NARAL Pro-Choice America has decided to pull its anti-Roberts ad due to all of the “controversy” (oh spare me–rolls eyes), which unfortunately with all of the reactionary shrilling over the ad, even by pro-choicers and liberals, has distracted just about everyone (including us pro-choicers and lefties) from the reality and the focus of this campaign.Which is, duh, exposing the threat Roberts’ poses to women’s reproductive rights (and at least NARAL did their job in that department as I don’t see some other pro-choice liberal bloggers who criticized the ad doing their part). Media Girl has a question or two regarding this debacle…
NARAL ad or no ad, the question remains:
Who is this John Roberts? And what are his attitudes about women?
And the broader question hangs over this all:
What kind of country are we creating by flirting so closely with the enslavement of women?
People like to call us all sorts of names for bringing this up. Some people just wish we’d go away, so the boys can get back to talking about guns and money. But this is a fundamental question. You either believe a woman’s body belongs to the woman, or to the government. No quibbling. No blowing the question off. It’s time to take a stand, or shut up, sit down and accept the consequences.
Damn straight! Also, like Media Girl, I too was disappointed by Jon Stewart’s subtle sexist comments directed towards the voiceover-woman on the NARAL ad on last night’s episode.
[…]And I have to admit, after Jon Stewart’s mocking, I couldn’t see much gain in pushing the ad further.
Stewart’s last jab was to make fun of the voiceover woman, and makes a lowbrow suggestion she hook up with “trailer voiceover man.” That was a fucking offensive joke — yeah, the uppity chick just needs to get laid, right, Jon?
Et tu, Jon? Maybe he’s a fan of the frat-boyish bloggers over at the DailyKos.Yep, sticking it to an “uppity woman with opinions” ought to shut her up with her damn “pet causes.” Gee, how many of these supposed “progressive” and “liberal” guys are nothing but over-grown frat-boys (or closet Republicans)? As for the FactCheck.org issue (here’s their analysis of the ad) see this post over at BitchPhD, and even Scott Lemieux’s posts here and here.
*Update*: Check out this post over at Bush v. Choice to see more on NARAL’s decision to change its ad campaign. Though the reason should be obvious to everyone. Focus on Roberts and quit bickering amongst ourselves! Duh.
*Second update*: See NARAL’s response letter to Senator Specter, who adamantly requested NARAL to pull the ad.
The best part of the Kos thread was the typical moronic Nation drivel about how Hilary’s opponent mustn’t win, because said opponent would promote Righties. Like Hilary, with her hawkishness, her waffling on abortion, and her penchant for toxic dumps in poor neighborhoods, has spent her time in the Senate doing anything else.
Oh, but it’s all right to promote and be a Rightie, as long as you call yourself “Democrat.”
Sisters, enough. Just cut ’em loose already.
You either believe a woman’s body belongs to the woman, or to the government.
No, no — it belongs to the men around her. Either her husband (who may want more children and certainly wants more sex) or her boyfriend (probably not the former, though certainly the latter), or perhaps the oggling guy on the street . . .
Silly girl…
Frat-bloyish is right. Jeez, it is crap like this that really gives weight to the whole liberalism as pemissiveness argument.
No, no, Lorenzo. Liberalism, or what passes for it in Kos-ville, means “Equal Rights For Those Who Can Afford To Purchase ‘Em.”
Why should we hyper, humorless, hairy-legged harridans worry if legal abortion goes down the drain ? Our Daddies and Hubbies and boyfriends will pay for our trips to Mexico/Canada. I’m sure they’ll go our bail if we get caught, too. If they’re not too busy wiring more money to Move On “War ? What War ?” .org, that is.
No one is saying people shouldn’t be concerned about abortion rights. The issue seems to be that NARAL produced an ad that was designed to insight people, damn the facts and reality. Distorting people’s position should be what the bad guys do, not the good guys.
Distorting people’s position should be what the bad guys do, not the good guys.
No, distortions are OK, Res, as long as they lead to a greater truth. Anything that draws eyeballs to the cause is automatically good; that the bulk of the eyeballs turn away in disgust or disapproval is immaterial.
