Uncivil Discourse

Because civility is overrated.

Friday, August 12, 2005

What NARAL Should Have Said, Or Why John Roberts Doesn't Belong On The Supreme Court (One Of Several Reasons)

This week, I've been blogging about the anti-Roberts NARAL ad, and why I think it shouldn't have been used in the first place. Shit, don't think that I don't understand where it's coming from. After all, there's been a veritable bevy of Democrats starting to pander to the anti-abortion mob, including one of my old Senators. And, shit, it's not like this is anything new. After all, Democrats are responsible for the odious Hyde Amendment, and several have shown no compunction about throwing a few sops to the religious right in the hopes of looking more moderate (ie, more Republican). So it's good to try to make abortion an issue, if only to make sure the Democrats don't take women's uteruses for granted.

But I still think the ad sucks. See, it's wrong. And the fact that it's wrong, and coming from a liberal group, means ABC and NBC News spend time on their broadcasts focusing on it and how it's wrong. Whoever said there's no such thing as bad publicity is a fucking moron. This makes us look like liars. And yes, there's a horrible double standard here: nobody on the TV news spent time discussing how goddamned awful and manipulative the Swift Boat liars were. They, of course, instead just kept inviting them on to repeat their bile. The Swifties did what they did because they had nothing else on John Kerry. They had to keep repeating the mantras of "flip-flopper" and "not really a hero," because how else do you attack a war hero who's always, throughout his political career, led the assault against the worst excesses of government?

And this ad makes it look like we've got nothing else on Roberts, when in fact we've got enough to fill the overly sodomized ass of Antonin Scalia's wife. You want reason one why John Roberts isn't fit to sit on the Supreme Court? It's the NARAL ad, but without the cheap shot about Roberts "excusing" anti-abortion violence. See, Roberts hasn't given any indication he excuses violence -- but he hasn't fucking gone out of his way to oppose it, either. Hell, this standard isn't good enough for the right when it comes to Muslims, so why is it good enough when it comes to a Supreme Court judge?

After all, Operation Rescue was going all out in trying to incite violence against abortion clinics in the hopes of forcing them to shut down, thus giving Randall Terry control over women's uteruses (and is there truly a more disturbing thought than that?), and in this case, they were suing to get around a law, originally meant at the Klan, that got in their way. There's no reason why the Solicitor General's office needed to get involved -- and remember that Roberts was a political appointee, appointed to help form this type of ideological/legal position. Somehow, I don't see the Bush Solicitor General's office intervening similarly on behalf of an environmental group, do you?

There were, of course, solutions that protected abortion clinics while accepting the anti-Klan law didn't apply. Guess what administration passed laws like this? That's right, that of the Clenis. Despite their protestations now that Roberts' brief was only legal, that's not shown by the facts. To start with, Roberts was involved, and his job was to deal with those cases that weren't purely legal. No, the administration truly did side with the neanderthals at Operation Rescue (calling them barbarians is an insult to the Vandals). Nothing they said supports a claim that they "excused" anti-abortion violence, but they sure as fuck didn't oppose it, either. They even trotted out the same arguments as those who opposed anti-lynching laws, and those motherfuckers sure as hell wanted the right to keep stringing up some niggers who got uppity, didn't they?

It's a slight difference from what NARAL claimed, sure. Perhaps one could claim it doesn't really fucking matter, because it's so slight an issue. But it's still a false statement, not merely one that's below the belt. And you know what really makes it bad? We have to hew closer to the line of truth than the right does, because, as mentioned before, in their quest to appear "fair and balanced," the media does all it can to examine us more critically than the right. And yeah, it's not fair, and yeah, they're a bunch of whores who, if the revolution ever comes, deserve to be at least some of the first to be up against the wall, but it's how it is. We have to deal with it. It's a good thing that, unlike our counterparts on the other side, we've actually got support for our positions that we don't have to pull out of our asses. And I'm worried the NARAL ad, as slightly off the truth as it is, helps undermine that. John Roberts truly does not deserve to sit on the Supreme Court. But in an era where Clarence Thomas is a Supreme Court justice, and possibly the next Chief Justice, we have to make sure we don't lose what weapons we've got, because that by itself won't convince the Senate to not vote for him.