David French:
Over at The Atlantic Erwin Chemerinsky has written a much-discussed piece imagining a truly liberal Supreme Court. While it’s mostly what you expect — increased reverence for abortion, less protection for political speech, and affirmative action today, tomorrow, and forever — two paragraphs stood out. Regarding the Second Amendment, he says this:
Until 2008, not once did the Supreme Court find a law to violate the Second Amendment. Then, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court, by a 5-4 margin, declared unconstitutional a 35-year-old District of Columbia ordinance that prohibited private ownership or possession of handguns. Scalia wrote the opinion for the Court. A Supreme Court bench with five Democratic appointees will not extend this protection for gun rights and likely would overrule it, returning to the view that the Second Amendment protects only a right to have guns for the purpose of militia service.
Returning? As Justice Scalia painstakingly outlined in the Heller opinion – and as my colleague Charlie Cooke as explained in the pages of NR – the notion that the Second Amendment protects only a “right” to have a gun in the context of state-sanctioned militia service is both ahistorical and illogical. It is chilling how casually even leading leftist scholars essentially write the Second Amendment out of the Constitution.
But Chemerinsky was just warming up. In a paragraph called “dreaming,” he says this:
The possibility of five or six Democratic justices allows one to imagine what might be done in other areas. Might the Court find a constitutional right to education and conclude that disparities in school funding violate the Constitution? Might the Court find that the racial injustices in the criminal-justice system violate equal protection? For so long, progressives have had to focus primarily on keeping the Court from overturning precedents and limiting rights. Justice Scalia’s death and the coming presidential election allows liberals to dream of how much a different Court could do to advance liberty and justice for all.
The first thing would be guns, causing a dangerous black market, then the press, we dont like them anyway, then personal speech, thats already happening little by little.
@kitt:
The minute the lefties try getting and imposing their ultimate wish, abolishing the Second Amendment, it’ll be 1776 (or 1861) all over again. They would lose miserably because most of them would be unwilling to put it all on the line, and since most of the military and law enforcement personnel would be opposed to it as well and side with the rest of us, that is exactly what they would have to do. Their little Bolshevik Revolution may have worked in Russia circa 1917 and their takeover of Germany may have worked in Germany circa 1933, but it would fail here. The best outcome they could hope for is two separate countries brought about by peaceful secession.
@another vet: You can see how successful NY and CN have been in registering and collecting semi-auto weapons. Maybe they should try out their gun controls in Chicago first as a model!
The claim that Obama was going to confiscate guns has got to have been one of the most successful firearm marketing strategies in the history of the American gun industry.
Ironically, the most significant new constraint on 2nd Amendment rights to appear during Obama’s term of office has come courtesy of NRA lobbying and coercion. Would smart gun technology allow for a defensive firearm better suited to your particular household situation or personal needs? Maybe you want to put a concealed firearm in public setting where, for safety’s sake, it’s best that only a particular designated individual can fire it.
Hey, forget it. You can’t have that. And it wasn’t Obama or any “lefty” that prevented it.
@Greg:
OK, so Obama had one success in his administration. Name another.
No, because they would be priced beyond the reach of those who need personal protection the most; those condemned to live in Democrat governed squaller-holes like Chicago. Through Operation Choke Point, the left has tried to destroy the gun industry. The left keeps the costs of permits and ownership high to keep it beyond the reach of most, when they do not prohibit it altogether. The left spreads lies about how the “gun show loophole” and US guns in Mexico contributes to crime.
Just because the left has failed to ban and confiscate guns in no way indicates they have not tried.
I would expect that they would, and frankly, I’m surprised that a conservative court wouldn’t come to the same conclusion.
It is indeed unfortunate that conservative courts have expended as much effort as they have to effectively limit citizens’ rights. And advancing liberty and justice for all seems to be a noble aspiration, does it not?
Does Curt actually think that the Chemerinsky piece is an argument AGAINST liberal SCOTUS nominations? Because I’m not receiving that vibe.
Just because the legislature fails to protect the rights of minorities doesn’t mean that minorities lack recourse through the courts. The Constitution enumerates rights that the courts protect. When it comes to power, the courts are an equal partner with the legislature and the executive, not the subservient whipping boy conservatives wish them to be.
@George Wells: You said you were a conservative, go back and read your post. Limiting freedom under the ruse of attempting to level the playing feild.
You cannot legislate ambition.
