Right_Angles

So, the Republican National Convention was a good watch. I really enjoyed the speeches from (Ann) Romney, Ryan, and Rubio. Romney-the-Presidential-Candidate's speech was not bad, but not quite as interesting. I was glad to hear Obama's top-down approach to government so thoroughly repudiated. As Marco Rubio said, "These are ideas people come to America to get away from" and I've seen the mess those ideas made in Indonesia enough to be certain that we don't want them here.

I also enjoyed observing the leftie obsession with "dog whistles" and how basically every other thing any of the speakers said was a dog whistle. Usually a racist one. My thoughts on that phenomenon are pretty well summed up by this article. I heard maybe one thing that would qualify as a dog whistle, and that was the end of Paul Ryan's speech when he condemned the left for perpetuating pro-abortion oppression, but he didn't use the word "abortion" to do it. I haven't seen these comments roundedly denigrated by every media outlet ever, as I had expected when he chose to end his speech on a pro-life note, so I'm wondering if perhaps that flew over the heads of those not in the pro-life movement.

I did notice, however, a lot of claims that most of the speeches didn't make policy statements, so I'm wondering if all of those were "dog whistles," too? I thought I heard some pretty clear ones from Romney towards the end there. Or maybe it's just that those on the right are familiar with the Republican platform already, and so the RNC is more interested in defining the reasons they adopted that platform then they are in telling people stuff they already know. I don't know that Democrats truly are better at making policy statements, but there seems to be broad agreement that they do make them more often. So, I'm wondering if that's because they feel (correctly or incorrectly) that people don't know what their policies are and they need to tell people.

Thoughts?

In reading the news articles lately, I would almost say that a good portion of the left side of the nation is shocked--shocked, they tell us--that the Supreme Court has any kind of power at all. Most of us are content to await the Supreme Court to finish doing precisely the job they Constitutionally exist for, but apparently the idea that the High Court exists to determine the constitutionality of one statute or another--as opposed to creating new ones out of whole cloth when somebody couldn't get something through Congress--comes as news to some people.

First there's Obama himself, who claimed that "Ultimately, I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," and that "an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law is a good example [of judicial activism] and I'm pretty confident this court will recognize that and not take that step." (Ums, ers, pauses, and filler words removed.) As if a seven-vote passage in the House is a "strong majority" or something. And since is grasp of recent history is so shaky, I suppose it's unsurprising that his comprehension of the Constitution--which must, on such a scale, be considered as old as dirt--and the history of the Supreme Court, is even worse. Apparently someone got with him later, as he did try to walk back from some of the more outrageous bits.

Then there's this article from The Atlantic urging Obama to run "against the Supreme Court." The article makes cases against two potential objections to this, neither of which--interestingly--are "What could he possibly accomplish by running against the only branch that doesn't get elected whist trying to be elected to the only branch that is uninvolved in amending the Constitution?" While I agree with the author in their conclusion that the Supreme Court is not above criticism or politics, they seem to think that Obama has any kind of ability to do anything to them.

But that's not all. The Atlantic also reminds us "You're confusing the poor Europeans!" The Daily Beast wants us to know that "Obama didn't really say anything that remarkable! And besides, Regan and FDR criticized the Court, too, so it's okay!" Not to mention Media Matters helpfully pointing out to everyone, "There's no precedent for striking down legislation under the commerce clause for the last seventy-five years, and that's ages ago so it doesn't count!" And this is just the tip of the enormous hysterical iceberg. There's lots more.

Sometimes I wonder if anyone has read the Constitution at all.

Hi. I found your comm, and I like it, so I'm signing up. :) And since you've made it so easy, I am going to borrow your intro template, so here goes.

Name: KelinciHutan, Kelinci, Kels, Keli, or Kel. Feel free to make up your own variation, if you like.
Age & Location: 27, Alabama
What brings you here? I was looking for other pro-life people to connect with on DW (I periodically check to see who's listed it as an interest) and discovered this comm had done so. So here I am.
Got any favorite political/social/economic/ect topics? Life issues (abortion, euthanasia, abortifacient birth control, unjust war, culture of death stuff in general), obviously, are my hot button. I've even got a dedicated blog on DW for it, though I'm not as diligent about updating it as I should be. Aside from that, I'm a feminist and a Reganomics-style economist.
What else interests you? Fandom. I'm a huge fandom junkie. I've been writing fanfic since...2004? 2005? A while, anyway, though again, I'm not as diligent as I'd like. I lurk at fandomsecrets a lot, and I'm a mod on a hilariously snark-less snark forum.
Ask a random question of your new comm buddies: Do you have a system for eating M&Ms? If yes, please describe it.
Answer the questions asked in previous intro posts:

1. When was the last time a liberal drove you crazy? ;) Hrm... Oh, it was the other week. A group of them were whining about the proposed Oklahoma law that would ban any food that used fetal stem cells either in the food or in its research (as far as I know the first doesn't happen yet, but the second definitely does, unfortunately) and someone decided it would be great to HILARIOUSLY compare women with a pro-life viewpoint to aphids because aphids are "easy to breed." Because that's not anti-feminist in anyway, whatsoever, at all, right? *raeg*


2. The age old question: you’re POTUS for a day. What 3 things would you do? Reinstitute the Mexico City Policy, get Congress to try and push through a national fetal pain bill in time for me to sign it, and institute an immigration reform that would include actually enforcing the border.

So, there you go. Nice to meet you. :)