Our President
I've tried, pretty successfully I think, to keep politics from this blog. But, today I need to vent.
Our president, and yes I didn't capatalize on purpose, showed that he's really not as willing to reach across the aisle, so to speak, and work with the Democrats the way he has said he's willing to do.
Today, he has taken what was going to be a very bitter confirmation process for his first nomination for the Supreme Court, John Roberts, and made it probably nearly an impossible task.
Why? WHY did he decide to nominate him for Chief Justice? He's already seen the level of opposition to Roberts. Why make an already daunting task into, probably, an impossible one?
WHY???
Just another wedge?
Just another thing that's going to turn the American public away from politics. It's a disgusting turn of events. For a president who, after his re-election, said that he hoped that bipartisan politics could be put aside, you sure seem to enjoy putting up road blocks to it.
This president seems only to be interested in cementing his place in history, by placing two judges to push his agenda. Well, sir, I'd like to point out that your place in history has already been set. That little country you invaded. You rember, right? Iraq? THAT is how history will remember you, if it remembers at all.
Gotta Go
Kenny
Our president, and yes I didn't capatalize on purpose, showed that he's really not as willing to reach across the aisle, so to speak, and work with the Democrats the way he has said he's willing to do.
Today, he has taken what was going to be a very bitter confirmation process for his first nomination for the Supreme Court, John Roberts, and made it probably nearly an impossible task.
Why? WHY did he decide to nominate him for Chief Justice? He's already seen the level of opposition to Roberts. Why make an already daunting task into, probably, an impossible one?
WHY???
Just another wedge?
Just another thing that's going to turn the American public away from politics. It's a disgusting turn of events. For a president who, after his re-election, said that he hoped that bipartisan politics could be put aside, you sure seem to enjoy putting up road blocks to it.
This president seems only to be interested in cementing his place in history, by placing two judges to push his agenda. Well, sir, I'd like to point out that your place in history has already been set. That little country you invaded. You rember, right? Iraq? THAT is how history will remember you, if it remembers at all.
Gotta Go
Kenny
posted by Kenny at 9:38 PM
4 Comments:
Hey Kenny...
The Washington Post did a really nice editorial on this this morning...
It's not my ideal...but I think they're right...the Chief Justice position is more of a formality and an administrative lead position more than an ideological lead...William Rehnquist's major legacy of greater state's rights and more checks on federal power stood in contrast to his voting record as a consistent social conservative...
Most of the really important decisions on the court were decided by the swing votes of people like Sandra Day O'Connor, in particular...but also Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, and Stephen Breyer...and that, but more importantly the ideas behind those votes, is where the real power is on the Supreme Court...
One of the great things about the Supreme Court versus other federal institutions, in addition to the power of the swing vote, is the power of the dissent of a Supreme Court Justice who has something important to say...Sandra Day O'Connor in both that eminent domain case and in the medical marijuana case stand out for me, in this respect, right now...
So...Sandra's legacy is probably more powerful than William Rehnquist's, in the big picture...even without the formal position...
Similarly...Thurgood Marshall's legacy is probably more powerful than his Chief Justice, Warren Burger...
So...the great thing about the Supreme Court...is that it is the one institution in the federal government who have traditionally taken ideas the most seriously...because the institution is set up in such a way to take them seriously...and that seems to be reflected in how justices are regarded...
Earl Warren was probably my favorite Chief Justice in recent history...John Chaffee (sp?) says there's only been 17 in history, likely because of their lifetime appointments...but there's been many justices then and after that have made really critical contributions to leadership on the court...even the fact that majority decisions are passed around on the court -- often for strategic reasons to give more power to a decision -- is a sign of just how much more idea-based and equitable the Supreme Court is in its power distribution than other federal institutions...
Bill Douglas, who wrote Griswold v. Connecticut, a terrifically controversial decision then and now -- largely, now, because of how the decision was written...it is generally regarded as a clear example of judicial activism...I largely agree...though I think the decision was a very good one...and one I am very proud of in U.S. history -- to strike down laws that banned contraception through a right to privacy that Bill "discovered" in the first ten amendments...
Bill never rose to higher than associate justice...but that decision went on to be the basis for Roe v. Wade...and to signal a more civil libertarian era of the Warren court, one of the reasons it is one of my favorites:):)...
So...this may be a more serious headline than really serious issue on the court:):)...
I'm sure that liberal groups and Democrats will squawk:):):)...but they'll squawk at just about anything, Kenny:):):)...so after awhile...you hear enough squawking:):):)...it just becomes background noise:):):)...
Which is why I don't give a shit any more about partisan politics and only pay attention to the ideas:):):)....
Because in the big picture:):):)...it doesn't mean anything:):):)...
Until it means something, that is:):):)...
I'll write you, Kenny, as soon as I get a chance, bud:):):)...I'm totally exhausted today:):):)...but I'll try to write you soon, I promise:):):)...
Sounds like you had a good Labor Day, Kenny:):):)...talk with you soon:):)...
Ben
If he had chosen Roberts as Chief Justice originally I don't think I'd be that worried. It's that he's decided, after seeing the opposition that's growing against his choice, to make it an even more devisive fight. Why? That's just showing that he's unwilling to actually step across the aisle, so to speak, and work with the Dems.
Kenny
Sure enough, Kenny...
I wish he would wait and just appoint Roberts or whomever as justice...and take more time to think about who would make a good Chief Justice...a good Chief Justice can make a positive impact, I think...I'm sure that Earl Warren and I didn't agree on everything...but I think he was a fairly good Chief Justice...
But I think that it will be a pretty marginal impact, overall...as with Rehnquist...it just shifts the focus to justices who have the most valuable and persuasive ideas to contribute...
It's the nice thing about the Supreme Court...it's the reason that I've always liked the Supreme Court more than any other federal institution in the American government...the respect for the diversity of ideas...and the power that ideas have there over just reactions to the political moment...
We'll see...perhaps the President will change his mind...something tells me that he won't:):):)...but you're right, I think, Kenny...it would be better, I think, if he would...I just don't think the President is thoughtful enough for all of that, frankly...I think he's too concerned with administrative details like having someone run the court:):)...or perhaps he's got too much interest in trying to control the court:):):)...which Presidents have never been able to do:):):)...no matter how hard they've tried:):):)...it's the great thing about democracy, really:):):)...
Ben
Kenny...
That AP article on the International Debate board actually gives reasoning that really makes sense to me, Kenny...
"Naming Roberts for chief justice was about the only way to ensure all nine seats on the court are filled when it begins its next term Oct. 3. If the court began a new term with only eight justices, it could have resulted in 4-4 ties on controversial cases."
So what they're saying is that they can't, logistically, do two nomination processes before the court reconvenes...
So...the only way to avoid 4-4 splits in the time they have available...is to the elevate Roberts to the Chief Justice position, which, as the Washington Post was saying before, is largely a symbolic post at the Supreme Court...
The only other options are to 1) elevate a current member...which would also require a lengthy confirmation process in the limited time they have available in this session, or 2) elevate two new members...again...what they're saying is that they don't think that's logistically possible in the time they have available...
And that actually sounds quite reasonable to me...
It's a logistical matter that actually means something, I think, Kenny...because...without it...cases can't get decided...
So it actually makes a lot of sense of elevate John Roberts, I think...as much as I would love a more ideal situation:):):)...
I'm kind of tired with having people go after me when they disagree with me...so I decided to post that here rather than on the International Debate board:):):)...
Talk with you soon, bud:):)...
Ben
Post a Comment
<< Home