The Week
It’s been a big week in news. Between Rove, the Supreme Court, the PATRIOT act, a second round of bombings in London and Jude Law sleeping with his nanny it’s hard to know where to start. Some thoughts:
1) Lets try not to lose site of the FACT that Karl Rove, by confirming that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent, broke the law.
2) Arlen Specter should follow through with what he suggested to Bush and force a more moderate choice. Even if we all believe the Republicans are above nominating a judge that will follow their agenda, since he argued for Row versus Wade for Bush Senior we should exclude him from this process.
3) Each of the Democratic representative that voted to extend the PATRIOT act, please consider joining another party, preferably one that supports fascism.
4) The London bombings, although horrific remind us that we must deal with terrorism as a part of life. Let’s consider the thousands of people who have been victims of gun related violence in the US this year and the tens of thousands that have died of starvation worldwide, it gives terrorism a little perspective.
5) Jude Law, what the hell were you thinking? Your fiancé is hot.
1) Lets try not to lose site of the FACT that Karl Rove, by confirming that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent, broke the law.
2) Arlen Specter should follow through with what he suggested to Bush and force a more moderate choice. Even if we all believe the Republicans are above nominating a judge that will follow their agenda, since he argued for Row versus Wade for Bush Senior we should exclude him from this process.
3) Each of the Democratic representative that voted to extend the PATRIOT act, please consider joining another party, preferably one that supports fascism.
4) The London bombings, although horrific remind us that we must deal with terrorism as a part of life. Let’s consider the thousands of people who have been victims of gun related violence in the US this year and the tens of thousands that have died of starvation worldwide, it gives terrorism a little perspective.
5) Jude Law, what the hell were you thinking? Your fiancé is hot.
posted by mochi at 6:13 PM
13 Comments:
1) How, exactly, did he confirm Plame was a CIA agent? How do you know this for a "fact"? According to reports, he was told her identity by Cooper. From what I've read, all Rove did was state that Wilson's wife works for the CIA and is the one who sent him to Africa. According to the actual law, nothing illegal happened there.
Of course, it makes you wonder why Miller is still sitting in jail.
2) That is not Arlen Specter's job. It is up to him, and other Senator's to advise, and for Bush to decide, on the nominee. Elections have consequences, the winner gets to choose the nominees for Sup.Ct. vacancies.
3) Fascism seems a little extreme here.
4) Wow. Sounds like you're saying terrorism isn't as bad as some make it out to be because we don't live in a perfect world. That's cold.
5) Surprise surprise - I couldn't agree more.
1) Go to any website including the the Fair and Balanced War on Terror Network and you will find articles that indicate the following:
"Rove did in fact confirm the identity of a CIA officer with at least one reporter"
If you read the law you will see that he did break it. Refer to Russert's transcript last Sunday.
2) Agreed, elections have consequences but isn't the judiciary meant to be non-partisan? Are you saying that Bush should only appoint faithful Republicans that have worked for him or his father? Maybe Rove can replace Rehnquist.
3) Whatever.
4) I'm saying that people die and terrorism is not one of the major causes of death in the US. So I'm not going to spend much time thinking about it. Just like I'm not going to think about being eaten by a shark or murdered in Aruba.
5) See we can agree...
Hi Mochi!
Will have to point out, that in order for the law to have been broken, Plame would have had to be an undercover CIA operative at the time. I believe, that she was a desk jockey when Rove confirmed her working for the CIA--so a law wouldn't have been broken. That's the reason that Bush said that anyone who had "broken the law" would be fired. Think Bush will fire Rove? These people know what they're doing.
Mochi, the concepts of "conservative" and "liberal" should be non-partisan. For example, the majority of Republicans are leaving the "conservative" platform and heading down the tax-and-spend-more-government path. Whether a judge is "conservative" or "liberal" should not determine their "partisanship". Clinton didn't nominate a conservative in Ginsburg--she was an ACLU lawyer who believed in an "organic" Constitution. (Which means that she thinks that the Constitutions meaning can change over time). She was confirmed "bipartisanly" (if thats a word) by about a 98-2 vote. I was wondering why in one of my earlier posts why Democrats are not willing to do the same for Republicans? (Reno, Albright, etc...all confirmed with overwhelming majorities with no contest). Why is it the Democrats have to give Republicans a hard time about their nominees when they are no less activistic? (Bork, Scalia, Thomas, Gonzalez, etc., etc.) It makes me wonder why a conservative would accept the nomination, because they know that the Democrats will do everything in their power to destroy them--personally! (Thomas, Gonzalez, Bolton, etc., etc.)
