Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditMark Schmitt had an excellent op-ed in the New York Times today about how detailed presidential policy papers are given far too much credence. I'd like to suggest that "experience"--a buzzword every election cycle--is also overrated.
At every turn Hillary Clinton invokes her years as First Lady and New York Senator as a not-so-subtle contrast to Barack Obama's supposed inexperience. In his piece criticizing Obama this morning, my colleague David Corn writes that Clinton and John Edwards are "steeped in the nuances, language, and minefields of foreign policy."
That tenure prompted both Clinton and Edwards to support the war in Iraq, along with virtually the entire Democratic foreign policy elite. They had years of PhDs, postings abroad and negotiations with dictators (the kind bemoaned by Clinton and embraced by Obama in last night's YouTube debate) under their belt. And they came down on the wrong side of the biggest foreign policy question of their generation.
So it's a little disturbing to see Clinton surrogates like former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright giving reporters a tutorial today on how to negotiate with hostile regimes. In a follow-up interview with a newspaper in Iowa, Hillary piled on by calling Obama's comments "irresponsible and frankly naive."
Let's step back a second. The Obama camp could argue that it was "irresponsible and frankly naive" for Senator Clinton to hand President Bush a blank-check to go to war and then claim that she was only giving the Administration the authorization to win over the United Nations and keep weapons inspectors in Iraq until they finished the job. It was painfully obvious, except maybe to Senators and their advisors in Washington, that Bush would use Congressional approval as a mandate to invade.
Hillary's evolution on the war appears to some as more motivated by calculation than conviction. She supported the war for the better part of four years, began to express a few qualified misgivings and then, once she entered the presidential ring, quickly introduced a withdrawal proposal and a plan to de-authorize the war.
Convenient timing. So next time the Clinton campaign touts her foreign policy experience, why doesn't the Obama campaign accuse her of pandering?
Ironically, David reminds me that George H.W. Bush tried to use Bill Clinton's inexperience in foreign policy against him in 1992. Al Gore employed the same tactic against George W. Bush in 2000.
Those were legitimate questions. Experience matters. But good judgement matters more.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Those were legitimate questions. Experience matters. But good judgement matters more.
Good post, Ari. You are officially redeemed!
Posted by Metteyya at 07/24/2007 @ 5:00pm
" I'd like to suggest that "experience"--a buzzword every election cycle--is also overrated.'
This is justifacation for Hillary and Obama since neither of them has any leadership or decision making expierence...
Posted by john maasch at 07/24/2007 @ 5:01pm
Indeed. Granting decision-making authority to so-called "experts" who've gained their "experience" in large part by, as you say Ari, "pandering" to even further "ups" whose somber assessments echo conventional fears/anxieties buried deep and yet readily latent in humankind's primordial past. I, for one, am ready for "freshness" and what might even be termed naivete or willful innocence, as a corrective to the "Strangelovian" experts who've landed us in this mess "in spite of ourselves" (John Prine).
Posted by lewwelge at 07/24/2007 @ 5:07pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 07/24/2007 @ 5:01pm
Experience. Was that something Bush had before office? Can you name the last President that had this so-called experience?
Posted by srjenkins at 07/24/2007 @ 5:31pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/24/2007 @ 5:06pm
You mean the one where she dances all around and tries to pretend that she was not voting for what she was voting for? I read the text - a fine piece of political theater, but let's not pretend she didn't vote for war or support it shall we? Best lie in the whole speech:
"Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation."
Yeah, right.
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
Posted by srjenkins at 07/24/2007 @ 5:38pm
Clinton was governor of a small state, Bush of Texas..both had experience at running something,..Reagan in California, Carter in Georgia...
Running something other than a campaign would be helpful...instincts are also a fine trait...checking polls daily is not.
Posted by john maasch at 07/24/2007 @ 5:38pm
good point. where was this experience when she goose stepped along with the objectivist corporate fascists into iraq?
her dances with the devils worry me in terms of moral/ethical character, and if she was so bamboozled, as she claims, then i have to question her intellectual acumen...
i thought it was stupid from the beginning and i'm just a schmuk.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/24/2007 @ 5:40pm
SR,
Understand Frank is drunk on Hillary.
Posted by john maasch at 07/24/2007 @ 5:40pm
"I can't imagine anyone with experience actually wanting the job of President! ;-)
Posted by FREIHEIT 07/24/2007 @ 5:38pm
I believe most do it for the power and not anything else...Bush, I believe, believes that he is doing the Lords work as the US is a good country...Hillary is in it for the power and for the sake of being the first female...it is about her and not the country.. most latter day presidents didn't need the job...
Posted by john maasch at 07/24/2007 @ 5:43pm
"I can't imagine anyone with experience actually wanting the job of President! ;-)
Posted by FREIHEIT 07/24/2007 @ 5:38pm
I believe most do it for the power and not anything else...Bush, I believe, believes that he is doing the Lords work as the US is a good country...Hillary is in it for the power and for the sake of being the first female...it is about her and not the country.. most latter day presidents didn't need the job...
Posted by john maasch at 07/24/2007 @ 5:44pm
gee...she's sounding exactly like chimpy now...
i think i'm jumping on the o-train.
my dislike for 50 foot queenie is growing with every bushism that plops out of that pandering mouth of hers...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/24/2007 @ 6:44pm
I can't imagine anyone with experience actually wanting the job of President! ;-)
Posted by FREIHEIT 07/24/2007 @ 5:38pm
Substitute BERMAN's "judgment" for your wording "experience"......and I'll smile w/you! LOL!
MAACH,
Good luck w/your budding ventures!!
Like you, I would just LOVE to have the opportunity to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes each year......Alas, not yet HAPPY enough to do so! Especially if days like today become more UNHAPPILY common! :-(
Posted by Happy at 07/24/2007 @ 6:53pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/24/2007 @ 5:54pm
Who am I, Rese? I put the link to the speech at the end of my post. Anyone interested should be able to cut and paste it if they can't manage the same rudimentary Google search I used to find it.
The problem with Hillary's speech is that she does a lot of work describing what other people might think or assert while not being forthright about her own position. Voting for the bill "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" is pretty unambigious - and saying she is voting for it because it would most likely prevent war can only be called a lie.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/24/2007 @ 7:37pm
When I saw this just before going out to eat, one thing popped in my head...
FRANKGRITS will HAVE to show up to defend his hootchie-mamma....heheh.
He will NOT tolerate the "pure progressives" dissing poor, helpless, always-right-always-will-be, "she voted for something but not war because Bush fooled her but he didn' t because she's too smart" Hillary.
Posted by Mask at 07/24/2007 @ 8:46pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 07/24/2007 @ 7:37pm
What's odd, SRJ, is that FRANK and the Hillary'ites think that if they just SAY that Hillary didn't say what she said (remember, there's VIDEO of a lot of her "pro-war" stuff)....nobody will remember it or believe it.
Ultimately though, she gets the nomination..."lesser of two evil'ism" will win out and few will go the Empty Spence way of not voting because in the end, HER picks for the Supreme Court or who runs the Justice Dept. are going to be a LOT better than Giuliani's or Romney's.
Posted by Mask at 07/24/2007 @ 8:48pm
Posted by ZERO 07/24/2007 @ 7:29pm
those three nations are entirely different worlds and should not be grouped together; to do so is to engage in the worst excesses of Bush-era stupidity
Huh? Is your argument actually that by grouping these nations together, we don't recognize the ways in which they're different? That makes no sense whatsoever. If I come up to someone and say "You need to speak to Kelly, Joe and Renaldo," I can still easily think of and treat them as importantly distinct people. The same is true of countries. We group things because we have to in order to function, and because things often share common characteristics. That doesn't mean we don't recognize the distinctness of each individual thing we group. This argument is dumb.
That said, I think you're right to an extent about North Korea in Iran. Closing off diplomatic contact with them makes absolutely no sense, though I think it's equally foolish to assume that they are or will be fully willing to cooperate with us. We've trusted North Korea before and repeatedly found them wanting; I have no reason to expect any differently now. Iran is no better; their lies about not supporting fighters in Iraq don't help their reliability any, nor do their no-nukes assurances which run contrary to the evidence which much of our intelligence gives (like, say, the FBI).
Finally, you're also right to an extent about Cuba; the continuing embargo does nothing and has no purpose.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/24/2007 @ 8:49pm
Ultimately though, she gets the nomination..."lesser of two evil'ism" will win out and few will go the Empty Spence way of not voting because in the end, HER picks for the Supreme Court or who runs the Justice Dept. are going to be a LOT better than Giuliani's or Romney's.
Posted by MASK 07/24/2007 @ 8:48pm
Why?
Posted by Thrawn at 07/24/2007 @ 8:50pm
Posted by ZERO 07/24/2007 @ 7:46pm
Yes I noticed that Bush is not getting any applause for what appears to be a start in getting Nth Korea to close its nuclear weapons program. We probably part company about the uniqueness of Bush's armory viz. knowing when to kick ass and when to be diplomatic. Something that he does with good timing and a skill that is rare in American presidents.
BTW I notice Richardson had great Democratic plans for the African continent; pity he didn't tell them to Bill (and Hillary who perhaps was advising Bill) during the Rwandan crisis. This is the great stain on the Clinton presidency and America beside which the worst assessment of Iraq pales into insignificance.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/24/2007 @ 9:20pm
This is justifacation for Hillary and Obama since neither of them has any leadership or decision making expierence...
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 07/24/2007 @ 5:01pm | ignore this person
they are both US senators. Hillary having been re-elected. those are positions of leadership.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/24/2007 @ 9:40pm
"I can't imagine anyone with experience actually wanting the job of President! ;-)
Posted by FREIHEIT 07/24/2007 @ 5:38pm
I believe most do it for the power and not anything else..
DUH....
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/24/2007 @ 9:42pm
they are both US senators. Hillary having been re-elected. those are positions of leadership.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/24/2007 @ 9:40pm
I wouldn't call it leadership. More like 1% of a consensus if you think about it.
Posted by Sliver at 07/24/2007 @ 9:49pm
Posted by MASK 07/24/2007 @ 8:48pm
Can you tell me you what the real difference is between Hillary, Giuliani or Romney? If there is little difference, can you really criticize a position that would rather not vote - and legitimize a broken system? To me, there isn't much difference here - but then again, I don't have a fine a microscope for detecting differences in what appear to be three right-wing candidates.
Again, I'll remind you that I vote - but likely not for a major party candidate this time around.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/24/2007 @ 9:56pm
The intelligence may have been flawed but you sometimes, especially when talking about going to war, have to trust the President, right?
Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/24/2007 @ 5:54pm
Why in the hell would you do that?
Those of us who were paying attention, knew that the "intellegence" was lies, as the "president" gave the SOTU.
Anyone in congress who missed it, is either incompetent or complicit. If she is still your choice, fine. But pull the wool from over your eyes. She was "for the war, before she was against it."
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 07/24/2007 @ 10:09pm
Posted by LRJONES4 07/24/2007 @ 9:20pm
No matter how tragic, or how inadequate our response was, one cannot say our crime in Iraq "pales into insignificance".
We are jointly responsible, with the rest of the world, and Rwanda itself, for turning our backs. As Americans, we are wholly responsible for our invasion of a sovereign nation, that posed no threat and had nothing to do with 9-11.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 07/24/2007 @ 10:16pm
DUH....
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/24/2007 @ 9:42pm
I hate it when you get all mega-intellectual on us. Please try to use shorter words and sentences. I don't get it.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 07/24/2007 @ 10:20pm
Posted by THRAWN 07/24/2007 @ 8:50pm Posted by SRJENKINS 07/24/2007 @ 9:56pm
Do you guys REALLY think Hillary will pick "Sam Alito" type nominees? Will she owe ANY favors to the Religious Right? Will her nominees (like Bill's) be in the Ruth Ginsburg model?...especially since Ginsburg may not last 8 years?
That alone is enough. Giuliani may pick Souters, he may pick Anthony Kennedys....he WON'T pick John Paul Stevens-types.
Is it worth the risk? I'm not trying to sound like FRANKGRITS, but I think, if you think about it, you can come up with ATLEAST a dozen things Her Nibs will do better than Mitt Romney as President...no?
Posted by Mask at 07/24/2007 @ 10:53pm
No doubt experience in international relations matters. But in this country there is a pleyade of counselors, ambassadors, experts on every country in the world and you name it. And normally people in the Foreign Service and intelligence ( CIA et al) do not lie to the President. ( It was the neo conservatives, not the professional people who talked us about Iraq).
