Woohoo, perfect moving weather. It will be soooo nice when we are all settled in the new building at work.
I bet this guy was wishing it was still summer.
This one, meanwhile, is glad that summer is safely over.
It really is kind of amazing. By a 78-22 vote, we secured an incredibly conservative court for decades (barring some bizarre development) without much public discussion at all. Judge Roberts' best qualities confirmation-wise were his lack of judging experience and his lack of providing answers to questions. Oh yeah, and that he's a gentleman. Fabulous qualities indeed for someone who will hold such a powerful position for such an incredibly long period of time.
4 comments:
Nate--With the recent developments with Delay and with B. Bennett, I think the Dem base will be more obstructionist in GWB's next pick. There really is a rapid fall off once you get past Roberts--meaning there is more meat on the bone to pick at.
Still hotter than shit out here, but the leaves are falling? Go figure.
Charles
I see where you're coming from, but I disagree. The Democratic leadership has consistently waffled and even gone against the desires of the Democratic base. Whether it's Iraq, the environment, energy policy, foreign policy, use of the military, health insurance, corporate welfare, education, living wages, civil rights, election reform, tax policy, human rights, urban infrastructure, or a host of other issues, the Democratic leadership during the Bush Administration has consistently defied the wishes of the Democratic base. They have made clear that they'll let anybody this side of a mental asylum onto the Supreme Court.
Judge Roberts isn't a dangerous, evil, or crazy man. He's just some guy who has represented and advocated for a role of government substantially and radically different from how Democrats in particular and most Americans in general view and interpret the Constitution. He comes from a background not of courtrooms and judging, but of advocacy (through both the Reagan and Bush Administrations). Also, the Administration acted in very poor faith by stonewalling and withholding information, and then demanding speedy resolution. A democratic system requires a culture of openness and accountability. Everything about this nomination was shrouded in secrecy and misdirection, even if it turns out there was nothing to be concerned about.
As far as who the President will nominate, I doubt many people know. But one thing that has been clear is that in action (nevermind rhetoric) this Administration does not govern from the center; it is extremely radical. There is no reason to believe that the next nominee will be a centrist whose primary qualification is his/her service on the bench.
Nate--You remind me of my Aunt Gladys getting the vapors.
Is it radical when there are 60 million people who voted for a "radical" government? Or is it the norm?
I do think you are very accurate about the Dems and their leadership. I was very surprised to see H. Dean as the figurehead. To a red stater, Dean, MoveOn, Michael Moore, and just about any A or B list celebrity is "radical". I think if the Dem leadership would disenfranchise some of the loonies like C. Sheehan and have a normal conversation about that laundry list of things you mentioned without pushing gay marriage, man/boy marriage, crazy socialist crap, maybe folks like me would listen. I know I would.
But I don't see any coherency at all that even approaches what my concerns have been. I've learned more about what maybe being a liberal is all about from the tit for tatting with you, than just about anything--and that includes visiting liberal websites and listening to liberal talking heads.
You lose me when you start calling GWB and his Adminstration "radical" because when I think about what I would do if I was in the Oval Office, I would like to think my responses would be like his. Or more accurately, he is handling things like I think I would.
Heh. I guess that would make me a radical shrouded in secrecy.
So, Nate, what would you do with the last Supreme Court pick if you were in the Oval Office?
Charles
Ha, you seem to mistake me for a liberal. I'm liberal in comparison to what counts for news from the mainstream media, but if one takes into account the full chorus of voices in our society, I'm pretty moderate. There are a ton of outlets for rightist viewpoints but an amazing absence of liberal voices. That doesn't mean lots of radical lefties don't exist; they just don't get airtime on the main TV, radio, and print forms of regional and national communication. I like to think that most of us are somewhere in the middle where there is opportunity for a relatively free exchange of ideas.
Specifically to what you said:
1) Regardless of one's "faith" in the 2000 and 2004 national elections, there is no doubt that the Bush Administration has the most problems of legitimacy of any president in a generation. There are enormous questions of both systemic problems and specific acts of fraud and election tampering. Governor Bush did not win the voting in 2000; he won the litigating and counting. It's not radical to look at the statistical anomolies of both national and state elections in 2000, 2002, and 2004. It is radical to suggest it doesn't matter, or that serious people asking serious questions are simply paranoid conspiracy theorists, or that the Bush Administration in either 2000 or today enjoys anything resembling support from a clear majority of the country.
2) Furthermore, even if all 60 million votes in 2004 were legit, it still doesn't give the Administration anything close to a mandate. That's 20% of the US population. Generally speaking, they voted for a moderate Republican, they voted for somebody prolife, and they voted for a president to faithfully execute security matters, especially related to terrorism (a "war president"), among other reasons. In other words, they voted by and large for his rhetoric. It's not his rhetoric but his policies that earn the descriptor of radical. You know a man by what he does, not what he says.
For example, take Social Security. It is the core of the "welfare state", an incredibly large, successful, efficient, and popular government program. Radical conservatives dream of destroying this program because it symbolizes in staggering simplicity the power of government to solve problems, to make society better off. Not only did the President not campaign against Social Security, but when asked about it in 2004 he actually explicitly denied that he was going to make it an issue. That's not an accidental misunderstanding. That is a strategy of purposeful deception because the Administration knows its approach to Social Security reform is so radical and unpopular that if known publicly it would have cost him the Presidency (or at least made it more difficult for companies like Triad and people like Kenneth Blackwell to "deliver" the victory).
3) I obviously don't know you very well, but I don't think you would actually do things the way that the Administration has been doing them. For example, prisoner abuse. I think you would actually be a leader and say look, there are some bad guys out there and we need some info they have. I think you would put the issue out there and let us talk about the ramifications of violating the Geneva Conventions, rather than simply assuming dicatatorial powers to do whatever you felt like doing and then keeping journalists from being able to investigate the results. I don't think you would have been at a fundraiser or buying shoes after an incredibly devastating and predicted hurricane. You would probably also have done some things the same, some of which I would agree with and some of which I would do differently. But you seem to be defensive about calling some policies radical. There's no better word to describe a number of the huge changes in direction the Bush Administration has advocated, sometimes forthrightly but frequently secretly or deceptively. I don't hide the fact that my views on drug policy are pretty radical. The difference, of course, is that I argue on the merits rather than trying to hide the facts or use them deceptively. At the end of the day, I trust public discourse and democratic processes. The Administration obviously loathes the Constitution and actual democracy when it interferes with what they want to do; that's what makes them radical.
Post a Comment