Thursday, July 16, 2009

Sonia Sotomayor And Political Pigskin

Come on now fellow Americans, give the woman a break. After all, as pointed out here, Obama never questioned Sonia Sotomayor as to her stand on such issues as abortion, gun rights, etc.

Yeah, that's what I said-bullshit. Sure he never questioned her, because he obviously never had to. This woman's past record on the Appellate Court is a damn good indication of where she is going to stand during her tenure on the Supreme Court. Now she has a chance to vote her beliefs, and know that she can set established precedent that is unlikely to be overturned at least in her lifetime.

But let's be clear, this woman is going to be the next Supreme Court Justice, so why waste any more time on it? Sure, I understand why the Senate Judiciary Committee has to go through the motions, and let Americans know as much about her as they can pull out of her, so they can hold her supporters in the Congress accountable for the decisions she makes, but everybody else might as well acclimate themselves to the reality that, barring a miracle-and probably even despite one of those-she is going to be confirmed. The Republicans know this as well, and some of them will vote for her, for a variety of reasons, not the least is that they know all too well that, if by some unforeseen circumstances she should not be confirmed, it would probably go downhill from there.

Translation-If Sonia Sotomayor is not confirmed, Obama's next appointment will not be Robert Bork.

You can thank the Pro-Life activists in large part for this reality. In any given election, the closer it is, the more likely they are to swing the election one way or another. When the electorate is trending Democratic for whatever reason, that is not a good thing. Now, thanks to them, every bit as much as to the harpies that run the Pro-Choice movement riling up the majority of women, who legitimately fear that if they are raped they'll be forced to just squat down and spit out some bastard that was forced on them, we are where we are-and it ain't lookin' good, amigos.

Both sides of the debate have hi-jacked the electoral process for thirty six years and going, and what do we have to show for it? A Democratic Congressional majority in both houses just chomping at the bits to tax, spend, and regulate us into "prosperity", a Democratic President who is somewhere just barely to the right of Saul Alinsky (we hope), and very possibly coming soon to a Supreme Court near you, a majority clique of liberal hacks known as Democratic apparatchiks operating under the guise of judicial independence.

In the meantime, we have to listen to yet more bullshit about how a judge is like an umpire, and you know (if you are paying attention) just how a typical politician thinks. If we are going to go with a sports analogy, let's do football.

You have the owners, who are the captains of industry and the property owners. The investor class all sit in the front seats and own the season tickets, and they share more and more of their seats with the lobbyists and special interests. The lower classes are all relegated to the cheap seats. The working classes, the skilled and unskilled laborers, are all assigned specific duties inside the stadium during, before and after game time.

The team is made up of the members of society who keep everything running and are considered the pillars of society. The linesmen are made up of your first responders, those who are consigned the task of keeping society safe. The most creative members of society rise to the top. They become your quarterbacks, your wide-receivers, your cornerbacks and tight ends, and of course your running backs.

Your politicians, by all rights, can come from any level previously mentioned, though they tend to come from one group more than the other. They tend to rise to the coaches positions, or to offensive coach or defensive coordinators. Anymore, however, more and more of them make up what we will refer to as the player's unions, and as such they tend to look more and more out for their own interests than they do the actual players, or anybody else who actually makes the game work (that is, the citizens they allegedly "serve").

This bring us round full circle to the referees, who of course are the judges. But the on-field referees are your lower court judges and your appellate court judges, and in some cases, if they do good enough and gain enough seniority, your state Supreme Court judges. So where does that leave the Supreme Court? What level do they rise to in the great game of football?

Those would be the motherfuckers who sit up in the booths, away and safe from the judgment and displeasure of the crowds, while they conduct the final playback reviews. Their word is the final say, and it is irreversible.

Now, does anybody believe that how a judge conducts himself on the field is not a good indication as to how they will conduct themselves up in the booths, where their decisions are irreversible, and where they are unanswerable to the opinions of not only the crowds and players, but of those who appointed them? I hardly think so.

The bad thing is, life and politics are nowhere near as concrete and written in stone as football, and in fact, there are two different rulebooks being adhered to in the game of political pigskin. That's the real problem. You have two entirely differing views of the constitution, and which side is predominant in that view is wholly dependent on which side makes the appointments.

Thus, the next time the right objects to the prospect of the left committing group suicide by killing off their progeny in the womb-for whatever reason-I might suggest that they stop, take a deep breath and ask themselves, "what the fuck am I thinking?"

Otherwise, we can look forward to perhaps decades of a country run as though the states are little more than overgrown counties, much like a French Department, and going more and more down the road to adherence to international law, all in the meantime following a playbook that is straight out of Rules For Radicals.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Lol! You are no pagan. It's a paradox, can't be both a pagan and a neo-con. Nice try though.

p.s. you might take a look at the performance of the policies you support. for example, have you ever noticed that the states that are the most republican are also the poorest and least educated. Take Texas for example. 2nd largest state in the union, yet 4th in what it contributes to the GDP, behind California, New York, and Florida. Buncha lazy sister fuckers.

There wouldn't be a paved road in the South if it weren't for California and New York. Thank god that the wealth we produce gets redistributed to you, eh? But that's not socialism when you give republicans free money, right? Only everybody else.

why not go back to fucking your sister, hillbilly, and leave the civilized world alone?

