Redstate

... nominations would all a 5 Justice majority of Strict Constructionists to form.

...One last bit. I'm told conservatives in Washington are now nervous that with two retirements to fill it will be harder to fill the court at once with multiple conservatives.

The flip side of this is that the President simply ought to nominate the people he wants (hopefully strict constructionists) and let the chips fall where they may.

Let the Democrats filibuster them if they want. The Court doesn't have all the seats filled and the Senate Demmocrats can take the heat. George Bush has shown he doesn't mind standing firm when he thinks he's right.

"One last bit. I'm told conservatives in Washington are now nervous that with two retirements to fill it will be harder to fill the court at once with multiple conservatives."

With so many "mavericks" and "mavericks-in-training" in the Senate, how long until one or more than one of the GOP Senators starts talking about keeping the same ideological balance the Court already has?

...With so many "mavericks" and "mavericks-in-training" in the Senate, how long until one or more than one of the GOP Senators starts talking about keeping the same ideological balance the Court already has?

This is certainly a cause for concern given guys like Graham et al. It then becomes time for the President to "invite" the miscreants over to the woodshed, I mean down to Crawford ...

Given a choice -- e.g., if not for health reasons -- wouldn't a Justice retire during the summer?  Why up and leave in the middle of a term?  Kind of throws a monkey in the wrench with respect to the Court's business.

I wish that he was leaving, but see this from the NYT July 3rd:

The term was something of a triumph for Justice Stevens, the longest-serving associate justice and a vigorous 85-year-old who has no plans to retire; in fact, this week he is interviewing applicants for clerkships for the court's term that begins in October 2006.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/04/politics/politicsspecial1/04scotus.html

People keep using the term strict constructionist.  Scalia doesn't describe himself as as strict constructionist but as an originalist and one who takes a broad reading of the Constitution's original meaning.  When it comes to statutory text, he is a textualist.  But I think strict constructionist is inaccurate because the implication is that the justice construes the Constitution as strictly as possible.  But that's not a good way of reading the Constitution.  Rather, the proper approach is to ascertain the original meaning of a Constitutional provision whether that meaning be broad or narrow.  But we allow the original meaning to guide us rather than beginning from the strictest construction.

Erick,

     Thank you for burning the midnight oil on this one. Isn't this fun. I'm so glad that we are not on the other end of these retirements i.e. a dem President nominating strict judical activists(if there is such a thing...I just made that up!) and a dem senate to confirm them all. Thank god we control all the power. I think Bush is going to come through for us with flying colors.

Powder Blue Report

I claim liberty to use a term that 'normal' people might understand :-)

Rehnquist has resigned.  

If these seats become a referrendum on Roe (which I don't think happens with one vacancy), how different of a dynamic are we talking about?

Sure, AG isn't rock ribbed conservative, but he is a lighter shade of Red than Stevens, right?

Normal people can understand these arguments.  I just explained it in easily accessible English but moreover Scalia himself has been explaining this to non-legal audiences for 20 years.  I don't want strict constructionists on the Court.  I want originalists and I am unwilling to throw away the distinction because it might take a little thought to parse it out.

I agree. Another aspect of back-to-back nominations is that it would be very difficult for Democrats to block or filibuster all of Bush's picks without looking like unreasonable obstructionists. By nominating several strong candidates within a short period of time, chances may be better that he will get at least one really solid conservative. The problem is we need two to tip the balance of the court.

I said from day 1 that more vacancies were good for Democrats. But just because it's good doesn't mean they will "win," which I would define as altering Bush's preferred choices and/or defeating any nominees.

In fact, I really do not see many scenarios where Democrats win. Stevens definitely won't retire while there are 2 vacancies already, so that aspect has to be held separate for the time being.

The two spots apparently up after today present plenty of fun on their own, though. It gives Bush and the GOP more tactical space to operate in and also fractures the Democratic response; it is much easier to attack one person than two, not just logistically but rhetorically.

Listen up, this is important (-NCAA '06 out soon-). The WORST thing Bush could do is appoint one untouchable nominee and one controversial. That allows Democrats to hold up the more moderate judge as an example-- showing Bush is more than capable of making good choices, he just made a mistake the first time around.

Bush should nominate 2 experienced justices in the mold of "Thomas and Scalia," as Bush himself promised. The GOP has the numbers in the Senate and probably among voters as well. A full-scale war is perfectly acceptable so long as the Republicans play to win.

I think the problem here for non-lawyers/non-SCOTUS mavens may be less than it seems. Compared with "strict activists" (new coinage in thread below!) originalists and constructionists seem synonymous. To be more general, Scalia is clearly more "conservative" than the "liberal" justices, and his opinions are comparatively both originalist and strictly construed.

Now, comparing him with Thomas or Rehnquist, or some of the appellate judges, the distinctions are much more valuable.

Bush needs to take a stand on, and put in place strong justices who are anchored to the constitution, and not to what they think the constitution has evolved into.

I think most people use the term strict constructionist and originalist interchangeably-along with conservative (although I think conservative is a misnomer, considering an originalist isn't always going to find in favor of the conservative position either).

I think that Bush needs to focus the debate no in the issue of Roe, but in the issue of how broadly one wants the constitution to be interpreted judicial activism means far more than Roe.

I think that his strong suit is to stand firm for what he wants, certainly among conservatives. And I think the more the Senate Democrats moan and groan and obstruct the more the general populace sees them for what they are, the party whose only ideas consists of "No."

