Libertarian Pacifism: A Pacifism by Any Other Name Wouldn’t Smell as Sweet

Note:  This post is not aimed at all Libertarians.  There are some Libertarians who are not pacifist.  I am only discussing those who advocate pacifism while hiding behind the Constitution.  I am in agreement with many who state that wars should be declared and stated with a clear purpose by our government; to do anything less and drag a war out longer than necessary is, in and of itself, immoral.  This post isn’t meant to be a discussion on war-gaming.  It is, instead, a philosophical post.

Ayn Rand correctly identified the source of all conflicts in the world when she said:

Wars are the second greatest evil that human societies can perpetrate. (The first is dictatorship, the enslavement of their own citizens, which is the cause of wars.)

As long as there are societies on earth who endorse collectivism or dictatorships in any form, whether secular or theocratic, then there will always be wars.  Collectivism is any system of governance defined as that which demands the sacrifice of the individual to the collective with altruism (or in some cases simply the psychosis of its dictator) as its justification. 

My inspiration for this post came after reading an article entitled Glenn Beck’s Lincoln Contradictions by Thomas J. DiLorenzo.  Mr. DiLorenzo utilizes the term “Neo-con” quite a bit.  I want to state upfront that the proliferation of all these new terms, Neo-Con, Neo-Liberal, Neo-Keynesian, Neo-Communist, Neo-Fascist, are simply attempts at continued muddying of the real argument which is between collectivism vs. individualism.  That is the only descriptive consideration that matters when discussing man’s inalienable right to be free; the rest is simply meant to confuse people’s minds and complicate the issues.

Let’s be frank–there is no discernible difference between Libertarian pacifism and Left-Wing pacifism.  Pacifism is pacifism and the justifications for it no matter from which group it arises are equally misguided.  Ayn Rand had this to say about pacifism:

The necessary consequence of man’s right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative.

If some “pacifist” society renounced the retaliatory use of force, it would be left helplessly at the mercy of the first thug who decided to be immoral. Such a society would achieve the opposite of its intention: instead of abolishing evil, it would encourage and reward it.

Leftists justify their pacifism usually by intoning their committment to peace.  Peace cannot be achieved by the absence of all conflict.  It can only be achieved by the destruction of all collectivism.  Human existence is defined by conflict; the hiring of one person over another who is better qualified, the victory of this hockey team over that hockey team, the victim of a robbery or rape who pulls his gun against his victimizer in order to defend the value which is his or her’s continued existence.  Those who wish to pretend that in order to live one’s life by trying to ignore conflict simply because they don’t like it–will never learn how to achieve the greatest value of all which is their life and by default their happiness. 

Pacifist Libertarians tend to justify their pacifism on the grounds that all cultures are equally valuable and have the right to exist on their own terms without interference from other cultures.  However, the notion of multiculturalism is equally flawed in its premises.  The idea that all cultures are equal in their value necessarily demands that you therefore believe all collectivist cultures have value.  You cannot claim, as many Libertarians do, to stand for individual freedom while at the same time trying to justify the existence of collectivist cultures; that is called “wanting to have your cake and eat it too.”  That is a demand reality imposes on any individual who wants to stand for individual freedom.

From the article Diversity and Multiculturalism:  The New Racism at The Ayn Rand Institute:

Advocates of “diversity” are true racists in the basic meaning of that term: they see the world through colored lenses, colored by race and gender. To the multiculturalist, race is what counts—for values, for thinking, for human identity in general. No wonder racism is increasing: color blindness is now considered evil, if not impossible. No wonder people don’t treat each other as individuals: to the multiculturalist, they aren’t.

Advocates of “diversity” claim it will teach students to tolerate and celebrate their differences. But the “differences” they have in mind are racial differences, which means we’re being urged to glorify race, which means we’re being asked to institutionalize separatism. “Racial identity” erects an unbridgeable gulf between people, as though they were different species, with nothing fundamental in common. If that were true—if “racial identity” determined one’s values and thinking methods—there would be no possibility for understanding or cooperation among people of different races.

Some ask, “What about America’s melting-pot?  Isn’t that multiculturalism?”  No.  It’s not.  America was devised by its Founders to elevate the individual over the government.  All other nations throughout history elevated the government over the individual.  Freedom of the individual over the government provides a country where all men, of all cultures, backgrounds, and religions come to be free “as individuals” within the American culture of individual freedom.  Can they uphold their roots and honor and celebrate them?  Absolutely.  But, America is not defined by those various cultural roots–she is defined by the individual which is, in and of itself, a “culture.”

