The returns are in from yesterday’s election and everything seems to have gone as expected. Mayor Bloomberg won big in Gotham, Sen. Corzine won in New Jersey, Kaine won in the Old Dominion state, and the constitutional ban on gay marriage passed in Texas.
Presumably Democrats will present the gubernatorial victories of Corzine and Kaine as harbingers of more Democratic victories to come in ‘06. Perhaps they will be right, but I hardly see how these results foreshadow such an outcome. Sen. Corzine won in New Jersey because he is an established Democrat in an established Democratic state. Kaine was able to ride the coat-tails of the ever-popular current governor, Mark Warner, whom Kaine served under as lieutenant governor the past four years. Moreover, these victories were simple holds, not pick-ups. Democrats control no more state houses today than they did yesterday.
It is entirely possible that Democrats will enjoy substantial gains in next year’s mid-terms. Republicans are, for various reasons, certainly ripe for defeat. They spend too much, they haven’t addressed the border, we have heard very little about making the tax cuts permanent, and it seems to be business as usual in Washington, which Republicans were supposed to change when they were given control of congress in ‘94.
For the Democrats to capitalize on this however they will need to find some strong leadership and an agenda palatable to the American people. They don’t have either right now, and in fact are just as unpopular as Republicans are. All the Democrats have to offer now is opposition and outright hatred for Republicans and President Bush. That is nothing, and as the Democrats have learned in the past two elections you can’t beat something with nothing. The makeup of congress will change very little unless Democrats correct this.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Friday, November 04, 2005
Twenty-Five Years Ago
It was only twenty-five years ago today that America picked itself up from the ashes and sent Ronald Reagan to the White House. As a result the Cold War has been won, taxes are lower, and America believes in itself once again.
Good But Not Good Enough
The Senate took a step in the right direction yesterday by passing a spending reduction bill amounting to $36 billion. It was only a step however, and a very small step at that. Compared to the sheer size of the federal budget yesterday's cuts were fairly small, and if not followed by further cuts in the future will do little to advance fiscal responsibility within the federal government.
Moreover, even in a bill designed to cut spending Washington lawmakers couldn’t help but throw in a few token pieces of pork. For example, the bill provides $3 billion in federal funds to "subsidize television converter boxes for an upcoming changeover to digital broadcasts." Seriously. The bill may reduce $36 billion in federal spending but in total it introduces other new spending totaling $35 billion. It has gotten so pathetic that even when congress sets out to cut spending it only ends up finding new ways to spend more.
Slight cuts are certainly welcome, but federal spending is still out of control and cutting bits and pieces of spending here and there only to offset those cuts with increased spending elsewhere is going to do very little to solve the federal government’s fiscal challenges. What is needed is a comprehensive budget-reduction effort that will redo and reduce the federal budget from top to bottom. Republicans have been in the majority for over eleven years now and the fact that this has not been accomplished yet should shame every Republican lawmaker into action; serious action that goes much farther than the Senate went yesterday.
Moreover, even in a bill designed to cut spending Washington lawmakers couldn’t help but throw in a few token pieces of pork. For example, the bill provides $3 billion in federal funds to "subsidize television converter boxes for an upcoming changeover to digital broadcasts." Seriously. The bill may reduce $36 billion in federal spending but in total it introduces other new spending totaling $35 billion. It has gotten so pathetic that even when congress sets out to cut spending it only ends up finding new ways to spend more.
Slight cuts are certainly welcome, but federal spending is still out of control and cutting bits and pieces of spending here and there only to offset those cuts with increased spending elsewhere is going to do very little to solve the federal government’s fiscal challenges. What is needed is a comprehensive budget-reduction effort that will redo and reduce the federal budget from top to bottom. Republicans have been in the majority for over eleven years now and the fact that this has not been accomplished yet should shame every Republican lawmaker into action; serious action that goes much farther than the Senate went yesterday.
Monday, October 31, 2005
That Didn't Take Long...
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) stated in an interview today on MSNBC at around 12:25 P.T. that Judge Alito would, and I paraphrase, force a woman to consult her husband before receiving an abortion even if she feared him. Sen. Boxer was of course referring to Judge Alito’s dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Either willfully or out of ignorance, Sen. Boxer completely distorted not only Judge Alito’s opinion but the Pennsylvania law in question in the case. As Patterico pointed out yesterday in his review of Judge Alito’s dissent, the law in question did not force a married woman to consult her husband if she "ha[d] reason to believe that notification is likely to result in the infliction of injury upon her." Judge Alito acknowledged and cited this in his dissent. Further, all that was required was the woman’s uncorroborated assertion to this effect for her to be able to avoid the requirement. Quite the opposite of Sen. Boxer’s false statement.
Judge Alito’s nomination is only hours old and already Senate Democrats are not only distorting the truth but spreading lies. Unfortunately, Sen. Boxer’s statement is likely only a foretaste of the many distortions to come from her and members of her caucus throughout the nomination process. These tactics do the nominee, the process, the judiciary, and the nation a great disservice and hopefully enough senators from both sides will see fit to rise above them.
Cross-posted @ Respectfully Republican
Either willfully or out of ignorance, Sen. Boxer completely distorted not only Judge Alito’s opinion but the Pennsylvania law in question in the case. As Patterico pointed out yesterday in his review of Judge Alito’s dissent, the law in question did not force a married woman to consult her husband if she "ha[d] reason to believe that notification is likely to result in the infliction of injury upon her." Judge Alito acknowledged and cited this in his dissent. Further, all that was required was the woman’s uncorroborated assertion to this effect for her to be able to avoid the requirement. Quite the opposite of Sen. Boxer’s false statement.