Would like to know your perspective about this, Mochi. Why is it that Republicans confirm without so much as a squeek, but every notable nominee presented by the President, they have a war? Is it what Schumer says? "It doesn't matter who they put up, we will go to war?".
Also, I look forward to seeing what Democrats can come up with on Roberts. His resume is impeccable, and his prior confirmation was 100%.
Lastly, flu kills more people per year than guns, Mochi. A simple statistic that could be reversed by mandatory flu shots. I think its time we push for more flu control...
Sean, nice to see you! The guys here at Neo-libs are old friends. They're good people and willing to talk about anything.
Regards,
-Jack
Jack:
"the concepts of "conservative" and "liberal" should be non-partisan." - That idea is one that I have been trumpeting a long time, too (here, and here). So, everyone can now be amazed that you and I agree about something!
Also, I can provide some bits from the left about Roberts: Some items here. And, this copied from an email article I couldn't link:
"He opposed clean air rules and worked to help coal companies strip-mine mountaintops. He worked with Ken Starr and tried to keep Congress from defending the Voting Rights Act. He wrote that Roe v. Wade should be "overruled," and as a lawyer argued (and won) the case that stopped some doctors from even discussing abortion.
"John Roberts has little experience as a judge—he was only appointed in 2003. But he's got a lot of experience as a corporate lobbyist and lawyer, consistently favoring wealthy corporations over regular Americans.
"Here's a list of some of the things that make Roberts the wrong pick for the Supreme Court:
"On environmental protection: Roberts appears to want to limit the scope of the Endangered Species Act, and in papers he wrote while in law school he supported far-right legal theories about "takings" which would make it almost impossible for the government to enforce most environmental legislation.
"On civil rights: Roberts worked to keep Congress from defending parts of the Voting Rights Act.
"On human rights: As a appeals court judge, Roberts ruled that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to some prisoners of war.
"On our right to religious freedom: Roberts argued that schools should be able to impose religious speech on attendees.
"On women's rights: Roberts wrote that "Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled." He also weighed in on behalf of Operation Rescue, a violent anti-abortion group, in a federal case.
"President Bush could have chosen many fair-minded and independent jurists to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. Instead, he chose a corporate partisan loved by Bush's right-wing base but out of step with the rest of the country."
Also, he was involved in the 2000 "election" travesty that installed King George.
So, there you go.
Shea, you're always a good source to go to.
I'll have to check out some of those. Some I would agree with others I wouldn't.
On the the Rov V. Wade issue (which is pointless that we get into) all lawyers, judges and legal minds know that it was the first real case of judicial activism, and if it were to stand an executive and congressional challenge it would be overturned simply on its own merit. We studied this in University and even liberal judges realize it is a house of cards. It is also the sacred cow of the judiciary and the reason it is so important is because it established a precedent for legislation from the bench that even conservative judges are unwilling to oppose--in other words, it granted the Supreme Court the authority, by way of precendence, to legislate from the bench--it even supports the recent eminent domain ruling. I'll be happy to pass along more behind this ruling if you want sometime. He is right, though, if Roe V. Wade was ever appropriately challenged then it could not stand on its own merit--that's the fear people have--if it was a Constitutional ruling then it would be unbreakable, but its not. If Roe V. Wade was overturned, then maybe we could begin to look at the abortion issue sensibly--until then, you have two extremes ruling the debate, and the loudest rhetoric wins.
Here are a couple of things that I don't think are accurate that I checked out.
Roberts did not rule that the Geneva Convention did not apply to POW's. He ruled that they did not apply to enemy combatants who did not serve under a national banner. This is what POW's are, and terrorist are not POW's.
A lot of the other allegations are things that Neo-Libs would refuse to publish--allegations that are quite nebulous and general. So I know you guys would not publish things like this unless substantiated.
Thanks for the info, though. Look forward to this one, Shea!
Take care,
-Jack
Oh, and another thing...
Roberts LOOKS Republican too, doesn't he!
:)
Does he? I thought he looks like the uncle John Edwards never talked about :)
All I can say is, I'd like to see a judge who is moderate and has great respect for the constitution. Some judges in the past have surprised people by trying to do the right thing rather than toe the party line. It should prove to be a lively confirmation.
Are you saying that Bush should only appoint faithful Republicans that have worked for him or his father?
