Extra! Extra!
Oct. 8th, 2004 11:23 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
infrogmationThe newest convert to 19th century liberalism: George W. Bush, who boldly came out with disapproval of the Dred Scott decision.
Certainly a great moment of the debate, as the Republic's fugitive slaves breathe a sigh of relief.
Certainly a great moment of the debate, as the Republic's fugitive slaves breathe a sigh of relief.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 11:34 pm (UTC)Buncha activist judges. Who the hell do they think they are, offering interpretations of law like that?
Was I paying attention in eleventh grade?
Date: 2004-10-09 05:13 am (UTC)Re: Was I paying attention in eleventh grade?
Date: 2004-10-09 10:59 am (UTC)"I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law. I would pick somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States."
As dreadful as any pro-slavery decision is, at the time slavery was the law of the land. It was recognized by the U.S. Constitution until the 13th amendment.
Mrs. Crabbapple: "Dred Scott? Well, I'll raise your grade to D- because I can tell you're really TRYING, Georgie."
OK, I -knew- it must be codespeak but had no clue what it was about
Date: 2004-10-11 01:46 pm (UTC)Having learned this, I'm now kind of surprised that Kerry didn't take it on more directly. "Your President is speaking in secret code to a certain set of people because he is afraid that the rest of you would understand that he's not talking about impartiality at all. He's talking about appointing judges based on their personal opinions regarding the rights of women." Maybe his debate coaches simply didn't anticipate such a ridiculous-sounding pile of Doublespeak.
Republican Newspeak
Date: 2004-10-11 09:05 pm (UTC)Oh, well
Date: 2004-10-12 05:55 am (UTC)they are free for the taking. The farther away from me the better.
--
fB
Re: Oh, well
Date: 2004-10-12 11:28 am (UTC)Well, it may not improve anything, but at least would be something different.
Slate article explains
Date: 2004-10-12 11:22 am (UTC)So he's stating he'll appoint justices that would oppose keeping abortion legal, in language unlikely to be clearly understood by many other than the fundamentalists who most strongly favor that.
So we still don't know where Bush REALLY stands on the important issue of returning fugitive slaves to their masters...