Since Bush has seemingly swung so far to the right with this new guy, as opposed to Miers whom the left seemed to really like, it has me wondering if Bush didn't pull a "New Coke."
The ramifications of this pick cannot be overstated. If it solidifies both political wings, it will most likely tear up the Gang of 14 moderates who worked out the compromise to avoid the fillibuster and the so-called "nuclear option". Some of these guys have '08 Presidential aims, and should this thing evolve into a cat-fight (which I suspect it will) these guys are going to end up in the kitty litter.
The urge to find a compromise position is not necessarily a bad urge. So outright condemnation of the Gang of 14 is probably out of line. But...
What the existence of the Gang of 14 reveals is that there are at least 38 Democratic Senators who see no value in trying to find common ground with Republicans. Is it really possible that ONLY SEVEN non-Republican Senators can grasp the concept of Majority Rule - the very concept of Democracy as it were.
Contrastingly, going back to the the Ginsburg confirmation, only 10 Republicans tried to block the confirmation of an overwhelmingly liberal justice. So who exactly pays fidelity to the concept of democracy - liberals or conservatives?
At some point, when you find your opposition totally immune to any attempts you make for compromise, the principle of compromise must itself be put aside in favor of other, more important principles like freedom, justice, and democracy.
Many like to opine about the dangers of the "tyranny of the majority." Those who find their positions unconvincing on Tuesday's in November revel in historical debates about protecting society from the so-called mob - as if exerting the will of the majority through the legislative process is a definition of mob rule.
But while our system of governance was not intended to protect us from the temporary passions of the people, it was NOT intended to isolate us from the sustained passions of the electorate.
Republicans have won 7 of the last 10 Presidential elections. Republicans have won control of the Legislature for the past decade -though the unprincipled actions of Senator Jeffords temporarily set aside one of those victories.
We are not a mob. We are a principled group of citizens repeatedly and consistently expressing our will to the elected officials of this government. We DESERVE to not only be heard, but to have our will translated into concrete action.
We cannot do anything about those Senators who are entrenched in opposition to our will. But we can and will punish those who abuse our vote by abandoning those principles for which they were elected to uphold.
Senatorial collegiality, while not undesirable in and of itself, is not a first principle of democracy. The people have spoken. It is long past the time that their Representatives heard them, and acted accordingly.
We want the Judge Alito to be confirmed. We will brook no opposition. The tyranny of the minority must be confronted and defeated. The Imperial Judiciary must be brought to heel. And damn those Republicans who place their personal friendships and their misguided allegiance to compromise ahead of the will of the people.
i don't get why tearing up a gang of moderates is so fun? what's with all the partisan itching for a knock-down-drag-out fight? all of the knee-jerk posturing from politicians and pundits on the right and left is puke-inducing. everything they say is so devoid of substance that it only serves to reinforce the idea that these people don't care at all about principles so long as their guy gets a "yes", or their enemy gets a "no." are there still people left who have to actually read a quote following Reid or Frist's name in order to know with 100% certainty what they said? is that a good thing?
i think it was because republicans suggested ginsberg to clinton. and he took their advice. that might have something to do with it. just a guess.
also, i'm not convinced that majority rule alone is the basis of democracy. compromise is something of a two-way street, and republicans have all the strength they need without any democratic help. therefore, are they even interested in finding common ground with democrats? and what would finding common ground with republicans do for a democratic candidate in a polarized country?
BUT, someone has to start the return to the middle (long overdue IMHO), and the gang of 14 are as good a place to start consensus building as any. so, again, why does everyone want to tear the moderates apart?
i would venture that the american polity is not as gung-ho as you are in getting CONCRETE CONSERVATIVE ACTION!!!!! as you are. as if anyone in the senate nowadays had any concept of what it means to be a conservative.
The point is that the judiciary unlawfully siezed authority on issues that are lawfully under the jurisdiction of the legislature. The conservative principle is that the people are their own rulers.
