Ok I am no law expert by any means, but Clarence Thomas may have been in the right place in the right time and Bush needed to appoint a black judge to replace Marshall, but I can not accept that anyone on the supreme court is an 'average legal mind'. Also, Ratdog has numerous posts about economics. It's not stuff you need to study real hard about either. He is a communist, that is fine. But when you start saying things like capitalism has been proven to be a broken system and that Friedman theories have been proven meaningless then I would hope anyone who has ever cracked open a WSJ would speak up. That's not to say I think the "system" isn't broken or that Universal Health Care isn't a good idea or whatever issue some of the far left might be crying about, I'm talking about the hard numbers that show that capitalism in the U.S. has worked, for the most part.
You can't discuss universal health care - ie. "The Government takes over everyone's health care" which is the honest way to describe it, with most of those clowns because they don't have the foggiest idea what's wrong with the American health care delivery system in the first place. They think the statement: "X number of bazillion people don't have health insurance" sums up the problem nicely. In fact, it doesn't even scratch the surface. The insurance issue is a symptom, and the problem with it is that it's the kind of symptom that democrat politicans love to hold up because it's easy for people who have no Earthly concept of how the health care delivery system wworks or how government intervention has affected it and really don't care about the details (in other words, the totally ignorant) to understand. (Democrats love finding solutions to symptoms; "Black people don't seem to be succeeding so we'll ignore WHY this may be true and simply pass laws which decree what the outcome will be" shows how much you care about black people. The education system is hopelessly broken, but if we pay teachers more money it will prove we "care about children") So what you end up with is John Kerry's newest "Health Care Initiative" which calls for raising taxes on "the rich" and paying for other people's medical care. It's just so typical of democrat politicians: get people to vote for you by promising to take money from someone else and give it to you. This is called "being compassionate" Democrats define "being compassionate" as taking something which isn't thiers and giving it away to someone who's done nothing to earn it, thus showing how much they "care". This is the level of economic theory which most democrats espouse, and which most liberals consider "progressive". Asset confiscation and redistribution under the control of central government. And on it goes...... As for Democracy, some nations are simply resigned to bad government. They are conditioned to submit by a long history of being abused and dictated to. That's a far cry from not having the intellectual capacity to understand how representative government works, or thinking they might like to try living under a government of their own choosing. There are but damned few people on Earth who, if given the choice, would pull the "Give me a dictator" over "Have an election", despite what the arrogant, elitist, highly "nuanced" pseudointelectuals of the left want us to believe. This new leberal theory, which they've developed in response to the need for explaining why they are opposed to the effort to let Iraqis decide their own affairs, is the sort of morally contemptible and intellectually vacant philosophy that used to outrage them when people on the right said it. Back when US-freindly corrupt dictatorships like the Shah of Iran or Pinochet or Franco or Marcos were in power, guys like Joe were falling all over themselves about how contemptible it was that the US wasn't storming the beaches to bring freedom and democracy to the poor, long suffering citizens of these blighted lands. But when a Republican president actually does exactly that, he's naive and unsophisticated and jungoistic and a fool for believeing that our little bron brothers are smart enough to figure out how to run a minicipal street system or set up a "western style" (ie. non-corrupt) judicial system. Balderdash and hogwash.
This former tendency on the part of the Left to call for American intervention here, there, and everywhere in the name of freedom, decency, and democracy goes back even further than the Cold War. When I was in college in the Stone Age I heard a lecture by a professor who'd been an ambulance driver in the Spanish Civil War, naturally for the anti-Franco forces. He said that just one full strength, fully equipped American division would have been enough to stop Franco from pushing through to Barcelona in late 1938. I remember thinking that we probably didn't have even one such division available, but didn't think it wise to make the point in front of what likely would have been a hostile audience.
I'm not an expert on health care, so can't talk about it. I have health insurance because my job provides it for me (for a small price), so that's enough for me. As for the other point - I'm not opposed to higher income taxes on the wealthy. Those who are wealthy have more things to be thankful to the government for. It all depends on your point of view. I don't think of it as "stealing" or "taking" - any citizen of the US knows that the state may demand money from him. Its part of being a citizen. And raising the tax rate a few points hardly makes it stealing. My problem with the Iraq war wasn't that we shouldn't remove dictators. That's not the point. And your suggestion that people would take democracy over dictatorship misses the point even more. If you don't have the cultural background to demand democracy in the first place, you won't get that choice! Democracy isn't easy - its hard. It goes against tribalism, factionalism and other types of systems. It requires the shift in thinking that he man and the office are not the same. In a country with no experience at this, that change simply cannot be superimposed. Its not that they're not smart enough. And that's why when you say they wouldn't choose a dictator over democracy, you're right. But that choice isn't like flicking a switch - democracy needs to be worked for. And I'm not sure they want to.
