July 06, 2005

Pat Buchanan Is a Scary Man

That old grizzly bear tipped me off to this story. Pat Buchanan has penned a piece in Townhall that makes me ever so happy that he will never hold a postion of real authority or leadership within the United States.

The Brown decision of 1954, desegregating the schools of 17 states and the District of Columbia, awakened the nation to the court's new claim to power. Hailed by liberal elites -- and finding no resistance from a Democratic Congress or president who spent his afternoons at Burning Tree -- Warren's court went off on a rampage.

It invented new rights for criminals and put new restrictions on cops and prosecutors. It reassigned students to schools by race and ordered busing to bring it about, tearing cities apart. It ordered God, prayer and Bible-reading out of classrooms. It said pornography was constitutionally protected, making Larry Flynt and Al Goldstein First Amendment heroes, rather than felons. It ruled naked dancing a protected form of free expression. It declared abortion a constitutional right and sodomy constitutionally protected behavior.

Gee Pat, I suppose that you think that Miranda and Mapp were terrible things, but I don't. I know that you think that Warren did terrible things, but let us take a cursory look here.

"In addition to racial and political equality, the Warren Court sought equality in criminal justice. The landmark here was Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), which required counsel for indigent defendants. Warren's emphasis on fairness in criminal proceedings also led to Mapp v. Ohio (1961), barring illegally seized evidence and Miranda v. Arizona (1966), requiring warnings to arrested persons of their right to counsel, including appointed counsel if they could not afford one."


And the landmark 1954 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka decision was terrible. Can you imagine ending school segregation. Shameful, how terrible, how horrible. Pat, you grouchy old bigot you, how can you be so dense. And now back to your rantings.

"It outlawed the death penalty, abolished terms limits on members of Congress voted by state referendums, and told high school coaches to stop praying in locker rooms and students to stop saying prayers at graduation. It ordered the Ten Commandments out of schoolhouses and courthouses. It condoned discrimination against white students in violation of the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. And, two weeks ago, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that towns can seize private homes and turn them over to private developers."
I don't really see much here that I have a problem with, with the exception of eminent domain and that is not a province of the Warren court. But you seem to think that there is some conspiracy.

"In every election since 1964, the court -- its liberal bias and usurped powers -- has been at issue. Nixon's narrow victory in 1968 was attributable in part to his pledge to "strengthen the peace forces as against the criminal forces in society" and put a Southerner on the Supreme Court.

Attacks upon court decisions seen as pro-criminal and anti-Christian have been a staple of Republican oratory that has given the GOP seven victories in 10 presidential elections and raised party strength from a third of the House and Senate in 1965, to majorities in both houses in 2005.

Hence the Judges War. Left and Right both know that at stake in the nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Connor is control of the last citadel of liberal power in America. For not one of the radical reforms imposed by our judicial dictatorship would have been approved by Congress."

Patently false rhetoric. How many of the current justices were appointed by Republican presidents. Your argument is so very flawed. But I appreciate your attempt to use liberal as a pejorative. Progressive thinking is not something that you handle well.

"If conservatives can recapture the court, social and moral issues can be returned to where they belong: elected legislatures and executives. The Left will lose its power to advance its social agenda and see a rollback of a revolution imposed undemocratically upon America over 50 years."
That last paragraph my friends is very frightening. The man looks back 50 years from the perspective of a white male and views the world through myopic eyes. He has come out and said that he is not in favor of civil rights, that he favors a society that is tilted towards the past. Regressive behavior is not something that will serve us well here.

I am very troubled by this kind of rhetoric, very troubled indeed.

2 comments:

ClooJew said...

Pat Buchanan reminds us that it is not just Muslim fundamentalism that we ought, lulei demistafina, to fear.

Jack's Shack said...

Fundamentalists can be found in many places.