Gay Patriot

Just another WordPress site

Alito For SCOTUS — Thank You, Mr. President!

by

Okay, I admit it reluctantly…. I’ve been very disappointed by the start of the 2nd term of the Bush Presidency. There… are the lib readers all happy now? After all, I’ve been accused of everything from being a front for the RNC to a Bush-apologist. But things haven’t gone well recently and I have felt the President was becoming disengaged, and he was beginning to personally let me down. Folks, when the gay Republican who voted for the Prez, despite the whole marriage debate, starts to go soft….the man is in trouble.
So, I was on the verge this morning of writing an “open letter” to the President asking him to grow a spine and start looking more like Ronald Reagan than George H. W. Bush. I was going to urge the Prez to pick a nominee specifically to get into a robust debate with liberals about the direction of the Supreme Court. No need for the letter this morning.
You may note that I was reserving judgment (though Dan opposed) on Harriet Miers until the confirmation hearings. I will do the same with Samuel Alito until the hearings. For example, I have no clue about his views on gay issues…. and I’m not one of those people that automatically connects gay issues with Roe v. Wade.

Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese called on LGBT Americans to voice their concerns about the nomination. “Alito is the far right’s choice,” said Solmonese. “His record on Congress’s power to protect Americans and a woman’s right to choose give us a level of understanding as to why he was the far right’s choice. Our Constitution does not belong to one narrow ideology. It belongs to all of us.”

(Hat tip for that quote from Charging Rhino who points out…”Always nice to see that Joe Solmonese hasn’t forgotten that he heads an abortion-rights organization.”)
Hell, I may wind up opposing Alito when all is said and done.
So why am I thanking President Bush this morning? Because it is about time he stood up to the media, stood up to the Democrats in the Senate, and frankly stood up to the Republicans in the Senate…. and took a strong stand to force a loud boisterous debate on the Constitution and the conservative views of “constructionists” versus “activists.”
At this point I could care less if Alito actually survives. I want the DEBATE to happen. Give me a filibuster by the Democrats! That would be priceless. Let’s have a talk about the role of government in regulating abortion and why my tax money should pay for abortion-on-demand with no balance in favor of life. (Keep in mind, I consider myself “marginally pro-choice”… I just don’t want abortion to be used as birth control.) Let’s force the so-called “Republicans” in the Senate (yes, you Mr. McCain) to put a stake in the ground about their political, ethical, moral and Constitutional beliefs. Harriet Miers and John Roberts’ confirmations did not or would not have resulted in such a rigorous debate.
Already, the Left is beside itself in hysteria. Guess what folks, elections matter. This is what winning the Presidency and the Senate is supposed to be about, not nominating your personal friend to the Supreme Court! Having a line in the sand on where Republicans, conservatives, liberals and Democrats stand on the fundamental issues of government and the roles of the legislature and the judiciary. If that is all that comes from Alito’s nomination, this country and Republicans running for re-election in 2006 will all be better off for it.
As ColoradoPatriot told me over the weekend….. he thought Bush was about to go “balls-to-the-walls.” I’m glad he has. Ronald Reagan never shied away from a fight. President Bush needs to keep going now and stop the handwringing over what Democrats might do or say. Hint – they will oppose you and stab you in the back at every turn — even if it means endangering national security. They stand for NOTHING anymore except regaining their own power for power’s sake.
So the battle is on. I for one am just happy that we finally have a battle taking place.
[Related Story: Justice Alito and the Constitutional Option – Hugh Hewitt. Ed. Note – I’ve already called Senator Warner, as a constituent, to weigh in.)
And I’ve called Senators Boxer and Feinstein. While the latter is waiting to hear from constituents, the former has already made up her mind, more interested in opposing the president than in considering the views of those whom she serves–a real embarassment to the Golden State. –GPW
-Bruce (GayPatriot)

NGLTF Outraged at Roberts’ Confirmation, Favors a Nominee like Clarence Thomas

by

It seems that the folks over at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force are easily outraged. While exactly half of the Senate’s Democratic caucus (including such “blue state” liberals as Vermont’s Patrick Leahy and Connecticut’s Christopher Dodd) voted to confirm John Roberts as Chief Justice, the Task Force calls his “confirmation ‘beyond disappointing — outrageous’”
In a release filled with more vitriol than sense, Eleanor D. Acheson, NGLTF’s Director of Public Policy and Government Affairs faulted the Senate for failing to “stand up to the administration and effectively relinquished its constitutional ‘advise and consent’ responsibilities.” It seems she believes that “advice and consent” means delay and obstruct as she subsequently takes the Senate to task for “not holding Roberts’ nomination until he fully answered all the questions asked.” I wonder if she’s also upset that the Senate confirmed Ruth Bader Ginsburg (with a higher percentage of Republicans supporting that one-time ACLU activist) even though she had failed to fully answer all the questions asked. Or maybe it’s just that she interprets the Senate’s “advise and consent” role differently when a Republican is in the White House.
In the penultimate paragraph of her statement, she seems to be asking the president to follow his father’s lead and appoint another justice in the mold of Clarence Thomas. She demands that “The next nominee must be a person whose life experience includes some real exposure to and understanding of the disadvantaged and marginalized in our society and of the diversity of our population in myriad respects.”
[Read more…]

