November 11, 2005

Karl Rove comes out from under his rock.

And tells the world how truly ugly his view of the world is.

Speaking on Thursday night at a banquet for the right-wing Federalist Society, Dubya's political advisor Karl Rove warned the country about those nasty activist judges, and spun a really strange theory about the role of the Supreme Court:

'Judicial imperialism has split American society, politicized the courts in a way the Founders never intended. It has created a sense of disenfranchisement among a very large segment of American society, people who believe issues not addressed by the Constitution should be decided through elections rather than by nine lawyers in robes.

We'll leave aside the fact that the politicization of the courts is largely a calculated political tactic of Rove and his ilk. What's important here is that Rove goes way beyond the views of strict constructionists in interpreting the Constitution. Where the constuctionists would say that the provisions of the Constitution should be interpreted as narrowly as possible, sticking to the literal meaning of the document and what is known about what the Founders intended at the time it was written, Rove wouldn't even go that far: If the Constitution is silent on a subject [the internet or the rights of lesbians and gay men, for example], Rove apparently believes that the courts shouldn't rule on that subject at all. Anything not literally spelled out in the Constitution is beyond the purview of the nation's courts, saith Rove.

But all of that is just an aside to our main point, which deals with this part of Rove's speech:

Many ordinary men and women — non-lawyers — believe our courts are in crisis. And their concerns are well-grounded. For decades, the American people have seen decision after decision after decision that strikes them as fundamentally out of touch with our Constitution.'

So what decisions are 'out of touch' with the Constitution? Well, a federal court's ruling that he words 'under God' should be stricken from the Pledge of Allegiance. [Words that only got into the Pledge in 1954, after a campaign by the conservative Catholic group, the Knights of Columbus.] Or a Massachusetts court's ruling that the state can't bar same-sex marriages. But the one that really seems to stick in Rove's craw was the US Supreme Court's ruling that it's unconstitutional to execute anyone under 18 years of age:

"In its decision, the majority ignored the fact that, at the time, the people's representatives in 20 states had passed laws permitting the death penalty for killers under 18. Just 18 states, or less than 50 percent of the states allowing capital punishment, had laws prohibiting the execution of killers who committed their crimes as juveniles."

The Court is 'out of touch' because it decided that executing minors isn't the kind of business the government should be in? And that because more states allowed minors to be executed than barred such executions, that the Court had overstepped its bounds?

In other words, if the majority believes something, it's right. And those pointy-headed liberal activist judges better just get out of the way.

If the banality of Rove's evil hadn't been thoroughly exposed by his actions already, these words spoken to the Federalist Society would certainly bring both the evil and the banality to light.

What a creep.

Via Washington Times.

Posted by Magpie at November 11, 2005 03:28 PM | US Politics | Technorati links |
Comments

Found somewhere;
The other large group of conservatives are middle class (mostly) men of limited education who feel alienated and victimized by liberal policies which they feel have not been to their benefit. These men often come from poor and working class backgrounds and fail to realize that their upward mobility was often made possible by the very liberal policies, such as the fostering of the labor movement, they now angrily denounce.
P.S. F**kRev.Moon and the Wash,post child molester!!!

Posted by: travis t monk at November 12, 2005 03:27 PM