Judicial Philosophy, idealism or protective coloration?

[EST]

Judicial Philosophy - Bush Agenda

Just what is meant by "judicial philosophy" when the ridiculous right uses it? How about the "average" progressive?" After watching and re-watching the presidential press conference, today, and comparing the fit of Bush's stress-induced semi-honesty to the banging away that goes on, day after day, by the intractable, and in my opinion, mentally enslaved conservatives, that idealized philosophy winds up being the fundamental difference between conservatives and progressives.

"I am firm, thou art stubborn, he is pigheaded." So goes an ancient truism illustrating a subtle understanding of human nature. Like most progressives, one of the things I pride myself on is a carefully cultivated notion of being able to bring a bit more honesty to self analysis and a willingness not only to admit error, but to be open minded. A clear mental beacon that informs ones thinking, such as, "I do not accept that I am the smartest, today, that I am ever going to be" strikes me as of enormous value in a changing world.

I do not suggest a wishy-washy set of moral standards, as many of the ridiculous right love to portray anyone more compassionate than Adolf Eichmann, since most of the progressives I am acquainted with have developed their standards of self evaluation through the dint of careful, perhaps arduous, thought. Most of us did not simply "fall into" a fixed pattern of thinking and then consummate some high level bargain with reality, God, or the earth mother, to the effect that we promise to forever, hold true to the same precepts that informed our thinking twenty years ago. I am far more likely to discuss issues of importance and value with someone who, even in the face of firmly held conviction, has an openness to being convinced differently, if evidence warrants.

And therein lies the difference. Progressives are unwilling to be strait jacketed by an allegiance to their deeply held convictions. We will listen, reason and, rather than using the time someone else is speaking to formulate our response or find fault, attempt to re-create the other's thinking. We can be persuaded, while most hidebound conservatives, of whatever stripe, cannot. So what about this much vaunted "judicial philosophy?"

Aside from a commitment to the notion that a corporation, government, and almost any organization has more freedom, power, and autonomy than any but the most rabid RRR power broker, the most important personal quality in bush world is consistency. Bush goes to great lengths to emphasize that the Miers of today is guaranteed to be the same Miers twenty years from now. "Don't worry, my loyal subjects, the bigoted, granite brained idiot, curiously resembling g-o-p c-span callers, is going to continue to be the same shallow idiot for ever and ever.

This is the fundamental quality up and down the ridiculous right, the basis of bush loyalty, the driving "moral" value, coming ahead of nearly everything else. They may, in their sneaky fashion, adopt, chameleon-like, a protective coloration that masks their true natures, with "compassionate conservatism" being, perhaps, the ultimate oxymoron. Putting one's self in the other guy's shoes is something that a modern conservative just cannot do.

So what is the one single real qualification, other than the usual walking and farting at the same time, that Ms. Miers brings to the SCOTUS? The unique dependable capacity never to be swayed by arguments that might challenge her with the notion that people are the one irreplaceable element in the puzzle. The idea that all the things we create-- technology, government, religion, even civilization, are morally required to be subservient to the needs and rights of people is forever safe from being absorbed and integrated into her thinking. The only reason to listen to arguments, as a supreme court justice, is to re-affirm her own thinking. Bush loves her, as do assorted other crooks, because she is totally reliable, now that she has fallen into the ruts of the new Conservative thinking, and will give them the springboard for their long dreamed of theocratic dictatorship.

Or could her current allegiance to the un dynamics of the ridiculous right merely be a more sophisticated protective coloration?

[Erika]

1. Judical philosply by the RW = theocracy

No abortions. No rights for Gays. No affirmative action. Corporatist will to control America. Bush's America.

[EST]

2. Follows, doesn't it?