Clarence Thomas was approved for a seat on the Supreme Court by a vote of 52-48. Eleven, yes 11, Democrats voted yea. By the time of his hearings the Republican push for a radically conservative Court was clear. There can be no doubt that Clarence Thomas was meant to be a vote in the pocket of the most dangerously conservative people in United States government. And yet, Democrats could not summon the political nerve or savvy to unite against an obviously flawed candidate. As ever, they "went along to get along."
The Supreme Court majorities that elected George W. Bush, the attempt to cement lax gun laws as the "will" of our founding fathers, the opening of corporate money to buy our democracy, the opening up of voter intimidation - all these things and many more are the result of a failure for only three, 3, of those Democrats to foresee the future! However, if those men were true to the liberal nature of the American people, the vote would have been 59-41 against Mr. Thomas. Of course, most other Supreme Court justices have voted with Thomas on key issues.
The American electorate, I think, believed the election and reelection of President Obama was going to ensure a liberal America and their disappointment is focused wrongly on the President. That's a big part of what's wrong with America.
Remember Nixon's Southern Strategy and his "Hard Hat" politics? The rise of the religious right? That is what ensured a radically conservative politics that shows every sign of sweeping back into control of both houses of Congress in the next election. The United States is a liberal nation with a dysfunctional ability to ascend to power.
Who should bear the blame? Republicans? Hell no, they just do what they do. It's the other party, who, despite the illusion of opposing the radical conservatives, mostly capitulate at key moments. That's why we don't have a reasonable regulation of the "militia" - gun laws, I mean. That's why we don't have Medicare-for-all. That's why we spend far too much on a military whose missions do not enhance our security, but merely enrich the Military/Industrial/Secrecy/Prison Complex.
And that is why I think that even the seeming victory for Gay Rights in the defeat of Arizona's bill to allow religious views to justify discrimination could end up backfiring.
Do you think that Democrats could have acted in inspiring ways to prevent the Nixon/Reagan agenda from taking over most of the states? I do. Lyndon Johnson knew when he signed the Voting Rights Act that he was handing over the South to Republicans, but why did we lose most of the rest of our liberal nation to the new "Red" menace? (Red States = Republican victories)
And why does it seem that we are going to hand over a Republican Congress to Hillary Clinton?
PS.
Who runs the U.S. - and has no need for subtlety - no fear of backlash?! Wall Street warns Reublicans
Thanks, Supremes, for Citizens United.
The Supreme Court majorities that elected George W. Bush, the attempt to cement lax gun laws as the "will" of our founding fathers, the opening of corporate money to buy our democracy, the opening up of voter intimidation - all these things and many more are the result of a failure for only three, 3, of those Democrats to foresee the future! However, if those men were true to the liberal nature of the American people, the vote would have been 59-41 against Mr. Thomas. Of course, most other Supreme Court justices have voted with Thomas on key issues.
The American electorate, I think, believed the election and reelection of President Obama was going to ensure a liberal America and their disappointment is focused wrongly on the President. That's a big part of what's wrong with America.
Remember Nixon's Southern Strategy and his "Hard Hat" politics? The rise of the religious right? That is what ensured a radically conservative politics that shows every sign of sweeping back into control of both houses of Congress in the next election. The United States is a liberal nation with a dysfunctional ability to ascend to power.
Who should bear the blame? Republicans? Hell no, they just do what they do. It's the other party, who, despite the illusion of opposing the radical conservatives, mostly capitulate at key moments. That's why we don't have a reasonable regulation of the "militia" - gun laws, I mean. That's why we don't have Medicare-for-all. That's why we spend far too much on a military whose missions do not enhance our security, but merely enrich the Military/Industrial/Secrecy/Prison Complex.
And that is why I think that even the seeming victory for Gay Rights in the defeat of Arizona's bill to allow religious views to justify discrimination could end up backfiring.
Do you think that Democrats could have acted in inspiring ways to prevent the Nixon/Reagan agenda from taking over most of the states? I do. Lyndon Johnson knew when he signed the Voting Rights Act that he was handing over the South to Republicans, but why did we lose most of the rest of our liberal nation to the new "Red" menace? (Red States = Republican victories)
And why does it seem that we are going to hand over a Republican Congress to Hillary Clinton?
PS.
Who runs the U.S. - and has no need for subtlety - no fear of backlash?! Wall Street warns Reublicans
Thanks, Supremes, for Citizens United.
No comments:
Post a Comment