Apparently, conservatives don't own dictionaries. They seem utterly oblivious to the definition of "litmus test" as well as "irony" and "hypocrisy". I've received a number of alarmist emails from various conservative groups with in this vein:
"Write to your Senators and let them know you don't support any litmus test demands!"
How are demands for so-called strict constructionists who will overturn Roe v. Wade not litmus tests?! Everyone knows that if Bush hadn't nominated a "solid conservative", the loyal base that got him elected twice would have eaten him alive. That wasn't a suggestion. That was demand - a political debt to be paid.
These kinds of hypocritical political tactics will only hurt the pro-life cause. I'd like to see abortion on demand ended as much as the next pro-lifer, but this is not a productive way to go about it. As long as this battle remains Us versus Them, hearts will not be changed and lives won't be saved. Why should we be forced to accept any Supreme Court nominee - or political candiate for that matter - based solely on his position on abortion rulings? Worse yet, in this case, we don't even know for certain what his position is!
Chicken Little, the sky is not falling. There are other ways to reduce abortions than loading the courts with pro-lifers. Also, Supreme Court appointments are for life and there a lot of ways a justice could screw up constitutional law. I'd like to know how a nominee feels about a lot of issues aside from abortion before hounding my senators to accept his appointment. Besides, demanding pro-life strict constructionists is just as much as litmus test as demanding pro-choice "living document" nominees. It makes pro-lifers just as hypocritical as the pro-choicers they demonize, if not worse, and it undermines the pro-life cause.
In the name of the modern Holy Innocents, I beg you to stop.
Funky Dung
Comments 25
Yes, I do. Saving the lives of the unborn is deadly serious business. I think this kind sloppy advocacy harms the cause more than it helps. As I've said, and Howard reiterated, there a lot of ways a justice could screw up this country beyond the narrow scope of abortion. I think pro-life PACs need to take a step back from the kinds of unconditional endorsements they tend to give before they find themselves embarassed by public misdeeds of one of their darlings.
+0
Posted 30 Nov 1999 at 12:00 am ¶I think I get a lot of the same alarmist emails that you get. I agree that their language is much too sensational, but from most of the emails I receive ask for letters/emails to Senators urging them simply to support an up or down vote. That's all. Not to vote one way or the other, just to have a simple vote. Is that so wrong?
+0
Posted 24 Aug 2005 at 11:29 pm ¶I thought you "never [seemed] to have a preordained opinion"? (Tim McNulty)
Anyway, I agree that emails that demand this and that are dumb, but I disagree that prolifers should demand anything but a prolife judge.
When I voted for, *cringe*, Bush I had the thought that the next president would make a supreme court appointment and that he should appoint a prolife candidate. To me this was the main issue.
Yes, there are other factors involved, but in the end, like it or not, I believe the US sets an example/tone for the rest of the world. (Plus, I go with the bottom line death stats.) We should set the world on the prolife path (I'm not debating humanness and/or personhood here).
I'm guessing there will be rebuttals (I'm hoping I can get to them tomorrow), so I will stop for now.
—
+0
Posted 25 Aug 2005 at 2:30 am ¶I actually think talking of litmus tests is not productive.
Having said that, it is very important that we have a strict constructionist on the court. The Constitution according to its writer James Madison is a very simple document. Madison wrote:
Thus a true strict constructionist is going to leave most issues up to the states except where the Constituion's clear that there's a problem under the Constitution.
Secondly, how do you expect a judge who doesn't respect life to respect liberty? Is it any coincidence that all five of the Kelo judges come from the court's solid pro-choice majority?
Thomas Jefferson once observed,
"God who gave us life, gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God?"
+0
Posted 25 Aug 2005 at 3:34 am ¶GBM, if I had a preordained opinion it would be either "Litmus tests are bad, so let's load the bench with conservatives" or "Litmus tests are bad, so let's load the bench with liberals".
Seriously, though, whether you like litmus tests or not, it should be pretty obvious that strict constructivism (as defined by conservative Republicans) is itself a litmus test. If conservative justices are your bag, fine. You're entitled to your opinions. However, please have the integrity to admit that you have a litmus test for justices.
+0
Posted 25 Aug 2005 at 11:24 am ¶Stuff, if the senate were dominated by Democrats and a Democratic president tried to ram a seemingly liberal and pro-choice nominee, about whose opinions on constitutional matters little concrete is known, I really doubt we'd be seeing emails pleading for an up or down vote - at least not from the Right. I think that nominee would be demonized by the Right as a religion-hating, gay-loving, pro-choice supporter of federal powers over states' rights, and aside from asking their base to write to senators begging them to reject the him'her, they'd be seriously thinking about using the filibuster that they've whined so much about of late.
