The Republicans are all patting each other on the back, and the Democrats are all bemoaning the stupidity of the electorate. I guess it has always been so. Now the time has come for the winners to enjoy the spoils, right?
Well, I supported Dubya because I believe he is the closest we can get to a President who believes in the sanctity of our Constitution. But I do not support the Republican Party. Nor any other party. Group identity is essential in a political organization. Or any other organization. And I’m a firm believer in individuality.
I am sick of hearing about gay marriage, pro-choice/pro-life, and every other “issue” which has been established as a way to identify us all.
And I don’t want Bush to nominate, or the Senate to consent to, any judicial appointment which has its basis the way a potential justice will lean on any issue. I want to see appointees who know and understand the Constitution inside and out. I don’t care if they have a law degree. I don’t care what the American Bar Association thinks about them. I want them to have good sense, morality, integrity, and a strong knowledge of the Constitution and its writing. They don’t need a background in Constitutional Law. That, in my view, is an oxymoron.
Newt Gingrich would be a good choice.
Andrew Napolitano would be a good choice.
But we are already hearing that new judges must believe the same on many issues as various interest groups. That is absolutely the wrong way to choose a Supreme Court Justice. And it is a primary reason I support Bush over any other Democrat or Republican. I think he will appoint the kind of person I would like to see on the Court. I may be disappointed, but he was certainly the better choice in this regard.
Tonight I visited the website for the Constitution Party. I looked over much of their information and downloaded their platform and like much of what I see–although not all. After all, I still hew to the individualistic nature I’ve developed over the years. Some of what I see makes me view them as something akin to the Libertarian Party, with an evangelistic slant.
But the Texas Chapter had some interesting information on the difficulty of getting a candidate on the ballot–any candidate who isn’t affiliated with either of the two major parties. And it is something that needs to be addressed both locally and nationally along with other election reforms.
I’ve got more to read later.
[…] reasoning as those who promote this petition. I have written several times, most recently here, that I don’t want any kind of “litmus test” applied to nominees for judici […]
Pingback by Bunker Mulligan » Specter — November 8, 2004 @ 1:51 pm
I wouldn’t know about a hole-in-one, but I like what you said about the Republicans. I voted for Bush, but the party has become too liberal. Please see my latest post on this subject at movermike.blogspot.com
Mover Mike
Comment by Mike Landfair — November 4, 2004 @ 9:06 pm
Be careful with the Constitution Party. I am an evangelical Christian. My experience with them is that they are only for evangelicals. We Christians need to build coalitions. They are permanent minority status … calling homosexuals sodomites, calling people like me who support Bush “idolaters” … Enough said.
Comment by Daisy — November 4, 2004 @ 11:19 pm
Thanks for the outside reading of their material. I’m going to read through their stuff and see if they have anything of value to add to the discourse. There has to be a viable party out there which has a sense of Constitution.
Comment by Bunker — November 5, 2004 @ 5:45 am