Cheneymania [Updated]
By the time you read this sometime Monday, while I’m out brainwashing my USC journalism students, President Bush will have likely named his latest candidate to sit on the Supreme Court. Unless he names Patrick Fitzgerald, (the only choice less likely than Al Sharpton), the nominee is likely to only aggravate the current political storm buffeting the White House.
Dubya’s in a sorry fix. He’s pretty much bound to choose an ideologue (a qualified one I suppose) who will placate his right flank. But with his favorability ratings already at 39%, that same nominee will only further alienate the political center. Indeed, I think Bush’s political nosedive has so much impetus that he could as much as nominate Jesus Christ Monday and it wouldn’t be enough to pull him back up.
Frank Rich got it right on Sunday saying if you “believe that the Bush-Cheney scandals will be behind us anytime soon you'd have to believe that the Nixon-Agnew scandals peaked when G. Gordon Liddy and his bumbling band were nailed for the Watergate break-in.”
All attention now turns to Dick Cheney and rightfully so. If only Dick could lure Scooter aboard his yacht to have the same sort of definitive counseling session that Tony Soprano had with Big Pussy aboard the Stugatz… But he can’t.
I’m hardly the only person who noted that Libby’s indictment on Friday elicited perfunctory regrets from both Cheney and Bush’s offices. Regrets for Scooter! Rather than an apology to the country. It would take an administration cut from better human material than this for the President and V.P. to come forward with a meaningful mea culpa and some sort of plausible explanation for all the questions raised by Friday’s events. You can fuggeddabouttit. And you can buckle your seat belt and lay in the popcorn as the saga continues to unfold.
Sunday evening’s 60 Minutes broadcast laid out a devastating case as to why outting Valerie Plame was a lot more significant than conservative apologists will now admit. Whether her case met the criterion of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or not is wholly off point. The Cheney-Libby crew (including Robert Novak) were reckless and irresponsible in blowing her and her front company’s cover. If the Left had done something similar, the same voices that are now temporizing the Plame outting would be calling for a public lynching.
Out here in Hollywood, meanwhile, you can make sure that more than one Starbucks barrista is already outlining his spec script on the Libby movie. My pal Michael Berube has already (and rather brilliantly) done the casting.
UPDATE: So it is. Bush has made his SupCrt nomination. Looks like another war.
October 31st, 2005 at 3:39 am
A CIA officer’s name was blown, there was an apparent leak of information to friendly reporters in the national media, national security was at stake, a news reporter was eventually jailed, an administration mover and shaker called: “Scooter†has been indicted for possible obstruction of justice, perjury, and making false statements, and the federal judge assigned to the case was appointed by the same executive branch and had previously served in the White House Media Affairs Office.
Is there just too much by happenstance for this to be just a coincidental thing?
What a saga, sometimes humorous, sometimes crazy and gripping, but in fact, really serious, with each new segment so far finishing with a cliff hanger leaving the country eager for more information. It’s a tangled wed of lies, cover-up, judgment of others, and corruption at the highest level of government (an unnecessary war with Iraq). It involves the po-po (the FBI), an assistant to the president of the United States, the chief of staff to the vice president, an assistant to the vice president for national security affairs, and a ruff neck (keeps it real and knows the streets) judge who once admitted as a junior in high school he discovered his father’s guns and straight razor and started sneaking them out of the house tucked into his pants (one of the fights escalated from punching to a boyhood friend being stabbed nine times with an ice pick). There’s also the highly unusual (August 2005) fight where this same federal judge wrestled a man to the ground during a traffic incident on the Chevy Chase Circle (Washington, D.C.).
Maybe it’s just a part of the George W. Bush legacy? Maybe it’s just an element of indeterminacy in human actions which often works in favor of true disclosure? Nonetheless, both political parties would prefer for their own reasons not to pursue the truth, and the media will be content to go along with the typical hyperbole (cover-up), and the greater peril will be to the public’s confidence in the fair and impartial administration of justice.
The American judiciary was placed into the frame work of our system so that no one branch of government could become too powerful and exercise its powers unduly either over the other branches or the American people. For many the separation of power has basically disappeared.
I. Lewis “Scooter†Libby, vice president Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, although indicted by a federal grand jury on five charges related to the CIA leak probe (one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury, and two counts of making false statements), appears to be confident that at the end of this process he “will be completely and totally exonerated.†Karl Rove, president Bush’s top political adviser, who testified four times before the grand jury and wasn’t indicted (but not yet out of legal jeopardy), said through his attorney Robert Luskin, “We are confident that when the special counsel finishes his work, he will conclude that Mr. Rove has done nothing wrong.â€
But, how can they be so confident? Both Libby and Rove as senior government officials with responsibilities for national security matters (entitling them to access to classified information) were obligated by applicable laws and regulations, including Title 18 United States Code, Section 793, and executive Order 12958 (as modified by executive order 13292) not to disclose classified information to persons not authorized to receive such information, and otherwise required to exercise proper care to safe guard classified information against unauthorized disclosure.
