Ian S. Thompson – 5/17/05

This page was last updated on May 19, 2005.

Power grab must be stopped; Ian S. Thompson; Beaver County Times; May 17, 2005.

This letter is sad, especially since it comes from an alleged Penn State student. This letter is no more than an exercise in character assassination and name-calling. Mr. Thompson presents absolutely no evidence to support his wild accusations. I expect more intellectual rigor from a person pursuing a college education. I believe he has a future if he chooses to work for the Democrat party.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“For anyone who doubts just how extreme and downright nutty the fundamentalist, ‘religious’ right has become, you need look no further than to the recent remarks of Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson, in which he said some judges pose a more serious threat to America than those individuals responsible for carrying out the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.”

[RWC] I assume Mr. Thompson also believes the left is “extreme and downright nutty.” Why? On the floor of the U.S. Senate on May 9^th, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) compared one of President Bush’s judicial nominees to an “Islamic jihadist.” Don’t take my word for it; check the Congressional Record yourself. On a side note, weren’t the liberals the ones upset because they claimed conservatives were attacking judges? What is it when Democrat senators refer to judges as “Islamic jihadists,” “Nazis,” and “Neanderthals?”

Here’s something else to note. To make my point, I was able to quote a Democrat U.S. senator speaking on the floor of the Senate and representing the Democrat party. Whom does Mr. Thompson quote? An unelected private citizen representing himself.

With that behind me, I’m not a Pat Robertson fan but he may have had a point. Here’s why. There’s no question the terrorists who killed thousands of Americans on 9/11/01 did terrible damage whose effects will be felt for years and perhaps decades.

Judges who choose to legislate from the bench instead of accurately interpreting the law also cause terrible damage. Finding the “right” to abortion is only one example. When judges interpret law based on personal policy preferences, international law, or contemporary “norms,” they undermine the rule of law. Terrorists can kill a lot of people, but they can’t undermine the foundation of our republic, as can judges who view our federal and state constitutions and laws as “living documents.”

“Robertson’s shamefully irresponsible comments come on the heels of plans by the far right-wing Republican majority in the U.S. Senate to eliminate the last remaining barrier Democrats have used to prevent an absolute takeover of the federal courts by the most ideologically-driven and regressive judicial nominees George Bush has put forth.”

[RWC] You’ll be disappointed if you expect Mr. Thompson to provide any evidence supporting his accusations. As the so-called leaders of his party, he is simply participating in character assassination.

At least Mr. Thompson recognizes Republicans are the majority party.

If Mr. Thompson believes the Republican majority in the Senate is “far right-wing,” he is completely ignorant of both conservative principles and history. As a group, today’s Republicans in Washington are barely to the right of JFK Democrats of the 1960s.

“Make no mistake about it. If the most radical, dangerous elements in the Republican Party succeed in eliminating the ability of Democratic senators to filibuster the absolute worst-of-the-worst nominees through the so-called ‘nuclear option,’ literally decades of progress that has been gained in terms of workers’ rights, environmental and consumer protections, civil rights and basic privacy guarantees could quite possibly be rolled back or eliminated altogether.”

[RWC] It never ceases to amaze me that liberals try to portray conservatives as being opposed to “workers’ rights, environmental and consumer protections, civil rights and basic privacy guarantees.”

Which group attempts to force unionization on workers and opposes allowing workers to choose to assign a portion of their Socialist Security taxes to a personal account? Hint, it’s not Republicans.

“While this may be reason to celebrate for the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells of the world, fair-minded citizens from across the political spectrum must recognize the very real threat to America’s 200-year-old system of checks and balances that is posed when one political party is able to stack the federal courts with partisan extremists, who are determined to advance a radical agenda.”

[RWC] “Absolute worst-of-the-worst” and “partisan extremists?” As I noted in a previous critique, one of the “absolute worst-of-the-worst” is the daughter of black Alabama sharecroppers and sits on the California Supreme Court. In a decidedly liberal state, Justice Janice Rogers Brown received 76% of the vote in her last election. Another nominee, Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, won her most recent election with over 84% of the vote. How can you win elections with these overwhelming majorities and still be labeled “partisan extremist” and “absolute worst-of-the-worst?”

Here’s another question. If President Bush’s nominees are “partisan extremist[s]” and the “absolute worst-of-the-worst,” why can’t detractors like Mr. Thompson provide us with a list of decisions and/or opinions demonstrating the “partisan extremism?”

In case you missed it, Mr. Thompson supports minority rule. Isn’t minority rule what tyranny is all about? Does anybody want to bet Mr. Thompson’s position would be different if Republicans were the minority party?

Mr. Thompson claims to be a college student, so perhaps he’s too young to remember that Democrats wanted to eliminate the filibuster altogether until they became the minority party.

Regarding advancing radical agendas, does anyone care to guess which end of the political and social spectrum found the “right” to abortion and homosexual marriage?

“For the sake of protecting America’s independent judiciary and preventing further erosions to our democratic system of government, the right-wing’s ‘nuclear’ power grab must be stopped.”

[RWC] What “power grab?” Are not Republicans the majority in the Senate – and House – and did the citizens of the U.S. not elect them? The “power grab” happened in the battle of principles, public debate, and at the ballot box, but liberals tend to reject election results when liberals lose.

On a side note, a memo must have gone out to liberal activists to use “power grab.” In a span of a few minutes yesterday, I heard no fewer than four Democrats use this verbiage regarding the elimination of judicial filibusters.