Making that argument to someone like me, however, is kind of a goofy thing to do. I’ve been involved in campaign politics for almost twenty years now. I’ve worked in politics at just about every level. If I’m looking at a third party, I fully understand the implications of that.

Further, I think anyone who watched the elections in 1992 and 2000 knows full well what that means. Even if I didn’t, however, it’s still a lame argument. It assumes you know more about what I want than I do.

When I decide to vote Libertarian (and that day will come soon, I suspect, though maybe not this year), It should send a signal that on my set of issues, I have determined the GOP has completely abdicated it’s support. Yet the best argument you can offer is I should vote for the guy that’s giving me nothing because it’s a better option than the other guy who will give me nothing.

The other rejoinder is, “you should vote GOP for no other reason than the possibility that liberals will retire from the Supreme Court.” Well, neither Republican nor Democratic appointees have done a lot for me lately. I have jokingly said, “the Constitution’s not perfect, but it’s better than what we’ve got now.” By that I implicate the Supreme Court as bit players in the larger partisan manipulation of society. Yesterday’s 5-4 decision on the rights of detainees is exemplary of that.

Look at the attempt to deny habeas corpus to the detainees held at Guantanamo and the GOP’s willingness to toss that out for at least one set of people. The Constitution seems pretty clear on trials:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Now, admittedly, I’m not a legal scholar, but I don’t see any reference in the the sixth amendment that carves out military tribunals, Guantanamo Bay, and enemy combatants. That almost half the court (the conservative appointees no less) would toss out long held Constitutional protections in an overtly partisan manner is discouraging. Add to that the willing treatment of these detainees as somehow less than human and you’ve got a court that makes me more nervous than thankful.

With that precedent set, what would stop another Congress from deciding that Republicans did not deserve such rights if we protest? Based on the anti-militia group fever that ran rampant in the mid 1990s, I could see a Democrat political machine rounding up the most activist Republicans and holding them without trial as enemy combatants because “they might belong to militias.”

That also argues that the five liberal members of the court were not exactly acting with pure motives, either. The fact that the majority’s decision read like it was written from DailyKos talking points was not lost on me. The Supreme Court has become as partisan as Congress and now makes decisions based on prevailing partisan views, not based on the Constitution.

Why would your best argument against my third party vote be, “We’ll give you even more reactionary judges willing to set dangerous precedents for partisan reasons?”

So here’s what I’m trying to say… Don’t talk to me as if I have no idea what a third party vote means, and don’t talk to me as if you come from a position of moral authority when warning me against it. If either of the political parties stood for something beyond winning in the next election, I’d vote based on that. Unfortunately, I see no evidence that’s true.

Taking account of race to bring children of different backgrounds together is fundamentally different from using race to keep those children apart.

Is it? I don’t know that I agree.

At the heart of the arguments Monday are simple racial quotas. If a neighborhood has a population that is 60% Caucasian and 40% minority, but the school age population (say 2000 kids) is 80% Caucasian and 20% minority, under the existing laws, the district can force the parents of 400 children to ship their kids to a school some distance away.

Never mind the fact that these parents have paid property taxes to the local district to build and maintain that school (which I think is the bigger issue that should be fixed), and ignore the fact that forced integration denies kids the simple joy of attending school with their friends, the use of racial quotas in such a solution serves no purpose that is inherent to the needs of the child.

The arguments made in favor of this practice by educators and administrators (that I have seen) have nothing to do with education or a right to it. The arguments they make are limited to their beliefs in social engineering. They feel the kids should be exposed, by force if necessary, to diversity or, at the very least, a school population that reflects the make up of their neighborhood.

It is really a specious argument.

The larger problem with our educational system is the method by which we fund it. If an argument is made to fund schools through a mechanism other than property taxes – so the value of a neighborhood’s homes does not relegate the children to less than equal educational opportunities – I will get behind it. I do not feel my child deserves a better education simply because my economic circumstances allow me to buy a more expensive home.

I am also opposed to racism in any form and oppose any solution that relies on racial percentages. Racism, in any form, seeks to lift one group up by keeping another down. That is true regardless of the goal and the good intentions of the oppressor.

At issue was whether the federal courts had jurisdiction over probate proceedings that decide local matters. The 9th Circuit (I can’t believe I am saying this…) had correctly ruled that federal courts could not get involved in such matters and threw out Anna Nicole Smith’s case. The SCOTUS overturned that ruling and cleared the way for Smith to fight in in federal court.

We may have just seen the last gasp of state autonomy in this country. The Supreme Court has just thrown out the 10th Amendment by an act of judicial imprudence. With this as precedence, plaintiffs may now bring any local matter to the federal courts for decision. The rights granted to and laws passed by the citizens of the states are now uniformly subject to the power of the fed.

Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, and Kennedy should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this god forsaken town to turn them away from the constitution to the dark side of the “big government” federal teat.