Politics, Government & Public Policy: July 2005 Archives
It's pretty clear that the Democrats are rolling out Phase 2 of their strategy to oppose the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court.
"The question is: Who is John Roberts? What does he really believe?" said Theodore M. Shaw, director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, during an appearance at the National Urban League convention here yesterday. "What we're finding out is troubling. I've moved from a position of neutrality to being deeply disturbed."
Phase 1 was to appear neutral and open-minded. Phase 2 is to act as if "surprising" "revelations" have forced the Democrats' initial neutrality to change into opposition. That way, Democrats can appear to have been open-minded initially and only reluctantly convinced that the nominee is a "deeply committed ideologue" by weight of the "evidence" they've "discovered". I use all the scare-quotes to illustrate that all this information has been known about Judge Roberts for years and years, but since it's new to the public the lawmakers have to act as if its new to them, too, so they can attempt to bring the public along for the ride.
Phase 3 will be the typical, expected rabid opposition to a nominee they hope to have wounded with their own fake reluctant transition from neutral to hostile.
It looks like I was wrong in my earlier post when I complained that the House of Representatives should have moved to ban "economic development" land seizures rather than just condemning them. Apparently the House also passed a bill to "bar federal funds from being used to make improvements on any lands seized for private development". According to John Fund, opposition to the elimination of property rights has brought many racial minority constituencies into alignment with the Republicans again.
Within a week of the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Kelo v. New London, Rep. John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee and the longest-serving member of the Congressional Black Caucus, pronounced himself "shocked" to be joining with conservatives in backing a bill to bar federal funds from being used to make improvements on any lands seized for private development. He noted that the NAACP, Operation PUSH and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights all believe "this court opinion makes it too easy for private property to be taken and [this is a practice] that has been used historically to target the poor, people of color and the elderly." The measure blocking federal funds passed the House by 231-189. A companion resolution condemning the Kelo decision was approved 365-33. Only 10 of the 43 members of the Congressional Black Caucus and only two members of the Congrssional Hispanic Caucus voted against the latter measure.Many Democrats who used to scoff at conservative fears about activist judges are now joining their barricades when it comes to eminent domain. "In a way this ruling is about civil rights because it interferes with your right to own and keep your property," says Wilhelmina Leigh, a research analyst with the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies in Washington. "It means you have to hope and trust in the goodness of other human beings that if you buy real estate that you will be allowed to keep it." Few appear to be willing to trust government on this issue, which is why the Kelo decision has touched off such a populist reaction against it.
Good. Now we just need to muster the public will to hold the Supreme Court accountable for this kind of nonsense. Mass impeachments might be good, but I'll settle for a little support from the minority caucuses for President Bush's Supreme Court nominee(s) -- assuming he makes good picks.
You know, I've never received a donation solicitation from a Republican that has called Democrats -- or any individual Democrat -- "un-American" like John Kerry does in an email forwarded by tallglassofmilk. (Note: I'm assuming the email is genuine; it follows the Democrats' talking points pretty closely.)
While they conduct a no-holds-barred effort to brush aside any and all questions about the nominee's record and his or her commitment to protecting individual freedom, you and I are supposed to be silenced for fear of being called "obstructionists" and cowered by their threat to revive the "nuclear option."That's worse than unacceptable. It's un-American, and it's not how we carry on public debate in the greatest democracy on earth. Show them that, with the future of the Supreme Court on the line, we won't stand on the sidelines:
http://contribute.johnkerry.com/
I know I can count on your support in making the following commitment: I will insist on a complete and full examination of the record of President Bush's nominee. And, if that nominee is intent on reversing Roe v. Wade and essential Supreme Court protections for civil rights, I will use every option I have as a United States Senator to keep that nominee off the Court.
John Kerry
So who's politicizing the Supreme Court? Who's calling whom "un-American"? The Democrats are always condemning their opponents for "questioning" their patriotism, but it's the Democrats who tend to throw around the most vitriol.
Plus, it is literally obstructionist for the minorty to use procedural tactics to thwart the majority. That's what John Kerry is promising to do, so he can't object to the label with any sort of intellectual honesty. And if I remember correctly, it's the Democrats who call eliminating the filibuster "the nuclear option", so why does he put it in scare quotes?
Good grief. Can you imagine if we had elected this doofus to the Presidency? I suppose there's some small comfort in the knowledge that Senator Kerry probably didn't write this letter himself, and may not have ever even seen it.
Words have power, which is why so many arguments eventually come down to epistemology. Words are the terrain of the intellectual battlefield, and in order to win you have to control the connotations that underlie your verbal weaponry. A perfect example is the purposeful propaganda (see?) behind the recent set of MOVEON.ORG Supreme Court parties.