I will agree with Mr. DiLorenzo’s statements, as well as Ms. Rand’s statements, that many times war is used to justify the theft of liberty by a nation against its own people.  He says:

Of course, all of this high-handed talk about the Republican Party supposedly being “the party of great moral ideas” is also a convenient smokescreen for the economic greed that is its real motivation, and has been ever since the party first gained power. As Rothbard further explained: “On the economic level, the Republicans [in 1860] adopted the Whig program of statism and big government: protective tariffs, subsidies to big business, strong central government, large-scale public works, and cheap credit spurred by government.” It hasn’t changed much since.

I am in complete agreement with this assessment; both parties are guilty of crony capitalism which is the politically correct term for Fascism.  The only difference is–the Democrats are more open about it while the Republicans like to pretend they are not engaged in it.  Presidents Wilson, FDR and George W. Bush, to name a few, were all guilty of growing government under their administrations during a time of war.  I have no argument with that assertion.  What I do challenge is the notion that a  nation’s citizens cannot demand limited government at home, which necessarily entails separation of the state and economics for the same reasons and same purpose we have separation of church and state, while at the same time protecting itself from threats over-seas.  Many Libertarians say that’s what they want too but then reveal themselves by saying the phrase “protecting itself from threats over-seas” means “bring the troops home from everywhere and cease and desist active conflict”.  Yes.  That’s called “pacifism”.  If you are not actively fighting but instead you are sitting on your weapons–that is pacifism.  If your enemy has already declared war (which the Islamists have) and you are not acknowledging the need to fight back actively–that is pacifism.  If you are not fighting–you are being “passive.”     

What complicates America’s situation is–we are not living in a fully free society under true laissez-fair capitalism.  That is the reason we keep growing government every time we find it necessary to wage a battle against collectivist threats from elsewhere.  I submit, it most certainly is possible to have and maintain limited government and fight necessary wars against collectivists who threaten their free-state neighbors.  The pacifist Libertarians promote the false premise that war must necessarily equal big-government.  These are mutually exclusive concepts; they are not dependent on each other for their existence–necessarily.  A free-nation can remain an economically free nation under laissez-faire capitalism and fight a war to defend itself; the keyword is defend —in other words–not subjugate–which is what tyrannical nations feel it necessary to do against their neighbors when losing their grip on power.  The promotion of the idea that a free nation engaged in a war to defend itself will necessarily result in the growth of its government–is simply a false premise.  Whether that free nation’s leaders grow government or not is another matter entirely and those issues can be dealt with apart from the issue of war itself.

Another aspect that is problematic for America is that we have spread ourselves too thin.  I am in complete agreement with most Libertarians who assert we have too many troops stationed in too many areas of the world where we should no longer be; the Middle East is not one of them, however.  There is no discernible difference between Adolph Hitler, a secular collectivist, and the collectivist theocratic tyrants of the Middle East.  Hitler was driven by national socialism and his irrational hatred for the Jews.  The collectivist theocrats of the Middle East are driven, not only for their hatred of Israel (take note also a free-society–though with a similarly mixed economy like the U.S.), but also by the notion they are doing the will of their God by fighting the infidels for the purpose of creating the conditions of the return of the Twelfth Imam.  Libertarians often state that the Islamists hate us because we are “occupying their land”–but, they rarely, if ever, address the theocratic reasons the Islamists give us in their own words as to why they are fighting us.  Usually the Libertarian will just say, “Those are just words” or “That’s just an excuse”.  Ironically, those are the same excuses the Left-Wing pacifists give in regards to their reasons for upholding pacifist ideas.

All collectivist societies need war to uphold their control on their populations.  That is why it is so imperative that America beat back the march towards statism in our own country and restore true laissez-fair capitalism as opposed to the mixed disaster we currently employ.  If America’s leaders are indeed using war as an excuse to uphold crony capitalism then that is an issue we as citizens need to confront them with; it doesn’t necessarily translate into “therefore, we can’t fight necessary wars anymore.”  From Ayn Rand:

Observe that the major wars of history were started by the more controlled economies of the time against the freer ones. For instance, World War I was started by monarchist Germany and Czarist Russia, who dragged in their freer allies. World War II was started by the alliance of Nazi Germany with Soviet Russia and their joint attack on Poland.

By no means am I implying that it is the duty of America to transform all of the collectivist societies of the world into bastions of free-market capitalism–no matter how appealing that notion may be.  In fact, that is the only way there ever will be peace in the world–the supremacy of free capitalist societies upholding freedom of the individual.  What I am saying, however, is that it is the duty of the American government, indeed it is the one primary duty of any government of a free-society, to protect its citizens from collectivist tyrants who now need to turn their attention to warring with the free-societies around them in order to maintain their power and hold over their own citizens.  By no means am I even suggesting that the citizens of our country who do have problems with armed conflict from a moral or religious perspective should not be allowed to reserve their tax dollars from being used for that purpose just as those who don’t approve of abortion shouldn’t be forced to have their tax dollars used for that purpose.  However, we do not have that ideal system at the moment and that is a discussion for another time.

Pacifism is driven by guilt over the necessity of justifiable war.  It is an unearned guilt.  Many people are driven in their objection to war by the deaths of “innocent” people.  The truth of the matter is, any “innocent” deaths created in the Middle East by America and it’s allies–i.e. other free-societies–are not on the heads of America and its allies.  The deaths of those people are on the heads of the tyrannical collectivists who enslaved their people to begin with.  A free-nation, just as a free-individual, has the right to protect itself from the force of others who would impose their tyrannical will.  The death of innocent people in a war is no different than that of a woman stepping between you and the mugger you were aiming your gun at and who happened to get shot in the cross-fire.  The mugger’s death is called justice.  The woman’s death is called an “accident” and the guilt of that accidental death is not on the head of the one defending himself but instead lies with the mugger. Whether tyrannical force stems from a tyrannical dictator against it’s more free neighbors or from a mugger in Central Park against a jogger–is irrelevant.  The morality and ethics of the two situations are the same; and it always, without exception, boils down to the individual over the collective, and since capitalism is the only economic system which upholds the freedom of the individual it is only capitalism that can save the world from the constant threat of war.  From Capitalism:  The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand:

     Observe the nature of today’s alleged peace movements.  Professing love and concern for the survival of mankind, they keep screaming that the nuclear-weapons race should be stopped, that armed force should be abolished as a means of settling disputes among nations, and that war should be outlawed in the name of humanity.  Yet these same peace movements do not oppose dictatorships; the political views of their members range through all shades of the statist spectrum, from welfare statism to socialism to fascism to communism.  This means that they are opposed to the use of coercion by one nation against another, but not by the government of a nation against its own citizens; it means that they are opposed to the use of force against armed adversaries, but not against the disarmed.

It is those who, like our friends Cindy Sheehan and Sean Penn, uphold collectivist economics, socialism, communism, or fascism while at the same time preaching peace.  They hold the incorrect premise that we have wars because various populations are poor or subjugated by the more free societies.  Free societies under laissez-fair capitalism have no “need” for war since their citizens and government have plenty of creative fuel on which to draw derived from the very freedom of its citizens.  It is Cindy and Sean who are the hypocrites.  It is they who want to “have their cake and eat it too.”  Reality, from a philosophical perspective, cannot and will not ever allow opposing ideas to occupy the same philosophical space.  They want peace–but, they promote tyranny; and it will always be the reality of that dichotomy that will not let them, in the end, have their way.  It is they who are promoting tyranny.  It is they who stand with the likes of Hugo Chavez.  It is they who, by virtue of what they advocate, are actually continuing that which they say they hate the most–war.

The Media’s Very Different Spin on War Casualties

What do liberals and the media think?  If death from war comes during the same wars in which they harangued Bush for, that the deaths are more worthy under the annointed one?

Two points: Jeremy (my buddy on Facebook) posted the death toll from Afghanistan.  Since the overthrow of the Taliban, 2009 has been the deadliest year.  That’s right!  The deadliest year was not under GWB, but under Barack Obama.

Coincidentally, Mr. Obama is loving life at Martha’s Vineyard while anti-war protestor Cindy Sheehan has showed up to protest Mr. Obama’s continuation of both the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War. 

I apologize for everything I said about Sheehan in the past – and I was quite harsh on her.  Unlike the tens of thousands of other anti-war protestors we heard from during the Bush administration (also known as jobless-liberals) who were simply anti-Republican and using the death of an American soldier for political gain, Sheehan actually whole-heartedly cares.

That’s why the bulk of the liberal disease has begun to shut up over the casualties.

Suddenly now, Charles Gibson who covered Cindy’s anti-war protests all the way through during the Bush administration proclaimed “enough already” once he was informed that Sheehan was indeed following Obama to Martha’s Vineyard to protest the wars.

The hypocrisy and lies from this administration are staggering.  I am sure Robert Gibbs would have a memorable answer, but I am sure the reporters have been directed to not ask the question to begin with.

The “Broken Pipe” of Socialism


If we have to go down this November, and it is still pretty close in the polls, we have to do it screaming the obvious so that in four years when we come back, we can scream even louder “I told you so!”

The fact is; fellow conservatives, the bailout deal was anything but conservative.  The fact is, our own President endorsed it and our own Presidential Candidate went along with it. 

The only dissenter, or the one who took the position of normal Americans was Sarah Palin in the VP debate when she said that Americans on Main Street needed to take responsibility for their actions.

The video I posted above is the great Ann Coulter with Neil Cavuto.  They discuss the problems of sub-prime mortgages and liberalism’s hand in this. 

The mess in and of itself is not at all the fault of Republicans.  It’s a result of liberalism.

I feel sold out by McCain and Bush for coming in and approving this to give banks their way who are saying they aren’t loaning money to anyone unless the government comes through and hands them this money.  That’s sick.

The current crisis represents a leaking ceiling that required a patch.  Sadly, that patch cost us $700 billion.  But, the ceiling which holds the broken pipe of socialism will not only leak again eventually, but will finally out-and-out burst.  How much will that cost that?

Obama is adding one trillion dollars in spending virtually ripping the ceiling off altogether.

Just as Bush was magnificent at doing with foreign policy, the economic crisis required a long-term response to the broken pipe.  And while Democrats wouldn’t see the immediate results right away, we could easily be on the proper track of repair if we took the right attitude.  You cannot reverse major problems in a years time.

But sadly, now the work will be even more difficult if we have to endure four years of Obama.

A Nail Through the Obama Campaign’s Heart?

If it’s true, it should send shockwaves through the country, particularly those who were undecided in battleground states.  The New York Post has printed an article claiming that while Senator Barack Obama was visiting Iraq, demanding General Petraeus for a solid withdrawal timetable, he was going behind everyone’s back and asking the Iraqi government to hold off on negotiations for a US troop pullout.  I don’t always agree with or believe the New York Post, but they’re still a member of the Associated Press and they’re quoting a credible Iraqi official.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama pressed the Iraqis to cease all negotiations with the Bush Administration for a troop pullout, telling them that US Congress should be involved in the deal.  Verbatim, the Post quotes him saying, “he asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington.”  He went on to say that Obama had said “it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush Administration in its ‘state of weakness and political confusion’.”

This after Obama, here in the good ol’ USA, has lambasted George W. Bush for NOT having our troops out of Iraq already.  That’s aside from the aforementioned visit to Iraq–the same one where Barry O refused to visit wounded troops in Landstuhl because he wouldn’t be allowed to bring the media with him into the hospital.

It’s a strong accusation to make, announcing to the public that a Presidential candidate is deliberately attempting to sabotage the safety of our troops for his own gain.  But it’s equally strong to accuse a well-founded news organization of making up quotes and attributing them to real people, which you would have to do with the Post.  They may twist quotes on occasion, but there are some things that are nearly impossible to take out of context.

What this means, once again, is that Barack Obama was making public demands at home that he knew his constituency wanted to hear, and turning around and trying to play the game to make it look better for him in Iraq, where he thought nobody would rat him out (or that nobody would believe him).  He did this potentially at the cost of the safety of our loved ones, something I take very, very personally.  This could prove him to be every ounce the spineless weasel he’s accused everyone else of being.

Paging Lindsay Lohan…you still thing Obama’s the freakin’ messiah?  What about you, Matt Damon?  Chevy Chase?  Candace Bergen?  Hell-ooooo…?

Who Invited the International Court to This Party?

In June 1993, my family was moving again, but we still watched the news.  I’ll never forget that summer watching the news in Houston that two teenage girls had gone missing.  Just a couple of days later, I watched on the news as the father of one of those girls stole a news van and rushed to the scene police had found of two dead girls.  Police had to hold him back as he cried, “does she have blond hair?”

Even then, if you called 911 the police could track you down by the phone number that appeared when you called.  They found a teenage boy who admitted that his brother had been involved in killing the girls.  Within hours, Peter Cantu, Jose Medellin, Derrick O’Brien, Efrain Perez and Raul Villareal were in custody and each was ratting the other out.  They were members in a gang called the Black and Whites, and the boys were jumping in Raul (meaning that he was being initiated into the gang).  The beating over, they started drinking, and two teenage girls tried to walk by across the train tracks that ran through the park.  They grabbed one, Elizabeth Pena, and threw her to the ground; the other, Jennifer Ertman, tried to run but came back when her friend cried for help.

They were both raped repeatedly for more than an hour.  O’Brien took off his belt to strangle one of the girls and the belt broke.  They then took the girls’ own shoelaces and finished the job with them.  They left behind part of the belt as they moved the bodies from the clearing near the tracks to the nearby wooded area.  It took four days for the bodies to be found, by which time they were decomposing in the Houston heat and humidity.  The medical examiner noted that the extreme decay around the girls’ throats, cheasts and genetalia spoke to the horrific nature of their deaths and the brutalities they suffered at the hands of their killers.

The rest of the broken belt was found in O’Brien’s home and all of them eventually confessed to their roles in the murder.  Raul Villareal was the only one to get a relatively light sentence: 40 years.  The rest were convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death.

O’Brien has already been executed.  Several years after Medellin’s conviction, some hotshot attorney wised up to a little-known rule that required that all foreign nationals be given access to their home countries’ diplomats within three days of being arrested for any crime.  Medellin, you see, was brought to the US from Mexico at the age of 3.  He never told anyone after being arrested that he was actually a Mexican national and didn’t have legal status as an immigrant.  He didn’t tell anyone until years after he committed a horrid crime, when someone told him he might escape the death penalty based on this teensy little technicality.

Suddenly, Medellin took center stage in an international fight to require the United States to re-open 51 other cases in which foreign nationals were given the death penalty without having been given access to their nation’s consulate attorneys.  The same George W. Bush who picked up a sword and danced with the Saudis kowtowed to the demand, trying to use his position to force the states to comply.  Texas, bein’ the stubborn ol’ mules that they are, refused.  It went all the way to the US Supreme Court, and even the liberal judges there backed Texas law, refusing to bow to the wishes of the “International Court of Justice” (whatever the hell that means).

(Sidenote: if you go to the CCADP website, a Canadian group fighting to abolish the death penalty, you’ll see the Medellin has his own webpage.  It’s been quoted by the Houston Chronicle with no regard for the reality of what Medellin is saying.  He talks about joining the military, then says, “would have joined here, but I’m a Mexican, not a traitor.”  But the very first words he says on that profile are, “My life is in black and white, just like the old Western movies…”  In case you didn’t catch that, go back and read which gang this guy belongs to.  He’s giving a shout out to his homeboys in gang code and nobody has caught it yet.  Don’t forget, I used to work with gang crap every single day.)

Despite all the broo-ha-ha to save Medellin’s life, he’s scheduled to be executed tomorrow, August 5, in the death chamber at the Polunsky Unit in the Huntsville facility of TDCJ.  Texas refuses to recognize demands by the international community to halt the execution.  Barring an invasion by a UN force (hey, there’s a first time for everything), Medellin will be executed for his crime.

There’s been much ado about whether Texas should give a stay of execution because of diplomatic concerns.  Yet I fail to see why we should be beholden to anyone not in this country.  I promise you, the first time we cave in and allow international opinion to influence any decision in America, it will open the floodgates.  We’ll never get them to stop trying to dictate what we do here.  We are a sovereign nation, we adhere to our own law, and if the international community wishes to have any say in our criminal justice dealings, then they’d better damn well let us have a say in theirs.