Yes, making people angry about an important issue, appealing to their passions, and firing up the loyalists in your base so they can clearly discern the difference in what you stand for vs. what your opponent stands for is just wrong wrong wrong. The rational cold fish approach works much better, which must be why Democrats keep winning election after election. Oh, wait… :p
The “bad guys” are in both parties, except that one party undermines my rights and the other greases the wheels and makes excuses for them while they do it. Kos being a stellar example of such excuse-factories. One party is proud of its sexism, the other suspects that it may be distasteful to be sexist, but is pretty sure that sexism is the way to go anyway. Because it wins elections. Eventually, I guess.
Actually, I’ve read some factchecking of factcheck.org’s shite and found they really didn’t know what they were talking about. Initially NARAL’s advert disappointed me, but then upon reading the responses, I changed my mind, and while I do still think in terms of how it was put together could have been better, the claims weren’t that much of a stretch.
But Jon Stewarts comments fucking pissed me off last night, I am sick and fucking tired of these so-called ‘progressive’ and ‘liberal’ guys saying shit like this. PS is right, this is frat boy shit and honestly, as a liberal progressive woman, it’s like finding out your own troops are laying down IED’s for you.
(to completely rip of Maher) NEW RULE: You can’t call yourself a liberal or progressive guy if you still pull off sexist fucking shite like this.
NARAL made a huge tactical mistake with the and the conservative (and mainstream) press is having a field day.
“PS is right, this is frat boy shit and honestly, as a liberal progressive woman, it’s like finding out your own troops are laying down IED’s for you.”
What’s a little bit more depressing to me is that when I move back into the dorms next Wednesday, I have to deal with frat-boys and their shit “up close and live” all over again. Damn it, this just keeps getting worse for me. I really did admire Jon Stewart because he’s great when calling the Rightwing and the Dems out for their bullshit, but if he starts mirroring the Kos boys all too closely, well then shit, the list of real progressive/liberal guys who aren’t sexist just keeps shrinking doesn’t it?
Is it possible, PA, that if a supporter is questioning the ad, that means that there may be some legitimacy to his mocking??? Stewart is good at satirizing things that need to be satirized and criticized, and maybe that’s what is needed here.
“well then shit, the list of real progressive/liberal guys who aren’t sexist just keeps shrinking doesn’t it?”
Ya know, sometimes I am just so damn relieved and happy to be lesbian :)
I considered going into the dorms when I was starting my second year of my doctorate, as the income of a grad student wasn’t wonderful for living in an apartment in a city like Chicago. However, in hindsight, after hearing the experiences of some of my female friends, am pretty glad I didn’t.
But as to these ‘progressive’ guys, I’m so sick of running into this time after time after time after time after ….
“Is it possible, PA, that if a supporter is questioning the ad, that means that there may be some legitimacy to his mocking??? Stewart is good at satirizing things that need to be satirized and criticized, and maybe that’s what is needed here.”
Poking fun at a group is fine and all (and we have a right to do so), and at times we need the comic relief (especially in times like these), but did he really have to use the cliche “uptight broad just needs to get laid” sexist jab? He also “mocked” NARAL by calling them “NARAL-AMBLA” as in “NAMBLA,” which was a way of mocking how serious the group is about its activism, and I laughed at it and didn’t have a problem with it. They also threw in some eighties Michael Jackson stuff at the end too. NARAL is serious about their issues and poking fun at that isn’t bad. It’s just how you go about doing it, and I was disappointed that Jon had to be sexist about it. But hey, he’s a “liberal” guy. ::rolls eyes::
(just making sure I convey my point clearly) So, in regards to criticism by a supporter, sure satire is a perfectly okay route to take, but it was the way Jon went about it–the sexist jab–was not only offensive but a pathetic attempt to intelligently criticize the ad. The comment wasn’t even needed as he did intelligently criticized the ad seconds before while re-playing the ad (he did what others had done with this ad by citing the dates used in the ad and everything else going along with that). He was just trying to get an easy laugh from the audience apparently.
He’s a comedian. Easy laughs are his business. I am sure you laugh when he mocks Bush.
“I am sure you laugh when he mocks Bush.”
Yes…..
But how on earth does going for an ‘easy laugh’ excuse a rather awful display of sexism?
I mean, am I missing some shite here?
And don’t say a sense of humour, because I don’t care how much some idiot says “it was just a joke” because the fuck it isn’t … I don’t care how much I dislike Laura Bush, I’m not going to use sexist shit to put her down just because I am too intellectually lazy to come up with something that doesn’t insult half the population doing it.