Judiciary Committee vote on Roberts Shows (Once Again) why Republicans are Better than Democrats

by

With the Senate Judiciary Committee vote to approve the nomination of John Roberts as the next Chief Justice, we once again have proof that Republicans show more respect for their ideological adversaries than do Democrats. Only three of the Committee’s eight Democrats (Vermont’s Patrick Leahy and the two Senators from Wisconsin, Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold) joined all ten Republicans in voting to confirm this good man. Five voted against. This contrasts with the same committee’s unanimous vote twelve years ago to confirm a one-time American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) activist to the Supreme Court.
Yep, all the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1993 voted to confirm Ruth Bader Ginsburg even though her appointment would shift the court to the left. President Clinton tapped her to replace Byron White who, while appointed by President Kennedy, usually voted with the court’s conservative bloc; he wrote the dissenting opinion in Roe. v. Wade.
Even though conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer thinks a Chief Justice Roberts would “move the court only mildly, but most assuredly, to the left,” a majority of Judiciary Committee Democrats voted against this good man. My state’s normally sensible senior Senator, Dianne Feinstein, said “her vote was decided after Roberts refused to fully answer questions from her and other Democrats in his confirmation hearing last week.” Twelve years ago, she didn’t express similar qualms about Ms. Ginsburg’s failure to fully answer questions from Democrats — or Republicans.
Let’s face it, while Democrats and others on the left repeatedly accuse conservatives of intolerance and narrow-mindedness, they, by and large, are far more ideologically hardheaded than are most Republicans and conservatives. Bill Clinton won only 43% of the popular vote in 1992, yet Republican Senators respected his constitutional role in appointing judges — even if his first Supreme Court appointment shifted the court to the left. Today’s Senate Democrats are a much different sort, more concerned with answering to left-wing interest groups than in respecting constitutional principles.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
UPDATE: Powerline‘s Paul writes, “The Democratic “no” vote on the 18 member Committee exceeds the number of Republican votes, Senate-wide, against Justice Ginsburg.”
UPDATE FROM GP: I noted with interest the point that Rush Limbaugh made today. DiFi was voting no on Roberts partially because she wasn’t sure how Roberts was as a husband and a father. Really. So feminism is now decided on whether you are a GOOD husband and father? I thought it was irrelevant to them. Plus, imagine the screams from the LibDems had someone asked Ginsberg if she were a good mother or wife!!! Double-standards never end among our friends from the Anti-Religious Left.

A gay friend who knows Judge Roberts on the next Supreme Court Justice

by

I asked a gay friend who knows Judge John G. Roberts, President Bush’s pick for the Supreme Court, what he thought of the court’s next justice. He wrote back that he “has extremely positive things to say about his intellect, judicial temperament, fairmindedness, and personality” and believes him “to be a true conservative, so that gay conservatives (or any other kind of conservatives) who want ‘no more Souters’ need not worry.”

Supposed “Conservative” Supreme Court Tramples on Bill of Rights

by

PatriotPartner brought this Supreme Court ruling to my attention last night. This case involves a local government seizing private land and handing it over to a developer. So now eminent domain is allowed for seizure by developers for commercial interests?
From the WSJ:

That protection was immensely diminished by yesterday’s 5-4 decision, which effectively erased the requirement that eminent domain be invoked for “public use.” The Court said that the city of New London, Connecticut, was justified in evicting a group of plaintiffs led by homeowner Susette Kelo from their properties to make way for private development including a hotel and a Pfizer Corp. office. The properties to be seized and destroyed include Victorian homes and small businesses that have been in families for generations.

Kelo v. New London – via Associated Press
Pardon me, but I believe that the Fifth Amendment is pretty clear about this:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Our Founding Fathers felt very strongly about this as they came from European monarchies that stole land from the peasants without regard or notice. They specifically wanted to prevent this which is why it became a topic for one of the First Ten Amendments.

“The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.” — Thomas Jefferson
“The political institutions of America, its various soils and climates, opened a certain resource to the unfortunate and to the enterprising of every country and insured to them the acquisition and free possession of property.” –Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson even warned that “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground” when talking specifically about the takings of private property.

DowntownLad has an even more insightful posting: The Slaughter-Rights Case.
We definitely need a REAL Conservative Court…. can anyone deny now that Liberals and ConservsInNamesOnly on the Court are looking to create laws, not interpret the Constitution?
-Bruce (GayPatriot) — gaypatriot2004@aol.com