At issue is Joseph Wilson, who was married to Valerie Plame Wilson. Mrs. Wilson was employed by the CIA and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, her affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community. In 2002, after an inquiry to the CIA by the vice president concerning certain intelligence reporting, the CIA decided on its own initiative to send Wilson to the country of Niger to investigate allegations involving Iraqi effort to acquire uranium yellow cake, a processed form of uranium ore. Wilson orally reported his findings to the CIA upon his return.
On or about January 28, 2003, president Bush delivered his State of the Union Address which included “sixteen words†to justify war with Iraq asserting that “the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. But as part of the American system of check-and-balances on May 6, 2003, the “New York Times†published a column by Nicholas Kristof of which disputed the accuracy of the “sixteen words†president Bush used in the State of the Union Address. The column reported that the ambassador sent to investigate the allegations had reported back to the CIA and State Department in early 2002 that the allegations were unequivocally wrong and based on forged documents (It’s just impossible to operate a clear conspiracy where all the pieces fit together).
On or about June 23 and the morning of July 8, 2003, Libby met with “New York Times†reporter Judith Miller and discussed Wilson’s trip and his belief that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA. When the conversation turned to the subject of Joseph Wilson during the second meeting, Libby asked that the information Libby provided on the topic of Wilson be attributed to a “former Hill staffer†rather than to a “senior administration official.†An under secretary of state had orally advised Libby on or about June 11 or 12, 2003, while in the White House that, in sum and substance, former ambassador and career state department official Joseph Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA. Additionally, the vice president himself had also advised Libby that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA in the counter-proliferation division.
Shortly thereafter, on July 10 or July 11, 2003, Libby spoke with Rowe, who advised Libby of a conversation Rowe had earlier that week with columnist Robert Novak in which Wilson’s wife was discussed as a CIA employee involved in Wilson’s trip. Libby was advised by Rowe that Novak would be writing a story about Wilson’s wife.
On September 26, 2003, the Department of Justice authorized the Federal Bureau of Investigation to commence a criminal investigation into the possible unauthorized disclosure of classified information regarding the disclosure of Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA to various reporters in the Spring of 2003. A major focus of the grand jury investigation was to determine which government officials had disclosed to the media prior to July 14, 2003 information concerning the affiliation of Valerie Wilson with the CIA, and the nature, timing, extent and purpose of such disclosures, as well as whether any official making such a disclosure did so know that the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA was classified information (conducted an investigation into possible violations of federal criminal laws, including Title 50, United States Code, Section 421 – Disclosure of the identity of covert intelligence personnel; and, Title 18, United States Code, Sections: 793 Improper Disclosure of National Defense Information, 1001 False Statements, 1503 Obstruction of Justice, and 1623 Perjury).
As part of the criminal investigation, Libby was interviewed by special agents of the FBI on or about October 14 and November 26, 2003, each time in the presence of his counsel. But, during the interviews, Libby is accused of lying about material facts related to the disclosure of Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA. Libby is said to have knowingly and corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, and impede the due administration of justice, namely proceedings before the grand jury, by misleading and deceiving the grand jury as to when, and the manner and means by which, Libby acquired and subsequently disclosed to the media information concerning the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA. He is also said to have knowingly and willfully made a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement and representation in a manner within the jurisdiction of the federal bureau of investigation. If convicted, the crimes charged in the indictment carry the following maximum penalties: Obstruction of Justice – 10 years in prison; Making False Statements and Perjury – each 5 years; and each count carries a maximum fine of $250,000.
A George W. Bush appointee will determine the appropriate sentence to be imposed, if any. Judge Reggie B. Walton, with a minimal academic performance in high school, poor grades in college, and very poor showing on the law boards, enrolled into the CLEO program and somehow managed to earn an academic scholarship to American University College of Law. He graduated in 1974 and took a job as a public defender in Philly (Philadelphia). In 1976, he left that job for a position at the D.C.’s United States Attorney’s office. Here, he met Bob Bennett (brother of William Bennett Drug Czar appointed by George H.W. Bush) and in an attempt to establish credibility on minority issues the republicans appointed Walton to the number two drug czar position. For the next two years that followed, Walton traveled the country spreading the republican anti drug message to black communities.
