« I used to try to count George W. Bush's lies | Daddy-O's Blog | My emails to the Washington Post, and a dishrag reply »
The main reason I wanted my Senator to vote FOR the AUMF
It took six years to wait for as good an example as this, but these examples are only going to multiply as long as John Roberts is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
John Roberts has written that he thinks it's more important to uphold previous judicial rulings that are WRONG than it is for a person convicted wrongly to be able to prove it. Via the Daily Kos:
Read that last clause. Unnecessarily overthrowing the established system of criminal justice.
A lot of folks sitting in prison waiting to be exonerated for ANY reason just lost all hope.
In August and September of 2003, a great verbal war was ongoing. On one side, George W. Bush and his Lying Liars all screeched day and night that if we did not invade Iraq, we would suffer another 9-11. Bush put the screws to Congress for an authorization for the war. It was put to a vote in the Senate.
I was against it, but I knew only too well that George would get his way. The two previous years had seen him get everything he asked for and more from Congress, in the name of his 'War on Terror'. I knew this much: No matter HOW Congress voted, no matter what they did, even if they outright FORBADE Bush from invading Iraq, Bush was going to invade Iraq. The Constitution, legal U.S. statutes and two other branches of government be damned, not to mention public sentiment. He was going to invade.
The Senate seat held by my state's only Democrat was not in good hands. The Senator had voted for Bush's tax cuts; voted for quite a few of his draconian conservative issues; she was a decent representative of my very conservative state.
I still maintain that I wanted her to vote FOR the AUMF for one reason only: To be able to hold her seat. If she's going to vote FOR insane wars led by would-be dictators, then what's the point of keeping her in? A DINO?
In order to keep her seat, she couldn't be seen as a pinko hippie war-hater. But there are more important issues to vote on than just one war resolution.
Supreme Court nominees, and Federal judges, too.
John Roberts has written that he thinks it's more important to uphold previous judicial rulings that are WRONG than it is for a person convicted wrongly to be able to prove it. Via the Daily Kos:
Although Roberts conceded that "[i]t is now often possible to determine whether a biological tissue matches a suspect with near certainty," he determined that Osburne has no right to pay for a test that could exonerate him for a crime he did not commit. Allowing Osburne to prove his potential innocence, Roberts said, risks "unnecessarily overthrowing the established system of criminal justice."
Read that last clause. Unnecessarily overthrowing the established system of criminal justice.
A lot of folks sitting in prison waiting to be exonerated for ANY reason just lost all hope.
In August and September of 2003, a great verbal war was ongoing. On one side, George W. Bush and his Lying Liars all screeched day and night that if we did not invade Iraq, we would suffer another 9-11. Bush put the screws to Congress for an authorization for the war. It was put to a vote in the Senate.
I was against it, but I knew only too well that George would get his way. The two previous years had seen him get everything he asked for and more from Congress, in the name of his 'War on Terror'. I knew this much: No matter HOW Congress voted, no matter what they did, even if they outright FORBADE Bush from invading Iraq, Bush was going to invade Iraq. The Constitution, legal U.S. statutes and two other branches of government be damned, not to mention public sentiment. He was going to invade.
The Senate seat held by my state's only Democrat was not in good hands. The Senator had voted for Bush's tax cuts; voted for quite a few of his draconian conservative issues; she was a decent representative of my very conservative state.
I still maintain that I wanted her to vote FOR the AUMF for one reason only: To be able to hold her seat. If she's going to vote FOR insane wars led by would-be dictators, then what's the point of keeping her in? A DINO?
In order to keep her seat, she couldn't be seen as a pinko hippie war-hater. But there are more important issues to vote on than just one war resolution.
Supreme Court nominees, and Federal judges, too.
Advertisement
You are kidding yourself. The DINO's have no end of things they're selling us out on - labor, gay rights, civil rights, human righrs, increased war funding, bailouts for billionaires, financial industry regulation, progressive taxation and certainly not last but certainly not least HEALTHCARE!!!
June 19, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's now. This was then.
Yes, my Senator sold me out. I listed that she voted for Bush's tax cuts, etc.
But she needed to keep her seat so she would be an important vote on something besides that--and even the war that nobody was going to stop.
My Senator was not a DINO. She was a representative of her very conservative state. But she could have gotten media and political cover in her judicial votes, which would have TRIED to keep Roberts and Scalito off the bench. Nobody pays much attention to who votes how on a judicial vote, even a SCOTUS vote (unless it's close, and then only for a brief media moment).
Keeping BAD lifetime judges off the bench is more important to me than voting for a war that is coming no matter how they voted. I'm not fooling myself; you just don't see it my way.
June 20, 2009 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink