Time will tell how accurrate my last Tarot Card Reading turns out to be, but some aspects of it at least for now turn out to be dead on, beginning with the very first card, the Three Of Pentacles as Significator. It so happens that John Roberts was on the Fifth Circuit Appellate Court for Washington D.C., which upheld the validity of Bush's action in the war on terror, I believe, pertaining to the process of holding suspected terrorists for potential trial by military tribunal, and upholding the whole controversial aspect of the Guantanamo detentions. So this appointment could indeed be pay-off. Not that I necessarilly have a problem with that as such.
Also, the Two of Wands covering card that hinted this man really wanted this appointment. Turns out he loves the Supreme Court, has argued 39, I think, cases before them, and has won 25 of those arguments. He is a conservative, yes (he was appointed by Bush-duh)so again, a possible pay-off to a loyal conservative team player. This might be his main problem going into confirmation, as suggested by the Crossing Card of the Six of Wands.
However, not much is known about his stands on the more controversial issues of the day, in fact next to nothing is known. As is suggeted by the card of the Hermit at the position of Base of The Matter. Remember, he has basically been an attorney, so his arguments on behalf of his clients is just a matter of him being a good advocate for his client. A good lawyer can advocate for either side.
Yet, this man has little judicial experience. He is a brilliant lawyer, but that is almost the extent of his experience. He has been a judge for all of two years, on the Fifth Circuit Appelate Court. And this is where the Final Outcome Two Of Pentacles comes in. He will pretty much be not only a Supreme Court Associate Justice in training, but when you get right down to it, will be a judge-period-in training. Asumming he is confirmed, of course, which I feel confident he will be.
Stay tuned. The democrats had better go along with this one. He may turn out to be conservative as Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia, or Rehnquist, true enough. On the other hand, with an unknown quantity, there's a chance he might be moderate, or slightly right to center, as oppossed to being a hard-core right winger. With most other nominees, there's little chance that his or her views would be so unknown, and those known views are likely to be conservative. And of course Bush will nominate a conservative, as is his right. Remember, he won the election. If democrats and the far left don't like that, then that simply means they should go about adopting raional policy positions and undertaking sensible campaign strategies so that they can win the elections necessary to appoint the judges they would prefer. Of course, they will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to this way of thinking, as they seem as of yet to have far from tired of loosing elections, of out and out blowing elections, in fact. It's one of those facts of life in American politics, when you lose elections, you lose the agenda. And that includes judicial nominations.
And face it, the conservatives are right on some issues. And by right I mean correct. Most of the time they are wrong, granted, and on a lot of different levels. But I do take some comfort in those areas where they are correct. Such as in adopting sensible strategies to combat the war on terror, or at least they are better than the democrats on this issue. They also are better, for the most part, on issues of overall national security and defense. To deny this, you would have to not only be a 24 hour a day BlueKool Aid drinker, you would have to be snorkeling in the shit.
I won't go into the other areas where they are correct, not in this post. But the democrats had better start to come to grips with their heads and their hearts, and come to the realization of one hard truth. After some fifty years of dominating the Congress, both the House Of Representatives and the Senate, as well as the Courts, and of maintaining more or less overall support by way of the media, they have lost in a big way for going on eleven years now. They started to feel complacent, even, I am afraid, entitled. And they just haven't learned to cope with reality in a logical, rational, and more importantly, a strategically sound and sensible way. Until they do, look for more and more democratic losses, in the Senate, the House of Representatives, and in the Presidency.
And if it keeps on long enough, you can expect a Supreme Court of nine-and maybe eventualy more-conservatives. We might be lucky with John Roberts, who knows? But a long enough stretch of Republican judicial appointments, to the Supreme Court, eventually can not help but infuse it with a series of nothing but those types of nominees Bush stated in an interview some time back he considered the models-justices along the lines of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.
Does that sound like a horrible thought? Yeah, it does to me to. But if the Republicans continue to win election after election, and nominate such people, and suceed in having them confirmed due to the inability of democrats to win elections, don't blame the Republicans. After all, they are only being true to their own for the most part sincerely held phiosophies of law and government. No, the people you should place the blame on are the democrats. Be kind to them, though. Give them a little time. They'll have to stop whining and ranting, after all, before they can hear you good.