If he wants to, and they're qualified, yes. He can appoint anyone he chooses to, so long as they are qualified. Every other president has been able to do this, why not Bush? Because his choices might not share your ideology? Hopefully you were as concerned over nominess chosen by Democratic presidents who might not have been "moderates".
Shea, I'm not impressed with quotes from a "progressive" (read Lefty) website. "Constitutionally protected reproductive freedoms"? Puh-leeze! What a grand euphemism for "we don't know if he'll uphold abortion on demand." I've read the Constitution from beginning to end, I can't find anything in there regarding abortion. The Supreme Court once held that a slave owner had property rights in his slaves. See, the Court makes mistakes too. Like they did in Roe v. Wade.
The "protection of consumers" bit is ridiculous. Perhaps the website meant to leave out the part where it says the strike was ruled illegal.
As for not upholding environmental protections, anyone who read that opinion, or even excerpts, would realize his position. The govt. did not have the authority, under the Commerce Clause, to "protect" a toad that did not affect interstate commerce.
There is nothing wrong with Roberts as a choice - other than he was chosen by a Republican president and might disagree with Roe v. Wade. Of course, the Left has made it clear that they will denounce any nominee who doesn't pledge that abortion on demand will continue. Sickening.
Hey Sean, how are ya? It's true that there is no mention of abortion in the Constitution, that's rock solid. There's also no mention of a lot of other things. If the Supreme Court were to adhere strictly to what was and wasn't in the Constitution there would be no need for a Supreme Court. What's in there is in there, end of story.
This is why the "living document" interpretation not only makes the most sense, but it is totally inescapable. The Supreme Court has leveraged this view enough at this point that it's really impossible to go back. Overturning Roe v. Wade because it's not expressly granted in the Constitution should logically lead to, among other things, repealing civil rights rulings. It could be argued that it should be up to the states whether or not they want to allow blacks and whites to share the same classroom, but we know from history that many times certain states will make bonehead decisions. Who’s the federal government to stop them? If you take that view, who’s the federal government to impose an income tax? Who’s the federal government to demand “no child (be) left behind”? Who’s the federal government to… I could go on and on because this country is a vastly different place than it was when the Constitution was penned. If the Constitution weren’t a “living document” it would have died long ago.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Exactly, Smorgasbord. What does it say in the constitution about invading and overthrowing other countries without just cause, or supporting covert guerilla wars by selling cocaine?
Sean: Whatever. I was only providing some info that was available at the time when a request was made by another commenter. There is more information available now about Roberts past involvement with a certain oganization being concealed, but I know you're "not impressed" by anything that doesn't come from the neocon right (or, as you apparently would call it, "righty"). How was your Fox news today? Impressive?
This is why the "living document" interpretation not only makes the most sense, but it is totally inescapable.
Uh, no. Not even close. Has anyone here even read the Constitution? There is plenty in there requiring a Court. Like the part which established the Court and gives it jurisdiction over maritime law, bankruptcy, etc.
Overturning Roe v. Wade because it's not expressly granted in the Constitution should logically lead to, among other things, repealing civil rights rulings.
Not even close. Roe v. Wade was founded on the worst jurisprudence since Dredd Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson. Roe v. Wade should be overturned because it makes no sense. I won't try to educate you in the jurisprudence of the issue. You can read case law for yourself. Of course, if you won't read the constitution I doubt you'll read the case law either.
If you take that view, who’s the federal government to impose an income tax?
Because the power to tax is provided by the Constitution. Cripes, you really haven't read it, have you?
Who’s the federal government to demand “no child (be) left behind”?
Exactly, what a crappy bit of legislation that was. Schools should be left to the States.
If the Constitution weren’t a “living document” it would have died long ago.
What a silly statement. The Constitution is a marvel of lawmaking. It is concise enough to define the powers of our Federal government - powers it needs to maintain the Union. Everything else is supposed to be left to the States. If one State really scews things up, people will move out and the remaining people can live in squalor or get their act together.
What does it say in the constitution about invading and overthrowing other countries without just cause, or supporting covert guerilla wars by selling cocaine?
It says Congress has the power to raise an army for the common defense. It says the President is the CIC of the armed forces. It says nothing about selling cocaine. The Congress made that illegal so if you actually had proof you could start a campaign to get the prosecution underway. I won't hold my breath.
Sean: Whatever. I was only providing some info that was available at the time when a request was made by another commenter.
I was only pointing out that the info you provided was partisan and not very accurate. Whatever.
Post a Comment
<< Home