No matter how much Ertelt might want to wish it so, there is no way to interpret what Kagan wrote – assuming one takes it in context as opposed to selectively quoting as Ertelt did – as a statement purely against the “pro-life” movement. Yes, she did the same thing I just did, placing a part of her statement in quotes, implying nothing more than I have – hypocrisy. You can’t have it both ways. Either you are truly pro-life, or you’re sort of pro-life and open to attack for being a hypocrite. Kagan was pointing out the hypocrisy of being against abortion, but for bombs – remembering this was still during the Cold War, and we were competing with the Soviets to maintain nuclear superiority. Times change, situations differ slightly, but the end result is the same. You can’t be for saving the unborn, and capital punishment and gun rights. Sorry, but that reeks of hypocrisy. And that’s not even getting into the hypocrisy of the failure to consider the real consequences of forcing women to have babies they don’t want. But that typically falls on deaf ears anyway, since quality of life is a foreign concept to most from the “pro-life” camp. And please don’t insult yourselves by suggesting that everyone only have sex when they actually want to pro-create. It is too tempting to bring up Monty Python’s “Every Sperm is Sacred” skit then.

Kagan hasn’t just drawn fire from the religious right. She’s also annoyed the military. But one needs to tread lightly when approaching this situation (pun partially intended.) First of all, not everyone in the military – including high-ranking officers – are for the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Secondly, Kagan’s decision to ban military recruiters from Harvard’s law school was driven by campus politics – something she freely admitted at the time, and still does (as far as I know.) In other words, her actions undoubtedly had more to do with serving her “constituency”, the students and staff of her institution, than any personal ideology. True, she came out publicly stating that the policy was counter to the precepts of freedom in general, and the argument could be made that she should have avoided saying that outright. But, we’re sitting on the precipice of seeing the demise of that policy anyway, with the support of, that’s right, the military. That said, we could just as easily turn back the clock to the Civil War, and say that she came out against slavery years earlier. Slavery was permitted by law, remember? Doesn’t make it right.

And that brings us to the RNC’s fears of legislating from the bench. This was born of Kagan’s assertion that the Constitution as originally drafted was defective. Now, the RNC can’t count on it’s own members on the Hill to carry on this argument, and for good reason. Beyond slavery, there was also the absence of a woman’s right to vote in the original document. The beauty of the Constitution is in the fact that it was originally drafted to be fluid. The men that drafted it weren’t so arrogant to think that their words would be law ad infinitum, and they left us with the ability to change it. As for arguments against legislating from the bench, historically, that has typically happened when the legislative branch has failed in one way or another to move with the times. It is an unforeseen result of the fluidity of the structure of the Constitution – if nothing else, it is a testament of its genius, not a statement against the Courts.

Finally, the most troublesome of the objections I have seen so far, Kagan helped to defend Saudis against 9/11 lawsuits. While this can easily be considered morally reprehensible, it is the direct result of long-standing agreements and treaties between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. I sincerely doubt she relished that particular duty.

As a conservative, I’m not in love with Kagan as a candidate for SCOTUS. Then again, I wouldn’t be overly pleased with any candidate Obama would offer. But, I can say that the majority of the objections beyond her lack of judicial experience are hyperbole. Her lack of judicial experience is the direct result of the GOP, since she failed to garner the votes necessary for confirmation during the Clinton administration. Apparently even then she was considered a possibility for filling a vacancy on the highest court, so maybe the hope was then that if she wasn’t on a bench somewhere, she wouldn’t be considered later. If that was the case, we’ll find out soon enough if the tactic worked.

But, on Nebraska, I have to say that I remember better drafted pieces of legislation in our National Forensic League competitions. Beyond stating that there were teens in the 1980s capable of writing meaningful legislation, I honestly don’t know what to say. It is mired in repetition, the apparent goal is close any perceived loophole, forcing another junk science finding – this time claiming pain of fetuses – down the throats of the people to prevent women from controlling their own lives. Like all other anti-choice legislation out there, it does not address the obvious consequences of the situation. Beyond stating what penalties doctors should suffer for non-compliance, there is nothing about what the people and government of Nebraska are supposed to do with the resulting unwanted children.