Now is not the time to 'go wobbley' and Iraq has shown that GWB can stand firm on principle when it suits him --- hopefully this will be one of those times. I think the wild card has been broached here about the 'shakey, self-serving' Republicans like Graham. They are a much greater risk than the Senate Democrats.

Very experienced......brilliant.....Scalia and Thomas-like

Jones and Luttig....Jones to be CJ......W chooses the first female as CJ......a lasting legacy

...Bush should nominate 2 experienced justices in the mold of "Thomas and Scalia," as Bush himself promised. The GOP has the numbers in the Senate and probably among voters as well. A full-scale war is perfectly acceptable so long as the Republicans play to win.

This is the a perfect storm for the lefty reactionaries: Pres. Bush, the 'chimp' the 'village idiot' the one their propaganda machine has slandered and defamed is going to get to appoint at least 2, and very likely 3 or more, SC Justices. And the dems, what can they do? whine, obstruct and posture. I wonder how much good will Bush grants them these days, after turban Durbin, etc. have slimed Americans in general and this President in particular for so long?  This will be a great summer.

I think that Bush needs to focus the debate no in the issue of Roe, but in the issue of how broadly one wants the constitution to be interpreted judicial activism means far more than Roe.

Yes. The question of Roe should not be part of the argument at all. Roe is what it is and it should stand or fall in the future as a result of a question based on states rights or some other more fundamental issue.

As you note the real question is how the Court should view the Constitution and I think the "originalist/constructionalist" argument resonates with the general populace.

I'd take him for Stevens or Ginsberg if we have two respectful jurists confirmed for O'Connor and the Chief.

Remember, the Mod Squad -- Chafee, Collins, Snow, Specter -- are probably going to rebel if they think Roe is in jeopardy.

For now, though, let's see what POTUS gives us for those already retiring.  (It's only a little after 3 here, so I'm still knocking on wood for the Chief.)

Hunter, you are right on......the Liberals can't believe this cowboy with only 6 years of experience in elected office B4 becoming POTUS now gets to choose 2 and maybe 3.....surely there must be some phrase in the Constitution that can be used as a way to keep this "Bring it On Cowboy" from making these important selections.....furthermore, he is probably listening to that guy from Wyoming and also the Evil Rove......LOL

Remember, the Mod Squad -- Chafee, Collins, Snow, Specter -- are probably going to rebel if they think Roe is in jeopardy.

Another reason to keep the argument from coming down to Roe v Wade. The President's, and his advisors', challenge is to keep the debate at a higher level and not allow it to be dragged into detail.

I see that stubborn, dried up old fossil actually sign the paperwork.  He's had a deathgrip on that seat for a long time, and I'm not believing inside source leaks until I see the ink signed.

for better or for worse, that's what every GOP SCOTUS nomination is.

The "stacking the court" argument only holds sway if the public perceives the ideology of the nominees to be out of the mainstream compared to their own.  Given recent rulings by the Supreme Court and lower courts, particularly regarding gay marriage and eminent domain, it would not surprise me if the public actually wants the court to tilt more to the right to counterbalance the overreach courts have recently made.  

I think conservative is a misnomer, considering an originalist isn't always going to find in favor of the conservative position either.

I am in favor of TRUE constructionist/originalists, not conservative judges who use that as an excuse when it suits them to vote in favor of the conservative agenda.

IMO we don't have a true constructionist/originalist on the court.

I believe you're right, a TRUE originalist WOULD hand down judgements which might seem pro-liberal at times, and pro-conservative at others, because the original constitution has concepts which don't exclusively fit either the conservative or the liberal mode.

I think the vast majority of conservatives believe that a 'constructionist' will overturn roe v wade, and that is the end of their thought on the issue.  Its as though they think that just one decision (overturning roe v wade) is the only important decision that the court will decide during the lifetime(s) of the justices.

nfn

at the very least is not in favor of stacking with judicial activists of any ilk or variety.  Judicial Activism, or Legal Realism, serves as a disqualifying factor in my mind.  I tire of legislatures from the bench, be they republican or democratic in variation.  I pray that GW would have the decency to follow through on his promise to seek a strict constructionalist (a variation on formalism) and actually nominate someone who is more concerned with adjudication of existing law than with creation of new law through case precedence.

The cynic in me, however, is not actually expecting this from the good president.

...the apocalyptic rhetoric from the Left is three justices go?  Kudos to Mr. Erickson for his excellent work, as always...

It's a Lederman-Novak death cage match!

about your source. Although they do not discredit them, I hear this speculation might be premature. But what I do hear is that Renhquist will be going back to the hospital for a couple of weeks. I'm not going out on a limb here, or even implying that this could be true, because the sourse could be compromised, I guess, at least that is what I was warned of. But, it seems he will be going back to evaluate even more areas that seems to be infected with cancer. The lungs and his manhood as well as his heart will be looked at as well as other areas.

I think what we really have here is that Rehnquist is in serious trouble with cancer, if this is true and for that reason must consider the step down.

What a sad ending to an achieving life. I hope the best for him.

Yeah. Scotusblog quotes Marty Lederman as saying no retirement today. Who is Marty Lederman again?

I too want the President to appoint constructionists.  However, given recent court rulings, I am not sure the Democrats' rallying cry of "don't let him stack the court"  will resonate with the public as much as they believe it will.

IMO we don't have a true constructionist/originalist on the court.

