"Thus a victorious army wins its victories before seeking battle;
an army destined to defeat fights in the hope of winning,"
-- Sun Tzu, Art of War, pg. 97
What James Fallows, former President Carter (D) speechwriter, blogged yesterday shows the lengths that some in the media will go to build a battle space. This was the original title: 5 Signs the United States is Undergoing a Coup.
Followed by this:
When I was at American University, I was studying under Allan Lichtman for my senior history thesis. My thesis was about Ambassadorial Appointments during Watergate.
The question I posed, could two branches of Government work with each other even if they were at war with each other? To appoint Ambassadors (or Federal Judges), the executive chooses the name and the Senate votes on the candidate. First via Committee, then the whole Senate. Thus, there would have to be some cooperation between the Branches if things (such as appointing Ambassadors during the begining of a Second Term) fall apart between the Players, not the Institutions.
In Nixon's time, yes they could. The fact that I wrote it just before the Clinton Impeachment shows the power of my ability to get the pulse of what's next. And here's a dirty little secret about the Clinton Impeachment: The players played their roles, but no one Hated Clinton. Clinton did not hate the Congress -- they had to work together. (see paragraph above).
As a partisan, I know exactly when the breakdown occured with the Judicial system: When Borking was coined and Thomas was lynched.
Who attacked Bork and Thomas, thus destroying the Trust of the Third Branch was untoachable from Politics?
Repeat after me: Democrats.
And don't think we on the Right forgot how they were (and still) treated.
In politics, sometimes you win elections, and then sometimes you don't. What I have been seeing from the Left since December 2000, is that they cannot fathom ever losing.
It's why, when it comes to Filibusters, the process was fine against blocking President George W. Bush Judicial nominations but, now filibusters are horrible because they block the Obama Administration goals.
Partisans are also hacks, but I would respect the Democrats more if they understood any door they open to oppose the Right can be used by the Right. Or as I say simply: Don't like it? Don't start it.
The other problem with Democrats can also be summed up by Sun Tzu:
"If ignorant both of your enemy and yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril,"
-- Sun Tzu, Art of War, pg. 84
If SCOTUS becomes politicized, remember is was the Democrats who opened that door.
And wait, before Thursday, you will see the Liberal Talking Point "The Radical Roberts Court," Just watch.
My question: Why don't Democrats understand how Elections work and Law of Karma?
UPDATE 6/25/12 8:02 PM PST: Welcome back Instapundit Readers!
I dunno, you might want to check out the background of Marbury v Madison.
ReplyDeleteWhere was Hillary during this period ?
ReplyDeleteI was off the Hill, but I knew some leadership Staffers at the time -- so the information came second hand.
ReplyDeleteI like to be optimistic and hope that democrats realize that the Right are their "Opponents," not their "Enemies" (see mutiple posts linking Democrats to INGSOC here on this very Blog!)
The ironic thing, is that in a political environment where one of the two factions has gone completely lawless, applying the law is *itself* a partisan position.
ReplyDeleteLiberals have steamed right past the "living Constitution" charade, into Hugo Chavez territory. They really do not give a damn what the law or the Constitution actually says, only what serves them. They are a parcel of B-movie mobsters, and ought to be regarded as such.
You can look farther back to Rooseveldt's court packing scheme for another precedent to Democratic attempts to politicize the Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteAnimals, most teenagers, and liberals all lack a sufficiently developed frontal cortex, needed to realize the future consequences of current actions.
ReplyDeleteLiberals especially are all about immediate gain - screw the precedents, we'll make up yet another cheat when it comes to that.
Thomas wrote: "They really do not give a damn what the law or the Constitution actually says, only what serves them."
ReplyDelete"Are you serious? Are you serious?" Nancy Pelosi upon being asked about the constitutionally of ObamaCare.
Valley wrote: "Why don't Democrats understand how Elections work and Law of Karma?"
I've asked liberals years ago about their support of nationalized health care. Would you support it, if Pat Buchanan in charge? No answer, just stunned looks. I've asked them to imagine that whatever expansion of government they want, just imagine your worst nightmare were in charge. The only way to avoid that is not to expand the size and scope of government.
I've found the liberals, leftists just are simply incapable of thinking past step one. They want what they want, which by definition is good. Only creeps oppose what good-hearted liberals want. There are only good consequences. If there are bad consequences in spite of their good intentions, it is the fault of the evil [fill in the blank - corporations, republicans, conservatives, white people, christions or the greedy. Their own actions are always pure.
In other words, liberals/leftists are insane.
In this period of epochal transition from the American-dominated Industrial Age to the up-for-grabs Information Age, we see everywhere the forces of reaction fighting tooth and nail to stop history and preserve the status quo. Obama and the Dems have signed on to this barren cause, and will go down with the ship sooner or later. The question is, where is the political faction championing the emerging world? Hint: not the GOP.
ReplyDeleteI was told more than three decades ago in law school-- by a Marx positive professor of Con Law and Crim Pro-- that the Supreme Court was-in-fact a political filter. Leftists believe as a central tenet that everything is a power struggle and so "by any means necessary" to achieve a desired end is the rule. This is not new. The Federalist Papers have a different focus-- means not ends. Lefties accordingly argue "means" when the argument promotes an end-- but never the reverse. "The only standard of a leftist is a double standard."
ReplyDelete