June 27, 2008
The Constitution is a Hoax!
My personal favorite treatment of the illogic of the minority in D.C. v Heller comes from WSJ's James Taranto in yesterday's Best of the Web.
"The [Supreme] Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons," Justice John Paul Stevens writes in a brave dissent in District of Columbia v. Heller, the just-decided case striking down the federal district's near-total ban on firearms.Stevens is right. Who are they trying to kid? And yet a razor-thin majority of the deeply divided justices expect the American people to swallow this hoax. Supporters of this so-called right to keep and bear arms claim that it dates to 1791. (That faux precision is a nice touch--not 1790 or 1795 but 1791.) A bunch of dead white males are supposed to have gotten together and assembled something called a "bill of rights." The more extreme exponents of this view claim that the so-called bill limits the tools available to elected officials not just with regard to firearms but a whole host of other things: "freedom of religion," "freedom of speech," "cruel and unusual punishment," etc., etc.
Delectable! There's more, if you care to Continue Reading...
Reuters has their number. "Although an individual now has a constitutional right to own guns, that new right is not unlimited, wrote [Justice Antonin] Scalia, a hunter," the news service reports today. Justice Stevens is 88, and he is generally considered old. If this right really dated back 217 years, Reuters could not describe it as new.
Scalia engages in a lot of fancy-pants wordplay in order to conceal his hoax. For example:
In any event, the meaning of "bear arms" that petitioners and Justice Stevens propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby "bear arms" connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving "bear Arms" its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war--an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. . . . Worse still, the phrase "keep and bear Arms" would be incoherent. The word "Arms" would have two different meanings at once: "weapons" (as the object of "keep") and (as the object of "bear") one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying "He filled and kicked the bucket" to mean "He filled the bucket and died." Grotesque.
Yet constructions like this allow us to point out that Justice Scalia created out of whole cloth a new constitutional and pandered to the extreme right. You can see why they make him uncomfortable.
Scalia also faulted Justice Stephen Breyer for taking account of the practical implications of this so-called constitutional right:
He criticizes us for declining to establish a level of scrutiny for evaluating Second Amendment restrictions. He proposes, explicitly at least, none of the traditionally expressed levels (strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis), but rather a judge-empowering "interest-balancing inquiry" that "asks whether the statute burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statute's salutary effects upon other important governmental interests." . . .. After an exhaustive discussion of the arguments for and against gun control, Justice Breyer arrives at his interest-balanced answer: because handgun violence is a problem, because the law is limited to an urban area, and because there were somewhat similar restrictions in the founding period (a false proposition that we have already discussed), the interest-balancing inquiry results in the constitutionality of the handgun ban. QED.We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding "interest-balancing" approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government--even the Third Branch of Government--the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges' assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.
Here is what Breyer had to say in his dissent:
The argument about method, however, is by far the less important argument surrounding today's decision. Far more important are the unfortunate consequences that today's decision is likely to spawn. Not least of these, as I have said, is the fact that the decision threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States. I can find no sound legal basis for launching the courts on so formidable and potentially dangerous a mission. In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas.
Surely everyone can agree that as a practical matter, Breyer has the better of the argument. After all, Heller was decided only a few hours ago, and already the District of Columbia has declared a "crime emergency."
May 14, 2008
Loving v Virginia
I guess I am a whiner, but I find it easy to rattle off a dozen Supreme Court decisions that I think are evil, affronts to liberty or just totally whacked. Lochner, and Korematsu, and Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson all live in infamy, I hope the bulk of their work is ignored because it is so good.
When asked to name unambiguously good SCOTUS decisions, I always lead with Loving v. Virginia. The 1967 case has been in the news of late because Mildred Loving has recently passed away. Kim Strassel did a nice segment on the FOX News Journal Editorial Report, and the NYTimes has an interesting article today with some interesting backstory.
The Supreme Court ruling underscored the stupidity and unfairness of segregation. And the case drew back the curtain on the secret history of race in the South. But for Mildred and Richard this struggle was not about changing the world. It was about fighting for the right to be married to one another and then returning to the community that was their home.
An unalloyed good -- from the Warren Court, no less! I find it hard to name others. No doubt Brown was the right choice, but look what its remedies have done. I like Beck, and Bakke, and Schechter Poultry Corp v United States, but then I run out of good ones.
October 23, 2007
Unhappy Anniversary
The markets have recovered spectacularly from their losses twenty years ago. But the Supreme Court of the United States has not been so fortunate. Gary McDowell recaps this historical outrage and puts it into perspective. (free link)
Twenty years ago today the United States Senate voted to reject President Reagan's nomination of Judge Robert H. Bork to the Supreme Court. The senators may have had every reason to believe that was the end of the story. However ugly it had been, however much time it had taken, Mr. Bork's defeat was only one more routine sacrifice to partisan politics. But time would prove wrong anyone who actually thought that. The battle over Mr. Bork was politically transformative, its constitutional lessons enduring.
My favorite piece of trivia from Justice Clarence Thomas's book was that Judge Bork and his wife joined him for a dinner to celebrate Thomas's confirmation. Bork had set the stage for the Thomas fight. Thomas had the advantage of knowing how brutal the opposition would be, and less of a paper trail.
Post Bork (think about the world if Bork had been confirmed instead of Anthony Kennedy) we have inured to these confirmation battles and adapted: Bush's picks of Alito and Roberts are stellar. But the pain and trials documented in Thomas's memoir are gut-wrenching.
Chief Justice Taney was not conformed because of his work as President Jackson's AG in opposition to National Banking. Advice and consent is not new. Nor I suspect is bitter partisan rancor. But the intrusion of direct politics seems new and unwelcome:
The price paid has proved high, indeed. The defeat heralded a fundamental transformation in the process surrounding judicial appointments and thereby radically politicized the public's view of the nature and extent of judicial power under the Constitution. Confirmation battles from Mr. Bork to Clarence Thomas to Samuel Alito have taken on the trappings of ordinary political campaigns, from instant polling to rallies and protests and attack ads. Sadly, the courts are no longer above the fray.
Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg answered no questions and her leanings and philosophies were well known. Yet she was approved 96-3, based on her intellect and integrity. It is a crime that the same offer was not extended to Judge Bork.
UPDATE: I guess it is a good day to bring this up. I have had a copy of this paper on my hard drive for some time. "Sex, Lies and Jurisprudence: Robert Bork, Griswold, and the Philosophy of Original Understanding" by none other than blogging deity Glenn Reynolds (moment of silence as the prophet's name is invoked...).
Professor Reynolds links to it again today as he links to McDowell's piece and says "I also think that Bork was an unsuitable nominee who deserved to be rejected. And I say this as someone who is, in fact, more of an originalist than Bork, whose originalism was of a rather dubious and frequently uninformed nature."
I'm a big Bork fan. While there's every possibility I am just not bright enough to grab the subtleties, a couple readings of this (lengthy but very accessible) paper leave me wondering if Reynolds and I read the same book. I do not see the points in "Tempting" that Reynolds refutes.
If the Perfesser is "more originalist" than Bork, that's swell. I see Bork as more originalist than any of the current members save Thomas and possibly Roberts and Alito. The "Borking" gave us Justice Kennedy and likely frightened off several originalist nominees and the Presidents who would choose them. I cannot see how anybody who seeks original intent or text would not agree that the cause was not served when Bork was defeated.
Think on this: with Bork on the court, the Kelo ruling would have been on the side of freedom.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at October 23, 2007 4:11 PMIt's difficult (and depressing) too imagine all that would have been different had we been ruled by the American Constitution for the last 20 years.
Posted by: jk at October 23, 2007 5:37 PMJune 25, 2007
Free Speechifying
While the rest of us are disappointed in today's Supreme Court "McCain-Feingold" ruling not going far enough to eliminate the dissent crushing provisions, "blackrobe" at Keystone Politics complains for another reason.
Once again, the court reverses a recent holding. This panel has shown that it has no respect for the notion of stare decisis.It's funny how conservatives are concerned about the free speech rights when money and power are involved.
Yeah! Because a living constitution only flows in one direction! To the left! Political speech be damned!
Besides, there's no do overs in Supreme Court decisions! None! Once decided, things just are!
Waaaaaaaaaaah.
Explicitly political speech was exactly kind of speech the framers wanted to protect. McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance "Reform" was a direct attack on that.
April 3, 2007
Cry havoc! and let loose the wars of DAWG
In Jolly Green Justices, the WSJ Editorial Page -- let us say -- registers its disappointment in the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling in Massachusetts v EPA.
The five Supreme climatologists granted Al Gore's fondest wish by declaring that "the harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized." The majority warned about a "precipitous rise in sea levels," "severe and irreversible changes to natural ecosystems" and "increases in the spread of disease."
So, I suppose the science is settled. If SCOTUS has embraced the DAWG, who am I to be skeptical?
I laugh to keep from crying. Every presidential candidate in both parties has, so far, publicly accepted the precepts of anthropogenic global warming. The EPA will continue to be a great cabinet appointment for one of the more liberal members of any party. I was a big fan of Gov. Christine Todd-Whitman until President Bush gave her the keys to that regulatory behemoth.
Now, that position will have the power to devastate the economy, and even a President McCain or Giuliani will appoint a DAWG acolyte. I shudder to think of what havoc a President (HR) Clinton or Obama administration could wreck.
As the editorial is not available online, I have included all the text (Click "Continue Reading...") This is important to read in full.
