Polls show Americans are 'confused'

(the peanut gallery collectively and in perfect synchronicity falls to its knees, arms in the air, chanting, "we're not worthy, we're not worthy"....)

PD - what a terrific avatar.

Confused Americans are being shown some light by some of the Supreme Court's latest rulings - striking down the Texas sodomy law; the affirmative action ruling; and the redistricting ruling. These rulings go against the republican representations in court. They re-affirm some citizens' rights.

Do you think, ma, that it's mere coincidence or serendipity that on the same day the USSC strikes down the states' sodomy laws, ol' Strom Thurmond also kicks the bucket?

It seems like the end of one era and the beginning of another.

(i'm feeling a little more encouraged this evening. Now if Jesse Helms will slip on a banana peel... )

Then there is the latest pretzel incident.

Actually, PD, I think it's more than coincidence that the Supreme's are apparently thinking throught their rulings now in terms of the people as a whole. Ted Olsen was there arguing for the WH in the sodomy case, and he wanted a different decision. The affirmative action suit was another one the WH was not for. And this latest - the redistricting - goes against the republican arguments. Scalia and Thomas are beginning to look isolated. And Scalia's outburst should have some effect when it comes to judicial nominations. It showed very clearly the importance of ideology.

Serendipity when it comes to Thurmond. Don't you feel a change in the air?

What latest pretzel incident?????

Just futurizing, you know - wistful thinking?

a sunny day in the struggle to keep the barbarians from the gate, for sure. and maybe, as you say it augers a sea change, but i doubt it. we have been here too many times before with a few positive SCOTUS rulings and it is to our everlasting shame that we progressives thought that all we had to do was win a SCOTUS case to end racism, poverty, hunger, and intolerance. Progressives get soft and think that the battle is won for the hearts and minds of the American people by judicial fiat.

It wasn't before, it won't again, unless we are prepared to defend the spirit of these decisions with legislative action and popular support.

unfortunately, the rightwing has slowly acquired great power to control the political and increasingly, the judicial process, the federal courts are getting packed with conservative judges and the balance of the US Courts of Appeals is stacked in circuit after curcuit against progressive ideas. It is this court that hears cases before the SCOTUS does and this court is a filter for the things that reach the SCOTUS, but most don't and much law is made in this court, now fundamentally controlled by the right and corporate interests.

we may look out today and say the shoreline is finally turning to ebb tide, but the storm is about upon us and the nature our american culture is radically changing to one where diversity of thought is not considered a virtue, and the needs of corporations dictate political policies to the detrement of the people.

If the left thinks that the fight is over for the things decided upon today, history would show them the error of that opinion. these decisions will continue to galvanize the right and corporations to make their positions heard at the ballot box.

the right will be coming right back on these decisions and attempt to go around the judicary decisions and impact onto the society what they want.

the question i ask is "is the left ready for the right's counter-attack to protect their interests in these matters?"

Saddly, i would opine that they are not . . .

Interesting claim, and I wonder--in light of it--what you think of Gephardt's recent assertion that he would--as president--use executive orders to get around any Supreme Court decision that did not go his way?


Is this going "around the judicary decisions and impact onto the society what they want" something you recognize as fundamentally and universally wrong, or is it only wrong when the ends aren't ones you desire?

another, oh so typical rant from the right.

noted in your post is the exposition of a theoretical possiblity and its transformation into a fact for support of a rather specious argument, when in fact, it is this current president himself who has by use of executive orders gone around the actual constitution he was sworn to protect.

but that's okay by you, it appears

in case you are not wearing your reading glasses, note that i made mention of the use of the ballot box by the right and corporations to influence society towards their goals, not executive orders.

only a fool would mention gepthardt's comments about what he might do when the situation with bush's administration bending the rules so factually true.

the argument has all the force of a rapist caught in the act and saying " dont pay any attention to me, lets go punish those potential rapists."

that kind of nonsense worked for cleavon little in blazzing saddles when he held himself hostage and threatened to kill himself, but such surealism as your post passing for informed debate?

sorry, not here.

kuvasz - Mine was not a rant, it was a question, asked sincerely and with a reasonable expectation of a civil response. I obviously did not count on you to be so partisan that you read everything from anyone who disagrees with you as hostile. I won't make the same mistake of overestimating you again.

Laying out the facts is not partisan behavior.

You don't like the facts, that's all. It is not my responsibility to make you happy when presenting and analyzing the relevent facts of issues being discussed.

It is my responsibility to present my positions with the pertainent facts.

When you do the same, I will be there already waiting for you to form a basis for negotiation of common principles.

Set, Kuvasz - I have to admit I am the eternal optimist. History, I believe, is with us until that last, fatal moment.

The reason I am more sanguine about SCOTUS is that I have read several things O'Connor addressed to various graduating classes the past year, and she seems to indicate a regret for the Florida decision. And too, the fact that several members were expected retire, but so far they're coming back for the fall session. David Brooks tonight, on the PBS Newshour, does not think there will be retirements anytime soon, and he's quite conservative. What this bodes, I don't know, but it's different.

And sure the radicals will come in with knives. Whatever I think of Bush, I have never underestimated Rove. But I think there's a fatal flaw there. I think, on the part of the administration, there is overestimation of themselves, and underestimation of others. And that is frequently not a good road to travel.