In 1981, Ronald Reagan appointed Walton to the D.C. Superior Court. But for unexplained reasons in 1989, Judge Walton moved to the White House Office of Media Affairs. Only to be appointed again in 1991 by George H.W. Bush to the D.C. Superior Court. President Bush appointed him to the federal bench (District of Columbia) on October 29, 2001.
Please note Judge Walton’s tenure in the White House Communications Office (considered an element of the continuing campaign). The office often calls local radio stations, television stations, and newspapers daily to see if they’d be interested in an interview with an administrative figure. It also has a supporting element (research units) available not only for the communications head but to the chief of staff and other white house senior staffers.
Since his appointment to the bench, Judge Walton has been assigned the majority of the most troubling legal matters involving the Bush administration. An appointed judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety, but Judge Walton willingness to often speak (for the administration it seems) on highly charged partisan issues further shakes public confidence in the judiciary. For example, following the death of Terri Schiavo, Judge Walton was dispatched to speak with NPR’s Ed Gordon about what he considered liberal “activism†in the U.S. Courts.
In 1998, the republican appointee enumerated some of the standard racist conceptions often voiced by the right wing, telling Judy Cresanta and Kari Larney of the Nevada Policy Research Institute “bad parenting, bad neighborhoods and guns†fuels the problem with youthful offenders. However, in the book “Black Judges on Justice†Judge Walton had a black moment (said something really gangsta) and did admit as one of his major frustrations while working with the Bush administration, his inability to convince administration officials of the fact that fighting crime is ineffective without attacking social causes of crime.
Judge Walton is the federal judge who threw out a lawsuit filed by a whistle-blower who alleged security lapses in the FBI’s translator program, ruling that Sibel Edmond’s claims might expose government secrets that could damage national security. He said that he couldn’t explain further because his explanation itself would expose sensitive secrets and disrupt diplomatic relations. Edmond’s lawyer, Mark S. Zaid, called the decision “Another example of the executive branch’s abuse of secrecy to prevent accountability.†Ms. Edmond, a former contract linguist, alleged in her lawsuit that she was fired in March 2002 after she complained to FBI managers about shoddy wiretap translations. She contended that she told the FBI an interpreter with a relative at a foreign embassy might have compromised national security. Although the government’s lawyers met with Judge Walton at least twice privately, Edmond had claimed the republican appointee dismissed her lawsuit without hearing evidence from her attorneys.
In September 2005, Judge Walton dismissed two claims, but left open the possibility Steven Hatfill, a scientist once named by the Department of Justice as a possible suspect in the anthrax-letter attacks of 2001, could hold officials accountable (count seeking a declaration that former Attorney General John Ashcroft and others unconstitutionally deprived him of employment opportunities). A fourth claim seeking monetary damage from the federal government for alleged privacy act violations, also remains alive, but two counts to hold defendants individually responsible were dismissed. The judge had delayed the case saying that he wanted the Department of Justice investigation of the issue to proceed without interference from Hatfill’s civil suit. Many observers of the investigation dismissed the judge’s pronouncements about the case – the government had been periodically advertising impending breakthroughs since just about the time the spore-ridden letters were mailed out, some critics pointed out. Mr. Hatfill, a bio-terrorism expert, contends his reputation was ruined when law enforcement officials called him a “person of interest.†Hatfill once worked as a researcher at the Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, Frederick, Md. At one time the FBI had Hatfill under 24-hour surveillance.
Judge Walton also ruled that a Missouri charity financed terrorism and is connected to a similarly named organization in Sudan, dismissing a lawsuit filed by the Islamic American Relief Agency – USA, which is based in Columbia, Mo. The charity had sought to thaw its assets which the treasury department froze in 2004. Lawyers for the Missouri charity had denied any link to terrorism and had said the charity is entirely separate from the Sudanese organization. Judge Walton said his decision was based on both public records and classified documents. Shareef Akeel, a Michigan lawyer representing the charity said nothing in the public part of the record showed that the charity had sent money out of the country for illegal purposes.
In a case involving a request for documents on the Oklahoma City bombing which resulted in convictions of Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, Judge Walton held that FOIA plaintiff (Judicial Watch) was required to file an administrative appeal for the documents, even if they were suing over the agency’s refusal to grant expedited processing. Judge Walton said the Judicial Watch was attempting to “bootstrap†its disclosure requests onto its bid for expedited processing. Although it appears that the FBI subsequently failed to timely respond to Judicial watch’s substantive request for documents within 20 days, Judge Walton said he will only consider those facts and circumstances that existed at the time of the filing of the complaint, and not subsequent events.
A coalition of hunting supporters that included Safari Club International and numerous other sportsmen’s groups were dealt a blow by Judge Walton when in 2004 he dismissed their attempt to stop black bear hunting in New Jersey’s National Park Service Lands.
In January 2004, Judge Walton held the longstanding ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Washington, D.C., is constitutional. The suit, brought by the National Rifle Association, challenged the constitutionality of the handgun ban on Second Amendment grounds. In the ruling, Judge Walton dismisses the suit, noting that, “The Court must conclude that the Second Amendment doesn’t confer an individual right to posses firearms. Rather, the amendment’s objective is to ensure the vitality of state militias.”
Finally, a three-judge panel of a federal appeal court unanimously reversed Judge Walton, ruling that the public has the right to challenge an interior department official’s approval of the proposed Roundup Power Plant despite studies showing that it would pollute air in Yellowstone National Park and Wilderness areas. The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Court of Columbia Circuit affirmed the public’s legal right to challenge a political appointee’s approval of the proposed power plant. Judge Walton had dismissed the case saying the conservation groups lacked standing because the ultimate permitting agency was the State of Montana. The National Parks Conservation Association, The Greater Yellowstone Coalition, The Wilderness Society, and a Denver resident alleged the Interior Department officials violated the Clean Air Act which prohibits degradation of air quality by man-made sources in pristine air sheds such as parks and wilderness areas.
October 31st, 2005 at 10:26 am
I wonder if anyone has registered the title “Turdblossom” for a movie yet. I imagine so.
October 31st, 2005 at 11:44 am
devestating – not convinced.
When they were interviewing the former CIA station chief to Jerusalem, Melissa Mahle, I kept wondering, why does the CIA let you, and a dozen others, publish memoirs if disclosing a operative’s name and photograph compromises all prior relationships and sources and impedes the agency’s ability to recruit new sources?
October 31st, 2005 at 11:44 am
That’s “Stugots”, you stronz.
October 31st, 2005 at 1:20 pm
I’m confused. Since the appointments are political by nature, isn’t Bush quite within his rights to choose someone that fits his politics? I wouldn’t choose the guy he wants now, but if the Democrats were in power it would be seen as natural to wish to appoint a more socially liberal judge.
What is the difference?
October 31st, 2005 at 1:52 pm
The difference, Eric, is that Bush has chosen to alienate more than half the population by throwing a piece of meat at his ever-decreasing political base. Without the confidence of the governed the justice system is a sham. That’s why there’s still a 60-40 barrier to confirmation in the Senate, to guarantee that the nominee is acceptable to a strong majority of the people.
Is that the kind of country you want to live in: one in which the party in power shoves it down the throats of the minority?
October 31st, 2005 at 2:07 pm
Look, they want to “legislate from the bench,” their version of the law. That’s the test. Cpare and contrast Alito with Miers.
As for CIA memoirs, Michael Schuyer did it after he left. It’s not the same thing as outed a working agent even if she’s working in Langley.
October 31st, 2005 at 4:34 pm
Marc – I notice that Ledeen is officially on board at Pajamas. You might be interested in checking out Kevin Drum’s current post on the Italian “la Republica” series on the origins of the Iraq war for some interesting info on Ledeen, over and above the highly credible speculation that he was involved in the Niger forgeries. It seems he was a fully deputized member of the cabal and deeply involved in the speculative preemption enterprise. Also sheds some interesting light on how another member of the “Axis of Evil” – or double agents from Iran – may have been brought into play early on as privy to at least some aspects of the planning – curious stuff. One thing that’s becoming increasingly clear – the origins and conduct of the war in Iraq are going to provide some very interesting fodder for historians and it won’t be pretty.
October 31st, 2005 at 4:47 pm
Here’s the Washington Monthly article from a year ago that was the first place I read of Ledeen’s role in some of the more curious bizness conducted out of Doug Feith’s office:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0410.marshallrozen.html
October 31st, 2005 at 10:16 pm
What I find amazing in all the punditry over whether it was really a crime to out Valerie Plame, whether she was really undercover or not, whether her outing had negative effects on intelligence gathering or endangered her contacts, etc etc, is this: Conservatives are always telling us how much they love their country, how much they support our troops in Iraq, etc. But outing Valerie Plame was a power play, a political move designed to counter the claims of her husband about the war, and everyone acknowledges that. So is it power that conservatives love more, or their country? That is the question behind all the hypocrisy and spin this affair is now getting from the right wing.
