Wow -- I can pretty well answer anything on your blog by cross-posting from Bob's:

<blockquote>
<p>
Here's how this works. The Judicial Advisory Committee system consists of sixteen JACs across the country, each populated by eight members. The eight members are chosen as follows: (1) the chair, chosen by the provincial chief justice; (2) a representative from the relevant law society; (3) a representative chosen from the office of the relevant attorney-general office; (4) a representative of the Canadian Bar Association; (5-7) non-lawyers chosen by the federal Minister of Justice; (8) a police representative chosen by the federal Minister of Justice. Slots 5-7 are the partisan slots. We can note that the Globe and Mail has never opted to study how many of the partisan slots were filled with partisan appointees under a Liberal government. But let the obvious agenda "journalism" lie for now.
</blockquote>

<p>
Acknowledging here, of course, your point that Liberals were just appointing partisan hacks who couldn't _possibily_ ideologically agree with the Liberals, unlike those dirty Tories who actually believe that as, you know, the government, they have the right to appoint people they have the right to appoint!

<blockquote>
<p>
Once you wade through the lousy reporting, here's the bottom line: the government is using the slots reserved for partisan political appointments for... wait for it... partisan political appointments. Sort of. In some cases. Kinda. Perhaps 16 out of 33 times.

<p>
in the original Campbell Clark Globe story which prompted the "outrage", he unleashes this sweet bit of numerical analysis: "But instead of three members, Ottawa now picks a fourth drawn from the ranks of police officers, and has taken the vote away from the judges' representative, unless the other seven are tied. [emphasis added]". Got that? Only when "the other seven are tied" can the chair vote. Muse on all the various permutations by which seven votes can be "tied".

<p>
[...] Let's compare that to the actual record of the prior Liberal governments. As cited in this report, in 2003, just over half of federal Liberal appointees had donated to the Liberal party. In 2005, CanWest News Service found that more than 60% of judges appointed by the Liberals between 2000 and 2005 had donated to the Liberal party.

<p>
Remember the m.o.: when the Liberals actually abuse the process, it's not a problem; when Conservatives are wrongly accused of attempting to abuse the process, it's time to man the barricades. Here's the challenge for Canada's worst newspaper: (1) identify unqualified appointees to the bench who have been appointed by this government; (2) make even a semblance of an argument as to why the political predilections of an appointee should disqualify them from appointment - an argument which does not include "because I disagree with their views". Then, and only then, would there actually be a news story here.
</blockquote>

<p>
Read it all, as they say.

Actually that is hardly on point David. Read what I wrote above and try again. I am asking about the campaign to come. All Bob does is confirm that the Tories are no better than the Grits - which was the point of the columnist above.<p><b>Later:</b> Actually, that post by Bob is pretty weak - anyone who says there is no story isn't really thinking that hard about anything other than "MSM-evil", "MSM-evil", "MSM-evil". Small dead animalists would react well to such dopery.

The column says the Tories are worse than the Liberals.

When politicians do things, there is an inherent political bias: there is no "non political" way of politicians doing things. If the the various law societies don't want the minister to appoint "do not recommend" candidates, that's political. If the CPC wants a cop on board to provide perspective, that's political.

(more later -- I need to sleep)

I think the column says they Tories are doing worse than they said they would.

And therein lies the difference between those of us who are "liberal" or "modernist" in view and those that wish to stick to their perceived "traditionalist" lifestyle. We typically, even when we may disagree with anothers way of life or decisions, accept it and grant our approval through tolerance. Some of those that share the more "fundamentalist" view point are hard to read in their desire to change others. Is it because they truly feel it is their job to modify the world to meet their narrow minority view of how things should be or perhaps the mere knowledge of others living life differently makes them question their belief systems, and thereby they feel the urge to change the otehrs.

I guess in my narrow viewpoint, it is sort of like someone who quits drinking and must yack on about the evils of booze left and right and do what they can to promote prohibition. Is it because they must re-inforce their beliefs by changing others? Is it because they can only ensure they won't fall of the wagon if no-one around them imbibes? Is it because they just cannot fathom that others don't have the "problem" they did and can enjoy the evil brew without going haywire.

Dunno.. but they bug me

I think Bob has a valid point (and I'm reading my opinion into this to more than a little): the "MSM" is implicitly lying by trying to pass themselves off as non-partisan or objective. The Globe was concerned about partisan hacks being dumped into judiciary review positions, there was a hell of a lot of hay to be tossed over the last decade.

And now to the crux of the matter: do _you_ think there was something wrong with the way Liberals were appointing judges? Or that there was some tweak that you think is critical for them to have made? Because if you don't, the issue of whether the Tories are doing the same thing becomes somewhat moot.

Allow me to re-cast my point: for a story which has run on the front page of the Globe and Mail for two days straight, there is absolutely no "there" there. No one has identified the appointment of an unqualified judge. No one has identified the appointment of an unqualified JAC member. All that has been "reported" is that slots reserved for partisan political appointments have, in some cases, been filled with partisan political appointments. No one promised not to do that. No one, so far as I can tell, is even arguing that reserving those slots for government appointees is a bad thing. No one has identified the appointment of a relentlessly ideological judge, and, what's worse, no one (and I use "no one" to refer to our friends in the media) has even been able to explain precisely <i>why</i> the appointment of a relentlessly ideological judge would be a bad thing - except for vague insinuations that because some judge might have some "conservative" (defined however you wish) views, this is inherently a bad thing. I hardly think the media is "evil" - but this torqued reporting is, on my estimation, relatively solid evidence of their incompetence. Or "dopery", if you like.

This is <i>not</i> the crux of the matter:<blockquote class="smalltext">And now to the crux of the matter: do _you_ think there was something wrong with the way Liberals were appointing judges?</blockquote>Time to stop drinking the "Liberals bad" ad koolaid and remember who is running the government now. Time to make them accountable for what they do.<p>Hi Bob: I take your point and by "weak" I mean that and not "dumb." I think it is more important to look at the problem ourselves and not how the paper has framed it. Sure there is a side story as to possible misrepresentation and dopery and that is perfectly fine to point out but I would argue that is unimportant ultimately. That is why I mean it is a weak argument.<p>The bigger picture and the stronger argument is this nutty idea that we are in need of a re-establishment of some vague thing called "tradition" or "heritage" by non-libertarian unconstitutionalist neo-cons. (Constitutionalist old school Tories and other forms of neo-cons do not have this interest and if they were honest would fight it tooth and nail.) So if the judiciary were now not only being loaded with hacks but hacks with this new unclear agenda that is a bad thing or at least a more noteworthy one. Where that differs from what has been done with North American Courts frankly since the US's New Deal is that the "tradition" or "heritage" is neither widely accepted or based on explicable policy. It is just the angry man reaction - and the Big Angry Man theory seems to be what the CPC is being guided by: the need to stay in power to stop things and change things because something has gone wrong...but no need to actually explain what it is that had gone wrong.

I haven't drunk the "Liberals bad" koolaid, when it comes to judicial appointments. Do you have a problem with the way the Liberals appointed people to this commitee and do you have a problem with the way the CPC is appointing them? If the answer is "no" to both questions, I totally fail to see the point of everything else you are saying.

<i>The bigger picture and the stronger argument is this nutty idea that we are in need of a re-establishment of some vague thing called "tradition" or "heritage" by non-libertarian unconstitutionalist neo-cons. ... So if the judiciary were now not only being loaded with hacks but hacks with this new unclear agenda that is a bad thing or at least a more noteworthy one.</i>

Hmmm. I think we're seeing a split between conceptions of the judiciary. Is the judiciary supposed to be an apolitical (or extra-political) mechanism or is it simply another venue for the decision of political questions, but by means other than electoral politics? I assume for these purposes that we're limiting our discussion to appellate courts, since stare decisis and appellate review will act to constrain any radical shifts at the trial level. If you take the latter position (which I do, which is that the courts are simply a different venue for the decision of political questions, neither more nor less legitimate (within the framework of the Constitution) than the legislature), then I'm unable to see how appointment of judges with defined political views (which they all undoubtedly have) can be objected to <i>except on the basis that one disagrees with their views</i> (i.e., a partisan basis). You might object to the appointment of a Clarence Thomas, I might object to the appointment of a Rosalie Abella - but we're having an essentially political disagreement, not something which turns on the nature of the judiciary.