@kitt #7:
I am on almost all issues save gay rights, and I’m frankly confused why conservatives equate the denial of civil rights for gays with conservatism, unless what they are attempting to conserve is their right to persecute people who are different from themselves. I have always associated conservatism with the conservation of rights and freedoms, not just for white male evangelicals, but for everyone. Apparently, there are those who believe that doing that is simply too difficult – too difficult to balance one person’s rights with another’s – and that it is easiest to just limit the NUMBER of people who have “equal rights.” It isn’t “equal” when you use the Law to criminalize behaviors you don’t like, which is what anti-sodomy laws did, and it isn’t equal when you exclude some marriages from benefits that other marriages enjoy. I understand the sweeping protections that the First Amendment articulates, but left to Scalia’s supporters, the Fourteenth Amendment would be left meaningless by the evisceration of its significance. Thankfully, the SCOTUS will eventually work out some compromise between the conflicting freedoms featured by this issue – we BOTH have that to look forward to.
When the Constitution speaks to the issue of “religious freedom,” it doesn’t say that religious people are free to trample anyone else’s freedoms simply because the religious people have a belief. The majority of gays have religious beliefs too. They’re just different.
Considering the astonishing paucity of legislation coming out of Congress these days, I don’t quite get where you think ambition is being legislated, or where you think anyone is ATTEMPTING to legislate it, or regulate it, or whatever else you meant here.
@Bill:
Not only that, but you only have to look at the entertainment industry and see how well their copy protection has worked. All have been defeated fairly rapidly… this “smart gun” tech would last about as long… then bang!
@George Wells:
t is indeed unfortunate that conservative courts have expended as much effort as they have to effectively limit citizens’ rights. And advancing liberty and justice for all seems to be a noble aspiration, does it not? example?
not the subservient whipping boy conservatives wish them to be.
when was that?
Its the liberal judges that are legislating from the bench not constitutional.
Right to an education, so shove a bunch of SAT failures into the top colleges for numbers games?
The SCOTUS should judge the constitutionality of an issue not ever push an agenda.(right or left)
@kitt #10:
Every time anyone (usually a conservative) says that the SCOTUS is “legislating” from the bench. The courts CAN’T “legislate,” by definition. It’s not what they do. When the SCOTUS decided that State laws forbidding same-sex marriage were unconstitutional, they did exactly what you say they SHOULD do (“The SCOTUS should judge the constitutionality of an issue”). The fact that this effectively legalized gay marriage nationally didn’t mean that it was “legislated.” The majority opinion found in the Constitution a RIGHT that was being denied by the states’ laws. Not every right that is implied by the Constitution is spelled out. The details are intentionally NOT spelled out. That leaves future generations of Americans the opportunity to adapt their laws to their vision of what freedom means, and it leaves the interpretation of which laws are constitutional and which ones are not to the wisdom of courts of LIVING citizens.
Perhaps the REAL intent of the Founding Fathers was to NOT let future generations change the details, but that isn’t how our laws and the courts have handled this question. They HAVE allowed the Laws to change and the country to grow. We HAD slavery, and then we did NOT. We DIDN’T let women vote, and then we DID, and we DIDN’T have same-sex marriage, and then we DID.
In my humble opinion, each is an example of change for the better.
You have a constitutionally protected right to think and say otherwise.
God bless America!
@George Wells: Perhaps you could thumb through a book named Men in Black, no its not about space aliens.
Obamacare decision was an example to interpret the Word State to mean Federal, the admin said it was not a tax then argued before the court it was a tax.
Income tax was found by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional why is it still in effect?
@kitt #12:
“Income tax was found by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional why is it still in effect?”
Seriously, Kitt, do you REALLY need that to be explained to you???
“Obamacare…”
Did you expect miracles from the Democratic administration?
Did you expect Democrats to NOT try every trick they could think of to win their case?
Does it make any MORE sense when a prosecuting attorney charges five DIFFERENT people with the murder of a single victim AND accuses EACH of them with pulling the trigger?
It’s done all the time.
It’s called: “WHATEVER WORKS.”
Are you really just seven years old, or did you miss your last 53 annual reality checks?
(Don’t mean to offend. It’s just that your questions this time are, well, FUNNY!)
P.S. Where did all the books go?
I saw one at an antique show recently…
@George Wells: Not offended so as we can ignore some decisions why not the gay marriage and abortion one?
PS you are about as conservative as Pelosi
@Bill, #5:
The point is that the NRA has seen to it that people are deprived of choice. If I prefer to purchase and own a firearm that can be fired only by myself, shouldn’t that decision be up to me? Obama thinks it should be. The NRA claims they do also, but their actions totally contradict their words.
Maybe I have children or grandchildren in my home, and feel a need to keep a firearm that is immediately accessible but non-functional if discovered by a child. Maybe I want a gun to be totally useless in the hands of a thief or home invader. Maybe I don’t care that the selling price would be 3 or 4 times that of a high-end conventional handgun.
The ever-safety conscious NRA sells this item—so you never know if someone might be getting ready to shoot or simply going for their cell phone. I can make my own buying decisions, thank you very much.
I get tired of this meme that all democrats or all liberals oppose the 2nd Amendment. What they oppose is stupidity. There’s plenty of that in the gun rights discussion.
@kitt #14:
Let me tell you about MY brand of conservatism.
I find no compelling reason to restrict the gun ownership rights of law-abiding citizens, or their right to carry such weapons concealed, or their right to own whatever variety of weapon that they choose to own. That conclusion is NOT based upon Second Amendment provisions, but upon the observation that restrictions on legal gun ownership have had no measurable beneficial effect on crime rates.
AT THE SAME TIME, I find that a government consisting of democratically elected representatives of the people has the right to prevent weapons manufacturers from producing rocket-propelled grenades, assault rifles or any other weaponry that the people or their duly elected representatives do not WANT manufactured, transported or sold in their jurisdiction. THAT right derives from a nation’s sovereignty, not from some God-given right citizens have to play with guns.
I believe that a society has the right to restrict abortion if it WISHES to do so. National sovereignty and the right of self-determination give the society that option, just as it gives that same society the right to make homosexuality illegal, or to impose income taxes, or to do just about any objectionable thing that it chooses to do.
I even think that it has the right to do all of these unadvisable things at the same time that it has a constitution that specifically forbids them, although a government’s inclination to make laws and then break them is a quick recipe for revolt. Consistency counts for a lot.
I support religious freedom legislative initiatives. Their legitimacy is clearly provided for in the Constitution’s First Amendment. I believe that it should be left to the wisdom of the courts to determine how and when to impose compromises on people who discover their rights are in conflict with other people’s rights. It is that aspect of the Court’s function that you evoked when you said that a legitimate court function was to determine the constitutionality of laws that were challenged. I agree. Are YOU a Pelosi “liberal?”
I support the Death Penalty. Absolutely no equivocation about it. Note that I DO find it a bit confusing when people who oppose abortion on the grounds that it is murder, AND that “life is sacred” (meaning that it’s giving and taking belong to GOD alone) turn around and support the death penalty. That seems to be unconscionably inconsistent. I don’t have that problem.
My rationale is consistent. I DON’T personally believe in organized religion or the stuff that that socially religious people believe in. I DON’T think that life is sacred OR precious – particularly human life, considering how overly abundant it is. I don’t think that people alive today owe anything at all to future generations, any more than they own something to the people who are long dead.
I don’t believe in “BIG GOVERNMENT.” It has proven over and over and over that the bigger it gets, the more inefficient it gets, and you can connect the dots.
Try to get the big picture that by now should be beginning to take shape. At some point in OUR past, we got together and decided to be a country. At some point in Syria’s past, the same thing happened. I don’t think it is any of OUR business to tell Syria how to live their lives any more than I think it’s up to THEM to tell us what to do. This basic notion is rather important to me.
And again, I give big importance points to the discretionary freedom that self-governed people should necessarily have. (Keep in mind that I don’t acknowledge “divine rights,” so I also don’t see the need to cozy up to “International Law,” and I’m not adamant about the inviolability of “equal rights.” Both concepts depend upon “divine truth” to the extent that free will and free choice become meaningless.)
I think that it is fundamentally essential to the security and stability of a nation and its people to have a constitution and a body of laws that are as consistent as possible, and to live by them, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY ARE.
I think that “political correctness” is BS. If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
I could go on and on, but you now have the basic foundations of my philosophy. They provide the basis of a rational, if somewhat cynical view of life, and of what “rights” can and should be.
Life isn’t fair, and $hit happens. I don’t ENCOURAGE cops to shoot black boys, but I’m not surprised when they do. They have a tough job, and nobody’s perfect. But I also understand the issue from the Black perspective, which is different from mine. Without saying – or implying – that one or the other is correct, or even MORE correct, I CAN say that some sort of adjustment is needed if we are EVER to live peacefully together. That goes for the gay/religious freedom conflict, the Arab/Israeli conflict, the Sunni/Shiite conflict, the communism/capitalism conflict, and every other head-to-head battle that is heading slowly but surely toward Armageddon. The population of Earth continues to grow at an alarming rate, and at some point it’s going to go “BOOM!” I want to conserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness FOR MYSELF for as long as I live, and I think that TRUE conservatism – not simply conservative constitutional philosophy, and not literal adherence to millennia-old religious mythology – is the way to get that. I don’t think that tree-hugging, politically correct, bleeding-heart liberalism would help.
