The Lonely Goatherd Blog And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats - Matthew 25:32
Up to the minute notes on the current state of free thinking and free living: Kentucky moonshine - original analysis and reporting from MoreThings, and all round pop culture museum of sight and sound - photo galleries, mp3 and video downloads.
Al Barger and MoreThings - getting people's goats since 1998.
Live free or die!
----
I wouldn't want to ask people to just give me money cause they like my website, but do please take a quick look at Barger's Boutique. You might find yourself a little something-something for 2 or 3 bucks that you just can't resist! Any of the round images you find around MoreThings will get you to an Amazon page to buy my stuff and help ol' Al keep the lights on.
Links
To explicitly state the obvious, these external links go to interesting and provocative websites, but they speak for themselves. I don't necessarily agree with anything they say - especially that no-goodnik Richard Marcus.
*************
All original content on MoreThings.com copyright 2008 Albert Barger or the respective authors
July 31, 2005
The SCOTUS chess game Bet you didn't know that President Dummy could play chess. He's smarter than he looks.
As a VRWC OG, I'm always glad to see Democrats and liberals step in it. Being the only major party even dumber and more dishonest than the Republicans, the modern incarnation of the Democrats has been self-destructing at an entertainingly accelerating pace post-9/11.
Even the Democrats aren't as completely stupid as you might have been starting to think after the last couple of election cycles, though. Somehow they've unexpectedly managed to get a grip on themselves regarding the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court. Democrats and liberal types, especially the main relevant ones- Democrat members of the US Senate- have show remarkable restraint on the Roberts nomination.
For a Bush supporter, the best thing would be for the Democrats to absolutely go nuclear on the Roberts nomination, preferably including a filibuster. It would certainly entertain me for one to see a Ted Kennedy freakout about "John Roberts America." Plus, it would make the Democrats look even worse than they do already. Waste what little credibility you have left with the public.
John Roberts will be confirmed, and there's not a damned thing they can do to stop him. Bush used particularly good strategery in picking this guy from central casting. He's got minimal paper trail to use against him, and he has such total looks and personality for the position.
This actually troubles me most about him of anything. That he's been so completely careful from saying anything at all interesting his entire career speaks well of his self-discipline. However, it strongly implies to me that he's had his eye on this job all his life. That much motivation to the seeking of any form of political power raises a flag with me. One of the better recommending points for Dubya was that he had not been a lifelong professional politician. He didn't seem to want it nearly so desperately as Clinton, for example, had.
Still, Roberts is unassailable, and the only thing Democrats could do by strongly opposing him is further discredit themselves with swing voters. If they cheese off enough voters with a fillibuster as to generate public opinion cover for them to do so, Frist would LOVE an excuse to drop that nuclear option bomb.
If the Republicans can get away with that, it's pretty much game over for Democrats in the whole judicial appointment process probably for some years. Republicans could even afford a couple of defectors, and still have complete control.
Whereas, a light has slowly started coming on about the implications of the Roberts appointment. His whole nomination is just the pre-game for the likelihood that Bush is already thinking the five words of a Democrat's worst frickin' nightmare: Chief Justice Janice Rogers Brown. We'll pause for a moment while our left wing readers shudder in fear.
Very likely Rehnquist will be gone within a year. Let the most feared legal mind in America season a bit in the federal appeals court to which she was just recently confirmed. Then bring her in as absolutely Chief Justice. Going for the chief justice seat significantly increases the historical significance of her appointment, likely making her just that little bit harder to oppose.
Holy crap, Batman, what do the Democrats do then? You may likely have to break that down times 45 individual Democrats. Remember, all the Republicans need is five Democrats not even to vote for her, but simply to vote against a filibuster.
For starters, Robert Byrd is up for re-election next year. He's been there forever, but Bush carried West Virginia huge. Plus, polls indicate that Byrd even now is only a few points ahead of an unannounced Republican. With his unique vulnerability on racial issues, how far do you reckon he would dare to oppose the nomination of Chief Justice Brown? Enquiring minds want to know! How would this look on him even among white voters at this point?
Critically, how will this play out with Democrats wishing to run for president? The liberal interest groups will be more provoked by this likely nomination than any other thing possible. Bush is getting ready to kick them in the guts with this one. She's no kind of stealth candidate, and they will not enjoy a Brown-Scalia-Thomas-Roberts(?) tag team. There will be great pressure to block the first black woman ever nominated to the SCOTUS.
But then the Democrat presidential wanna-bes, and all the rest of their Democratic senatorial colleagues have some delicious calculations to make, and they sound delightfully, excruciatingly painful. How bad will they cheese off how many black folks if they oppose Brown? How well will the Democrats be able to use liberal ideology to trick black folks into abandoning simple racial solidarity?
A lot of black support for the Democrat party at this point is identity politics, and not policy or ideology. The Democrats have been very skilled at tricking black folks into thinking that they care- not like those bad old Republicans who'd be still holding them slaves if they could. Fear of Republicans aside though, there are plenty of, for starters, conservative church going black folk who are opposed to abortion on demand. That Brown might be the deciding vote to overturn Roe won't be a justification for blocking the ascendancy of their exalted sister.
In this range of play, it would be difficult for the Republicans to loose. If they harp too much about her well known background, they might start to look condescending, or something like that. That's probably the only downside. That's not too hard to avoid. Probably even the Republicans could manage that much. Plus, they don't have much to lose in terms of black votes.
Which Democrats are worried most about cheesing off liberal interest groups versus which are more worried about cheesing off black folks. Note that this will be black folks who vote in their home state, not the national NAACP. This might get the Democrats a slight bit of slack in that in the US Senate, the Democrats have been so completely skunked in the South that there are hardly any Southern Democrat senators to have anything to fear from their more conservative black constituents.
The northern urban black voters in New York will likely be more liberal, and thus perhaps more open to the ideological arguments. Then again, the presidential aspirants have to appeal to older church going black women in South Carolina and Baptists in Alabama.
Then there's the bank shot of how those racial politics play out with white voters. There's probably mostly lesser depth of passions likely to be invoked, but how will Democrats be perceived among moderate white voters if they vote against Brown? What if they absolutely filibuster her?
At worst, Republicans need to peel off only five Democrats to be not willing to filibuster. They could even vote against her, and of course the Republicans win by simple majority. They've even got a couple of votes to spare. They just have to make the political pain intense enough that five out of 45 Democrats are not willing to absolutely go to the mattresses.
I will be especially interested in how my former opponent Evan Bayh plays this. He's a good liberal right down the line, really, a chip off the old senatorial block. He's voted with the party discipline on all these judicial filibusters the Democrats have run since Dubya came to town.
But he's obviously running for president, so there's all those considerations. He particularly likes to act like or appear to be moderate or even "conservative" as much as possible. He's a uniter, not a divider, and all like that. He's definitely hoping he could do better in the South than, say, Hillary. Out of the obvious Democrat contenders, Evan would seem about the likeliest to appeal to some of those conservative religious Southern blacks.
Anyway that a Brown appointment plays out helps Republicans versus Democrats. They would very likely get their gal confirmed.
Then again, some of your sharper Republicans may be thinking ahead enough to be a little scared of getting what they wish for. What'll it mean for Republicans when the Brown court actually does overturn Roe, and kicks that argument back into the political process where it belongs?
Ah, but this'll never happen. Bush doesn't have the sack to nominate Chief Justice Janice Rogers Brown. Does he?