David: it is an common rhetorical technique to reframe a question and then seek a yes or no answer as a gotcha. It is simply not an interesting one in this case. Follow the conversation.<p>Bob: I think we agree on the political nature of the role of the court - it is a branch of government. But when the political policy behind a matter affecting the judiciary is as unclear as Harper's policy is, I think that concern is warranted. <p>He is striking me as sort of a third-rate Jacksonian: some sort of majoritarianism based on a minority out to fix a problem that creates no mischief using techniques and policies he will not enunciate for fear of being found out. If I were a conservative, I would find this very depressing as it is essentially an admission that the ideas will not stand on their own merit.

Jacksonianness.

I am following the conversation; you're not making a case. The only issue you've identified is "tinkery", which turns out to be ... well, I'm not sure, but it sure as hell looks like business as usual. From there, you've turned this into that Harper is trying "fix [us] as a nation".

Yes, because that is what it is: the social engineering agenda of the minority, unless you can describe it as something else. You can't of course and are uncomfortable doing so because of the implications that you can't accept. Furthermore, in my crystal ball, I see you moving about uncomfortably in your chair as you read this, knowing you have to compromise your libertarian principles in favour of old time nanny state "traditionalists".

I feel your pain.

<i>He is striking me as sort of a third-rate Jacksonian</i>

Oh, at least second-rate, shurely! ;o)

<i>: some sort of majoritarianism based on a minority out to fix a problem that creates no mischief using techniques and policies he will not enunciate for fear of being found out.</i>

I'm not sure that's the case - we're still waiting, after all, for evidence of any actual appointment of a "Trojan horse" judge.

<i>If I were a conservative, I would find this very depressing as it is essentially an admission that the ideas will not stand on their own merit.</i>

I think that posits the situation as a false binary (i.e., either conservative policies are implemented through the legislature or through the courts, but not both). Assuming that the Globe's account is correct (which I'm not yet ready to concede) and that the bench is about to be flooded with under-qualified reactionaries, would this not simply be an attempt to use both available mechanisms to effect policy - in short, not ceding the field to the other side (i.e., not abandoning the judiciary to non-conservatives)?

My main problem with the judiciary right now is my BestBuy code to get presale Police tickets didn't work, and trust me that has me squirming in my seat and in pain far more than any alleged issue with Harper appointments.

Woohoo! A GenX@40 lawyer-vs.-lawyer deathmatch.

I wager 40 quatloos on the newcomer.

"...would this not simply be an attempt to use both available mechanisms to effect policy..."<p>I agree entirely. My only issue is there is no statement of policy and when one points out there is not statement of policy one hears one of two things: "tradition" or "YOU ARE SAYING THERE IS A SCARY AGENDA! I AM TELLING MOMMY". The third may, of course, be the case - that the statement of policy has been expressed but only at frequencies non-CPC supporters cannot hear.<p>So, were there the actual policy debate, it would be clear that the CPC has an constitutionally perverted understanding of the role of the judiciary, meaning their policy is really structural and about the division of powers much more than it is about any substantive of law. I am confident that in a full debate, that is a losing argument with the Canadian public as it is essentially the sort of courts we and the US and England had around 1880 when judge made law supported the reactionary discriminatory legal system behind the dark Satanic Mills, etc., etc. If the public were aware of the dangers of this, the Tories would be out on their arse for another two decades. That is why it is not discussed - that and the ineptitude of the opposition right now.

Yesterday's Question Period debate on this point is a useful source of fuel for this fire. Note around 2:20 pm this comment:<blockquote class="smalltext"><b>Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): previous intervention next intervention</b><blockquote>Mr. Speaker, the government's objective is very clear. We want safer communities and streets for Canadian families. In terms of the judicial system and how our country works, Canadians are clear. They want a Parliament that passes laws and they want a judiciary that is independent, interprets those laws and applies the laws. Everything we are doing is designed to achieve that objective.</blockquote></blockquote>If they actually want an independent court interprting the law, why all the quacking we have also heard about the dangers of "judge-made law". Interpreting law and reviewing law as against the constitution are the proper mandates of the Court even though that is exactly what people mean by "judge-made law".

Not being happy to find out that this means sometimes conservativism (or any other political agenda) framed in the form of "our tradition" is upset is hardly of any interest to anyone serious about the constitutional division of powers. Unless you are not interested but actually seek to undermine the constitution that that division protects.

Best.. comment.. ever.. (with a STDS9 Reference)

Woohoo! A GenX@40 lawyer-vs.-lawyer deathmatch.
I wager 40 quatloos on the newcomer.

Isn't that first generation Star Trek? The one where three super-intelligent blobs of light have roman-style gladiator games featuring whatever space-trash they could capture and where Kirk teaches a slave girl/gladiator-princess about stars and how to kiss? A classic.

Why, yes it is. Interesting to note Chris is more risk adverse in his quatloos betting.

"If they actually want an independent court interprting the law, why all the quacking we have also heard about the dangers of "judge-made law". "

Why? BEcause "Interpreting law and reviewing law as against the constitution are the proper mandates of the Court even though that is exactly what people mean by "judge-made law"." this is not what people mean by judge made law.

Aren't you playing semantics games here, Al? The Torie complaint has been, as has the Conservative down here, that the independent judiciary has been made dependent to politics. How to solve that? To appoint Constructionists who say that the Con(whosever Con) says what it says and nothing more. It doesn't change over time. Anything new has to be put in place by the Legislature AND synch up with pre-existing law.
Your response: But that's political!
(You also criticize the Tories for wanting to put in social conservative jurists. Just being fair.)

Now, are the Tories actually putting in Constructionists? I don't know the people named in the article but it doesn't look like it. But we know you would cry Political! even if the appointees actually were true Constructionalists(previous thread). If they aren't of your own judicial theory they're bad and need to be bash-bash-bashed. It looks like. (At least you didn't try to link constructionalism to Fascism, but you came up with the next best shun inducing term: Southern Racism.)

The article claims that the Tories aren't appointing people to find Constructionists as promised. Which is fine as far as it goes. But it's the unstated, blatantly pbvious, 'be afraid!' implied message that's trully objectionable---which is what Bob and Chris are railing against.

Why quack about 'judge made law'? Because it isn't the judges job to make law! It is to apply said law(s) to a given oddball situation. Not make shit up about said law(s) to get a desired social outcome. In the words of the GX40 Glee Club President: That's not democratic. Nor is it in line with either the US or CAN constitutions.

If nothing applies hand it to the legislature to figure it out---the legislature's Constitutinally enshrined job---and then ensure that whatever they came up with does not contradict pre-existing law---the judiciary's job.

So give me a Constructionist if you want a judiciary that's trully decoupled from politics and desired social outcome.

You are not fair. You are continuing an argument I was not at. You are implying a raft of arguments I do not make. You do so to fit your response into your one anticipated slot. You have to start again. Start by reading the 1803 Marbury v. Madison ruling.

Laws that stayed static and didn't evolve with society would have us still keeping slaves and locking up girls for getting abortions. I'll see your constructionist and raise you two evolutionists.

If you, too, could cogitate on the latter part of <i>Marbury</i> it would be educational.

Ah, but the Constructionist would allow for the people to make the ammendment to the Con wouldn't they? They could gut the parts of the Con that made reference to slave keeping and so long as they had the 2/3 states majority they'd have to let it pass. THe people have written a new law that the SCOTUS would then have to parse and apply.

An evolutionist, like Brown, would simply force it down people's throats---and cause bloodshed in the case of racism.

Democracy is a nasty and imperfect business. Sometimes the forces of 'good' will lose. But given the power of the cultural forces in play Good typically wins--if at a slower pace.

Read T. Sowell's 'Conflict of Visions'. Though it is more about Conservatism than COnstrucionism, it makes a decent argument about Conservatism and change. I.e. it isn't about freezing things at this particular moment in time(or returning them to the 1950s). It isn't anti-change or anti-progress. It makes the case that not all change is what it's cracked up to be and ought not to be done.

Constructionism, analogously, accepts that the Judiciary has carefully defined powers. It can do x. It can never do y. Which progressives and Living Document types, based solely by the reactions of progressives/LDers to people like me and Scalia saying that SCOTUS can't do certain things because it's outside their perview, apparently cannot tolerate that at all. 'What do you mean that there's no such thing as medical privacy in the Con? We want abortion and we want you to make it legal! Now! Hop to it!' So poof. RvW, and a very inconsistent new law about 'privacy' in medicine shows up outta nowhere. I'm saying nothing about abortion as abortion, but alot about how the decision was arrived at. Compare RvW with the Solomon decision. Congress made a law, which is its job, that instituted a social outcome. SCOTUS upheld the right of Congress to do so. RvW. 9 people decided that the nation would now follow something the majority didn't vote for nor had the opportunity to vote for on a line of reasoning many trained jurists find suspect(where exactly is this right to privacy and how does it square with the Food and Drug act? Oh, it evolved. That makes it okay then.)

