Gun-totin', Chronic-smokin' Hearse Initiator (ludickid) wrote,
Gun-totin', Chronic-smokin' Hearse Initiator
ludickid

See what had happened with judicial activism was...

Via the ever-alert ortho_bob comes this delightful guide to determining what liberals REALLY mean. Note that this isn't just some dingbat talking head of the sort at which I normally shoot spitballs in this space, but rather a fairly large and influential lobbying group in DC. Anyway, they sure do have our number:

When liberals say civil rights, they mean racial quotas and forced busing.

Yes, that's right! We aren't talking about, say, letting people vote, or repealing bans on interracial dating, or creating tough anti-lynching laws, or ending segregation, or addressing the massive inequality in law enforcement, income or housing. What we really want is to force your children to go to school with Negroes.

When liberals say reproductive rights, they mean underage girls should get abortions without notifying their parents.

Right again! In fact, in a perfect world, we would demand it. Fuck all this noise you may have heard about keeping abortions safe, legal and rare: our ultimate goal is to force all girls under the age of 18 to get abortions, even if we have to forcibly impregnate them to do so.

When liberals say equal pay for women, they mean government bureaucrats determining your pay.

Uh...well, insofar as it results in equal pay, then yes, I suppose so, in the same way that when I say I want some copies made, I really mean that I want some copy shop employee to operate a photocopier.

When liberals say environmental protection and worker rights, they mean the government has unlimited power to regulate private property and business.

If anything, this is sugarcoating it. When I blab on about how everyone should be able to make a living wage and work in a safe environment, or about how we maybe shouldn't irrevocably harm our environment just so some people can make more money, what I'm really talking about is putting CEOs in gulags where they will be killed with knives.

When liberals say church-state separation, they mean your town can't display a Menorah or Christmas creche during the holidays.

Hey, you left out Eid stuff, and Kwanzaa stuff, and Chinese New Year stuff! I'm sure you care just as much about letting government money pay for those religious displays, right, the amusingly named Committee for Justice?

They then go on about how "(John) Roberts will benefit the country by not being a judicial activist", by which they apparently mean "John Roberts will benefit the country by never, ever hearing any cases in which an interpretation of constitutional law might be necessary". Since interpreting the Constitution to determine whether or not a law is permissible is pretty much the only occupation of a Supreme Court justice, what exactly Roberts will spend the next 30 years doing is unclear, but here's what he WON'T be doing:

"He won't redefine traditional marriage."

Unfortunately, since the Constitution does not define traditional marriage, he couldn't do this even if he wanted to. What he can do is to determine whether or not someone's legal rights are being violated according to the Constitution, though.

"He won't strike 'under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance."

Indeed he won't, since there is no constitutional definition of what constitutes the Pledge of Allegience, nor will there ever be. He might, however, be called upon to decide whether or not people should be forced to say the Pledge of Allegience. That being a constitutional issue and all, and he lobbying for a seat on the Supreme Court, whose purpose it remains to make decisions about the constitutionality of various laws.

"He won't force the Boy Scouts to hire openly homosexual Scoutmasters."

You know, I might just be misinformed about this issue, but I don't think anyone is proposing that the Boy Scouts be forced to hire openly homosexual Scoutmasters. I think maybe, just maybe, the question is whether they should be allowed to not hire openly homosexual Scoutmasters, which may seem like a rather arcane distinction, but that's what the law is made of.

"He won't protect simulated child pornography on the Internet."

Hmmm. What exactly is 'simulated child pornography'? Is it actual child pornography, or simply a remarkably subtle evocation of child pornography? If only we had some sort of branch of government, whose task it was to settle these thorny questions.

"He won't eliminate the right to gun ownership.".

Unlike, uh...all the other liberal justices who have made it so no one can get guns anymore?

"He won't permit the politicians to regulate what we say about them at election time."

By this, of course, they mean he won't permit PACs and special interest groups to pour unlimited funds into the making of patently bogus attack ads. And good thing, too, because those sure do advance the cause of enlightened democracy.

"He won't allow government to treat people differently because of their skin color."

Oh ho ho, this is a funny one. What they mean here is, he won't allow government to engage in affirmative action, which is an attempt to address nearly two centuries of racial injustice. Up until around, oh, 1964, American conservatives were all for allowing government to treat people differently because of their skin color. Apparently racial differentiation is only good when it hurts people, not when it helps people.

"He won't allow Congress to legislate in areas where the Constitution doesn't grant it authority."

Yeah? Like, say, passing laws that contradict already-extant ones in order to keep one single brain-dead person alive? Or not like that? More like, say, forcing the government to stop counting votes in a closely contested presidential election in order to hand the victory to their candidate of choice? Help me out here, I'm not a lawyer.
Tags: politics
Subscribe

  • The Party of What People?

    This will be my last entry of 2016.  Next year will begin, barring some unexpected act of fate, with the ascension to the presidency of Donald…

  • Anno Terribilis

    2016, the little year that absolutely could not, is almost over, and with the exception of people for whom it was a raging success —…

  • Shalom and the Jewish Jesus

    Shalom Auslander got the best possible start on having a sickly fatalistic sense of humor:  he was a miserable Jew from the day he was born. As…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 11 comments

  • The Party of What People?

    This will be my last entry of 2016.  Next year will begin, barring some unexpected act of fate, with the ascension to the presidency of Donald…

  • Anno Terribilis

    2016, the little year that absolutely could not, is almost over, and with the exception of people for whom it was a raging success —…

  • Shalom and the Jewish Jesus

    Shalom Auslander got the best possible start on having a sickly fatalistic sense of humor:  he was a miserable Jew from the day he was born. As…