Democrats Split on Roberts Nomination

posted by David Corn on 09/21/2005 @ 2:26pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (107)

Subscribe Now

I interrupt the spirited debate raging in the comments section on whether we should care about the police records of Jeb Bush's children--and whether these Bush kids received preferential treatment due to their father's position--in order to post again today on the latest news regarding the Roberts nomination. If you want to join the fray on the previous column, click the link for that column at the bottom of this page.

What's a Democrat to do?

On September 20, Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid issued a passionate statement denouncing the nomination of John Roberts Jr. as chief justice of the Supreme Court. He said he would vote against Roberts, and he pointed to memos Roberts had written in the 1980s in which Roberts took hard-edged conservative stances on civil rights, privacy issues and other matters. Reid also cited the Bush administration's refusal to release memos Roberts had written when he served in the solicitor general's office during the first Bush administration. "We should only vote to confirm this nominee if we are absolutely positive that he is the right person" for the post, Reid said. His position was unambiguous.

On September 21, Senator Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat of the judiciary committee, declared that he would vote for Roberts. Leahy released a lengthy statement that could have justified either a nay or aye vote. He said he was "extremely disappointed by the lack of cooperation from the Administration....The Bush administration treated senators' requests for information with little respect. Instead, for the first time in my memory, they grafted exceptions from the Freedom of Information Act to limit their response to Senators' requests for information.� They stonewalled entirely the narrowly tailored request for work papers from 16 significant cases John Roberts handled when he was the principal deputy to Kenneth Starr at the Solicitor General's office during the President's father's administration." Leahy also complained that Roberts "disserviced himself" by being tight-lipped about his judicial views during his confirmation hearings. And Leahy voiced concern about where Roberts would lead the court:

Judge Roberts's work in the Reagan and Bush Justice Departments as well as his formative period in the Reagan White House seem to have led him to a philosophy of significant deference to presidential authority.....Maybe this deference was a principal basis on which this President chose him....This is a fundamental question. We know that we are in a period in which the Executive has a complicit and compliant Republican Congress that refuses to serve as a check or balance.� Without the courts to fulfill that constitutional role, excess will continue, and the balance will be tilted.

But Leahy put aside these and other concerns. Why? Because he believes "Roberts is a man of integrity." He explained:

I can only take him at his word that he does not have an ideological agenda.� For me, a vote to confirm requires faith that the words he spoke to us have meaning.� I can only take him at his word that he will steer the court to serve as an appropriate check on potential abuses of presidential power.� I respect those who have come to different conclusions, and I readily acknowledge the unknowable at this moment, that perhaps they are right and I am wrong. Only time will tell.

"Only time will tell" is not much of a bone to toss to the Democratic base, which has organized against Roberts and yearns for a fight. Once again, the Democrats are splitting on an issue that its most ardent supporters care much about. Just like Iraq. Ted Kennedy (no surprise) is voting against Roberts. So is John Kerry. Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, is voting for Bush's pick. Some progressive bloggers have tried to target Baucus, depicting him as a Democratic turncoat. Are they now going to do the same with Leahy, an otherwise reliable liberal? And can any Democrat who wants to run in 2008 vote to confirm Roberts? There is much anticipation regarding Hillary Clinton's vote. Perhaps Leahy has given her the cover she needs to vote for Roberts. Still, imagine the debate during the Democratic presidential primaries of 2008 if Roberts reaches the court and then weakens abortion rights. Candidates who voted for Roberts could expect to face harsh questions from candidates who opposed Roberts as well as from potential supporters and voters.

******

Don't forget about DAVID CORN's BLOG at www.davidcorn.com. Read recent postings on Hurricane Katrina, Marjorie Williams' honesty in death; new ammo for abortion foes, and other in-the-news matters.

*******

Putting aside 2008, how much alienation can the Democratic Party afford now? If its troops--and key liberal fundrasiers--expected a fight on Roberts, they are in for a big disappointment. And such disappointment at the grassroots is not good for a party--especially as it heads into an election year. This is a similar to what has been happening within the party on Iraq. Most Democrats beyond the Beltway are fed up with the war, if the polls are to be believed. But they do not see the leadership of the party--such as there is any leadership of the party--reflecting their concern. In Washington, a handful of Democrats are calling for a withdrawal of some sort from Iraq, some Democrats are urging that the Bush administration fight a better and smarter war, and many (including congressional leaders) are not saying much at all.

Of course, there are real policy differences among Democrats. But on the Roberts nomination and the Iraq war, the GOP is in synch with its base: stay the course and pass Roberts. The Dems are squabbling among themselves, and that renders it more difficult for the party to present a coherent message that could stir its foot soldiers and/or to entice new recruits. The Republicans are engaged in their own intramural fight over federal spending and the reconstruction of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. (When Tom DeLay recently declared that there was no more fat to cut in the federal budget, other conservative Republicans howled at such blasphemy.) And this fight may become ugly. But for now the Democrats are the ones who cannot agree on a bumpersticker.

The election of 2006 is a year away. But if the Democrats are going to try to turn it into a national election--that is, one with overarching themes that can play in various districts and states--they will eventually need a consensus pitch. Going national in this fashion is always a difficult task for a party; most elections are determined by local factors and the qualities of the particular candidates. But it's even tougher when the party has competing messages on the key issues of the moment.

Comments (107)

As one member of the Democratic base I can say that a fight over Roberts is not on my RADAR screen. I expected a conservative nominee due to the reality of the GOP victory in '04. This is what we got, and he isn't an extremist as some other potential nominees are, so if Dems are going to pick their battles this shouldn't be one of them.

What I am concerned about is the growing gap between rich and poor, the growth in the number of poor, the weakness of american infrastructure (as Katrina demonstrated), the national debt and annual budget deficits, lack of national health insurance, the education system, global warming, and other environmental issues.

It is time for Dem leadership to step forward and fight it out on these issues, or risk erosion of the base to third party politics.

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/21/2005 @ 2:42pm
So what else is new?

The Sunday edition of The Hartford Courant ran a piece where my senior Senator Chris Dodd expressed uncertainty over his vote on Roberts. He, like many other Dems, are looking for a way to appove Roberts while still passing themselves off as caring people to their constituents.

I have said this before and I'll say it again, Ralph Nader was right. There is no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. During the 2000 and 2004 Presidential campaigns Dems, along with The Nation, begged people like me not to vote for Nader and vote instead for either Gore or Kerry. There were many reasons but the most prevalent one was the idea of Bush selecting replacements for the Supreme Court.

So now it is happening and what are the Dems doing? Are they going to filibuster? Give me a break. That would require work and they are too lazy to do that. Considering their actions during the campaigns the Democrats are obligated to finally back up their rhetoric with action. But just like every other time before they are nothing but enablers for the worst of the Bush Administration.

I have been thinking about sending a letter to the Courant expressing similar statements. But they are just as anti-Nader as The Nation.

It is time for the "Anybody But Bush" left to finally get the hint. The Democrats are a bunch of spaghetti-spined losers.

Posted by vincem at 09/21/2005 @ 2:52pm
What I am concerned about is the growing gap between rich and poor, the growth in the number of poor, the weakness of american infrastructure (as Katrina demonstrated), the national debt and annual budget deficits, lack of national health insurance, the education system, global warming, and other environmental issues.

It is time for Dem leadership to step forward and fight it out on these issues, or risk erosion of the base to third party politics.

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 09/21/2005 @ 2:42pm

We are in agreement ILP that the issues you outlined are of primary importance to the national dialogue and that clear distinctions in vision provide a better democracy.

Posted by love liberty at 09/21/2005 @ 2:53pm
Good analysis ZERO.

Posted by USAPRIDE at 09/21/2005 @ 3:31pm
Or, perhaps, we can start to agree that the time to quit flogging the dead donkey is at hand, and start voting in ever-greater numbers for third party and independent candidates. Why go down with a ship that refuses to quit sinking, even though it doesn't have to sink if it doesn't want to? This seems like the silliest of fates to me.

Posted by ZERO 09/21/2005 @ 3:12pm

Well, I can agree that one should consider this option based on how one's senator votes. I expect at least one of mine to vote "nay" on confirmation, and the other might also. If they do, then I see no reason for liberals to go third-party, if Roberts is a big issue to them.

As I wrote before, I expect that Roberts will be the least of my worries. But my party chairman is Howard Dean, so before I go third-party I am going to give him time to help party leadership grow some balls. In other words, I'm not ready to give up on the Dems just yet, but I am willing to consider it if they don't get their act together in '06.

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/21/2005 @ 4:04pm
What is wrong with American politics?

Who cares one flying fig about John Roberts? The country elected Bush. Bush nominated Roberts. He's been investigated. There was no skeletons in his closet. End of story. He's a fit justice and if you don't like him then don't elect someone like Bush.

It is not the Senate's job to save us from democracy!

But to even waste time debating this when we are in a country that four years after 911 is still structurally incapable of reacting to a terrorist act (think biological and the need to be somewhere in 48 hours) is clearly THE ISSUE.

If I were a USA senator, even one on the Judiciary committee, I would not waste one second on this complete charade and instead I'd be asking why, more than four years after 911 with a Republican President, Republican senate and Republican house, why the hell we are NOT prepared.

Am I the ONLY one that thinks it's a crime to elect Bush because he's going to make us safer than Kerry and then nobody cares when the OBVIOUS truth that we are EXTREMELY unsafe is revealed?

Thank God we kept our eye on the ball with Osama and got him, huh!

Posted by colmes at 09/21/2005 @ 4:19pm
David, You're spot on regarding The Democratic Party wandering. How in the world can Democrats win if their message is forever vague, confusing, weak. Until The Party has a clear leader, one, is this possible, one that just might have energy, innovation, style, charisma, and intelligence, the republicans will continue to win. Even for committed Democrats, looking at their Party, they must conclude that we are almost, nowhere. There is no leader, no consistent message, no strength in committment to their core beliefs.

Posted by ptrbice at 09/21/2005 @ 4:19pm
ZERO:

"normally invisable and largely non-resisting Harry Reid"

Damn, just when I pay you a compliment, you go and post this.

You have got to be kidding. Every time I turn on the tube it's the Reid and Polosi comedy hour. The other day Bush told Reid he was going to resign the presidencey and Reid took issue with him!

Posted by USAPRIDE at 09/21/2005 @ 4:27pm
Colmes:

You got that straight. The nomination process is a ridiculously stupid charade. National security, which republicans claim they are so much better at than democrats, isn't where it needs to be. But as long as they get face time, senators will use whatever forum is available to them. Shameless.

Posted by urmygyro at 09/21/2005 @ 4:50pm
USAPRIDE, et al.:

When are you guys gonna realize that the Democratic party speaks for practically no one on this board who considers themselves a Progressive. Go attack someone who gives a rat's behind about Pelosi or Reid. In my opinion, they are both making promises with their fingers crossed behind their backs.

Posted by jorcheim at 09/21/2005 @ 5:05pm
This doesn't surprise me a bit. Remember, when Clarence Thomas was confirmed, the Democrats controlled the Senate. They always capitulate to the GOP, thinking, someday, they'll respect them. No one respects a bitch, which is what the Dems are, and they seem to enjoy it.

Posted by assbaby at 09/21/2005 @ 5:23pm
ASSBABY:

Right on the money, if a bit crude.

