Tuesday, July 05, 2005
sandy
I have a lot of respect and love for the Rude Pundit. But also a significant amount of resentment. Not just because he is incredibly insightful and has a huge following (not to mention a one-pundit show at the Fringe Fest in New York next month which I am planning on seeing). But because more often than not, he steals my ideas for blog postings. I mean, outright reads my mind and steals them. Case in point:
Okay, I'd been thinking about my post on O'Connor for the past coupld of days. And the thrust of it was contained in those two paragraphs ... down to the use of the word "encomiums" (although I was going to spell it "economiums" or something). He's really spooky in his ability to do that.
So anyway, I went to a last-minute-kinda-thing rally after work today, featuring Jan Schakowsky, some local pro-choice leaders, and William McNary, the charismatic head of USAction and Citizen Action Illinois. It wasn't too bad a crowd for such short notice, although obviously it could and should have been 20 times as big. I just ...
I wonder. Those people. Those gays; those women; those Jews; those Catholics. Those people who secretly pulled that lever in November 2000 or November 2004. Because they thought they were supporting the troops, or cutting their taxes, or protecting the country from terrorism, or just didn't completely trust that Kerry. The "moderate" Bush voters. Do they recognize their part to play in the possible reshaping of the Court to a long-lasting far right-wing one with little to no respect for the concept of individual liberties protected against majoritarian incursions? Did they remember to take that into consideration at the time they made their vote? Are they okay with the possible implications on our country???
Giving George W. Bush the first four years to potentially name some justices was playing with fire. Now we're all about to get burned. And he's got three more years. Plus. Thanks guys.
(If you're so inclined, perhaps contact your Senators and let them in on your feelings about what part you'd like them to play in this Supreme Court psychodrama. Even if you're not so inclined, do it anyway.)
By the way, the Rude Pundit won't be joining in the encomiums to Sandra Day O'Connor's Supreme Court tenure. Sure, sure, sure, she happened to be an available conservative woman who happened to be a judge when Ronald Reagan was trying to shore up some street cred with half of America. But that's circumstance. Sure, sure, she was a swing vote in favor of abortion rights and affirmative action.
And she was also the swing vote on Bush v. Gore, which led us to this moment in history, with war in Iraq, the steady dismantling of rights that O'Connor supported, and the final rightward shift of the court itself. Fuck her. That one decision undoes all the others.
Okay, I'd been thinking about my post on O'Connor for the past coupld of days. And the thrust of it was contained in those two paragraphs ... down to the use of the word "encomiums" (although I was going to spell it "economiums" or something). He's really spooky in his ability to do that.
So anyway, I went to a last-minute-kinda-thing rally after work today, featuring Jan Schakowsky, some local pro-choice leaders, and William McNary, the charismatic head of USAction and Citizen Action Illinois. It wasn't too bad a crowd for such short notice, although obviously it could and should have been 20 times as big. I just ...
I wonder. Those people. Those gays; those women; those Jews; those Catholics. Those people who secretly pulled that lever in November 2000 or November 2004. Because they thought they were supporting the troops, or cutting their taxes, or protecting the country from terrorism, or just didn't completely trust that Kerry. The "moderate" Bush voters. Do they recognize their part to play in the possible reshaping of the Court to a long-lasting far right-wing one with little to no respect for the concept of individual liberties protected against majoritarian incursions? Did they remember to take that into consideration at the time they made their vote? Are they okay with the possible implications on our country???
Giving George W. Bush the first four years to potentially name some justices was playing with fire. Now we're all about to get burned. And he's got three more years. Plus. Thanks guys.
(If you're so inclined, perhaps contact your Senators and let them in on your feelings about what part you'd like them to play in this Supreme Court psychodrama. Even if you're not so inclined, do it anyway.)