Would you rather he had driven the ambulance for the pro-Franco forces? And while you're right, the US's pre WWII military manpower was negligible, his point is correct. Its moot - just as moot as Turtledove's book about how the South could have won the Civil War with AK 47s - but its correct.
So what is it, Bill? Are you a Neo-Rhodes who thinks that it's the White Man's Burden to civilize the third world? I'd rather have an inert guy like Clinton than someone who thinks that we can waltz in wherever we want and impose civil society on barbarians.
Not much time right now, but I wanted to add this: If we're talking about "mediocre legal minds" Sandra Day O'Connor is perhaps the Queen of the Pedestrian. However, since she often rendered judgements that agreed with the left wing point of view, nobody ever minded much. In any case, nobody even tried to claim that either Roberts or Alito were not wildly bright legal minds, just that they were worried they wouldn't agree with the left. Many people feel that Bork was one of the best legal minds of his generation, but the left destroyed the guy rather than allow him to sit. It's not Thomas' "mind" anyone objects to, it's his conservative slant. The whole argument is, or ought to be, beneath honest people.
That's right. It's not that Thomas is insufficiently "smart," it's that he is consistent in his very circumscribed views about Constitutional law. It's in large part code for "this guy doesn't agree with my shifting nuanced views." Larry Tribe may be the smartest law professor in the land, but here's a guy who was part of the crew that argued that law schools could ban JAG recruiters. How dumb was that? A lot dumber than anything Clarence Thomas has written, I daresay. Lack of intelligence can take many forms indeed.
I'll leave most of the legal talk to Nicephoras, but I should note that the American Bar Association was less than impressed with Clarence Thomas--he got a mediocre "qualified" rating. The ABA also, if memory serves me right, rated Bork pretty poorly. They rated Scalia, Alito, and Roberts highly. In fact, every other member of the SCOTUS received the highest rating ("very qualified"). Concern about ABA liberal bias rings hollow when their endorsements of Scalia and Alito are brought to light.
Concern about ABA liberal bias is not rendered inconsequential due to evidence that they were honest once or twice, or that certain candidates had political and personal connections within the organization. The bare, unarguable fact is that the ABA has chosen, on it's own, to move from a traditional, long-standing role as an unbiased "above the fray" nonpartisan certification and oversight organization straight into a new role as just another liberal advocacy group. Leaving aside it's review of judicial candidates, it has otherwise begun issuing a stream of social advocacy policies and statements on all the major issues of the day from abortion to affirmative action to Iraq and on and on, and every single one of them hews to the liberal-democrat line. This was their own choice. They cannot then turn around and claim that, while becoming more and more a liberal advocacy group they nonetheless are strictly non-partisan in the area of judicial recommendations. They can't have it both ways.
From what I can find online--again, I'll defer to Nicephoras--one study showed that Clinton's appointments without bench experience fared quite a bit better than Bush's appointments without bench experience; appointments with bench experienced fared the same. And if you go back to the 60s, the supposed liberal tilt disappears. Could it possibly be that Bush's appointments were merely worse? After all, the man did try to appoint Harriet Miers. Even rock-ribbed Republicans choked on that one.
If one has to go back 40 or 50 years in order to be able to include enough data to balance the scales, that would seem to me to prove the point.
Not really. The endorsement rates don't differ between the two parties until we get to W Bush. . . . the same president whose plans for enemy combatants were recently shot down by the SCOTUS . . . the same president who will see his signing statements meet a similar fate . . . the same president who tried to elevate a crony to the SCOTUS.
The "signing statements' issue is nothing but phony baloney. I notice that you like to fall back on it every other post, but the propaganda does not come close to meeting the reality. We can start with the absurd "750" signing statements which Bush has supposedly issued, which leaves aside the embarassing fact that he hasn't signed 750 laws yet, and isn't likely to come close to that number. As for "cronies" that's just absurd. Nominating people with limited or no judicial experience who you happen to know well personally is as old as the Republic. Hell, Lincoln named his campaign manager to the bench. The list is as long as your arm. And Clinotn naming the chief legal council for the ACLU to replace a conservative on the Court was not exactly a high point in American jurisprudence, let alone the precious "balance" which the left suddenly discovered a year ago. Phony issues like this don't do much for your case.
This notion of Bush being some sort of nasty little fascist who ignores Congress, is some sort of lawless renegade, and is siccing Alberto Gonzalez and his Gestapo on us is unbelievalbly tiresome. I direct you to my sig and wisdom of Tom Wolfe. If there's any dark night descending, it's on the the ability of leftists to acquire insight.
Here's what I found in a column by John Dean Findlaw from January: Phillip Cooper is a leading expert on signing statements. His 2002 book, By Order of the President: The Use and Abuse of Executive Direct Action, assesses the uses and abuses of signing statements by presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Cooper has updated his material in a recent essay for the Presidential Studies Quarterly, to encompass the use of signing statements by now-President Bush as well. By Cooper's count, George W. Bush issued 23 signing statements in 2001; 34 statements in 2002, raising 168 constitutional objections; 27 statements in 2003, raising 142 constitutional challenges, and 23 statements in 2004, raising 175 constitutional criticisms. In total, during his first term Bush raised a remarkable 505 constitutional challenges to various provisions of legislation that became law. That number may be approaching 600 challenges by now. Yet Bush has not vetoed a single bill, notwithstanding all these claims, in his own signing statements, that they are unconstitutional insofar as they relate to him. Not sure where the 750 number comes from, but 600 isn't far off. I'll defer to you on Lincoln. Was this appointment as controversial as Bush's attempt to elevate Harriet Miers?
You want to argue that Oliver North has no "credibility" and then trot out JOHN DEAN???? Jesus, Joseph amd Mary, that takes some balls. A veteran Bush hater whose been groveling to the press for 30 years now in an effort to make a living. Pooosh. In any case, the "signing statements" meme, besides being meaningless - the law says what the law says, and the President singing "Mary had a little lamb" before he sings it does not turn "The Star Spangled Banner" into "In a gadda da vida- as well as completely constitutional - the constitution does not say that "the president shall rubber stamp all acts of congress and keep his damned yap shut about it - and something that all presidents have done - "But Bush has done SO MANY THAT CLEARLY THE CONSTITUTION IS BEING TRAMPLED ON, MOMMY" is a specious argument that I would think you'd be ashamed to make. (If crossing the street once is legal, why is crossing the street three times illegal? It's preposterous. Be this intellectually vapid argument as it may, the bias of your sources on that number is crucial: that number was first compiled by a Boston Globe reporter, who took every bill Bush has signed, counted up how many statutes were affected by each bill and claimed that number of "signing statements" even if there was only one. So if the "Omnibus Screwing Everybody Out of their Money Act of 2005" had legal impact on 48 provisions of law, and the President issued a signing statement when he signed it, then regardless of what he said or didn't say, that was counted as 48 signing statements. It's a ludicrous distortion meant to somehow prove the President is an out-of-control despot or whatever the left thinks it proves. This is a phony issue. I didn't feel like laughing at you when your response to my "Which of your personal liberties has been taken away" question included a few lines about signing statements. I figured it was beneath you and didn't feel like pointing it out.
From what I understand, signing statements are basically a public acknolwedgement of what the President understands the law to be. Isn't a signing statement far better than a president simply imposing his interpretation without making his objections public? I seriously fail to see the problem here. If anything, Bush has done all of us a valuable service by showing us exactly where he stands on laws passed by Congress. This reeks of more disclousure than necessary, not less. If anyone here actually thinks presidents implement laws exactly the way Congress writes them, please leave.