The current Supreme Court is a talented group of jurists, but until yesterday we didn't think their expertise ran to climatology. The Justices would have done better in their big global warming decision if they'd stuck more closely to the law.They showed no such modesty. In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, a narrow majority managed to diminish the rules of judicial standing, rewrite the definition of "pollutant" under the Clean Air Act, and dramatically curtail the decision-making authority of the executive branch. And judging from Justice John Paul Stevens's 5-4 majority decision, they did so because the five Justices are personally anxious about rising temperatures. As Justice Antonin Scalia noted in dissent, the "Court's alarm over global warming" has led it to substitute "its own desired outcome" for the EPA's judgment.
The case goes back to 1999, when activists frustrated that Congress hadn't enacted a global warming program demanded that the EPA use its Clean Air Act power to unilaterally regulate CO2 "pollutants" from cars. The EPA declined to do so in 2003, claiming it lacked authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2. The greens and several states turned to that mecca for frustrated liberal policy makers -- the courts.
The five Supreme climatologists granted Al Gore's fondest wish by declaring that "the harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized." The majority warned about a "precipitous rise in sea levels," "severe and irreversible changes to natural ecosystems" and "increases in the spread of disease."
The Court used all of this not-so-inadvertent opining to justify its conclusion that CO2 is indeed a "pollutant." The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to regulate "any air pollutant" from cars that might "endanger public health or welfare," though the majority took the widest view that the definition includes any "physical, chemical" substance that goes in the air. (Next up: oxygen.) Justice Scalia poked fun at this reasoning, noting Webster's definition of "pollute" is "to make or render impure or unclean" -- which might apply to sulfur dioxide or other dirty gases but not a product of human respiration that resides in the upper atmosphere.
In any case, isn't this something for Congress to decide? Global warming was already a hot topic in 1990, when Congress last amended the Clean Air Act. Yet it declined to enact amendments that would have forced the EPA to set CO2 emissions standards. The Members have since been engaged in periodic brawls over whether and how to regulate CO2, but, voila, the High Court has now declared that it shall be so.
The ruling means the EPA must regulate automobile CO2 emissions unless that agency can show the science of global warming, or the potential harm it may cause, are too uncertain to justify action. The Bush EPA will no doubt be sued whatever it does. Congress will also dive in with more regulation, if only to clear up the legal uncertainty.
Perhaps most distressing is the way the majority made a hash of traditional "standing" doctrine, which determines when a plaintiff has a right to sue. To justify its global warming afflatus, the Justices simply asserted that the Massachusetts coastline faces imminent threat from rising seas. Not even Mr. Gore goes that far. But the Court cites climate models to suggest future harm in order to claim the threat of immediate injury, and thus standing by the Bay State.
"Aside from a single conclusory statement, there is nothing in petitioners' 43 standing declarations and accompanying exhibits to support an inference of actual loss of Massachusetts coastal land from 20th century global sea level increases," writes Chief Justice John Roberts in his dissent. "It is pure conjecture."
And done for the purpose of pure policy invention. Standing is one of the few self-restraints on the power of the federal courts, and it is a far too frequent habit of the current Supreme Court to view its own power as unlimited. By diluting the standards for standing, the High Court creates a highway by which judges can speed past the political branches and play an ever larger role in American public life.
It is also worth noting that this is at least the third case in two years in which Justice Kennedy has provided the fifth vote for a decidedly activist liberal majority. Someone recently quipped that Justice Stevens considers it his late life's work to compete for the jump ball that is the jurisprudence of Justice Kennedy, and he seems to be winning most possessions.
(Copyright 2007, Dow Jones & Co. -- stolen without permission).
I suppose somebody has to be the Cuffy Meigs of our times ...
Posted by: mdmhvonpa at April 3, 2007 12:10 PMThis SCOTUS decision is Step 8 in the Road to Serfdom pamplet linked in the previous post.
Thanks for the text JK.
Posted by: johngalt at April 3, 2007 3:39 PMOctober 19, 2006
jk sides with liberal jurists
I disagreed with Justice Scalia on Raich v Gonzales, now I have to side with Justices Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Stevens against my hero, Justice Thomas.
Law.com - Gimme an 'S': The High Court's Grammatical DivideJustice Clarence Thomas, writing for the Court (and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel Alito Jr., Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia), concluded that the Kansas statute was not unconstitutional. In reaching this conclusion, Thomas repeatedly referred to the relevant law as Kansas' statute.
In response, Justice David Souter wrote a dissent that was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens. The dissent revealed Souter's bitter disagreement with both the substantive conclusion of the majority and the grammatical philosophy of the opinion's author. Whereas Thomas apparently believes that whenever a singular noun ends in "s," an additional "s" should never be placed after the apostrophe, Souter has made equally clear his conviction that an "s" should always be added after the apostrophe when forming a singular possessive, regardless of whether the nonpossessive form already ends in "s."
I'm a Stunk & White guy (hence, cannot jump) and the first rule as I recall was to always add apostrophe-s except for Moses' and Jesus’' (a computer trade magazine suggested adding Gates')
Hat-tip: Taranto, who adds more complexity from the WSJ style guide.
June 29, 2006
Making Lemons
John Hawkins @ Right Wing News wants to make lemons of this morning's Gitmo SCOTUS decision.
- So we can't put them in front of a military tribunal, but we can still hold them indefinitely.
Also, if the reasoning here is supposed to be that Congress hasn't approved of military tribunals, then let's put it up for a vote. My suspicion is that most Democrats would favor putting these terrorists through the American court system, which would mean long drawn out trials, the risk of classified intelligence sources being revealed, and lots of acquittals. On the other hand, Republicans would favor military tribunals, which would sidestep all of those problems.
So basically, we'll have the Democrats who'll be so concerned about the terrorists rights that they'd favor letting them beat the system and get loose to kill more Americans. On the other hand, the Republicans won't be very concerned about the right of foreign terrorists and their first priority will be protecting America. Protecting the rights of Al-Qaeda or protecting America?
That would make one hell of a 2006 campaign issue.
March 2, 2006
The Supreme Judiciary
It's a good thing for Justice Thomas that the biggest news story today is the Bush Administration's advanced warning of the destructive power of Katrina.
Otherwise, his narcolepsy while the court was in session would have been front page.
I'm sorry. Not Justice Thomas.
Former ACLU lawyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
- The Supreme Court had put the Texas cases on the fast track, scheduling an unusually long two-hour afternoon session.
The subject matter was extremely technical, and near the end of the argument Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dozed in her chair. Justices David Souter and Samuel Alito, who flank the 72-year-old, looked at her but did not give her a nudge.
The court has struggled in the past to define how much politics is acceptable when states draw new boundaries to reflect population shifts.
I could see how the technicalities could be boring. But being the ultimate arbiter of American judisprudence is not my line of work. Couldn't someone have gotten her a cup of coffee?
Ok, I gotta jump in with a side comment. Speaking of the Supreme Court, how about the first major decision of the new Roberts Court? The conservatives were on the losing 6-3 end of trying to uphold the Attorney General's power to supercede Oregon's right to die statute. What? The conservative non-activist side is against federalism and directly for challenging a state law by spurious use of anti-drug trafficking laws? How is this either conservative or non-activist?
Posted by: Silence Dogood at March 2, 2006 3:41 PMSame score as those who blew off Federalism in Raitch v Gonzales, but not the same people.
There are very few pure Federalists (I would cite Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review). I fear most others use it when it serves their interests.
I wish it were more firmly followed as a guiding principle but I have learned to be disappointed. Oregon v Gonzales is a blow for Federalism only if you ignore Raitch.
Here's an article from NRO.. http://www.nationalreview.com/smithw/smith200502230745.asp
From the summary, it was more about the Controlled Substances Act and use of drugs regulated by it.
The conclusion..
"Gonzales v. Oregon is one of the most important public-policy cases to come before the Supreme Court in recent years. But we should be clear about what it involves: It isn't about whether states have the power to legalize assisted suicide. That issue is not before the court. Nor is it a dispute over "states' rights," as apologists for assisted-suicide assert. Rather, the Court's ruling will determine whether the federal courts will resurrect John Calhoun's long-discredited doctrine of state nullification by permitting states to opt their citizens out of generally applicable regulations with which they disagree."
Maybe you both missed my main point, that lately "judicial activism" is more about what you are being active about than whether you are being active. I would describe judicial activism as inserting judicial power via interpretation of laws rather than allowing the legislative branch (as our elected representatives) to pass laws that govern our interactions. In this case I believe it would be perfectly applicable for the US Congress to pass a federal law banning assisted suicide. This to me would be the proper way to supercede a state law, rather than using an interpretation of the Controlled Substances Act. (which was put in place to control trafficking) The Constitution seems very clear that those powers not granted to the federal government are granted to the states. Additionally how do you not classify the Attorney General's action as executive activism as he too is interpreting laws to reach for the conclusion he wants. Whenever I hear conservatives wail for "strict constructionist" judges rather than "activists" I say bring 'em on. Let see how pleased they are if those judges really do act as constructionists and do not promote the conservative active agenda.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at March 3, 2006 12:48 PMI would have to agree with Silence on this one. I don't know any more details on this ruling or on Raich than I've read here, but to claim that justices ruling in favor of christian morality in clear contravention of individual rights are not activists is laughable.
Posted by: johngalt at March 3, 2006 3:34 PMFebruary 1, 2006
Alito's First Day
The other day I rejoiced in the news that we now have a new SCOTUS Justice.