Then maybe the president should nominate Congressman Ron Paul. (And - he's a Texan, too.)

and....Thanks be to God for the timing!!

IT IS NOT CROWDED ALONG THE EXTRA MILE

R..ighteous L..ives G..row

Would, shift one vote from "liberal" (replacing Stevens) to "moderate" at worst.

I can live with that.

Darn that Robert Novak ;)

I know you're doing yeoman service to keep us all informed.  But sheesh.  How many times can we go through this?

But the point of nominating a moderate would be to make confirmation easier.  The left would fight harder against Gonzales than they would against any other nominee because of the torture memo.  Gonzales is the rare candidate absolutely hated by both sides.  I just don't understand why people think that Bush is dumb enough to nominate him.

To the american people that terrorism is indeed a war, and Bush "legitimate" on that issue, is it possible the Senate Dems will try not to seem as oppositional on nominees as to be "obstructionists"?  Or is that just wishful thinking?

a siren going:

"BUSH GETS TWO:

REPORT: REHNQUIST RETIRES; TO BE ANNOUNCED TONIGHT"

Top of his page: Drudge

Well, Drudge has up his siren again.  We'll see who is right soon enough.

I'd be behind Ron Paul for CJ.  I can't imagine how freaked out some people would be by his rulings, but he's one of my favorite members of Congress.

A full-scale war is perfectly acceptable so long as the Republicans play to win.

But how often do the Senate Republicans play to win?

and just go ahead and finish off the democrat party.

I think one nomination was hot, two is even hotter, three is well ... an "extraordinary circumstance" in the eyes of some, and possibly many, in the Gang of 14.  And I think Stevens knows that and wants the filibuster preserved and possibly used.  Althought the SCOTUS has no constitutionally appointed role in selecting justices, it is well known that some justices time their retirements to aid or to impair the ability of an administration to make court choices.  I will be particularly interested in seeing if Stevens (if indeed he announces his intention to reitre) will editorialize about who should/should not be his successor.

It's a loyalty issue.  Bush will appoint him because of personal friendship and Gonzales's loyalty to the President.  Bush is known for being blinded by loyalty, and his vehement defense of Gonzales against "attacks" (which were really just statements by conservatives that they did not believe Gonzales to be a good choice based on conrete reasons), shows that he is not looking at the AG from the same perspective as outside observers.

Considering how far things have gone since the 1930s, I'm not sure an originalist's votes would be easy to distignuish from those of a judge simply pushing conservative positions.

If a judge consistently un-did the stretching of the Constitution done by FDR's appointees, that'd look pretty one-sided.

He's taking the que from here, I just confirmed. I hope Erick, more than one is counting on you being just that. As you seem to be "the" source.

I know if that siren is flashing that heartache for liberals is probably dead ahead :)

Powder Blue Report

I think that him "editorializing" depends on what his retirement says.  If he does what O'Connor did - retire effective upon the confirmation of his replacement, then it is inappropriate for him to editorialize as he will still be a sitting member of the Court, who could, theoretically, still be around come the First Monday of October.  If he steps down effective immediately, then maybe he can come out with his thoughts as he would not be sitting in on any Court decisions.

Everyone should remember, that while the Term does not begin until October, the Court does meet in September to decide on cert petitions and pick cases for the court's docket.  There is a possibility that  the retirements could be still sitting and deciding the docket of the Court, though they may not be on the Court to hear those cases.

the state laws that were overturned by the libs are favored by conservative majorities of americans except in berkely and nyc.

Its not because we force policies down peoples throats without debate and a vote.

what a concept

What makes these choices so important is that they will finally lead to the end of affirmative action.  Why then should we have affirmative action for the Supreme Court?  There should be no "woman's seat" or "Hispanic seat."  The President should appoint the most qualified originalists available.  And it's perfectly clear that the most qualified candidates all happen to be white males: Luttig, McConnell, or Easterbrook.  All of these choices have the chance to be true legacies on the Court; there is even the possibility that they could be giants.  I will be deeply upset if nonentities like Edith Clement, Edith Jones, or Alberto Gonzales get chosen.

I have a confirmation on the retirement. I didn't expect that. Here's one to add to the pile, Stevens may announced at the same time. We're only half an hour away.

There should be no "woman's seat" or "Hispanic seat."  The President should appoint the most qualified originalists available.

Hear, hear!

Edith Jones is solid.

Michael McConnell has some issues in which he will be a wild card (he is especially fond of campaign finance reform to a greater degree than anyone here would care for - his Establishment jurisprudence would also probably not be great from conservative perspectives).

Luttig, I agree - give him the Chief's seat should he be out later today.

And I think that there is something to be said for nominating a Hispanic or woman who is strong on the issues.  It's not affirmative action to say that - where there are two strong candidates, the Hispanic option might serve some political as well as judicial goals (Garza seems to be a solid choice as well).

the more difficult it is for the GOP to get their nominees confirmed. Or, alternatively, the more difficult it is to get reelected in 06 and 08 etc. A

nd I think more than one nomination makes it all that much more apparent. If Roe is being sustained by a two vote majority, and there are two empty seats.... (Yes, I can actually count votes, that doesn't mean it won't be portrayed this way.)

I understand that the religious right moved heaven and earth to get Bush elected specifically so that he could appoint pro-life justices.  I just wonder if the rest of the folks in the party will pay the price if Bush follows through.