+0
Posted 25 Aug 2005 at 11:31 am ¶I guess I'm dense or something, but I don't understand your beef.
Please confirm:
You are saying "litmus tests" are bad and that the conservative base (of which I am to some extent) is hypocritical in demanding a pro-constitutional, pro-life judge.
I'm missing something since the above statement doesn't make sense. Why hypocritical?
Can you please clarify? I'm not really even sure what you are to clarify. Sorry for my stupidity in this. I just want to understand.
Thanks.
—
+0
Posted 25 Aug 2005 at 3:01 pm ¶I'm saying that numerous conservative groups are decrying liberal litmus tests, using language that suggests all litmus tests are bad, while actually having litmus tests of their own. That is the irony and hypocrisy. The Right is hypocritical for denying its own litmus tests. Whether those particular tests are good or not is another issue. What I'm most interested in pointing out is that the Right doesn't actually hate litmus tests; they only hate the Left's litmus tests. I wish they'd just admit that and stop treatign their base like mindless sheep.
+0
Posted 25 Aug 2005 at 3:15 pm ¶BTW, the "preordained opinion" for a pro-lifer would be that any and all judges that even hint at being pro-life should be unreservedly supported.
+0
Posted 25 Aug 2005 at 3:30 pm ¶Ok then. I get it. As for me, I do have a litmus test for any judge which has at its core a pro-life focus.
What's the big deal for denying it?
In making decisions, look at the facts, pray about it, and decide. There has to be some points by which to do it: a litmus test.
Who doesn't have a litmus test for this particular decision?
—
+0
Posted 25 Aug 2005 at 6:51 pm ¶Okay, I'm really, really not supposed to be mucking around on blogs right now, but I just want to toss in my two cents on this one.
Strict constructionism is silly. It doesn't matter what Madison thought the constitution was supposed to be for. As Jefferson (who is also quoted above, I notice) pointed out, the earth belongs to the living, and a little revolution is good now and then. That is, I think Jefferson recognized something Madison did not take into account, or did not feel he needed to address: The people of the United States, after adopting the Constitution, might change in character, in purpose, in culture, in anything, and the Constitution as adopted and/or intended in 1783 just might not be what we would adopt or intend.
For that matter, how do we know what the framers "intended"? Yeah, I know, it seems like an easy question when you can whip out little passages from Madison and others, but does that really tell you what their intent was? Is that really all-encompassing? When Madison wrote those words, did he really mean that it should be exactly like that in a world with a global economy and an internet and commercial decentralization and whatnot? Really? I have my doubts.
As well, if we were really going to be strict constructionists, then both of the major parties these days are completely out of line and all you strict constructionists should be libertarians. (Not that I'm saying libertarians aren't cool. A lot of them are. I tend that way myself.)
Anyway, I really, really need to get back to my studies, but I sort of expect I'll just have to pop back in here and join some raging debate . . . I can't keep away.
+0
Posted 25 Aug 2005 at 6:55 pm ¶You almost get it, GBM, but not quite. It's the pot calling the kettle black that drives me nuts. It's an offense committed on both sides of the aisle. You're absolutely right that everyone has a litmus test. So, when groups pretend not to have them and demonize the opposition for having them, it's offensive to me. More offensive, though, is when John Q. Public buys the B.S., hook, line, and sinker.
Form a posse! Break out the pitchforks and torches! We're gonna force the evil bastards who oppose us to listen to us and do as we say! C'mon, angry mob! YEARRRGH!!!
+0
Posted 25 Aug 2005 at 7:10 pm ¶I don't really think it's an issue of pretending not to have a litmus test so much as whose litmus test is the right one. When I get those emails (if I actually read them), I understand them to be saying that the litmus test of strict constructionalism and/or whether a judge has a just, fair record (according to the standards of the authoring group) is the proper one to uphold as opposed to the very naughty "only if they're pro-choice" one. I also understand that the virtuous litmus test described by most of the activist groups is a lofty coverup for "only if they're pro-life." I prefer not to get so worked up about it because I take all those emails with a grain of salt, knowing, of course, that activists tend to exaggerate. If I let everything in the realm of politics (which I prefer to stay out of) get me all frothed up they'd be giving me rabies shots at work. I'm sure the infamous "other side" sends out their share of urgent bulletins coining their own catch phrases to light matches under proverbial behinds.
Now, if you know enough not to agree with every activist email you get, and so do I, do we still count as Joe Q. Public? (well, Jane, in my case) It's annoying, I agree, but I don't see much hope in changing the emails you or I get - I prefer to hope that the public is not so gullible as we think.