A although legislatures sometimes (many times?) make the wrong decisions, the proper method to overturn those decisions is to "throw the bastards out" and get a new legislature. The wrong way to correct those decisions is to run to the Imperial Judiciary to impose by judicial fiat whatever happens to agree with the particular whims of a particular judge.
And partisans are not above "court shopping" to get a sympathetic judge. This runs roughshod over the democratic principle. If the majority do not get to decide what is important, then what the hell is the point of those elections we have every two years?
Two points. You misrepresented what I said. I asserted that majority rule is the basis for democracy. You mischaracterized me as saying that majority rule is the ONLY basis for democracy. So congratulations on your almost successful misdirection.
Secondly, you assert "the american polity is not as gung-ho as you are in getting CONCRETE CONSERVATIVE ACTION!!!!! as you are". I'd like to know on just what basis you make this assertion. How do you support such an assertion.
My assertion is supported by the overwhelming quantity of actual election results. What do you base your assertion on - other than your own narrow opinion?
Reid urged the president to nominate Miers, whose withdrawal Reid says he laments. Now Reid deplores the Alito nomination because it was, Reid says, done without Democratic ``consultation.'' But it was during such consultation that, Reid says, he warned the president not to nominate Alito. So Reid's logic is that nothing counts as consultation unless it results in conformity to Democratic dictates.
When Reid endorsed Scalia for chief justice, he said: ``I disagree with many of the results that he arrives at, but his reason for arriving at those results are (sic) very hard to dispute.'' There you have, starkly and ingenuously confessed, the judicial philosophy -- if it can be dignified as such -- of Reid and like-minded Democrats: Regardless of constitutional reasoning that can be annoyingly hard to refute, we care only about results. How many thoughtful Democrats will wish to take their stand where Reid has planted that flag?
This is the debate the country has needed for several generations: Should the Constitution be treated as so plastic, so changeable that it enables justices to reach whatever social outcomes -- ``results" -- they, like the result-oriented senators who confirm them, consider desirable? If so, in what sense does the Constitution still constitute the nation?
This is a debate the president, who needs a victory, should relish. Will it, as Democrats mournfully say, ``divide" the country? Yes. Debates about serious subjects do that. The real reason those Democrats are mournful is that they correctly suspect they are on the losing side of the divide.
Moving beyond abortion, to issues such as gay marriage and the public display of religious symbols, there's considerable evidence that a growing number of Americans embrace conservative judicial views. But don't take my word for it: Take the American Bar Association's word for it. On Sept. 30, the ABA's E-Journal published the results of a nationwide poll indicating that 56 percent of Americans agree that "Judicial activism ... seems to have reached a crisis," as "judges routinely overrule the will of the people, invent new rights and ignore traditional morality." That's more than a conservative base, that's a conservative majority.
So what, pray tell, makes you think that the majority of Americans agree with you??????
the national numbers in the CNN/USA poll show that, nationally, about 47% of voters would vote for the republican congressional candidate, while 48% would vote democratic.
the point is this: i am not advocating g.w. nominating a liberal to the court. indeed, i'm not sure alito is such a bad guy to begin with. my point is that the country is about evenly split between republicans and democrats. it has happened that republicans have been doing better in the races, no doubt. but i just don't understand where all of this "mandate" talk comes from. with an evenly split (and polarized) public, i would think responsible and reasonable people would be pushing for consensus candidates, rather than the drag-out brawl scott k. here seems to be hoping for.
i also like how george will totally misrepresented what reid said:
When Reid endorsed Scalia for chief justice, he said: "I disagree with many of the results that he arrives at, but his reason for arriving at those results are (sic) very hard to dispute." There you have, starkly and ingenuously confessed, the judicial philosophy -- if it can be dignified as such -- of Reid and like-minded Democrats: Regardless of constitutional reasoning that can be annoyingly hard to refute, we care only about results.
reid clearly was saying that it was the process that's key, which was why he endorsed scalia DESPITE results. then will asserts that reid was saying the opposite??
and then Will proceeds to skewer Reid for allegedly holding that craven position. but then...if caring only about results is such a bad thing, why is everyone so happy that meiers is gone? when clearly it was the possibility of her arriving at un-republican results that caused the backlash against her?
anyway, hope i've stayed on track here. let me know if i've misunderstood or misrepresented anything.