And therein lies the problem. Sure, these legislators care about the fetuses – even try to get people to stop calling them by their scientific names to elicit more emotional responses from the masses. They want to state that it is wrong to inflict pain on fetuses, and have recruited psuedo-scientists to back them in their endeavor. Ironic, since at the same time, we’re faced with headlines about adoptions gone wrong. The worst part is that while they are claiming to take the moral high ground, it is nothing more than hypocritical, sadistic, unethical, unfeeling, and irresponsible posturing. The legislators have no clue about the reality of life, are incapable of understanding the concept of motherhood, and have no desire to follow through on their convictions by providing the life-long support and social programs that would be necessary to deal with an increase in “damaged” population. People from good homes, with good support systems, and no financial difficulties don’t end up seeing the women from their families going to have abortions. It’s the women without help, without money, and without stability in their lives that end up going to the abortion clinics – or they are just plain too young to deal with motherhood in the first place. (Please don’t insult yourself, and bring up the exceptions to that, because they are statistically anomalous.)

So now we get to wait and see who ends up on the bench next. Hopefully the balance will not be tipped, simply because of this sort of case. Sadly, that will leave many other cases – on important issues like financial reform, immigration, and privacy issues beyond abortion – being decided on the liberal side. And a woman’s right to choose will remain a hot button issue when it comes to judicial appointments for the foreseeable future because of the hypocrisy of the radical right-wing and its blind obsession with legislating morality. But it’s worth it, right?

The other day, a friend on Twitter posted a couple seemingly unrelated links in one message. She was of the opinion that there was some common ground between them, and I agree. The first was an article on The New Apostolic Reformation (or The Family). If this is the first time that you’re seeing those names, it’s highly unlikely that it will be the last. When Muslims bring up the concept of Holy War, people immediately think of the word “jihad”. When Christians do, more likely than not, one thinks of the Crusades. That might be about to change to “The Family.”

While Stack and Bedell are symptoms of the general unrest in this country right now, The Family is part of the disease that is moving extremist actions like theirs from the fringe to the mainstream. That is not to say that either man was ever associated with The Family, but that future Stacks and Bedells may very well be. So the coming attractions in the realm of extremist behavior will probably involve an organization that is proselytizing that they have found a cure for AIDS (sorry, but absolutely not true), and are already behind the anti-homosexual legislation in California and Uganda (yes, they’re already a world-wide organization.)

While the press runs about chasing tea parties, this group has been building connections in all sectors of society. Of course the GOP has been associated with them already, notably Jim DeMint, Michele Bachmann, Sam Brownback, and Sarah Palin. Their goals are simple enough – take over, community by community.

The other story that piqued that Twitter friend’s interest was on upcoming Supreme Court hearings on gun control laws. Of course the NRA is coming out on the side of not limiting the rights of citizens to bear arms. The piece explores how the high court may end up interpreting the Second Amendment. I’ve never been a huge fan of gun control, and one of the only issues where I’ve really parted ways with the NRA is on assault weapons. Sorry, but I don’t buy that there’s a “legitimate” reason for civilians to have weapons that are made specifically for the purpose of killing people. No, they aren’t by any stretch of the imagination hunting weapons, and unlike handguns, aren’t very practical for personal protection. Throw in the possibility of folks from The Family getting their hands on them, and I’m definitely not sold. The concept of that organization ending up with armed militias is terrifying – honestly, Al Qaeda looks like a quilting bee in comparison, if for no other reason, The Family has a much larger pool to recruit from. There are plenty of Christians out there.

Throw in Bossier Parrish’s new militia and its Operation Exodus, and the U.S. is really starting to look like one of those countries we tend to make war in because religious leaders start crying jihad. Sadly, the Bossier Parrish story is probably going to be overlooked as just wingnuttery hitting law enforcement in the backwoods. I’d love to know if anyone involved in organizing that militia is an “Apostle.”

But we have nothing to worry about. It’s just a lot of unconnected nonsense, that will settle down on its own….

It’s been well over twenty years since a fellow traveler working a local campaign said that to me. He wasn’t a political genius – just a disgruntled pollster on his fifth or sixth round of scotch, trying to drown his sorrows over a recent loss.

I’ve remembered the statement all these years, but rarely dust it off. In spite of the fact that I’m generally a cynic, that one is just a bit more cynical than I usually am. Right now it comes to mind not for its cynicism, but for its truth.

While many warn of the negative implications(2) of the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling, and some offer potential responses to it, there is very little talk about truly practical solutions. Pointing out that ruling is misguided, or suggesting legislative remedies either do nothing, or leave openings for future similar rulings.

At this point no matter which side one is on with this issue, it can be assumed that everyone speaking out on this ruling is relying on the veracity of that statement given to me by a not-so-sober pollster. Either one is out there crying to protect the masses from the evil corporations, or rejoicing at the lifting of previous restrictions in campaign advertising. If there is a middle ground where people are demanding that the public be offered more education on the political process, they are being drowned out.

Now more than at any other time in our history, information is currency, and we are awash in it. We are bombarded with it from the moment we wake, until we drift off to sleep. It is impossible to avoid it. That is the crux of the argument for both sides, one claiming that those with the most money will be able to drown out the rest, and the other claiming that the people are entitled to information regardless of the timing or source. The irony is that both are right.

