Plumbing the Depths


The most appalling thing I heard last night, without a doubt, had nothing to do with the economy.  It had nothing to do with foreign relations.  It didn’t even have to do with Joe the fucking plumber.  Nope, it had to do with the Supreme Court.

I would consider anyone in their qualifications. I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications. But I certainly would not impose any litmus test.

In amidst a whole pile of dodging the question, John McCain hid this little gem.  He doesn’t think that–

as I write, a pro-life ad comes on television.  With a lot of lies.  Fuck you, Veritas.

John McCain doesn’t think that a judge who would support Roe vs. Wade would be qualified to be on the Supreme Court.  Despite the fact that he said earlier that he voted for Ginsberg and Breyer because he thought they were qualified–even though he disagreed with their ideology.  So where’s the truth here?

Is anyone in the MSM paying attention to this?  Nah.  Not when there’s an economic cesspit opening beneath our feet.  Or when the Boston Red Sox are at the brink of disaster, or Afghanistan is getting slowly worse, or Oliver Stone puts out a film about a sitting president.  But it’s important to me, it takes the activist judges criticism to a far higher level, and I don’t like it.

It was terribly enlightening right before the debate to see the section of Frontline’s The Choice 2008 that had a clip of John McCain in 2000, calling out the religious right.  He’s clearly in their pocket now, firmly held by the cojones.  Most politicians sacrifice credibility for access and power.  I just never thought it would come this far with this man.  So it begs the question–with McCain, what is the front, and what is the reality, and will he simply live the front if it suits his ambition?

For more on the importance of Roe not only to abortion rights but to the Constitutional right to privacy, see Jill’s post at Feministe.

And, for that matter, there is no such thing as Constitutional literalism.  Not with precedent, and not otherwise.  Any person reading the Constitution, even the most learned judge, makes a guess at the intent and implication in the text.  It’s not postmodernism, it’s simply fact; if we can’t ask, we don’t know.  Constitutional literalism is pretty much just an excuse to promote controlling viewpoints, and if I have to hear about it one more time, I’m gonna throw shit at the walls.


3 Responses to “Plumbing the Depths”

  1. I absolutely loved (OK, not really) how he managed to keep a straight face in stating he would not apply a litmus test while telling us exactly what litmus test he would be applying.

  2. The truth? He’s telling the conservatives that he’s conservatives, and the mainstream that he’s not so scary. He’s pandering and telling people what they want to hear. What does this mean for who he’d appoint?

    He’d appoint whoever is politically expedient and is popular among his supporters. Guess what kind of person that’d be.

  3. Y’all are quite right, of course. Of course, the (admittedly few) conservatives I dialogue with are generally of the ‘oh, he’d go back to centrist thought’ mindset, which I disagree with entirely. As polerin notes, it has to be the politically expedient stuff.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: