Red Flags
I'm heading out to the local desert for this long weekend but couldn't leave without saying a few words about the announced retirement of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Now comes the battle royale over the Supreme Court that some (not me) have been waiting for over the last decade. I suspect with the war in Iraq mired, with Social Security deform reform now dead in the water, with more tax cuts the exclusive private property of the Heritage Foundation fringe, there's seemingly no other issue for Bush to hang his second term on.
No one should be surprised, then, if Bush uses this vacancy to toss a chunk of red meat to the GOP base bynaming one or another outrageous, polarizing candidate. Seem like none other than torture specialist Alberto Gonzalez has the early leg up.
But Bush should take a close at the polls before he makes one more public display of kiss-my-ass arrogance. The Prez is currently in slow motion freefall numberswise. Take a look at the new Zogby Poll and find Bush at an all time low and continuing to dip lower in spite of (or perhaps as a result) of this week's speech on Iraq. Even the I-word, impeachment, reared its curly little head in this latest temperature taking. Says Zogby:
President Bush's televised address to the nation
produced no noticeable bounce in his approval numbers, with his job
approval rating slipping a point from a week ago, to 43%, in the latest
Zogby International poll. And, in a sign of continuing polarization,
more than two-in-five voters (42%) say they would favor impeachment
proceedings if it is found the President misled the nation about his
reasons for going to war with Iraq...
Another red flag for Bush comes from, well, the so-called red states. He's also losing popularity there:
In a more significant sign of the weakness of the
President's numbers, more "Red State" voters"”that is, voters living in
the states that cast their ballots for the Bush-Cheney ticket in
2004"”now rate his job performance unfavorably, with 50% holding a
negative impression of the President's handling of his duties, and 48%
holding a favorable view. The President also gets negative marks from
one-in-four (25%) Republicans"”as well as 86% of Democrats and 58% of
independents. (Bush nets favorable marks from 75% of Republicans, 13%
of Democrats and 40% of independents.)
Now if the Democrats could only come up with some candidates and some ideas. But then again, there's that old saying: "If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle." She doesn't and she ain't.
July 1st, 2005 at 9:59 am
“Now comes the battle royale over the Supreme Court that some (not me) have been waiting for over the last decade.”
Sandra Day O’Connor was the swing vote in countless Supreme Court decisions over the last two decades. Are you saying that it doesn’t make any difference who is named to replace her? I, for one, am not that dispassionate.
July 1st, 2005 at 10:06 am
The folks at Red State (dot org), as well as countless other right-wing “fix our courts” activists are NOT pleased with Gonzales. He’s too soft on Roe v. Wade for them.
July 1st, 2005 at 10:34 am
Don’t fool yourselves. What America needs more than anything else now is a nasty-ass Supreme Court nomination battle. Really.
July 1st, 2005 at 10:59 am
I agree with you, it will be Gonzales. Bush will dare the Dems to reject the first Latino Justice. Not a chance. And Gonzales will be business friendly which means more than ROE ro the real GOP rulers. A red hot Dobsonite would be unreliable on these issues.
But if I am wrong and we got another Scalia or Bork then it should be what Dighby calls it: “Nuclear Summer”. Gut check time for Dems - No Excuses.
July 1st, 2005 at 11:02 am
OT: At the Innagural for Antonio today the crowd booed the Governator so loudly that the new mayor has to call for civility.
July 1st, 2005 at 11:30 am
Forget the polls. We’ve already had the only “poll” that counted regarding future appointments to the Court–last year’s presidential election. People re-elected Bush and rejected the French candidate because the voters saw and trusted Bush’s vision of the type of justices that this country needs. I personally want justices who don’t act like legislators and who don’t contrive wild interpretations of the Constitution. Let the Legislative branch do its job as intended, have the Court respect its limits, and let the President fulfill his role in this of appointing justices in accordance with the wishes of the majority of Americans.
Also, everyone have a happy and safe Independence Day weekend. Don’t forget to take a moment to honor and reflect on the courage and sacrificies of our founders and the freedoms that they made possible for us. Make this more than just another day off.
July 1st, 2005 at 11:51 am
Fortunately, Woody, that’s not what the framers had in mind with regard to the process of naming Suporeme Court justices. We don’t elect a king every four years.
July 1st, 2005 at 12:12 pm
“People re-elected Bush and rejected the French candidate because the voters saw and trusted Bush’s vision of the type of justices that this country needs.”