Posted by jorcheim at 09/21/2005 @ 5:26pm
JORCHEIM: Splain to me the difference between a progressive and liberal.

Thanks

Posted by USAPRIDE at 09/21/2005 @ 5:28pm
What dem senators do not realize about Roberts is that saying he is not an ideologue is still compatible with any form of legal anaylsis, inluding that in the tradition of Lochner and the Four Horsemen. They show a woeful lack of knowledge of the history of the Supreme Court and the pervasively ideological role it has always played in the party debate.

Posted by jespo at 09/21/2005 @ 5:30pm
left of center people in the US should focus their energies, at least on a local level, on running third party candidates. target campuses with their campaigns, take some of the resources away from protest marches (just a bit) and divert them to educating people in their communities about the issues that matter to them (free trade, taxes, healthcare, etc) and drive the democrats slowly and surely out of power (or force them to move left). let's see how much power the "DLC" democrats have within the party once the left moves on.

Posted by leftsocial at 09/21/2005 @ 5:30pm
One clear point, judges rule on the laws...congress sets the laws they rule on. Roberts not answering questions is not unusual. Biden himself encouraged Ruth Bader Ginsburg to not answer specifics, it was good advice.

Not only are the dems leaderless, if anyone hasn't noticed, the reps are real short on leaders as well. Neither party really seems to want to have to lead as long as the individual can hold on to their office they are fine with the smoke and mirror magic they have been creating for the past decade.

We are not safer, stronger or more in step with the needs of the citizens due to simply having two parties who really don't care. DNC or RNC, there isn't a dimes bit of difference with respect to what the people need. We need true tax system changes, legislation is in both houses of congress, it can't get out of committee but we can waste time on "confirmation hearings," telemarketing no-call legislation and a host of other "feel good" distractions.

Posted by FreeWill at 09/21/2005 @ 5:51pm
ILP: With respect to what exactly do you imagine that the Rebellious Howard Dean is going to help the Democrats "grow balls"? He seems to have castrated himself, in fact, since becoming party chair.

Posted by ZERO 09/21/2005 @ 4:58pm

I will wait until a week or two after election day '06 to make an evaluation.

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/21/2005 @ 6:05pm
Two posts in one day? I guess that last story got pulled quickly.

Posted by Zeddmen at 09/21/2005 @ 6:19pm
Sen. Leahy's comments defending his upcoming support for Roberts is well considered and on target. Roberts is not the problem. He is replacing a conservative Rehnquist, so the net gain/loss is zero! The real important fight has yet to materialize--addressing the nominee for Day-O'Connor's seat. No matter how you slice it, Roberts will be confirmed. Why waste energy and resources on this nomination. If there is any civility left in politics, we must as Leahy points out, accept Roberts at his word re: carrying a political agenda to the bench. I did hear some things in his testimony that lead me to think he may just mature into a thoughtful justice whose political stripes cannot be told by the decisions he might render--a pie in the sky admittedly, but there is no feasible alternative now is there?

Posted by curiousgeorge at 09/21/2005 @ 6:19pm
USAPRIDE:

That's easy. Liberals (small l-liberal) and conservatives (small c-conservative) both typically have an ideology to which they adhere.

Progressives are results-oriented. It's not so much as saying that results are the ONLY thing that matter. We just don't let ideology get in the way of good ideas that work. However, progressives do differ. No doubt. One thing that I have found among ALL progressives. They all believe that fairness and equality for everyone (and I do mean EVERYONE... even those "little brown people" in third world nations you don't have a problem bombing back to the stone age).

Posted by jorcheim at 09/21/2005 @ 6:20pm
A LEGACY LOST REVIEW OF "A LEGACY LOST", by Stanley E. Tobin.

My colleague at PLATO SOCIETY, a adjunct to the Extension System of UCLA, just published a book entitled "A Legacy Lost". It can be purchased at Barnes and Noble, or directly from the author. I highly recommend this book.

Mr. Tobin is a graduate of Harvard College and Yale Law School; practiced law from 1959 to 2003; was a teaching fellow at Stanford Law School. During the Korean War, he served as a military historian. He counts among his friends, Charles T. Manatt, Steve Grossman, both former Democratic Party National Chairmen; and other distinguished leaders in American politics. I am his friend, although I do not fall within the former list. I wish to quote Stanley with the following astute observations.

"Most of the statesmen who produced our constitution were students of history. Adams, Hamilton and Madison, in particular, were steeped in the political offerings of the philosophers of the 16th through 18th centuries, such as Bacon, Locke, Montesquieu, and James Harrington. While Machiavelli's writings greatly influenced these men and much of our constitution is traceable to his insights, there are glaring differences in the instrumentalities for a functioning democracy as between our written and what has long since become the broader, "unwritten constitution."

Our written constitution does not provide for political parties. Yet, without such political instruments our constitution, as written, could barely function in the sense of responsibility and citizen participation... The purpose of our revolution and the aim of our constitution was to renew and insure participatory democracy. To the extent that our experiment has been successful it is largely because, not in spite of, partisan division. Indeed, continual conflict in such a diversified society as ours is not only inevitable, but desirable, as well...

In the second half of the last century, despite the frequent appearance of third party candidates in presidential election frays, voter participation increasingly waned. Numerous factors continue to contribute to this troubling trend. But it is hardly a coincidence during this same time span the major political parties have become less vibrant and popular allegiance to them increasingly tenuous. Ominously, the fate of the party system portends to follow in the wake of its usually integrated component, the political machine...."

This is the very message that I have been trying to get across for the last several years. The primary system destroyed the "political machines" which selected the party candidate at the "Convention". Now the primary system has destroyed the political machine, and likewise the "Convention". Both the "machine" and the "convention" have been "mooted". Candidates have to raise millions of dollars for a period of three years to begin to campaign in the primaries, such as the Iowa"caucus" and the New Hampshire primary. both are un populated states and mean very little in the American political scheme. However, these "meaningless" states pick the candidates for both parties. Something is wrong here. The "Blue" states are the former segregationist or "heartland" states, while the "Red" states are the most populated states on the Eastern and Western seaboards. These "Red" states have large urban populations, mostly "poor", "black" or "Hispanic". These cities have no "say" or "power" in the selection of the Presidential Candidates of either party.

At our constitutional convention, memorialized in the "Federalist Papers", compromises were made in order to enact a constitution for what was the state of the nation then. But the state of the nation has changed. In 1789, a black was counted as 3/5 of a person and had no vote; blacks were considered "property" in the North and South; each state was allocated at least one Congressman and two Senators. This means that our country is "controlled" by the least populated and least important states in our nation. The "Red" and the "Blue" have to "pander" to what should be the irrelevant. We have a "whore" system of politics. That is how a "whore" like Bush gets elected, and a "whore" like Kerry is selected to run against him. Kerry is nothing, and the people who voted in 2004 knew that. We were given a choice of the lesser of two candidates, both of whom were, "lesser". Then we had "Republican" "thugs", led by Rehnquist, to "pander" to the party who appointed them, stopped the political process in Florida and "selected" Bush as President. Those justices who voted in favor of Bush v Gore should be "reviled", not admired.

In conclusion, read Stanley's book. He may give us a "solution" to our conundrum. Neither Bush nor Kerry are capable of the job of governing.

Edited and commentary by:

Martin S. Friedlander, Esq.

www.freedompost.typepad.com

Posted by msf31538 at 09/21/2005 @ 7:55pm
It is quite amazing to read Washington's farewell address and reflect on where the United States is currently; to that end ,please see: http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm

And then see if Mr. Tobin's statement "Our written constitution does not provide for political parties. Yet, without such political instruments our constitution, as written, could barely function in the sense of responsibility and citizen participation... " rings true. I don't think so.

And I concur with 'zero' when he writes:"Or, perhaps, we can start to agree that the time to quit flogging the dead donkey is at hand, and start voting in ever-greater numbers for third party and independent candidates. Why go down with a ship that refuses to quit sinking, even though it doesn't have to sink if it doesn't want to? This seems like the silliest of fates to me."

It is exactly why I have become a Green. And allow me to refer readers to: http://members.aol.com/electorsus/map.htm

Posted by ubetchaiam at 09/21/2005 @ 9:40pm
Who cares one flying fig about John Roberts? The country elected Bush. Bush nominated Roberts. He's been investigated. There was no skeletons in his closet. End of story. He's a fit justice and if you don't like him then don't elect someone like Bush. It is not the Senate's job to save us from democracy!

Colmes, Actually, I care about John Roberts. As for democracy, the Senate's job is to help save democracy by doing the very thing you insist it not do.

The framers introduced checks and balances to keep any one branch from acting dictatorially. Accordingly, judges are nominated by the President and appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate. The President starts things, the Senate finishes.

Of course a wilful executive can try to control the composition and the actions of the other two branches unilaterally, particularly if it has a tight partisan machine that enables it to recruit and fund its favored candidates for the other branches nationwide. In that case a heavy burden falls on the opposition to keep it honest.

Given the Republican majority in the Senate and the iron heel discipline this White House exerts on its co-partisans (including by keeping votes open illegally while holdouts are threatened), there would be nothing for Congress to do but rubber-stamp each of his nominees.

Most Democrats have been frustrated by Roberts's stonewalling. You can be sure, though, that the White House knows enough to reassure its political base as to how he will vote in cases. The plan is to bypass that part of our democracy that elected Senators, one of whom in my case sits on the Judiciary Committee.

I don't know who you voted for or what you expected them to do. I know that I've voted expecting that whoever won would be sworn to uphold the constitutional process and not the corrupt process just described. I know Bush has been pounding a different idea into the American public: once he passes his "accountability moment," he can decide who will be our judges subject to the minimal standard you list.

To say "no" to this travesty in the making is to uphold democracy!

Posted by CreepingTruth at 09/21/2005 @ 10:30pm
All,

For those of you who have come to the conclusion that the Donkey be damned and that the time has come for third party candidates be supported if you are against the lunacy of Bush II policies, I say it's about got damn time!!! What took you people so long? It should have long been recognized that the Donkey banana boat was sinking long before now. John Kerry was simply the latest manifestation of that sinking banana boat and the Democrats at this point should be totally ignored. And if the Nation magazine and Katrina Van den Huevel think otherwise, well, for the last ten years their heads must have been buried in sand.

Ralph Nader and his supporters should fill the void that the Democrats bave created.................

Posted by POSEIDON at 09/21/2005 @ 10:43pm
Poseidon:

That's why I went Green 2 years ago... but hey, am I the only one who thinks Katrina vanden Heuvel is hot?

Posted by jorcheim at 09/21/2005 @ 10:51pm
I am sure her husband agrees with your conclusion.

Posted by David Corn at 09/21/2005 @ 11:03pm
Awesome... David Corn, you responded to me for that, but not anything else I have written on here... I am so disappointed... :D

Posted by jorcheim at 09/21/2005 @ 11:11pm
the Democratic base, which has organized against Roberts and yearns for a fight

I think this is a very inaccurate description of where the "base" is. That is, if you're talking about living-breathing democrats as opposed to various issue-oriented organizations.

I'm sure People for the American Way (god love 'em) would want to carry on the fight to the bitter end but most Dems simply have other things on their plate.

The author really should get out of D.C. more often.

Posted by chicagoDem at 09/22/2005 @ 12:25am
JORCHEIM, I asked Katrina out for dinner on one of her threads. Got no reply. I didn't know she was married, but I am not surprised. She is quite a catch.