I find it interesting, though, just how rabid the rest of the world is to force America into submission on this issue.  I’d like to know where they are every day when women in Muslim countries are stoned to death for violating Sharia law.  I’d like to know where they were when two young gay men were arrested, tried and hung in Iran within one week just for being gay.  I’d like to know where they are when girls across the Arab world are forced to endure female circumcision (if you don’t know what it is, trust me–you don’t want to).  I’d like to know where all these freakin’ do-gooders are when Palestinian children are indoctrinated with terrorist beliefs, taught to believe that blowing yourself up to kill infidels in the name of Allah makes you some kind of damned hero–in public schools.

What’s good for one is good for all.  At least when you’re talking to someone who cares about following the rules.  Randy Ertman, the father of Jennifer Ertman, had this to say about the whole thing:  “The world court don’t mean diddly. This business belongs in the state of Texas … the rest of them can go to hell.”

Obama: Testing the Waters of Patriotism

Yes, here we are in the middle of probably the most important conflict of our generation.

Yes, our awesome troops are proud of what they are doing.  Yes, they are succeeding. 

I guess Obama has paid attention to the news lately – which means that he can at least read.  I’m sure he’s realizing that violence is at record lows in Iraq.  He’s realized the success and acknowledges the oil contracts we are bidding for now and what these can possibly mean to our economy.  Money, money, money – hey then we can invent new taxes!

Obama says Iraq trip can refine his policy

Right, after eight years of Bush getting harangued on a daily basis, Barack Obama does two things:

First, he actually admits he supports domestic spying (something even Alan Colmes is angry about).  Second, he slowly starts to “refine” his war position.

Oh sure, after all the work has been done by Bush and Rice, Democrats will try to find some way to take credit for the success this war brings, or will attempt sadly to begin a pathetic backtrack of their eight years of blatant idiocy and this time, they didn’t even have to run a phony war-hero to do it.

Hopefully when this begins, we will know better.  Start looking for the signs real soon.

Take this article as #1.  I can’t wait to hear Code Pink’s response to this incidentally.


Apparently Code Pink and the rest found out – yes, less than three hours after reading the first article above – we get a new “unchanged” Barack.

Thanks Barack, and thank Code Pink along with the crazy Koz kids and the moonbats from over at Air America radio that still believe the war was evil.  Silly me to think that Democrats (the elected ones) could ever claim credit for Iraq’s success.  

Obama Wades Into Controversy With Iraq Comments

Loving My President…..

Before it’s too late, we really should thank Bush for eight great years of superb wartime leadership.

However; Ann Coulter’s column released tonight is an incredible piece that I think will be used in years down the road once the people of this country start referring to Bush as they do now with Reagan.  Yes, Bush made mistakes.  But overall, he cleaned up a lot of messes left to him by the Clinton administration, most apparently, the relations with our enemies.

The column has a few eye-catching quotes:

I generally don’t write columns about the manifestly obvious, but, yes, the man responsible for keeping Americans safe from another terrorist attack on American soil for nearly seven years now will go down in history as one of America’s greatest presidents.

Produce one person who believed, on Sept. 12, 2001, that there would not be another attack for seven years, and I’ll consider downgrading Bush from “Great” to “Really Good.”

Monthly casualties in Iraq now come in slightly lower than a weekend with Anna Nicole Smith. According to a CNN report last week, for the entire month of May, there were only 19 troop deaths in Iraq. (Last year, five people on average were shot every day in Chicago.) With Iraqi deaths at an all-time low, Iraq is safer than Detroit — although the Middle Eastern food is still better in Detroit.

John McCain should be so lucky as to be running for Bush’s third term. Then he might have a chance.

Those are just a few.  Catch the entire column at 

Bush v. Gore: “Get Over It!”

This is why we love Justice Antonin Scalia.  In an interview for CBS “60 Minutes” which will air Sunday, he tells the woman interviewing him to “Get Over It!” after she proclaimed that many believe that the decisions of the courts were “not based on judicial philosophy but on politics” where Scalia brilliantly replied “I say, nonsense.”

Scalia also reminded her that it was indeed Al Gore that turned it from a matter of “Democracy” to a matter that was decided on by the courts, not George W. Bush.  He also pointed out that the vote was democratically voted on within the courts 7-2.

It was Al Gore who made it a judicial question.  It was he who brought it into the Florida Courts.  We didn’t go looking for trouble.  It was he who said “I want this to be decided by the courts” and what were supposed to say? ‘No, not important enough?’

Oh if we could get one more Supreme Court nominee before November, how beautiful would life be.