Instead of crying foul or rejoicing in a hollow victory, there should be a general outcry for increased voter education. Losing an election because the masses were influenced by the loudest voices or winning simply because one’s message dominated the airwaves are equal. The first is an obvious loss, but the second is not real victory either. When voters realize that they were bought with lies or distortions or simply a passing fad, the “winner” loses their support in the long-run. Ignorance of the masses can win the day, but rarely earns long-standing loyalty – sooner or later the masses figure out the truth.

As it stands right now, voters often don’t know what they are voting for. Campaign managers rely on this. I’ve spent scores of campaigns working at the polls, and watching voters that didn’t know what the job descriptions were for the local row offices they were electing officials to fill. I learned to hate the little button that lets voters choose a straight ticket. The one thing I loved was answering questions – if someone bothered to ask me about who was on the ballot, or about the offices up for grabs, I knew that at least that person wanted to attempt to make an educated choice.

When I worked to promote voter registration, I would regularly tell people that they should sit down and think about what they wanted their elected officials to do for them before casting their ballots. They should pay attention to the advertisements, but not assume that they were truthful. Finally, if they were still in doubt, I said that they should stop and talk to the pollsters on the way in to the polling place – all of them, not just the ones associated with their chosen party. A few times I actually ended up being questioned at the polls by voters I’d recruited, and those times are easily some of the best memories I have.

The Citizens United ruling is an opportunity. There has been a great deal of rhetoric about change over the past couple years, and now we’ve been presented with a chance to prove whether or not real change is in the wind. Will we roll over and let corporations dictate what voters do at the polls simply by spending money? Or will we take this opportunity to reach out to the masses and drag them out of the ignorance that so many political operatives rely?

Predictably, Senator Russ Feingold has vowed to address the issue legislatively, and there is a revolving door of politicians offering their two cents on the news networks. But for better or worse, for now the people will be left with corporate sponsored advertising during campaign seasons.

Other than becoming the new annoyance on the airwaves, what does this really mean for the American voters? Theoretically, the people could just sit back and take in the information spoon fed to them on their TV screens, and do just like they do with any other product advertised – decide to “buy” or not. It’s a passive reply, and not very difficult to manage. Or they can take the route of folks like the sponsors of Stop Beck.com, and actively let corporations know what they really think about the ads.

True, this situation has the potential to tip the scales in favor of corporate America, leaving government under control of business. But there is one thing that all corporations in America need to survive – customers. Simplistic as it may seem, the bottom line still remains in the hands of the masses with the money to spend. If the people don’t like the message or the candidate the corporations have to sell, they don’t have to buy it. For that matter, if the people find it objectionable that the corporations are promoting candidates in the first place, they can take advice from at least one user on Twitter – as LauraNo put it, “Well one thing I can do is take my money out of any corp that butts into politics.”

In a perfect world, the Supreme Court of the United States would be absolutely immune to political influences. Since that is patently against human nature, that isn’t the case. However, the matter of following history at least a little is generally at the heart of many rulings we see handed down from our highest court. When these references to history are centered around relatively modern circumstances – situations and rulings from the previous century, for example – they are usually quite appropriate. But when a statement begins with something like “the framers of the Constitution intended…”, every fiber of my being wants to scream out in protest.

Stop that!

Stop trying to frame rulings based on what you think the authors of the Constitution were thinking when they wrote the document in the first place. In our society, we tend to poke fun at those silly pay-per-minute phone lines promising insights from beyond with the assistance of “genuine psychics.” Don’t try to put yourself in the same category as the fringe element of this nation that claims they can converse with the dead!

I know it is tempting to try to divine what the framers would do in any given situation – in a way, it’s like leaving yourselves a group of scapegoats that no one can touch. Why not leave the repercussions of your choices on someone who’s long been planted in the earth?

It’s an easy way out, and just like all other shortcuts, it has its own set of problems. Primarily, the issues that we are facing today could never have been predicted by the most intelligent persons on the planet at the time the Constitution was drafted. That said, why in the world would anyone really want to know what people then would think about what is happening now?

The only thing that the framers thought about that is worth considering is the mechanism for change. They were not arrogant enough to think that their words would perpetually remain the law of this land, and they left us instruments for change. That includes you. You are not meant to play time-traveling mind readers. The Constitution is your starting point. The needs of this nation are your primary concern. Respect the memory of the framers not by trying to imitate them, but by expanding on what they started. Mention them only on the anniversary of their accomplishment. There are 364 days left until you need to pay homage to them. Use that time wisely.