Sorry, Woody, don’t buy it for a moment. The election really wasn’t about SC nominations, the economy, Social Security, health care…it was about Iraq. The current polls are showing that more and more people realize that this particular emperor wears no clothes.
Now, the fundamentalists, that’s a different story. They’ve been licking their chops for the last two decades over the prospect of overturning Roe v. Wade.
But, guess what? The majority of Americans, after years and years
of hyperbolic rhetoric on both sides STILL want abortion safe, legal, and rare. And their realistic enough to know that making it illegal will NOT make it go away.
No, I believe strongly that most Americans want a SC that is both moderate and fairminded. Bush may gleefully name Scalia and Thomas as his two favorite judges, but I don’t believe the American populace gives him much support on that.
That, of course, won’t hinder Bush at all…he is at best a mediocre president who will no doubt make a mediocre nomination, based on his skewered ideology.
July 1st, 2005 at 12:13 pm
Oops, that was me.
July 1st, 2005 at 12:56 pm
Marc, your comment focuses on Bush’s historical legacy. A Supreme Court nomination (likely the first of two or three, even four in the next three years) is more important than that. Perhaps the fact that I am a litigator in an unstable area (employment discrimination and the like) colors my thinking, but Bush’s power to nominate federal judges is his greatest power, even more than his “finger on the button.” It is my guess that there are more controls and “checks and balances” on the latter than there are on the former.
From a political perspective, it is important that the left keep its powder dry unless and until he nominates a truly unacceptable justice. He has a right to nominate a conservative. (And Woody, if you think it is liberal judges who are the “activists” who are rewriting laws and constitutions now, you stopped reading the papers about 1985.) But Marc’s dismissive remarks fail to recognize that there are conservatives and there are zealots (cf. O’Connor v. Scalia). We cannot accept a zealot, and should fight any ideologue of the right. This is way more important than just how it affects the Bonzo Bush legacy. While it is true, as Finley Peter Dunne’s character Mr Dooley observed: “judges follow the election returns,” lifetime judicial nominations affect the lives of generations of people throughout the world, not to mention the physical survival of the earth as a life-sustaining planet.
The problem is that it is rarely easy to know when a judge is conservative but fair, as opposed to batty. You wonder whether even the Bushies will know in all cases. (Cf. David Souter.) The best guess is that the administration will nominate a true believer unless they are absolutely sure that Rehnquist (the Nixon nominee that Nixon referred to as “Renchberg…that Jew from Justice”) is going to resign. The scary possibilities are the aging, physically-weakened liberals having to step down.
July 1st, 2005 at 1:12 pm
You guys have all missed the obvious: KELO.
Bush has a golden opportunity to nominate someone who thinks Kelo stinks and will revisit it at the earliest opportunity. Note that the “conservative” Scalia voted in FAVOR of States being allowed to operate Medical Marijuana clinics and doctors to prescribe it; so the situation is far more complex than you think.
However, KELO is the load of bricks dropped down on the scales; ordinary people look at local governments just seizing their property for whatever rich and connected developer wants to do (and Bush can easily paint Dems as the Party of the Rich and Connected, look at Nancy Pelosi endorsing Kelo).
Arnold too can swipe at this issue; Antonio gets a lot of press (but the Brian Williams called the Iranian Hostage Takers equivalent to the Founding Fathers and George Washington a terrorist) but he has a huge barrier:
He’s a “La Raza” spoils politician. If you are not Latino you don’t get anywhere with him. Exclusionary politics has it’s price; Latino voting participation is low compared to their population, and pandering measures that Antonio and Fabian Nunez are pushing are going to be VERY unpopular because they are in their basis racially exclusionary. Drivers Licenses for illegals and in-state tuition are at their core ethnic pandering and unfair. At a time when Arnold’s popularity is dropping, Dems are not moving to a populist uniting set of positions but extreme pandering and outright hostility to the white middle class which contrary to the Dems wishes (they really are hostile towards them) forms the majority of active voters in this state. Coalition building in the FDR mode is dead in the Party.
As for Bush, positioning the Supreme Court justice battle over “saving your home” is a guaranteed winner, particularly since it will force the Dems into the suicidal position of wanting to take away ordinary folks homes.
Look for a nominee who’s opposed Kelo or cases like it; with massive public opinion in favor of Bush. I honestly don’t think Bush is serious about Abortion Rights overturning; Roe v. Wade is both settled and advantageous politically.
Bush’s unpopularity is only matched by the Dems even DEEPER unpopularity; they are seen (probably rightly) as unpatriotic, hostile to the middle class, and weak on crime and terrorism. Most of Bush’s unpopularity is due IMHO to high gas prices which is visible every time you fill up. “Saving your home” is a good counter-attack politically and I would be shocked if he did not make it.
July 1st, 2005 at 2:39 pm
God Jim Arnold got BOOED in LA. Think it would be any better in the Bay Area? He’s dead meat. So Woody I guess the “French Candidate” is the one who goes to Vietnam, gets wounded and winds medals while the All-American is the guy who has daddy (a war hero himself, by the way) save his ass by getting him into the Air National Guard where he gets high and goes AWOL for a year in Alabama - no one but his dentist sees him there - and failed to take a flight physical because he probably was on cocaine or some other drug, right?
July 1st, 2005 at 3:43 pm
David Corn in his Nation posting made a good point. Instead of referring to conservative and liberal (as I did in my prior post) we should ask whether we want to “continue moving forward” or retreat back to the early days of the 20th century (when the Supreme Court was ruling child labor laws, overtime and minimum wage laws and the like to be unconstitutional infringements on economic liberty interests of employers).
It wouldn’t take much to return us to the days when life was “nasty, brutish and short,” as Antonin Scalia’s favorite philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, saw it. (Not to be confused with Hobbes, the imaginary tiger, Bonzo Bush’s favorite cartoon action figure.)
You can bet that Scalia is operating behind the scenes, through doppelgangers that are salted throughout the administration, to drop the name of the candidate he would like to eat lunch with for the next 20 years.
July 1st, 2005 at 4:04 pm
“Now comes the battle royale over the Supreme Court that some (not me) have been waiting for over the last decade”
I’m curious as to what it would be fair for me to read into that sentence. Care to elaborate, Marc ??? I promise not to Nader-bait you.
July 1st, 2005 at 11:47 pm
Candidates to replace O’Connor
The already has been much discussion over who should be appointed to replace her. Some argue that the replacement should be a woman. Others (i.e. liberals) insist that the President should appoint someone who is a moderate. And others still (i.e. conse…
July 2nd, 2005 at 8:04 am
Well, if we’re invoking polls, here’s a Gallup (from instapundit):
Gallup announced yesterday that it had taken a snap poll after the speech given by George Bush on the war in Iraq from Fort Bragg. The poll showed some movement bolstering support for the war. In fact, it showed Bush picking up ten points on whether we are winning in Iraq (up to 54%), twelve points on keeping troops in Iraq until the situation improves as opposed to setting an exit date for their evacuation (now at 70%/25%), and seven points on whether Bush has a clear plan for handling the war in Iraq (up to 63%/35%).
I wish the opposition had something better to talk about than surrender and another revenge impeachment.
July 2nd, 2005 at 9:44 am
Well Zogby showed no bounce and the Gallup poll showed a 2 -1 Republican margin on who saw the speech, which was one of the lowest overall. So I doubt if Shrub convinced anyone. But now he can change the subject with the Court.
July 2nd, 2005 at 11:58 am
“But now he can change the subject with the Court.”
That’s really it, isn’t it?
If Iraq is the ultimate “diversion from the war on terror,” then the coming dogfight over the SCOTUS confirmation could well be the ultimate diversion from the war in Iraq. And with so many damsels in distress on former colonial properties, not to mention the mental health of so many highly important celebrities in doubt, Iraq seems likely to recede from view for awhile.
July 2nd, 2005 at 1:34 pm
As a measure of just how psycho and singleminded the right-wing has become, the Times reports that delegations of wingnuts, from Boyden Grey and Ed Meese to Weyrich and other fundamentalist and “federalist” crackpots are threatening Bush not to nominate Henry Gonzales to the Supreme Court because they’re not certain he’s anatagonistic enough to Roe.