Judge Alito will be confirmed by the Senate after the usual partisan bickering. There will not be a filibuster, because there is general consensus that not enough votes can be garnered to sustain one.
I don't think Alito's confirmation in itself will lead directly to the overturn of Roe v Wade, which seems to be the only consideration that the two opposing Washington-based political mobs seem to have on their mind when discussing US Supreme Court choices. Even if Alito joins Scalia and Thomas in their expected dissent from any ruling that upholds abortion rights, this does not necessarily mean chief justice Roberts will join them in that dissent, or even that Alito will do so. And in any case, justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kennedy and Souter most likely will remain a five-person bloc of justices that will support abortion rights down to the wire.
Barring the sudden death or debilitating illness of any of the present court members or of Alito, the court membership is likely to remain so balanced through the end of Bush's term in January 2009. Unless Stevens, who is now 85, determines to retire. Assuredly, a lot of liberals will be waiting on his doorstep to urge him to remain on the court until the passage of Bush. And to stay healthy, of course.
After Bush? Right now, I assume that next eight years belong to the Democrats. Senator Hillary R Clinton seems the likeliest Democrat contender. And unless she swerves from her likely middle of the road position, no Republican able to get through the various red state political committees -- dominated as they now are by anti-abortion fanatics -- will beat her in the general election.
The Republicans will nominate neither Rudy Giuliani, who is seen as too liberal for much of GOP hardcore America, nor Senator John McCain, who is greatly mistrusted by as a gadfly by most of this hardcore, and, in any case, is now to old for a serious presidential run in 2008.
As for Dr Condoleeza Rice, she has repeatedly announced she has no intention of running. And that is almost certainly a wise choice for her. Now that the Iraq venture is regarded at best as a venture that most Americans want to get out of with least possible damage to our national dignity, she and most of the other insiders of Bush's administration will never be able to capitalize on it for their own political purposes.
In any case, the office of US Secretary of State in recent decades has been degraded to little more than national mouthpiece of whatever administration he or she represents. Policy is actually made by the White House key advisors. So now she is just another attractive cipher who has never been elected to public office, just like Colin Powell.
Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader, is seen as little more than an ineffective Washington wimp, ever since McCain cut him off at the knees by successfully organizing his "gang of 14".
There are the usual collection of Republican governors floating around. But none of them have the political mojo to beat Hillary in the big one.
So from what I see today, the next president of the United States is going to be a Democrat, probably Hillary R Clinton, and is justice Stevens remains on the until after January 20, 2009, she will almost certainly be nominating his replacement on the court. Maybe one for justice Ginsburg as well, who is now 72 and not in the best of health.
Which gets me to the hard kernel of my argument here, which is that Democrats and their liberal hard core would be advised to go lightly and not put up too much of a struggle against Alito, especially with almost no hope of a successful filibuster. They should remember that if they give Bush serious trouble over Alito now, the Republicans, who almost certainly will still control the US Senate in 2009, will give them tit for tat when it comes time to vote up or down for president Hillary R Clinton's choice for justice Stevens' replacement.
If it all works out that way, the pro-abortion forces and middle roaders who will support them against the hard right will keep their 5-4 protective cushion on the US Supreme Court.
I still expect to hate a lot of what he does, but I suspect I'll like some of it.
Either way, it's going to be fun to watch.
What the existence of the Gang of 14 reveals is that there are at least 38 Democratic Senators who see no value in trying to find common ground with Republicans. Is it really possible that ONLY SEVEN non-Republican Senators can grasp the concept of Majority Rule - the very concept of Democracy as it were.
Contrastingly, going back to the the Ginsburg confirmation, only 10 Republicans tried to block the confirmation of an overwhelmingly liberal justice. So who exactly pays fidelity to the concept of democracy - liberals or conservatives?
At some point, when you find your opposition totally immune to any attempts you make for compromise, the principle of compromise must itself be put aside in favor of other, more important principles like freedom, justice, and democracy.