With hopeful anticipation I wrote...
- I for one eagerly await the continued strip searches of 8 year old girls, the addition of boys to the list, coathanger abortions and warrantless phone tapping.
Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom got a copy of Justice Alito's first day's itinerary.
- 7:53: Called his temporary clerk; citing “inherent authority” given the executive under the Constitution, demanded work begin on compiling a database on “non-traditional uteri”—defined by Justice Alito as “those potential gestational chambers that are used for purposes that do not include GOD’S MANDATE that we ‘be fruitful and multiply.’” This includes such abominations as the introduction into the giddyslit of synthetic or organic objects that have the potential to do grievous damage to future conception(s).
8:17: Prank phonecall to Cameron Diaz in which he identified himself as “the Patriarchy Police” and informed her that, now that rape has been legalized, she would need to leave Tuesdays and Thursdays open between 11am and 2 pm (with a working lunch, which would “likely consist of strawberries, whipped cream, honey, or flavored gels").
Good to see he's jumped right into his work.
January 31, 2006
Finally
The nearly year long odessey of endless Supreme Court yammering is over.
Justice Alito is now the 110th Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
I for one eagerly await the continued strip searches of 8 year old girls, the addition of boys to the list, coathanger abortions and warrantless phone tapping.
Let's throw in checking my library withdrawls too.
My inner political hack must point out the obvious: it ends with a big win for President Bush. Roberts and Alito remain stellar picks and constitute a campaign promise kept.
Posted by: jk at January 31, 2006 3:51 PMIt's beginning already! Cindy Sheehan was arrested at to SOTU this evening.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/31/D8FG1R500.html
January 26, 2006
Alito Filibuster
Drudge and CNN both are flashing that former Presidential candidate Senator John Kerry is going to initiate a filibuster.
A link off of Google News confirms it.
- Confirmed this info. Kerry's office says he is initiating a filibuster
. . . of the SCOTUS nomination of Alito. His office is rounding up support now.
I have confirmed this with John Kerry's office staff.
With Senator Byrd going for Alito, I believe the number of Senators for Alito stands at 54. Certainly filibusterable.
What remains to be seen is how the Gang of 14 will act.
By filibustering Alito, Kerry is definately pandering for the angry left vote.
This man was almost President. I hope this is not true, even though it might be a great thing for the GOP.
Posted by: jk at January 26, 2006 4:26 PMHere we go again. Dear Senator Salazar:
I was disappointed to learn that you were voting against this nominee.
I hope that you do not join a filibuster. I rarely suggest that someone looks to Senator Byrd for guidance, but he is right about the politicization of the confirmation process and right that integrity and qualifications matter.
Judge Alito clearly has a majority of the US Senate, including three Democrats as i write. Please honor your "gang of 14" pledge and do not join a filibuster against this nominee.
Posted by: jk at January 26, 2006 4:47 PMByron York at the Corner thinks it's a bit of harmless Kerry weaseling
From a Senate source: Kerry's call for a filibuster comes after his leadership, that is, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, decided there won't be one. In other words, Kerry was making a brave, Kos-friendly pronouncement in the total confidence that a filibuster will never happen. And now, word is, he is off to Davos to continue what some Republicans are calling a "filibluster."
http://corner.nationalreview.com/06_01_22_corner-archive.asp#088399
Byrd to Vote Yea
My brother-in-law just called with the news that WV Senator Robert Byrd will vote to confirm Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. He decried the politicization of the confirmation process and said that it should be about integrity and qualifications.
I hate to spoil the moment, but he will be facing reelection this year in a state that is getting redder by the minute. There may be some politics, but there is more honor. His history in the august body paid off here. Bravo Senator Byrd!
January 24, 2006
Screw Stare Decisis
Judge Alito's recommendation from the Judicial Committee was given today 10-8, and his nomination now heads to the Senate for likely confirmation.
Justice Alito will no doubt vote differently from Justice O'Connor and overturn very soon, the worst Supreme Court decision of my lifetime. I can hardly contain my enthusiasm.
Roe who? I am talking about McConnell v. FEC., where the court determined that First Amendment rights apply only to Illinois Nazis (man, I hate Illinois Nazis) and child pornographers. Those of us who care about the direction of the country and its polity will have to live under McCain-Feingold.
A case is perhaps headed to SCOTUS in time for the next election :Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC that could curb McConnell or give the Roberts Court a chance to revisit it. The WSJ Ed Page sez:
A far better result would be for the Supreme Court to use this as an opportunity to revisit McConnell altogether. There is some hope that this could happen. Let's not forget that the deciding vote to uphold McCain-Feingold came from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who may now have heard her last case. Judge Sam Alito is likely to replace her soon, and his track record suggests he is more sympathetic to free-speech arguments.Meanwhile, Congress might want to bear all this in mind as it attempts to atone for its own recent ethical lapses by enacting lobbying "reform." The practical effect of any such legislation will be to further curtail political free speech, restricting the rights of citizens to petition their government. If this case shows anything, it's that there is no such thing as "good" restrictions on free speech.
McConnell is, of course, Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell who braved scorn from the elites, media and many of his fellow Senators in a brave attempt to defend our rights.
January 13, 2006
Reprehensible Club
It seems the Senior Senator from Massachusetts, who didn’t know how Judge Sam Alito could be part of "that reprehensible club" meaning CAP, is part of a club that does not celebrate diversity. The Washington Times reports:
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy belongs to a social club for Harvard students and alumni that was evicted from campus nearly 20 years ago after refusing to allow female members.According to the online membership directory of the Owl Club, the Massachusetts Democrat updated his personal information -- including the address of his home, which is in his wife's name -- on Sept. 7.
The club has long been reviled on campus as "sexist" and "elitist" and, in 1984, was booted from the university for violating federal anti-discrimination laws, authored by Mr. Kennedy.
Neither this man, nor his party will pay the slightest price for this stunning hypocrisy, but all four of this blog's readers can enjoy it.
Double Hat-tip: NewsMax.com email & Taranto
All four readers? You mean "frequent authors!"
Posted by: AlexC at January 13, 2006 4:31 PMYou're right -- make that "five."
I did campus radio once. The same deal, you never really know who's listening...
Posted by: jk at January 13, 2006 4:59 PMI don't know JK, takes a lot to stun me these days, even given my own dislike of Sen. Kennedy. Maybe its the 6 years of President Bush's "simple Texas boy" shitck and his rantings against the "East Coast liberal establishment". Yeah, who could trust those pompous children of priviledge attending Andover and Yale....
Skull and Bones, they admit women?
Then again, my Dad's a Mason (queue spooking music here)
Posted by: Silence Dogood at January 14, 2006 4:16 AMThe voters of Massachusetts endure the hypocrisy and shame of having this filthy little man as their Senator for one reason: He has pull.
When the power to distribute the wealth of others is stripped from government then men like Kennedy will take refuge in the only place they can still prosper: College campuses.
Posted by: johngalt at January 14, 2006 11:27 AMSilence, my problem is not a general personality comparison between Senator Kennedy and President Bush (though I have strong feelings there), my point is the amount of time in the confirmation hearings that Sen. Kennedy spent in righteous indignation about Judge Alito's membership in CAP. Listening to that all week and reading this was a little much for me to bear.
Joe Biden, Time Traveller
D'ja catch this? Senator Biden goes on the Today Show (daring to face the fierce political onslaught from Katie Couric) and complains that Judge Alito didn't answer his question.
Fine, but he hadn't asked it yet:
Three hours later, in Round 4 of the hearings, Biden finally got around to asking the question he used as a defense to Couric three hours earlier. Again, check out the time stamp.
Hat-tip: Insty
January 12, 2006
Ups and Downs
Picks and Pans, Tony or Tacky, Ups and Downs. I have some thoughts from the hearings:
UP Chairman Arlen Specter. No, I can't believe I am writing this. But he was good as Chairman and provided as I suggested the most balanced questioning during his allotted times. He was neither sycophantic nor aggressive. I thought I had lost it, but a friend emails similar thoughts:
I've not seen all of this, but what I've seen of Specter has been impressive. He is engaging in substantive debate, remaining respectful and demonstrating how these things might be conducted if serious people participated. [...] The upside is that most people don't get or care about legal trivia, but they all understand the wife's tearful exit after watching her husband savaged by the compassionate, caring party. Alito wins, and you are right, Democrats, thoughtful ones, have to wonder what kind of hands they are in with leadership like Kennedy, Schumer, Leahy, et. al.
Down Senator Kennedy. I had forgotten just how bad he is. I heard him on the radio (NPR in my rental car) saying that he still can't come to terms with how Judge Alito could have joined "that reprehensible organization" twenty or thirty years ago. Senator, I don't know how you left Mary Jo Kopechne to die thirty years ago. I guess it's all just water over your car after a while. (I apologize to those who expect more reasoned debate from me. A day with the Dems has poisoned me.) I asked my emailer "isn’t anybody in Massachusetts or the Democrat party embarrassed about this man?"
UP Senator Lindsey Graham Senator Graham has not been a team player nor reliable on conservative economic principles. But I was crying as much as the Judge's wife when he did his brilliant defense. My brother-in-law called and insisted that I tape the replay so I could catch Graham. I'm glad I did.
Up with a bullet President Bush and Judge Samuel Alito What a great nominee. I remain pleased by this nomination (and Chief Roberts's)
Level: Schumer, Leahy, Biden, &c. I didn't expect any better; I didn't get any better.