Please don’t ask me to argue over comments by Michael Moore or Counterpunch or, god forbid, Ward Churchill. If you’re looking for political extremists who actually endanger the republic, they are flooding the damned Oval Office this very day and will more than likely prevail. Gonazles NOT CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH! Makes me puke…
I won’t demean myself like Hitchens does by calling these hard-right scumbags demanding payback for turning fundamentalism into an electoral bloc “brownshirts” or “fascist thugs”. I’m not Oxford-educated, so I’d just look like a fumbling moron. But their fundamentalist extremism (religious and/or political) is the most dangerous and distasteful threat to the fabric of our civil society in my memory. Controversial decisions like Brown vs. Board of Education and Roe vs. Wade that angered conservatives over the years (and in particular the always reliable white Southern faction, who are really Bush’s only solid bastion at this point) were the result of moderate justices weighing issues with some sense of complexity and history. Although they were obviously as far from the result of some leftwing cabal as one could imagine, they have been put forward as judicial tyranny by a succession of racial, political and religious fundamentalists. But you ain’t seen nothing yet.
Let us never forget that this hatred of “liberal courts” began with the desegregation decisions and, while they don’t talk about their lineage in polite company anymore, these bastards haven’t let up one single day since Earl Warren decided to do the right thing. (Useful idiots like Thomas and Brown haven’t changed the fundamental color or character of this movement in it’s “intellectualized” PR version one whit since it began boiling up.) What’s amazing is that even Henry Gonzales isn’t good enough for them. Scary folk…
July 2nd, 2005 at 1:47 pm
“another revenge impeachment.”
Hey PJ, I’ll settle for a perjury conviction and jail time for Herr Karl. Hell, I’m a pragmatist and I’ll grab what’s actually on the table over wishful thinking or “perfect justice” anytime. Also, I’d never overlook the value of symbols. Rove’s head, with a scarlet “L” painted on it, would look nice planted on a pole in front of The White House.
July 2nd, 2005 at 1:50 pm
Relevant link re that last comment.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8445696/site/newsweek
July 2nd, 2005 at 5:58 pm
“Now if the Democrats could only come up with some candidates and some ideas. But then again, there’s that old saying: ‘If my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle.’ She doesn’t and she ain’t.”
Oh he of little faith:
http://www.draftprado.org/
“Judge Prado would be a Supreme Court nominee who all Americans could be proud of. He is truly a uniter, not a divider.
“Ed Prado, a Hispanic American from Texas, has served as a District Attorney, a Public Defender, a State District Judge, a United States Attorney, a Federal District Judge and is currently a Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Judge Prado was first nominated to the Federal District Court in 1984 by President Ronald Reagan. In 2003, President George W. Bush nominated him for his current position on the Fifth Circuit and the Senate confirmed him 97-0.
“Nominated by Republicans and supported by Democrats, Judge Prado has earned bi-partisan support as an extremely intelligent, moderate, fair-minded jurist in his 20 years on the federal bench.”
The onus is on Bush, not the Dems, Marc. Think the Pres will nominate Prado? I bet he nominates Alberto Gonzales. Why? For the same reason a dog licks his balls. Because he can.
July 2nd, 2005 at 6:54 pm
re: reg’s post and heads on pikes. Scuttlebutt I’m hearing from friends in DC is that it is indeed Rove. Don’t know yet if this is reliable. I think the weekend news will be of other matters, O’Conner replacement et al, but next week…. things could get damned interesting.
July 2nd, 2005 at 7:41 pm
rd-One can always hope for a few crumbs of justice…short, of course, of a Republican Congress impeaching Bush or Peggy Noonan bursting into flames as she types one of her OpinionJournal calumnies.
Thanks for that link Randy…first thing I’ve seen I can push for in some small way that doesn’t seem like a “dry California whine” with little but a bitter, lingering finish to show for itself…
(Somehow I don’t think anybody proposing much of anything or even Dems going to the mattresses will satisfy Marc, by the way. His contempt runs too deep.)
July 2nd, 2005 at 9:45 pm
PJ,
A word of advice: Vet the makeup of the poll:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/28/poll.bush.speech.iraq/
“The poll was taken immediately after the speech, and the 323 adults interviewed were 50 percent Republican, 23 percent Democratic and 27 percent independent. The margin of error was plus or minus 6 percentage points.”
Always best to dig a little deeper.
July 3rd, 2005 at 2:28 pm
Randy Paul sez:
“The onus is on Bush, not the Dems, Marc. Think the Pres will nominate Prado? I bet he nominates Alberto Gonzales. Why? For the same reason a dog licks his balls. Because he can.”
That’s a phrase my grandfather would say!