The NARAL ad referred to Roberts’ actions in helping draft an amicus brief in the Bush administration in 1991 in support of a very extreme collection of anti-choice extremists/terrorists. The case dealt with the applicability of the Klu Klux Klan act in cases involving intimidation and blockades of health care clinics targeted by OR and similar groups. I can understand how a law student, regardless of their position on abortion rights, might argue both sides while in school. I can understand how a responsible attorney out in practice might choose to represent an anti-choice extremist group like Operation Rescue, or the KKK for that matter. But if an attorney argues for the defense of a violent extremist group, be it the parties on the Bray side in this case or a similar argument which in another generation might have been made by the KKK (perhaps a constitutional right to burn crosses, or more specifically how close can one be permitted to burn one near the target of their protest) — well, I think that attorney’s arguments and personal opinions deserve strict scrutiny, to say the least. Especially if they’ve been nominated to a seat on the US Supreme Court. Especially.
I don’t have a problem with the NARAL ad. Extreme rhetoric in defense of health care clinics, workers, and patients against anti-choice blockades, harassment, and overt violence is no vice. I think that most pro-choice supporters — and for that matter, opponents — down here understand what the ad meant, whether one agrees with the statements and their intent or not. The ad is strongly worded, but the only real reason I see for it to be pulled is that — I suppose — it didn’t play well in the polls. If something like it had been aired in a slightly different context ten years ago, I think it would have been seen in a very different light, but given the events of the time, an ad like this would not have been necessary.
It’s been about ten years since the time of the Bray case, the killings of a number of doctors and clinic workers, and such. There’s more though than time elapsed that is needed to explain how so much coverage over the NARAL ad leaves out important details on matters like the dates of shootings, bombings, and other acts of violence by anti-choice activists and other extremists. For example, this article from the August 9th LA Times refers to how the ruling in Bray came down on January 13, 1993, a week before Kenneth Starr and John Roberts left office, when Clinton was inaugurated: Ad Attacks Roberts’ Role in Clinic Case
The article — and all articles I’ve read so far on the Roberts nomination which refer to this timeframe — don’t mention that in the meantime, between the Bray ruling, Clinton’s inauguration, and the passage of FACE the next year, Dr. David Gunn was shot and killed in Pensacola (March 11th, 1993). There was an enormous surge in right-wing extremist activism during that year, a couple years before that, and the years that followed — bracketed between the fall of the former Soviet Union in December 1991, and the subsequent shift in resources of right-wing groups from anticommunist to anti-choice efforts, peaking in April 1995 with hate radio and anti-federal government militia efforts and the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building, and the election of Bush, Jr. in 2000. Oh, yeah, we had a booming economy during the 1990s which helped mask the losses in federal social welfare programs and the inability to pass any federal pro-choice legislation in those years besides the May 1994 FACE act. I know that issues like these were off the map of most people’s concerns back during those economic boom years, but one might at least mention SOME of these incidents in coverage of the context of the Bray ruling and the reasoning behind the NARAL ad.
Anyway, with that in mind, I am VERY interested in hearing Roberts answer some specific questions on the constitutionality of clinic protest which seeks to block access, harass, stalk, or in any way intimidate clients of a health care clinic. In today’s hypersensitive security- and privacy-preoccupied culture — and in the foreseeable future — a little intimidation goes a long way, maybe further than it did ten years ago.
ampy, please edit my post above to use the following link for the LA Times article I referred to:
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-roberts9aug09,0,7741743.story?coll=ny-leadnationalnews-headlines
The LA Times link in the article above is incorrect. The correct URL to the LA Times website may require registration, but the reprint in NY Newsday won’t require registration.
You have a very useful and interesting website. Thanks for your efforts.
Burl
[“Ampy”? I’m not sure about that… but nonetheless, correction made. Thanks for the kind words. –Amp]
“Southern students,” you rock.
The NARAL ad was a purposefully designed and false smear campaign. A tactical error that should have and did backfire. It placed NARAL at the same low levels of ethics and taste as their companion fanatics at the opposite end of the spectrum.
Monomaniacal fanatics of all persuasions are become more flamboyant and depraved in their efforts to Balkanize and escalate ideological and culture conflictrs into literal civil war in this country.