Long time Threesources readers know that I'm no fan of Senator Specter, but when he and Senator Kennedy (D-Tanqueray) were arguing about some letter that Kennedy wrote, it's hard to say he didn't put Kennedy back in his place. That felt pretty good. Finally!
Posted by: AlexC at January 12, 2006 5:11 PMJanuary 11, 2006
Kennedy & Alito
The hits just keep on coming.
- During an emotional barrage of questions about 20-year-old written statements by Judge Samuel Alito, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-MA, today inadvertently asked the Supreme Court nominee if he “believes in the principle of one fetus, one vote.”
Aides immediately alerted Sen. Kennedy that he had co-mingled two major Supreme Court decisions in his question, but Judge Alito chose to answer it anyway.
“Sen. Kennedy, I appreciate that question,” said the federal appeals court judge. “At no time have I ever opposed the right of a fetus — without regard to political affiliation, race, or sex — to cast a ballot once he or she has reached legal voting age. You raise issues of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, freedom of choice and civil liberties. Far be it from a judge, or anyone else, to ever interfere with those unalienable rights.”
Oh wait. That was Scrappleface. The best satire often has an element of harsh truth.
Alito Should Know Better
Ack. One of my personal pet peeves has been tweaked by Judge Alito.
Courtesy of Powerline, to which John Hinderaker, comments "Wonderful."
- "I don't think it's appropriate or useful to look to foreign law in interpreting the provisions of our Constitution," Judge Alito said in response to questions from Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, in the third day of the judge's confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
"I think the Framers would be stunned by the idea that the Bill of Rights is to be interpreted by taking a poll of the countries of the world," Judge Alito said. "The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to give Americans rights that were recognized practically nowhere else in the world at the time. The Framers did not want Americans to have the rights of people in France or the rights of people in Russia or any of the other countries on the continent of Europe at the time; they wanted them to have the rights of Americans."
The first part, I totally agree with... in terms of the first paragraph, I agree with Hindrocket. It is wonderful.
It's the second part of the statement that torques me off.
The Framers DID NOT GIVE US ANY RIGHTS the Constitution DID NOT GIVE US ANY RIGHTS and the Bill of Rights certainly did not "give us" any rights.
Rights are endowed by the Creator, or if your an atheist, at birth. No one gives them to you. They can only be taken away. The Bill of Rights sought to enumerate a certain set of rights, that the government has no ability to take away.
Don't believe me? Check the Preamble to the Bill of Rights.
- THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution...
The first ten amendments (twelve originally proposed) were to restrict government, not to give us anything! The Framers had the idea, and the personal knowledge, that governments eventually constrict the freedoms of their people. They wanted to hamstring, for lack of a better term, the government from doing so, or even attempting to do so.
Judge Alito, soon to be Justice Alito, should know the difference.
He better know the difference.
A government that can give you a right is the same one that can take it away.
That's a disappointing answer in an otherwise phenomenal performance.
Bravo and well done, AlexC. Perfect in every detail, right down to the "little a" atheist reference.
I suspect that Alito agrees with us and that this was a case of imprecise language. But Rand taught to take words precisely and literally. I hope that some Republican senator on the committee will ask the nominee about this as a follow-up question.
I propose that you suggest it to one of them!
Posted by: johngalt at January 11, 2006 3:28 PMBirthright liberty is the foundation of my belief system. I bore people with my three pillars of law, economics and skepticism, but insist that they are rooted in the foundation of Lockeian, Jeffersonian, birthright liberty.
So we all agree but I am not taking points off. Judge Alito has suffered the most grueling and humiliating three day job interview I can imagine.
The Democrat callers to C-Span say "He looks nervous." I would have been in the hospital yesterday. I'll give him this one.
Reply From Senator Salazar
Dear John:Thank you for contacting me regarding the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to be the next Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court.
President Bush nominated Judge Alito on October 31, 2005. Since his nomination, Judge Alito has visited with members of the Senate. In addition, the Senate Judiciary Committee has requested more information about Judge Alito in the form of a questionnaire. The Senate Judiciary Committee is currently conducting a thorough examination of his opinions as a judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and of his previous professional experience during his confirmation hearings on Judge Alito's nomination.I met with Judge Alito to learn more about his background, experience and views. While I appreciated his visit, I still have grave concerns about his nomination. That said, I look forward to hearing more from Judge Alito at these confirmation hearings. Until then, I will continue to carefully review and study his background and record in the manner consistent with the previous nominees. I believe the Senatorial duty of “advice and consent” is not to be taken lightly, especially with nomination to the highest court of the land. I will keep your concerns in mind with respect to this duty in the coming days.
Again, thank you for writing me.
Sincerely,
Ken Salazar
United States Senator
Five despicable words: "Ken Salazar, United States Senator."
I considered taking the time to call or write Salazar's office but concluded I'd prefer he vote to reject and, as a result, be expelled from office himself in the 2010 election. He's nothing but a proletarian lap dog.
Posted by: johngalt at January 11, 2006 3:25 PMMore Alito
C-Span reran the hearings last night and I was able to see quite a bit more.
I think my prize for tenor goes to Senator Arlen Specter. The Democrats I saw were in attack-dog mode. They have a powerful constituency to oppose any nomination from this President and are looking for any flaw they can hang an opposition movement upon. That is not serious governance.
The Republicans counterbalance this by throwing softballs and highlighting the Judge's achievements. Senator Specter nicely grilled the nominee, which I think is correct. They can have questions, too, and should.
The nominee is very impressive to me. I thought he handled himself with grace and flair.
I hope I live long enough that the court becomes something more important than "The US Board of Abortion Regulation." That all it is now to most of these folks. I didn't hear a question on Kelo v. New London (I didn't listen to it all), I didn't hear a question on McConnell v FEC and the only I time I heard about Raitch was when Sen. Hatch used it to compare Alito to Justice O'Connor (they are both on the correct side of this).
Lastly, it strengthens my resolve to be a pragmatist. We cannot make Senator Leahy Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. We cannot put Senators Schumer, Kennedy and Biden in charge. If that means we have to put up with RINOs like Snowe, Collins, and Chaffee, so be it. The other guys are not ready.
January 10, 2006
Alito Nomination
Being a political junkie, it breaks my heart that I just can't get into the Alito - Supreme Court goings on.
But the general meme from the blogosphere has been that Alito is competent, highly intelligent and killing the Senators. Especially in light of an exchange like this one.
- Like the bad lawyer he has proven himself to be, [NY Senator] Schumer asked one question too many:
- Q: Does the Constitution protect free speech?
A: Yes, Senator, the First Amendment protects free speech.
Q. Well, why can you give me a straight answer on that issue but not give me a straight answer on abortion?
A. Because the text of the Constitution explicitly includes the term "free speech".
Case closed. It's like watching the Washington Generals play the Harlem Globetrotters.
Wow. Judge Sam "Alioto" should have thrown a brick at the Senator. It would have hurt less.
Hopefully this video turns up.
Update: The transcript has appeared.
- SCHUMER: Does the Constitution protect the right to free speech?
ALITO: Certainly it does. That's in the First Amendment.
SCHUMER: So why can't you answer the question of: Does the Constitution protect the right to an abortion the same way without talking about stare decisis, without talking about cases, et cetera?
ALITO: Because answering the question of whether the Constitution provides a right to free speech is simply responding to whether there is language in the First Amendment that says that the freedom of speech and freedom of the press can't be abridged. Asking about the issue of abortion has to do with the interpretation of certain provisions of the Constitution.
Not quite the same brick as originally described but a good answer, nonetheless.
Update #2 The video is available!.
Tip to my co-conspirators at SantorumBlog.
Hate to pounce on someone for a slip of the tongue, but my favorite part of the Schumer torture was when he asserted that Plessey overturned Brown v Board.
Posted by: jk at January 10, 2006 7:55 PMI have an unfortunately busy week. I wish I watch them cover to cover. What I saw, Alito comes off VERY well. He is competent and decent and displays an encyclopedic law knowledge.
Remind our Coloradans to send a letter to Senator Salazar, our own Gang of 14 member. You can do it right from his website: http://salazar.senate.gov/
Alito said there is a right to privacy in the Constitution. He cited both the 4th and 1st amendments. This is good.
He said he would "follow the law" but what exactly does this mean when he's sitting in judgment of that very law? This is the only weakness I can point to in his oratory.
Posted by: johngalt at January 11, 2006 12:16 AMAs for Kennedy, he is clearly senile. The voters of Massachusetts have an inflappable brand-loyalty in political representation. I'm fully convinced a plurality of them would vote for Tookie Williams over Tom Brady if he changed his name to Tookie Kennedy. Well, except for the part about him being dead.
Posted by: johngalt at January 11, 2006 12:20 AMNovember 1, 2005
Thumbs up from WSJ Ed Page
The lead editorial in today's WSJ (free link) is a ringing endorsement of Judge Samuel Alito.
The court is important to me, but I cannot say that I follow the appellate courts and know the players. I look to others for opinions on different nominees. Great that there are so many lawyers and law professors blogging -- that provides educated assessments (and keeps them distracted from mucking up the economy!)
Probably nobody I trust more or feel closer political kinship with, than the WSJ Ed Page. I disagree with them on the drug war, but that's the exception that proves the rule.