BTW - have you noticed the similarities between those groups and vampires? Once you invite them in…
+0
Posted 25 Aug 2005 at 11:18 pm ¶"I prefer to hope that the public is not so gullible as we think.
I guess I'm just more cynical than you.
"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
+0
Posted 25 Aug 2005 at 11:41 pm ¶I think there is a problem with litmus tests, especially when those litmus tests apply to only one or two types of cases, rather than being staked in constitutional principle.
Yes, I would prefer a pro-life judge (more than one who's just against abortion), but it's so important to realize how many different ways a given justice can be harmful in other important areas of law, even if he happens to be on the right side of one particular issue.
You might have a justice who is hell-bent on opposing abortion, but is legally weak, or dogmatically wrong, in other types of constitutional cases. Just being against abortion does not make one a worthy judge.
Narrow-scope litmus tests are generally bad simply because the Constitution, whether it's fluid or fixed, covers such a wide swath of ideas and rights. Focusing too finely on one set of ideas leaves single-issue constituents vulnerable in ways they may not comprehend until it's too late.
+0
Posted 26 Aug 2005 at 9:13 am ¶I agree with Stuff.
Mainly, take these foolish correspondences and send them to your trash receptacle, just like you do with other spam.
Spam is still there because of the handful of people who answer or are affected by them. Try not to be one of the handful that they affect.
—
+0
Posted 26 Aug 2005 at 2:23 pm ¶Excuse me? I'm sure you didn't mean to offend, but I am offended nonetheless. First of all, I do not believe net-roots activism is by default spam. Secondly, you imply that because net-roots activism is spam in your eyes, I'm a fool for not not deleting it and only encouraging the proliferation of spam.
Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. I am well aware that a certain amount of hyperbole is to be expected in activist mailings. That doesn't mean it's right, nor does it mean we should simply ditch the concept. I think in a lot of cases, hyperbole is not meant to be deliberately deceptive but rather indicative of entrenched bias. However, some hyperbole becomes hypocrisy. I am trying to highlight an example of the latter in the hopes of curbing it. I know my ability to influence is small, but I'm a strong believer in thinking globally and acting locally. I'm doing my small part to keep activists honest. It's in the best interests of activists and those they claim to represent would like to motivate if they avoid being caught in hypocrisy.
IOW, I support the primary aims of the Susan B. Anthony List, for instance. I do not, however, support their blind support for various polticians. I am not content to send their mailings to /dev/null and just get on with my day. I want them to be successful in their endeavors. I do not want them to bring scandal to themselves or the pro-life cause. Thus, I speak out when they risk doing so.
You are right, though, that I should just trash activist mailings if I have no intention of either supporting their contents (via petitions, letters, etc) or directly informing the activists of what I perceive as their mistakes. I have the first option covered pretty well. The second needs some work though. Instead of just attacking windwills with blog posts, I should be contacting those I call hypocrites and giving them an earful.
Thanks for reminding me to light a candle instead of just cursing the darkness.
+0
Posted 26 Aug 2005 at 4:49 pm ¶"Excuse me? I'm sure you didn't mean to offend, but I am offended nonetheless."
&
"Thanks for reminding me to light a candle instead of just cursing the darkness."
Huh? I'm not sure if I should apologize, say you're welcome, neither, or both.
I know you're not a fool. You are very passionate about many things.
Do you think these emails are worth calling on "the modern Holy Innocents"?
—
+0
Posted 26 Aug 2005 at 5:09 pm ¶I'm sorry for being snippy, but equating netroots activism with spam just pushed a sore button. I hope I wasn't overly harsh in my responses.
+0
Posted 26 Aug 2005 at 6:23 pm ¶Not at all. It's better to let me know what you are thinking than for me to assume what you mean.
I stand corrected on my equation.
—
+0
Posted 26 Aug 2005 at 6:46 pm ¶I think that part of the issue with "litmus tests" is that the Big Guy is supposed to be against them himself; as he said in the debates against Kerry, and going back to the 2000 campaign too. And yet there is no conceivable way that he was going to nominate someone who didn't pass certain tests, so that was really just a pile of dooky, wasn't it.
It's become yet another part of the War on Words, whereby liberal tests equal the dreaded "litmus tests", and conservative tests are just the standard, common-sense position that everyone's supposed to take. It's quite Orwellian, really. Like by saying "don't support litmus tests" that this somehow justifies or hides their own litmus tests.
So I'm glad to see people I disagree with taking these kinds of things seriously. We shouldn't allow politicos of any stripe to start loading words up with hidden meanings. That is the surest way to end all discussion between the two sides; when they can't use the same terminology to discuss important issues (then again, maybe that's what they want).
