Thursday, July 21, 2005
John Roberts Nomination: Humor and Derision
In the spirit of some of my neighbors who are already waving their "Filibuster Roberts" signs in my fair city, only the genius of iowahawk captures the true spirit of their grassroots efforts:
He or She Is The Wrong Man or Woman For The Court
Critical Urgent Community Action Bulletin
from the Progressive Action Network For American Progress
For Immediate Release
The Progressive Action Network For American Progress is extremely concerned by today's news that President Bush has selected ___JOHN ROBERTS___ as his nominee for the vacancy on the United States Supreme Court. Unlike outgoing Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the widely respected and admired moderate consensus-building sensible mainstream compromisist, ___JOHN ROBERTS___ has a shocking record of extremely extreme fringe legal positions that fill us with grave concerns about ___HIS___ fitness for this critically crucial office.
Make no mistake: no one should be fooled by the administration's public relations efforts or ___JOHN ROBERTS___ 's seemingly "moderate" appearance. ___JOHN ROBERTS___ has a record that suggests that ___HE___ would deny women the right to reproductive choice, stop important life-saving medical stem cell research by extending the Patriot Act to draft their unwanted fetuses, and turn these conscripted fetuses over to dangerous tax-supported 'Creationist' religious indoctrination laboratories. The Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment, and America needs to know whether ___JOHN ROBERTS___ supports the GOP's secret plan of a Rush Limbaugh Jesus army of unwanted, unquestioning fetus zombies programmed to urinate on the Korans of Guantanamo detainees.
We should also point out that our opposition to ___JOHN ROBERTS___ has nothing to do with the nominee's race and/or gender. We at the Progressive Action Network For American Progress have long been on record of standing up for the civil rights of ___WHITE MEN___ , rights from which ___JOHN ROBERTS___ ironically, has benefited. Sadly, rather than create programs and begin to work on the real problems that concern ___WHITE MEN___ , the Bush administration has cynically forwarded an unqualified, token candidate like ___JOHN ROBERTS___ to mask its callous indifference to the plight of the ___WHITE MAN___ community.
The rest includes a hilarious list of supporting organizations such as "Sitcom Producers for the American Way".
Liberal Larry of course is not to be outdone:
John Roberts is a DUDE!
My progressive friends and I were discussing plans to fight Bush's extremist, right-wing, totally unacceptable nominee for the Supreme Court when word coincidentally reached us of his pick. Judge John Roberts. The name sounds oddly unfeminine, doesn't it? In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb here and wager that John Roberts is a DUDE.
I know - I was just as shocked as you are. As a progressive, my intense hatred for all things masculine has mutated into an almost oedipal obsession with motherly figures in politics. And I'm not the lone voice squealing like a piggy in the wilderness this time. Indeed, ever since Sandra Dee O'Connor passed away, the general consensus among a majority of Americans was that Bush should replace her with a nurturing womyn who could provide much needed balance to the grunting cesspool of testosterone the Supreme Court is now. Preferably, someone unencumbered by years of legal training and a mile-long list of annoying credentials. Someone whose mind is an empty vessel waiting to be filled with liberal dogma and democrat talking points, which she would then regurgitate into her court decisions. Instead, Bush gave us an ideologue.
We all pretty much expected that the Shrub would pick someone just to the right of Adolf Hitler, but like most democrats, I was willing to give him a chance to unite America with a mainstream female nominee who was gung-ho for abortion and gay marriage. Unfortunately, he's chosen to divide us once again - this time between those who care about the fundamentals values of freedom and liberty that our Founding Fathers expressed in the Constitution, and those who throw little baby tantrums when you take away their guns and land.
If there is any laughter going on among the anti-Roberts clique, it seems to be directed toward the American people:
Amazing, isn't it? The Democrats are so arrogant that they cannot refrain from publicly boasting to fellow New York Times-reading elites how they manipulate the yahoos out there (that is, you and me).
One example of yahoo-deception in this New York Times Sunday Magazine article is the successful Democratic effort to fool the public into believing the Constitutional design of checks and balances was being gutted by Republicans who were trying to stop Democratic efforts to filibuster the Administration's appointments of Federal judges.
In reality, this principle of checks and balances refers to the reasoning behind having three separate branches of government. It does not refer to a parliamentary tactic using a minority of Congressmen to frustrate majority rule. Indeed if anyone can be accused of abusing tradition it would be the Democrats who have misappropriated the filibuster power of the Senate, blocking majority-supported nominees as they had never before been blocked in the entire history of that august body.
Geoff Garmin, a leading Democrat pollster, blithely admits that the Democrats manipulated the public's view of this issue because the concept of a filibuster was "beyond the pay grade of the American voter."