Yes, I'm making them very one dimensional. That's for illustration only, Al. Things really are more complicated than presented. No pinching for that. (ow!) I'm telling.

I've got Marbury v Mad in a text book around here somewhere's. I prefer hardcopy. I'll ask tomorrow what it is exactly you wnat me to see, deal? And could you explain the Marshall thing? Are you talking about Justice Thurgood Marshall? I don't get that reference at all, Al. Care to explain it in rather superficial manner, if possible?

Read the last quarter where he creates constitutional democracy though making judge made law. It was the first ruling after Jefferson shut the court down for 14 months. Prior to the ruling it was assumed the Constitution was a political document.

<blockquote>
If they actually want an independent court interprting the law, why all the quacking we have also heard about the dangers of "judge-made law".
</blockquote>

<p>
Two comments come to mind now:

<ol>
<li>
Is the concept of "judge-made law" so outlandish, the people making the compaints so far out to lunch, that you cannot even admit that this may be a concern for so people. Or is it just "quacking" from ignorant losers who don't know to mind their own business?

<li>
Is the accusation of "stacking" the courts with "right wingers" not a similar type of quacking? What is that they are worried about, that these judges are going to do? Make up stuff outside the law -- i.e. do "judge made law". Because once again, if they're doing stuff within the law I'm not sure what the complant is.
</ul>

1. Given that it is self-aware anti-constitutionalism, no. It is a wallowing of the conversation. The discourse of our divided powers needs raising so that the PMO under any party does not, through control of the largest legislative caucus, become a throne room.
2. I am less concerned with stacking the court than the disrespect of the role of the court. But if the court is stacked with anti-constitutionalists who do not follow stare decisis that is bad. If it is stacked with people like the present US Chief Justice, it is not bad.

More on the difficulty of discussing an assessment of policy goals like the above. Talking is extreme.

More useful discussion.

Give me time. It's a rather dense 17 pages after all.

Hurry up. There are 27 more cases for you to get though before the weekend.

Oh Christ, Jeffy Simpson. What's the difference between him and a blogger, besides a paycheque?

Okay, let me try to lay out some thinking here. We're really talking about whether Marbury v Madison created a living document arrangement or not. Whether it created a situation of Judge Created Law(RvW) or simply Judicial Review(We get to say what an Amendment or Act means so long as it still synchs up with the rest of the Con, if we're using MvM as an example)---the two are not synonyms.

Let's look at what was found:
1) The President had every right to appoint Marbury.
2) SCOTUS had no right to force, by writ of mandamus, to force the gov't to fork over the appointment because it was not a power given to SCOTUS in Art. 3 Sec. 2 of the US Con and the 10th Amendment.

This is saying that the SCOTUS is bound by what the Con says. SCOTUS was constrained by what the CON said. How do you get from there to Living Tree?

I think we're running into some problems of def'n that's leading us to talk past each other. Why does, in your opinion Al, judge made law=Judicial Review? If MvM says that the SCOTUS is bound by what the CON says---and all the CON---how do you get to Living Tree? I can see that 'we get to decide what an Act or Amendment means' leads you there, but not when faced with the 'being bound by other parts of the CON' as was found in MvM(SCOTUS didn't have the power to hear a case about mandamus)? This shall be edifying, no?

Judicial Review seems to have a much narrower def'n to me. One that comes far short of the vernacular 'Judge Made Law'.
(and I'm still re-reading and ruminating---moooooo)

David: could it be the smug self-satisfied look only ever surpassed by that of Peter Gzowski?

Ry: no one had ever said before that the President was constrained by the constitution or that the court what the mechanism of constraint. The Court made that up.

Plus - it is exactly when courts review law (which is not "interpreting" it) when it gets accused of making stuff up. By the way, courts do not interpret law at all. They construe it which leads to them determining the proper construction. I have a six-hundred and thirty odd page book at my desk on the rules for construing. This is in addition to the rules of reviewing that are found in the hundreds of constitutional cases.

I think really the worst you can say here Alan is that the conservatives have appointed advisers who offer a non-binding opinion to offer an endorsement to judicial candidates whom the Conservative party is predesposed to like. I'm not entirely sure why that's scandalous. Is the fact the Conservative Party seeks to use the levers of government to promologate its political beliefs unusual? Hardly, they've done nothing new.

I suspect if you asked Conservatives what they wanted out of a judge they'd suggest tougher sentences on criminals. Beyond that they'd probably want the last 20 to thirty years of constitutional stupidity undone and a return to the lines of precedent that preceded that. Its really a scary bit of social engineering isn't it? Crime actually being punished, and social policy decisions being made in parliament..while judges return to purely technical decision making.

<blockquote><i>...Beyond that they'd probably want the last 20 to thirty years of constitutional stupidity undone and a return to the lines of precedent that preceded that. Its really a scary bit of social engineering isn't it?</i></blockquote>This is the nub of it - it's exactly like those in the US around 1800 who wanted to undo the Bill of Rights.<p>Grow up. The Charter <i>is</i> the constitution. Judges are making the technical decisions they are asked to make under our constitution. They were asked to makes these decisions by a majority of legislative bodies that were conservative who voted for the Charter. The people who do not like that now amount to well less than 30% of the population.<p>That makes it anti-constitutionalist minoritarianism. That is not like anything any other party or government has promoted before.

I have often thought that politicians - and I include most lawyer politicians - have a rather peculiar view of how judges function within a constitutional framework.Basically it goes like this: when the judge agrees with the politician's perspective he or she is properly construing the constitution or statute, and when he or she does not we are seeing unwarranted judicial activism and trampling of the intentions of our sovereign Parliament. From this peculiar view it follows that it is the person not the constitution or statute who matters and therefore the selection procedure should ensure that "people like us" are appointed to the bench.

If this peculiar view were actually true then the notion of an independent judiciary would be no more than a polite fiction.

What the peculiar view tends to ignore are the constraints placed on even the most "liberal" or "conservative" judge by the nature of the legal system. First - with the exception of references - they are at the mercy of the facts in evidence before them. Second, only rarely will an issue come up where there is no decided law which must be dealt with in the judges' reasons. Third, judges are largely limited to the arguments made by counsel. Finally, judges can only decide cases which are actually before them.

A judge, blood spitting conservative or moonbat liberal, can initiate nothing.

The peculiar view of politicians assumes that a judge with an agenda will be in a position to implement that agenda whereas almost the exact opposite is true.

An ideal appointments process would look for such qualities as wisdom, insight, empathy and brute intelligence; but as no one will be able to agree on the nature of those qualities we settle for an argument about "tradition" vs. "progressivism".

The good news is that the vast majority of judges know better.

I am alarmed by the clarity of that, Jay. Does this mean my hand might hover over CPC next time, too? Nothing makes the sense it did a few minutes ago.

"Ry: no one had ever said before that the President was constrained by the constitution or that the court what the mechanism of constraint. The Court made that up."
I'm not sure I agree with this. Look at the parts of the Con that actually speak to the powers of the Presidency(Article 1). They're very specific. It may be that nobody held to that befure MvM, but it was there. Marshall didn't create it out of thin air.

The good news, Alan, is that it will not matter a great deal where your hand wavers, the sheer momentum of the system will ensure that change will occur slowly, if at all.

Leaving the CPC aside for the moment, the essence of the conservative position (largely ignored by righty fashionistas), is that the state and its institutions process at a leisurely pace towards an unknowable destination. Very little will disturb this procession including ideological judges or honest politicians.

This amounts to an inherent faith in the common sense of the people and the humility of their actual leaders. It is a hard argument to make amidst the tumult of the news cycle; but the punctuated equilibrium of the modern liberal democracy suggests that there is rather more sense than nonsense in the polity which keeps it alive.

As you well know, even the most rambunctious citizen tends to defer in a Court of Law. Is it the Canadian Coat of Arms behind the judge....I don't think so. Is it inherent deference to law...no, else why would the citizen be there? Instead, I would suggest that it is the average person's knowledge that his world is a much better place with law than without. It is of such deep understanding that the state, and those who sail in it, are protected from the tempests of political intemperance and the squalls of partisanship. The branches of the willow dance in the wind, the roots are steadfast, the tree remains.

That'd be a living tree, right?

More on the moral minority.