The whole piece on Alito is positive, but here's my excerpt:
In commercial cases, his opinions reveal a regard for free markets and a recognition of the legal and regulatory challenges facing business. He's issued rulings in favor of commercial free speech and enforcing contracts as written. He's also a believer in federalism and putting some limits on the Commerce Clause--as seen in his Rybar dissent, where he cited Lopez to say Congress lacks the authority to regulate intra-state possession of machine guns. With the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist, this is a needed voice on the Court.
I'll toss in with the last line: "This is a rumble worth having."
October 31, 2005
An Extremist!
I'm ready to rumble...
Bush Picks Alito for Supreme Court - Yahoo! NewsWASHINGTON - President Bush, stung by the rejection of his first choice, nominated veteran judge Samuel Alito on Monday in a bid to reshape the Supreme Court and mollify his conservative allies. Ready-to-rumble Democrats warned that Alito may be an extremist who would curb abortion rights.
Were the opposition smart, they'd compliment the pick and watch the conservatives worry about endorsements from Ralph Neas and Senator Dodd...
I heard a liberal special interest spokesman (pardon me, spokes"person") say that Alito has written that the government "has no business prohibiting ownership of machine guns." I take this to mean the judge disputes the constitutionality of the Federal Firearms Act of 1934 and/or the more pernicious amendment to it in 1986. If so, that's a big mark in the FOR column.
It's going to take a while to get to know this nominee, who was one of the "one percenters" in the GOPUSA poll (below.) So far, though, so good.
Posted by: johngalt at October 31, 2005 2:37 PMIt could just be onomatopoeia, but I take it as a good sign that Instapundit links refer to him as "Scalito."
I give deference to other court followers and that guy in the Oval Office, but have not heard anyhing yet to turn me away from this pick.
Posted by: jk at October 31, 2005 5:59 PMFinally. A known quantity. Better yet, passed the Senate twice 100-0.
heh.
"Scalito" doesn't really bother me. But it does someone.
http://drudgereport.com/flash9ia.htm
October 28, 2005
Conservatives Want Brown
A GOPUSA poll of 1000 Conservatives (lets. see there are about ten in Boulder...) shows that most (72%) thought that Harriet Miers "did the right thing" by withdrawing and the consensus is almost as clear for the next nominee:
Judge Janice Rogers Brown: 46%
Judge Priscilla Owen: 12%
Judge Michael Luttig: 8%
Solicitor General Ted Olson: 8%
Judge Emilio Garza: 3%
Judge Edith Jones: 3%
Judge Samuel Alito: 1%
Judge Karen Williams: 1%
Larry Thompson: 1%
Someone Else: 16%
Count me in, though there is nobody on that list that I know whom I would not support.
I think this shows that Brown has become a judicial "rock star." When I form a mental image of her confirmation hearings juxtaposed with those of Ms. Miers there's a startling contrast of personality and, dare I say, 'gravitas.'
Let's hope that, just this once, the prez reads the polls.
Posted by: johngalt at October 29, 2005 10:47 AM65 or not, I have to say that I could go for Ted Olsen as well -- and he would be pretty confirmable.
Posted by: jk at October 29, 2005 4:38 PMOctober 27, 2005
YESSSS!
I'm sure she's a great person, but this is best all around!
WSJ.com - Harriet Miers Withdraws Nomination to High CourtWASHINGTON -- President Bush's controversial Supreme Court nominee, White House counsel Harriet Miers, suddenly withdrew her nomination this morning.
The move came after repeated attacks from conservatives worried that she wouldn't be an ally for them on the bench, and from critics across the spectrum about whether the president's long-time friend and personal lawyer -- who had no experience as a judge and little with constitutional issues -- was qualified to serve on the court.
Janis Rogers Brown anybody? The article goes on to say that the President will be weakened in his next pick. I'd say the Miers contretemps shaves a few points off, but don't agree that the Fitzgerald investigation or Iraq drags too heavily.
A good fight will rally the base right now and give the GOP Senate seats in '06 if not a conservative justice in '05.
Ding, Dong the Church Lady's Dead!
All hail... Janice, Rogers, Brown.
Posted by: johngalt at October 27, 2005 2:43 PMOctober 22, 2005
Three Abstractions
That's Attila's caption to this picture:
As they say, heh.
Miers Withdrawl
- The White House has begun making contingency plans for the withdrawal of Harriet Miers as President Bush's choice to fill a seat on the Supreme Court, conservative sources said yesterday.
"White House senior staff are starting to ask outside people, saying, 'We're not discussing pulling out her nomination, but if we were to, do you have any advice as to how we should do it?' " a conservative Republican with ties to the White House told The Washington Times.
The White House denied making such calls.
"Absolutely not true," White House spokesman Trent Duffy said.
How 'bout that?
Conspiracy theorists would say, "It was the plan all along. Get someone so ill-qualified that everyone on all sides would say, 'wtf?'"
Then she withdrawls amid the strum and drang we are experiencing now, and the President nominates one of the judicial all-stars that have been suggested instead of her.
Janice Rogers Brown, Michael Luttig, etc.
Smells of Rove to me. If I were into blaming everything on Rove.
I hope you are right. Reading Krauthammer yesterday, and Jonah Goldberg today, I really hope that this nomination does not proceed.
I don't smell Rove in this plan because I don't see that it will help the next nominee> Michael Luttig would be greeted with "Why not a woman like that nice Harriet Miers?" and Janice Rodgers Brown will be "why not a moderate like that lovely Ms. Miers?"
Score me on the side that says if Mr. Rove were not preparing for grand juries and stocking up on soap-on-a-rope, this debacle might not have gone down.
October 19, 2005
Harsh Medicine
Robert Bork offers some harsh medicine to President Bush today in a guest editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Slouching Toward Miers
He sets the tone early:
With a single stroke--the nomination of Harriet Miers--the president has damaged the prospects for reform of a left-leaning and imperialistic Supreme Court, taken the heart out of a rising generation of constitutional scholars, and widened the fissures within the conservative movement. That's not a bad day's work--for liberals.
And Mr. Bork doesn't ameliorate much from there:
By passing over the many clearly qualified persons, male and female, to pick a stealth candidate, George W. Bush has sent a message to aspiring young originalists that it is better not to say anything remotely controversial, a sort of "Don't ask, don't tell" admonition to would-be judges. It is a blow in particular to the Federalist Society, most of whose members endorse originalism. The society, unlike the ACLU, takes no public positions, engages in no litigation, and includes people of differing views in its programs. It performs the invaluable function of making law students, in the heavily left-leaning schools, aware that there are respectable perspectives on law other than liberal activism. Yet the society has been defamed in McCarthyite fashion by liberals; and it appears to have been important to the White House that neither the new chief justice nor Ms. Miers had much to do with the Federalists.
He claims that the President like his father "is showing himself to be indifferent, if not actively hostile, to conservative values."
I still think it is too late to pull this nomination, I just wanted to grouse a bit.
This is the most serious opposition I have seen. National Review, and even Kristol are taken seriously but thought to have other motives. Robert Bork is every conservative's idea of the perfect Supreme Court justice. This will take its toll.
October 13, 2005
Stinging Miers Rebuke
Taranto devotes all of today’s Best of the Web to a look at her testimony as a member of the Dallas City Council in Williams v. Dallas, a voting-rights case from 1989.
It is not shades of Robert Bork, it does not substantiate the President's promises of justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. It looks like a Kennedy or an O'Connor, if not a possible Souter.
It's hard to see the "church lady" overturning Raich, and part of the testimony portends poorly for Kelo:
Miers didn't directly address the question of eminent domain. But she described a tour of a South Dallas community in which the homes were not to her liking:
The construction of housing that was large in number, close together, close to the street where there wasn't a place for children to play or really just seemed so compact that it didn't seem like it was planned properly to provide the kind of environment where people could really exist and have much of an existence.
The expansion of eminent domain that led eventually to Kelo came about because the court in decades past decided that combating "urban blight" was a "public use" for which the government could confiscate private property. Miers's rather condescending thought that people in small, densely packed homes don't "have much of an existence" leads one to wonder if, were she on the Supreme Court, she would respect the property rights of those South Dallas residents or others similarly situated.
No word on where she stands on the infield fly-rule or the DH.
It's too bad you couldn't launch the pilot episode of "Internecine" this week.
It would have been awesome.
Posted by: AlexC at October 13, 2005 7:50 PMIndeed! But who's on the pro-Miers side? If Hugh Hewitt is busy, we're down to the guy who was dating her...
Posted by: jk at October 14, 2005 2:14 PMThe Full Tim McCarthy
Peggy Noonan offers advice to the White House today on the Harriet Miers nomination.
The Administration should listen, I have heard recently of a young woman who attributes a portion of her political success to the wise counsel of Ms. Noonan. Today, in her OpinionJournal column she offers advice on how to position withdrawal. My favorite is her first:
The full Tim McCarthy. He was the Secret Service agent who stood like Stonewall and took the bullet for Ronald Reagan outside the Washington Hilton. Harriet Miers can withdraw her name, take the hit, and let the president's protectors throw him in the car. Her toughness and professionalism would appear wholly admirable. She'd not just survive; she'd flourish, going from much-spoofed office wife to world-famous lawyer and world-class friend. Added side benefit: Her nobility makes her attackers look bad. She's better than they, more loyal and serious. An excellent moment of sacrifice and revenge.
The Fill Tim McCarthy should enter the lexicon. It's an awesome phrase and it honors a true hero and patriot.