You be the judge.
@Greg:
You know what, Greg? I like you. I like you a lot. I also believe that anyone that wants to legally own a gun should be able to. Not only that, but the gun of their choice. So, I took about 10 seconds and found you your dream gun.
http://kitup.military.com/2014/02/smart-pistol-hits-shelves-california.html
For only $1800 you can have the gun and watch you’ve been looking for. Of course, for the cost of that watch you could have a really fine weapon that functions just like a real gun.
The NRA is looking out for MY right to choose and own. At $1800 for a .22, I couldn’t, but for $300 I can get a nice semi-auto. When I had kids in the house, I taught them about guns and kept the guns away from them. This, I think, pretty conclusively makes my point.
What the left opposes is anyone having the ability to make a choice they don’t think they should make… one that differs from THEIR choices. Historically, ALL left wing governments dislike the idea that their subjects have the capability to oppose their oppression. In fact, that was the very purpose of the 2nd Amendment (that which the left has been trying to bury).
@George Wells: Nope I did that in the previous post and it was wrong of me. You can find the book on Amazon if you are interested.
@Bill: Dummy Hillary wants gun manufacturers to be liable for what people do with guns. So you can sue the pencil maker when I mis-spell a word?
@Bill, #17:
Did you happen to notice the 2014 date on the article? The gun wasn’t brought to market as planned. Prospective dealers began receiving death threats, while the NRA asserted it was a backhanded attack on 2nd Amendment rights and their affiliates rolled out highly negative reviews of the product.
The bottom line? The NRA used its power to kill a new firearm technology that could be very desirable and useful to some people, depriving prospective buyers of the option to acquire it. The NRA imposed a de facto restriction on citizens’ 2nd Amendment rights, and gave the free market a quick kick in the teeth while they were at it.
What restrictions on firearm ownership has the Obama administration imposed that come even close to what the NRA has done? And we’re talking in the real world here, not in some imaginary propaganda reality.
@Greg: Wrong again it was a Democrat in NJ who put the old poison pill on smart guns.
Not that gun owners want an upgrade that would make a firearm more prone to failure. I can see a home invader waiting while you changed the batteries.
The democrat passed a law forbidding the sale of standard firearms in NJ the minute the smart guns were put on sale anywhere in USA.
Then what could be up their sleeves, anyone found with a manual gun that has children guilty of child endangerment?
@Greg: How about some citations showing the NRA blocked the gun. Why the hell would they? If someone wants to pay 5 times what a gun is worth, what is it to them?
Once again, you have projected the silly and the weak. But you keep trying. Every failure only makes you stronger. Perhaps one day you will understand WHY you fail.
@kitt, #21:
New Jersey State Senate Democratic Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg publicly offered to move to repeal the state law you’re referring to, if the NRA would agree to cease blocking smart gun technology. In any case, it was a state law, which does not determine national policy. The NRA responded by effectively blocking the marketing of a product anywhere. Evidently they don’t want to allow the individual or the free market to decide.
If a firearm dealer wants to offer me a product that I might consider to be safer and better suited to my own particular needs and situation, he should be allowed to do so without worrying about being on the receiving end of death threats.
I’m having some real difficulty appreciating what all the gun-fuss is about. There are ALREADY over 300,000,000 guns floating around in the United states, less than 1% of them are registered, and every last one of them is grandfathered – immune to whatever new regulatory nonsense the government MIGHT be able to get past the Almighty NRA.
Considering that half of the population is either too young, too weak or too old to even manage picking up a gun, much less shooting one, that leaves one gun for each hand of everyone else, and that’s quite enough to get it – whatever the job is – done.
Haven’t you all just mixed your phallic fantasies with your hoarding instincts and sugar coated the result with a generous layer of conspiracy theory?
Stop clutching your gonads and get a grip on reality.
The security of your bang-bang cowboy toys isn’t the biggest thing you have to worry about should the SCOTUS shift leftward.
@Greg: Was still her stupid poison pill. She couldnt keep her nose in NJ she had to include every state in her silly bill didn’t she. If they do this I will do that, ha ha ha, not nibbling on that cheese.
I wasn’t aware that the New Jersey state legislature, or any other state legislature, could impose laws that extend beyond their own state boundaries. When did this change come about?
@George Wells: .. says the guy that voted for the worst President that has done more harm all around the world just because of the gay “marriage” issue.
Because of your pursuit for gay “marriage”, society is much more dangerous in the United States than it was in 2009. The vilification of the wealthy, promulgation of victim mentality and the use of race as a weapon, not to mention looking the other way while domestic terrorism establishes a firm foothold in every state, the 2nd Amendment becomes even more important. Only those who routinely deny reality in order to somehow convince themselves that the liberal agenda has a chance of success characterize self defense as some sort of machismo (women need self defense, too. But, I understand you having little knowledge of this).
I’ll leave the phallic obsessions to those in that line of work. And, by the way, every gun purchased from a dealer is registered. If you think only 1% of the 300,000,000 guns owned have been purchased at a store of from an independent dealer, your obsession with phalluses has become overwhelming.
@Bill #27:
Don’t blame Obama on me. You have Republicans to blame for that vote. If the GOP hadn’t done EVERYTHING they could think of to shrink their own tent by turning on every last one of their non-white-male-evangelical-base constituencies, they’d have won the last TWO elections handily. It isn’t MY fault that you drove Mexican-Americans, women, gays and Blacks away from the GOP, it’s yours. YOU created this mess. YOU needed to be taught a lesson on inclusiveness, and so far, YOU don’t get it! Don’t cry to me about it. Cry to the RNC, and beg forgiveness. And for GOD’S sake, stop $hitting on everybody that’s different than YOU. There aren’t enough of YOU to win national elections. It isn’t just about YOU!
Regarding your confusion about gun registration:
Not much room left for a registry of guns, is there?
If a gun dealer keeps a list of guns sold and to whom, but the government by law is prohibited access to that list, what good does it do, and how the HELL can you call that “registration”?
To the limited extent that ANY realistic data on guns can be obtained, the numbers I gave you are verifiable. If you can find more reliable NUMBERS, then provide them.
@George Wells:
AKA not pandering to every divergent interest group. Sorry, totally invalid excuse for why you voted for Obama, which you have already adequately explained; your own selfishness. Anyone that voted for Obama shares the blame of the scourge of Obama.
The GOP includes all; you simply have to be willing to be law abiding citizens. There is not a single Republican policy or agenda that by intention or implementation excludes a single soul; it is simply that compared to the left wing promises of free this, free that and free citizenship as a reward for breaking immigration laws, personal responsibility does not sound as attractive to those seeking the sweat-free route.
Every gun purchased from a authorized dealer has paperwork filed on it. How do you think the owners of weapons are tracked down, Einstein? I have three guns bought before such registration was required and one I traded a Commodore 64 computer for. I have three guns which have a paper trail attached to them.
What we don’t have and never, ever should have is a national registry of who owns what guns. If there was ever any doubt, this administration proved why such registration should be fought against to the death.
@Greg:The democrat passed a law forbidding the sale of standard firearms in NJ the minute the smart guns were put on sale anywhere in USA. as stated in previous post. Had she just not tried to force the gun dealers into ONLY selling smart guns when they were available in USA the NRA would not have got its panties in a bind. If Libs see it work in NJ it will spread like wildfire to other states. Now read it slowly so I dont have to repost it again.
@Bill #29:
Yes, George Wells won the 2008 and the 2012 elections, and he’s going to win the 2016 election as well. Not single-handedly, but with Republican help. With the help of every pig-headed Republican who thinks that the GOP can go it alone, and win anything… ANYTHING… without compromising on ANYTHING.
And thank you very much, Bill, for your help. I couldn’t have done it without you!
What do you think, stupid Southern white Christian males are going to start CLONING themselves? Your little “club” is shrinking, and you need to do something about it before it’s too late.
“There is not a single Republican policy or agenda that by intention or implementation excludes a single soul.”
REALLY!?!
Look at your guy Trump. You think he’s helping you? Tell me WHO, besides stupid white Christian males, has he attracted in anything more than small fraction numbers?
What’s that he says at every one of his rallies?
Oh, yeah:
“GETTEM OUTTA HERE!”
Inclusive?
And the RNC excluding the gay group Log Cabin Republicans from their convention, then refusing to give them a voice. Inclusive?
REALLY!?!
Your “Big Tent” is a figment of your imagination. You haven’t just alienated half of your constituents, you’ve DRIVEN THEM AT GUN-POINT to vote DEMOCRAT!!!
And you blame EVERYONE but yourself!
HAHAHAHAHA!
I’m gonna wet myself!
HAHAHAHAHA!
