Power Line News

In one of the most vacuous statements I’ve ever read, Douglas Kmiec has <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/03/23/en

» View the article

Kmiec must be confusing mute endorsements with preparing for mute court; he can go either way and still try to sound convincing.

We may decry the conservative failings (or lack of conservative purity) of Reagan, Bush I or Bush II, but last week’s SCOTUS hearing of the Heller case underlines the need for the GOP to be appointing Supreme Court justices.  We’re probably going to get a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment is an individual right.  And every one of those five votes will come from the appointees from the above presidents--GOP-er’s all.  And, in the tabula rasa of Second Amendment jurisprudence, a Heller ruling in favor of an individual right will overshadow subsequent rulings about the use and possession of lethal force.

So, this brings us to Obama and his “open and enlightened” nominations to the supremes.  Not going to happen.  He’s got two strikes against him.  First, he’s a Democrat.  Second, is his Islamic baggage (reinforced by the “Reverend” Wright).  Neither of these affiliations point to a mind-set that recognizes, much less trusts, the automoty of the individual or that individual’s decisions. Trusting the individual with lethal force is the ultimate litmus test as to whether a politician truly respect limits to governmental authority (and who’s who’s boss).  The GOP ain’t perfect, but at least you have a fighting chance in keeping the Constitution from being totally shredded into cat litter. 

No, you’re going to get “enlighten” nominees in the mold of Stevens, Souter, Bryer and Ginsburg.  Yes, I know that it was Bush I that squandered one of this nominations on that idiot from Ben-and-Jerry land.  But, you can count on the likes of Obama to scour the entire employee list of Ben and Jerry for any and all SCOTUS appointments.

Having ducked every relevant question, and having ignored his prior analysis, it’s simply impossible to take Kmiec’s endorsement seriously.

I’m guessing he’s either “stuck on stupid” or he forgets where he last had his allegiances.

While I read Kmiec’s endorsement earlier this morning, I resisted the urge to skip ahead to the punch line. When the end came, and there was no punch line anywhere, I tried to understand what I had just read, and my mind went blank.

Kmiec’s core argument (you quote it yourself!) is that a president must have “before all else” a respect for the law. Obama has this, but McCain generally does not talk about domestic issues, nor is his lust for war particularly Christian.

He also talks elsewhere (http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=27051) about how Obama demonstrates a rare understanding of how church and state relate to each other. To have such a president is important to all Christians.

To focus on specific details, or forgetting party political allegiances, are frankly pathetic in comparison to this genuine respect for both God and the rule of law. Yours is such self-righteous hubris that we can only hope fundamentalists lose their influence in the coming election.

Snowman - 23 March 2008 08:41 PM

Having ducked every relevant question, and having ignored his prior analysis, it’s simply impossible to take Kmiec’s endorsement seriously.

I’m guessing he’s either “stuck on stupid” or he forgets where he last had his allegiances.

I’d say that it’s a case of a closeted liberal coming out.

Occam’s Razor says cheap opportunism.  I suspect this is a hail Mary pass to remain relavent.  Aparently his services were not desired by the McCain campaign.

APassingScot - 23 March 2008 09:18 PM

Kmiec’s core argument (you quote it yourself!) is that a president must have “before all else” a respect for the law. Obama has this. . . 

We must presume Obambi has “a respect for the law,” as absent other evidence we must assume it of any serious presidential candidate (even Slick Willie, until he demonstrated otherwise).

. . .but McCain generally does not talk about domestic issues, nor is his lust for war particularly Christian.

What have these non-sequitors to do with the price of beans?

He also talks elsewhere (http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=27051) about how Obama demonstrates a rare understanding of how church and state relate to each other. To have such a president is important to all Christians.

Without chasing links, tell me, is Obambi’s “rare understanding” anything close to Scalia’s, which is eminently laudable?

. . . To focus on specific details, or forgetting party political allegiances, are frankly pathetic in comparison to this genuine respect for both God and the rule of law. Yours is such self-righteous hubris that we can only hope fundamentalists lose their influence in the coming election.

Huh?  What in the world does this mean?

Don’t know anything about this Kmiec, nor why Power Line deems his opinions newsworthy, but it looks to me as though Starvin Marvin has it just right:

Occam’s Razor says cheap opportunism.  I suspect this is a hail Mary pass to remain relavent.  Aparently his services were not desired by the McCain campaign.

The original post could have benefitted from a little Razoring.

/Mr Lynn

Update: Notwithstanding my intent, I gave in and chased the link, and skimmed the article.  Sounds to me like Kmiec is tying reason in knots trying to explain to Catholics how Obambi’s pro-abortion stance makes religious sense.  Or, as Starvin Marvin says so aptly, “cheap opportunism.”

I have a new favorite phrase: “rare understanding.” I see so many opportunities to use it.  Of course, it will always be used to my favor as my rare understanding of each and every subject affords me the right to peddle every manner of specious BS.  From what I have seen, heard and read in this campaign, there is a lot of rare understanding going on out there.

Now we are less upset that Romney didn’t get the nomination. BTW, does this dude have any idea of what a hard-core leftist He Who Must Not Be Middle Named really is?

Mr Kmiec’s comments are breathtaking. What a load of horse puckey! Maybe it is possible to be educated beyond the point of common sense.

On the more general, and crucial, questions of the rule of law and the proper role of judges, the best Kmiec can offer is: “I am convinced based upon [Obama’s] public pronouncements and his personal writing that on each of these questions he is not closed to understanding opposing points of view, and as best as it is humanly possible, he will respect and accommodate them.” But why conservatives should vote for a candidate who probably respects conservative views, instead of a candidate who more often than not agrees with them, Kmiec never explains.

Why indeed?

Which one of the two is John McCain?

You can almost hear the stripped gears as Paul’s red-lined engine of conservative logic runs into the 50% grade of backing McCain.

Kmiec was co-chair of the Romney for President Advisory Committee on the Constitution and the Courts.

Please enlighten me as to why we care what a C-list functionary from a defunct campaign does with his endorsement?  I know I wasn’t waiting with bated breath for the political equivalent of “spear carrier #4” to say his line.

Honestly.  “Advisory Committee on the Constitution and the Courts”?  Wheeee!  What a lofty perch to pontificate from. Perhaps he felt owed 15 minutes of… fame?

Doubtless I should be agog at his wisdom and impressed by his choice, but frankly, it carries no more weight than Gert-at-the-Kroger’s endorsement.

And Gert’s endorsement was a lot less windy.

Who is Douglass Kmeic and why should I care who he endorses or doesn’t endorse?
For the recored I endorse Mickey Mouse for president and Donald Duck for VP.  Goofy for Secretary of State.  Anybody here care or not?

vegastracon - 24 March 2008 09:27 AM

Second thoughts. I am having them......

This non-sequitoriitis of the Scots fella must be catching.

Get out your tinfoil hats, everyone!

/Mr Lynn