And speaking of hidden meanings, I do like the poster above who clearly says that decisions should be left to the states, but then denounces the judges who supported Kelo…a local law. Not that this specifically applies to that case, but this whole federal v. state thing is just a red herring which just falls apart more every day. When they're not denouncing federal laws and taxes, they're denouncing state, county, city, and school district laws and taxes. One might think they were just against certain laws and taxes; and not the principled constitutional arguments they proclaim themselves to support.
Not that I'm saying there aren't principled conservatives who really believe that states have these rights. But more often than not, they just support state's rights for certain issues (abortion), and ignore it for others. Like with gay marriage and marijuana legalization, which states don't seem to be capable of handling on their own. And if Roberts turns out to be anti-Roe, I wonder how many of them would denounce a federal law banning abortion, were one to be written. If they're serious about abortion, it'd really be tempting to save all the babies in the blue states too. I guess the emails will tell them to avoid those "litmus tests" too.
+0
Posted 28 Aug 2005 at 9:21 am ¶I think that people, on either end of the political spectrum, use the phrase "litmus test" to refer to (in the case of judicial nominations) a nominee's opinion on specific political issues. His general approach to judicial matters is not, therefore, a litmus test according to how they use the term. Whether that's its proper use is quite another question.
"Like with gay marriage and marijuana legalization, which states don't seem to be capable of handling on their own." Invalid equivalence. Marijuana legalization in California was a statute, passed by the legislature and signed by the governor. That kind of action might fall under the notion of states' rights. "Gay" "marriage", however, was imposed on the state of Massachusetts by a 4-3 vote of judges. That's not states' rights: that's judges' demagoguery.
+0
Posted 28 Aug 2005 at 7:27 pm ¶"I think that people, on either end of the political spectrum, use the phrase "litmus test" to refer to (in the case of judicial nominations) a nominee's opinion on specific political issues. His general approach to judicial matters is not, therefore, a litmus test according to how they use the term. Whether that's its proper use is quite another question."
IMHO, that's not the correct definition, nor is it really the one employed by politicians. In chemistry, a litmus test gauges roughly how acidic or basic a liquid is. It's a convenient metaphor because it is "bipolar" so to speak, i.e. one can be acidic, neutral, or basic, and can be forced to line up with the traditional political spectrum. I think it is most usefully applied to judicial philosophies rather than individual issues. However, I think the particular uses of the phrase in politics vary in scope. Loosely speaking, a litmus test for a judge is a list of job requirements and desireable qualities. For some, that list may be quite specific, e.g. pro-life. For others, it may be quite broad, e.g. strict constructionist.
I think a more apt metphor would be temperature, which is a measure of average kinetic energy. A temperature close to absolute zero would correspond to strict word-for-word literalism ("letter of the law" - similar to Fundamentalist Evangelical biblical exegesis). A slightly warmer temperature would indicate tendency to look for what the author(s) indended to communicate ("spirit of the law"). High temperatures would represent those who see legal documents as "living" and open to braoder interpretations (i.e. "What might have the author(s) said differently had a particular issue come before courts in their day?").
P.S. I think for most people, "strict constructionism" simply means "he sides with the Right on issues the Right currently cares about". Ending abortion, protecting religious expression, and defending private property seem to be the hot button topics these days. The Left seems to be concerned with protecting abortion, limiting religious expression, and defending civil rights. Each of those issues (among others) is a litmus test, both separately and collectively. Call them what you want, but for better or worse, both sides use them. Let's not pretend they don't.
+0
Posted 28 Aug 2005 at 10:33 pm ¶I applaud theomorph and hope he takes time from his or her studies to read this. It doesn't really matter what the law is, if people don't wish to obey it, it won't be obeyed and it becomes a farce. Conversion is truly the answer. However, I do agree with you Funky, that this narrow scope of the so-called "liutmus-tests" is nauseating and often counterproductive.
I have been a conservative all my life–Not a NEO-CON, but I don't park my mind at the voting booth. For example, many of us Republicans threw out our very conservative Republican Congressman because he was such a poor representative for our district, ALTHOUGH he toed the Republican litmus test line.
I and many other conwservatives, although in disagreement with some of his views and votes, think our now Democratic Congressman is fantastic!
Thanks for allowing me to vent….:)
Diane R.
+0
Posted 30 Aug 2005 at 7:43 pm ¶Thanks for stopping by to rant. Feel free to come back and rant as much as you like.
+0
Posted 30 Aug 2005 at 7:50 pm ¶Post a Comment