Just call this "Troglodyte Nation"
Guess what? I'm on a drive to "resurrect" "ancient" and "discredited" theories. So says the New York Times, anyway, in today's editorial on the Roberts nomination:
One of the most important areas for the Senate to explore is Judge Roberts's views on federalism -- the issue of how much power the federal government should have. The far right is on a drive to resurrect ancient, and discredited, states' rights theories.
Why? Because we still believe in federalism, that quaint notion set forth by those silly framers in which government power is distributed among the central government and smaller, local governments, to prevent its consolidation by an unchecked central authority.
Can you believe how unenlightened these "federalists" were? It's a pity they didn't have the New York Times back then to explain that the best way to protect individual rights is to cede as much power and authority to Washington as possible.
If he is a mainstream conservative in the tradition of Justice O'Connor, he should be confirmed. But if on closer inspection he turns out to be an extreme ideologue with an agenda of stripping away important rights, he should not be.
See, any justice even remotely interested in limiting federal authority vis-a-vis the states wants to "strip away important rights" in Times-land.
Many people will see only one issue at stake with this new nomination -- abortion. That's shortsighted. The Times at least "gets it" about one thing -- there are more important and more fundamental issues at stake than Roe v. Wade. (They relegate a mere two sentences to abortion in the edtiorial's penultimate paragraph.) They recognize the upcoming battle for what it is. They're just on the wrong side of it.