« That's loyalty | Main | Not ready »

July 25, 2005



> Q. Are you aware that the Supreme Court under
> Rehnquist has often engaged in conservative
> activism?

I know this was implied, Michael, but before he even has to field that question, someone should just ask him for the definition of "activism" -- both as he himself defines it, and as he understands its use in formulations like "judicial activism" and "activist judges."


No, forget his definition of activism. Let's frame the debate this time.

Ronald Rutherford

There is one point that I feel you have missed the mark on.
Socialism is not communism! And why does Judge Roberts need to explain what his colleagues believe?
It might be helpful to you to check out Democratic Peace and his most recent post Understanding the Spontaneous Society.


Democracy is not capitalism either. You are wasting your breath. White is good and black is bad, every nigger knows that. The frame is cast in steel now.

Michael asked why, not what. The question is important because the only way to know how Roberts will rule is to know how he thinks, and asking him to explain why his colleagues are bigots will reveal whether or not he correctly perceives that they are bigots, or if he incorrectly perceives that they are fair-minded. Put yourself in the place of the extremist. From that vantage point a person is so incredibly biased that reality is completely distorted. It is in a way a sanity test.

The more important question to ask Roberts is how he can state that he forgot he was a member of the racist federalists (who originally wanted to name themselves anti-federaslists but decided that sounded too negative)? Surely he must remember hanging around with a bunch of nigger-hating secessionists. I think that would be a memorable experience, don't you?

The comments to this entry are closed.