Ralph Nader and his supporters should fill the void that the Democrats bave created.................

Posted by POSEIDON 09/21/2005 @ 10:43pm

I don't think Nader can do it. I joined the Greens for a while because my primary political issue is the environment. And I like a lot of the other ideas. However, some of their economic ideas cannot succeed on a state-by-state basis.

Take, for example, the living wage. If this were to be enacted in a large state, say NY, then the corporations that have operations in New York would be lured to other states that kept lower wages.

In essence, corporations have the power to play the states against each other.

Another problem is the difficulties that 3rd party politics has faced in making inroads. The current iron grip that rightwing reactionaries hold on the Republican party is due to the fact that they recognized the dead end that is 3rd-party politics and worked from within the GOP. It took them decades. We have to be patient as well.

That said, we also have to be willing to be Democrats and yet vote 3rd-party from time to time to make a point to party leadership. It didn't happen much in 2004 because Bush is SO bad that unity was called for. But I'd be willing to consider it in '08 if the party nominates another "Kerry" type.

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/22/2005 @ 01:13am
ILP.....get ready to "consider it".

From everything I've read, seen, and watched of her "moves" the last two years, there WILL BE another "Kerry-type" running in 2008...and her name is Hillary.

She's the top-fundraiser, NOBODY else in the Dems has her name recognition or clout, the MS Media love her, and a lot of the Left seem to forgive her quickly for her moves "to the right".

And despite the claims of Limbaugh and Hannity, and the fact she may appoint a few members of the "Feminist Majority" to her Cabinet, there is little reason NOT to believe that if she won, "Mrs. Bill" wouldn't sell-out the Left as her husband did, on so many issues (welfare, NAFTA, etc)....and that most of the media AND some liberal/progressives wouldn't LET her.

And the "telling sign" she's running in 2008 won't be her vote on John Roberts. Despite Leahy's attempt at "building cover for the NEXT USSC nominee", Hillary will see it as a dangerous vote (as Mr Corn points out) and not risk Roberts "hurting Roe" just as she goes into Iowa and New Hampshire in 2007-2008.

No, the "telling sign" is her recent snubbing of Cindy Sheehan and her continued support of the Iraq War, to provide her with "cover" on the "women are weak on defense" charge.

Posted by Mask at 09/22/2005 @ 06:48am
ILOVEPHYSICS:

Unfortunately, you may be right about the living wage. I think there would be some way to work it out, but I definitely see the difficulties. However, until we have a worldwide living wage (no, I'm not crazy) corporations are always going to be able to play one geographic region against another, whether that's state vs. state, or country vs. country. The bottom line is, we need to detooth corporate law, and make them MUCH more accountable for the actions of their proxies. Oh yeah, and ELIMINATE the IMF/World Bank/GATT/NAFTA construct that has essentially cut the labor movement off at the knees worldwide.

Posted by jorcheim at 09/22/2005 @ 07:09am
And this mythical independent party is what, exactly? The history of these is not encouraging. With John Anderson, we had two candidates bashing Carter, and the messiness made the artificially poised Reagan look like a winner. From the Republican point of view, Perot opened the door for Clinton. Our system is winner take all - just making a statement with your vote has never made sense to me. And possible leaders such as Ralph Nader are highly compromised. Finally, making changes starts with getting elected, which takes bigger money every year. Going small with a band of true believers is appealing. I just want to know how it's actually going to work.

Posted by MyParadigm at 09/22/2005 @ 08:38am
The Working Families Party (see Sept. 12 article in The Nation) seems to be making strides in New York. Check out the email from them regarding primaries in NY :

There was a poll released 10 days ago with some terrific (if unexpected!) data for the WFP.� And the poll's results seem to have been verified by last week's Democratic Party primaries across the state (more good news on that front, below). � The poll included questions that were designed to measure the value of endorsements in city elections.� The pollsters (Pace/NY Observer/WNYC) wanted to learn how much voters paid attention to endorsements by newspapers, unions, environmental organizations, women's groups, prominent individuals or parties.�

� The single best endorsement in terms of positive influence on voters?� None other than the WFP.

� To be honest, we were stunned.� But in retrospect, maybe we shouldn't be. � As someone once said at a local WFP chapter meeting, "voters are not fools."� If you present a program of common-sense progressivism, and back up that program with the day-in, day-out grind of organizing -- membership meetings, door-knocking, phone banks, issue campaigns, internet organizing, volunteer mobilizations, workplace flyering, neighborhood captains, Friends and Neighbors programs, internal communications, external communications, and on and on -- if you do all that, well, voters will come to trust you.� � If you stand for a program that helps the middle-class, working class and poor � on wages, healthcare, job creation, schools, criminal justice, organizing rights, sustainable development and energy, then over time the middle-class, working-class and poor will stand with you. � We are therefore pleased to report that the WFP-endorsed candidates did spectacularly well in last week's Democratic Primaries.� Basically, it was a clean sweep (with 1 race in recount mode). This is not likely to ever happen again, so we should all savor the moment. � This means, of course, that these WFP "Seal of Approval" candidates will have a second line on the ballot in the November General Election, in addition to the WFP line. �

HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE DEMOCRAT PRIMARIES

� Some highlights, upstate and down, before a word on the NYC Mayoral race.

� Buffalo:� Maria Whyte won a commanding victory in the 6th Erie County Legislative District, running on a progressive vision for rebuilding the County's finances, revitalizing distressed neighborhoods and developing a fairer tax system.

� Syracuse:� Tom Seals, the hero of our successful Living Wage campaign in Syracuse, fought off a challenge to his re-election from the Syracuse Democratic party organization that still hasn't gotten over his WFP-backed insurgent victory two years ago. �

Albany:� The coalition of WFP and Citizen Action members that shocked the state capital by electing David Soares as D.A. in 2004 did it again.� As the Albany Times Union editorial board wrote last Thursday, "[t]he real test for the coalition came Tuesday, when it had to show it had the clout to influence an array of races. It passed."� Common Council candidates Barbara Smith, Carolyn McLaughlin and Cathy Fahey handily won their primaries, with paper ballots still being counted for a fourth WFP-backed candidate (Corey Ellis).

New York City:� Five candidates who have been priorities for the party won important victories in Democratic primaries: �

Scott Stringer bested Eva Moskowitz in the Manhattan BP's race � a great win for Scott, and, as importantly, an important defeat for the second-place candidate, Eva Moskowitz, who tried to make a name for herself as a union-bashing enemy of low-wage workers.

Two City Council candidates emerging from the labor movement won their races. A huge upset by TWU Local 106 member Darlene Mealy in Brooklyn and a nail-bitingly close squeaker in East Harlem for SEIU 1199 staffer Melissa Mark Viverito.

And two reform-minded candidates for the judicial office of Surrogate, in Manhattan and Brooklyn, respectively, Kristin Booth Glen and Margarita Lopez Torres, defeated the candidates of the local patronage machines. � So � that poll was accurate. Get the WFP Seal of Approval, and your chances of victory do appear to increase.�

Posted by Turk33 at 09/22/2005 @ 09:26am
JORCHEIM: 9/21 6:20PM

"Progressives are results-oriented"

Oh, so you wait to see how things turn out, and then pick sides. What is so progressive about being an arm-chair qb?

"those "little brown people" in third world nations you don't have a problem bombing to the stone age."

First off, "I" haven't dropped a single bomb on anybody that I know of. At least last time I checked I was bomb-free with 0 kills.

Secondly, don't be so melodramatic. It takes away from your message.

Thanks for clearing up that progressive/liberal thing.

Posted by USAPRIDE at 09/22/2005 @ 10:20am
USA Being thick on purpose? Your posts are usually better (not necessarily correct, but not flamethrowing neoconservative rhetoric either.)

Posted by Turk33 at 09/22/2005 @ 11:34am
As a downstate New Yorker I've been voting with the Working Families Party since Bush's first go at office. I've grown so disgusted with Democrats-- from the local machine to that national gerrymander-- that with few exceptions I've refused to pull the lever down the Democratic line in the voting booth. Since most WFP candidates are Democrats it's the perfect proxy for keeping my conscience (and fingers) clean.

During the first Bush presidential selection I voted for Nader (sans regret, since besting Bush should have been accomplished with ease for Gore and the Democrats after so much posterity and growth). During the second Bush election (yes, with hindsight, we as a nation elected him), I let The Nation (and especially Katrina) pistol whip me into voting for Kerry. I did so knowing full well that living in a Democratic enclave (Congressman Rangles' district) it would have been a safe vote for Nader. That decision I regret; even after Deen was lampooned off the stage I felt that my vote against Nader and for Kerry(symbolic and compromised as it was) and similar others might have infused the Democratic party with a shot of progressivness. It did not; apparently at 35 I was still shamefully naive and idealistic. It seems that Democrats are grasping for the 50% of the country that doesn't vote and won't vote because they are prosperous, vapid, confused or apathetic.

On the Robert's question. I've read the official Kennedy Letter where he makes his argument against. I was astonished by my sense of hope as I read Kerry's wonderfully articulated dissent; it's even better than Corn's. But then my inner Demo-cynic kicked in, "he must be laying the groundwork for a go at Hilary." Whatever. Roberts seems qualified especially as a replacement for Rehnquist. Considering the potential for the erosion of progressive values and civil liberities this blind vote on Robert's record implies, it seems absurd for me to okay with it. But such complicity seems like a natural consquence of sacrificing my principled vote for Nader to enable complicit Democrats.

If Bush was a step slow walking in the wrong direction in his response to 9/11 and to Katrina, the Democrats are two steps behind him.

Posted by verninino at 09/22/2005 @ 11:44am
In that last sentence, I should have said "most" Democrats.

Posted by verninino at 09/22/2005 @ 11:48am
You nightmare is coming true!

This newsflash! The Senate Judiciary Committee just voted 13-5 in favor of Judge Roberts as the next Supreme Court Chief Justice!

Now this will really deflate some egos and hopes----not only did Leahy vote affirmative for Roberts, your beloved progressive hope Russ Feingold voted in the affirmative!

Can't wait to hear the moans and tears!

Posted by love liberty at 09/22/2005 @ 1:00pm
However, until we have a worldwide living wage (no, I'm not crazy) corporations are always going to be able to play one geographic region against another, whether that's state vs. state, or country vs. country. The bottom line is, we need to detooth corporate law, and make them MUCH more accountable for the actions of their proxies. Oh yeah, and ELIMINATE the IMF/World Bank/GATT/NAFTA construct that has essentially cut the labor movement off at the knees worldwide.

Posted by JORCHEIM 09/22/2005 @ 07:09am

There is much to agree with in your post. Considering that in the US alone, corporate law has over 100 years of precedent, the task is not an easy one. Fortunately, voting still counts, and if we can get the word out to enough people maybe enough of them will agree to get the ball rolling.

I am not as pessimistic as JAYARJUNYAH about the future of our voting rights.

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/22/2005 @ 1:37pm
MASK, I am always keeping an open mind!

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/22/2005 @ 1:38pm
"Progressives are results-oriented"

Oh, so you wait to see how things turn out, and then pick sides. What is so progressive about being an arm-chair qb?

Posted by USAPRIDE 09/22/2005 @ 10:20am

No, wrong again. It means you actively work for improvements in society, actively work to come up with new and better ideas for doing things.

"Wait and see" has nothing to do with it.