I'm not a frequent visitor of your guestbook, but since I do more-or-less lean left much of the time (FULL DISCLOSURE: I supported, and still support, the war in Iraq, so I can't claim to represent the MoveOn wing of American liberalism) I'll give this a shot. It should be applied to Clinton. I've never liked Clinton much, so it doesn't pain me to say that. For that matter, I still believe that Vietnam was an unjust war. I don't get this fetish the contemporary left has for Vietnam Vets. I fear it represents a sense of inadequecy. There has been far too much hyperbole on the subject. And 95% of the PATRIOT Act consisted of sensible streamlining of intelligence and invesigative overlap. However, a couple of provisions in the PAT Act did overstep the boundry of due cause. The wiretapping of citizens that was in the news recently was of concern to many non-lefty libertarian and small-government conservatives as well. A shameless appeal to the Lowest Common denominator. I don't think much of Moore or Carter, at any rate. I've heard arguements for and against that treaty, and I confess to not knowing enough to have an informed opinion over whether or not signing it would be a good idea. Like many environmental issues--drilling in the Arctic, for example--signing or not signing Kyoto seems to have become one of those 'template' issues for both sides, in excess of--and perhaps not even realted to--the actual worth or harm of said issue/measure/whatever. Like bojendyk, I don't know and I don't care. I don't think it was a mistake to go in. And ten years of a bad policy of containment--dating all the way back to the first Bush Administration--practically ensured that the country was fragile, with little workable civil society left intact. We could have made the case to the international community better. It doesn't matter if we were 'right' or not (I happen to think--and I consider the issue of WMD almost beside the point--we were right to replace Saddam), we needed to have more of the 'international community' on board. Not as easy task, and I'm glad it wasn't my job. But we really didn't reach out enough. Our planning was too focused on winning the invasion--Rumsfeld seemed determined to prove you could take out the Baathists with fewer than 150,000 troops. Mission Accomplished--but the difficulties of securing the peace seem to have been ignored. I'm not just talking about troops on the ground, or security. I have a good friend who's been in Iraq for two years, first as a civilian contractor and now as a State Department employee. He's a level-headed guy and absolutely committed to making the reconstruction work. He continually sends articles and stories that he believes do a good job of portraying the reality he sees and works with. Lately, he's mostly forwarded bad news--specifically concerning the shortcomings of reconstruction efforts. Money badly appropriated. Failures to consider local needs in ill-guided attempts to create a pre-planned infrastructure that looked good on paper but wasn't going to happen. Failure to communicate with local leadership. And so on. This from a guy who wants the reconstruction to succeed, who went out of his way to go back a second time after his first contract expired. Yes, the money is good, but there are easier and safer ways to build up a resume. Because he's a coward. I haven't watched much Fox news--or any TV news, really--lately, so while I have seen some examples of bias, they were: a) quite awhile ago, and b) probably not much worse than some of the typical bias you see from the other networks. Oh, and c) last time I bothered watched CNN, they were seriously asking Benny Hinn if we are living in End Times. Comments comparing Guantanamo to 'gulags' and such were disproportionate and unfortunate. However, the administration was clearly playing games with international law, trying to find loopholes instead of seriously trying to answer the (very good) issues you raise here. ROTC should be allowed on campuses. Ostracizing a large and important institution in American society is ultimately counter-productive. Murtha does not have absolute authority to speak on the situation in Iraq. I don't think his being a Vet gives him more right to speak against the war; after all, I did not serve in the military but I support the war. Are my opinions less valid than his? I think not. He was wrong about Bosnia, too. He did not, however, undermine the Constitution in order to make arms deals with terrorists on two continents. I hope by now I've made it clear I'm not cut from that cloth. And I did find Moore's little 'Hey Mr. Congressman, could you sign your kid up for service in Iraq' bit more than a little offensive. I never knew that parents could sign their adult children up for the military; or make any other decision for them.
I completely disagree. She's not exactly the reincarnation of Brandeis, but she's quite intelligent. I have no issues with his "conservative" slant, which isn't really that anyway. Its his judicial philosophy which is almost childish that I have issues with. And I say that for decisions where he sided for the "liberal" side rather than the conservative side. There is one case in particular (whose name I can't recall at the moment) that dealt with the right to anonymity in campaigning. The decision, 7-2, was opposed by Rehnquist and Scalia in a measured dissent that I disagreed with, but whose logic I could appreciate. I agreed with the majority opinion (Stevens, as I recall) more. Thomas, meanwhile, published a concurrence which didn't even bother to look at the law - it just looked at what "the founding fathers" would have done, as if the Federalist Papers were somehow a complete representation of their legal thought. That's stupid. And I'd say the same thing if Stevens was doing it. As for Bork - he wasn't destroyed because he was conservative, he was destroyed because he made some really stupid comments on the nature of what he perceived his job to be. Both Rehnquist and Scalia sailed through their nominations. And this was after the bitter, bitter fight that the Republicans put up over Fortas.
Being inert isn't bad. Clinton was the leader of a country that was the world's only superpower. It didn't need a revolution, it wasn't suffering from a crisis. Inert is fine. I would have been MUCH happier had Bush remained just as inert on the issue of Iraq and the issue of taxes (which I consider far more important than Iraq, personally). This is like the "at least I know what Bush stands for" arguments that I abominate. Being a man of action isn't a good thing if those actions are stupid.
I had thought Bork was rated pretty highly by the ABA, although I've never liked Bork because of his involvement with Watergate.