This helps explain how my moonbat neighbors can flaunt their support for the anti-democratic filibuster that allows the minority to oppose the will of the majority. They think the rest of us are too stupid to see the irony.
He or She Is The Wrong Man or Woman For The Court
Critical Urgent Community Action Bulletin
from the Progressive Action Network For American Progress
For Immediate Release
The Progressive Action Network For American Progress is extremely concerned by today's news that President Bush has selected ___JOHN ROBERTS___ as his nominee for the vacancy on the United States Supreme Court. Unlike outgoing Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the widely respected and admired moderate consensus-building sensible mainstream compromisist, ___JOHN ROBERTS___ has a shocking record of extremely extreme fringe legal positions that fill us with grave concerns about ___HIS___ fitness for this critically crucial office.
Make no mistake: no one should be fooled by the administration's public relations efforts or ___JOHN ROBERTS___ 's seemingly "moderate" appearance. ___JOHN ROBERTS___ has a record that suggests that ___HE___ would deny women the right to reproductive choice, stop important life-saving medical stem cell research by extending the Patriot Act to draft their unwanted fetuses, and turn these conscripted fetuses over to dangerous tax-supported 'Creationist' religious indoctrination laboratories. The Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment, and America needs to know whether ___JOHN ROBERTS___ supports the GOP's secret plan of a Rush Limbaugh Jesus army of unwanted, unquestioning fetus zombies programmed to urinate on the Korans of Guantanamo detainees.
We should also point out that our opposition to ___JOHN ROBERTS___ has nothing to do with the nominee's race and/or gender. We at the Progressive Action Network For American Progress have long been on record of standing up for the civil rights of ___WHITE MEN___ , rights from which ___JOHN ROBERTS___ ironically, has benefited. Sadly, rather than create programs and begin to work on the real problems that concern ___WHITE MEN___ , the Bush administration has cynically forwarded an unqualified, token candidate like ___JOHN ROBERTS___ to mask its callous indifference to the plight of the ___WHITE MAN___ community.
The rest includes a hilarious list of supporting organizations such as "Sitcom Producers for the American Way".
Liberal Larry of course is not to be outdone:
John Roberts is a DUDE!
My progressive friends and I were discussing plans to fight Bush's extremist, right-wing, totally unacceptable nominee for the Supreme Court when word coincidentally reached us of his pick. Judge John Roberts. The name sounds oddly unfeminine, doesn't it? In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb here and wager that John Roberts is a DUDE.
I know - I was just as shocked as you are. As a progressive, my intense hatred for all things masculine has mutated into an almost oedipal obsession with motherly figures in politics. And I'm not the lone voice squealing like a piggy in the wilderness this time. Indeed, ever since Sandra Dee O'Connor passed away, the general consensus among a majority of Americans was that Bush should replace her with a nurturing womyn who could provide much needed balance to the grunting cesspool of testosterone the Supreme Court is now. Preferably, someone unencumbered by years of legal training and a mile-long list of annoying credentials. Someone whose mind is an empty vessel waiting to be filled with liberal dogma and democrat talking points, which she would then regurgitate into her court decisions. Instead, Bush gave us an ideologue.
We all pretty much expected that the Shrub would pick someone just to the right of Adolf Hitler, but like most democrats, I was willing to give him a chance to unite America with a mainstream female nominee who was gung-ho for abortion and gay marriage. Unfortunately, he's chosen to divide us once again - this time between those who care about the fundamentals values of freedom and liberty that our Founding Fathers expressed in the Constitution, and those who throw little baby tantrums when you take away their guns and land.
If there is any laughter going on among the anti-Roberts clique, it seems to be directed toward the American people:
Amazing, isn't it? The Democrats are so arrogant that they cannot refrain from publicly boasting to fellow New York Times-reading elites how they manipulate the yahoos out there (that is, you and me).
One example of yahoo-deception in this New York Times Sunday Magazine article is the successful Democratic effort to fool the public into believing the Constitutional design of checks and balances was being gutted by Republicans who were trying to stop Democratic efforts to filibuster the Administration's appointments of Federal judges.
In reality, this principle of checks and balances refers to the reasoning behind having three separate branches of government. It does not refer to a parliamentary tactic using a minority of Congressmen to frustrate majority rule. Indeed if anyone can be accused of abusing tradition it would be the Democrats who have misappropriated the filibuster power of the Senate, blocking majority-supported nominees as they had never before been blocked in the entire history of that august body.
Geoff Garmin, a leading Democrat pollster, blithely admits that the Democrats manipulated the public's view of this issue because the concept of a filibuster was "beyond the pay grade of the American voter."
This helps explain how my moonbat neighbors can flaunt their support for the anti-democratic filibuster that allows the minority to oppose the will of the majority. They think the rest of us are too stupid to see the irony.
papijoe 6:21 AM
|