October 31st, 2005 at 10:29 pm
“So is it power that conservatives love more, or their country?”
Duhhh!
(good comment)
October 31st, 2005 at 10:40 pm
Marc – I just defended you against a couple of morons over at Atrios as regards PJM. But leaving insane leftist calumny aside – which disgusts me, I HAVE come to the conclusion that you and David are mistaken on this call. I won’t excoriate you or read some bullshit motives into it, but I would like to hear your take on hooking up with the likes of Ledeen…from my perspective he’s beyond the pale. RLS is merely a political Simple Simon and a journalistic wannabe who can barely construct a coherent or insightful post…Ledeen’s at a whole other level of malfeasance that I can’t countenance and I’m disappointed that you and David are letting your well-deserved and hard-earned reputations add legitimacy to this dubious venture.
October 31st, 2005 at 11:06 pm
On Samuel Alito:
The nomination of an unambiguous opponent of women’s reproductive rights to the Supreme Court will be a test of how willing the Democratic Party is to wage a principled and determined fight when those rights are under clear attack. The Democrats stood by and said little during the travails of Harriet Miers, a completely unqualified crony who nevertheless appeared soft on the hardcore values of the right wing. This was not a principled stand, because we should not allow any incompetent person to serve on the Court no matter what their views and politics. Bush may be seriously weakened politically by recent events, but this nomination shows that he is still ready for a fight. If the Democrats are not up to it, then they will disqualify themselves from any pretensions as a force for progressive politics in this country–and make a third party all the more necessary.
November 1st, 2005 at 1:40 am
Reg.. thanks for the defense on Atrios. But neither David nor I have anything to apologize for regarding Pajamas. PJ is primarily an advertising network that has nothing to do with one’s politics. No one tells anyone else what he or she can blog. The term “editorial board” is perhaps misleading– as there are no collective editorial decisions. We are better described as founders.
I am fully aware of the word around Michael Ledeen. I als know the effects of tobacco, but cigarette compnaies sponsor many of the publications I write for.
November 1st, 2005 at 1:52 am
P.S. Reg.. oh nooooo…. I made the mistake of going to Atrios and reading the comments. Man, what a sewer! Full of the Free Pacifica wing nuts. So thanks for ur thankless task and I found ur comments in defense of me and David quite eloquent and forceful. I was touched, for real. Rest assured, David and I are neither dummies nor right wing dupes. If PJ’s turns out to be something untenable, I assure you we will be on the first train out. Reading Atrios reminds me why I rarely if ever read Atrios and Kos… they are beehives buzzing with a deadening unanimity of thought… and for such a bunch of aggregated liberals, I have to say they are mean, nasty, and petty. And like most people who live in bubbles, rather willfully ignorant.
What is alluring about pajamas is that such web magnets as Instapundit and Hugh Hewitt will be pulling tens of thousands of unconvinced eyeballs towards blogs like mine and David. I dont see how that facilitates counter-revolution.
November 1st, 2005 at 6:22 am
Reg: “Note to “Comrades” Ehrenstein and Champion – the assertion that Corn and Cooper “are no longer liberals” or “no longer anti-fascists” is insufferably stupid, analytically incompetent, politically irresponsible and points – with no apparent embarresments to the perpetrators of this crap – to the reason that the self-annointed Capital L-Left-In-Love-With-Itself (AKA self-righteous assholes who inhabit a micro-echo-chamber of preposterous PC and rhetorical overkill) is little more than an irritating scab on the ass of authentic left-liberalism with no moral, political or intellectual credibility. Grow the fuck up….”
Reg, you absolutely know that I am no political buddy of yours, but the above was an absolutely brilliant comment. Good on ya!
The typical responses on Atrios are the same kind of crap one finds on DU, Moveon and Little Green Footballs (and from some in here) not engendered to foster debate or an exchange as much as to shut someone up.
Again, reg, great comment.
November 1st, 2005 at 6:35 am
“embarresments” ? Sheeeesh…how embarrassing.
November 1st, 2005 at 6:38 am
“…..unambiguous opponent of women’s reproductive rights ..”
Hasn’t Alito ruled in support for and in some cases against in what NARAL would consider women’s rights Michael?
Why do you say his ruling are unambiguous? From your previous posts, you seem too intelligent to be so quickly to join with far Lefts’s or far Rights’s divisionists.
November 1st, 2005 at 1:42 pm
Marc you obviously don’t watch WEST WING since a major plot element this year is Toby’s leaking a national security secret to the press.
