Open Threads

Ted Kennedy puts down the martini glass and pens a piece for the WaPo:

The president should reject the pressure of the extreme factions of his party that want litmus tests for his nominee. This process shouldn’t just be about whether the next justice would help roll back women’s rights by overturning Roe v. Wade , the law of the land. It should be about something much more basic: protecting our core constitutional values for generations to come, the freedoms that we’ve fought for, bled for and died for. Because of Sandra Day O’Connor, the disabled are guaranteed access to our public courts. Teachers can’t be fired for opposing discrimination against girls in our public schools. Patients can get a second opinion when an HMO tries to deny them care. Our water is cleaner and citizens can stop polluters who dump toxins into our waterways.

I haven’t always agreed with O’Connor. I didn’t agree earlier this year that we should continue to execute juveniles. And I certainly didn’t agree with her in Bush v. Gore .

But she was fair and tried to interpret the law. Unfortunately, many of those whom President Bush has nominated to the lower courts in the past four years have wanted to remake the law to suit their own ideologies. I hope the president will consult with the Senate and select a consensus nominee as dedicated to the Constitution as Sandra Day O’Connor.

More on Kennedy here, including some choice quotes showing his ‘evolving’ postion on how nominees should be scrutinized, but that is besides the point. What is the point is that because this nominee will replace a swing vote, it is going to be ugly. Uglier even than Bork or Thomas (which is about as ugly as it gets). And, something Kennedy fails to recognize is that while the Republicans did change the rulesin the most recent Senates, the Democrats themselves have played their role in creating this antagonistic atmosphere.

You are going to have a tough time convincing me that Clarence Thomas and William Rehnquist are any more conservative than Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer are liberal, yet look at the acrimony that was kicked up for their confirmations. Look at the numbers- they tell the story:

Ruth Bader Ginsber, 97-3
Stephen Breyer, 87-9

William Rehnquist, 65-33
Clarence Thomas, 52-48

I watched the Thomas hearings, and I saw the smear job the Democrats tried. I was home on leave after the Gulf War, and I watched the hearings, incredulously. I listen to the attacks to this day, which always center less on Thomas’s rulings and more on the man himself. “Uncle Tom.” “House Negro.”

I don’t want a wild, fire-breathing, crazed right-winger anymore than anyone else, but if we get one, the Democrat’s own behavior is partially responsible. I would like someone who thnks like Scalia but without the blind spot towards religious issues and matters regarding criminals. Unless I have been really misreading things, it hasn’t really been the right wing of the Court that has shat all over personal privacy as of late. But it was the treatment of Republican nominees that led to the creation of activist groups whose sole purpose for existence was to make sure conservative judges got confirmed.

And I am not going to even bothering to look up which way Kennedy voted on all four of those votes. I think I have a pretty good idea.

*** Update ***

Everyone seems to claim I am ‘dead wrong’ about how liberal Breyer and Ginsberg are- from where I sit, they look pretty liberal. They vote on the liberal side of damn near every issue I have paid attention to, and are considered to be the stalwarts of the ‘liberal wing’ of the Court. My own political positions could color my perception of them, and I am aware of that, but they seem pretty liberally to me.

And who the hell is David Breyer and why do I keep calling Justice Breyer by the name of David?

And also, I saw the Thomas hearings- if you thought it was all well and good and how things should go, bully for you. Looked pretty nasty and underhanded to me, and it still does.

BTW- I never said Democrats were the cause of all of this acrimony- I said they were willing particpants, and they have had their hand in getting us where we currently are. This was a progression, a slow, nasty one, and one that should stop. It is all well and good that Hatch and Clinton consulted, and that Hatch suggested Breyer and Ginsburg. As I have stated over and over again, that was then, this is now. Progression means things get worse- just like strep throat starts as a bad throat infection but can lead to Kidney failure. It wasn’tme who said that we should just dump all niceties and openly suggest we should have ideological attacks during confirmation hearings- that was Chuck Schumer.

For every stupid, obnoxious thing a Republican or a conservative activist has said, I can throw back something from the People for the American Way or Ted Kennedy or Pat Leahy that is just as bad.

The problem isn’t how we got here- I tend to think both sides have had a hand, and I do believe the extremists on boith sides of the aisle have been driving the debate. Right about now, we need a kidney transplant.

Judicial NastinessPost + Comments (50)

Happy 4thPost + Comments (73)

The WaPo, as part of their weekend 4th of July celebration, revisits the Pledge of Allegiance. They list the pledge as it has appeared over the years (there are three versions– the whole God bit was inserted in 1954), and they asked 19 people to write their own variations. My favorite two are Christopher Buckley:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America – red and blue – and to the Republic for which it stands, despite all the extremely preposterous people in it.

And David Corn’s, for the sheer bitterness:

I pledge allegiance to the not-to-be-burned flag of the United States of Halliburton and to all the special interests for which it stands, one nation, under Tom DeLay, divided between conservatives willing to defend it and liberals who offer its enemies paid vacations, with profits and pensions for just a few.