IF abortion is as popular as its advocates say it is, overturning Roe will not only have long lasting implications for the country, but also for the GOP.

I for one do not think that in a case like this there is a 'most qualified' person.  There are a number of people who are qualified - the same as for any job.  As the person filling the vacancy, the POTUS will have to trust his instincts as to who will best do the job the same as if he were hiring for a job in the private sector.

I think the most qualified person is Edith Jones and am rooting for her as CJ - I don't think that there has to be a 'woman's seat' or a black of hispanic seat, but I think if we have mostly white males, this is not a realistic thing - the legal profession is too intigrated for me to believe that only white males are qualified for the job.

If one took the case that the SCOTUS should resemble the population of the country, that would mean that 5 judges would be women and not just two.

If Bush only picks white guys it will look like a 'good old boys' club thing to me, and I am a white guy myself.  I'm hoping Bush gets three picks and fills them with Jones, Gazara and Luttig just for the record.

I need a role model

I don't know exactly what you intended by this post, but it certainly is loaded with the opportunity for someone to label it "racist."

Please explain what you meant more clearly, and be more careful with the way you phrase things in the future.

you do "NOT" belong here and should go away.

Thanks for making my point for me. Posts all over redstate.org today advocating hispanics and blacks with no Leon H. reprobation.

I may be in line for Rove's Liberal baiting job!

To a victim-status seeking liberal every utterance is opportunity for name-calling.

The fear of liberal name-calling is coming to an end. See Bill Cosby and Thomas Sowell for wreckage you libs have wrought.

I am the son of the coach and leaer of the first integrated little league and cub scouts in my southern hometown and I hired the first black paralegal and  was dem party chair in my county for years

until my stomach was turned by the new white lib racists that see blacks as children to be protected by them.

I have moved on from the PC world, so label on my brother.

Once you move on you may grow a sense of humor.

But I do not suffer from self loathing. I love white people.

Oh yeah, and all other hues as well.

Reassure me.

consider adding a little context next time so you end up with a coherent statement and not something that appears to border between inflammatory and racist.

Just advice.

........perception is 20/20, and I am glad you see it, too. I even live in a very liberal state, WA, with some incredibly fine "Dem" friends. Many of them are sick of the hoy-toy to small group efforts, as they believed their party was about other things. For example.. Gregoire may be in office and that is a whole "nother" issue, but some pretty far "lefties" even asked me where to go to sign revote petitions. (of course they knew I would be happy to help them!) I believe history was made in many ways that made the "Far Left" really nervous, as the sincerely fine Democrats of our state got to witness how far the "Party" would go. (By the way 2 of the ones that were most outraged are gay/lesbian and both the "gay friend" and the "lesbian friend" think "gay marriage" is a joke.(another issue,...."jeepers"...., it hard not to bring them up!!....sorry.)

That's right, a RWCC with friends like that, and good friends, and human beings that I sincerely love, regardless.

Americans, in general, regardless of "party" seek unity and peace. Huge numbers of folks in all parties, that are just common folks like me, are sick and tired of small agendas ruling our daily lives. We have sat back long enough and let the "smart" folks that believe they know what's best for us, determine our futures. Some of us, that are not so politically bright, and I realize I am not, are trying to turn on the lights again. Just because we are not "savvy" in the political whirlwind shouldn't make us meek, in fact it should make us aware and push for what we do understand...right and wrong. Hopefully more of us are waking up and trying to learn. At that point the "smart" ones can establish policy that is sincerely good for the "Majority". (oops,...another issue?!?!)  

We need to get back to living in the "REPUBLIC" of the United States of America. With God's help, and Dubya's choices, we have a shot at it.

Let's pray that GOD is with President Bush and all our leaders as this is decided. God's Will be done, and we will be fine.

IT IS NEVER CROWDED ALONG THE EXTRA MILE

R..ighteous L..ives G..row  

That's because I've already said my piece about that nonsensical practice, and did so in a front page story. Quoting myself:

If Erick's source is correct about the reasoning the White House is using to arrive at a Garza SCOTUS nomination, it appears that forces within the White House have fallen prey to the same seductive, yet false political reasoning that Warshawsky rightly skewered. Not only will nominating Garza to the SCOTUS not be effective, politically speaking - if he is nominated simply because he is Hispanic, it is also the wrong thing to do.

But even granting the assumption that this time it might work, I still maintain that it is the wrong thing for us to do, for at least two reasons.

First, the very discussion that we are having here gives ammunition for the other side to use against us. "You see?" they will say. "They're just trying to impress you by nominating tokens. Don't be fooled, they don't really have your best interests at heart." When we start seriously discussing putting forth a candidate on the basis of his race and not his qualifications, we immediately lose any credibility with the people we're trying to impress. What's more, we deserve to lose it.

Which ties in nicely with the second reason why this kind of politics is wrong. We've taken quite a political beating over the last several decades for rightly standing up against racial discrimination, which some other people call "affirmative action" or "quotas." Remember all those arguments? Remember how employers should choose the most qualified person regardless of race? Remember how it's insulting to minorities to assume that they can't perform at the same level on their own? Remember how it's ludicrous to punish the children for the sins of their great-grandparents?

I didn't just say all of those things, I believed them. And for us to so openly and blatantly surrender them now for the sake of some cheap (and probably ineffective) play at a segment of the Democrat vote is degrading to the integrity of our party. If that's how little the principle really meant to us, we could have given up fighting affirmative action a long time ago, and done ourselves a lot more political good in the process.