Sorry to hear that you hold ATRIOS and KOS in low esteem. I doubt if they are any more responsible for comments to their site than you are. Further they make no bones of advocating for the “Democratic wing of the Democratic Party”. As Tony Soprano might say, you got a problem with that?
November 1st, 2005 at 1:43 pm
Not sure this is the best place to post this, but there was a brilliant segment on Keith Olbermann’s show on MSNBC last night. The woman replacing KO whose name I didn’t catch had on an editor of American Conservative magazine. He is former CIA. He has written what sounds like the dispositive investigative piece on the origin of the “yellowcake uranium in Niger” memos.
According to the story, they were concocted by Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi, who was currying Bush’s favor at the time. The memos got to the White House without ever being vetted or even seen, apparently, by CIA (until much later). This could occur because the White House established its own intelligence unit, thru the Undersecretary of State. I am completely unable to recall names today, btw. I am going to try to find the article on-line.
Maybe this is common knowledge, but it was new, and revelatory, to me.
One more unconnected thing: don’t abide the statement by the right that they want to stop legislating from the bench, or that it is up to the legislatures and Congress to express the will of the people. According to last week’s New Yorker article (on Stephen Breyer), Clarence Thomas voted to invalidate 66% of the federal statutes that came before the Court. More than anyone else. One can imagine that Scalia, Kennedy and Rehnquist couldn’t have been far behind.
Set aside Roe and religion for a moment….these folks want to change the world by invalidating 75 years’ broad interpretation of what is necessary and proper to enable the Commerce of the united states to flourish…the Constitution’s Commerce Clause that is the textual basis for much federal law, including 1964 Civil Rights Act, etc. This at a time when commerce is becoming no longer a national but wholly international phenomenon. That is what is important about the “machine gun” opinion people have been talking about. If any issue will kill this nomination, it is that Alito and those who think like him will do untold damage by pretending that the world is shrinking to the size the religious fundamentalists will be comfortable with…about the size of their own congregations.
Sorry…a bunch of unrelated ideas that have been trying to get out….
November 1st, 2005 at 2:00 pm
Bravo Mr Crosby! The Religious Right may think this about Abortion but the real agenda of the “Constitution in Excile” movement of the Federalist Society is to restore the Jurisprudence of the pre- New Deal Court. That means you have the “Right” to work for less than minimum wage and for 100 hours a week with no overtimes. Also your child has the “right” to contract his labor. I’m not sure they will invalidate the Civil Rights Act but you never can tell.
November 1st, 2005 at 2:27 pm
Exactly, it’s a bsuiness takover from the standing of the Harding Coolidge era.
November 1st, 2005 at 3:43 pm
2 things…
1 – David Corn has a feisty and humorous rejoinder to James Woolcott’s dissing him for joing PJM (also reprints JW’s entire post, which is, as usual, worth reading for the entertainment value as much as the opining.)
2 – I just heard Junior Kristol talking to Terry Gross about how Scalito would follow the tradition of conservative jurisprudence and not overturn lots of legislation like liberal judges are wont to do. That’s literally what he said. Of course, as Michael C. points out, this is another Big Lie of the Right. Kevin Drum published a chart that’s been making the rounds: …here’s a New York Times op-ed from a few months ago that provides a metric for one particular type of “judicial activism”: the willingness of a justice to overturn congressional legislation. It turns out that it’s conservatives who are most likely to strike down laws and liberals who are most like to show deference and let them stand. Here are the numbers since 1994:
Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O’Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %
(end clip)
So we see that the Judicial Activism that Kristol claims to loathe and that Scalito will allegedly not practice is actually an inverse indicator of a judge’s apparent political liberalism and becomes more rampant the more conservative the judge. Maybe a lgoical conservative argument can be made as to why this is a “good thing”, but it would be nice if Junior Kristol didn’t just run around in public and lie about it. Par for the course with these geeks…
November 1st, 2005 at 3:58 pm
I suggest that Roger Simon get P.J. O’Rourke to join the editorial board of PJ Media. They need a PJ with which they can go public. The image of Michael Ledeen sweating over his laptop in grubby, plaid flannel doesn’t work for me. The real P.J. can write, he’s got a sense of humor and his journalistic credentials range beyond the ranks of moronic shills, rank amateurs and cynical operatives – thus, despite his conservatism, he’d join David and Marc in adding much needed “balance” to the enterprise.
November 1st, 2005 at 4:45 pm
Reg, thank you for posting that list. While as you imply, invalidating Congressional legislation is only one standard for judging who is legislating from where, it is a good start.
