Mailvox: because it’s not irrelevant

JJ sees a blameless Bush:

Five members of the current Supreme Court are terrible (sometimes six, if O’Connor is included in many key decisions) and I agree with much of what you said in “Great Leap Backward.” But I see no reason why you had to bring up White House policy on democracy in the Middle East as part of that discussion. Only Congress has the power to do anything about Judges who are behaving badly.

The White House supports greater individual property rights and it had nothing to do with the bad recent Supreme Court decisions (which also include Lingle v. Chevron and San Remo Hotel v. San Francisco). The Bush administration supported property rights by nominating Janice Rogers Brown and insisting that she be confirmed for the D.C. Court of Appeals. WAM- Rent Board Stories #118 June 2005

It is safe to say that those who support individual rights in America are more likely to support those rights in the Middle East than those who are of a collectivist mindset who support “liberal” judges. So what sense does it make to have a discussion that objects to courts not protecting individual property rights while making an irrelevant collateral attack on an administration that is on the right side of that issue?

First, the administration is certainly not on the right side of the issue. Bush’s spokesman told the American people to respect the Supreme Court’s decision, he did not announce that the court had committed an outrage and he would encourage the Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against the five judicial criminals.

Second, the corrosion of freedom in America puts the lie to the administration’s oft-trumpeted notion of bringing freedom elsewhere. There is absolutely no point in wasting time, blood and money in any attempts to expand freedom in other countries while allowing it to be methodically destroyed at home.