So please don't make a lot of assumptions about me that you can't back up.

Now, we've all been watching you today, and your commitment to the conservative cause is admirable, but posts like this ignore the political reality that we face, and aren't helpful to our image as a party. Although I think it's unfair, the reality is that our party is facing a PR problem when it comes to race issues.

Part of the reason for that, although we don't welcome it, is that the lunatic white supremacists, for whatever reason, often claim affiliation with conservatism. Our response to that, if we are to battle political reality, must be to distance ourselves from them - in the same way that the liberals would do well (but won't) to distance themselves from the more aggressive war protesters and peace activists in their midst.

I intend to be smarter than the liberals, and continue beating them at elections, and if that means shouting down someone like you if and when you deserve it, then so be it.

One of us in this conversation surely does need to grow up.

I must be one of "the" most liberal members of RedState, and they still tolerate my presents and actually hear what I have to say. I am a Republican and will remain so, and you sir, with that remark, are not only prejuduce, racist, and uninformed, but have no place in my party or in politics at all, as all parties will actively remove you. Go back to wherever you came from and do not bother us again.

You are without shame or thought or knowledge and there is no need for you here, or in the party.

Good riddance.

P.S. I have never done this before to anyone, but you deserve it.

the exposure of the inaity of political correctness run amok and the demonization of men and white men.

I do appreciate your nice advice but some of us white men with credibility in the are area of race relations are trying to actually advance the society away from such sensitivities that presumes that blacks are too weak.

I am going to treat blacks like men like I always have and not like disabled fragile souls.

I have no illusions that Everyone will like me. I ain't Clinton.

It was a joke intended to produce the discussion we are having.

Plus, I earlier endorsed C. Thomas for cheif!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OhSure

and neither should you be. He's just trapped in that PC world where only white christian southern men can be disapraged and made fun of.

I am know as a reconciler. Please forgive him honey

To a victim-status seeking liberal every utterance is opportunity for name-calling.

The fear of liberal name-calling is coming to an end. See Bill Cosby and Thomas Sowell for wreckage you libs have wrought.

I am the son of the coach and leaer of the first integrated little league and cub scouts in my southern hometown and I hired the first black paralegal and  was dem party chair in my county for years

until my stomach was turned by the new white lib racists that see blacks as children to be protected by them.

I have moved on from the PC world, so label on my brother.

Once you move on you may grow a sense of humor.

But I do not suffer from self loathing. I love white people.

Oh yeah, and all other hues as well.

engage in a slanging match with you.

This isn't about what you thought you meant when you posted. It is about how many of the editors interpreted it.

Now, I was polite to you and encouraged you to add context the next time so the non-clairvoyants among us couldn't take your remark the wrong way. So as Thomas would say, every dog gets bite but only one.

If you think you want to continue to post here then just get off your high horse, think about it for a second, and do whatever you want to do.

....my almost Full Irish blood. You made me giggle. And that won't even upset my American Indian Great Grandma, or my Hispanic aunt. They'll both be giggling too. Good Job. ( Irish men have always seen the beauty in all women!)

IT IS NEVER CROWDED ALONG THE EXTRA MILE

R..ighteous L..ives G..row

I'm normally in your corner, and I see where you're coming from. I figured you were being dry. But play gentle with the editors. They mean and meant well. We got a lot of silliness around these parts. All we ask is that you don't look like that silliness in refuting other kinds of silliness.

context available to grow you a sense of humor.

What is "next time"?

What my post was about was to expose liberal pc interpretations. Many post advocated hispanics and blacks and yet got no demand for context.

I may well wsih to expose people that are bigoted against white men again.

the context is PC liberal america.

...I believe God is Blessing America with this chain of events. Ain't it great, God IS in charge.

IT IS NEVER CROWDED ALONG THE EXTRA MILE

R..ighteous L..ives G..row

Clear the statement; "I want a white man, I need a role model."

Perhaps I was not clear on it as I could see nothing from your original post to geraldy (and not Leon) that would indicate anything but a prejudice and racist remark.

I will conceed I do interpret somethings out of context, but show me where, and I'll consider not asking for a ban on you. This better be good, but for now I hold judgement.

at the depth of fear the pc police has wrought.

I also mean well. To try and expose the ridiculousness of pc talk. I was called nigger lover in my teens as my family and me took the gospel to heart and the result of our efforts with others is a much better society down here in which those former racists will hire and do hire blacks and go to church together.

And so, if it takes me risking misundeerstanding for otherwise intelligent editirs to get over their pc tunnel vision that resembles bigotry agianst my tribe. Well, I will risk it.

Back in the 70's I had to fight those rednecks at times. And you should see the other guy.

 Thanks for the advice bro. I am new to this. I am a lawyer, former democrat party county chair, converted to gop june 2001, and made the switch due to white liberal racism against blacks, and tax cuts of course!!

Do you think the reaction would have been the same to:

I want a black man

I need a role model?

i'm asking

....we have come. Gamecock has a sense of humor. Some of us actually like it. Pull back the sensationalism and see the humor. My gay friends tell me "Gay" jokes, My "Dem" friends tell me Dem jokes(mostly about Gregoire right now), My Black friends tell me "n" jokes and actually laugh at me that I won't use the word.(and they laugh at society too). My Jewish friends, and I have a lot them, tell me jokes I can't talk about here. My republican friends even tell me "Elephant" Jokes.

Being mature and debating an issue can come with a little humor.

We are all God's children.

IT IS NEVER CROWDED ALONG THE EXTRA MILE

R..ighteous L..ives G..row

The word "nigger" is one that should be used with extraordinary caution.  It's almost always a pejorative term, whether it you're using it as an epithet, a label, a self-description, or an ice-breaker in conversation.  I don't care how much Richard Pryor you've listened to or how much else you've read from professors at Harvard.  The politics of the word are complex and there ain't many times a white person can use the word in a public forum without being called a racist or a troll.  Please be very careful with that word.  I would suggest strict scrutiny.  Nobody knows you, and nobody really knows why you are using it, and this isn't a free-for-all, say anything you want, kind of place.  

I strongly disagree with any claim that the Supreme Court should "look like" America.  The Federalists never saw the Supreme Court as representative.  The Court's chief virtue was supposed to be its wisdom. The possession of wisdom is certainly color and gender-blind.  Just looking at their records, the three candidates I mentioned simply have much stronger records indicating that they have the requisite temperment for a seat on the Court.  Jones and Garza are much more likely to be wild cards.

How old are you?

Many of the previous posts under many stories

(I'm not hip yet to all the blog lingo - what does "clear" mean and how does one do it? Anything like that 1984 dictionary reduction execise? kidding on the later. But do not know the clearing thing)

 on the court vacancies have advocated for women and non-white men. Back in the seventies many of us civil rights white in the south advocated to get blacks in high profile jobs they were qualified for quicker than would otherwise be the case so that chilfren would have role models. To see someone like them get promoted.

I did mean the post as dry humor. The reason. We have reached the point in this country in which such exercises at "diversity" tend now to stigmatize.

Recently here in georgia, whre there were already two blacks on the sup ct, the governor picked a black conservative which I thought shows we have arrived as a country. This man was a brilliant conservative and it didn't matte that there wer e already 2 .

Technically, my statement is not racist, anymore than if the word black were substituted for white.

For a statement to be racist, one race has to be pitted againsts another with one being deemed superior or inferior.

My statement even if no joke, would simply express a desire that there be evidence that white men are not being excluded from consideration so as to be more confident that I have an equal shot.

You know, I am a lawyer, and so may even be in the pool Dubya is considering!!!

wish me luck?

OhSure, I can tell you are conscienciously trying to do a good job and detect a real Christian tone (i ama christian so this is a compliment! this is context for you!!)

and I truly hope you don't ban me because

YOU GUYS NEED THE PERSPECTIVE OF A FORMER LIB DEM 42-YEAR OLD WHITE MALE SOUTHERN BAPTST CONSERVATIVE.

We white men have a pretty good track record of acheivement and I'm the latest greatest new and improved version.

Help me with the ego

Will some woman civilize me

oh Sure?

ENOUGH CONTEXT FOR YOU? Anyone reading the paragraph knows why I used it.

The really intersting question is your need to repeat it. Now that is suspicious and no one knows you.

Be careful repeating that word.

by the way what is a troll? I'm new to this term

that's the first comment of his that I really appreciated!

And yes, it's because I was pretty sure he was being humorous.

"I did mean the post as dry humor." Thank you, as I was about to be angry. No further comment necessary. My apology, as I did not see the humor initially.

Be Well.

Too old.

From now on only knock knock jokes?

and back to life in a red state

But that was a good one.  

I understand the concerns of the editors though.  I'm sure someoneat dKos is furiously writing up a "Redstate wants all white men on the Supreme Court" diary right now.

To use the word, I'm just suggesting that it's not just a matter of political correctness that most people don't, because they're a little more wary about it than you seem to be, given how pejorative and hateful the word can be, depending on how it is used.  I was surprised to see it in this last post, considering all the other ones you've written since signing on, for the first time, four days ago.  Now, you can go on using it, I suppose, there's nothing stopping you, but I have to ask, aside from your story about being called a "nigger lover" why you would want to?  Was there something more important in that story of your being called that you'd like us to know about?  

Did you read the prior thread? I had to defend myself from a dry humore post. Go back and read the whole thing including the not gulity verdict from OhSure and Thomas's schooling of an ideological brother.

See, you just can't stop using the word can you????? kidding, but.....

Unlike others I won't judge your heart unless your actions actually damage my people! Scots-Irish hahaha

Seriously though, as an aside, I would like to explore the various meanings to the term racist because Most of the pc liberal white snobs I know that talk about race all the time as the protector of blacks and never use the term inpolite company,

are much less likely

 to have close black friends or ever hire blacks withtheir own money, and are more likely to use the term in afit of anger!!

than some friends that

might use the term in a joke.

It may surprise you to know of the many black-man/white -man relationships of men my age and older in the south in which we can say anything and laugh at both races and especially at paranoid pc'ers.

Maybe this comfort is born of having had to deal with it in such intensity and the fcat that despite the southern racist past, there wer always a large percentage of whites that were not and blacks that knew it. And we all see down here how its hard to find a racust now.

None of the formwer racists inmy yoyuth would ever sue that word in anger now. There sis a comfort down here and we have moved on.

Hey bro, I'm 42 and am quite familiar with the word. In fact, I used to kick teenage friends out of my car who used the term as a pejoritive back when it meant something for a white boy ti stand up against racists and when there were alot more of them and not just the toothless kind out in the boonies.

