As the search for John Paul Stevens replacement heats up, the "whatever's good for me" spin kicks in:
Since they don't control Congress or the White House, conservatives are avoiding the term "conservative" as they gird for battle over a replacement for Justice Stevens. Instead they say "mainstream" or "centrist." But this resolves none of the contradictions in their general position on Supreme Court nominees. Do they want someone who respects precedent, or someone who will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade? Do they want an "originalist," or do they want to poison President Obama's health care victory? Do they really believe in "judicial restraint," or do they want "activism" in their own favor?
via theatlantic.com
Conservatives have no trouble advocating for "principles" or platforms that are inherently contradictory. Hell, they cheered when the "activist" court decimated the campaign spending laws.
Their political and judicial philosophy amounts to squat. They don't define one, and they surely don't live by one.
No comments:
Post a Comment