I want to point out this post because it underscores something that I strongly believe: Republicans can differ on issues; that is to say, my views on a family's decision to have an abortion, the need to be an evangelical Christian, among others, need not be litmus tests on "true Republican belief". Some of these issues, which are referred to as "social conservatism" have little or no relevance to me or impact on my political views. If Rowe versus Wade were repealed tomorrow, the effect on a family's decision to carry to term or not would be unchanged here in Oregon. As it was prior to Rowe versus Wade.
The issue with Rowe versus Wade was not the outcome, but the path to the decision that concerns me.
And a lot of Republicans hold the same view. Or both views, contemporaneously. Which is a source for confusion among conservatives and liberals, alike.
The appalling truth is, the tortured logic that was used to arrive at Rowe opened a Pandora's Box of what is now referred to as "legislating from the bench". These shattering words, "penumbras and emanations" wreaked havoc upon the plain meaning of words. (For a good analysis here, try Robert Bork, "The Tempting of America", Free Press, 1990.)
Which brings me to this post. From NW Republican from whose views I find myself differing on many occasions. But in this instant, I Am Coyote gets it right. This is what he finds in Appellant's Brief in federal court:
"As a matter of Oregon law, the only pertinent question when verifying a petition signature is whether it matches the purported signer's signature on the relevant voter registration card. Whether the purported signer in fact did sign the petition is of no moment under Oregon law."
The party of the Left is corrupt. It is corrupt in simple ways. When the simple meaning of words are viewed as barriers to be overcome by fiat, we are no longer a nation of laws. Fortunately, one federal judge is forcing your elected officials to to what the law requires.
But they will not do this voluntarily. No. And it is this thinking that led to the debate over "hanging chad". A debate that even then Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court could no longer engage. A debate that had to be closed by the United States Supreme Court.
Because this debate attempted to side-step the law. And when party hacks are emboldened by their own lawlessness they come back to do it again.
Remember, this is who you voted for.