Judge Alito’s nomination is only hours old and already Senate Democrats are not only distorting the truth but spreading lies. Unfortunately, Sen. Boxer’s statement is likely only a foretaste of the many distortions to come from her and members of her caucus throughout the nomination process. These tactics do the nominee, the process, the judiciary, and the nation a great disservice and hopefully enough senators from both sides will see fit to rise above them.
Cross-posted @ Respectfully Republican
Announcement Today?
The Washington Post is reporting that the president will likely announce his next Supreme Court nominee today, October 31. The possible nominees are Judge Samuel Alito of the Third Circuit, Judge J. Michael Luttig of the Fourth Circuit, and Judge Alice Batchelder of the Sixth Circuit. Do not be surprised however if the nominee is someone whose name has not been circulating through speculative circles.
If you had asked me who my favorite would have been yesterday I would have told you Judge Luttig with Judge Alito as a close second. Erick Erickson has commented however that there are concerns within some circles that Judge Luttig might possibly "grow in office", the infamous description the media uses for judges and politicians who have grown more liberal and less conservative while in office. I was surprised to learn this; Judge Luttig has had an extensive tenure on the federal bench with a consistent originalist/textualist record. Since Justice O’Connor announced her retirement last July I had favored Judge Luttig precisely because of the assumption that he was the least likely to change his spots if he were to become Justice Luttig.
If however there are legitimate concerns that Judge Luttig might indeed change over time once on the Court than Judge Alito should be the choice, as indications are that he very well might be. Judge Alito is a jurist of the deepest humility and knowledge of the constitution and his practice of judicial restraint is exactly the type of jurisprudence the Supreme Court sorely lacks at the moment.
Irregardless, the three possible nominees all have distinguished records on the bench and I'm sure all three will garner the widespread support of national conservatives that the Miers nomination failed to. Though there is little doubt that Democrats will fight tooth-and-nail against the nominee, whomever it is (they would have done that to Ms. Miers as well if conservatives hadn’t done their jobs for them), I'll hold off on commenting on the political dynamics of the nomination and confirmation process until the actual nominee is announced. I’ll simply say that any one of the three would be an excellent choice and will attract the type of overwhelming conservative support requisite in getting that nominee confirmed and on the Supreme Court.
If you had asked me who my favorite would have been yesterday I would have told you Judge Luttig with Judge Alito as a close second. Erick Erickson has commented however that there are concerns within some circles that Judge Luttig might possibly "grow in office", the infamous description the media uses for judges and politicians who have grown more liberal and less conservative while in office. I was surprised to learn this; Judge Luttig has had an extensive tenure on the federal bench with a consistent originalist/textualist record. Since Justice O’Connor announced her retirement last July I had favored Judge Luttig precisely because of the assumption that he was the least likely to change his spots if he were to become Justice Luttig.
If however there are legitimate concerns that Judge Luttig might indeed change over time once on the Court than Judge Alito should be the choice, as indications are that he very well might be. Judge Alito is a jurist of the deepest humility and knowledge of the constitution and his practice of judicial restraint is exactly the type of jurisprudence the Supreme Court sorely lacks at the moment.
Irregardless, the three possible nominees all have distinguished records on the bench and I'm sure all three will garner the widespread support of national conservatives that the Miers nomination failed to. Though there is little doubt that Democrats will fight tooth-and-nail against the nominee, whomever it is (they would have done that to Ms. Miers as well if conservatives hadn’t done their jobs for them), I'll hold off on commenting on the political dynamics of the nomination and confirmation process until the actual nominee is announced. I’ll simply say that any one of the three would be an excellent choice and will attract the type of overwhelming conservative support requisite in getting that nominee confirmed and on the Supreme Court.
Friday, October 28, 2005
Moving Forward
The balance of the conservative movement has gotten it’s way and the Miers nomination is a thing of the past. I’ve already shared my thoughts on the subject, in regards to both conservative reaction to and treatment of her and the White House’s handling of her nomination. In the interest of brevity I’ll avoid any repetition of these views and simply say that though I disagreed with many of my fellow conservatives’ opposition to her I hope we can now move forward and create the impetus and momentum needed to accomplish all the aspects of our agenda that remain unaccomplished.
There is still much to be done. Federal spending is out of control and substantial cuts are needed. The U.S.-Mexican border has been neglected for far too long and the border problem is in dire need of attention. The tax-code is too complex and is a burden on the economy. At the very least the code should be dramatically simplified.
The same goes for Social Security, which will be in serious trouble in the not too distant future. To help alleviate the looming crisis congress should stop spending the annual surplus and return the money in the form of personal savings accounts back to whom it belongs—the people. Though the accounts won’t look at all like those the president proposed they will go a long ways towards permanently fixing Social Security once and for all.
None of this is possible however without national conservatives supporting the president and pressuring their representatives in congress to get things done. The Miers debacle was a bitter and divisive affair and now that it is over we should all put the past month or so behind us and move forward. Too much still needs to be done to dwell on any hurt feelings or old scars; it’s time to let bygones be bygones and focus on the next nomination and the yet to be enacted Bush agenda.
NOTE: Indications are that the next nominee might be Judge Samuel Alito of the Third Circuit or Judge J. Michael Luttig of the Fourth Circuit. The internet chatter has been leaning in Alito’s direction. Either man would be a great choice and a nominee whom conservatives could coalesce around.
Cross-Posted @ Respectfully Republican
There is still much to be done. Federal spending is out of control and substantial cuts are needed. The U.S.-Mexican border has been neglected for far too long and the border problem is in dire need of attention. The tax-code is too complex and is a burden on the economy. At the very least the code should be dramatically simplified.
The same goes for Social Security, which will be in serious trouble in the not too distant future. To help alleviate the looming crisis congress should stop spending the annual surplus and return the money in the form of personal savings accounts back to whom it belongs—the people. Though the accounts won’t look at all like those the president proposed they will go a long ways towards permanently fixing Social Security once and for all.