Or better yet, kill yourself and make the country and world a better place.

The Pagan Temple said...

Can't be both a pagan and a Neo-con, huh? Well, in the first place, I would have to disagree with that. In the second place, I'm no Neo-con. In fact, I could be about anything before I could be a Neocon, so your comment is already a massive fail.

And in what parallel universe is California better off than Texas, or for that matter Kentucky? HaHaHaHa haven't been keeping up on things much, have you? California couldn't be in worse shape if the god damned San Andreas fault were to split wide open and the whole worthless fucking state was to plunge into the Pacific.

They have the worse budget deficit in the country, and businesses are leaving in droves, just like they tend to leave every state that taxes and regulates them to death. What saved New York from that fate was New York City's revival, and that was due mainly to Giuliani's tax policies, which saved it from the brink of the disaster created by, you guessed it, the Democrats.

Don't worry though, I'm sure it won't be long before you ass hate jackasses in the Dumbocrat Party manage to ruin all that too, just like you did California.

Oh, and all that bilge about the paved roads and how bad things are in the South? News flash, genius, the South was dominated by the DEMOCRATIC PARTY for over a century after the Civil War. All the damage they done can't be undone overnight, you know, but in the meantime what progress has been made has only come about after the Republican Party became competitive there, or in some cases the majority party.

The rest of your comment isn't really worthy of a response, but I'm going to leave it up anyway, just so rational people can see just what kind of idiot inhabits the Democratic Party, and the kind of attitude they can expect once your kind has power long enough.

In the meantime, everybody can read your bullshit and can see firsthand what kind of favor we would be doing America if we allowed you motherfuckers the right to abort your kind out of existence.

Anonymous said...

Whoever said I was a democrat?

Newsflash, southern democrats were the most conservative force this country has ever seen until they became disillusioned with the party during the vietnam war and jumped to the republican party, who happily accepted them. But you knew that, didn't you? And you're right, they are responsible for retarding progress in the century following the civil war.

Now they are the neo-cons you worship who hijacked the republican party and exterminated true conservatism in this country.

If you're not liberal, progressive, or centrist, you are a neo-con, and based on the drivel you call writing on this blog, it smacks of Glen Beck crossed with Michael Weiner.

Speaking of progress, republicans opposed civil rights, women's suffrage, blacks serving alongside whites during WWII, equal rights for gays, education, health care reform, the list goes on. So if resisting the change going on around you that would otherwise make your communities stronger, is what you call progress, then you are correct. Republicans are responsible for a lot of progress.

And the reason California's economy is so bad is because the fed is bleeding us dry. If we didn't have to fill the federal trough for all the sisterfucker states, we wouldn't have a crisis. California is the 5th largest economy in the world, where's kentucky? Or even Texas? Half of our money leaves the state. As for Kentucky, they do have the highest rate of high school dropouts in the country and like many other states in the south, they get more back from the federal government than they put in. That's socialism, my friend. Socialism. But you don't mind as long as the wealth is somebody else's and it gets redistributed to you.

You neo-cons are a drain on this country, not to mention an embarrassment to humanity. You are also, but one poster child for mandatory abortions.

Do the world a favor and don't ever breed.

The Pagan Temple said...

I think I'm starting to understand now the reason for your obsession with sister fucking and other forms of incest. You are probably a result of it. You are obviously too mentally fucking retarded to read simple English, and there must be some reason for it.

Again, I am not a Neocon, and your self-serving insistence that anybody that isn't a progressive must be a Neocon doesn't impress me in the least.

But just so I'm clear, as much as I am opposed to Neocon policies, I would still ten times rather be aligned with them than with the hypocrites of the Democratic Party, and that by the way is including the so-called "Blue Dog" Democrats.

Here's a news flash for you. Not only am I most definitely not a Neocon, I am technically not a Republican. In fact, I am registered Democratic, which is a little bit of youthful foolishness I haven't gotten around to changing yet.

Once thing that hasn't changed can be put down to a play off an old saying. You can take the ass hole out of the Democratic Party, but you'll never take the Democrat out of the asshole, at least, in my case, not entirely.

That's why the thought of you jackasses aborting your own babies in your women's wombs fills my soul with glee, and why I oppose the Republican Party in their efforts to curtail it. Republicans and conservatives generally don't abort. Leftists and Democrats make up most of those that do. When Republicans oppose you in your efforts to continue, I will fight them every step of the way. On that issue, you have my unwavering support.

My advice-by all means, keep at it, keep going, motherfucker. If the Republicans ever do succeed in outlawing abortion-which I very strongly discourage them from trying to do-I would be happy to supply your women with the bycycle spokes, the rusty coat-hangers, the quinine, any motherfucking thing your little hearts desire. By no means, never desist from butchering your worthless babies in the womb. The world needs less of you, not more of you.

As for what Republicans opposed in times past, I won't bother to dispute you on that. because guess what? I don't a good flying fuck what they were for or against in the past. All I give a good rats ass about is what they are opposed to now, which, as you might have figured out, is the likes of you.

That's all I need to know, and that's all that really fucking matters to me.