My age, past history on issues of race, ability to defend myself from the sensitive generation and my courage compel me to confront this hideous Leninist reduction of the lanuage that has become to ingrained in America.

I recognize the danger a man that speaks the truth is in evryday when I leave my house or log on.

I hope if I am unfairly attacked, you will be my ally brither because from your posts I respect your intellect and if we and others will speak our hearts we can all grow.

And I agree that these things can get out of proportion. My sole point is that we get all sorts of loons around here, and weird neo-Confederate garbage is one of their hallmarks. I'm not saying you're in on that, I'm saying it could have come across that way, and I that I'd appreciate it if you'd be careful in the future. That's all.

As to your question: Weirdly, it would have sounded more like Andrew Sullivan was posting here.

I'm not upset, I was just wondering about the use of the word.  Listen, I'm a white boy from New Jersey (well, not really, but close enough) and where I grew up, we used the word sometimes in a very casual and playful way, but I've also seen it used in a very terrible and hurtful way, a pejorative way, and I'm just hoping you don't do that.  

I used to have an Italian friend that I used to talk with and we'd say things while kidding round with each other like...

No, that's alright, you get the point.  Peace, I don't mind it so much as the word in itself.  I care about its use on RedState because I care about the reputation of RedState and the people here, that's all.  I care about that because it's very easy to slur people on the Internet, and because most of what is written on RedState is archived and available on Google.  So yeah, I'm a little careful and defensive about terms that could be construed as racial epithets.  Excuse my caution, but please be sure it's in the interest of RedState more than anyone on RedState in particular.  I don't want to see a headline tomorrow in the Washington Post, for example, saying:

"RedState Posters Talking About Nigger-Lovers"

See what I mean?

Conclusion: I'm needed here

Enjoy the loyalty

I used to kick friends out of my car in the early 70's who wore confederate flag t-shirts! Now, they were racists! And I knew that. But I must say that back then and now, I have assumed that all that display that flag are racists and been ashamed when I was proven wrong. Now, given the high percentage of people I knew that were racist and flew or wore the flag, it was usually the case, but that is bogotry isn't it? See what you just did? Don't worry, their still fair game.

Now, given the use of the flag by the kkk and hate groups I would not fly the flag, but

Until I was 39, I never let myself even consider that there was were reasons for "confedrate pride."

But a liberaal democrat here in atlanta showed me otherwise as did my alabama cousin and family tree of a relative that dies at gettsburg,

Yes, slavery was the main reason for the war but most southerners did not own slaves but did love their country and fought to defend it. This was a time when one's state was one's country and many beleived that since the states voluntarily joined the union that they could leave it.

I'm thankful to God that Lincoln prevailed.

But there mis no reason for shame to defend one's country. Slavery was also legal in many northern states.

But it was my state that fired on ft sumter in much the same tradition as the shot heard round the world at Lexington. Independance.

I'm glad they lost.

we couldn't have beaten hitler with 3 canadas!

later

OLP?  Senate?  SCOTUS?  What reason has JP Stevens given for retiring?

and thanks RLG. That sense of humor I owe to my dad who raised us on sarcasm and second hand smoke. Blew it in the crib and I'm Ok.

Now I do appreciate the compliment and the desire to protect the redstate image  and as a newcomer, I actually do appreciate now that I am part of a team and unlike the failed marrigage appreciate the low costs involved.

But you said:

"and continue beating them at elections, and if that means shouting down someone like you if and when you deserve it, then so be it."

I would first draw your attention toyour use of the word "continue" to win elections.

Let that sink in and consider that we win every real poll on congress taken for the last 11 years. I refer to the polls we call elections.

Now, soon after every election and everyday thereafter, we go wobbly on being real due to msm polls. They live a fake world basically giving therapy to each other, have dwindling ratings and have face RUSH and Co. (I'm part of the company.)

Don't the pc police libs look like fools to you?

And do you fall for their racism charges?

I didn't think so. And neither does anyone else.

We conservatives have the luxury of truth and can trust the common sense of the people.

The folks that echo the libs pc racism charges are part of the game with them.

Oh yeah RLG, pulling for USC (that's the first USC) requires a sense of humor. But we have spurrier now!!

what is the reason I would tell you? You have a clearance? A need to know? An approval? authorization? consent? endorsement? go-ahead? green light? leave? okay? sanction?

What is it that makes you so special I would tell you? What great political influence do you hold, that I would tell you? What can you offer me, that I would tell you such a thing?

I eagerly await your offer.

I agree that Bush ought to nominate candiates according to his promises - ones like Scalia and Thomas.  And he should keep doing it.  Again and again, if necessary, until finally, the Senate gives up. Because if it came down to a bet, I'd bet this President has more stones on this issue than any group of Senators.

In fact, if his first nominee(s) don't make it through, he should come back with someone MORE conservative,preferably one that had been confirmed before for some other office, and make it clear to the Senate that each rejection will result in an escalation.

Eventually, the public will place the blame where it belongs.

"Where there is smoke, there is fire!"

.....You have to give me credit, that one is witty! (probably not original, huh? Figures, I am an Aggie, HA! Couldn't tell, could ya! :-)  

Thanks for the nice reply gamecock, and eventhough it is lengthy, I hope you and others will read this, 'cause it is from the heart and how I sincerely feel about many things.