Ms. Noonan, does not, however, address my concern, and I think it so substantive that I would dissuade Miers from withdrawal. It speaks of the left's vision of conservatism: that the entire GOP buckles when Pat Buchanan and Gary Bauer are upset. And a more conservative nominee would be pilloried with "We liked Miers! Why did they pull her and send up this extremist?"
Dark days.
Passed ball on third strike? No way.
October 10, 2005
Quote of the Day
Taranto at Best of the Web published letters it received in response to a post about the reaction to the Miers appointment at National Review's 50tth anniversary bash.
I know I'm among the newly converted, but this made me laugh:
I had to laugh at your unintentional Pauline Kael self-parody on Friday.
Shorter Taranto: "Nobody I met at a National Review event likes Harriet Miers." Now that's a revelation.
-- Kurt Brouwer
Throwing In With Kristol
Scoot over, Sugarchuck, I'm arriving late to the party, but I'd like a drink and a couple of hors d-oeuvres if they're not all gone.
I saw Mr. Kristol on FOXNews yesterday. They had taken a few minutes off discussing Aruban jurisprudence to evaluate America's and he repeated his call for Ms. Miers to withdraw, as he does on the Daily Standard website today. This was a nice riff, discussing the contretemps:
But the reaction of conservatives to this deeply disheartening move by a president they otherwise support and admire has been impressive. There has been an extraordinarily energetic and vigorous debate among conservatives as to what stance to take towards the Miers nomination, a debate that does the conservative movement proud. The stern critics of the nomination have, in my admittedly biased judgment, pretty much routed the half-hearted defenders. In the vigor of their arguments, and in their willingness to speak uncomfortable truths, conservatives have shown that they remain a morally serious and intellectually credible force in American politics.
I've meant all the good things I have said about Ms. Miers, and I appreciate that she has made me remember the excellent Mike Myers movie "So I Married an Axe Murderer" Not because they are both named Myers (though that's gotta be a conspiracy somehow...) but for his poem about his love: "Har-ri-et, Sweet Har-ri-et!"
Putting childish things aside, Kristol is right that if the conservatives actually do stand for meritocracy, they should ensure not that they get the vote they want, but that they put the best person on the bench.
I like the non-elitist, western-state nature of the pick. But like wanting a woman, you could fulfill the requirement and still do better.
Kristol is also right with the solution. Ms. Miers should withdraw her nomination. The President nominated her out of loyalty, she should withdraw out of loyalty.
The downside is appearance. Here's the narrative:
"President Bush nominated a consensus pick that hade wide support on both sides of the aisle, but the evil right wing conspiracy said she wasn't extreme enough! And this President knuckled under."
Pass me one of those canapés...
October 9, 2005
Constitutional Clarity
Two articles to consider, and being the administration flak that I am, I can spin them into a pro-Miers post.
The first is from Hillsdale College's "Imprimis" magazine. I hope everybody is reading this, subscriptions are free.
This month it is George Will, last month was Stephen Markman, Justice on the Michigan Supreme Court. Justice Markman makes a great point about the Constitution: "It ain't for all dem fancy, wingtipped lawyers and perfessers" (I paraphrase a bit...). The serious point is that it's not legalese, that every literate American can understand it. And that the biggest treat to understanding might be penumbras and emanations.
Myth or Misconception 5: The Constitution is a document for lawyers and judges.The Constitution was written for those in whose name it was cast, “we the people.” It is a relatively short document, and it is generally straightforward and clear-cut. With only a few exceptions, there is an absence of legalese or technical terms. While the contemporary constitutional debate has focused overwhelmingly on a few broad phrases of the Constitution such as “due process” and “equal protection,” the overwhelming part of this document specifies, for example, that a member of the House of Representatives must be 25 years of age, seven years a citizen, and an inhabitant of the state from which he is chosen; that a bill becomes a law when approved by both Houses and signed by the president, etc. One willing to invest just a bit more time in understanding the Constitution need only peruse The Federalist Papers to see what Madison, Hamilton or Jay had to say about its provisions to a popular audience in the late-18th century.
One reason I believe that the Constitution, as well as our laws generally, should be interpreted according to the straightforward meaning of their language, is to maintain the law as an institution that belongs to all of the people, and not merely to judges and lawyers. Let me give you an illustration: One creative constitutional scholar has said that the requirement that the president shall be at least 35 years of age really means that a president must have the maturity of a person who was 35 back in 1789 when the Constitution was written. That age today, opines this scholar, might be 30 or 32 or 40 or 42. The problem is that whenever a word or phrase of the Constitution is interpreted in such a “creative” fashion, the Constitution—and the law in general—becomes less accessible and less comprehensible to ordinary citizens, and more the exclusive province of attorneys who are trained in knowing such things as that “35” does not always mean “35.”
The second article is everybody's favorite Senator, Arlen Spector, suggesting that "Gosh durn it, that constitution stuff is purdy near impossible for some ol' Texas Gal to learn" (again, I paraphrase...)
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said President Bush's pick to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor must show she can handle complicated legal issues and has not cut deals with the White House to overturn Roe v. Wade.
I rush to Ms. Miers defense in some ways as a devil's advocate. She's not an obvious choice, but there may be a lot more to this "non-elitist" meme than many of her opponents are letting on.
October 4, 2005
Keeping an Open Mind
As the WSJ opined in their lead editorial, we only seem to have President Bush's word on the Miers pick.
I mentioned the "hopelessly upbeat" Hugh Hewitt as providing the positive side, but here is an even better one from The American Thinker
The GOP is not the party which idolizes Ivy League acceptability as the criterion of intellectual and mental fitness. Nor does the Supreme Court ideally consist of the nine greatest legal scholars of an era. Like any small group, it is better off being able to draw on abilities of more than one type of personality. The Houston lawyer who blogs under the name of Beldar wisely points out that practicing high level law in the real world and rising to co-managing partner of a major law firm not only demonstrates a proficient mind, it provides a necessary and valuable perspective for a Supreme Court Justice, one which has sorely been lacking.Ms. Miers has actually managed a business, a substantial one with hundreds of employees, and has had to meet a payroll and conform to tax, affirmative action, and other regulatory demands of the state. She has also been highly active in a White House during wartime, when national security considerations have been a matter of life and death. When the Supreme Court deliberates in private, I think most conservatives would agree that having such a perspective at hand is a good thing, not a bad thing.
I am digging the non-ivy league thing, that really is a plus. Running a business, friendly to the Executive branch, "conservative" in W's words.
I am concerned but I'm not jumping in front of the train just yet on this one.
Did you see the Monday night game? The one with Brett Favre berating Robert Ferguson on the sidelines for not fighting hard enough to hold onto the ball... the ball that was stripped from his hands after the completion and run back, setting up a Carolina TD. "You got to fight, you've got to fight harder!" Watching that was like watching the president's handling of the latest SCOTUS opening. People worked tirelessly for decades to get us to where we are, ... Republican president, Republican controlled sentate and two open postions on the bench. They busted their hind ends to get the ball into this presidents hands and W let the other side strip the ball from him and run the other way. He wasn't willing to fight for it.
I don't care much where Ms. Miers went to school, or what state she's from or where she goes to church; file all of that nonsense under "she has a really nice personality" and let's get to the point... she doesn't deserve to move to the head of the line over so many better qualified candidates. This is not an "earn while you learn gig" and for many of us, this was the single most important decision the president had to make. Republicans are supposed to believe in meritocracy.
And ya'all can keep the "I trust Bush" line because I don't, not any more. Not only that but his judgement on this was so bad it has me rethinking an awful lot of the rest we've had to trust him on. I don't know if this pick was hubris or idiocy, or both but I do know it stinks. We lament the fact that a truly engaging candidate seems to be a thing of the past. We weep and tear our garments over the mediocrity implied when there is no paper trail. But how many of us are going to write to our Republican Senators and demand better. There are enough Republicans and fence sitting democrats to put a real conservative on the bench, a conservative with the intellectual firepower not to simply vote as we would like, but to articulate the powerful arguments neccassary to uphold their decisions when future courts revisit things. Sadly, we won't get that nominee in Ms. Miers. I had serious doubts about W when he backed Arlen Specter over his primary challenger but I didn't expect him to completely roll over, placing political expediency over principal in such a critical area.
One last thing... damned if I know why liberals are all so giddy about this lady. I would be darned scared of an evangelical church lady that jumped parties after finding God. Those folks tend to be pretty serious and shouldn't be trifled with. She will most likely be another yes vote for the right. My guess is that I will agree with her votes more often than not. That still doesn't mean she belongs on the court.
I'll put you down for a "no," then...
I am far from confident that this is a great pick. But I reject a few things that I continue to hear from the detractors.
Idiocy or hubris? Running from a fight? I don't get it (well, yeah, maybe idiocy...) But I don't agree with the running from the fight sect, and by extension your fighting for the ball (I did see the game and I did see Farve's disapprobation, I thought I'd rather get hit in the ribs catching a high one up the middle than face Farve like that!)
Like Emerson, I will look for the best in others. I may doubt whether this is a good pick, but don't doubt for a second that W thinks it is a great pick.
Throw out "Trust W" for an argument. The best arguments I have from club Polyanna are:
-- non-elitist, western state, non-academic;
-- pro business;
-- pro executive;
-- pretty certain vote against Roe.
Your pessimism to me is betrayed by your inclusion of Chief Justice Roberts. I had my questions when that one came down, but after the Senate hearings, I am sold on our new Chief.
