistance to their radical anti-nationalism.

    So what you mean is you wanted to ask a slightly different question.

    That’s one way to put it. Another would be that you didn’t answer the question that I thought that I asked. But that is of little consequence because you have clearly answered it here:

    Whether or not divisiveness is a good or bad thing is clearly dependent upon the context.

    This is my exact point of view.

    This explains how you can support Trump against May’s accusation of dividing people while disapproving of my divisive criticism.

    A simple first approximation would be that “important truths” includes anything the likes of May and the kinds of people making a fuss about Trump are outraged at being communicated to the public …

    Again, I am in serious agreement here. One definitely wants to take a very close look at what is being suppressed or maligned. You are correct to qualify with the “first approximation” because one needs to guard against getting into a position of allowing the other side to define “the truth” as just being one’s reaction to what the other side says or does.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @RadicalCenter
    Whatever happened to respect for the autonomy of States and localities under the Tenth Amendment? Which clause in the US Constitution purports to authorize the federal government to legislate, regulate, or in any way interfere with the States' laws regarding abortion?

    Abortion, marriage laws, healthcare insurance laws, seat-belt requirements, speed limits, etc., should all be left to the people of each of the fifty States to decide for their own State, and not for the rest of us.

    Neither a "pro-life" law imposed from Washington nor a "pro-choice" regime imposed from Washington, is constitutional.

    Any literate person can read the Constitution and know what is says. But only nine people, appointed for life, know what it means. See a problem there? The Supreme Court should be replaced by a jury.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Any literate person can read the Constitution and know what is says."

    Of course.

    "But only nine people, appointed for life, know what it means. See a problem there?"

    There is no problem here in that we have checks and balances. Constitutional issues are complicated. There is legislation to consider, legal arguments to take into account, and past decisions that must be thought of. If a decision is rendered that the citizens oppose, their recourse is a constitutional amendment.

    "The Supreme Court should be replaced by a jury."

    No.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. iffen says:
    @Randal

    No connection doesn’t exactly answer my question
     
    Yes, it does.

    I want to know if you are against divisiveness in general or just my kind. Is the divisiveness that Trump was accused of okay, or do you condemn it as well?
     
    So what you mean is you wanted to ask a slightly different question.

    Whether or not divisiveness is a good or bad thing is clearly dependent upon the context.

    And if you want to go on a roll can I get a little more info on these “important truths”? I really don’t want to miss anything that falls into that category.
     
    A simple first approximation would be that "important truths" includes anything the likes of May and the kinds of people making a fuss about Trump are outraged at being communicated to the public because it tends to motivate resistance to their radical anti-nationalism.

    The group did so in response to a campaign group called Stop Funding Hate which lobbies companies to stop advertising in the Mail, the Express and the Sun, supposedly because those titles are spreading hate against immigrants and other marginalised groups. Now that the group have scored such a big success they will no doubt be emboldened.

    I wonder if the people behind this have any idea of the dark road they’re leading us down.

    Ed West thinks that this is bad divisiveness. I think I like the idea.

    Because of this:

    But what about those millions of consumers who don’t share those progressive views, who would like to buy a coffee without knowing the money is going to something with which they profoundly disagree? Well naturally they can turn to 2ndVote, a conservative group which informs consumers about the companies they are funding and, by implication, makes those corporations pay the price.

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/11/stop-funding-hate-are-leading-us-down-a-dangerous-path/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. KenH says:
    @map
    Sorry...you think you pulled a fast one on the left with Roe v. Wade?

    Sorry...you didn't.

    The Democrats will always help black people have as many children as they want.

    Sorry…you think you pulled a fast one on the left with Roe v. Wade?

    Considering I was barely out of my birthday suit in 1973, I couldn’t pull a fast one on this or anything. It was the liberals/left that demanded abortion on demand, not the right. The Christian right is trying to convince black welfare queens that they can have even more children if they vote Republican and get Roe V. Wade overturned.

    If the Democrats try to increase black birthrates the cucks of the right will be right there with them to take credit.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Corvinus says:
    @WorkingClass
    Any literate person can read the Constitution and know what is says. But only nine people, appointed for life, know what it means. See a problem there? The Supreme Court should be replaced by a jury.

    “Any literate person can read the Constitution and know what is says.”

    Of course.

    “But only nine people, appointed for life, know what it means. See a problem there?”

    There is no problem here in that we have checks and balances. Constitutional issues are complicated. There is legislation to consider, legal arguments to take into account, and past decisions that must be thought of. If a decision is rendered that the citizens oppose, their recourse is a constitutional amendment.

    “The Supreme Court should be replaced by a jury.”

    No.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Thirdeye says:
    @KenH
    Notice how conservatives say we must capture the federal judiciary and SCOTUS not to finally put an end to the lunacy and unconstitutionality of birthright citizenship for illegal aliens, but to strike down Roe vs. Wade which would likely increase black and Latino birthrates and compound the demographic crisis facing whites in America. So called conservatives have always suffered from misplaced priorities which will probably lead them to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again.

    Excellent point. For all the excesses of the liberal judiciary, Roe V. Wade doesn’t register for me. But then I’m not someone who, like Buchanan and Moore, believes that a man in the sky plants a human soul into cells the moment they start dividing.

    Moore is a creep and a jackass, but the shitlord in me wouldn’t mind seeing Moore elected in the teeth of the current liberal witchhunt over mostly trivial matters of public expression of sexuality.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?