None of this is possible however without national conservatives supporting the president and pressuring their representatives in congress to get things done. The Miers debacle was a bitter and divisive affair and now that it is over we should all put the past month or so behind us and move forward. Too much still needs to be done to dwell on any hurt feelings or old scars; it’s time to let bygones be bygones and focus on the next nomination and the yet to be enacted Bush agenda.
NOTE: Indications are that the next nominee might be Judge Samuel Alito of the Third Circuit or Judge J. Michael Luttig of the Fourth Circuit. The internet chatter has been leaning in Alito’s direction. Either man would be a great choice and a nominee whom conservatives could coalesce around.
Cross-Posted @ Respectfully Republican
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Straight From CENTCOM
I received an e-mail from First Lieutenant Brian Anderson of U.S. Central Command today asking me to link to a CENTCOM press release regarding the story being put out about bodies being burned in Afghanistan. I'll let the press release speak for itself but Lt. Anderson made it clear in the e-mail that CENTCOM does not condone such activity. Here is the link to the press release:
http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/News_Release.asp?NewsRelease=20051071.txt
http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/News_Release.asp?NewsRelease=20051071.txt
A Pox On Both Your Houses
Blogging on Redstate.org in regards to the Miers nomination Pejman Yousefzadeh emphatically stated that "the White House has thoroughly botched the mechanics of her [Ms. Mier’s] nomination". This sentiment is widely held throughout the country and in many ways it is correct.
The White House’s attempts at propping up the nominee have been weak and ineffective. We have heard little, if anything about Ms. Mier’s work in the White House the past four and a half years, only the constant recitation of some of her firsts in Texas and the fact that she is a devout evangelical Christian. All interesting facts to know but otherwise irrelevant to her judicial temperament or ability.
It has also slipped out that Ms. Miers really wasn’t the first choice but the replacement for the nominee who opted out at the last minute. Such a revelation can work in no way except to the detriment of Ms. Miers confirmation prospects and her credibility should she be confirmed. The last thing she needs through this whole ordeal is the label of "second choice" hanging over her head like a dark storm cloud.
Equally at fault though have been national conservatives. They have opposed Ms. Miers nomination from the start, rising in righteous indignation with the certainty that they have once again been betrayed by a Republican president. In fact, the tone and volume of conservative reaction has been such that one can sense conservatives were just waiting to be betrayed and are now indulging themselves in self-pity now that their expectations have come to fruition.
This reaction has been knee-jerk. Maybe Ms. Miers will be a terrible disappointment; another O’Connor perhaps. But at the very least she deserves a chance to prove herself, both in her hearings and once she reaches the Supreme Court. In the interest of fairness conservatives should cease this gnashing of teeth for at least five minutes and wait to pass judgment.
The White House has done Ms. Miers few favors since her nomination, but the conservative movement has convicted her a failure in the court of public opinion without the benefit of a fair trial. Ms. Miers has been done a great inservice by all involved in the process.
The White House’s attempts at propping up the nominee have been weak and ineffective. We have heard little, if anything about Ms. Mier’s work in the White House the past four and a half years, only the constant recitation of some of her firsts in Texas and the fact that she is a devout evangelical Christian. All interesting facts to know but otherwise irrelevant to her judicial temperament or ability.
It has also slipped out that Ms. Miers really wasn’t the first choice but the replacement for the nominee who opted out at the last minute. Such a revelation can work in no way except to the detriment of Ms. Miers confirmation prospects and her credibility should she be confirmed. The last thing she needs through this whole ordeal is the label of "second choice" hanging over her head like a dark storm cloud.
Equally at fault though have been national conservatives. They have opposed Ms. Miers nomination from the start, rising in righteous indignation with the certainty that they have once again been betrayed by a Republican president. In fact, the tone and volume of conservative reaction has been such that one can sense conservatives were just waiting to be betrayed and are now indulging themselves in self-pity now that their expectations have come to fruition.
This reaction has been knee-jerk. Maybe Ms. Miers will be a terrible disappointment; another O’Connor perhaps. But at the very least she deserves a chance to prove herself, both in her hearings and once she reaches the Supreme Court. In the interest of fairness conservatives should cease this gnashing of teeth for at least five minutes and wait to pass judgment.
The White House has done Ms. Miers few favors since her nomination, but the conservative movement has convicted her a failure in the court of public opinion without the benefit of a fair trial. Ms. Miers has been done a great inservice by all involved in the process.
Saturday, October 15, 2005
Iraq Votes
The vote seemed to go fairly smoothly today. There was some scattered instances of violence but not nearly as much as was previously expected or feared, much like the election last January. Turnout was high as well, estimated at or a little over sixty percent.
Indications are that turnout was also high within the Sunni provinces, not at all like last January’s election. Some might fear that high Sunni turnout bodes poorly for the constitution’s chances of ratification. I tend to agree with John Hinderaker of Powerline however that the constitution will be ratified regardless and that Sunni participation in the democratic process should be welcomed and viewed as a positive development. Remember, Sunnis were boycotting the process not too long ago; Sunni involvement in Iraq’s infant democracy is a sign of progress. They now realize the train is leaving the station and they better get on board; good news for Iraq and bad news for the terrorist "insurgency" within that country.
Indications are that turnout was also high within the Sunni provinces, not at all like last January’s election. Some might fear that high Sunni turnout bodes poorly for the constitution’s chances of ratification. I tend to agree with John Hinderaker of Powerline however that the constitution will be ratified regardless and that Sunni participation in the democratic process should be welcomed and viewed as a positive development. Remember, Sunnis were boycotting the process not too long ago; Sunni involvement in Iraq’s infant democracy is a sign of progress. They now realize the train is leaving the station and they better get on board; good news for Iraq and bad news for the terrorist "insurgency" within that country.