This nomination can be beaten, and it is possible that in doing so, the American people can demand that the Court not be perverted into an agency to turn back the clock. This administration is in a very weak position. It does not have political capital. It was much riskier than has been recognized to nominate a right wing hero as opposed to a center-leaning conservative. There is no guarantee that moderate Republicans will remain silent and invisible forever.
Obviously for one thing some moderate Republican senators are going to have to vote up or down on someone who is likely to vote to eviscerate if not reverse Roe v Wade. This will alienate two generations of American women, particularly those in teens to 40s, who have grown up with the “knowledge” that certain private decisions are their own and not the government’s. They believe in a right to privacy, whether Scalia and Alito do or not. When it comes time to register a public vote, there are a number of senators who are going to have trouble opening themselves to the blame that will attach to an “aye” voter, particularly those who will come up for election in 06 and 08.
But the real debate, and the close questioning, has to be about the revisionist interpretations of the Commerce Clause, the Spending Clause and the Tenth Amendment–the philosophical movement that I believe Alito (and probably Roberts) will support that will undermine future efforts to provide a federal remedy for a number of social ills. For example, if not for the broad interpretation of the Commerce power, what is the rationale for Congress providing relief to Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, etc for hurricane damage? Seriously, if decisions like that which invalidated the Violence Against Women Act get further support, where will it stop? Before or after they get to child labor laws? Before or after they get to federal overtime laws? Before or after they get to race, age, gender and disability discrimination laws? All these depend upon, and their legislative history will show that the federal constitutional power cited to support them was, the broad view of the Commerce power. Chop away at that, and who knows what will fall?
Kerry and the Democrats actually argued this in 2004, but it is a legalistic argument and no one has spent much time educating the public about its importance. I think this is the time. If a real debate ensues, it will illuminate a lot about what is really important, not just around Supreme Court nominees, but what is really the impact of the fundamentalist/ conservative offensive that is reshaping and really perverting our nation.
November 1st, 2005 at 5:09 pm
I’m not so sure that Reg’s list is a good start. If you look at the list as a vote on whether a law is constitutional or not, then the more conservative (in some ways) the judge, the more likely he is to uphold the constitutional principle.
If another list was made on whether or not a judge decided to find emminations and penumbras and/or make law out of whole cloth, that would indeed be legislating from the bench.
A judges primary duty on the USSC is to determine whether a given case meets or doesn’t meet constitutional muster. That’s it. That’s all. Any judge doing just that is OK in my book, whether liberal, libertarian or conservative.
Perhaps the issue is whether or not one’s political philosophy agrees with or clashes with a given judges rulings, but that is an entirely different argument.
November 1st, 2005 at 5:41 pm
Whether the list is a good place to start in analysing “good” judges vs. “bad” judges by ones lights, Junior Kristol – one of the contemporary tribunes of conservatism, an alleged intellectual and a pundit with a pretty obvious portfolio who turns up around just about every corner – was blatantly lying regarding the facts of whether or not liberals or conservatives were “judicial activists” according to his own definition of the term, i.e. interfering with the actions of legislatures. Since I’d seen this list about two hours before I heard Kristol bloviating to Terry Gross, his fabrications amazed me even more than usual. Honesty would seem like a pretty basic ground rule in this debate…
November 2nd, 2005 at 2:04 pm
As I stated, invalidation of statutes is only one expression of judicial activism…but it is a very important one. The issue, as reg suggests, is honesty. The right (both the economic liberty and the Christian mullah wings) wave the poll-tested banner decrying legislation from the bench. To the extent they claim this position is based on its favoring the democratic process, as exhibited by passage of statutes, ordinances and the like, they are being dishonest.
As for the right of privacy arising from emanations and penumbrae of other stated rights, certainly I understand why some remain unconvinced. But like J. Goldberg in Griswold v CT (I think), I wonder what these “strict constructionists” think the 9th Amendment means. It states, basically, that the rights enumerated in the 1st 8 amendments are not the only ones guaranteed by the constitution.
It is a question I would ask Judge Alito.
November 3rd, 2005 at 6:09 pm
It’s pretty clear they think commerce is sacrosanct even if it undermines the basic rights of Americans. We are still a nation of workers and business owners. Taking things back to 1900 is not what I want to see, strict construction be damned. That and legislation from the bench are cliches for our way or the highway. I favor Breyer’s view. Strictly speaking the founders didn’t consider the things we deal with today.
May 23rd, 2006 at 5:55 pm
online credit report…
randomizes,recurses kern rareness notified.offends free credit http://www.credit-report-support.com/ …
July 21st, 2006 at 12:19 pm
Ein Schloss, Ein poker Wurst, Ein Kopf !vnb
January 23rd, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Craps…
sided lazing persuading humblest Roulette [url=http://www.atroulette.com/#]Roulette[/url] http://www.atroulette.com/# …
March 25th, 2007 at 6:04 am
extra large dog house…
Fresh news on extra large dog house….