Oh. By the way. I own four guns that aren’t “registered” to anyone that I know of. I wonder what that means… Einstein! LOL! Do you actually think that if I put on a pair of disposable gloves and shot somebody with one of them, the crime could be somehow traced back to me? And I didn’t buy any of them illegally. Didn’t pay for them with a check or a credit card. Never signed my name for any of them. You tell ME. Who knows? And while you’re at it, tell me why you think this isn’t going on all over the country. What piece of data that you can get your hands on tells you that those 300 million guns out there are registered? Then show me a scrap of data that says how many guns ARE registered. I don’t want to know WHO has those guns – that’s none of MY business. But it IS my business if all those guns ARE registered, and neither you nor I can prove a lick of it. Don’t ya think? Einstein?
@George Wells: You’ve really gone over the edge. As with most liberals, you cannot see anything but your own special interest. Noting else exists. So, failing to kow-tow to gays (or at least pander) equates to being “DRIVEN THEM AT GUN-POINT to vote DEMOCRAT!!!”
http://www.washingtonblade.com/2016/02/25/6-d-c-gays-running-for-delegate-to-gop-convention/
Everyone has the same rights across the nation. However, no one, Democrat or Republican, has the right to redefine terms and institutions for their own entertainment. So, when a specific interest group cannot understand equal treatment, it is dishonest to pander to them (as Democrats shamelessly do and which you seem to crave) and promise them “rights” that do not exist. Republicans (and most rational people) oppose this while defending the rights everyone have, including gays. Vilifying people for not being gay-centric is not very inclusive, either.
One thing about Einstein was, probably, that he read things and understood them. Of course, my reference to Einstein in regards to your capacity to read and understand was sarcasm… as you go on to firmly establish.
First, there is nothing illegal about purchasing a gun from an individual, though this is a position your fellow liberals take. However, the main point (which you took great effort to miss) is when you purchase a gun from a dealer, there is a record of who bought that gun. Thus, when a gun is used in a crime and it is recovered, it can be traced back to its true owner. I guess you missed this detail while you had your head buried in gay agendas, ignoring the world around you.
Heard of “straw buyers”? These are purchasers of guns with the intent to sell them to people that would not pass a background check or want a gun linked to themselves. So, without what I have described to you, there would be no need for straw buyers.
So, Copernicus, the facts are clearly and simply laid out. Here, see, I sarcastically referred to you as Copernicus, an astronomer whose discoveries have been used in navigation. It’s sarcastic because you get lost so easily. You get lost so easily because you ignore the landmarks which should be guiding you, fixated instead on false landmarks and waypoints which you believe are useful guidance.
@Bill #32:
Does blathering on about how angry you are over the fact that the world isn’t as you’d have it be and how other people aren’t of the same mind as you make you feel better?
I sure hope it does, because it sure doesn’t accomplish anything else.
FACT: The Democratic coalition has continued to GROW, while the Republican coalition has continued to SHRINK. It is either a testament to how UNCOMPELLING the Republican message has been and how attractive the Democratic one is, or it is proof that Republicans are terribly poor communicators and astonishingly ineffective politicians at the national level.
The lie of your heart-felt assertion that the GOP supports the rights of – and embraces the inclusion of minorities of all stripe is revealed by the constant GOP efforts to oppress, silence or disenfranchise these minorities who have, accordingly, turned to the Democratic party and who vote to keep Republicans – like Trump – out of the White House.
Republicans keep shooting themselves in their collective foot, blaming (as you are so quick to do) every other possible anti-Republican conspirator instead of opening their own eyes, thinking about what THEY have done, and thinking about what it has cost them to remain inflexible in their desire to oppress everyone different from themselves.
You keep dwelling on money and this imaginary promised Democratic give-away. Yes, Democratic proposals DO include a measure of income redistribution, and not all social programs are either well-conceived or well-managed. But compared to the Draconian PERSECUTION of minorities that has been the mainstay of the Republican agenda for decades, the Democrats’ empty promises (sometimes they ARE empty) seem infinitely more attractive.
I will remind you that you have so far failed to offer evidence of a single Republican initiative that was designed (or that would have the effect) to eliminate – or even REDUCE – discrimination against gay people. Democrats HAVE.
You clearly believe that states have a right to oppress gays as they see fit, regardless of what the Constitution says about equal treatment, and the GOP evidently feels the same way. As long as it does, it will lose in federal courts, it will lose at the Supreme Court, it will lose in the court of public opinion and it will CONTINUE to lose national elections.
The only arena in which your strategy has enjoyed success is state politics, where Republicans have managed to gerrymander enough districts to temporarily retain control of the House of Representatives. I hope you will be satisfied with that, as you’re not likely to win much else.