The majority of the rest of them are just silly one-worlder stuff, but there is ‘conservative comedian’ Julia Gorin’s version, which stands out:

I pledge allegiance to the flag-burning of the United States of America, and to the republic which the courts command, one nation, above God, indivisible (except for all that race, class and gender warfare), with equality and five-star beach resorts for all terrorists.

HAHAHA! I Heart Gitmo is so funny it should be in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Groan.

The PledgePost + Comments (5)

At the height of the Clinton hatred, what upset the right the most was not Clinton’s actual sins, but that he seemed to be capable of always getting away with them. No matter what was thrown at him, he shrugged it off- which just INFURIATED people, sending them into a frothing rage.

If this Drudge report is accurate, the same is going to happen to Democrats in the upcoming weeks:

Karl Rove, President Bush’s chief political adviser, spoke with TIME mag’s Matthew Cooper during a critical week in July 2003 when Cooper was reporting on a public critic of the Bush administration who was also the husband of a CIA operative.

But Rove did not leak the name of the CIA op Plame, Rove’s lawyer said again Saturday night.

Robert Luskin said Rove never identified Plame to Cooper in those conversations.

“Karl did nothing wrong. Karl didn’t disclose Valerie Plame’s identity to Mr. Cooper or anybody else,” Luskin said to the WASHINGTON POST. Luskin said the question remains unanswered: “Who outed this woman? … It wasn’t Karl.”

NBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell claimed this weekend, ‘Rove Blew CIA Agent’s Cover’.

“Emails will reveal that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper’s source. I have known this for months,” O’Donnell said.

Do a technorati search for “frog march rove,” and look what you see. Max Blumenthal, as nasty a partisan as they come (check out his testimonials, which are pretty funny):

No matter what Judy D’Arc does or doesn’t do, Rove is in real trouble. And I thought Scooter Libby would fall on his sword for Rove.

AmericaBlog:

Holy Shit – it IS Rove!

Ok, everybody take a deep breath. O’Donnell could not be more definitive, but let’s make sure this is REAL before we get too excited. Still, I’m psyched!

If it turns out Rove did nothing wrong, certain quarters are going to explode with rage. Should be funny.

*** Update ***

If you are just itching to jump in to the comments section RIGHT NOW and tell me that you were personally outraged OUTRAGED! because Clinton did X*, not because he got away with it, and that I owe you an apology APOLOGY!, that has already been adequately covered.

Let X = treason, perjury, adultery, killing Vince Foster, driving an El Camino, eating too much fast food, marrying Hillary, and other unnamed Clinton sins

This Could Get UglyPost + Comments (129)

Sometimes you can tell a pretty good story by just snipping a couple quotes together and letting them speak for themselves. This is one of those occasions.

Stephen Carter on over politicization of the court:

On issues from abortion to affirmative action to criminal procedure, it has often been Justice O’Connor’s unpredictable vote that determines which bloc prevails. So the right will naturally see its chance to move the court further toward its agenda; and the left will battle to retain what pieces of its own agenda it can, a sort of holding action against the day when the Democrats again rule the White House and the Senate.

This path, so predictable, so frequently trod in recent decades, is carrying the Supreme Court, and the ideal of judicial review, toward disaster. There has been much talk lately of how the cruel posturing of politicians and commentators critical of various decisions hurts the reputation of the courts. And there is something to this notion. But the overwrought attacks by some critics do less harm to the notion of an independent judiciary than does the way activists gird themselves for battle each time a vacancy occurs, as if it is the obligation of the political branches to guarantee outcomes their supporters prefer.

We all claim to believe in judicial independence, but our definition of independence too often turns out to mean deciding cases according to our druthers. A court that rules in our favor displays integrity and independence. A court that rules against us shows its ideology and partisanship. Need evidence? Listen to anyone on the right discuss classroom prayer or abortion. Listen to anyone on the left discuss Bush v. Gore.

Thomas B. Edsall and Dana Milbank:

Gray, in an interview, described a battle plan over two years in the making. The Federalist Society will provide research in support of the nominee. A group called Progress for America, which backed the reelection of Bush in 2004, will spend as much as $18 million on radio and television backing Bush’s nominee; and the recently created Judicial Confirmation Network, run by a former Bush campaign coalitions director, is setting up a grass-roots network in the states of six key senators.

“We have been preparing for this for 2 1/2 years,” Gray said.

NOW President Kim Gandy:

Today Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor announced her resignation from the United States Supreme Court.

This is a state of emergency for women’s rights. Sandra Day O’Connor broke down barriers for women as the first female Supreme Court justice

Disorder In the CourtPost + Comments (6)

Interesting study being done by Richard Chapelle, which I found via Majikthise. Basically, he is taking the IPIP-NEO-PI personality test (which is not the same as the Five Factor Model by Costa and McRae) and the Political Compass and asking people to post their results.

My results are below the fold:

(pixnaps97a2)

show full post on front page

The Big Five and Political AffiliationPost + Comments (4)

Teresa Nielsen-Hayden:

Anybody else notice (this is Patrick

Oddly Enough, It DoesPost + Comments (11)