Friday, October 14, 2005
History Repeats Itself
Mort Kondracke pointed out during the panel portion of today’s Special Report W/ Brit Hume that the constitution Iraqis will go to the polls to ratify tomorrow is, in a way, incomplete. The negotiation process has been tricky and contentious between Iraq’s sectarian groups and only this week was a compromise reached between the Sunnis and the Shias and Kurds. Still, a few of the most tricky issues were reportedly put off to the side for the time being, with promises that these issues will be dealt with through the amendment process should the constitution be ratified and the permanent parliament comes into session. In this regard Mr. Kondracke is correct.
It deserves mentioning however that the United States went through a nearly identical situation when writing and ratifying our constitution. A handful of states were wary of the strong centralized government that a new constitution would install. The concern was that such a government would go on to violate individual rights in the same manner King George III and parliament had done prior to the revolutionary war. To placate these concerns leading proponents of the constitution promised that a bill of rights would be ratified in the first congress in return for those states’ support.
So yes the Iraqi constitution is "incomplete", but so was ours. The important thing is that Iraq’s varying factions have reached consensus and agreement and Iraq is on the cusp of ratifying a constitution that will create a permanent democratic government.
It deserves mentioning however that the United States went through a nearly identical situation when writing and ratifying our constitution. A handful of states were wary of the strong centralized government that a new constitution would install. The concern was that such a government would go on to violate individual rights in the same manner King George III and parliament had done prior to the revolutionary war. To placate these concerns leading proponents of the constitution promised that a bill of rights would be ratified in the first congress in return for those states’ support.
So yes the Iraqi constitution is "incomplete", but so was ours. The important thing is that Iraq’s varying factions have reached consensus and agreement and Iraq is on the cusp of ratifying a constitution that will create a permanent democratic government.
Sunday, October 09, 2005
Gonzales v. Oregon
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in the case of Gonzales v. Oregon, sure to be one of the most important cases the new Roberts Court will deal with in it’s first term. The question presented is whether the federal government has the authority to preempt the state of Oregon’s assisted suicide law under the Controlled Substances Act. More specifically, can the Justice Department prevent physicians within the state of Oregon from prescribing certain drugs banned under the CSA to terminally ill patients?
The short and simple answer to this question is no, the federal government cannot preempt the Oregon law. Under the Tenth Amendment Oregon can pass and enforce just about any law that it and it’s residents desire.
This does not mean however that the state action in this case is immune from federal influence or interference. If a doctor prescribes a drug that is banned under the CSA, and is or has been in the interstate commercial market, the federal government has the power to step in and prevent that drug from being prescribed and used. In other words, the federal government may act so long as it’s action is a legitimate and valid means in achieving it’s legitimate, constitutionally-authorized end, which in this regard is regulating interstate commerce.
The federal government’s reach and authority ends here though. If the Oregon law in question were to permit doctors to prescribe non-CSA banned drugs and/or those drugs are not tangibly interstate nor commercial----in terms of their cultivation, transport, and consumption----than the federal government has no reach or authority in the matter. Put simply, the federal government cannot substantively prevent Oregon from legalizing doctor-assisted suicide within the state. What it can do, under authority of the Commerce Clause, is prohibit certain drugs from being prescribed for the purpose of assisted-suicide provided those drugs are a tangible aspect of the interstate, commercial drug market. Absent this, the federal government has no leg on which to stand.
The short and simple answer to this question is no, the federal government cannot preempt the Oregon law. Under the Tenth Amendment Oregon can pass and enforce just about any law that it and it’s residents desire.
This does not mean however that the state action in this case is immune from federal influence or interference. If a doctor prescribes a drug that is banned under the CSA, and is or has been in the interstate commercial market, the federal government has the power to step in and prevent that drug from being prescribed and used. In other words, the federal government may act so long as it’s action is a legitimate and valid means in achieving it’s legitimate, constitutionally-authorized end, which in this regard is regulating interstate commerce.
The federal government’s reach and authority ends here though. If the Oregon law in question were to permit doctors to prescribe non-CSA banned drugs and/or those drugs are not tangibly interstate nor commercial----in terms of their cultivation, transport, and consumption----than the federal government has no reach or authority in the matter. Put simply, the federal government cannot substantively prevent Oregon from legalizing doctor-assisted suicide within the state. What it can do, under authority of the Commerce Clause, is prohibit certain drugs from being prescribed for the purpose of assisted-suicide provided those drugs are a tangible aspect of the interstate, commercial drug market. Absent this, the federal government has no leg on which to stand.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
The Miers Nomination
Conservatives are panicking. They are in a furious rage. The president promised them a constitutionalist and judges who would never legislate from the bench and he gave them.....Harriet Miers. The reaction to the president’s announcement this morning was fast and furious from the right. Redstate.org opined that Ms. Miers is, as far as they know, "unqualified for the position." Paul Mirengoff of Powerline asserts that Miers would not have been nominated were it not "for her gender" and her "status as a Bush crony". William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, goes so far as to say he is "disappointed", "depressed", and "demoralized" with the Miers selection. The mood within the comment sections of conservative blogs is much harsher.
At first I was not all that enthusiastic about the pick either. As most conservatives, I was enchanted by the prospect of a Luttig, Alito, or Garza joining Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts on the high court. Harriet Miers would not have been my first choice, not even close. But this does not mean that Ms. Miers is not a good choice, or quite possibly, a great choice. Conservatives would do well to desist the hysterical gnashing of teeth they are currently indulging in and keep a few things in mind.
First, the president has not broken his promise to nominate judges in the mold of a Scalia or a Thomas----he has never made such a promise. The president said that Justices Scalia and Thomas were those whom he most admired. What he promised, throughout his presidency and his reelection campaign, was that he will nominate judges who respect the law and will not legislate from the bench.
Ms. Miers is not unqualified. The fact that she has never served on a bench, state or federal, or is not a prominent legal scholar in no way disqualifies her from serving on the U.S. Supreme Court. She has spent her life in private practice, she has served as president of the Texas state bar, and has served in the Bush Administration in it’s entirety. If Ms. Miers’ credentials do not suffice as proper qualification than neither did those of William Rehnquist, the late and great Chief Justice whom all conservatives agree was one of the nation’s greatest.
Neither is Ms. Miers a Bush "crony". The fact that she is a close associate and subordinate of the president should comfort conservatives tepid over her lack of a paper trail or discernible judicial philosophy. The president wants a justice who will exercise judicial restraint and remain faithful to the constitution just as much as anybody. His lower court appointments bear this out. After reviewing all possible candidates his personal association with Ms. Miers convinced him that she will meet this criterion. The president came to the same conclusion in a similar circumstance when selecting his running mate and vice president. Does any conservative dispute his judgment in that instance?
The president knows Harriet Miers, he trusts her with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. In turn, I trust the president; he has never given me, nor any other conservative reason not to.
Hat Tip: John Hinderaker, Patrick Ruffini
UPDATE (4:13 P.M. 10/4/05): Read this.
At first I was not all that enthusiastic about the pick either. As most conservatives, I was enchanted by the prospect of a Luttig, Alito, or Garza joining Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts on the high court. Harriet Miers would not have been my first choice, not even close. But this does not mean that Ms. Miers is not a good choice, or quite possibly, a great choice. Conservatives would do well to desist the hysterical gnashing of teeth they are currently indulging in and keep a few things in mind.
First, the president has not broken his promise to nominate judges in the mold of a Scalia or a Thomas----he has never made such a promise. The president said that Justices Scalia and Thomas were those whom he most admired. What he promised, throughout his presidency and his reelection campaign, was that he will nominate judges who respect the law and will not legislate from the bench.
Ms. Miers is not unqualified. The fact that she has never served on a bench, state or federal, or is not a prominent legal scholar in no way disqualifies her from serving on the U.S. Supreme Court. She has spent her life in private practice, she has served as president of the Texas state bar, and has served in the Bush Administration in it’s entirety. If Ms. Miers’ credentials do not suffice as proper qualification than neither did those of William Rehnquist, the late and great Chief Justice whom all conservatives agree was one of the nation’s greatest.
Neither is Ms. Miers a Bush "crony". The fact that she is a close associate and subordinate of the president should comfort conservatives tepid over her lack of a paper trail or discernible judicial philosophy. The president wants a justice who will exercise judicial restraint and remain faithful to the constitution just as much as anybody. His lower court appointments bear this out. After reviewing all possible candidates his personal association with Ms. Miers convinced him that she will meet this criterion. The president came to the same conclusion in a similar circumstance when selecting his running mate and vice president. Does any conservative dispute his judgment in that instance?
The president knows Harriet Miers, he trusts her with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. In turn, I trust the president; he has never given me, nor any other conservative reason not to.
Hat Tip: John Hinderaker, Patrick Ruffini
UPDATE (4:13 P.M. 10/4/05): Read this.
Sunday, October 02, 2005
Public Opinion-The National Judiciary
A new poll released by the American Bar Association shows strong public dissatisfaction with the national judiciary. While I do agree that the judiciary is certainly out of control in many respects, I don’t agree with some of the other sentiments expressed in this poll. For example, "[a] majority of survey respondents agreed with statements that ‘judicial activism’ has reached the crisis stage, and that judges who ignore voters’ values should be impeached".
If judges are to simply stay in line with "voters’ values" and should be impeached if they fail to do so than the dividing line between the judicial branch and the other two political branches no longer exists. Judges must follow the letter and text of the law; following public opinion will only further the current problem.
Hat Tip: Confirm Them
If judges are to simply stay in line with "voters’ values" and should be impeached if they fail to do so than the dividing line between the judicial branch and the other two political branches no longer exists. Judges must follow the letter and text of the law; following public opinion will only further the current problem.
Hat Tip: Confirm Them
Saturday, October 01, 2005
Confirmed and Sworn In
John G. Roberts has been confirmed and sworn in as the seventeenth Chief Justice of the United States. Praising his credentials and qualifications at this point would be repetitive on my part, so I’ll simply state that John Roberts will be a fantastic Chief Justice and his confirmation insures our government’s third branch will be in good hands for many years to come. Congratulations to Chief Justice Roberts on his ascension to the Supreme Court’s center seat and to President Bush for nominating the most qualified man for the job.
The occasion of Chief Justice Robert’s overwhelming confirmation vote also warrants a tip of the cap to the one-half of the Democratic Caucus that voted for the chief, including my state’s senior senator Patty Murray. Granted, Thursday’s Democratic "yea" votes probably weren’t so much an affirmation of support for John Roberts as a strategic move intended to pay dividends in the next confirmation fight, but all that really matters in the end is that Democrats voting in the affirmative did the right thing, not why they did the right thing.
The occasion of Chief Justice Robert’s overwhelming confirmation vote also warrants a tip of the cap to the one-half of the Democratic Caucus that voted for the chief, including my state’s senior senator Patty Murray. Granted, Thursday’s Democratic "yea" votes probably weren’t so much an affirmation of support for John Roberts as a strategic move intended to pay dividends in the next confirmation fight, but all that really matters in the end is that Democrats voting in the affirmative did the right thing, not why they did the right thing.
Friday, September 23, 2005
Quit Feeding Porky!
