Republicans Waterfall Judicial Subversion

Janice Rogers Brown Confirmation Vote (Live Blogging),” by Matt Margolis, Blogs for Bush, 8 June 2005,
By Matt Margolis at 04:56 PM

Janice Rogers Brown: CONFIRMED: 56 – 43

Now that the filibuster debate is shown to be a waste of time and the 4GP Republican attack on the courts steams ahead, what does this mean?

It is a waterfall attack.

A Mighty Waterfall

Imagine that the world is one long valley. You want to change that world, to dam up the river and flood the valley to make lakes. But the people in the valley will oppose you, because if you win and have lakes they lose and no longer have their land. So how can you build your lakes in the face of this opposition?

First, build one damn near the source of the river. The once that is built, open the floodgates. Wash away the nearest concentration of enemy forces — the closest settlement — and build your second dam there. The first damn is the hardest to build. But once one dam is built and one lake created, the next is easy. Just open the floodgates – start a waterfall attack – and gravity destroys your enemy for you. After that, repeat.

The Opened Floodgates

The same thing is happening with judges. Seizing and controlling the senate is a 4GPS3/Subvert-Reorient attack. Once that is done, the Senate itself launches a 4GPS3/Subvert-Reorient attack against the Courts. A waterfall attack at work. Classic PISRR-4th Generation Politics.

One thought on “Republicans Waterfall Judicial Subversion”

  1. I think that you're being a bit off in describing the Republicans as attacking the courts with judge Brown's confirmation. In fact, they are attacking the leftist network of judges inside the courts.

    Your construction makes it seem as if the Republicans are attacking the institution of the judiciary instead of attacking the ideological network that currently dominates the courts. This unnecessarily limits the appeal of your work to an ideologically agreeable audience instead of what it should be, a general work that can be appreciated by everybody across the spectrum.

    An attack on the courts themselves would be characterized by attacks on judges across the ideological spectrum, perhaps a campaign of assassinations, intimidation, or changes in the size and scope of the judiciary akin to the Roosevelt court packing plan. The successful confirmation vote of a justice does not constitute an attack on the court per se.

  2. TM: Thanks for the note. I think English is ambiguous here.

    If we see the Senate as a battlespace, and the Courts as the objective, then it is an “attack on the courts in the Senate” the same way the Iraq War was “an attack on Iraq in the Middle East.” In neither case is the attack directed at the institution being “attacked” (the Courts, Iraq) — only at its regime.

    There have been rumblings for a fundemental undermining of the institution of the Courts (with National Review and kuro5hin having an oddly symbiotic relationship on the issue), but that it is of a different kind than what is happening.

    You're right there is not been a campaign of assassinations. Using a network analogy, I've taken to calling this “node takedown”

    However, the waterfall method allows an attacker to bypass the need for node takedowns. The Republicans are launching a full-spectrum assault to take the judiciary (“on the Courts”)

    Stage 1 – Agitation-Propaganda, spreading of horror stories, etc
    Stage 2 – Network Contestment, building up the Federalist Society, establishing mentor networks, etc
    Stage 3 – Make Laws, use the power of the Senate to increase the number of Conservative judges

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *