An abortive policy stand

The guys on Mt. Rushmore are wishing they'd been given hands to cover their eyes. Seismologists in the area are speculating that recent tremors near Rushmore are signs that they're trying to free themselves from the mountain and move to Minnesota.

Seriously, though... here's the thing you need to ask anyone who supports what South Dakota has done - banning abortion outright - based on the claim that it should be up to the states whether or not abortion should be illegal: "Then you agree that there should not be a Constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage or defining marriage as something exclusively between a man and a woman, right?"

It's two sides of the same coin. If you're going to argue from a states' rights perspective for one moral prohibition, you are bound by logic to argue all moral prohibitions, including those you may disagree with, from a states' rights perspective. If you pick and choose which states' rights you wish to embolden and which you don't - remember, speaking strictly about moral prohibitions here - you invalidate your whole argument, essentially saying that states are responsible to decide moral issues if and when the federal government decides those issues contrary to your belief system. And in those circumstances, we have moved outside the realm of the republic which was designed for us in the 18th century.

Tonight's SOTU: Liveblogging!

Here's a handy-dandy checklist of things that the President will surely touch on in the address to Congress tonight. It's distilled and adapted from Arianna Huffington's post here. I'll come back afterwards armed with quotes where this actually happened.

1. Iraqi elections are bringing peace to the Middle East (or its corrolary, Democracy is making the world safer); Check. 9:17 PM. Still going on this point at 9:29.
2. The Patriot Act needs to be approved into perpetuity; Check. 9:34 PM. Just didn't say "in perpetuity". But you know he was thinking it.
3. There's nothing about the economy that's going wrong, and; Check. 9:38 PM. Trotting out the numbers for his smoky reflections of dogs and ponies.
4. The tax cuts from 2001 need to be made permanent; Check. 9:41 PM. Nailed this one exactly.
5. Alito is a good choice for the Supreme Court; Check. 9:56 PM.
6. The unwarranted NSA wiretaps were "necessary" and "legal"; Check. 9:35 PM. Falsehoods abound. I'm gonna have to look at the transcript to pull all the individual strands of bullshit apart.
7. Alternative fuels are still a priority in the energy policy. Check. 9:49 PM. Advanced Energy Initiative.

I can safely guess that he probably won't talk about upholding the Fourth Amendment, the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, or Article II. Just a hunch.

9:00 PM: Might liveblog this a bit. This is a pic I just took (yes, I know my camera sucks) right outside my house. The lit up Capitol is there in the background. No, really. I can see that shit from my house.

9:01 PM: Christ. A huge cheer just went up when they introduced the justices of the SC.

9:12 PM: Where's Tom Delay? Odd that he wasn't seen leading the Prez in on his triumphal entry.

9:14 PM: He dared bring up civility?!? What umnitigated gall.

9:15 PM: This isolationist bit seems to point toward intervention in Iran. Oh boy.

9:16 PM: Only took 4 minutes to bring up 9/11.

9:18 PM: Seems like what he just said about radical, fundamentalist Islam could also be said of their similar ilk in the Christian faith.

9:19 PM: Only the terrorists have adopted the weapon of fear? Me thinks not.

9:26 PM: Missed the past seven minutes, but he's still talking about the military. By the by, there are plenty of examples of veterans of the current Iraqi conflict who disagree. Their service is equally as heroic, but I don't see them in the chamber.

9:31 PM: On Iran now. Sounds like he's dropping the gauntlet. Translation: "We'll be at war in six months."

9:37 PM: Really pounding away on the anti-isolation thing. Is this really what the debate has been about? Isolationism?

9:39 PM: Here comes the economic policy stuff. It's titled, "How I Will Outspend All Liberals From the Past 40 Years."

9:41 PM: I wonder what he considers "nonessential priorities" as he's talking about programs he's going to cut.

9:43 PM: What?!? Didn't the Supreme Court rule the Line-Item Veto an unconstitutional breach of the separation of powers? Is this a thinly-veiled play to put even more power in the hands of his own Imperial Presidency.

9:44 PM: Ah, yes... he pulled out the "put aside partisan politics" canard. I'd almost forgotten to expect that one.

9:49 PM: Just went 6 for 7 in my checklist. Hot damn. [PS: My attention is starting to fade.]

9:53 PM: This is my own little pet issue, but why is there only such a damned focus on math and science in education. These are not the only things to life.

9:54 PM: Did he just try to take credit for the welfare reduction? And I need to pull out that graph from Atlantic about abortion and teen pregnancy rates... I think they've actually gone up during his administration.

9:55 PM: Ooohhh, goody. He's talking about the Culture War! This is going to be AWESOME.

9:56 PM: Seven for seven, bitches! I'm going to apply for positions over at Roll Call tomorrow.

9:58 PM: Creating human-animal hybrids? Is this really happening? Because I wanna see that freakshow!

9:58 PM: Oh, be still my heart. Trust in public officials. Hey King George XLIII, how 'bout letting folks see those pics of you and Jack? Or letting photogs you're not personally paying into White House events. What have you got to hide? Hmm? HMMM???

10:00 PM: Can't say the dude doesn't have balls. He actually brought up New Orleans. Can't say that many people associate him and that city in a positive way.

10:02 PM: There's that weird phrase again, a "Period of Consequence." I don't know why, but it makes me nervous. In sort of a DoubleSpeak kind of way.

10:03 PM: Mercifully short. But yes, God (or whomever) Bless America.

10:07 PM: Dammit! I went 7 for 7 on my checklist and liveblogged the whole damn speech, and not a one of you saw it.

SCOTUS thinking

I'm too frazzled at the moment to explore this thought with any detail, but I wanted to get it out there in case I should come back to it.

Roberts and Miers have both said, in more or less the same language, that they are for judicial restraint. That's the phrase that's been bandied about and promoted by the talking-points propogators for the last few weeks. My question is, what precisely does that mean?

It could go one of two ways, and Roberts never indicated in his confirmation hearing which way it meant for him.

It could mean that as a justice, he would exercise judicial restraint and prevent himself from upholding or rejecting laws purely from an ideological stance, and that he truly would weigh the Constitution as the chief arbiter in any decision he made.

It could also mean the exact opposite. It could mean that he will legislate from the bench in an effort to promote an ideology to bring American law in line with some predetermined goal. This sense of "judicial restraint" could mean that he would overturn or uphold solely to return the law to achieve this goal.

The latter is likely what most conservatives would prefer, assuming that their agenda was the "predetermined goal". The latter definition, however, suffers from a logical inconsistency. It depends on a jurist becoming an activist for a cause to bolster that agenda. This, from a cause that detests, derides and decries judicial activism.

So, logically, if Roberts starts voting based on some ideological end-point that could be labelled as "conservative," conservatives should still have to detest, deride and decry. If they're against the concept of judicial activism.

The reality, I think, is far from that, and that they'd be alright with a judicial activist if he (and potentially, she) started tearing down the things the conservative movement disagrees with.

Speaking of voting, go vote in the poll to your right (my left). Tell me if you think this blog should change its name or not, and what that new name should be. (I know that I don't have a very large audience, but from my stats I do know there's more than 5 of you who come back on a daily basis, so get ta votin'.)