November 15th, 2007 at 6:07 am
play wize poker play poker…
InAddition kostenloses online spiel virtual casinos…
November 18th, 2007 at 12:37 am
video poker freeware…
…
November 18th, 2007 at 10:45 am
If You are apply card credit mart wal button belly pat free internet casino gambling cut sports mechanic banco city uk aqua credit card cheat royale sharp glimmer!
November 19th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
juego al instante portales…
Cada uno de es los mejores poker promociones draw poker…
November 20th, 2007 at 2:24 am
btdino casino online…
…
November 20th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
no faxing payday loan…
Through easy payday loan fast payday loan…
November 22nd, 2007 at 6:19 pm
how to win at roulette…
…
November 22nd, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Cash Advance No Fax Machine Required…
…
December 7th, 2007 at 10:54 am
They card compare credit different from offer bonus fish case consolidate debt loan credit card poker complete lock prize best cash back reward credit card stack freezeout longshot counting.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:31 am
online free poker…
By means of gambling poker blackjack card game online…
January 7th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
cingular free go phone ringtones…
Don”t free phone ringtones verizon wireless free cricket kyocera ringtones…
January 8th, 2008 at 8:11 am
download free tracfone ringtones…
Always payday loan cash advance loan free nokia ringtones tracfone…
January 8th, 2008 at 8:25 am
poker online en español…
Only balance card consolidat credit transfer airline reward credit card…
January 8th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
texas holdem blätter…
Ironically apply card credit student casinos laÂnea…
January 20th, 2008 at 4:53 am
budget line cash advance advance cash line loan…
Thus advance cash on line bad credit cash advance…
January 26th, 2008 at 1:56 am
des jeux de poker à telecharger…
As you see cash advance service free lg ringtones tracfone…
January 29th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
la règle du poker…
This payday loan toronto klingeltöne zum downloaden…
January 30th, 2008 at 3:52 am
téléchargement de sonneries…
Ironically advance cash day in loan pay uk advance america cash first…
February 1st, 2008 at 11:10 am
free nokia 1100 ringtones…
For a start download free music ringtones cash till payday loan…
February 1st, 2008 at 11:12 am
download free ringtones virgin mobile…
Applying for cash advance service nokia composer ringtones…
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:12 am
advance cash loan loan payday…
As shown in pay day cash advance payday loan ringtones for sprint phone…
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:35 am
free alltel music ringtones…
With bollywood mp3 ringtones download ringtones verizon…
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:02 am
nokia cell phone wallpaper…
If You are download free info personal polyphonic remember ringtone nfl cell phone wallpaper…
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:09 am
harry potter ringtones verizon…
Just cellular phone ringtones verizon wireless free ringtones for verizon mobile phone…
February 15th, 2008 at 11:13 am
download free u.s cellular ringtones…
Still download free real ringtones info nokia remember ringtones…
March 8th, 2008 at 11:23 am
juego de poker gratis…
Hola 7 card stud juegos polly poker…
March 8th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
aces texas holdem…
Parole paradise poker poker texas holdem…
March 8th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
streap poker online…
Vedere poker gratis texas holdem gratis…
March 15th, 2008 at 1:02 am
real tone ringtones…
Withiin unlimited music ringtones ampd free mobile ringtones…
January 15th, 2010 at 5:33 pm
Thanks so a ultra usefullwebsite. It’s guided me in making up my mind about payday loans. It perhaps interest you to know that I found an alternate website which supports what you post here.
March 24th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
nice blog article about this subject. this makes me ask a question though, so i dont really understand the relation of this topic and your entire blog. it just doesnt go together. But nontheless i found it very readable. Cheers, Rizwan
July 22nd, 2010 at 2:07 pm
i believe it was a bit rushed, and unnoticed some options that not many individuals talk about. Everybody is aware of that the majority new smartphones have web, so why show that basic operate at its bear minimum. Scroll up scroll down zoom in zoom out. Really? which new cellphone doesnt try this? How bout talk about how the textual content rearranges itsself. Also the texting, very poor review. Why didnt you mention you should use the mic and text along with your voice? Unnoticed ALOT of different more important options
August 29th, 2010 at 5:40 am
Gotta take pleasure in your time you place into your blog
June 4th, 2011 at 4:40 pm
I give you no gurantee of these programs. Try on your own risk