It is a relief to know that moderate minds can still prevail
If this were true, then a smear ad commerical would be “at the same low levels of ethics” as shooting doctors and clinic workers to death. Obviously, I don’t think that’s what you intended to say, but I think that it’s unfair and wrong to claim that the two extremes are moral equals. The extreme pro-choicers sometimes say unwise things; the extreme pro-lifers are terrorists. Not the same at all.
Res Ipsa Writes:
August 12th, 2005 at 8:03 am
No one is saying people shouldn’t be concerned about abortion rights.
If abortion was a right, it would be the job of the SC to uphold abortion. Unfortunatly, the SC’s job is to uphold the Constitution, which says nothing about abortion, and is quite clear about the scope and limits of the federal government.
Justice is also supposed to be blind, it’s not supposed to take sides.
NARAL, for a short moment, looked like it might fight for the cause it ostensibly supports. Oh, but that’s too much. They need to be moderate.
Both parties conspire in tearing down women’s rights, and the Republicans pitch their campaigns to fanatics who murder doctors and destroy clinics. But point out that it’s a problem? Oh, sorry. That might hurt some feelings.
We’ve had to do some clinic defenses in the Bay Area recently. Planned Parenthood was uncomfortable with counterprotesters, and said they’d rather the anti-choice bigots were left untroubled. We actually had people questioning whether we were undermining the freedom of speech of the anti-choice bigots by counterprotesting them.
I’m getting really, really angry.
Unconditional surrender is not moderation. Why won’t more people fight back?
“The extreme pro-choicers sometimes say unwise things; the extreme pro-lifers are terrorists. Not the same at all.”
And I haven’t seen nor heard of an “extreme pro-choicer” blowing up churchs who send out pro-life protestors to women’s clinics, or murdering the pro-life leaders either. If that ever does happen, someone give me a call, and I will be the first person to vehemently condemn and denounce the [hypothetical] jackass who did the deed. And yes, they would be a terrorist (not an activist), and no different then the psycho-anti-choice-terrorists who likewise bomb clinics and murder doctors.
“NARAL, for a short moment, looked like it might fight for the cause it ostensibly supports. Oh, but that’s too much. They need to be moderate.”
“But point out that it’s a problem? Oh, sorry. That might hurt some feelings.”
And the Right-wingnuts say we on the Left are too sensitive?
I saw that Daily Show tonight, and I disagree that it was sexist. I frequently see this joke leveled at men and women, probably more often men: “if s/he would just get laid, s/he could learn to lighten up.” It has nothing to do with gender. It bothers me that some of you would be so quick to excommunicate someone ideologically because of one innocuous statement.
I, too, saw the Daily Show bit this evening. Left to my own devices, I would’ve taken it as matchmaking rather than “she just needs to get laid.” But opinions are as subjectiveness does and all.
I think some of y’all are kinda missing the point here: Jon Stewart does a comedy show, so his job is to make fun of people. That generally involves some stereotyping.
Richard, I think everyone understands that it was a joke. That something is a joke doesn’t preclude us from discussing if it was an offensive joke or not. I’m a steady Daily Show fan, and I know from observation that they do their show, week after week after week, without making non-ironic sexist jokes. So clearly it’s not impossible.
Jake, I watched the joke earlier today, and it was very definitely “she needs to get laid,” not just matchmaking. I thought it was funny, but that doesn’t negate that it was offensive. It might have been an attempt to do an ironic parody of a common sexist joke; if that’s what it was, it fell incredibly flat.
Personally, I was with Jon right up to the ‘she needs to get laid’ jibe because I hate to hear that statement, anywhere it happens.
NARAL does need to have a new ad up and here’s something that I would have liked to see in place of the inaccurate juxtapositioning of Roberts’s brief and the Birmingham bombing:
In 1991, Roberts wrote a brief supporting extremist action against abortion clinics.
Since then, there have been bombings, killings of abortion providers, etc etc, all stuff you know better than I do. (Aside question: pre-1991 but post-Roe, how many such incidents were there?)
The million dollar question is: has Roberts changed his stance? Has he ever condemned any of these incidents, had any cases brought before him and if so, how has he ruled on them? That’s the question. It’s a vital one to bring up, it’s something that people need to put pressure on their senators to put before Roberts at his hearing and unfortunately, that’s the point they failed to make the first time.
Any takers?
It’s fundamentally misleading to evaluate a lawyer’s work on the basis of the groups that may be helped by the principles for which he advocates.
Blaming Roberts for actions against abortion clinics because he argued for federalist application of criminal law affecting Operation Rescue is like blaming the ACLU for the Holocaust because they’ve upheld the principles of free speech, assembly, and protest for Nazis.
And I’ve never heard a joke that somebody somewhere couldn’t find offensive if they worked hard enough at it. Jon Stewart offends conservatives every day, and they just have to lump it or change channels.
Because, aparently, it’s not actually important to get anything done.
It’s much more important to have your opponents find you “nice” and “reasonable” while they’re busy robbing you six ways from Sunday.
res ipsa, the (I presume) unwitting hilarity of your comments made my morning. What, exactly, have the conservative/mainstream press NOT had a field day with vis-a-vis abortion rights in the last forty years ? Rightwing fanatics spoonfeed them lurid fictions of healthy babies having their throats cut in mid-birth somehow equalling abortion and they eat it up unquestioningly. (Yeah, I know that folk tale’s one of your faves, too, Robert. So you, too, score major points this morning for unwitting hilarity with your pious prattling about “distortions.”) They play on the murky opinions of people like you, which sends you back here to finger-wag women and lefties about how we’re just not conducting ourselves humbly and decorously enough.
Has it never occurred to you that these people are without scruples or any sense of the fairplay– PERIOD ? There is no “correct way” to argue with them, other than ceasing to argue at all. Do you honsetly think that an ad with a pitch like “Roberts is a swell guy, BUT–” would have persuaded his boosters to budge one iota ? I don’t.
Alsis, I think its fair to say that even if there is “no ‘correct way’ to argue with them” it’s fair to say that having NARAL use ads more worthy of Swift-Vote Veterans is not going to convince people that abortion-rights is an issue worth gutting the Roberts nomination.
The ad was a bad decision and hurt the reputation of NARAL and the abortion-rights movement, making them look like amateurs and not quite ready for prime time. I know you aren’t willing to admit it was a mistake and a distortion, but the CV wisdom has already reached that conclusion.
Well, there you go. “CV” wisdom is all. That is, it’s very important to let one’s opponents dictate the proper terms of debate at all times. Even if “conventional” thought is wrong;Even if tremendous double standards are in play, and even if the institutions who decide which side gets flattering lighting and which one doesn’t are anything but neutral, it “CV” that is supreme.
Thanks for clearing that up, res. With allies like you, I have no doubt that my reproductive freedom will remain secure for all time. [rolleyes]
Maybe you should go re-read the second two paragraphs of what southern wrote. I thought that they were very eloquent. Oh, and here’s a little something more for you, courtesy Patricia Goldsmith at Dissident Voice:
(bolds are mine)
Sorry, forgot the link. :o
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug05/Goldsmith0810.htm
Sorry, not buying the idea that it’s OK to use stupid tactics because the alternative is to be a simpering milquetoast.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm
FYI: The above referenced link includes a chart which shows that, while non-violent picketing (Constitutionally protected as a freedom of expression of dissent) has significantly increased, various forms of actual violence at abortion clinics has dramatically decreased since 2000 .
If you want to engage in some superficial linking or faulty analogizing to attempt to discredit a public figure, play with these stats:
During Clinton’s first administration, and despite the passing of FACE (1994) and the use of RICO to protect access, there were some 60 arson/bomb attacks or attempted arson/bomb attacks on abortion clinics ,(and the numbers were not really better during his 2nd term either).
During Bush’s first administration there were some 16 arson/ bomb attacks or attempted arson/bomb on abortion clinics (roughly 1/4 the number).
As a matter of fact such figures would imply a trend toward safer access during Bush’s tenure than Clinton’s. As a matter of speculation one could take such numbers at their face value and attribute the trend to Bush’s leadership. Of course, it goes without saying that there had to have been more complex dynamics in that trend than simply who was President at the time. And my point is : Do people at NARAL believe the American public would be stupid enough to buy off on superficial linking or faulty analogizing that John Roberts is some kind of anarchist and would not recognize a vicious smear campaign?
The vast majority of pro-life clinic protestors are not violent and emulate tactics of the late Dr. King when protesting what they believe is a bad law that effectively deprives an entire class of citizens (the unborn) of all of its civil rights.
Historically, clinic bombers have been individuals acting either alone or in cahoots with a very small group of fanatics who resort to violence. To try to portray John Roberts as supportive of such a lunatic fringe strains credulity.
Naral screwed the pooch. It came across as “McCarthyizing” a distinguished jurist (conservatism notwithstanding) and the tactic jumped up and bit them on the butt. To put it in the vernacular, “Anyone who slings enough shit will eventually get it all over himself.”
In this particular instance, no one is going to be able to launch a defense of NARAL which a majority of Americans will find credible or palatable. Talk about throwing away the moral high ground with both hands. Even in today’s cynical society there are some things that are beyond the pale..not to mention the political disadvantage at which NARAL’s ad put the more polished advocates of their cause in Congress (but that is a whole ‘nother discussion).
Wow, thanks for the thoughtful response, Mythago. I feel totally put in my place now.
Dispassionate, I think that you, too, need to re-read southern’s post.
You wrote:
Yes, the nomination of a man like Roberts –who, along with his highly dubious opinions on choice, has plenty of other problems– isn’t “beyond the pale” at all. An ad that uses tactics you find distasteful to find out what anyone with eyes can see– that he is an out-and-out foe of women’s rights– is a sign of the end times. Yawn. I can’t help but think that when people write the kind of stuff you write about supposed “moderates,” they are writing about people who never intended to give groups like NARAL a fair shake in the first place. Nothing NARAL said short of “Go, Roberts !” would have pleased them. What pleases them is all of us going quietly with the flow, never mind that the flow is headed over Niagra Falls, *sans* barrell.
The more I listen to these discussions about how the 21st-Century version of The Silent Majority must be catered and kowtowed to with every breath activists take, the more I’m convinced that the term “moderate,” as with Goldsmith’s comments about “liberal” and so forth, is also likewise meaningless. These “moderates” we’re all supposed to cater to simply want to avoid the fray and sit on the fence forever. They have a notion that their own choices vis-a-vis childbearing and bodily integrity can be safely kept private, if not legal, so why get involved ? The hell with everyone else.
You go cater to those people, Mythago, Dispassionate. I’m tired of them. They’re a millstone around the country’s neck, and I wish I could think of some way to convince them that there’s more to citizenship than being a millstone.
It does not strain credibility at all to consider Roberts supportive of extreme tactics against clinics and the women who need them. You want to argue with the way NARAL phrased it, be my guest, but at the core they are correct.
That’s pretty much the reaction I had to the only-traitors-criticize-NARAL responses you and others have posted, alsis.
mythago, that doesn’t even come close to what I wrote, particularly in light of the fact that I’ve criticized NARAL for years. In fact, I’ve mentioned more than once on this very blog that I wearied of them functioning essentially as a DP house organ– and so stopped giving them money.
But it’s not the first time you’ve deliberately distorted what I’ve written so you don’t have to address my points, so please, carry on. >:
Thanks for reminding me of one point I previously forgot, though. For years, NARAL has used dirty tactics against leftists who have abandoned the Democratic Party and openly supported other candidates. They have also –like most liberals– dragged out the Supreme Court year after year in order to terrify other potential pro-choice bailers. Yet they have cheerily ignored and glossed over the fact that we’re in the mess we’re in because the Democratic Party’s stalwarts have waved through Right-winger after Right-winger gunning to get on the SC. Every sign points towards this happening again,with at least some liberal blogs calling for another wave-through for Roberts because “we” must “save our strength” for the bigger battles– because it’s much easier to bail out a boat that’s seven-eighths full instead of three-quarters full, I suppose. Yeesh.
NARAL has played dirty pool against the small, the low-in-clout, the poorly organized, and the poorly funded on the Democrats’ left flank since at least the 2000 election, Mythago. Most liberals didn’t have a problem with that, but let NARAL turn even a fraction of that against a foe the Democrats’ own size, and suddenly liberals are screaming and howling and calling foul.
Give me a fucking break.
Your post, Alsis, points out why the NARAL ad was bad, and you have bought the bad logic hook, line, and sinker.
Roberts was not defending the protesters or bombers. He was defending the poposition that Bray would violate the free-speech rights of protesters and that protesting at an abortion clinic is not the same as gender discrimination. We can agree or disagree on whether that was a good ruling, but it was a reasonable legal position to take and–as a First Amendment absolutist–consistent with the idea of government placing unreasonable restrictions on free speech, which includes political protests.
Instead of flaling around and being angry at mythago and me, how about recognizing that it is possible to have reasonable, viable legal positions that differ from yours.
Yeah, and while you decide what is and isn’t “reasonable,” res ipsa, my rights are being “reasoned” straight over a cliff. Thanks again.
It’s not my problem if you find my comments to be “flailing.” I like them just fine, and I like southern’s comments just fine, too.
I never said either of you were un-entitled to your opinions. You are not entitled to have them unquestioned, however. That’s a whole other thing.
P.S.– I wonder if you’d so firmly justify Jon Stewart’s frat-boyism if it had been directed against gays, instead of hetero women.
Arguing about points of law, in isolation from the motives that generate the policies, is willful blindness. We’re not playing chess, and the rules are a mask for the real conflict.
Roberts just happened to consistently take on cases where he backed policies of the extreme right. He just happened to take up the option of submitting an amicus brief on the behalf of rightwing bigots. He just happens to be Bush’s nominee for the Supreme Court, after a career in which he just happened to oppose abortion rights over and over again.
When you have a fundamentally oppressive social structure, you can advance the cause of oppression by simply following the rules.
A., he has made fun of gays and I found it hysterical, but I don’t spend a lot of time finding reasons to be offended by comics. He is a COMEDIAN after all and NARAL had set itself up for ridicule.
Brian, he was a lawyer working for the Regan and Bush administrations. If your client is conserviatve, you are likely going to spend a lot of time making conservative arguments, just as lawyers for liberal presidents are going to have a long record of making legal arguments.
Is Roberts conservative? Of course he is. He is being nominated by a Republican president who won by 3 million votes and he is going to be approved by a Congress controlled by Republicans and conservative. Were you expecting Bush would nominate and ACLU lawyer????
Perhaps Stewart should have found some more clever way to mock them then, res. Instead of falling back on the tired old “needs to get laid” schtick.
Then again, I’ve never liked the show very much, finding the smirky frat-boy attitude annoying even when it used on targets that I agreed deserved it. To each their own.
If the crack was no big deal, why use all the bandwidth to argue about it?
I’m hardly one of NARAL’s fans–witness the ridiculous shilling for the DP despite party members approving Scalia’s confirmation and the Hyde Amendment–but the level of concertation over this ad is laughable considering the shit Karl Rove has pulled. Calling the ad depraved is over-the-top, to say the least. What’s depraved is likening girls and women who get abortions to Nazis, bombing clinics, smirking at your surviving victims a la Eric Rudolph, and killing doctors.
Res Ipsa, that’s the thing. Of course Bush would nominate a conservative. But you’ve got Democrats like Harry Reid jumping up and down about how bloody wonderful Roberts is. He isn’t. He’s a self-conscious agent of reaction, and we need to be clear about that. That’s why the NARAL ad was a good move.
Part of any political action is testing your allies and enemies to see how they react. Bush nominates a conservative for the Supreme Court, and the Democrats folded like soggy cardboard. Bush, perhaps the most unpopular US president in our lifetimes, is still getting away with whatever he wants without a hint of opposition from the official opposition party.
You don’t win by surrendering.
To my great lack of surprise, I heard on the radio this morning that Democratic Senators are not going to put up a huge resistance to Roberts’ nomination. They have promised, however, to “ask him some tough questions.” Like what?
Well, the Democratic bigwigs may not “win,” Brian. Still, they keep their money, their prestige, their “access,” their throng of Kos-ian lackeys, their snazzy digs yadda yadda yadda. Y’know, all the things that help insulate them from what the yokels down here on the ground will be subject to as assholes like Roberts help the powerful consolidate yet more power. Also, they preserve their strength for what’s really important: Bullying, hounding and gagging any future 3rd-Party upstarts. Electoral reform ? We don’t need no stinkin’ electoral reform. :D
Lee wrote:
[MST3K] “How do poptarts work ?[/MST3k]
Well, I’m certainly comforted by the thought of Roberts being asked tough questions. Yup, I’ve no doubt that being asked some badass questions will definitely influence his decisions once he is on the court.
Apparently, no one has informed the dems yet that this is an appointment for life and that any answers he gives to their “tough questions” mean bupkes.