A concern with my party is that the right wants a fight. I would have loved a good scuffle over Janice Rodgers Brown as much as anybody, but if a constructionist gets on the bench with Leader Reid's blessing, we can get on to other items.
I agree that the Democrats will rue the day they let "church lady" through and, yes, she is a vote and not a leader. Neither of those depresses me that much.
Let me ask you this...what did you hear from Mr. Roberts that leads you to think he won't be another Souter. What did he say that set you at ease. I didn't hear a thing. Is he brilliant? Yes. Is he qualified to be on the court? Yes. Was it fun watching him reduce Biden to rubble? Of course. Should Bush have picked him? I don't know. The fact is, Alan Dershowitz is samrt and facile and qualified to be on the Supreme court but I wouldn't have wanted Bush to nominate him. If you are right and Bush truly believes he put up the best nominee in Ms. Miers then Bush's critics are right and he shouldn't be president. If I am right and he chose to back down from a fight he should have been preparing for prior to his first inauguration then he is a weasel and he has betrayed a large number of the folks that got him elected in the first place. I've put up with record spending and compasionate conservatism and Republican Lite all in the hopes that he would get this one thing right and he has blown it. I don't fault him for Katrina or 9/11 aftermath or any of the other things that have been dropped in his lap but this, along with his signature on McCain Fiengold, suggests he doesn't take the court seriously.
Posted by: Sugarchuck at October 6, 2005 3:07 PMYou know how to hurt a guy. Signing McCain-Feingold is one of the worst things President Bush has done. And, yes, it's a clear abdication of his Constitutional responsibility.
What did I see from (now Chief Justice) Roberts? Exactly what we're not seeing today from Ms. Miers. A man who belonged on the court for his skill and intellect (like, say, Robert Bork).
Safe to say, I'll trust the President on his ideology. I don't know what happened with Blackmun, but those who bring up Souter forget that Bush pere took his eye of the ball and trusted John Sununu. I do trust Bush file not to do that. Maybe an O’Connor, maybe a Kennedy, not a Souter.
I have also had to trust others. I don't know Chief Justice Roberts but I liked what I saw (Biden-abuse!) and I liked even better what I read on PowerLine and other lawyerly blogs. The PowerLine guys know more than I do and are less interested in another Souter than I am.
The truly lamentable fact is that the Supreme Court, like so many modern institutions, has forgotten the primary guiding principle this nation was founded upon - Liberty for all. The purpose of the Constitution is to limit government's intrusion upon the rights of the people. The Supreme Court, as final arbiter of the Constitution's principles, should hold an individual's freedom from government coercion as its highest principle. Federalism is a valuable concept, but upholding it cannot be allowed to trump liberty.
JK takes solace in the estimation that Miers is a "pretty certain vote against Roe." Reversal of Roe is an example of the government infringement upon liberty that I'm referring to. But I take no solace in the fact that, despite this estimation, anti-Roe conservative luminaries such as Robert Bork, Ann Coulter and Sugarchuck consider Miers' nomination a "complete disaster." She is still "the church lady."
The Supreme Court was never meant to function as a "jury of our peers." The court was to enforce the Constitution's restrictions upon the government. Its justices were presumed to be ever loyal to the Constitution they swore an oath of allegiance to. But when politically motivated presidents promote command-economy liberals and science-phobic theists to the court, that court eventually devolves into a mini-legislature with its members casting ideological votes rather than rendering objective judgments. It is a case of Left vs. Right vs. Liberty.
Posted by: johngalt at October 10, 2005 12:53 AMVery nicely put johngalt.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at October 10, 2005 10:25 AMOctober 3, 2005
Weekly Standard Editors Split
William Kristol is Disappointed, Depressed and Demoralized by the Miers nomination:
I'm demoralized. What does this say about the next three years of the Bush administration--leaving aside for a moment the future of the Court? Surely this is a pick from weakness. Is the administration more broadly so weak? What are the prospects for a strong Bush second term? What are the prospects for holding solid GOP majorities in Congress in 2006 if conservatives are demoralized? And what elected officials will step forward to begin to lay the groundwork for conservative leadership after Bush?
His colleague, Fred Barnes, is -- by comparison -- dancing in the aisles!
So why did Bush choose Miers? For him, these nominations are quite personal. He wants to feel comfortable with his nominee, confident his pick will be a conservative now and conservative 20 years from now. Bush picked Roberts after being impressed while interviewing him. His doubts were erased (and there were initial doubts about Roberts). My guess is with Miers his doubts were washed away too.Conservatives shouldn't throw up their hands in despair, at least yet. They should wait until they hear from Miers as a witness before the Senate Judiciary Committee. It's then that we'll begin to find out if Bush was correct in his view that she's the person to fulfill the dreams of so many conservatives and finally shove the Supreme Court to the right.
Call me circumspectly optimistic...
I am throwing in with Kristol. As to why I don't trust Bush on this or the Roberts nomination see depressing GOP facts below. W has it right on defense and that is good enough... I guess. It's all we have for now.
Miers as Derek Jeter
Quick! Read this before Senator Biden tries to abscond with this analogy.
"The Anchoress" advises readers to "cool their jets" on the Miers nomination. On that I must agree. Then she plays her baseball analogy: Derek Jeter's intangible assets:
He’s been the Yankee Shortstop for ten years - he has tremendous heart, a baseball IQ that is off the charts, two things that are both intangible and invaluable, and yet his whole career he has never been called “the best shortstop playing…” by people who spend all of their time memorizing stats and looking at box scores to tell them “the whole story.” And yet, Jeter is proof that checking off stats in a column can never give you a complete picture of a player and what they bring to the game.
The Anchoress thinks President Bush, knowing her well, may have seen some of these intangibles in Ms. Miers.
Like Hugh Hewitt, I have learned to trust the President on the big things. While I am very concerned, I am going to give this some time before I see "Souter in a Dress."
SCOTUS Nominee #2 Today
Looks like the President will announce his second choice today.
And the Democrats are promising a fight.
So let's do it.
Borkborkborkborkborkborkborkborkborkborkborkborkborkbork.
The blogosphere roundup of Meirs on Instapundit is not good. I heard a lot of negative thoughts on Roberts and have been quite pleased. Perhaps, President Bush knows something that others do not, and perhaps he is selling all of his supporters down the river...
Posted by: jk at October 3, 2005 11:38 AMI was in Jury Duty today (my first!) http://pstupidonymous.blogspot.com/2005/10/jury-dooty.html so I didn't have time to look around... but on the drive home, Michael Medved was very up on her. Especially as an "original intent" Constitutionalist.
Where's the fight though? F*ck. I was promised "some spending of political capital"... Where's Luttig? Janice Rogers Brown?
Do we know she's a good conservative? I don't know. She teaches sunday school at a "fundamentalist" church.
We'll see.
The Judiciary isn't really my beat. I'll leave it to the experts.
Posted by: AlexC at October 3, 2005 4:22 PMSeptember 29, 2005
Hail, Chief Justice Roberts!
The Wall Street Journal reports that he has been confirmed 78-22. I like to win as much as the next guy, but am I the only one bothered that Justice Ginsberg got 93 votes, and John Roberts 78?
I guess it will not matter to the Chief Justice, as long as he was confirmed, but I am disturbed that 22 Senators think a well qualified person should be kept from the bench because they don't agree with some aspect of his or her politics.
Among the Senate's Democrats, 22 opposed the nomination, saying the candidate could turn out to be as conservative as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court anchors on the right."I hope I am proved wrong about John Roberts," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, (D., Mass.), the Senate's longtime liberal stalwart. "I have been proved wrong before on my confirmation votes. I regret my vote to confirm Justice Scalia, even though he, too, like Judge Roberts, was a nice person and a smart Harvard lawyer."
Sorry Senator. Elections matter.
Kennedy had more than that to say. From: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00245
"And try as I might, I cannot find the evidence to conclude that John Roberts understands the real world impact of court decisions on civil rights and equal rights in this country. And I cannot find the evidence to conclude that a Chief Justice John Roberts would be the kind of inspirational leader who would use his powers of persuasion to bring all the Court along on America's continued march of progress. Therefore, I do not believe that John Roberts has met the burden of proof necessary to be confirmed by the Senate as Chief Justice of the United States."
What part of the Constitution compels the Supreme Court to consider "the real world impact of court decisions?" That's like saying the "real world" impact of the Constitution should have some bearing on whether or not we abide by it. He is pledging loyalty to only those parts of the Constitution with which he agrees - such parts as are supportive of (or at least, not hostile to) "civil rights and equal rights in this country." I'm quite certain that the oath taken by the senator from Massachusetts was quite different from this.
Kennedy adds,
"Both in committee and on the floor, some have argued that those of us who oppose John Roberts's nomination are trying to force a nominee to adopt our "partisan" positions, to support our "causes," to yield to our "special interest" agendas.
But progress towards a freer, fairer nation where "justice for all' is a reality -- not just a pledge in the Constitution -- is not a personal "cause," or a "special interest," or a "partisan" philosophy or ideology or agenda."
But Kennedy's notion of "fairer" is the antithesis of "freer." If one individual is prevented from keeping all of the fruits of his labors because it isn't "fair" to other, less industrious individuals, then freedom is in descendence. This is what Kennedy means by "justice for all," in direct contradiction to what the founders established.