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/22/2005 @ 1:42pm
Now this will really deflate some egos and hopes----not only did Leahy vote affirmative for Roberts, your beloved progressive hope Russ Feingold voted in the affirmative!

Can't wait to hear the moans and tears!

Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 09/22/2005 @ 1:00

perhaps you think I've been feigning indifference. Sorry to disapoint you... Actually, no, I am happy to disappoint you :-)

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/22/2005 @ 1:45pm
Only thing I can figure on Russ Feingold (and Leahy) is...

they're using their "pro-Roberts" vote as "cover" for the "O'Connor replacement" vote (especially if it's a woman, like Brown or Owen). By voting FOR Roberts, they can dodge the "obstructionist" charge from the Right and safely vote down the next nominee.

Either that, or, less cynically, they put politics aside, saw Roberts as qualified and articulate and...

No, no....never mind....I'll go with my FIRST guess!

Posted by Mask at 09/22/2005 @ 1:59pm
I Love Physics demonstrates one of the main flaws in liberalism from my perspective. Gaps in rich and poor. This is NOT a government problem. Infrastucture failure? Louisana has been run by Dmocrats for 60 years. Were did all the money go for infrastructure repairs? Global warming..still unproven...if it does exist because of US, then just try to get India and China on board with Kyoto..5 of 10 polluted cities in China.

Th pattern here with your belief core is the involvement of government. For many of us government is the problem. Education..it is fast becoming cheaper to go to private schools. Our shools failure is not due to lack of government funding.

Our country is operating under the influence of 50 years of Democratic control. Like a barge turning, it takes time to feel the effects of another move(to the right)and it may take 10 mores years for conservative values and ideas to be felt by total society. Bush is no conservative and never will become one. He does, however, lead, which in it self is refreshing despite the problems. Can you imagine Gore incharge? Of anything?

Posted by john maasch at 09/22/2005 @ 3:15pm
ILOVEPHYSICS:

Don't you love the way USAPride tries to twist my words into saying something that was totally unintended? It's almost like he has been working with Karl Rove... hmmm...

Posted by jorcheim at 09/22/2005 @ 3:25pm
Perhaps the reason Dems voted for Roberts is they are saving their fight for the next nomination.They don't want to appear "anti everything Bush".If the next nominee is to become the "swing voter" on crucial cases he or she is more important than Roberts.I'm a new comer to understanding the politics of the supreme court--only going on what I've read.The so called fillabuster has a lot of strings attached to it but I've recently read some talk of possibly using it in next nomination process.As for progressive Dems there are a few out there who sound like they would make good leaders.

Posted by BusyHands at 09/22/2005 @ 3:51pm
JOHN MAASCH wrote:

I Love Physics demonstrates one of the main flaws in liberalism from my perspective. Gaps in rich and poor. This is NOT a government problem.

Why not? Can you separate the existence of a civil society from the existence of government? What is government's role, if not to help ALL of its citizens have a decent life? Progressive taxation has been proven to narrow the gap. But if you are against this, what would you propose to narrow the gap?

Infrastucture failure? Louisana has been run by Dmocrats for 60 years. Were did all the money go for infrastructure repairs?

Even if your explanation is correct, you are still crying over spilled milk. This does nothing to correct a problem that exists right now. Do you want to sit around playing the blame game, or do you want to work on solutions???

Global warming..still unproven...

Wrong - Global warming is a proven fact. Any climatologist or geophysicist can tell you that. It isn't that difficult to measure temperature, the technology has been around for centuries. Even the scientists supported by Exxon-Mobil won't argue that. They only dispute the cause.

Usually the scientific community is less alarmed by environmental problems than the general public is. For example, nuclear energy. In the case of Global Warming (which I shall call GW for short), scientists are more alarmed than the general public.

Only in america does a significant portion of the population think that GW is unproven. That is due to Exxon-Mobil sponsorship of scientists in an effort to maintain the myth. The political leadership of the right find utility in this incestuous relationship, mainly, campaign donations for going along with the charade.

if it does exist because of US, then just try to get India and China on board with Kyoto..5 of 10 polluted cities in China.

So, two wrongs make a right? "Hey, the Chinese are heating up the earth, so we should too!"

Th pattern here with your belief core is the involvement of government.

This has been the most successful method by far for protecting the environment. If you have a better solution, let's hear it!

For many of us government is the problem. Education..it is fast becoming cheaper to go to private schools. Our shools failure is not due to lack of government funding.

It is a complex issue. But you haven't addressed higher education, including grad school. The Federal gov't spends about four hundred billion a year on the military, and about 10% of that amount on education (approximately). We need to reprioritize, and focus on one of our natural resources - our kids.

Our country is operating under the influence of 50 years of Democratic control.

This is demonstrably false. Please get your facts straight.

Like a barge turning, it takes time to feel the effects of another move(to the right)and it may take 10 mores years for conservative values and ideas to be felt by total society.

Reagan got started in 1980, and Congress went along with his agenda because of his popularity. I started feeling the effects in just a couple of years, not "ten." But even so, your "10 more years" came in 1990.

Bush is no conservative and never will become one. He does, however, lead, which in it self is refreshing despite the problems. Can you imagine Gore incharge? Of anything?

Bush doesn't seem like much of a leader to me. I would describe him more as "stubborn." At least Gore thinks. I "imagine" that would be a refreshing change...

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/22/2005 @ 4:03pm
Dems are notorious for their defense of the enviornment and I submit that as one IMPORTANT stance they all seem to take.Just read an article about how the religious right claim hurricanes a punishment from God instead of global warming.If that is true then why do the hurricanes hit mostly oil producing areas???Which hits a lot of the rich religious right right in their wallets. Does global warming deserve another look????????

Posted by BusyHands at 09/22/2005 @ 4:04pm
Marybret.....is "Erlich bet" a reference to "Paul Erlich" of "The Population Bomb" fame (or infamy)?

If so...HE has been one the chief reasons I take all the environmental "Doomsday" predictions with a grain of salt. We read "TPB" in high school (late 70s) and we were scared to death.

Erlich predicted (in 1971) we'd have "mass starvation in India and China", "food rationing in Europe" and "meatless and wheatless days in the US" by.....1990! He also, along with many in the 1970s, believed in "global COOLING" (I remember a famous pre-"Day After Tomorrow" novel from 1978, where a "glacier comes plowing down Broadway in NYC" due to the "Next Ice Age that will hit by 2005")

Erlich apologists have tried to cover for most of his more idiotic predictions (The spin on the "non-famine" in India is the development of "short wheat"), but I find it funny today that we hear the same "similar" dire predictions from the Environmental Left that we heard 30 years ago...predicting "Doomsday" in 30 years....predicting it in "another 30 years".

Is global warming happening?....probably. Is it OUR fault?...maybe, but maybe not. And how "bad" can it get? Well, one thing I know...from the disaster (and disasterous) flick "Waterworld"...if ALL the ice at the North and South Poles melted....the mean sea level would rise about 3 feet, forcing a 6 inch high "levee" around Manhatten.

Anything else....is speculation.

Posted by Mask at 09/22/2005 @ 4:08pm
MARYBRETBRAD: The greenhouse effect is indisputable. Carbon dioxide, fluorocarbons and other "greenhouse gasses" allow high-frequency sunlight to pass through the atmosphere and warm the earth. The physics is undeniable. These molecules also reflect thermal energy that the earth gives off. Instead of allowing it to go into space, the greenhouse gasses reflect these lower frequency photons back to earth.

This is undeniable reality!!! If you increase the amount of these gasses in the atmosphere, you will exacerbate the warming problem.

As for the bet you described, I personally don't want to gamble with my future. Do you?

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/22/2005 @ 4:09pm
ILOVEPHYSICS:

Dang dude... I love you man... you responded before I could... and probably better than I could on those issues. Cheers.

Posted by jorcheim at 09/22/2005 @ 4:11pm
Now... can I have your Bud Light?

Posted by jorcheim at 09/22/2005 @ 4:12pm
MASK, I don't even know this Erlich fellow of which you speak. But if you think that anything else but your NYC levy is "speculation" I advise you to read the scientific research. I am talking about peer-reviewed papers in the scholarly journals of the geophysics community, not the whacked-out ravings of Erlich, whoever he is.

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/22/2005 @ 4:12pm
JORCHEIM, I would, but I gave up on macrobrews after I discovered Belgian-style ales... Ah, Corsendonk...

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/22/2005 @ 4:13pm
Or Dixy Lee Ray, the right-wing wacko pseudo-scientist the Rush always quotes.

Posted by jorcheim at 09/22/2005 @ 4:14pm
Um... so can I have you Corsendonk? :D

Posted by jorcheim at 09/22/2005 @ 4:15pm
Um... so can I have your Corsendonk? :D

Posted by jorcheim at 09/22/2005 @ 4:15pm
A few thoughts..

Busyhands..Have you noticed that, whenever people look for divine messages in natural disasters, it's never something obvious, like "don't build in a flood plain" or "cut back your oil consumption" ?

ILP...Did you see last month's Scientific American? We aren't forced to choose between global warming and economic defeat. There are all sorts of things we can do to reduce greenhouse emissions that improve the economy. There are huge gains to be made in energy efficiency alone. Just like how chemical companies used to gripe about environmental controls..until they realized that cutting emissions would lower their raw material costs and energy consumption. Now they are starting to realize that increasing their energy efficiency lowers greenhouse emissions and their operating costs.

MaryBradBret .. ..Like the belief that a supreme court justice's job is to promote human rights and women's rights, as opposed to interpret the Constitution. Liberals and leftists believe that the Constitution promotes human rights, including women's rights. ..Like the belief that the gap between rich and poor is attributable to evil people as opposed to technology and inherent differences in abilities. I don't even know where to begin with the 'evil people' business, but I must say it is refreshing to see a conservative acknowledge that poor people have less access to the tools needed for success, and to see a conservative admit that she thinks the poor are inherently inferior, as opposed to, say, the usual rhetoric about laziness and irresponsibility.

Posted by 9patch at 09/22/2005 @ 5:22pm
ILP...Did you see last month's Scientific American? We aren't forced to choose between global warming and economic defeat. There are all sorts of things we can do to reduce greenhouse emissions that improve the economy.

Posted by 9PATCH 09/22/2005 @ 5:22pm

I know. I didn't think my post implied anything to the contrary.

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/22/2005 @ 5:36pm
ILOVEPHYSICS states that, "The greenhouse effect is indisputable." In a sense, all theories are indisputable; that doesn't make them explanations (or give them predictive power). For instance, take tax policy.

Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/22/2005 @ 5:28pm

The greenhouse effect isn't a "theory," it is a physical phenomena, like the fact that a hot metal filament in an evacuated bulb emits visible light.

To compare it to tax policy is absolutely absurd. Tax policy changes with the whims of congress. The electromagnetic frequencies at which materials are either transparent or not has nothing to do with whims, theories, fantasy, or any other right wing bullshit. It simply is what it is because of the properties of atoms, which do not change no matter how much you try to wish them away.

Go learn some science before you write such outlandish posts.

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/22/2005 @ 5:41pm
BTW, MARYBRETBRAD, I don't think you know what a theory is, at least, the scientific definition. It isn't the same as a layman's definition. It isn't a guess. For a physicist, a theory is something that is established for use not only in explaining physical phenomena, but also is useful for prediction. For example, Einstein's theory of special relativity successfully predicted that time is not absolute, which has been confirmed with experiments involving atomic clocks.

An example of "theory" would be what explains the greenhouse effect, not the effect itself...

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/22/2005 @ 5:52pm
"� Liberals and leftists believe that the Constitution promotes human rights, including women's rights." -9PATCH

Liberal and leftists are wrong. The Constitution lays out what is permissible and impermissible for federal, state, and local governments. Promoting ideals and values is what the Congress does when it suggests amendments to the Constitution.

Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/22/2005 @ 5:54pm

It seems as though you are making a distinction between ammendments to the Constitution and the original text. Isn't that just semantics? To me the Bill of Rights is just as much a part of the Constitution as any other. I don't understand why liberals and leftists are "wrong" about the Constitution promoting human rights when one considers the first 10 ammendments. Could you please elaborate on your position?

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/22/2005 @ 6:14pm
MARYBRETBRAD:

You know what your problem is? You're not thinking 4th dimensionally. See, the problem as I see it is this. The scientific opinion on global warming, the greenhouse effect, etc. is based on empirical data that can be, and has been measured. While still a theory, the greenhouse effect explains to a much finer degree what is happening to the earth's atmosphere than the idea that increased sunspot activity does. You are probably getting your ideas from the oft-debunked Dixy Lee Ray, or some mindless neo-con talking point blog. Please do us all a favor and read some scientific journals. Why is it that the only major industrialized country in the world that doesn't accept that the greenhouse effect is a reality is... guess... the USA? Do you think that MIGHT be due to the fact that the country's media and the political discourse is controlled to a great degree by pro-business interests, against whose interests any such talk of environmental degradation is antagonistic? Please answer that question. It is NOT meant to be rhetorical.

Posted by jorcheim at 09/22/2005 @ 6:39pm
Fox News personalities are always saying things like, "On Capitol Hill Republicans are arguing that blah dee blah; meanwhile, the Democrats are squabbling again about..."

And the sneer in their voices is palpable.

So it was very difficult to see this phrase in our stalward David Corn's otherwise excellent article: "The Dems are squabbling among themselves, and that renders it more difficult for the party to present a coherent message that could stir its foot soldiers and/or to entice new recruits. The Republicans are engaged in their own intramural fight over federal spending and the reconstruction of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast."

Can Democrats not have legitimate arguments? Must they always be referred to as squabbles? Meanwhile, how about applying that same pejorative term to Republicans instead of "their own intramural fight"?

Posted by lockerh at 09/22/2005 @ 7:55pm
Hillary Rotten Clinton has spoken....what a disgrace she and B.J are these days

STATEMENT OF SENATOR HILLARY ROTTEN CLINTON ON THE NOMINATION OF JUDGE JOHN G. ROBERTS TO BE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES Thu Sep 22 2005 18:54:45 ET

The nomination of Judge John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States is a matter of tremendous consequence for future generations of Americans. It requires thoughtful inquiry and debate, and I commend my colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee for their dedication to making sure that all questions were presented and that those outside of the Senate had the opportunity to make their voices heard. After serious and careful consideration of the Committee proceedings and Judge Roberts's writings, I believe I must vote against his confirmation. I do not believe that the Judge has presented his views with enough clarity and specificity for me to in good conscience cast a vote on his behalf.

The Constitution commands that the Senate provide meaningful advice and consent to the President on judicial nominations, and I have an obligation to my constituents to make sure that I cast my vote for Chief Justice of the United States for someone I am convinced will be steadfast in protecting fundamental women's rights, civil rights, privacy rights, and who will respect the appropriate separation of powers among the three branches. After the Judiciary Hearings, I believe the record on these matters has been left unclear. That uncertainly means as a matter of conscience, I cannot vote to confirm despite Judge Roberts's long history of public service.

In one memo, for example, Judge Roberts argued that Congress has the power to deny the Supreme Court the right to hear appeals from lower courts of constitutional claims involving flag burning, abortion, and other matters. He wrote that the United States would be far better off with fifty different interpretations on the right to choose than with what he called the "judicial excesses embodied in Roe v. Wade." The idea that the Supreme Court could be denied the right to rule on constitutional claims had been so long decided that even the most conservative of Judge Roberts's Justice Department colleagues strongly disagreed with him.

When questioned about his legal memoranda, Judge Roberts claimed they did not necessarily reflect his views and that he was merely making the best possible case for his clients or responding to a superior's request that he make a particular argument. But he did not clearly disavow the strong and clear views he expressed, but only shrouded them in further mystery. Was he just being an advocate for a client or was he using his position to advocate for positions he believed in? The record is unclear.

It is hard to believe he has no opinion on so many critical issues after years as a Justice Department and White House lawyer, appellate advocate and judge. His supporters remind us that Chief Justice Rehnquist supported the constitutionality of legal segregation before his elevation to the high court, but never sought to bring it back while serving the court system as its Chief Justice. But I would also remind them of Justice Thomas's assertion in his confirmation hearing that he had never even discussed Roe v. Wade, much less formed an opinion on it. Shortly after he ascended to the Court, Justice Thomas made it clear that he wanted to repeal Roe.

Adding to testimony that clouded more than clarified is that we in the Senate have been denied the full record of Judge Roberts's writings despite our repeated requests. Combined, these two events have left a question mark on what Judge Roberts's views are and how he might rule on critical questions of the day. It is telling that President Bush has said the Justices he most admires are the two most conservative justices, Justices Thomas and Scalia. It is not unreasonable to believe that the President has picked someone in Judge Roberts whom he believes holds a similarly conservative philosophy, and that voting as a bloc they could further limit the power of the Congress, expand the purview of the Executive, and overturn key rulings like Roe v. Wade.

Since I expect Judge Roberts to be confirmed, I hope that my concerns are unfounded and that he will be the kind of judge he said he would be during his confirmation hearing. If so, I will be the first to acknowledge it. However, because I think he is far more likely to vote the views he expressed in his legal writings, I cannot give my consent to his confirmation and will, therefore, vote against his confirmation. My desire to maintain the already fragile Supreme Court majority for civil rights, voting rights and women's rights outweigh the respect I have for Judge Roberts's intellect, character, and legal skills.

Posted by libsarenutty at 09/22/2005 @ 8:00pm
LIBSARENUTTY:

Reality check. Hillary is an opportunist... period. She has moved to the right on numerous issues in an attempt to steal some of the Republican thunder. She doesn't represent me, or any Progressive I know of.

Posted by jorcheim at 09/22/2005 @ 8:23pm
Oh... and could you please stop cutting and pasting on ALL the blog boards? That's really annoying. Not to mention the fact that you can't formulate your own arguments, apparently.

Posted by jorcheim at 09/22/2005 @ 8:24pm
FRANKGRITS:

I wasn't taking umbrage with that particular argument at all, just her in general. As I said... she is an opportunist, just like her husband, just like Bush, etc etc. Horse of a different color and all.

Posted by jorcheim at 09/22/2005 @ 8:52pm
Its like watching "A Clockwork Orange" reading the above fantasies

Posted by libsarenutty at 09/22/2005 @ 9:03pm
Wouldnt a debate between Hillery Rotten & Algore be a site to behold...

IF THAT DON'T BEAT AL

By DEBORAH ORIN September 22, 2005 -- AS SEN. Hillary Rotten Clinton ratchets up her attacks on President Bush, some Democrats think they smell an explanation: the threat of a 2008 Al Gore presidential bid that could come at her from the left on Iraq.

The former vice president is suddenly re-emerging as a vocal and visible Bush-basher -- he's slated to star at a Democratic National Committee fund-raiser for big donors in Washington next Tuesday.

"He's keeping a very strong public profile. He was the first major Democrat to oppose the Iraq war. He's keeping in touch around the country and doing a lot of speeches.

Posted by libsarenutty at 09/22/2005 @ 9:09pm
FRANKGRITS:

I personally don't think there would be that much of a difference between a Gore/Lieberman administration and the current one. Lieberman is easily as conservative as many Republicans. While I would agree that the largest heist in history (the elimination of the estate tax) probably would not have happened, and the environment would be a lot better off, don't kid yourself that things would be that much better. We still would have gone to war with Afghanistan (a war that as unnecessary and illegal... ask yourself why it took the US only 3 weeks after 9/11 to get troops on the ground there, whereas it took 4 months for Iraq... the answer, we already were preparing for an invasion of Afghanistan due to the Taliban's reneging on the pipeline deal with Unocal), we still would have experienced the substantial downturn in the economy (albeit probably not quite as bad). Certainly, things would probably be better. But it's a question of how much better. And I am still not buying what the Democrats have been selling for the past 20 years, i.e. Republican-lite.

Posted by jorcheim at 09/22/2005 @ 9:29pm
FRANKGRITS:

I am not so sure about that. But it would certainly be in better shape than it is currently. However, I am still not convinced that a balanced budget is that much to crow about. I tend to be rather Keynesian in my view of deficits. Believe it or not, I even believe that there are times when supply-side economics MIGHT work. I know, I know, sounds crazy... but let me elaborate.

First, let me say, this isn't your W.'s or your Reagan's supply-side theory. Their cuts invariably help those who don't need the help, i.e. large corporations and rich individuals.

However, lower the market cap range for who those tax cuts would affect, and focus it on small businesses and sole proprietorships(1-100 employees). And scale it back the more employees you have. It is a well-known fact that almost 50 percent of the jobs in this country are provided by companies which employ less than 100 employees. If you give these companies a major tax break, say, by reducing their payroll tax, or maybe even a break in their corporate income taxes, that money WOULD be immediately used, to hire new employees, to buy new capital goods, etc. Those companies cannot afford to maintain NEARLY the level of moribund capital or excess production capability, plus they typically don't have nearly the same types of cash reserves as large corporations, and as such are much more responsive to tax code changes. What I am saying is, M. Friedman wasn't COMPLETELY wrong... he was right in certain instances... but for the wrong reasons.

Posted by jorcheim at 09/22/2005 @ 9:47pm
ILP...My comment about energy efficiency wasn't a criticism of your post..since you were arguing with someone who was claiming that there was a dichotomy b/w economic growth and cutting greenhouse emissions, it seems worthwhile to add that.

I also totally agree with you about the Bill of Rights. The 9th and 10th amendments make it very clear that Jefferson did not intend for the rights listed in the first 8 amendments to be the ONLY individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Posted by 9patch at 09/22/2005 @ 9:52pm
FRANKGRITS:

I honestly think that in this situation, increased revenues would be the result of better pay and more jobs. I don't think you would necessarily need to raise taxes elsewhere. Just stop giving away so much money to mega-corps in the form of subsidies, or no-bid contracts, or guaranteed overrun contracts.

Posted by jorcheim at 09/22/2005 @ 10:12pm
JohnM

The gap between rich and poor arises from our stilted evaluation of labor values. Most skilled & unskilled labor has risen little over the past decade or so, while CEOs of big Corp America have gone up about 400% over the same period. The CEO might consider upping the wages of the bottom end if he had to haul his own trash to the dump, or pick his own produce. There is so much top-heavy waste and general BS in corporate America, that a moderate equilibration of earnings could occur very quickly with the "top-o-the-foodchain" barely noticing.