July 4th, 2005 at 1:08 am
“People re-elected Bush and rejected the French candidate”
It takes a real asshole to write such a thing. I guess you forgot to check with God as to whether he approved of such garbage, lacking any sort of judgment of your own.
July 4th, 2005 at 1:14 am
“Also, everyone have a happy and safe Independence Day weekend. Don’t forget to take a moment to honor and reflect on the courage and sacrificies of our founders and the freedoms that they made possible for us. Make this more than just another day off.”
Good idea. I’ll do that by making a donation to the Bush impeachment effort.
July 4th, 2005 at 11:15 am
I read on this July 4 that the “Gang of 14″ compromise makes a filibuster impossible since “Extraordinary Circumstances” refers to personal or character flaws. So, as long as the nominee didn’t cheat on his wife or steal any talk of judicial philosophy is verboten. So, if true, the chickenshit Dems of the DLC have screwed us again. I hope you all enjoyed the old republic. It was good while it lasted.
July 4th, 2005 at 11:16 am
I read on this July 4 that the “Gang of 14″ compromise makes a filibuster impossible since “Extraordinary Circumstances” refers to personal or character flaws. So, as long as the nominee didn’t cheat on his wife or steal any talk of judicial philosophy is verboten. So, if true, the chickenshit Dems of the DLC have screwed us again. I hope you all enjoyed the old republic. It was good while it lasted.
July 4th, 2005 at 11:16 am
I read on this July 4 that the “Gang of 14″ compromise makes a filibuster impossible since “Extraordinary Circumstances” refers to personal or character flaws. So, as long as the nominee didn’t cheat on his wife or steal any talk of judicial philosophy is verboten. So, if true, the chickenshit Dems of the DLC have screwed us again. I hope you all enjoyed the old republic. It was good while it lasted.
July 4th, 2005 at 11:16 am
I read on this July 4 that the “Gang of 14″ compromise makes a filibuster impossible since “Extraordinary Circumstances” refers to personal or character flaws. So, as long as the nominee didn’t cheat on his wife or steal any talk of judicial philosophy is verboten. So, if true, the chickenshit Dems of the DLC have screwed us again. I hope you all enjoyed the old republic. It was good while it lasted.
July 4th, 2005 at 11:17 am
I read on this July 4 that the “Gang of 14″ compromise makes a filibuster impossible since “Extraordinary Circumstances” refers to personal or character flaws. So, as long as the nominee didn’t cheat on his wife or steal any talk of judicial philosophy is verboten. So, if true, the chickenshit Dems of the DLC have screwed us again. I hope you all enjoyed the old republic. It was good while it lasted.
July 4th, 2005 at 11:18 am
I read on this July 4 that the “Gang of 14″ compromise makes a filibuster impossible since “Extraordinary Circumstances” refers to personal or character flaws. So, as long as the nominee didn’t cheat on his wife or steal any talk of judicial philosophy is verboten. So, if true, the chickenshit Dems of the DLC have screwed us again. I hope you all enjoyed the old republic. It was good while it lasted.
July 4th, 2005 at 11:21 am
I read on this July 4 that the “Gang of 14″ compromise makes a filibuster impossible since “Extraordinary Circumstances” refers to personal or character flaws. So, as long as the nominee didn’t cheat on his wife or steal any talk of judicial philosophy is verboten. So, if true, the chickenshit Dems of the DLC have screwed us again. I hope you all enjoyed the old republic. It was good while it lasted.
July 4th, 2005 at 1:34 pm
Thanks for that richard…your septuple post will forever reign as the standard we fumbling keyboarders aspire to. At least I hope it does.
July 5th, 2005 at 9:35 am
>>that’s not what the framers had in mind with regard to the process of naming Suporeme Court justices<<
I’m late, but actually it is what the framers had in mind. They spelled it out pretty effectively in the Federalist papers.
July 5th, 2005 at 5:08 pm
“I’m late, but actually it is what the framers had in mind. They spelled it out pretty effectively in the Federalist papers.”
Considering the words of the Constitution, “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate”, which reflect the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances , Woody’s vision is clearly and unequivocably not what they had in mind.
Jams Madison, in Federalist no. 47:
“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
So stop lying.
December 28th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
gimos rosocany gikma
papa http://mu397825.laupyez.info/sitemap7.html [url=http://mu397825.laupyez.info/sitemap7.html ]vela[/url] wulyj