You may have figured out that I am also a Southerner?..  ;-)  NC, Tennessee and Kentucky by heritage, and Texan by birth. However, the most beautiful little angel in the world was born in Charleston, SC. (My grandaughter, Summer Rose, while my son was serving as a "Nuke" on the U.S.S. Sunfish.) Believe me she is as pretty as the whole state of SC.

I also can identify with the true grit upbringing, since I came from a family of tobacco raisin', sellin', spittin', and smokin' Patriots!!

 (Honored to be 4th generation great grandson of the notorious Patriot William Blount. We all know he signed the Constitution, but was also the first impeachment, and no matter what good and lasting things he did helping establish this fine nation, his greed cost him. Just as Mr. Kennedy's scandelous murder should have cost him. Another issue and another post, I know,...but point well taken, I hope.) I was born and raised working cattle in West Texas, and am now in the financial/real estate world in WA. When I was a young lad, I had a whiff or two of smoke sent my way and still practice it myself, "PC" or not!!!

 Seriously, thanks for showing us how sincere and courteous, **RE-Constructive Criticism* is done. I gotta respect you for how you responded to Leon. We do have to figure out how to spread the "luxury of the truth" (well said!, BTW), as far as we can spread it, and unifying folks from both extremes to a better understanding of "to the Republic for which it stands.....", instead of continuing to piece together a Socialistic Patchwork Quilt.

Also, kudos for your comment regarding "trusting the common sense" of the people. More of us will come around and learn more with an attitude of respect for Middle America like you have. We don't have the "political savvy" you guys have and don't pretend to, but we can learn and understand, and we haven't given up knowing what "right and wrong" is, whether we have asserted it or not. This last election did show that we are more than the "largest tax base" for the those in power to manipulate.

We "boomers" got caught up in, and nodded off to sleep living the "American Dream", and woke up living a "Socialistic Nightmare!".

By the Grace of God,..... and hopefully, from some things we may have done right, our kids are trying to help us fix it.

"The Sleeping Giant" has awakened, and certain individuals and sects of BOTH/ALL parties want to "lull" us back to sleep. If I have my way about it,........ "T'aint happenin' !!"

I am a newbie to this too, and just a common guy with a voice...a choice...and a willing spirit to learn, but "you guys that have" the knowledge and experience set the tone for what can be accomplished here. Thank you for thinking through what you say, and at the same time showing the willingness to cast a little well intended humor our way.

Frankly, I see more progress in learning to respect each other, and learn from each other in this turn of the post, (that resulted from what I still think was a pretty innocent(other than the calculation of expected reaction ;-)), but very humorous comment!!), than the pure joy and glee of speculation of a chance at a much desired "Constructionist" USSC brought about by the original post!! It was a pleasant and worthwhile diversion, although the original intent of the post has been quite rewarding and interesting as well. (FTR, it has become hard to imagine anyone even considering having a white man as a political role model, simply due to the "PC" element, and the two extremes fighting and trying to discredit every decent white man that comes along because he is "in whichever other party". It isn't a bad thing to be white, and if qualified by all the proper standards, a "white" should fit into the category of non-discrimination too. "We the People", EEOC, ECOA, etc, etc?. Those mean "all" of us!! I can have a white guy for a role model and don't have to be ashamed of it. AND, he can even be gay...and that is a sincere comment, if he is the most viable for the position.) So, thanks again for the innocent humor and the "amazing" reaction it got.

If we are ever going to get away from the "PC" roller coaster, and sincerely resolve the real issues for our Republic,....then we have to remove ourselves from and eliminate these elements of being overly sensitive, paranoia, and confusion. The Bible, undeniably says that the devil is the "author of confusion". We should all take a hint from that when things start to get out of hand, and we would jump back on track and find we could actually profit from the communications, when we "pull back the reins" just a little. Maybe we can establish a new benchmark. Instead of "PC" standards, we can behave in an RP (respectfully proper) manner, and forget the politics when it comes to our relations with other human beings?

gamecock, (Badmitton?, BTW), Never give up your sense of humor. It is an asset, and will get you through the vilest of times.

Anyway, I am glad you and many of the others are here. It's certainly a great place for folks to speak their mind, grow in knowledge, and just maybe..an old "Southernguy" like me, now living in the most beautiful State of WA, can hopefully become friends with a (speculating here, but gently, southernly, and fondly reserved for those with promise)"young pup" attorney in GA, and God Willing, others around the country.

Ya'll come to see us sometime, ya hear?!?

IT IS NEVER CROWDED ALONG THE EXTRA MILE.......

(and maybe you don't have to be as "PC" wary as you travel it!) Speaking of also practicing innocently intended humor.

R..ighteous L..ives G..row        

Ron Paul for SC from what I know about him.  He's got a lot of libertarian philosophy in him, which is a good thing, IMO.  I don't 100% agree with the libertarian philosophy, but I agree with it more than most other party platforms.

He's not shy about being anti-Roe but he's got the proper approach to it, IMO.   Abortions will only be decreased when people morally decide not to participate.  He's opposed to the federal government involving itself in such issues.  

I'm personally in support of keeping the Roe precedent, but simply because I'm aware that the history of abortion in this country suggests that outlawing it is even worse for the citizenry.  Returning the issue to the individual states wouldn't be the worst thing that could happen, imo.  I bet that one-half to two-thirds of the states would keep it legal anyway.  And the remaining one-third could deal with their own problems that result (unwanted kids in poverty, neglected kids, maimed women from taking poison and falling on chairs, leading to higher social network costs, etc, etc).