Apropos:
A sure way to tell if you’re listening to collective improvisation is if the music is so jaw-droppingly intricate and flexible that no single mind could think it all up in such detail.
Phil Lesh, Searching for the Sound, 114.
Take a good look around…
Feddie at Southern Appeal argues that this endorsement by Leonard Leo should resolve the issue:
Dear Ann Coulter and all other Roberts doubters: If the following statements by Leonard Leo don’t make you feel extremely secure with President Bush’s nomination of John Roberts to the SCOTUS, then nothing will:
Well, I’m a cipher roberts doubter and this surely doesn’t make me reconsider. Amongst other things Leo argues that:
Even though Roberts has never ruled on an abortion issue, Leo says Roberts opinions on other hot political topics show “a respect for the text and original meaning and a presumption of deference to the political branches of government.”
Seems a bit oxymoronic and certainly the last thing I want to see from the court is a presumption of deference to the political branches of government. An independent judiciary that properly recognizes the restrictions that must be put on government action if life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and, yes, our economic well being are to survive is just fine, thank you!
This surely must be made up:
The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons.
Hopefully The American Conservative made this up just to sell subscriptions (and Yglesias now wants a comp sub).
If this is true it damned well better be about the 10 millionth option. But, the bushies know that their credibility is pretty well shot so if they are going to take out Iran they need something big on which to base their action, something that they can pretend requires a quick response not the long brainwashing that occurred prior to the invasion of Iraq.
But, WTF, We’ve got both the chinese government and possibly now the us government talking about using nukes??? And some of you think these governments as currently constituted are good things???
Via The Alternate Brain.
On a day that Americans celebrate Independence Lynn Kiesling reminds us that it is important to know our rights and that:
Governments are institutions that are human artifices that justly exist to protect these natural rights, and when governments fail to protect those natural rights, then citizens have a right to rebel against that government.
Are you ready to go to Arnold, Missouri or stand on Angel Raich’s doorstep to turn back the the minions of an illegitimate government?
If not in Missouri or California then in your own community. There are plenty of places to take a stand and turn back the tide.
Precedent, precedent, precedent. Apparently because the idea that thieves and governments can point a gun and take whatever they want has been around for centuries makes it right:
You have to accept that government can take property. The power of eminent domain is ancient. What the Constitution requires that “just compensation” be paid to the owners and that the taking be for a “public use.” This case was about what counted as a “public use.”
Slavery is ancient. Human sacrifice is ancient. The idea that women should not have the vote is ancient. None of these practices is considered acceptable today in the United States.
The Constitution is a great document. It was a great step forward in the development of human societies. And, in the context of the Constitution and subsequent jurisprudence Kelo should not surprise anyone. That does not make Kelo just or consistent with the rule of law. Thank goodness that Kelo has generated outrage. There is some hope that we can look toward an even better Constituion in the future. One that clearly focuses on serving and protecting the individuals it should be meant to serve.
In one of the comments to her post Althouse asks:
All you conservatives: why aren’t you interested in federalism today?
and here argues:
If you generally support federalism, that means you like the idea of freeing state and local government to set their own policies in response to local ideas about how things ought to be done. You like decentralized decisionmaking.
I doubt I’d be considered a conservative so my answer may not count. What is broken here is that this is all about government. Where are our rights as individual human beings? Did we establish our governments to legitimize gangs of thieves or to protect the rights of individual human beings? I know which answer I prefer.
Furthermore, decentralized decision making is great but not when it is only governments who can make the decisions and not when a government entity can breach the rights of the very people it is meant to serve. Decentralized use of local knowledge leads to great results when individuals and freely formed associations of individuals exchange goods and services with others free of force and fraud.