TRUMP! Indeed!
@George Wells:
Please see directly above for angry blather.
The fact that the liberal ideology is in serious trouble seems to irritate you greatly. The Democrats promise everything to everyone and survive by pitting interest groups against each other, which puts our society at risk. They thrive on selfish, self-proclaimed victims by convincing them that everyone else hates them (inciting hatred in the process). This is what every left wing political movement has done in the absence of actual reasons for being… a reason other than power over others, that is.
Blather on, George. Blather on.
@Bill #34:
So much trouble, evidently, that America elected an inexperienced Black dude for a president TWICE instead of picking much more experienced Republican candidates for the job. Obama didn’t espouse a coherent ideology so much as his opponents espoused ones that the majority of voters found objectionable. That doesn’t irritate me one bit. You reap what you sow.
@George Wells: He’s why it’s in trouble. America got a hefty dose of liberalism and the arrogance that comes along with it and has rejected it. A full demonstration of its failure was put on display. Now we have its supporters running from it, claiming “I only voted for for THIS issue.” Bernie would not even exist as a candidate if Hillary weren’t so dispicable.
@Bill:
If the Liberal ideology is in “serious trouble,” why is it that BOTH Hillary AND Bernie are polling to win against EITHER Trump OR Cruz?
It’s because folks HATE Trump MORE than they hate Hillary, and the same is true of Cruz.
I suspect that the “liberal ideology” has less to do with it than you think.
The reason Bernie polls better than Hillary in match-ups against the two GOP front-runners is that Bernie is more likable. Not VERY likable, for sure, but better in that respect than any of the others.
And BOTH Dems have the upper hand with the electorate when it comes to ideology, as the GOP product is scaring the crap out of the electorate.
You wait and see who’s right.
@George Wells: There’s your first clue.
Bernie. As I said, the very fact that he, the lamest of the lame, has received a single vote indicates how despised Hillary is and, by extension, your liberal party.
If Trump got all positive media coverage and none of his mistakes reported, he would be on top. As it is, Hillary has her lies, corruption and incompetence buried and Uncle Bernie gets covered as a fatherly advisor rather than a misogynistic, unaccomplished socialist. It’s not difficult to figure out. Much the same as 2008 & 2012.
@Bill #38:
I agree. And you can expect the same result as was achieved in 2008 and 2012: Another Democrat President.
That’s because nothing has changed since then.
The Democrats are still promising everything to everybody.
The Republicans are still $hitting on their allies and driving them to the other side.
The Democrats will nominate a weak candidate, and the Republicans will nominate a WEAKER one.
The media will STILL favor the Democrat candidate.
The voting public hasn’t learned anything new in the last 8 years.
So what are you griping about? You were told why you lost last time, and you did nothing different. Same $hit in, same $hit out. Simple as that.
Then that would be fiction. Hillary’s mistakes go largely unreported because of media bias, sure. But media TRUTH exposes Trump for what he really is. If that was something good, he would win.
Ignoring Hillary’s problems is an error of omission, while giving Trump POSITIVE coverage would be a bold-faced lie, an active, intentional misrepresentation of the truth. If YOUR candidate needs to resort to that excuse to justify his bid for the White House, he doesn’t deserve to win it.
@George Wells: What has been this “truth” that has been reported on Trump? That he said all immigrants are rapists? That’s a lie. That he said we should stop Muslim immigration? That’s a lie. That he would not refute David Duke’s “endorsement”? Yet another lie.
You hate Trump because he won’t grovel at the feet of gay “marriage”, which Obama and Hillary both opposed until they needed the support… i.e., pandering. This myopic focus one one selfish issue blinds you to the greater good (or harm) of the nation.
@Bill #40:
You got it all wrong, PAL!
Trump is my ace up a sleeve.
My golden parachute.
My magic bullet that will throw the election to the Democrats and insure that they tighten their grip on the judiciary AND the presidency, thus balancing the folly of the Republican-dominated House of Representatives and rendering almost meaningless whether or not ANYBODY actually controls the Senate.
THAT’S the big picture, not how myopic one perspective or the other actually is. Obama, Hillary, Trump and Cruz will ALL be out of circulation, irrelevant and moot while the SCOTUS team will still be going strong. Whether my reasons for voting they way I do are selfish doesn’t matter a lick. YOU have failed to convince me to vote otherwise. Live with it.
And THANK YOU VERY MUCH!
FOR TRUMP!
WHOOPEE!
@George Wells: You liberals… you just don’t get it.