Crises can have one of two effects on a populace and it’s leadership. Either people panic and lose their heads along with their better judgment or they pull together and accomplish feats previously thought impossible. Americans can take pride in the fact that they usually react in the latter manner. When times get tough we the people tend to summon an inner strength and resolve that propels us to rise to the occasion and answer the call. That this has been the case from our founding until now is an incontrovertible truth.
In almost every regard the American people have answered the call once again in light of the nation’s most recent crises-----Hurricane Katrina and her aftermath. The devastation along the gulf coast has been total and millions have been displaced from their homes, left with nothing but the clothes on their back. These millions have needed a helping hand from the their fellow Americans and the American people have offered it. Volunteers from all over the country are assisting in the recovery and rebuilding efforts and donations are flowing in from all over the nation. $5 million alone was raised in the Monday night telethon sponsored by the National Football League. Americans will do all they can to help in any way they can and we will not stop until the region is rebuilt and every displaced American is back in their homes.
Out of character however has been the reaction from some of our political leaders in this unfortunate ordeal. Instead of buckling down and adding a clear-headed approach many on capitol hill are acting hysterically, running around like chickens with their heads severed off. Take Minority Leader Harry Reid for example, who has proposed price controls on energy to curb price "gouging" in the market. With all due respect Mr. Minority Leader, no price "gouging" is occurring. Exorbitant energy prices are a result of the damage to refinery facilities in the gulf and a surge in world energy demand that the market is still adjusting to. Contrary to your instincts sir those evil energy companies are not colluding together to stick it to the American people at an advantageous moment to them.
The hysteria is not exclusive to Democrats either, many Republicans on the hill are beginning to panic as well. A handful of Republican senators have indicated a desire to raise certain taxes in order to cover the costs of Katrina relief, namely the capitol gains tax, currently at 15%. Possibly as much as price controls, hiking taxes would prove disastrous. The federal government will bring in $262 billion more in revenues for fiscal year ‘05 than in the previous year, entirely a result of the Bush tax-cuts which have grown the economy, created more jobs and subsequently more taxpayers. Raising taxes would reverse all of this and eventually result in the decline of federal revenues. Hiking taxes on capitol gains would also, as OpinionJournal has explained in some detail, scare investors at a time when the national economy is tenuously dependent on clear-headed leadership from Washington.
To cover the unanticipated costs of Katrina relief Republicans in Washington should act like Republicans for a change and cut federal spending, an idea completely foreign to most of them these days. A good place to start would be eliminating the type of pork that so riddled the transportation and energy bills. Republicans have allowed Porky the money-eating pig to feast at the federal trough for far too long, and as a result little Porky has grown into a large and odious boar. The free lunch has to stop. It’s time the federal government went on a diet and stopped feeding big ol' Porky.
Hat Tip: OpinionJournal, George Will
In almost every regard the American people have answered the call once again in light of the nation’s most recent crises-----Hurricane Katrina and her aftermath. The devastation along the gulf coast has been total and millions have been displaced from their homes, left with nothing but the clothes on their back. These millions have needed a helping hand from the their fellow Americans and the American people have offered it. Volunteers from all over the country are assisting in the recovery and rebuilding efforts and donations are flowing in from all over the nation. $5 million alone was raised in the Monday night telethon sponsored by the National Football League. Americans will do all they can to help in any way they can and we will not stop until the region is rebuilt and every displaced American is back in their homes.
Out of character however has been the reaction from some of our political leaders in this unfortunate ordeal. Instead of buckling down and adding a clear-headed approach many on capitol hill are acting hysterically, running around like chickens with their heads severed off. Take Minority Leader Harry Reid for example, who has proposed price controls on energy to curb price "gouging" in the market. With all due respect Mr. Minority Leader, no price "gouging" is occurring. Exorbitant energy prices are a result of the damage to refinery facilities in the gulf and a surge in world energy demand that the market is still adjusting to. Contrary to your instincts sir those evil energy companies are not colluding together to stick it to the American people at an advantageous moment to them.
The hysteria is not exclusive to Democrats either, many Republicans on the hill are beginning to panic as well. A handful of Republican senators have indicated a desire to raise certain taxes in order to cover the costs of Katrina relief, namely the capitol gains tax, currently at 15%. Possibly as much as price controls, hiking taxes would prove disastrous. The federal government will bring in $262 billion more in revenues for fiscal year ‘05 than in the previous year, entirely a result of the Bush tax-cuts which have grown the economy, created more jobs and subsequently more taxpayers. Raising taxes would reverse all of this and eventually result in the decline of federal revenues. Hiking taxes on capitol gains would also, as OpinionJournal has explained in some detail, scare investors at a time when the national economy is tenuously dependent on clear-headed leadership from Washington.
To cover the unanticipated costs of Katrina relief Republicans in Washington should act like Republicans for a change and cut federal spending, an idea completely foreign to most of them these days. A good place to start would be eliminating the type of pork that so riddled the transportation and energy bills. Republicans have allowed Porky the money-eating pig to feast at the federal trough for far too long, and as a result little Porky has grown into a large and odious boar. The free lunch has to stop. It’s time the federal government went on a diet and stopped feeding big ol' Porky.
Hat Tip: OpinionJournal, George Will
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
To Fight or Not to Fight?
Democratic Minority Leader Harry Reid has signaled his intention to vote against the Roberts’ nomination to be Chief Justice of the United States. What was illuminating about his comments on the Senate floor was not his declared intent to vote "nay", rather his comments following that, which were basically an acknowledgment that Judge Roberts’ confirmation is inevitable and he will not be orchestrating a Democratic filibuster or even encourage his caucus to vote against Judge Roberts. Such an approach is a result of the rock and a hard place he and Senate Democrats find themselves at this juncture. All but the most liberal and partisan have no choice but to admit that, in the words of David Broder, Judge Roberts is "so obviously– ridiculously– well-equipped to lead the government’s third branch" that widespread Democratic opposition is unjustifiable. Yet on the other hand there is the common demand from those far-left interest groups that Senate Democrats fight tooth-and-nail against the judge’s confirmation. Such a tug-of-war is likely to leave us with many more Harry Reid-type positions; acknowledgment that Judge Roberts is supremely qualified and certain to be confirmed but resigned to casting a symbolic but futile vote against him solely to appease the fringe elements of the base.
Why Democrats feel handcuffed in this way is another matter. It is no secret that the real battle over the Supreme Court will be over the president’s next nomination to fill the vacant seat of retiring justice Sandra Day O’Connor. With this in mind why are Democrats spending so much capitol on the current vacancy knowing full well that it is all for naught? They are going to need all the capitol they can get for the upcoming nomination, and then some. So knee-jerk has Democratic opposition to the president’s judicial nominations become that the public now expects Democrats to blindly oppose any nominee regardless of who they might be. A majority of "nay" votes against Judge Roberts only confirms this perception as reality. Further, it diminishes any credibility Democrats presumably would have had when rising in opposition to the next nominee, the one who will truly change the direction of the Court. The fable of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" comes to mind.
Far be it from me to give advice to the Democrats, but if they want to be in a strong position to stop the president’s second nominee they should rise in support of his current one. Lending overwhelming, bipartisan support to the Roberts nomination will give the Democrats what will be requisite for waging successful opposition down the road-----the illusion of reasonableness and credibility. They don’t have it now and they certainly won’t have it should a majority of the caucus capitulate to the base and vote against John Roberts’ nomination to be the next Chief Justice.
UPDATE (12:45 P.M. 9/21/05): Wise move senator, wise move.
UPDATE (12:53 P.M. 9/21/05): The price of disobeying your master:
--People for the American Way Chairman Ralph Neas
With all due respect Mr. Neas, get a grip.
Why Democrats feel handcuffed in this way is another matter. It is no secret that the real battle over the Supreme Court will be over the president’s next nomination to fill the vacant seat of retiring justice Sandra Day O’Connor. With this in mind why are Democrats spending so much capitol on the current vacancy knowing full well that it is all for naught? They are going to need all the capitol they can get for the upcoming nomination, and then some. So knee-jerk has Democratic opposition to the president’s judicial nominations become that the public now expects Democrats to blindly oppose any nominee regardless of who they might be. A majority of "nay" votes against Judge Roberts only confirms this perception as reality. Further, it diminishes any credibility Democrats presumably would have had when rising in opposition to the next nominee, the one who will truly change the direction of the Court. The fable of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" comes to mind.
Far be it from me to give advice to the Democrats, but if they want to be in a strong position to stop the president’s second nominee they should rise in support of his current one. Lending overwhelming, bipartisan support to the Roberts nomination will give the Democrats what will be requisite for waging successful opposition down the road-----the illusion of reasonableness and credibility. They don’t have it now and they certainly won’t have it should a majority of the caucus capitulate to the base and vote against John Roberts’ nomination to be the next Chief Justice.
UPDATE (12:45 P.M. 9/21/05): Wise move senator, wise move.
UPDATE (12:53 P.M. 9/21/05): The price of disobeying your master:
When John Roberts becomes Chief Justice and votes to erode or overturn longstanding Supreme Court precedents protecting fundamental civil rights, women's rights, privacy, religious liberty, reproductive rights and environmental safeguards, Senator Leahy's support for Roberts will make him complicit in those rulings, and in the retreat from our constitutional rights and liberties.
--People for the American Way Chairman Ralph Neas
With all due respect Mr. Neas, get a grip.
Sunday, September 11, 2005
In Memoriam
In loving memory of all who lost their lives on September 11, 2001. May we never forget the lessons learned that day.
Nomination Politics
John Hinderaker of Powerline has authored an interesting piece in The Daily Standard. He is right about the fact that Democrats were rendered impotent by the president’s nomination of Judge Roberts to replace outgoing justice Sandra Day O’Connor and he is right that now that Judge Robert’s nomination has been elevated from associate to chief justice the Democrats will bring out the guns over the president’s next nominee to replace Justice O’Connor.
Where Mr. Hinderaker errs is in his summation that the nomination of Judge Roberts to chief justice as opposed to associate will be politically deleterious to the president and the nomination process. It won’t.
In Mr. Hinderaker’s esteemed judgment, the politically expedient thing to do would have been to leave things as they were. By nominating Roberts to replace Justice O’Connor the president had artfully insured that Justice O’Connor would be replaced by a nominee who could tilt the court to the right while remaining impervious to liberal attacks. This much is true, for Judge Robert’s brilliant legal intellect, impressive resume, and pragmatic conservatism have made it nearly impossible for the left to demonize him in the same manner they did past nominees to the Supreme Court.
The flaw in this logic however is the assumption that Democrats would have shrugged in defeat and simply said, "Well, you got us" once Judge Roberts was confirmed. Unable to thwart the Robert’s nomination there is no doubt that Democrats would have then centered all their pent-up energy on the next vacancy that they were unable to expend on the previous one. The fact that the president would be then nominating one judicial conservative to replace another for chief justice would not matter, for the Democrats would argue that since the Court’s ideological composition was not maintained in the previous vacancy it must be reinstated with the current one. A fight/debate over the Court’s direction was and is inevitable, the only difference now is that fight will be over O’Connor’s seat as opposed to Rehnquist’s.
Further, the conventional wisdom that the president’s reduced political standing will diminish his ability to win this fight is also wrong. A substantial majority of senators represent conservative-leaning states that cast their electoral votes for the president in last year’s election. One of the main concerns of rank-and-file conservatives is the direction of the federal judiciary, and the judiciary is one of the few issues which motivates conservatives to turnout in droves on election day. Red state senators will vote to confirm judicial conservatives not because of the president’s political capitol or standing, but because doing so is in the best interests of their own political standing back home. Failing to send judicial conservatives to the bench will simply give rank-and-file conservatives already disenchanted with Washington Republicans one more excuse to stay home on election day and make Democrats representing Republican states even more vulnerable than they may already be. Political self-preservation, not the president’s political clout, will carry the day.
Where Mr. Hinderaker errs is in his summation that the nomination of Judge Roberts to chief justice as opposed to associate will be politically deleterious to the president and the nomination process. It won’t.
In Mr. Hinderaker’s esteemed judgment, the politically expedient thing to do would have been to leave things as they were. By nominating Roberts to replace Justice O’Connor the president had artfully insured that Justice O’Connor would be replaced by a nominee who could tilt the court to the right while remaining impervious to liberal attacks. This much is true, for Judge Robert’s brilliant legal intellect, impressive resume, and pragmatic conservatism have made it nearly impossible for the left to demonize him in the same manner they did past nominees to the Supreme Court.
The flaw in this logic however is the assumption that Democrats would have shrugged in defeat and simply said, "Well, you got us" once Judge Roberts was confirmed. Unable to thwart the Robert’s nomination there is no doubt that Democrats would have then centered all their pent-up energy on the next vacancy that they were unable to expend on the previous one. The fact that the president would be then nominating one judicial conservative to replace another for chief justice would not matter, for the Democrats would argue that since the Court’s ideological composition was not maintained in the previous vacancy it must be reinstated with the current one. A fight/debate over the Court’s direction was and is inevitable, the only difference now is that fight will be over O’Connor’s seat as opposed to Rehnquist’s.
Further, the conventional wisdom that the president’s reduced political standing will diminish his ability to win this fight is also wrong. A substantial majority of senators represent conservative-leaning states that cast their electoral votes for the president in last year’s election. One of the main concerns of rank-and-file conservatives is the direction of the federal judiciary, and the judiciary is one of the few issues which motivates conservatives to turnout in droves on election day. Red state senators will vote to confirm judicial conservatives not because of the president’s political capitol or standing, but because doing so is in the best interests of their own political standing back home. Failing to send judicial conservatives to the bench will simply give rank-and-file conservatives already disenchanted with Washington Republicans one more excuse to stay home on election day and make Democrats representing Republican states even more vulnerable than they may already be. Political self-preservation, not the president’s political clout, will carry the day.
Monday, September 05, 2005
The Next Chief Justice
President Bush’s reallocation of the nomination of Judge John Roberts to be chief justice instead of associate justice is, to say the least, a solid move. With the late chief justice’s health declining over the past year and the pending retirement of Justice O’Connor the writing on the wall has been up the entire summer; the president would have two nominations to make. If the president is to nominate a strong, credentialed constitutionalist, such as Judge J. Michael Luttig, along with Judge Roberts than Judge Roberts is the logical choice to become the 17th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. His low-key, humble demeanor, leadership skills, legal brilliance, and personal gravity are traits tailor made for the center seat on the Supreme Court, and are all traits held by Judge Robert’s former boss and, almost assuredly, his predecessor.
It has been a rough year for the president, and adding his signature to the pork-laden energy and transportation bills have not been the highlights of his presidency. However as brilliant as Judge Robert’s legal mind and intellect is so to is the president’s selection of Judge Roberts to be chief justice. Assuming the president nominates another constitutionalist to fill Justice O’Connor’s seat, something he can be trusted to do, the Roberts Court should introduce a new, golden age of constitutional jurisprudence. A development constitutionalists such as myself have been waiting for a long time.
ADDED NOTE (9/5/05 12:23 P.M.): The chatter from some of the enlightened punditry in Washington that the president should now nominate a "hurricane pick" to fill the other vacancy on the Court highlights just how disconnected from reality so many in Washington and the establishment really are. Do these pundits honestly think that the thousands of refugees and survivors in the gulf states, having lost homes, property, and even friends and family are going to, in the midst of all this, care one bit right now about a Supreme Court nomination, or even pay a second thought to it? They have more pressing issues confronting them and to think that a Supreme Court nominee has any relevance to any of those issues is an act in the theater of the absurd.
It has been a rough year for the president, and adding his signature to the pork-laden energy and transportation bills have not been the highlights of his presidency. However as brilliant as Judge Robert’s legal mind and intellect is so to is the president’s selection of Judge Roberts to be chief justice. Assuming the president nominates another constitutionalist to fill Justice O’Connor’s seat, something he can be trusted to do, the Roberts Court should introduce a new, golden age of constitutional jurisprudence. A development constitutionalists such as myself have been waiting for a long time.
ADDED NOTE (9/5/05 12:23 P.M.): The chatter from some of the enlightened punditry in Washington that the president should now nominate a "hurricane pick" to fill the other vacancy on the Court highlights just how disconnected from reality so many in Washington and the establishment really are. Do these pundits honestly think that the thousands of refugees and survivors in the gulf states, having lost homes, property, and even friends and family are going to, in the midst of all this, care one bit right now about a Supreme Court nomination, or even pay a second thought to it? They have more pressing issues confronting them and to think that a Supreme Court nominee has any relevance to any of those issues is an act in the theater of the absurd.
Sunday, September 04, 2005
In Memoriam: Chief Justice William Rehnquist
The death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist last night is a significant loss for the Supreme Court, the federal judiciary, and the nation. Chief Justice Rehnquist was an outstanding jurist who respected the written law above all else and applied it consistently and fairly. The Court’s quality would be much improved if there were nine Rehnquists on the bench, and his leadership of the Court and stewardship of the laws of the United States will be greatly missed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)