In a desperate bid to sanitize his house party and control how its attendees would be perceived by the POST, the MOVEON host emailed talking points to his guests. A copy of those talking points was obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT.Fazio warned his guests: “Its very important that if you talk to the reporter, you stay on message. Remember, it is quite possible that our event will be the one the POST uses to represent the entire MoveOnPac effort this weekend.”
The key message for the event: “The momentum is finally shifting away from extremism. We will not accept a extremist nominee. This is not about conservatism vs liberalism or Republicans vs Democrats, this is all about extremism vs moderation and we're on the side of moderation.”
The MOVEON host reminded his guests: “We don't want to come across as leftist, liberal activists. We want to come across as we are- regular folks who are finally saying enough is enough to the extremists; that we're not falling for their extremist rhetoric anymore and we're finally going to expend the effort necessary to get our country back.”
By accusing your opponents of being what you actually are you can mitigate the effectiveness of their attacks. You think I'm extreme? But I already called you extreme! Of course there's nothing objectively wrong with being "extreme" -- the mainstream could be wrong! -- but the word carries negative connotations so it's clearly best to avoid the label. Everyone wants to believe that they're in the majority, that everyone agrees with them; the number of people who agree with you often has nothing to do with the correctness of your position, but it's sure a strong and primitive psychological motivator.
One of the biggest difficulties the left in America is facing is that they aren't in the mainstream, no matter how often and loudly they claim to be. Rather than change their positions to suit voters, they blow smoke and mangle words to redefine themselves, hoping to trick everyone. I think they'd do better if they simply articulated their non-mainstream positions and explained why people should change their minds.
I'm sure Republicans have pulled this kind of scam before, but most of the time it's Democrats like Representative Charles Rangel (D-Harlem) soliciting bribes.
Rep. Charles Rangel has written to lobbyists who represent corporate interests before the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, where he is the ranking Democrat, asking for contributions from $1,000 to $10,000 "to underwrite" his 75th birthday party.Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and retired Gen. Wesley Clark will address the event starting at 6 p.m. Aug. 3 at the Tavern on the Green in Manhattan. "I would like to be able to list your name on the invitation," Rangel said in his solicitation. He admonished the lobbyists to "fax the attached response sheet back to my office as soon as possible."
Rangel: "The guy I'm really looking for, wink, is Mr. Bribe, wink, wink."
Right, and I'm sure the lobbyists expect nothing in return, which is why they'll probably be sending me thousands of dollars for my next birthday party.
(HT: Brewcrew for the sound.)
I joked the other day that former Senator and present Law and Order District Attorney Fred Thomson would be President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court, and now it looks like I was meta-right!
GLENEAGLES, Scotland -- President Bush has named former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson to help shepherd his yet-to-be named Supreme Court nominee through the Senate, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Wednesday.Thompson, a Republican and actor on the NBC television series "Law & Order," agreed to accept the post in a telephone conversation with the president on Monday, McClellan said.
He said Thompson would serve as an informal adviser to shepherd the nomination through the Senate.
"Senator Thompson will guide the nominee through the confirmation process," McClellan said.
Yes, I'm a genius.
It's nice to see Senator Barbara Boxer concerned about protecting unborn babies.
And they [ed - the gang of 14] said they would only, they would only use the filibuster in extraordinary circumstances. Well, if ever there was an extraordinary circumstance, here it is, right now, before us. The swing vote on an issue that if it is wrongly decided could cause the death of our youngest women.
Of course she means something else, but what? Who knows.
Update:
Kevin Murphy has written a Democrat-speak translator that should come in handy during the upcoming Supreme Court nomination battle. He also wonders why we as a nation can't "move on" past the abortion issue to topics we agree about. Well, I for one will be happy to move on once the pro-abortionists stop murdering babies.
The House just passed a resolution disapproving of Kelo v. New London, the recent Supreme Court case that annihilated private property.
Passed: 365-33 (see complete tally)The House passed this resolution expressing disapproval of Kelo v New London, the recent Supreme Court decision concerning eminent domain. In the 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that local governments can seize people’s property for private development. Susette Kelo of New London, CT, brought the suit when the city of New London seized her home to turn it over to a private developer. Opponents contend the decision gives the government too much control over people’s private property. The "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution allows local governments to take land for the public good.
Big deal. The House could have passed a bill that would have outlawed this kind of behavior by the federal and local governments (with Senate agreement) rather than merely shaking its collective finger and tut-tutting. I demand further action.
James Taranto notes that many Democrats are calling for a Supreme Court nominee who will receive unanimous support, and he goes on to explain why President Bush won't nominate such a person and why he shouldn't have to. But the whole conversation begs the observation: there are two ways for a nominee to get unanimous support. First, as implied by the Democrats, President Bush could nominate someone the Democrats like; second, and the way I haven't seen mentioned, is that the Democrats could support whoever it is the President nominates. Either way the nominee gets "unanimous support", the difference is that everyone seems to assume that it's the President and the Senate majority who should get the shaft.