Posted by: johngalt at September 29, 2005 2:51 PMWhen I say I expected better, I must confess I didn't mean Senator Kennedy.
I could see as many as ten nay votes, but 22 surprises. Bayh, Feinstein and Clinton surprise.
Posted by: jk at September 29, 2005 5:48 PMSeptember 23, 2005
18-0
WSJ Ed Page:
That was the vote count when the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmed Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer in the 1990s, and it should have been the vote for John Roberts yesterday, instead of 13-5. The two Bill Clinton appointees are every bit as liberal as Judge Roberts is conservative, and they were just as unforthcoming during their confirmation hearings on how they would vote on specific cases.Instead, five Democrats voted "no" yesterday. Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin and Ted Kennedy claimed they didn't know enough about how Judge Roberts would rule on specific precedents. Joe Biden was, well, Bidenesque. Dianne Feinstein apparently thought the candidate had been nominated for Chief Family Man instead of Chief Justice. "Rather than talking to me as a son, a husband, a father -- which I specifically requested he do -- he gave a very detached response," she said yesterday. Imagine that: A judge who is restrained.
I'm happy that the Roberts confirmation looks good. But my rightwing nutjob friends are right. There is ZERO legitimate reason to vote against Judge Roberts; the comparisons with Ginsberg make the Democrats look very bad. It is lucky for them that the media won't point this out to anybody.
UPDATE: I loved John Hinerocker's comment on Powerline:
This may be the most bone-headed statement of the year. I want to go back to the Ruth Ginsburg confirmation hearing and find where the Republican Senators asked her what kind of a mother she is. The feminists would have loved that!
Indeed.
September 13, 2005
Jonah!
In the Corner, Jonah Golberg nails Senator Joe Biden:
The man loves his voice so much, you'd expect him to be following it around in a grey Buick, in defiance of restraining order, as it walks home from school.
September 5, 2005
Now THAT'S Funny
I got beat up when I linked to what I thought to be a serious Scrappleface post. Here's hoping y'all will like this better:
"When Sandra Day O'Connor retired, we insisted Bush appoint a centrist to replace her and maintain the balance on the court," said one unnamed Senator. "Now, we demand that the president name a right-wing, conservative, originalist to replace Rehnquist for that same reason."The Senator explained that balance is the most important feature of the high court, trumping ideology, logic and the intent of the framers of the constitution.
"As much as we'd like to have another lefty like [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg, we must maintain balance," the anonymous legislator intoned. "Even if it means overturning Roe v. Wade, we Democrats shall remain true to our principles."
Hat-tip: Insty
I can't imagine why that senator would want to remain anonymous with such great insights...
Posted by: Silence Dogood at September 6, 2005 4:20 PMSeptember 4, 2005
Requiescat In Pace II
Atilla at Pillage Idiot speaks to Cheif Justice Rehnquist's determination and courage. It's easy to forget how liberal the court he joined was.
But those of us who were in law school when Rehnquist was only an Associate Justice have a more vivid memory of him as a principled and lonely defender of an approach to law that had been all but turned on its head during the Warren Court. Rehnquist got the nickname "Lone Ranger" by filing solo dissents and refusing to go along with much of the legal doctrine then prevailing. (It goes almost without saying that Rehnquist was the target of a disproportionate number of barbs in the law school show, a comedy written by students. Students today have a larger number of targets.)
UPDATE: Taranto does a Sunday Best Of The Web, including a transcript of Alan Dershowitz's interview discussed in the comments below.
Alan Dershowitz said some nice things.
"He started his career by being a kind of Republican thug who pushed and shoved to keep African-American and Hispanic voters from voting."
As for Dershowitz, no one can have a higher opinion of him than me, and I think he's a filthy little beast.
Posted by: johngalt at September 5, 2005 12:37 AMLike Krugman, one has to view Dershowitz as a warning against hyper-partisanism.
I read a collection of his "Taking Liberties" essays a long time ago and was enlightened by some of his ideas and elevated opinion of several organizations based on his brilliant exposition.
Sadly, he has become not only a partisan hack, but has truly lost all reason. I think it happened during the Clinton impeachment contretemps, but I'll accept evidence that it happened sooner.
Yet both he and Krugman were once smart guys and serious thinkers. I am glad that I am STARTING life as a partisan hack, so I don't have to worry...
Requiescat In Pace
Paul at Power Line does a better job than I could:
Chief Justice Rehnquist graced the Court for three and a half decades. I'm not sure that any Justice in our history has written as many good opinions. And even those who didn't like his opinions will remember him for his gentlemanly demeanor and excellent scholarship.Unfortunately, Rehnquist was unable to put his stamp on the Rehnquist court. Indeed, it's a bit misleading to refer to such a thing. But that wasn't his fault; three different Republican administrations let him down. If Nixon, Reagan and Bush-I done a better job picking Justices, the Rehnquist court would have been a fitting memorial to the man.
Put Michael Luttig on the court and elevate Clarence Thomas to Chief Justice.
Rehnquist knew right from wrong, and he didn't have to attend Washington dinner parties to figure out where he "should" stand on a given case. He will be missed.
I expect the president will promote Scalia to Chief, and I'm pulling for Janice Rogers Brown to fill the new vacancy.
Posted by: johngalt at September 5, 2005 12:36 AMI would have figured Thomas or Scalia to Chief Justice. Whoda thunk Roberts?
Maybe Karl Rove? ;)
Posted by: AlexC at September 5, 2005 11:36 AMMedia correspondents were discussing this scenario yesterday. I thought Scalia would get the nod over Thomas partially due to seniority. Now the most junior justice of all is being nominated as chief. I'm no fan of "social promotion" as it were, but it certainly seems that the leader of the court should be someone who's actually BEEN there for a while. And the lack of consideration for the service of those conservative justices already on the bench is curious.
As I understand it, the Senate has a role in confirming the elevation of a justice to Chief, so this move reduces the number of rings in the Senate circus by one. Still, I doubt this was the primary motivation for the president. It may be to stack the court for short-term rulings on cases soon to come before the court. If he doesn't nominate a replacement for O'Connor soon then this theory will gain credence.
Posted by: johngalt at September 5, 2005 12:55 PMI heard chatter about this too. I thought "no way" but I picked the Broncos over the 49ers in Super Bowl XXIV.
I thought Thomas the natural choice because 1) he's jk's -- and many other conservatives' -- favorite after Raich v Ashcroft; 2) he has more than a decade on the Court; and 3) Democrats would be forced to scuttle the appointment of the first African-American Chief Justice.
I like to trust the President on the big things, but this concerns me. I trust Roberts is a good conservative jurist enough to support his nomination as Associate Justice, not quite onboard for this leapfrog appointment. I will try to keep an open mind.
August 23, 2005
Sarcasm Alert
Judge John Roberts cracks me up.
Here's why.
- "How fascinating and edifying it must have been for you to review the files I compiled during my service to the attorney general," Roberts wrote. "I assume that the archivist will deposit my files in one of those hermetically sealed display cases that drop into a concrete vault in the event of nuclear attack, similar to the cases housing the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Once this is done, I will consider donating my personal papers, at a time to be determined by my tax advisers."
Tip to Chappy who writes... If the Post recognizes the sarcasm dripping off the page of this note they do not note it. Instead, they report it as straightforward, which I doubt it is.
August 17, 2005
Yawn
Leahy Lambastes Roberts' 'Radical' Stands
WASHINGTON - Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record) says Supreme Court nominee John Roberts holds "radical" views and has been an "eager, aggressive advocate" for policies of the far right.It's true y'know. Senators Leahy and Kennedy have seen evidence in the 5000 pages that Roberts:
In material released Monday, Roberts emerged as an attorney serving in the Reagan White House who held views generally in line with those of other conservatives. He was sympathetic to prayer in public schools, dismissive of "comparable worth," referred to the "tragedy of abortion" and took a swipe at the Supreme Court for being too willing to hear multiple appeals from death row inmates.What a troglodyte! How insanely ideological can one guy be? How far out of the mainstream?
I would laugh if I weren't certain that the MSM will take these comments seriously.
UPDATE: The WSJ Ed Page weighs in:
It's no news flash that organizations like the Alliance for Justice, People for the American Way and MoveOn.org are influencing Democrats' attack on Judge Roberts. But the rapidity with which Senators Pat Leahy and Ted Kennedy jumped this week to follow the groups' orders is nonetheless remarkable, and politically revealing.Within hours of publication of the first Post story, Mr. Leahy hit the barricades with a statement calling Judge Roberts "an eager and aggressive advocate" of policies "deeply tinged with the ideology of the far right wing of his party." During the Reagan years, the Senator added, the nominee held views "that were among the most radical being offered by a cadre intent on reversing decades of policies on civil rights, voting rights, women's rights, privacy, and access to justice." At least he didn't call Judge Roberts a member of the Taliban.
As for Senator Kennedy, he sent a letter to colleagues claiming the Reagan documents show that Judge Roberts "was on or beyond the outer fringe of that extreme group eager to take our law and society back in time on a wide range of issues of individual rights and liberties."
The only thing I know he has taken back in time is fashion. Did you see the photos of his family at his announcement at the White House? I thought at first that the caption must be wrong, that the photo was actually of a 5 year old Judge Roberts 40 years ago not of his son current day. An Eton suit and saddle shoes? Yikes.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at August 18, 2005 1:10 PMSilence, I think you should take over as ThreeSources Fashion Editor. I'd have never recognized an Eton Suit.
Posted by: