When Christian Conservatives become Legalistic Liberals

I have long believed that the fundamental tenet of Conservatism is a belief in smaller Government. Conservatives are supposed to support lower taxes and less Government involvement in our day-to-day activities. A Conservative does not believe it is the Government's job to protect us from ourselves or to guide and direct our morals. Those jobs fall to the Family and the Church, respectively.

There are some issues, however, when even the best intentioned of Conservatives slips into a Big-Government Liberal mindset. For some reason, many folks who are otherwise solidly Conservative in their political outlook think that we have to prevent people from participating in the "evils" of gambling. Now, why the Government should protect people from their own stupidity is beyond me.

I've heard more than one Conservative refer to gambling as a "Tax on the Stupid" or a "Tax on people who are not good at math." First, gambling is not a Tax of any kind, and calling it one waters down the principled Conservative opposition to new and/or higher taxes. Second, there are all kinds of entertainments out there that may be just as stupid and money-wasting as gambling, but we don't hear the clamor to outlaw them.

Some argue that gambling breeds crime, but like many things that are claimed to be causally linked, the proof is very hard to make. Poverty is said to cause crime, too, but Conservatives rightly counter that it's not the role of Government to protect people from poverty.

It is time for Conservatives to stop confusing what may be a sin with what should be a crime.

***
THANKS to DK for pointing out my typo to me.

Selective Indignation

So, it seems that many on the Left have picked up on the new "talking point" of calling Strict Constructionist judges "Right Wing Activists."

First, it is not activism to undo the activism of the past.

Second, where was all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the lack of respect for stare decisis when the Supreme Court recently struck down State sodomy laws? In case you weren't aware, that opinion cut directly against decades of consistent rulings.

You see, stare decisis is only a sacred cow when it can be used to prop up a prior Liberal "victory." When there are Liberal causes to be advanced, even in the face of overwhelming jurisprudence and public opinion, stare decisis must be jettisoned in order to move toward a "perfect society."

I've been disabused

Apaprently, I'm the only one out there who thinks that Ashcroft might get consideration as Chief Justice. I admit that it was just a gut feeling, but it seems my instinct was wrong. Indications are that Bush will pick someone acceptable to his Conservative base but maybe won't rile up all the Leftist obstructionists.

It has been suggested that Bush will elevate Scalia (or Thomas) to Chief Justice, but I just don't see that unless he wants to appoint Al Gonzales right away as an Associate Justice. I also don't see him appointing Gonzales as Chief Justice.

Either way, it does look as if Bush will get a chance to appoint as many as three Supreme Court Justices during his second term. I know it would create a firestorm, but I think Senate Republicans should amend Senate Rules at the start of the new Congress in January to limit the Filibuster on Judicial appointments.

Chief Justice Ashcroft?

Drudge is reporting that John Ashcroft is planning to step aside as Attorney General.

http://www.drudgereport.com/

I won't say you heard it here first because I don't know if anyone else has already said something about it, but I predict that Ashcroft will get serious consideration as the new Chief Justice of the United States when William Rehnquist retires (which will likely be sooner rather than later).

I have no inside sources, just a gut feeling.