Archive for

Top GOP Contenters for 2012 Still Mostly Creationists

Back in February, we reported that the potential frontrunners for the nomination in 2012 – Jindal, Palin, Pawlenty, Sanford – were all creationists. Well, good news/bad news time: while the field has changed, slightly, the supermajority are still creationists.

Huckabee,  Palin, and Pawlenty are obvious, on the record, and proud of their ignorance. Potential dark horses Gingrich and Jeb Bush are right there with them. Romney, on the other hand, has actualy offered a pretty spot-on defense of “non-overlapping magisteria,” the idea that philosophy is and should be taught to be severable from religion, and at a point when he was trying to woo conservatives. Though otherwise crazy, he’s safe on this point.

So what’s it say about a political party, when 5/6 of its pool of potential presidents put religion (or pandering) ahead of reality? Surely nothing good: I keep hearing about these moderate Republicans, with good ideas and honest talking points, who’re set to reinvigorate the party. Well, moderate GOP – it’s time to wake up. Or don’t. Sixteen years of Democratic Presidents could work.

The Centrality of Judicial Review: Pierce the Spin on Sotomayor’s Confirmation

Judicial activism isn't all bad. Just ask any minority public school student.

On Wednesday, Newt Gingrich published in “Human Events” what for all the world looks like a talking points memo on everything presumptively wrong with Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Amidst spouting the usual outrage about the evils of “empathy” and “diversity” – qualities the right actually values in other judges – Newt asks the following question:

How does Judge Sotomayor come down on the issue of a judge’s fidelity to the law?

Gee, Newt, I dunno: how does ex-Congressman Gingrich come down on the issue of push polling? The American people deserve to know.

In any event, in previous articles, we’ve explained the centrality of judicial review to the American system of government, analyzed the historical value of “judicial activism,” and explained how conservatives and liberals alike can responsibly make their cases about the meaning judicial review.

However, we’re not so naive as to believe that responsible debate has any place in most battles of the culture war. Go over 140 characters, and you’ve probably lost the attention of most of the media. Here, then, is our attempt to break down the debate on “judicial activism,” talking point by talking point. Continue reading »