BEL judicial and political philosophies

[lioness]

Greetings to all. I'm a new member and this is my first post. I thought this might be a good place to post some general thoughts about Bob's judicial and political philosophies which have been covered over a long period of time on many shows.

With all due respect (seriously) to Bob's reasoning abilities and godly heart (as best I can judge), I find myself unable to determine how he realistically and practically expects our government to operate--particularly with respect to the electoral system and the judiciary. Even though I find myself agreeing with most of Bob's points, it seems to me that there is a heavy dose of idealism embedded in his approach.

I've been stewing about this for quite some time... at least since the 2004 elections and probably longer. I heard Bob's interview with Hugh Hewitt and heard many of his comments about those who think like Hugh. I appreciate Bob's perspective, but I also wonder how Bob envisions it working out in a practical sense.

I see HH as taking what I would call the Pragmatic approach. The idea being that since the fellows who would really be in-line with our thinking don't have a snowballs chance of getting elected we take the next best electable choice and, thus, do what we can to keep things from sliding too far left too fast. No, we don't get what we really want, but the Left doesn't get what they want and it's at least better than it might have been (even if only very slightly).

On the other hand we have Bob, who says he can't vote for anyone who would not strictly hold to his/His standards; an idea I admire, but which troubles me some in that practically speaking it could have the negative effect of allowing those on the far left to prevail in elections by means of the third-party-effect.

Now, the only way this makes sense to me is if, as Christians, we believe that God honors such trusting obedience to His principles--and our prayers--to the degree that He would find a way to *sovereignly* overcome the third-party-effect (or strengthen us as we endure the effects of an even more ungodly government). We could call this the Faith approach. If that's what Bob believes I wish he would expound on that thought more--and I think there are plenty of biblical examples from which he could teach this principle. (And he should have explained that more clearly to HH.)

Short of that foundation, the Pragmatic approach seems to make sense and Bob's idealism seems foolish. (Are we fools for Christ--or just fools?)

Similarly, as Bob call's for such high standards in the men being chosen for positions on the Supreme Court, I wonder if he realizes that NO ONE of that caliber could possibly be confirmed short of a miracle of God's grace and mercy (like all the Dems in the Senate dropping dead during the hearings or something); especially considering that we live in a post-wisdom age.

Does anybody (most especially Bob) care to comment?

Thank you. Carry on...

L

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Good post and welcome to TOL.

 

[PureX]

Perhaps you could just face the fact that you are an extremist, and so is Bob, and therefor the majority of the American people do not want to adopt your ideals nor obey your dictates. Then perhaps you could try and be man enough to respect the views of your fellow citizens even though you may disagree with them, and to respect the political process as it has been adopted by the entire nation.

Other people have the right to be wrong, just as you do. You can either accept this, or you can try to dictate your ideas of what is right to them and force them to follow your dictates. Governments that have to force their own people to obey them don't generally last long, and rightly so. It's a recipe for violent revolt.

So your only other alternatives are to respect the different opinions and desires of your fellow citizens, and appreciate that they will do the same for you in return, or you can try to convince them to adopt your opinions as their own through peaceful (non-forceful) means.

Good luck with that. And welcome to TOL.

 

[Jefferson]

I see HH as taking what I would call the Pragmatic approach. The idea being that since the fellows who would really be in-line with our thinking don't have a snowballs chance of getting elected we take the next best electable choice and, thus, do what we can to keep things from sliding too far left too fast. No, we don't get what we really want, but the Left doesn't get what they want and it's at least better than it might have been (even if only very slightly).

That's what people said about Ronald Reagan. They said he was too idealistic and controversial to ever get elected. Yet he won in landslides. How to explain this? People want leaders.

On the other hand we have Bob, who says he can't vote for anyone who would not strictly hold to his/His standards;

Untrue. Bob disagrees with many of George Bush's policies but he says he would vote for him if he would nominate truely pro-life judges to the Supreme Court.

an idea I admire, but which troubles me some in that practically speaking it could have the negative effect of allowing those on the far left to prevail in elections by means of the third-party-effect.

I'm actually advocating that Christians deliberately throw the next election to the democrats (by not voting at all) if the republican nominee does not have a litmus test vowing to overturn Roe v. Wade. And then warn them that we'll throw the next one and the next one until they fall in line on this issue. It can be done and quite easily too. Most elections are won by a mere 1 or 2 percentage points.

Does anybody (most especially Bob) care to comment?

Bob usually does not post on this forum. But, since none of us can speak for Bob, why don't you call into his show and ask him? KGOV.com M-F at 5pm ET at 1-800-8Enyart.

 

[Servo]

Greetings to all. I'm a new member and this is my first post. I thought this might be a good place to post some general thoughts about Bob's judicial and political philosophies which have been covered over a long period of time on many shows.

With all due respect (seriously) to Bob's reasoning abilities and godly heart (as best I can judge), I find myself unable to determine how he realistically and practically expects our government to operate--particularly with respect to the electoral system and the judiciary. Even though I find myself agreeing with most of Bob's points, it seems to me that there is a heavy dose of idealism embedded in his approach.

I've been stewing about this for quite some time... at least since the 2004 elections and probably longer. I heard Bob's interview with Hugh Hewitt and heard many of his comments about those who think like Hugh. I appreciate Bob's perspective, but I also wonder how Bob envisions it working out in a practical sense.

I see HH as taking what I would call the Pragmatic approach. The idea being that since the fellows who would really be in-line with our thinking don't have a snowballs chance of getting elected we take the next best electable choice and, thus, do what we can to keep things from sliding too far left too fast. No, we don't get what we really want, but the Left doesn't get what they want and it's at least better than it might have been (even if only very slightly).

On the other hand we have Bob, who says he can't vote for anyone who would not strictly hold to his/His standards; an idea I admire, but which troubles me some in that practically speaking it could have the negative effect of allowing those on the far left to prevail in elections by means of the third-party-effect.

Now, the only way this makes sense to me is if, as Christians, we believe that God honors such trusting obedience to His principles--and our prayers--to the degree that He would find a way to *sovereignly* overcome the third-party-effect (or strengthen us as we endure the effects of an even more ungodly government). We could call this the Faith approach. If that's what Bob believes I wish he would expound on that thought more--and I think there are plenty of biblical examples from which he could teach this principle. (And he should have explained that more clearly to HH.)

Short of that foundation, the Pragmatic approach seems to make sense and Bob's idealism seems foolish. (Are we fools for Christ--or just fools?)

Similarly, as Bob call's for such high standards in the men being chosen for positions on the Supreme Court, I wonder if he realizes that NO ONE of that caliber could possibly be confirmed short of a miracle of God's grace and mercy (like all the Dems in the Senate dropping dead during the hearings or something); especially considering that we live in a post-wisdom age.

Does anybody (most especially Bob) care to comment?

Thank you. Carry on...

L

It is all about avoiding legal positivism, putting man's law above God's law. And also not doing evil that good might come of it.