Many like to opine about the dangers of the "tyranny of the majority." Those who find their positions unconvincing on Tuesday's in November revel in historical debates about protecting society from the so-called mob - as if exerting the will of the majority through the legislative process is a definition of mob rule.
But while our system of governance was not intended to protect us from the temporary passions of the people, it was NOT intended to isolate us from the sustained passions of the electorate.
Republicans have won 7 of the last 10 Presidential elections. Republicans have won control of the Legislature for the past decade -though the unprincipled actions of Senator Jeffords temporarily set aside one of those victories.
We are not a mob. We are a principled group of citizens repeatedly and consistently expressing our will to the elected officials of this government. We DESERVE to not only be heard, but to have our will translated into concrete action.
We cannot do anything about those Senators who are entrenched in opposition to our will. But we can and will punish those who abuse our vote by abandoning those principles for which they were elected to uphold.
Senatorial collegiality, while not undesirable in and of itself, is not a first principle of democracy. The people have spoken. It is long past the time that their Representatives heard them, and acted accordingly.
We want the Judge Alito to be confirmed. We will brook no opposition. The tyranny of the minority must be confronted and defeated. The Imperial Judiciary must be brought to heel. And damn those Republicans who place their personal friendships and their misguided allegiance to compromise ahead of the will of the people.
i don't get why tearing up a gang of moderates is so fun? what's with all the partisan itching for a knock-down-drag-out fight? all of the knee-jerk posturing from politicians and pundits on the right and left is puke-inducing. everything they say is so devoid of substance that it only serves to reinforce the idea that these people don't care at all about principles so long as their guy gets a "yes", or their enemy gets a "no." are there still people left who have to actually read a quote following Reid or Frist's name in order to know with 100% certainty what they said? is that a good thing?
i think it was because republicans suggested ginsberg to clinton. and he took their advice. that might have something to do with it. just a guess.
also, i'm not convinced that majority rule alone is the basis of democracy. compromise is something of a two-way street, and republicans have all the strength they need without any democratic help. therefore, are they even interested in finding common ground with democrats? and what would finding common ground with republicans do for a democratic candidate in a polarized country?
BUT, someone has to start the return to the middle (long overdue IMHO), and the gang of 14 are as good a place to start consensus building as any. so, again, why does everyone want to tear the moderates apart?
i would venture that the american polity is not as gung-ho as you are in getting CONCRETE CONSERVATIVE ACTION!!!!! as you are. as if anyone in the senate nowadays had any concept of what it means to be a conservative.
The point is that the judiciary unlawfully siezed authority on issues that are lawfully under the jurisdiction of the legislature. The conservative principle is that the people are their own rulers.
A although legislatures sometimes (many times?) make the wrong decisions, the proper method to overturn those decisions is to "throw the bastards out" and get a new legislature. The wrong way to correct those decisions is to run to the Imperial Judiciary to impose by judicial fiat whatever happens to agree with the particular whims of a particular judge.
And partisans are not above "court shopping" to get a sympathetic judge. This runs roughshod over the democratic principle. If the majority do not get to decide what is important, then what the hell is the point of those elections we have every two years?
Two points. You misrepresented what I said. I asserted that majority rule is the basis for democracy. You mischaracterized me as saying that majority rule is the ONLY basis for democracy. So congratulations on your almost successful misdirection.
Secondly, you assert "the american polity is not as gung-ho as you are in getting CONCRETE CONSERVATIVE ACTION!!!!! as you are". I'd like to know on just what basis you make this assertion. How do you support such an assertion.
My assertion is supported by the overwhelming quantity of actual election results. What do you base your assertion on - other than your own narrow opinion?
Here is another report for you. So what, pray tell, makes you think that the majority of Americans agree with you??????
who are the activists?
link.
apologies for misrepresenting what you said.
the basis for my assumption earlier, by the way, is here:
polling report
the national numbers in the CNN/USA poll show that, nationally, about 47% of voters would vote for the republican congressional candidate, while 48% would vote democratic.
the point is this: i am not advocating g.w. nominating a liberal to the court. indeed, i'm not sure alito is such a bad guy to begin with. my point is that the country is about evenly split between republicans and democrats. it has happened that republicans have been doing better in the races, no doubt. but i just don't understand where all of this "mandate" talk comes from. with an evenly split (and polarized) public, i would think responsible and reasonable people would be pushing for consensus candidates, rather than the drag-out brawl scott k. here seems to be hoping for.
i also like how george will totally misrepresented what reid said:
reid clearly was saying that it was the process that's key, which was why he endorsed scalia DESPITE results. then will asserts that reid was saying the opposite??
and then Will proceeds to skewer Reid for allegedly holding that craven position. but then...if caring only about results is such a bad thing, why is everyone so happy that meiers is gone? when clearly it was the possibility of her arriving at un-republican results that caused the backlash against her?
anyway, hope i've stayed on track here. let me know if i've misunderstood or misrepresented anything.
I don't think Alito's confirmation in itself will lead directly to the overturn of Roe v Wade, which seems to be the only consideration that the two opposing Washington-based political mobs seem to have on their mind when discussing US Supreme Court choices. Even if Alito joins Scalia and Thomas in their expected dissent from any ruling that upholds abortion rights, this does not necessarily mean chief justice Roberts will join them in that dissent, or even that Alito will do so. And in any case, justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kennedy and Souter most likely will remain a five-person bloc of justices that will support abortion rights down to the wire.
Barring the sudden death or debilitating illness of any of the present court members or of Alito, the court membership is likely to remain so balanced through the end of Bush's term in January 2009. Unless Stevens, who is now 85, determines to retire. Assuredly, a lot of liberals will be waiting on his doorstep to urge him to remain on the court until the passage of Bush. And to stay healthy, of course.
After Bush? Right now, I assume that next eight years belong to the Democrats. Senator Hillary R Clinton seems the likeliest Democrat contender. And unless she swerves from her likely middle of the road position, no Republican able to get through the various red state political committees -- dominated as they now are by anti-abortion fanatics -- will beat her in the general election.
The Republicans will nominate neither Rudy Giuliani, who is seen as too liberal for much of GOP hardcore America, nor Senator John McCain, who is greatly mistrusted by as a gadfly by most of this hardcore, and, in any case, is now to old for a serious presidential run in 2008.
As for Dr Condoleeza Rice, she has repeatedly announced she has no intention of running. And that is almost certainly a wise choice for her. Now that the Iraq venture is regarded at best as a venture that most Americans want to get out of with least possible damage to our national dignity, she and most of the other insiders of Bush's administration will never be able to capitalize on it for their own political purposes.
In any case, the office of US Secretary of State in recent decades has been degraded to little more than national mouthpiece of whatever administration he or she represents. Policy is actually made by the White House key advisors. So now she is just another attractive cipher who has never been elected to public office, just like Colin Powell.
Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader, is seen as little more than an ineffective Washington wimp, ever since McCain cut him off at the knees by successfully organizing his "gang of 14".
There are the usual collection of Republican governors floating around. But none of them have the political mojo to beat Hillary in the big one.
So from what I see today, the next president of the United States is going to be a Democrat, probably Hillary R Clinton, and is justice Stevens remains on the until after January 20, 2009, she will almost certainly be nominating his replacement on the court. Maybe one for justice Ginsburg as well, who is now 72 and not in the best of health.
Which gets me to the hard kernel of my argument here, which is that Democrats and their liberal hard core would be advised to go lightly and not put up too much of a struggle against Alito, especially with almost no hope of a successful filibuster. They should remember that if they give Bush serious trouble over Alito now, the Republicans, who almost certainly will still control the US Senate in 2009, will give them tit for tat when it comes time to vote up or down for president Hillary R Clinton's choice for justice Stevens' replacement.
If it all works out that way, the pro-abortion forces and middle roaders who will support them against the hard right will keep their 5-4 protective cushion on the US Supreme Court.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI