Posted by Anthony on December 14, 2008
The continued trouncing of the rule of law in this country is really starting to get on my nerves. I suppose everyone has heard about the allegations that Governor Blagojevich tried to sell Obama’s vacant senate seat. Lisa Madigan, Democrat Attorney General, has asked the Illinois state supreme court to strip the governor from his position.
I have no love for Blagojevich. Frankly, I have no love for any Illinois politician. My five years in Illinois was like being front and center at a circus. There is also no question in my mind that Blagojevich is guilty as sin- and this is certainly not his first offense. What is the difference between Blagojevich, Daley, and Obama? Blagojevich got caught. We’re talking Chicago politics, here. You’re living in la-la land if you expect anyone- even the Messiah- to have clean hands in general, and few places in the country get hands dirtier.
So it should be clear that I have no special fondness for Blagojevich. Nonetheless, in this country- allegedly- people are innocent until proven guilty. To try to get the state supreme court to toss the governor out before the man has even had his trial is simply wrong. Should the man resign? Of course. But then I think almost every politician in Illinois should resign, and that probably includes the Republicans, but the Democrats for sure. If the man doesn’t resign, will the state suffer? Probably. But that still doesn’t mean you can just ignore the rule of law and it doesn’t mean that just because a guy is an arrogant knucklehead that you can strip him of due process.
Lisa Madigan is naturally just following the Democrat playbook, running to the courts rather than following available procedures. Here, though, the pressure is such that conviction or not, resignation or not, the man is probably going to be impeached in short order, anyway. Not fast enough for Lisa.
What troubles me is that I can’t say that I’ve heard anyone else raise this point. Not even conservatives. We conservatives are supposed to be the ones sticking up for the rule of law. I think this indicates how far this country has moved from its founding principles. I’m not saying that conservatives are willfully giving Madigan a pass here, I’m just saying that its become so commonplace to manipulate the law that sometimes we hardly notice when its happening.
Anyway, I say impeach the guy if he doesn’t resign, but you can’t strip the man of his position based on allegations made in an indictment that haven’t yet been aired in trial. I mean, you can’t if you care about the rule of law. Which is exactly why I would not be surprised one bit to see Lisa Madigan succeed in her efforts.
How would that be for a little stare decisis, eh? A little precedent in your coffee sir? Thank you, make it a double. What’s that? Congressman SuchandSuch has been accused of ThisandThat? Bammo! Take it to court! Illinois vs. Blagojevich will solve your problems without the messy business of actually convicting him!
(And of course after the dust clears I suppose we’ll see the Lt. Govenor appoint Madigan to the empty senate seat. And it will turn out that Madigan was one of Obama’s personal favorites for the job. We will be asked not to read into this but many of us will suspect the truth: Blago didn’t play ball; Obama showed what happens if you don’t play it his way. He is from Chicago, after all.)
EDIT: Well, I’ll be! Someone did take note of the precedent angle, and it was an Illinois Democrat! Well, there is an exception to every rule, I guess. 
It was in the very article I posted:
The decision to go to the state’s highest court was not welcomed by everyone. Democratic Rep. Jack Franks said it would set “a dangerous precedent” for the court to remove a governor as proposed by Madigan, who is a likely candidate for governor in 2010.
Franks, a fierce Blagojevich critic, said that kind of decision should be left to the General Assembly.
Seems a little late for Democrats to be worrying about ‘dangerous precedents’ but we’ll take what we can get.
Posted by Anthony on September 11, 2008
Yesterday I was approved to be on the pro-life blogsite, www.prolifeblogs.com. Welcome to anyone arriving on my site from there. I invite you to see what I am about and my somewhat unique approach to the abortion issue.
The South Carolina chairwoman of the Democrat party said yesterday that Sarah Palin’s “primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.” This has apparently inspired a firestorm but this is an observation that was made in the conservative camp already from the reverse: that in the liberal (feminist) mind, Sarah’s primary disqualification was that she hasn’t had an abortion.
Sarah Palin is proof that carrying your baby to term is not ‘punishment‘ and does not destroy your life and keep you from succeeding as a woman. There is no question that young mothers have a difficult road ahead of them but the liberal message that it is ok to annihilate your offspring to make it easier is a bizarre moral statement entailing numerous wierd philosophical and ethical justifications. Call the offspring a ‘fetus’ or a ‘zygote’ and you can do anything you want with it, nevermind the fact that these labels are almost completely arbitrary and the implication that they are not ‘human’ by virtue of these labels completely spurious.
This sort of moral and logical jujitsu made me think about the moral equivalency present in the reaction to the terrorist attacks on 9-11. By now of course we’ve all heard the saying that ‘one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.’ By insisting that there is no moral foundation many become hesitant to impose their preferences on another. This applies to the abortion debate as well as to terrorism. A person of this mind might not want to condemn terrorists. They might say as their subway is blown up or their building demolished, “Well, we probably had it coming. Who am I to say?”
I don’t for a minute believe that my country is perfectly innocent. I am the first to remind people of certain government abuses. However, there can be no question that America has been, in the main, a force for the good, and this in large part because of the distinctly Christian outlook that Americans historically have possessed.
The ability to see this is completely clouded in the minds of some. Sarah Palin has been described as the perfect example of the ‘American Taliban.’ (See just one example). This is moral equivalency writ large, moral sense perfectly unhinged.
When was the last time we saw a Pentecostal walk into a coffee bar and blow it up? When was the last time we saw a Pentecostal (she’s not one anymore, but still) video tape him or herself beheading someone? When was the last time we saw a Christian of any stripe commandeer an airplane and fly it into a building? These things do not happen, yet liberals perceive that Christian ‘fundamentalists’ are just like Muslim ‘fundamentalists.’
We aren’t talking about rational people. In ultimate terms, there is no discussion possible with them. There are only three ways to overcome: 1. Convert them. 2. Out-reproduce them. 3. Out-vote them.
The Jihadist would have added “4. Slay them” but the fact that I didn’t won’t be noticed on the left, which is precisely my point.
Posted by Anthony on September 1, 2008
It is a good thing that McCain and Palin didn’t attempt to hide the fact that Sarah’s daughter, Bristol, is pregnant. I wouldn’t dare try to attempt a chronology, but it sure seemed like Palin pre-empted the liberal mudslinging in getting out the truth. Or didn’t you know that the left has been trying to say that Sarah’s newborn child, the one with Downs Syndrome, is the baby that is actually Bristol’s? I don’t know the background of this particular blog but it seems to explain the rumors on that point well enough. If that wasn’t bad enough, while simultaneously suggesting that the baby is actually Bristol’s and not Sarah’s, the left has folks out there (Alan Colmes) saying that the newborn’s Downs Syndrome is Sarah’s fault for not getting proper pre-natal care.
Now, that argument alone needs a thumping but I’m not going to dish it out right now.
Anyway, should this matter? Should this make conservatives think twice? Already the blogosphere is ringing with the insinuation that a pregnant daughter somehow discredits or undermines the parents’ moral platform. The left is all a titter about a young couple engaging in the behavior that the left itself is hellbent on promoting, except the whole ‘keeping the baby’ part. I suppose some more measured voices on the left will be content so long as it was Bristol’s own choice to keep the baby, but there will be others on the left that believe that Bristol is ruining her life. There will be some on the left that believe that this is the worst thing in the world that could happen to a young teenager girl.
In fact, there are some people that believe that actually carrying the baby to term would be a punishment.
In fact, such a person is running for president. His name is Barack Obama:
When it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include — which should include abstinence education and teaching the children — teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include — it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I’ve got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old, I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby,
http://lifenews.com/nat3827.html
Ok, so a baby isn’t a consequence, it is a punishment. Got it. Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on June 26, 2008
Already I’m seeing and hearing reactions to today’s Supreme Court tossing of the DC gun ban saying that this is conservative judicial activism. As I understand it (I haven’t read the decisions myself), even the dissent is making that accusation.
I don’t agree, personally. I believe that the ruling was constructionist (which makes me wonder why Kennedy went with it) but let’s assume it was judicial activism. Is this not then an illustration about the foolishness of a judicial system that is allowed to deviate at will from the words on the paper? There is no right to an abortion listed in the Constitution, ala Roe vs. Wade. There is no language in the Constitution or even the state constitutions ensuring that gays have as much right to ‘marriage’ as others. And yet, courts have found that they are. This is the bed the liberals made: now lie in it.
As far as I’m concerned, if states want to decide to legalize abortion, or legalize gay marriage, so long as it is done via the legislative branch, which is supposed to represent the will of the people, I will not be happy but at least I can say that democracy is preserved and that there is at least hope that we can yet persuade people to another position. But on the current model, people are essentially disenfranchised. In order to overturn a ruling, in particular the SC ruling, you need to A. get a justice in there with the views you like and B. Get a case to come before them that matches the thing you want to accomplish.
Not easy to do. It can take a generation to pull it off, if not a century. Seems like a bad way to run a country, to me. If this is in fact an instance of judicial activism from the conservative side, then let this be a warning and a call to action to the liberals: it’s time to stop using the courts to push our agendas and trust the people and the legislative processes.