MaryB

Global warming (or perhaps more accurately, global climate change) is most definitely occurring. Climate fluctuates over geologic time. The scientific community is well aware of this. The fact that humanity has altered the atmosphere substantially almost certainly must have an affect. How large, long-lasting and profound are indeed under debate. The real questions though are 1) is humanity in some part responsible and 2) Can we do anything about it regadless (or live with the effects)?

Posted by leftofcenter at 09/22/2005 @ 10:28pm
VINCEM:

I don't understand your comment about the "'Anybody But Bush' left." The "left" wing of the Democratic Party -- the "base" -- the REAL Democrats -- don't have an "Anybody But Bush" mentality. The people with that mentality are the self-styled "centrists" or "moderates" in the party -- the Democratic Leadership Council types. Those of us on the left have had it not only with Bush and the Republicans, but with what you so accurately characterize as the "spaghetti-spined" losers who pass for national Democratic leadership these days. If they don't get their act together and start fighting for the rights of working people, the protection of the poor and vulnerable, and the civil liberties of everyone, they are going to lose their base to third parties for good. No more money, no more volunteering, no more support, no more nothing. And the saddest part is that I don't think they give a damn. As long as they can hold on to their own seats in Congress, they couldn't care less what happens to the Democratic Party or, more importantly, to the country.

Posted by sgoodman at 09/23/2005 @ 12:37am
ILOVEPHYSICS:

Don't you love the way USAPride tries to twist my words into saying something that was totally unintended? It's almost like he has been working with Karl Rove... hmmm...

Posted by JORCHEIM 09/22/2005 @ 3:25pm

The thing with that guy is you always have to set him straight... As you said, it seems as if he is willfully misunderstanding. I think the explanation is the written-word format, although your Karl Rove explanation is much more entertaining.

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/23/2005 @ 01:15am
BTW please save the condescension. I am also a physics major.

Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/22/2005 @ 6:20pm

I stand corrected, on the part about learning some science, that is. As for the condescension, I freely ladle that on anyone who compares predictable and repeatable physical phenomenon to tax law. I will certainly spare you the condescension if you spare me such comparisons. Deal? And BTW, Welcome to the field! It is nice to know of another future physicist.

You say the greenhouse effect is a phenomenon. Have you accurately measured it? "Greenhouse" gasses have increased as a percentage of atmospheric gasses. This means more heat gets reflected back to the surface of the Earth. How much more? Is it enough to raise the global temperature 1 degree or 0.000000001 degree? That's the question. If it's the latter, then the Kyoto protocol is not justified as policy.

I've accurately measured quite a few things in my graduate studies. But as global warming studies is a hobby for me, not a thesis topic, I study the research of other scientists, experts in the field. Unfortunately all of my resources are back in my apartment in upstate NY, while I am here in CA. I will not try to quote from memory.

I will instead urge you to look into it yourself and find out why so many climatologists are trying to come up with ways not just to stop the increase of greenhouse gasses, but to take carbon and carbon equivalents out of the atmosphere! The impact is large. The scientists are worried. Yes, even Russian scientists. They've been studying the permafrost longer than americans have been.

So, let's revisit my sunspot theory. How do you explain the reduced polar ice caps on Mars?

I am aware of no one who claims that global warming is solely due to the activities of man. I hope this statement won't be twisted around to try to dismiss the impact of human activity, though.

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/23/2005 @ 01:36am
I can fully empathize with Sen. Patrick Leahy.

I, too, wish the White House had been more forthcoming. But that wasn't exactly Roberts' call.

As to his non-answers, in many cases, I felt his lack of clarity was entirely appropriate.

I thought his answer about not wanting to trade answers for promises of votes to confirm was right on the money.

But what ultimately and unequivocally convinced me that Democratic senators would be wise to wait the day for another battle was the following exchange between Judge Roberts and Sen. Durbin.

Durbin began by asking what of Roberts' "life experiences [could] the powerless, the disenfranchised, minorities and others see...that would lead them to believe that they would have a fighting chance in your court?

Roberts responded with integrity and uncommon clarity.

"Well, Senator, I think there are many things that people could look to. You said I had a comfortable life. I think that's a fair characterization. I had a middle-class upbringing in Indiana...Comfortable, yes. But isolated in no sense...I was privileged in the sense of having my parents and sisters contributing to my upbringing and education. And I think people looking at my life would see someone in that experience -- and, obviously, with limitations.

I wasn't raised in other places in the country and might have a different perspective if I were. I wasn't raised in different circumstances and would have different experiences if I were.

As you look at the Supreme Court, the people on there come from widely different backgrounds and experiences and I think that's a healthy thing.

But as far as someone going into court, and looking too see why they would expect to get a fair hearing from me, I think -- and I could answer this with respect to the court I'm on now...It's hard for me to imagine what their case is about, that I haven't been on their side at some point in my career.

If it's somebody who's representing welfare recipients who have had their benefits cut off, I've done that.

If it's somebody who is representing a criminal defendant who's facing a long sentence in prison, I've done that.

If it's a prosecutor who's doing his job to defend society's interest against criminals, I've been on the side of the prosecution.

If it's somebody who's representing environmental interests, environmentalists in the Supreme Court, I've done that.

If it's somebody who is representing the plaintiffs in an anti- trust case, I've been in that person's shoes.

I've done that.

If it's somebody representing a defendant in any trust case, I've done that as well. It's one of the, I think, great benefits of the opportunity I've had to practice law as I have is that it has not been a specialized practice. I've not just represented one side or the other. I've represented all of those interests.

And I think those people will know that I have had their perspective. I've been on the other side of the podium with a case just like theirs. And that should, I hope -- and I hope it does now -- encourage them that I will be fair and that I will decide the case according to law but I will have seen it from their perspective."

Posted by notime4lies at 09/23/2005 @ 01:39am
JORCHEIM, I like your inovative taxation ideas. Surely supply-side economics cannot be an absolute failure in every conceivable situation.

I once asked a conservative friend of mine, who thinks he is an economics expert (but really isn't), why not try demand-side economics? His reply was that it isn't easy to change demand.

After lowering my respect for his intelligence still further, I pointed out that he was full of it. Demand is changeable, else why would smart corporations spend so much on marketing???

Not only that, a lot of demand never gets exercised because the demanders don't have the income for everything they want, and they have to prioritize. (All you economists out there, don't try to claim this is only a shift along the demand curve! It isn't.) Or, in other words, someone living paycheck to paycheck will spend a higher percentage of their tax cut on goods and services than, say, Warren Buffet.

So one good way of cutting individual income tax would be to increase the personal exemption. Then EVERYONE gets the same cut, and I guarantee that would do more to stimulate the economy than any of George Bush's idiotic tax cuts.

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/23/2005 @ 01:47am
I'm afraid that what's going to happen is that at the state and local level, only those Dems who come out in front of the leadership and totally castigate Bush and his ilk can win. This, however will result in not much support from the already "connected" Dem leadership. This situation is making it a ripe time for a new leader for a new party. All that's needed is someone with enough brains and character to attract the disenfranchized within the Dem party, and the reasonably intelligent of the GOP, and we could see a real third party ready to crash the Dem party. ALL the major players in the Dem party are still thinking like it's the '70's. But with no new ideas. And no direction. Somebody is going to take that option away. It could very well result in another GOP president by default. The Dems HAVE to unite NOW. And they have to unite behind the people who are tired of business as usual. The Dem Leadership Council has shown themselve to be nothing but Republicans in sheeps' clothing. The people want something better. And if the Dems don't come up with it, an independent could make some real inroads and leave the major Dems twisting in the wind.

Posted by dgvb55 at 09/23/2005 @ 03:51am
ILP

"I am aware of no one who claims that global warming is solely due to the activities of man. I hope this statement won't be twisted around to try to dismiss the impact of human activity, though."

No one?....maybe YOU don't read enough. From the abysmal "Day After Tomorrow" film to Robert Kennedy Jr. to every tract handed out at an "Earth Day" gathering....there are a whole lot of people HINTING at that.

BTW, I just saw graph that showed how of the WORST hurricane years, most occurred 50 years ago....thus marking a DECREASE in activity now.

Posted by Mask at 09/23/2005 @ 06:22am
Mask....you have an URL on theat data?

Posted by leftofcenter at 09/23/2005 @ 07:48am
MaryBretBrad, I think you are mistaken that education, avoiding marriage before 20 and not having a child before marriage are enough to keep people out of poverty. These are important factors yes, but there are many cases of city residents who lack the transportation necessary to get themselves out of their impoverished neighbors to seek jobs in parts of the suburbs where businesses are thriving. There are many areas that are simply economically depressed. And not just in cities, what about rural areas like say, Appalachia? Infrastructure remains central to the economic vitality of any urban area not to mention enabling people in remote areas to get out of their communities and into nearby towns and cities where there is likely to be a greater availability of employment.

While a person will be less financially strapped if he doesn't have children early in life and being married can certainly help him have a more stable home, that alone cannot address the issue of the availability of work. Besides, is marriage promotion going to be the anti-poverty pill? Is that an appropriate role for the government? If we live in a society where paying taxes is considered coercive, how could we possibly endorse marriage promotion?

You also might want to consider how addiction can play a role in limiting a person's economic prospects. It is not all simply about a person's pluck and determination, though I wish it could be that simple.

Posted by hhemwm at 09/23/2005 @ 11:08am
I would also have to add that there a quite a lot of people who fall into the category of "working poor" because their wages are so low and they receive no benefits. Health benefits and insurance are of paramount importance now, I think you would agree?

Posted by hhemwm at 09/23/2005 @ 11:09am
No one?....maybe YOU don't read enough. From the abysmal "Day After Tomorrow" film to Robert Kennedy Jr. to every tract handed out at an "Earth Day" gathering....there are a whole lot of people HINTING at that.

BTW, I just saw graph that showed how of the WORST hurricane years, most occurred 50 years ago....thus marking a DECREASE in activity now.

Posted by MASK 09/23/2005 @ 06:22am

Maybe I just don't read the hysterical propaganda... And as for The Day After Tomorrow, it is just a movie, dude!

BTW, global warming doesn't have much to do with the hurricane cycle, according to meteorologist. This is regardless of what Rev. Jesse Jackson says. So that is irrelevant to the discussion.

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/23/2005 @ 12:03pm
ILP....well, again....it seems to be the "hysterics" that are getting all the air-time.

That graph I discussed was on Lou Dobbs on CNN, and both the "pro-global warming" guests (meterologists with doctorates) made "subtle" links to global warming and the hurricane season.

Mr Kennedy Jr took the opportunity of "Katrina" to attack Haley Barbour for not supporting "Kyoto".....Now, why would he do that, if he was not trying make a "link" between global warming and hurricane intensities.

Harking back to my original post, this is the main reason that "reasonable voices" (like yourself) get squeezed out of the discussion by the "hysterics"....your position simply isn't "sexy" enough and doesn't make for good TV.

And it's why I find it difficult to not take with a grain of salt the claims of "environmental Armeggedon", again, by people who were claiming it 30-35 years ago (with "Doomsday" scheduled for 1995 "at the latest").

Posted by Mask at 09/23/2005 @ 1:05pm
MASK, Your point is excellent. Perhaps there is a disagreement in the meteorological community about the impact of GW on the hurricane cycle. I have not hear nor read any meteorologists connecting the severity of this hurricane season with GW, and I have looked at several sources. This leads me to conclude that perhaps Dobb's guests are in the minority.

This is a great example of why we need to look at peer-reviewed research articles published in the respected journals of the geophysics community. Unfortunately, the GW prophets who get carried away may discredit the valid scientific research.

We'd better buy property in Alaska....

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/23/2005 @ 1:47pm
You say the greenhouse effect is a phenomenon. Have you accurately measured it? "Greenhouse" gasses have increased as a percentage of atmospheric gasses. This means more heat gets reflected back to the surface of the Earth. How much more? Is it enough to raise the global temperature 1 degree or 0.000000001 degree? That's the question. If it's the latter, then the Kyoto protocol is not justified as policy.

Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/22/2005 @ 6:20pm

OK, How about the following:

The Role Of Halocarbons In The Climate Change Of The Troposphere And Stratosphere Piers M. De F. Forster1, 2 and Manoj Joshi2, 3

(1) NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory, 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO, 80305, U.S.A. (2) University of Reading, Reading, RG6 6BB, UK (3) Present address: Met Office, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB, UK

Received: 20 January 2004 Revised: 29 June 2004

Abstract: Releases of halocarbons into the atmosphere over the last 50 years are among the factors that have contributed to changes in the Earth's climate since pre-industrial times. Their individual and collective potential to contribute directly to surface climate change is usually gauged through calculation of their radiative efficiency, radiative forcing, and/or Global Warming Potential (GWP). For those halocarbons that contain chlorine and bromine, indirect effects on temperature via ozone layer depletion represent another way in which these gases affect climate. Further, halocarbons can also affect the temperature in the stratosphere. In this paper, we use a narrow-band radiative transfer model together with a range of climate models to examine the role of these gases on atmospheric temperatures in the stratosphere and troposphere. We evaluate in detail the halocarbon contributions to temperature changes at the tropical tropopause, and find that they have contributed a significant warming of ~0.4 K over the last 50 years, dominating the effect of the other well-mixed greenhouse gases at these levels. The fact that observed tropical temperatures have not warmed strongly suggests that other mechanisms may be countering this effect.... We find that the indirect effect of stratospheric ozone depletion could have offset up to approximately half of the predicted past increases in surface temperature that would otherwise have occurred as a result of the direct effect of halocarbons. However, as ozone will likely recover in the next few decades, a slightly faster rate of warming should be expected from the net effect of halocarbons, and we find that together halocarbons could bring forward next century's expected warming by ~20 years if future emissions projections are realized. In both the troposphere and stratosphere CFC-12 contributes most to the past temperature changes and the emissions projection considered suggest that HFC-134a could contribute most of the warming over the coming century.

from Climatic Change Publisher: Springer Science+Business Media B.V., Formerly Kluwer Academic Publishers B.V. ISSN: 0165-0009 (Paper) 1573-1480 (Online) DOI: 10.1007/s10584-005-5955-7 Issue: Volume 71, Number 1

Date: July 2005 Pages: 249 - 266

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/23/2005 @ 2:12pm
If the Democrats can't hang togehter and vote against Roberts I am truly taking my votes elsewhere. I am feed up with the cowardice of this party. The confiramtion of Roberts with Yea votes from Democrats will come at a heavy price from this Democratic household of six in the next election cycle. We'll vote green to signify our distaste for the sell outs. A party that willfully alienates its base is a party that is completely out of touch and worth leaving. Leahy should seriously reconsider his position. tsc, LA, CA

Posted by tchoosier59 at 09/23/2005 @ 2:34pm
TCHOOSIER59: Vote green and you've wasted your vote.

Posted by USAPRIDE at 09/23/2005 @ 2:52pm
USAPRIDE: LOL, that was funny!

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/23/2005 @ 3:24pm
MARYBRETBRAD:

I certainly have considered what you said... and I am certainly not saying that my recommendation is a panacea, or the only change that needs to be made. I was simply making the point that supply-side economics is not ALWAYS wrong... only when it is used to justify huge tax breaks for the wealthy, who don't need them.

Posted by jorcheim at 09/23/2005 @ 4:28pm
MARYBRETBRAD:

The point here is not whether we are powerful enough to destroy the earth without trying. The point is whether we are powerful enough to make it uninhabitable for humans.

Posted by jorcheim at 09/23/2005 @ 4:43pm
MARYBRETBRAD:

Your theory doesn't hold water, and it doesn't mesh with history. Traditionally, the wider the gap between the richest and the poorest elements of society, the greater the poverty level.

And you are wrong about supply-siders never telling us who needs tax breaks. In fact, that is precisely what they do, telling us that corporations NEED tax cuts so they can afford to invest in more capital goods, etc etc. You are obfuscating the facts.

Posted by jorcheim at 09/23/2005 @ 5:14pm
MaryB

re: oil. World oil consumption is ~77 million barels/day. (per CIA.gov) At 42 gallons per barrel that is just over 3.2 billion gallons per day...times 365 days/year comes to 1.18 trillion gallons / year. At an average of 825 kg/cubic meter (4,466,785,924 cubic meter x 825 kg = 3.7 * 10 ex12 kg of crude) This comes to just over 1 cubic mile/year

Now looking at conversion to CO2...as of 1994 (most recent data set I could find), US carbon generation was 81.8 billion metric tons C. As we use ~25% of the world's petroleum, this come to a global of value in excess of 327 billion metric tons. But this is just the carbon. CO2 is 77% oxygen. This makes 454 billion metric tons of CO2 per year.(Ok, ok...some becomes CO, but it is the comparison thats important)

People put out ~300g CO2/day...times 6 billion people comes times 365 days/year out to 657 million kg CO2 (or 657,000 metric tons) So the refining and use of petroleum generates over 690,000 times as much CO2 as all the Earth's exhaling population.

To get a handle on deforestation...try looking from space: HERE [buddycom.com]

Posted by leftofcenter at 09/23/2005 @ 5:16pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/23/2005 @ 3:49pm: Have you ever heard of an obscure field of study called "economics"? It has something to do with predictable and repeatable phenomena. (Given the probabilistic nature of quantum particles, I don't think phenomena observed in those experiments are any more or less "predictable" than the aggregate economic behavior of 280 million people.)

Yes, I have studied it more extensively than most people. However, tax law is determined by 535 members of Congress, not necessarily based on economic theory. And economic "laws" are not immutable, unlike the laws of physics. They change with changing culture, changing world power blocks, changing technology, changing climate/weather events, changing economic systems, changing international treaties, changing morals, etc.

Any person dispensing opinions as freely as you do on a political website should not dismiss it so casually (or so condescendingly).

I don't dismiss economics, I embrace it.

My point was that one could postulate a theory about how a change in the tax law would impact macroeconomic behavior (motivation), The theory would be indisputable provided that all of the premises held.

Not true. The economy is so large and complex that other factors usually cannot be deconflated.

I see that in your post to JORCHEIM you are familiar with some economic concepts, but I don't think you've thought them through... Have you considered what would be the macroeconomic implications of expanding the personal exemption and reducing that percentage further?

Wrong again, I have thought them through! Yes, and I have even developed my own ideas for revamping the personal income tax code which include raising the personal exemption. I have posted those thoughts in other threads on this very website. I am glad we can find common ground.

Expanding the personal exemption would certainly increase current consumption, but I doubt it would increase the national saving rate (which leads to increase business investment, which leads to increased productivity improvements, which increases economic growth). I suspect an expanded exemption would increase our current account deficit (with other nations). What would be the economic implications of that?

Depends on which economist you ask.

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/23/2005 @ 5:22pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/23/2005 @ 4:21pm: The study you site is what I'm talking about. Let me see if I can rephrase it. The study's authors have theorized that the environment behaves in a mathematical way that is approximated by their model. The model suggests that 0.4 of a degree Kelvin over the last 50 years can be explained by hydrocarbons.

No. Halocarbons and hydrocarbons are different. Halocarbons are compounds of carbon with the halide elements. They are a small fraction of the total greenhouse gasses. For example, a major greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, is not a halocarbon.

But then they concede that "The fact that observed tropical temperatures have not warmed strongly suggests that other mechanisms may be countering this effect...."

With emphasis on "tropical." Temperate zone temps have changed more, and arctic zone temps even more than that. The arctic is warming VERY rapidly. This is a fact, indisputeable.

They then make the connection that heat escapes through ozone holes/depletion. And that since we have outlawed chlorofluorocarbons (ChFCs) the ozone is going to repair itself and future temp increases are going to accelerate.

Just like human activity isn't the only factor in climate change, neither is it the only factor in ozone change. Doesn't mean it isn't a factor!

I was also told by President Carter that the world was running out of oil and that I needed to sacrifice and turn down the thermostat. (Proven reserves are higher today than they were 30 years ago.)

But the world is still running out of oil, because we use it faster than it is made. Just because proven reserves are greater doesn't change this.

I was told by Paul Ehrlic that the world was running out of food and water and that I needed to sacrifice and get my testicles snipped because overpopulation would destroy humankind. (Presumably my two sons are glad that I delayed accepting that advice.) I was told that the Japanese economic efficiency was so much greater than that of the US that if I didn't sacrifice current consumption and increase by saving rate by 10 percentage points that the Japanese would own the entire country within a couple of decades.

You are comparing speculation to established science.

I was also told that then next ice age would be here any moment and that I needed to sacrifice something (I think it was move south). You think I'm kidding but the warnings of an imminent ice age were every bit as dire as the global warming crowd today.

No, I watched NOVA in the '70's also. I don't think you're kidding.

I was told that aerosol hair spray cans were devastating the ozone and that we'd all have skin cancer.

They were. Many people have skin cancer. Sad. Not all of it is due to ozone depletion, but some of it probably is. A friend of mine has skin cancer.

I'm just very skeptical because it is d�j� vu all over again. I started reading Lombard's "The Skeptical Environmentalist" but it was so boring I never finished it. Given the hysterical denunciation it received, I'm assuming it says global warming is not that big of a deal.

Read the peer reviewed climatology journals instead. Look, that abstract was one of many I could have posted just from that one journal! Other articles talked about the well-established upward trend of temperatures in this century, with a likely increas of over 7 degrees F, plus/minus a couple.

Look, you are studying to be a physicist, right? You have got to stop listening to extremists on both sides and study the peer-reviewed science! Please, I beg of you, if just for your own professional edification.

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/23/2005 @ 5:41pm
MaryB

To continue on ILPs thread....

Ozone repair has little to do with global warming...although it may bring down skin and eye cancer rates. Halocarbons have the 1-2 punch of being a greenhouse gas AND an ozone destroyer. Howver, repairing ozone does NOT solve global warming.

Also, halocarbons are miracles of technology. They were made to be exceedingly stable to use in AC units, etc. They are stable in the atmospere as well. The half-life of stratorspheric halocarbons is on the order of decades to a century perhaps. the new "ozone friendly" refrigerants are not "as bad" but they do contribute as well....just not as much.

Posted by leftofcenter at 09/23/2005 @ 8:00pm
Once again Democrats in congress are letting their supporters down. Just as they have on so many issues that have come up over the length of the Bush administration. Looking at this trend I think the Democratic public and party leaders have to do something, and perhaps we can learn a little from the Republican Party.

Since the 1980s the Republicans have done an excelent job of weeding out the idealogical weaklings in their party and making sure that only the hardest of hardliners can gain political office. While sometimes costing them offices temporarily this has given rise to a truly enviable level of party consitancy and strength. So I think it is about time that liberals start taking notes and doing the same thing. Lets get the wishy-washy, passafistic, role over to Bush Democrats out of office! Even if seats are lost for a term taking them back in the next term and filling them with truly passionate liberals willing to stand up to the president and congressional republicans will make it worth while. Because these role-over, dead in the water democrats that don't have the guts to stand up and stand for something are making me sick.

Posted by creampuff at 09/23/2005 @ 8:38pm
Hey ILOVEPHYSICS:

Don't you love how when we make a well-argued point, we're told we haven't thought it out all the way through? Funny, that,

Posted by jorcheim at 09/23/2005 @ 9:34pm
JOR & ILP

yes, when too much fact and logic are floating about their allergies get the better of them I guess. Always seem to leave us to talk amongst ourselves.

Posted by leftofcenter at 09/24/2005 @ 12:32am
CREAM

"Weeding out the weaklings" from the Democratic Party would mean weeding out those who actually WON a Presidential election in the last 25 years.

I know this makes a lot of the Left mad, but it was a "New Democrat" who pulled off the only successful two-term Democratic White House, nominally since LBJ (but actually not since Truman...given Johnson's disaster in Vietnam).

There are a lot of LOUD "pure Democrats", i.e. liberals, but as many as there are "Reagan Democrat" and "Catholic Democrat" voters, many of whom pull a "D" lever every election, but an "R" when it comes to the Presidency.

If the "Bush Democrats" in the Party (usually named "Hillary", "Biden", "Lieberman", etc. by the "purists") are thrown out...you'll have a Democratic Party that should otherwise be named the "Green Party" and a more moderated Republican Party winnig 60-75% of the vote every two years.

Despite "all the oppression, poverty, and foreign policy 'criminality'" that the "purists" see in the country....they and their viewpoint are still only 20% of the population (at best)...and a "20% political party" doesn't work.

Posted by Mask at 09/24/2005 @ 11:21am
What's the point of being a Democrat if you haven't got the guts to stand up for what's right, even when you know you're going to lose? I'm proud of Harry Reid and disappointed in Patrick Leahy. John Roberts is, at best, a cat in a bag. The country deserves better. Bush may have won the election, but that didn't mean that the Senate had to become a rubber stamp. Democracy is about the rights of the minority as well as the prerogatives of the majority.

Posted by Mateo at 09/25/2005 @ 7:45pm
According to the Committee for Study of the American Electorate, only 51.21% of the voting age population (VAP) took the time to vote in the 2000 election. Keeping this in mind, how can anyone claim that we are a democracy? Democracy comes in the voice of the people; almost half of VAP people did not vote; therefore, they did not speak. We are at best, a republic, which closely parallels a democracy, but is defined as: A state or nation in which the supreme power rests in all the citizens entitled to vote. This power is exercised by representatives elected, directly or indirectly, by them and responsible to them. One may jump to the conclusion that this is the same, but notice that it says "citizens entitled to vote-" which is precisely what we have here in the US. (I live in Florida; I was witness to the black people being raped of their votes. Rape may seem a hard word to use, but these people were not only violated of their rights, but some were also slandered as felons. Imagine if you could the embarassment you would feel if you turned up to vote, and was denied the vote because of your arrest record - although you have never been arrested! 14,000 [I believe that was the number] clerical errors on supposedly convicted voters - most of whom just happened to be black. Most people's faces turn red at the denial of a credit purchase.)

As for calling the US a republic, I see that as being optimistic when I all truly see is capitalism.

The moral high ground, whether red or blue, is still looking after number 1. Darwin has been slandered since the Industrial Age with "survival of the fittest." I wonder how many people have actually read Darwin and not someone's opinion or interpretation of him, because if one has, one knows that he did not intend for that phrase to be used as it was in the Industrial Age or today.

I haven't posted for a few weeks because I noticed -- again it didn't matter if it was red or blue -- that fanatical beliefs, whether they be of religious, political, or personal nature cannot be reasoned with. If one's mind is closed to all other sides, then one's world view is also closed.

If the red and the blue want to do something for this country, get out there and get people to vote. Because we can sit here and sling mud back and forth at each other till we drop from keyboard fatigue, but none of it matters. The left is always being accused of being pacifists....but I don't see much action on the right either. They just happen to be in charge now. If it was a leftie in charge, the rights would be yelling for someone to speak up.

Posted by woplock at 09/26/2005 @ 1:57pm
Anti-War, My Foot The phony peaceniks who protested in Washington. By Christopher Hitchens Updated Monday, Sept. 26, 2005, at 11:19 AM PT

Are they really "anti-war"? Saturday's demonstration in Washington, in favor of immediate withdrawal of coalition forces from Iraq, was the product of an opportunistic alliance between two other very disparate "coalitions." Here is how the New York Times (after a front-page and an inside headline, one of them reading "Speaking Up Against War" and one of them reading "Antiwar Rallies Staged in Washington and Other Cities") described the two constituenciess of the event:

The protests were largely sponsored by two groups, the Answer Coalition, which embodies a wide range of progressive political objectives, and United for Peace and Justice, which has a more narrow, antiwar focus.

The name of the reporter on this story was Michael Janofsky. I suppose that it is possible that he has never before come across "International ANSWER," the group run by the "Worker's World" party and fronted by Ramsey Clark, which openly supports Kim Jong-il, Fidel Castro, Slobodan Milosevic, and the "resistance" in Afghanistan and Iraq, with Clark himself finding extra time to volunteer as attorney for the g�nocidaires in Rwanda. Quite a "wide range of progressive political objectives" indeed, if that's the sort of thing you like. However, a dip into any database could have furnished Janofsky with well-researched and well-written articles by David Corn and Marc Cooper--to mention only two radical left journalists--who have exposed "International ANSWER" as a front for (depending on the day of the week) fascism, Stalinism, and jihadism.

The group self-lovingly calling itself "United for Peace and Justice" is by no means "narrow" in its "antiwar focus" but rather represents a very extended alliance between the Old and the New Left, some of it honorable and some of it redolent of the World Youth Congresses that used to bring credulous priests and fellow-traveling hacks together to discuss "peace" in East Berlin or Bucharest. Just to give you an example, from one who knows the sectarian makeup of the Left very well, I can tell you that the Worker's World Party--Ramsey Clark's core outfit--is the product of a split within the Trotskyist movement. These were the ones who felt that the Trotskyist majority, in 1956, was wrong to denounce the Russian invasion of Hungary. The WWP is the direct, lineal product of that depraved rump. If the "United for Peace and Justice" lot want to sink their differences with such riffraff and mount a joint demonstration, then they invite some principled political criticism on their own account. And those who just tag along � well, they just tag along.

To be against war and militarism, in the tradition of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, is one thing. But to have a record of consistent support for war and militarism, from the Red Army in Eastern Europe to the Serbian ethnic cleansers and the Taliban, is quite another. It is really a disgrace that the liberal press refers to such enemies of liberalism as "antiwar" when in reality they are straight-out pro-war, but on the other side. Was there a single placard saying, "No to Jihad"? Of course not. Or a single placard saying, "Yes to Kurdish self-determination" or "We support Afghan women's struggle"? Don't make me laugh. And this in a week when Afghans went back to the polls, and when Iraqis were preparing to do so, under a hail of fire from those who blow up mosques and U.N. buildings, behead aid workers and journalists, proclaim fatwahs against the wrong kind of Muslim, and utter hysterical diatribes against Jews and Hindus.

Some of the leading figures in this "movement," such as George Galloway and Michael Moore, are obnoxious enough to come right out and say that they support the Baathist-jihadist alliance. Others prefer to declare their sympathy in more surreptitious fashion. The easy way to tell what's going on is this: Just listen until they start to criticize such gangsters even a little, and then wait a few seconds before the speaker says that, bad as these people are, they were invented or created by the United States. That bad, huh? (You might think that such an accusation--these thugs were cloned by the American empire for God's sake--would lead to instant condemnation. But if you thought that, gentle reader, you would be wrong.)

The two preferred metaphors are, depending on the speaker, that the Bin-Ladenists are the fish that swim in the water of Muslim discontent or the mosquitoes that rise from the swamp of Muslim discontent. (Quite often, the same images are used in the same harangue.) The "fish in the water" is an old trope, borrowed from Mao's hoary theory of guerrilla warfare and possessing a certain appeal to comrades who used to pore over the Little Red Book. The mosquitoes are somehow new and hover above the water rather than slip through it. No matter. The toxic nature of the "water" or "swamp" is always the same: American support for Israel. Thus, the existence of the Taliban regime cannot be swamplike, presumably because mosquitoes are born and not made. The huge swamp that was Saddam's Iraq has only become a swamp since 2003. The organized murder of Muslims by Muslims in Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan is only a logical reaction to the summit of globalizers at Davos. The stoning and veiling of women must be a reaction to Zionism. While the attack on the World Trade Center--well, who needs reminding that chickens, or is it mosquitoes, come home to roost?

There are only two serious attempts at swamp-draining currently under way. In Afghanistan and Iraq, agonizingly difficult efforts are in train to build roads, repair hospitals, hand out ballot papers, frame constitutions, encourage newspapers and satellite dishes, and generally evolve some healthy water in which civil-society fish may swim. But in each case, from within the swamp and across the borders, the most poisonous snakes and roaches are being recruited and paid to wreck the process and plunge people back into the ooze. How nice to have a "peace" movement that is either openly on the side of the vermin, or neutral as between them and the cleanup crew, and how delightful to have a press that refers to this partisanship, or this neutrality, as "progressive."

Posted by libsarenutty at 09/26/2005 @ 3:41pm
One of you said if Gore were serving his second term right now things would be much better,no war in Iraq etc."but the towers may still have been hit".I disagree with that.Al Gore never would have ignored all the warnings king George ignored.Al Gore didn't want war.He had better plans for the country.The warnings were coming in a year before 9/11.President Clinton warned the king about Osama and his plans when the king was appointed.I've been reading so much lately about Bush and it's very late.Right now I think anybody would do a better job then Bush.

Posted by BusyHands at 09/27/2005 @ 03:59am

David Corn

Washington--a city of denials, spin, and political calculations. They may speak English there, but most citizens still need an interpreter to understand its ways and meanings. DAVID CORN, the Washington editor of The Nation magazine, has spent years analyzing the policies and pursuing the lies that spew out of the nation's capital. He is a novelist, biographer, and television and radio commentator who is able to both decipher and scrutinize Washington.

In his dispatches, he takes on the day-by-day political and policy battles under way in the Capitol, the White House, the think tanks, and the television studios. With an informed, unconventional perspective, he holds the politicians, policymakers and pundits accountable and reports the important facts and views that go uncovered elsewhere.

Check out David Corn's latest book, (co-written with Michael Isikoff and now available in paperback), Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War (Crown Publishers). For information, visit his personal blog at davidcorn.com.

Photo Credit: Michael Lorenzini

Democrats Split on Roberts Nomination

posted by David Corn on 09/21/2005 @ 2:26pm

David Corn

Archives

» Editor's Cut

» The Notion

» The Dreyfuss Report

» The Beat

» Act Now!

» And Another Thing

» Altercation

Democrats Split on Roberts Nomination

posted by David Corn on 09/21/2005 @ 2:26pm

Share this article

David Corn

Archives

» Editor's Cut

» The Notion

» The Dreyfuss Report

» The Beat

» Act Now!

» And Another Thing

» Altercation