Republicans are not suffering for doing anything wrong. Their main problem is they don’t engage in the same scumbaggery as liberals. You seem to think if Republicans would just start lying about everything as the left does, they could “win”. That is absurd on two levels.
First, there’s the media. Whenever conservatives lie or simply make a mistake, the media rushes to expose it (or, in cases where no transgressions exist, simply make them up) even while they are burying left wing lies and failures. So, Republicans can’t even play the liberal’s game.
Second, what if Republicans COULD succeed at that game? Would we be better off? TWO dishonest and corrupt parties?
Look what happened when Republucans tried to spend like Democrats… $9 trillion in debt (a minor flaw compared to Obama’s record, though). If we are reduced to who lies the most and the best (the state of the Democrat party today), then we have lost and the nations is doomed anyway. Better for the Republican party to fail nobly, supporting some principles than win or lose in an Alinskian battle of corruption.
It’s no wonder you would celebrate Trump’s rise… people like you created his popularity. The left has wrecked the nation so thoroughly and the Republucans have been so weak in opposing the trashing that the majority has looked to the Bizarro candidate. Trump’s primary power is his immunity to the media onslaught. Enjoy.
@Bill #42:
I’ll take that, if it’s all you have to offer.
No we didn’t. The Republican base has supported him all along and given him enough delegates in the REPUBLICAN primary race to screw the GOP’s chances to win the White House in 2016. You said as much yourself:
So I’m hearing that OBAMA made Republicans crazy enough to intentionally pick a loser. WHAT A GREAT STRATEGY!
If Democrats had known that all along, they’d have been electing Obamas one after the other.
But that isn’t what happened. Reagan wasn’t a bad president for the reasons I thought he WOULD be, he was a good president for reasons I didn’t anticipate. And Obama wasn’t as good a president as I thought HE’D be, but he DID give me what I wanted. I lucked out both times. I’m not sure that you did.
@Bill #42:
(Postscript)
Nice comic relief. Politics is dirty business, and it is a good joke to at least try to paint your self with a clean brush when the other side is out-dirtying you at the game. But nobody is buying your tearful “holier-than-thou” refrain. You just got whooped at your own game. Take it like a man, or whatever… 😉
@George Wells:
They haven’t gone crazy; they’ve gone fed up… and Obama is certainly responsible for a large measure of it, along with his media lap dogs.
You wanted a very narrow spectrum of special treatment and got it. However, many Americans want safety, economic security, a future for their children and enough national security to give the nation a better than even chance of surviving. While you got yours and are happy about it, a majority feel that the rest of the package is being eroded. You can’t get past your selfish euphoria to realize where this country is heading.
I realize what a dirty business politics is and that Republicans are not angles. However, they do not accuse anyone that disagrees with them of racism, they do not personally vilify those who disagree with them, they do not encourage racial strife in order to profit off it and they do not exploit human tragedy, as Democrats do, even when THEY are the cause of it.
As if I were to believe that you would prefer Republicans survive, you would have them offer MORE illegal benefits to illegal immigrants, blame the police MORE for those who die attacking them, out-spend Democrats to keep those in poverty IN poverty perpetually and try to create even MORE special interest victims groups than the Democrats do.
Then they would BE Democrats. Then what?
@Bill #45:
If you do something that is entirely self-destructive, it IS crazy. Being “fed up” is just what you FEEL right before you pull the trigger of the gun that you’ve stuck in your mouth.
You have such a high-and-mighty opinion of yourself and your fellow Republicans, all of whom, you’d have me believe, vote with purely altruistic intent. I guess that you think every rich bastard who votes to give himself a tax break is doing so ONLY because what he REALLY wants is for the extra money he might get to spend will all end up in the hands of the poor, who will then use it to pay for their children’s parochial education.
I take care of my own. Where the nation is headed is beyond my control. Its future is in the hands of the voting majority, excepting whatever the wisdom of the SCOTUS can influence. I’ve been voting for 45 years, and I’ve been watching, and I can assure you that my vote has never, ever made a difference.
You can’t blame me for Obama, and you can’t blame me for what Democrats do. You CAN blame yourself and your fellow Republicans for CONTINUING the effort to suppress gay rights – MY rights – and in doing so preventing ME from voting WITH the GOP instead of against it.
You make my case every time you argue, evidently because you still don’t get the fact that not every voter has the same priorities as you’d LIKE them to have. Yes, I WILL continue to selfishly vote to get equal rights – and keep them – for both myself and for others like me. It is my top priority, and I have the right to make it so.
@George Wells: Becoming the Democrat party is destructive… for us all.
@Bill #47:
What the Hell does THAT mean?