There’s a man of questionable intelligence calling into Washington Journal on C-Span right now. I’ll wait a minute while you get over your shock at that statement.

The guest is Steven Schmidt, who Deputy Assistant to President Bush and Counselor to Vice President Cheney. The discussion is about the Roberts nomination. Mr. Schmidt is making the case that Judge Roberts is highly qualified for the Supreme Court. A Democrat from Nebraska is contributing to the dialogue by saying,

“You say that Judge Roberts is well qualified but I don’t put much credence in that (those with limited vocabularies often like the word “credence” because it makes them feel smart) because David Duke was elected to Congress and therefore I guess people thought he was well qualified. But, that doesn’t mean everyone wanted him there making decisions that affect (moron probably would spell this “effect”) the entire country.”

David Duke never even ran for Congress (author insert — please note the update below that notes my error here) let alone enter the Capitol as a elected member of the body. But, amazingly enough, that is the least ridiculous part of the caller’s statement. To this man, equating a highly successful lawyer who served in a Reagan administration while still in his twenties to a Grand Wizard of the KKK makes perfect sense!

I can just see the next ad from the People for the American Way now. It’s simple, but effective. The camera zooms in on a man decked in full KKK hate regalia and there’ s a lovely cross burning in the background. Then, the man lifts his white hood and exclaims, “Guess who?!” and we see Judge Roberts cackling with pure evil. After that NARAL ad, anything is possible.

UPDATE — As noted in one of the posted comments to this entry, I erred in my information about David Duke. He did run in a special election for Congress but did not win the nomination. I was aware of his State Senate run and try at the governor’s seat, but I missed the special election. Thanks for the correction.

Every few days I’ll flit about on the left side of the blogosphere (specifically, the Tennessee blogosphere) and see what’s going on. TGW is expectedly infuriated at the Roberts pick, even though he has said repeatedly that he respects precedent.

Apparently, there is a blog called Bush v. Choice. It would be more appropriately called Choice v. Bush, but that’s purely semantical.

The priceless quote

But what’s disturbing is that choice and abortion are being discussed—in blogs and in the media—more as a political tool than as an issue that affects women’s lives.

Of course, not to mention the unborn human being that ultimately suffers the consequences. The problem with the pro-choice position is its inherent selfishness. I find it hard to support any position that completely destroys life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for one person, while allowing the supposed beneficiary to get off scott-free. Dehumanization is a necessary part of the pro-choice platform.

Regardless of Robert’s eventual position on abortion (you never know until they begin to rule), Roe is on its way out. It’s premise is on shaky ground to begin with - it’s a poorly written decision, and is remarkably similar to that of other cases, eventually overturned on a moral basis (one by war, one by decision). Dred Scott and Plessy use the same logic for their holdings as Roe, just at different degrees. The subject of the act is dehumanized and treated either as mere property or as a second-class citizen. As dehumanization is the basis for Roe, the more accurate comparison is Dred Scott. As I was reviewing the Dred Scott decision, I came across this quote. I substituted only one word, found in parenthesis and italicized.

It [The Declaration of Independence] begins by declaring that, ‘when in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.’

It then proceeds to say: ‘We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among them is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.’

The general words above quoted would seem to embrace the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day would be so understood. But it is too clear for dispute, that the (unborn) enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration; for if the language, as understood in that day, would embrace them, the conduct of the distinguished men who framed the Declaration of Independence would have been utterly and flagrantly inconsistent with the principles they asserted; and instead of the sympathy of mankind, to which they so confidently appealed, they would have deserved and received universal rebuke and reprobation.

There’s more that parallels the current mindset on Roe, but I think the above excerpt encapsulates it quite nicely. I’d like to pull more and discuss it, but in all honesty, Dred Scott is a tedious, somewhat rambling decision, and I have to make a living sometime today.

At least Dred Scott was able to walk, communicate and bring suit, even though he lost. The current plaintiffs, due to their complete helplessness and total dependance on those who would otherwise dispose of them, cannot initiate action on their own. I suppose the current solution would be to appoint guardian and attorney ad litems to embryo’s and fetus’. It would be an interesting legal battle to do so. I daresay they would fit the definition of most conservatorship statutes, and just about anyone in most states can petition the court to appoint a conservator.