Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Souter almost quit over Bush v. Gore

From the Examiner:

According to Jeffrey Toobin’s new book on the Supreme Court, Justice David Souter nearly resigned in the wake of Bush v. Gore, so distraught was he over the decision that effectively ended the Florida recount and installed George W. Bush as president.

In “The Nine,” which goes on sale Sept. 18, Toobin writes that while the other justices tried to put the case behind them, “David Souter alone was shattered,” at times weeping when he thought of the case. “For many months, it was not at all clear whether he would remain as a justice,” Toobin continues. “That the Court met in a city he loathed made the decision even harder. At the urging of a handful of close friends, he decided to stay on, but his attitude toward the Court was never the same.”

Were we to have been so lucky!  Those poor folks in New London, CT, may still have their property today had Souter left the Court.

September 4, 2007 Posted by | judiciary, Supreme Court | 3 Comments

Quote of the day

More like “snark of the day”, from Larry Craig:

“I am not gay!”

Of course not. Why is it that in this society of ours, we think that a man who likes to boink other men necessarily must be gay? I mean, just because he gets off on dudes doesn’t mean he’s queer, right?

Wait a minute…yeah, it means exactly that. OK, never mind.

September 4, 2007 Posted by | gay, Larry Craig, quote of the day | 2 Comments

NYT quotes part of Constitution that isn’t there

Not that I didn’t already know the NYT was a rag that hadn’t a clue about the Constitution. From the Old Gray Hag:

It is an eminently good thing that the anti-suicide measure would require medical specialists to keep track of veterans found to be high risks for suicide. But that’s to care for them as human beings, under that other constitutional right — to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Boy, it’s a good thing they have all those layers of fact-checkers and editors, huh? Otherwise, they might have messed up and said that “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” were in the Declaration of Independence instead. How embarassing would that have been?

This incident reminds me of when Bubba (being the Rhodes Scholar constitutional law instructor that he was) said while campaigning in California October 17, 1996: “The last time I checked, the Constitution said, ‘of the people, by the people and for the people.’ That’s what the Declaration of Independence says.” Well which is it, Bubba: the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence? Neither. It was the Gettysburg Address. Obviously, the former constitutional law instructor is about as knowledgable as the NYT when it comes to that apparently nebulous concept known as the Constitution.

September 4, 2007 Posted by | media bias | 2 Comments

What would we do without “experts”?

Here’s your “no kidding” non-political post of the day:

Science is confirming what most women know: When given the choice for a mate, men go for good looks.

And guys won’t be surprised to learn that women are much choosier about partners than they are.

“Just because people say they’re looking for a particular set of characteristics in a mate, someone like themselves, doesn’t mean that is what they’ll end up choosing,” Peter M. Todd, of the cognitive science program at Indiana University, Bloomington, said in a telephone interview.

Researchers led by Todd report in Tuesday’s edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that their study found humans were similar to most other mammals, “following Darwin’s principle of choosy females and competitive males, even if humans say something different.”

Men like good-looking women more so than not-as-good-looking women? They actually needed to research this? These people need to get out more!

As for “women are a lot choosier”, I’d say that’s half true. My experience has been that women do seem to be somewhat choosier, but once they settle on a partner, that partner could be the scum of the earth…but the woman will put up with all sorts of crap from that person, and will work like h#ll to make the relationship work with someone who is all sorts of wrong for them!

In other words, a woman will say that she wants a man who is attractive, ambitious, successful, kind, considerate, generous, etc. Then, she hooks up with a total loser who treats her like dirt, and she becomes his plaything until he gets tired of her (and not vice versa). Obviously, this does not pertain to all women, but my own personal experience is that it pertains to an awful lot of them.

September 4, 2007 Posted by | non-political | 1 Comment

Silky: Government will ban smoking and force you to see the doctor

Well thank God (insert deity du jour here) that the Breck Girl knows a thing or two about freedom! I always get a kick out of Democrats pretending to be more about freedom than anyone else, despite their insatiable appetite to grow government and have it impose on our freedoms. Instance #1:

Edwards has advocated a nationwide ban on smoking in public places while Hillary said she would rely on local governments to enforce their bans. When asked if a Federal ban would be constitutional, Edwards said he would need more time to think about that.
…
“When are we going to have somebody who will stand up to these drug companies and insurance companies who are running this country,” Edwards added. “Sooner or later somebody is going to have to fight them.”

What a moron! “Is a smoking ban constitutional? I don’t know, but who cares? That’s why we have liberal activist judges! Plus, I’ve already made my riches off of the tobacco industry, so who needs them now? Sure, it’ll hurt the people in my home state of North Carolina, but those rubes rejected me at the ballot box, so screw ‘em!”

Also, “let’s fight the drug companies, so they won’t make any more life-saving drugs!” Friggin’ brilliant, Silk.

Instance #2:

Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said on Sunday that his universal health care proposal would require that Americans go to the doctor for preventive care.

“It requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care,” he told a crowd sitting in lawn chairs in front of the Cedar County Courthouse. “If you are going to be in the system, you can’t choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK.”

But whatever you do, do NOT call it socialized medicine!

Apparently, Silky Pony has found that spot in the Constitution that says government is allowed to compel you to see the doctor. That’s a neat trick, considering the rest of the Constitution is all about the things that government is not allowed to do to you.

Besides, I thought the left supported your “right to die”? I guess maybe they do, so long as the nanny-state government signs off on it first. Or, as Jon Henke notes:

John Edwards says the “right to choose and the right to privacy are fundamental constitutional rights”. On the other hand, he also says you’re going to go see the doctor when he tells you to see the damned doctor if you know what’s good for you…

Which one of John Edwards’ two Americas gets a freedom of choice and privacy that extends beyond the uterus?

First he’ll mandate (no Barney Frank “weekend plan” jokes, please) that you see the doctor, then eventually he’ll require that you get your diet and exercise approved by the feds. After all, why stop with the doctor visits if we’re talking “preventive medicine” here, right? How Orwellian of him.

September 4, 2007 Posted by | big government, economic ignorance, hypocrisy, John Edwards | 1 Comment

Spain to put their criminal aliens in straightjackets?

Boy, the pro-amnesty shills think that we’re bad for not wanting to grant amnesty to criminal aliens? Here’s how Spain wants to address (or should I say “dress”) them:

Madrid – Spain’s Interior Ministry will authorise police to dress undocumented immigrants in straitjackets and helmets during repatriation flights, the daily El Pais reported on Monday.

Police may resort to the measures when they deem it necessary to protect illegal immigrants from hurting themselves in attempts to prevent their expulsion.

Police may not drug immigrants or use disproportionate violence, according to new guidelines prepared by the ministry, which were described as being in line with Council of Europe norms.

I’m sure the pro-amnesty nuts will be protesting Spain’s decision any minute now. Much like they protest Mexico’s treatment of immigrants (and those are the legal ones!), right? Waiting…

September 4, 2007 Posted by | illegal immigration | 1 Comment

   

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 32 other followers