It is therefore better to have one's objectives clear and be a good manager than to have a lot of experience. The problem is what some people ( especially deeply ideological people) want to sell to the man in charge. Just ask Bush why he bought running a marathon in the middle of the Iraqi desert. The president must be keen enough to realize what kind of advice to take, and what other to keep just in standby.
There is a fraction of the Foreign Service and the Military though that still is permeated of some kind of ideas that do so much wrong to this country. These are defending for example: "our economic interests in the Middle East", "defending our zones of influence", "all Latin America should be free from Marxism", and lots of classical things like that. History has shown repeatedly to the European powers (and us) that colonial or dominance ideas only fire back in resentment and disqualification. We might pursue our interests at the open, without trying to hide what the rest of the world sees as evident. Do businees with good natured countries, and negotiate with other countries in a positive way. We must have the courage for example to turn into a society less and less dependent on oil.
Having said that, I agree with Ari that experience is "overrated" over clear thinking and a good set of ideas (platform). The US should be the moral leader of the world, not pursuing some selfish interests. It is when we talk - with the intervention of other nations- that Kim Il Sung (hope I got the name right) agrees to make concessions. What have we gained treating the Cuba and the Castro regime as we have done for almost 50 years now? Three generations of Cubans have paid the economic prize of our pride being hurt by having a communist regime in our backyard. Contrary to the classical embargo idea, if we could had just been putting money and American companies in Cuba, something analogous to China ( on a very minor scale of course) would had happen and liberalization in the island would had advanced so much that we would surely have another Cuba today even with Castro alive.
We must convene that the counsel of some of the experts is not always the best. And that President Clinton (the former) did not had boldness to change these traditions of foreign policy of Republican administrations. And we should not lecture any other country, just pursue our business in a very clear and open way.
Posted by Frank42 at 07/24/2007 @ 11:34pm
experience is overrated? you're kidding me right?
please tell me that the nation isn't going to back the candidate that it would like to have a beer with or the candidate it would like to invite to a barbeque.
we just had one of those.
we can't afford another one of those.
Posted by Will C. at 07/25/2007 @ 12:26am
As Americans, we are wholly responsible for our invasion of a sovereign nation that posed no threat and had nothing to do with 9-11.
Eric
Posted by MALCONTENT 07/24/2007 @ 10:16pm
Eric,
You can revel in a masochistic orgy if you wish but you didn't do this on your own so others would feel privileged to share the responsibility, at least by moral support even if the military commitments were not great.
The "sovereignty of Iraq" has little meaning when perhaps up to 80% of the population was disenfranchised. That effectively means the sovereignty you refer to was virtually nothing more than the sovereignty of a most brutal, capriciously barbaric autocrat and his henchmen.
Your excuse for effectively doing nothing in Iraq is a ruse and would in effect be no different from what happened in Rwanda and is a continuing blight on the character of the vast number of Americans. It lends credence to the charge that America did not get into WW2 until attacked at Pearl Harbour and by German U-boats in its shipping lanes i.e. it got kicked into the war while the Brits stood alone in the summer of 1940, while the rest of Europe ran up the white flag. Likewise in Iraq it was self interest re WMD, so it seems, that got large numbers of Americans behind the Iraq war.
Of course you are not all like that as GW has powerfully shown and Hillary's fine speech (thank you Frank) on human rights abuses in Iraq and thus the moral necessity of removing that regime shows. It seems she has since been seduced by the 70% of Americans who are consumed with tribal self interest, self loathing or some airy fairy notion of what the Founding Fathers may or may not have thought (in a different age and context) as a pretext for fudging your moral responsibility in the 20th and 21st Centuries.
You fool no one. Constitutions are written on bits of paper. A nation is judged by the abiding character of its people.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/25/2007 @ 07:30am
Posted by LRJONES4 07/25/2007 @ 07:30am
Darfur, Congo, Burma, China, Nigeria, Chad, Saudi Arabia, Iraq (in it's current state of failed state) , Afghanistan, Uzbekistan,
when are you signing up to end the human rights abuses in these and other countries?
Is that why we should go to war all over the world? I am not advocating standing around and watching like Chimpy is doing while the chaos in Darfur unfolds, but do we need to invade all of these countries with full scale operations with no exit strateegery?
(MASK, I left out some things here, why don't you insert the words I meant to print, put them in quotes and make up a fallacious argument to go along?)
Posted by crabwalk at 07/25/2007 @ 07:48am
Frank GRITS
She could have voted "No", and called for a more limited proposal, one that was not clearly meant to give Chimpy the go ahead for him to be a war president. A 2 failed wars president.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/25/2007 @ 07:50am
LR, have you noticed the flooding in England and the heat wave rolling through the Caucasus'?
It matches up with your unusual winter. chaotic weather patterns.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/25/2007 @ 07:54am
President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier.-Hillary
Does she mean the speech that was loaded with lies, fabrications and obfuscations? The one that She should have been able to pick apart with all of her "experience"? Hillary is almost as responsible for Mess-o-potamia as Chimpy is.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/25/2007 @ 07:56am
I am not advocating standing around and watching like Chimpy is doing while the chaos in Darfur unfolds...--Posted by CRABWALK 07/25/2007 @ 07:48am
Okay...what ARE you advocating, on something like Darfur, that isn't being done now?
(don't want to put words in your mouth...happy to see YOU do it!)
Posted by Mask at 07/25/2007 @ 10:03am
DUH....
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/24/2007 @ 9:42pm
I hate it when you get all mega-intellectual on us. Please try to use shorter words and sentences. I don't get it.
Eric
Posted by MALCONTENT 07/24/2007 @ 10:20pm | ignore this person
fonny, fonny
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/25/2007 @ 10:32am
Do you guys REALLY think Hillary will pick "Sam Alito" type nominees? Will she owe ANY favors to the Religious Right? Will her nominees (like Bill's) be in the Ruth Ginsburg model?...especially since Ginsburg may not last 8 years?
That alone is enough. Giuliani may pick Souters, he may pick Anthony Kennedys....he WON'T pick John Paul Stevens-types.
Is it worth the risk? I'm not trying to sound like FRANKGRITS, but I think, if you think about it, you can come up with ATLEAST a dozen things Her Nibs will do better than Mitt Romney as President...no?
Posted by MASK 07/24/2007 @ 10:53pm
I'm not saying Hillary's nominees will be ideologically similar to those like Sam Alito. I'm challenging the premise implicit in your earlier claim ("Hillary's judges will be an improvement")that the new additions to the Supreme Court are bad to begin with. Why?
Posted by Thrawn at 07/25/2007 @ 10:35am
Thanks for the whole text of Hillary's speech, Frankgrits, but I found it contained an error of fact, it seems to me. To wit: she stated the UN weapons inspectors were then four years absent from doing their work, even if disallowed into some few sites, like "palaces." This is an egregious falsehood. I clearly recall Hans Blick's ongoing efforts at inspections, up to the very brink/threshhold of our criminally unprovoked and Orwellian-named "pre-emptive" invasion.
Posted by lewwelge at 07/25/2007 @ 10:35am
And Frank cuarenta-dos, "pleyade" is correctly spelled "pliade" and seems awkward usage by this prose reader.
Posted by lewwelge at 07/25/2007 @ 10:39am
" I clearly recall Hans Blick's ongoing efforts at inspections,"
The former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has declared that the war in Iraq was illegal,
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/25/2007 @ 10:45am
experience overrated? the supreme court thought so, when they installed Bush over the guy with 20 years of public service, Gore.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/25/2007 @ 10:48am
You're right of course, Johann. Arguments and actions based upon false premises are consequently erroneous as well. The fact the SCOTUS overturned the state of Florida's Supreme Court decision based the five person majority's egregious and effective coup de' etat rationale of "equal protection" being denied to we 99.5% of Florida voters who wouldn't have the privilege of having our votes authenticated/validated through re-count is the absurdist ground which has left us now in this Kafka-esque situation (and I want to read "Absurdistan," soon).
Posted by lewwelge at 07/25/2007 @ 10:58am
"UPON"! "Based upon" base sophist reasoning.
Posted by lewwelge at 07/25/2007 @ 11:01am
This is a terrible mistake on the part of Obama. It highlights his nascent view of the role of the Presidency in a complex world, as well as his tendency to dismiss important details while indulging his preference for the broad and ambiguous.
The question, while complex, was clear: As President, would you be willing to meet, individually, with the leaders of Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria and Venezuela within a year of taking office and without preconditions.
Obama: "Sure!". Clinton: "Not so fast!".
This would be a second time where Obama didn't pay attention to the details of a question.
In the first debate, when asked about how, as President, he would respond to a double-attack by Al Quaeda, Obama rambled on about first responders and determining who was behind the attack.
It's not Clinton's fault that Obama failed to grasp the pertinent details of thoughtful questions. And, she has every right to point out his lack of understanding and attention to detail in his answers.
You have to get up pretty early to beat Clintons. Obama, it seems, is still sleeping in.
Posted by JoeCHI at 07/25/2007 @ 11:13am
As President, would you be willing to meet, individually, with the leaders of Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria and Venezuela within a year of taking office and without preconditions.
this is a fine idea, and Obama was right to agree. Bush has had a revolving door for leaders of friendly, read supine, countries at the white house.
Eisenhower was willing to meet in Paris with Khrushchev, whose nation presented a far greater threat than the pipsqueek countries mentioned above.
too bad that meeting blew up in our faces, and theirs, when Ike allowed the U2 flights over Russia, threatening their sovereignty, to continue. a short hiatus of the flights could have changed history.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/25/2007 @ 11:39am
can't imagine anyone with experience actually wanting the job of President! ;-)
Posted by FREIHEIT 07/24/2007 @ 5:38pm
I believe you hit the nail on the head here. It seems that we get the lowest common denominator for president. Maybe it's always been this way, but the people running for political office on both sides of the isle are the types where you'd be counting your silverware after you had them over for dinner....not that I have any real silverware.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/25/2007 @ 12:01pm
Why?
Posted by THRAWN 07/25/2007 @ 10:35am
Because I'm pro-choice and like it when the Supremes rule on the maximum personal freedom aspects of the Constitution and not the strictest interpretation.
I'm wacky that way.
Posted by Mask at 07/25/2007 @ 12:52pm
Your commentary seems on base to me. If Mrs. Clinton wants to make this about judgement then it is perfectly approrpiate to say that she was "irresponsible and naive" to vote for the war. The way Mrs. Clinton has tried to elevate this into a controversy speaks volumes about the type of candidate she has become. She has almost taken a Fox News like approach to this "controversy" which is fine since she seems to want to appeal more to Republicans than Democrats and Independents. I started out as a potential supporter of Mrs. Clinton and she is showing me that she is the "same old, same old" approach as what we have now. We do need a fresh face which is why for now I am supporting Obama.
Posted by SARuby at 07/25/2007 @ 1:05pm
wolf, this is far too facile.
check Fats Waller's song "24 robbers" they took his silver ware, but it wasn't very good so he really didn't care.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/25/2007 @ 1:06pm
I have this fear: Not nessecarily based on anything real, just a feeling. That the Dems, unable to bring a sustainable candidate to the forefront (Obama too black or not black enough, Hillary too disliked by too many, Edwards too much of a prettyboy,)will begin to falter, fragment, sink into another pool of disunity. And through the gap, to save the day will speed, before anyone can react, that Prophet of Planetary Paranoia, Al Gore! And the people, just sick enough of a Republican party with no viable candidates & riddled with corruption, will vote him in. Arrrghhhhhhhhhhhh!
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/25/2007 @ 1:25pm
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 07/25/2007 @ 1:25pm:
You fear that? That is my dream!
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 07/25/2007 @ 2:05pm
The following is from an article by Christopher Hitchens, 12 February 2007:
The record is very plain and easy to look up. Here is what she [Hillary Clinton] said in her crucial speech of October 2002:
"In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change. ... In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001."
Notice what this does not say. It does not say that she agrees with the Bush administration on those two key points. Rather, it states these two claims in her own voice and on her own authority.
Read the rest of the article at Slate.com
Posted by HonestLiberal at 07/25/2007 @ 2:23pm
ILP, Well one man's nightmare is another man's dream I guess
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/25/2007 @ 3:12pm
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 07/25/2007 @ 1:25pm
No nightmare, but the fantasy of guys like HSUBFOOLS who want some "metaphysical justice" and Gore to be "re-instated as President, as he should have been".
Won't happen. Such a raucous collapse of their primary election system would send the Dems into a tailspin they couldn't recover from. The "Dems in Disarray" stories would be non-constant and Gore "riding to the rescue" would mean him taking the helm of a Party in worse shape than it was in Chicago in 1968.
After Kristen Gore's pronouncement the other day that he's not running, safe to say that if HIS DAUGHTER has taken it "off the table" (to ref another fantasy)...it ain't happening.
Posted by Mask at 07/25/2007 @ 3:14pm
The "Dems in Disarray" stories would be non-constant and
Posted by MASK 07/25/2007 @ 3:14pm
correction...."constant" or "non-stop" (take your pick...heheh)
Posted by Mask at 07/25/2007 @ 3:15pm
Well, personally, I hope your right, MASK. I'm not having much trouble this time deciding who I DON'T want for President, its the reverse thats tough. I wish Arnie would run. He's SUCH a big strong Girly Man! heh heh
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/25/2007 @ 3:29pm
Frank42 makes an excellent and thoughtful comment. Mine observation on 'experience' is rather more cynical and sarcastic:
Before a Democrats votes for the most 'experienced' candidate, they ought to use their own experience as Democrats. Of the last 10 presidential elections, Democrats have lost all but three. In general, the winning candidates have been the ones with the thinnest resumes.
It's not clear to me why Democrats have gotten hung up on the issue of experience and 'competence' (Dukakis, anyone?). Is it because LBJ, with 'experience' in spades, was such a glowing success? Or because we're eager to emulate the success of the Bush administration, filled as it is with warhorses from the Nixon, and Reagan Administrations, as well as -- regrettably few -- cooler heads from the presidency of George II?
If you think about it, experience teaches you best what you should have done in the past. It is not quite so good at teaching what you should do in the future.
If we're smart, we look at a candidate's record and background not because it shows their experience, but because it allows us to evaluate their judgment.
This is particularly the case for the presidency, where the challenges and problems change more frequently. Any president, even a president with an absolutely awesome resume, like Eisenhower, must go through OJT (On the Job Training) and it is their judgment and their willingness to learn that determines their success. Our system is set up that way. If we wanted something different, we'd adopt the parliamentary model.
Posted by Crward at 07/25/2007 @ 4:20pm
Posted by THRAWN 07/25/2007 @ 10:35am
Bad decisions? Try Gonzales v. Carhart or Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
Mask: Both these decisions are ones that Stevens signed on to the majority decision. So much for maximizing your freedom - and you are right, Hillary will likely - if she becomes president and can appoint anyone - appoint someone just like Stevens. Not something that counts as a plus by my reckoning.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/25/2007 @ 5:07pm
Hillary will likely - if she becomes president and can appoint anyone - appoint someone just like Stevens. Not something that counts as a plus by my reckoning.
Posted by SRJENKINS 07/25/2007 @ 5:07pm | ignore this person
can you see land from where you are with this kind of speculation?
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/25/2007 @ 5:27pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/25/2007 @ 5:27pm
You have to engage people where they are JOH. Mask, first and foremost, wants to make an argument that people should vote for a Democrat - any Democrat - because of the Supreme Court implications.
I'm basically pointing out that there isn't that much difference. You could of course also point out that the next president might not be able to make any appointments at all. Or a whole host of other problems in Mask's reasoning. By all means, chime in if you have something to say.
The most ironic part for me is that he talks about Stevens as some kind of idealistic judge rather than a relatively moderate right winger on a right wing court. The Goodyear decision especially irks because the only way you can find out about pay inequites in 180 days is if you have open books on salaries. Feel free to name any U.S. company that does that.
I also point out that any talk about presidential politics at this point is speculation - so, what's your point?
Posted by srjenkins at 07/25/2007 @ 6:44pm
ILP, Well one man's nightmare is another man's dream I guess
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 07/25/2007 @ 3:12pm
Don't piss the sheets when it happens.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/25/2007 @ 6:46pm
some things are more remote than others.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/25/2007 @ 6:54pm
According to The Smiths, "some girls are bigger than others"...relevant to this conversation? Don't think so.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/25/2007 @ 7:03pm
Bad decisions? Try Gonzales v. Carhart or Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
Mask: Both these decisions are ones that Stevens signed on to the majority decision. So much for maximizing your freedom - and you are right, Hillary will likely - if she becomes president and can appoint anyone - appoint someone just like Stevens. Not something that counts as a plus by my reckoning.
Posted by SRJENKINS 07/25/2007 @ 5:07pm
The first thing that should be noted, at the very beginning, is that the Court is (or ought be) constrained by two important things. First, precedent is important; the notion of stare decisis is central to judicial reasoning. Second, and more importantly, the Court's only grounds for overturning a law is the Constitution (otherwise it is going outside the grounds of the judicial power granted to it. This is also why "I don't like the outcomes they produce" isn't a good enough reason to say that these are bad judges.
That being said, I don't think your examples hold up. Let's look at Carhart first. In order for the Court to have overturned the law in question, they needed a clear constitutional grounds on which to do so. Assuming the validity of a right to abortion granted via privacy (a dubious foundation to begin with, and one which has increasingly, and correctly, come into question), the law is still valid insofar as it doesn't clearly pose a material threat to a woman's ability to obtain an abortion. The state can also claim a legitimate interest in drawing a clear boundary between a fetus and a child, which is precisely what it did in the statute.
Ledbetter I'm less familiar with. Again, though, it's not enough to say "I don't like the outcome," without even considering whether stare decisis might have played a substantial role in determining the Court's decision. They reasoned from the statute and precedent, so to criticize the decision, you'd actually have to show that their outcome didn't follow from existing law. Otherwise, the decision was absolutely correct.
Also...one bad decision does not a bad justice make.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/25/2007 @ 7:41pm
A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort.
Frankgrits,
Do you honestly think Hillary believed that George Bush would use this power wisely and as a last resort?
Did she have ANY indication of this from Bush prior to the vote?
Why not vote for a 'different' bill that forces the president to come back for authorization 'after' he has exhausted diplomatic means?
Posted by Metteyya at 07/25/2007 @ 8:06pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 07/25/2007 @ 7:03pm | ignore this person
who are The Smiths?
to speculate as to what kind of justice Hill will appoint may seem germane to you, but to me it seems a little far out. which is what I told you. I'm afraid that kibitzers are something you will have to get used to,when you post here.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/25/2007 @ 8:30pm
Posted by THRAWN 07/25/2007 @ 7:41pm
Let's see, what part of the Constitution was Rowe vs. Wade based on? Brown vs Board of Education?
You see, I don't live in the fairy tale land that pretends that justices - especially Supreme Court Justices - aren't making it all up as they go along and are not "activist judges", because there isn't any other kind.
Your reasoning could be countered that the state should only be concerned with its citizens. As such, it has no interest in people that are not citizens, much less those that aren't even people yet.
See, we can play games all day long and pretend that the ours is the official lily-white version approved by the founders in the Constitution. To which I could only say, you have no friggin' idea what the founders thought about abortion because it was a non-issue then.
As for your comment on the second case, it isn't even logically consistent with the position you are espousing here. You specifically say that decisions can only be based on the Constitution then you go further and claim that now suddenly case law is important.
But let's do a little mental exercise shall we? Let's pretend the same case came to the court 10 years ago. Same outcome? No. Why is that? Because it is being made up as we go along and now we have those that imagine that strict originalism is "true law". You can make up any justification you like but this new interpretation breaks with tradition or stare decisis - if you will.
Except now we have people pretending the new flavor of the month has been the original flavor all along. Pull my other leg, it plays jingle bells.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/25/2007 @ 9:01pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/25/2007 @ 8:30pm
The Smiths were the definitive British indie rock band of the '80s. It is germane if Mask is trying to use Supreme Court selections as a basis to encourage people to vote for the Democratic candidate, is it not?
Posted by srjenkins at 07/25/2007 @ 9:04pm
Pull my leg to kibbitz with the right,
Jingle bells sound from my shorts, oh so tight!
Good night, friends.
Posted by lewwelge at 07/25/2007 @ 9:40pm
Ok, I'm convinced. dems will appoint their judges, repubs will theirs. I hope this socalled pres doesn't get any more appointments. fior the next dem pres, I wish retirement of the fossils.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/25/2007 @ 9:42pm
"Hillary is not only experienced but she is a clear thinker as well. She doesn't rattle and she doesn't shoot from the hip..."
Frankgrits, I never intended to rest qualities of intelligence, experience and determination to Hillary. I would never doubt a minute to vote for her against any one of the red side.
My point is that she is so much part of the Democratic establishment ( I would rather say cupule) for such a long time, and co-responsible for this super moderate Democratic party that has tried over and over to negotiate with Bush. Nowadays you would rather want someone much bolder, fresh and capable of doing the right things even if they appear somewhat extreme.
People like Obama and Richardson fill the type. They are or have touched Washington (the establishment)tangentially, but are not seen as part of it, their unique personality and ideas take our attention and they are determined to change things right from the root. A majority of the Dem base wants a strong change I believe. Like a pendulum, as much as Bush went to the right, a Dem should turn to the left to counterbalance all of the ride to the back that has been done. Hopefully, those two will have possibility of being elected, even them being members of two minorities.
Hillary's talk is very good and focused, as I say she is a professional. Will she have the courage (guts) to go farther than Bill? I mean Bill's government was a good one but still several reforms (tax,education, health, etc) were just put aside. I know the man had fierce Hill opposition; he could have made stronger stands and points, though.
Well, we will leave it to see the outcome.
Posted by Frank42 at 07/25/2007 @ 9:49pm
LR, have you noticed the flooding in England and the heat wave rolling through the Caucasus'?
It matches up with your unusual winter. chaotic weather patterns.
Posted by CRABWALK 07/25/2007 @ 07:54am
Yo Crabs I might be a dumb Aussie but stoopid I ain't. Notice the pommies last had floods like that 60 years ago but some people are never happy. We call English migrants to Aus whinging pommie (bastards). Don't know about the Caucasus but last time I was in St Petersburg I noticed the women still sweep the streets and the men drink lots of Vodka. Did you know they drink standing up because if they drink sitting down they will fall over when the try to stand up? That's what I call a thirst so I don't think a bit of hot weather will slow them down or affect them one little bit.
Crabs, If it's hot its GW if it's cold it's GW, if it doesn't rain it's GW and if it pisses down it's GW. As I said I ain't stoopid.
Let me finish with the unofficial Aussie National Anthemn written many years ago to indicate that as far as weather goes nothing really changes. It just goes in cycles.
MY COUNTRY
by
Dorothea Mackellar (1885 - 1968)
The love of field and coppice,
Of green and shaded lanes.
Of ordered woods and gardens
Is running in your veins,
Strong love of grey-blue distance
Brown streams and soft dim skies
I know but cannot share it,
My love is otherwise.
********************
I love a sunburnt country,
A land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges,
Of droughts and flooding rains.
I love her far horizons,
I love her jewel-sea,
Her beauty and her terror -
The wide brown land for me!
***************************
A stark white ring-barked forest
All tragic to the moon,
The sapphire-misted mountains,
The hot gold hush of noon.
Green tangle of the brushes,
Where lithe lianas coil,
And orchids deck the tree-tops
And ferns the warm dark soil.
*****************************
Core of my heart, my country!
Her pitiless blue sky,
When sick at heart, around us,
We see the cattle die-
But then the grey clouds gather,
And we can bless again
The drumming of an army,
The steady, soaking rain.
*************************
Core of my heart, my country!
Land of the Rainbow Gold,
For flood and fire and famine,
She pays us back threefold-
Over the thirsty paddocks,
Watch, after many days,
The filmy veil of greenness
That thickens as we gaze.
*************************
An opal-hearted country,
A wilful, lavish land-
All you who have not loved her,
You will not understand-
Though earth holds many splendours,
Wherever I may die,
I know to what brown country
My homing thoughts will fly.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/25/2007 @ 10:01pm
Let's see, what part of the Constitution was Rowe vs. Wade based on? Brown vs Board of Education?
You see, I don't live in the fairy tale land that pretends that justices - especially Supreme Court Justices - aren't making it all up as they go along and are not "activist judges", because there isn't any other kind.
Your reasoning could be countered that the state should only be concerned with its citizens. As such, it has no interest in people that are not citizens, much less those that aren't even people yet.
See, we can play games all day long and pretend that the ours is the official lily-white version approved by the founders in the Constitution. To which I could only say, you have no friggin' idea what the founders thought about abortion because it was a non-issue then.
As for your comment on the second case, it isn't even logically consistent with the position you are espousing here. You specifically say that decisions can only be based on the Constitution then you go further and claim that now suddenly case law is important.
But let's do a little mental exercise shall we? Let's pretend the same case came to the court 10 years ago. Same outcome? No. Why is that? Because it is being made up as we go along and now we have those that imagine that strict originalism is "true law". You can make up any justification you like but this new interpretation breaks with tradition or stare decisis - if you will.
Except now we have people pretending the new flavor of the month has been the original flavor all along. Pull my other leg, it plays jingle bells.
Posted by SRJENKINS 07/25/2007 @ 9:01pm
Ah, OK, fantastic. Judges are nothing more than glorified politicians. I hope you're ready to accept the implication of your claim, though, namely that the Court has no right to judicial review. You see, the idea of judicial review is based on the power of the Court to adjudicate between conflicting law. While the Court may, under your system, be able to strike down state laws that conflict with federal law, it can never strike down federal laws. Ever. Why? Because if the Constitution has no determinate meaning (as you say), and is therefore not law, there is no higher law which can outweigh legislation which Congress passes. Ironically, under your framework, every abortion case in this century has been decided wrongly because state abortion laws certainly didn't contradict any existing federal law.
That's also, by the way, why I think it's interesting that you mention Roe. You're right, I do think that Roe was decided incorrectly. Brown was not; though some of the articulation of the decision leaned towards activism, its conclusion can very easily be grounded in originalist argumentation. If separate facilities are inherently unequal, "separate but equal" can never fulfill even the most narrowly construed intent of the Equal Protection Clause.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/25/2007 @ 10:41pm
Posted by LRJONES4 07/25/2007 @ 10:01pm
nice beat, I can dance to it
Posted by crabwalk at 07/25/2007 @ 10:47pm
Most experience?
Bill Richardson.
not too happy that he worked for Kissinger McLarty Associates, but we all have our sins. Maybe he learned how NOT to conduct foreign policy there.
And more meat for the cons:
"In 2006, Forbes credited Richardson's reforms in naming Albuquerque, New Mexico the best city in the U.S. for business and careers. The Cato Institute, meanwhile, has consistently rated Richardson as one of the most fiscally responsible Democratic governors in the nation."- WIKI
Posted by crabwalk at 07/25/2007 @ 11:07pm
Richardson, ain't going nowhere. vice maybe, but I doubt it.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/25/2007 @ 11:20pm
Posted by THRAWN 07/25/2007 @ 10:41pm
Judges are nothing more than glorified politicians.
True - the glorified being lifetime terms and in the case of the Supreme Court no accountability to the electorate.
I hope you're ready to accept the implication of your claim, though, namely that the Court has no right to judicial review.
Actually, this is an implication of YOUR claim. There is no basis for judicial review in the Constitution.
Judicial review, in practice, is a way for Congress to punt on an issue and have someone who is not accountable to the citizenry decide what they think the law should mean. If Congress, or more particularly the electorate, don't like the Supreme Court's decision, they pass another law, change the juristiction of the court, modify the Constitution or whatever.
You see, the idea of judicial review is based on the power of the Court to adjudicate between conflicting law.
Yep. You have the idea.
While the Court may, under your system...
Not my system, the real world we all live in. Not that make believe theory that they talked about in your philosophy of law class. But let's move on to the rest of your argument.
...be able to strike down state laws that conflict with federal law, it can never strike down federal laws. Ever. Why?
Yes, why? Could it be some made up reason based on your worldview that I don't share?
Because if the Constitution has no determinate meaning (as you say), and is therefore not law, there is no higher law which can outweigh legislation which Congress passes.
Yep, there we have it. The Constitution has no determinate meaning in respect to abortion. But the Constitution does say in Article III that the judical power shall be vested in the Supreme Court, yadda yadda yadda.
No reason that you can't simply say, the Supreme Court has this ability to adjudicate law. In fact, that is exactly what is done - real world, the one we live in. Look at that, we made it both Constitutional and gives the court the power to say what the law means based on the framework Congress has set up (deriviative of the Constitution but not based on it). Magic!
The rest of your argument pretends that this other theoretical world there are all these unfortunate outcomes and somehow misses the obvious answer. Why is that?
Ironically, under your framework, every abortion case in this century has been decided wrongly because state abortion laws certainly didn't contradict any existing federal law.
Again, this is a biproduct of your mental framework rather than something inherent in this discussion - such as your implied premises regarding Constitutionality (the very topic under discussion), so-called states rights, etc.
Let me also take a moment to say, I'm not saying that this is the way the world ought to be. I'm saying it is the way the world IS. The world does not conform to your theoretical model as your attempts at astute legal reasoning, particularly on Roe vs. Wade, demonstrate.
That's also, by the way, why I think it's interesting that you mention Roe. You're right, I do think that Roe was decided incorrectly.
How could that be in the perfect theoretical world we live in where the nation's founders decided everything up front including what we should have for breakfast?
Brown was not; though some of the articulation of the decision leaned towards activism, its conclusion can very easily be grounded in originalist argumentation.
Amusing assumption here is that there is no such thing as originalist activism. Is Scalia not an activist when he has a complete disregard of common law (upon which American jurisprudence is based) and his fascination with textualism? Everybody is an activist - perhaps especially Scalia with his historical revisionism regarding the Constitution and his attempts to divine the true meanings with the help of his dusty old dictionaries.
All this talk about what the Constitution really says is like those that read obscure passages of the Bible (Koran, pick your favorite scripture) asserting that God spoke to them and revealed the true meaning of it - with true meaning being some crazy-ass notion that someone should die.
Oddly, the fact that you find all of just how the world ought to work, demonstrates my point. Whatever the flavor you subscribe to, it's always the original - whether you are a positivist, textualist, or someone that believes in the living constitution. All of these views are the "right view"? Or is only one right - which means all the decision based on other reasons have no basis? Or could it be, it is all made up? Hmmm. I'll take door number 3 - because it fits the facts.
If separate facilities are inherently unequal, "separate but equal" can never fulfill even the most narrowly construed intent of the Equal Protection Clause.
Yet, if Earl Warren didn't join the court, this decision would have went the other way. Now tell me about the stability of law and how it isn't about people's opinions again.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/26/2007 @ 12:43am
Posted by SRJENKINS 07/26/2007 @ 12:43am
Unfortunately, your post fails to answer the fundamental question that I raised: if judges just do what you say they do (and it's far from obvious that they do, see, the existence of competing scholarship on the subject), how in the world can judicial review be justified?
As you've pointed out, justices on the Supreme Court get lifetime terms with no accountability to the electorate whatsoever. So then the question becomes "why should these people get to override democratically-elected legislatures?"
One answer could be "they know better than we do," but this answer is obviously problematic, not only because there's no obvious reason why judges would somehow be amazing guardians of truth and justice, but also because even if they did, it would be anathema to a democratic system to let nine unaccountable leaders dictate the direction of a country based solely on their own preferences.
In order for an institution like the Supreme Court to be justified, it thus has to make itself consistent with democracy. The way that it does that is by striking down laws only when they explicitly conflict with the Constitution (or when state laws conflict with national ones). That way, their actions are still tied into democracy by virtue of working within the strictures of democratically-accepted law. The implication of this, by the way, is necessarily originalism, because a text cannot be law if it has no determinate meaning (your strawman of originalism notwithstanding).
The conclusion of my argument is simple: if you're right, the Supreme Court has no right to exercise the power of judicial review.
However, I don't think you're right. There are numerous documented cases of where judges have had incredible contempt for a law, and yet chosen to let it stand because they could find no violation in the Constitution (Hugo Black was a fascinating example of this). The mere fact that judges can disagree on the particular implications of a law (as people can on virtually any law) does not mean that the law has no determinate content whatsoever; it would be obviously fallacious, for example, to suggest that a right to abortion could be defended based on the First Amendment.
So ultimately, I don't think your position is correct. Even if it were correct, however, you will have won only a Pyhrric victory, because your position annihilates any legitimacy that judicial review can claim.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/26/2007 @ 02:20am
Well, it would appear that the Republicans definitely rush to Hillary's defense, and that her thinking is the most accessible to them of all the Democratic Party candidates. And this should make sense to us, because, really, Hillary is a Republican, like Joe Lieberman, just with a different name.
Posted by ZERO 07/25/2007 @ 10:26am |
Zero it wasn't so much that she was/is a closet Republican but rather that in 2002 she represented the cross party consensus on the desirability of removing Saddam and on Iraq's WMD capability. It was nice of Frank to introduce this piece of evidence that shows just how mainstream Bush was. It is the "apostates" like Hillary who need to give a better reason for their capitulation. Bush on this issue is solid gold. It seems he assumed, perhaps naively, that all those House and Senate politicians meant what they said and drafted into legislation, such as the Iraq Liberation Act 1998.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/26/2007 @ 08:03am
JENKINS ve THRAWN
reality vs theory.
why do the neo-cons worship at these utopian alters then blame progressives for dreaming?
Posted by crabwalk at 07/26/2007 @ 08:54am
Why is wanting judges to be bound by the rule of law rather than being philosopher-kings utopian?
Posted by Thrawn at 07/26/2007 @ 09:34am
Posted by THRAWN 07/26/2007 @ 09:34am
Utopia: "a place of ideal perfection especially in laws, government, and social conditions". Given the definition, what other label should we apply to your assertion of ideals that don't match the facts?
It is a fact, even by your own assertion, that decisions are made that do not reflect the Constitution at all and even when they do perhaps your dusty dictionary brings you to a different conclusion that Scalia's dusty dictionary. What of that? If law is a calculus, why don't the decisions have the Consistency of calculus?
I sympathize with wanting a logically consistent judicial system and the rule of law. I'm simply saying we don't have such a system and creating one based on your ideas cannot happen. So, given that set of facts, what value does your argument really provide?
Posted by THRAWN 07/26/2007 @ 02:20am
If judges just do what you say they do (and it's far from obvious that they do, see, the existence of competing scholarship on the subject), how in the world can judicial review be justified?
Actually, I did answer this question.
No reason that you can't simply say, the Supreme Court has this ability to adjudicate law...[the Constitution] gives the court the power to say what the law means based on the framework Congress has set up (deriviative of the Constitution but not based on it).
Your use of the word "justified" brings in a moral claim. I'm not making any moral claims. I'm saying that the Supreme Court does have judicial review - whether it is justified or not and how it might be made to be more democratic are not problems I'm addressing.
Let's also look at it another way. If they do have judicial review and your mental model suggests that this is not possible or justified, what is the first thing that occurs to you? That the Supreme Court does not have judicial review? It does. When it has exercised this power, do the decisions match what one would expect if the world worked according to your mental model? No, it doesn't. That leads me to suspect that whatever the moral standing of your argument, the mental model does not reflect the facts.
I can point to many examples where my explanation matches the facts. I used Roe and Brown but I could have used any number of cases where there was any dissenting opinions or a unanimous decision that was based on a Constitutional interpretation that differed from previous Supreme Court decisions.
What evidence do you have that the world works the way that your theoretical model predicts? Is all the scholarship that you suggest is out there making the "ought" claims about how the world should work or are the based on evidence? I know the great bulk of it is the former.
I'd love for you to site particular works arguing that when positivism was all the rage that somehow your interpretation of the law was how decisions were made. I know this work doesn't exist because it's absurd.
You're making ought claims and pretending that is reality. I think people ought to be reasonable and be nice to each other. Does it mean people are that way - even for a significant part of the time? I'd be a fool to go out in the world and pretend what I thought ought to be the case is the way the world is. And you are making a similar mistake here.
Legal realism, may not be how we want the world to work, but it is the legal theory that best matches the facts.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/26/2007 @ 3:15pm
SRJ: from Corn's thread:
------------------------------------
Do yourself a favor and learn more about this topic - because this statement is simply false. Media Matters by Robert McChesney is one useful book among many. The following link is also instructive.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/03/and_then_there_were_eigh t.pdf
Posted by SRJENKINS 07/25/2007 @ 6:58pm
Ok, did myself the favor as you suggested.....and frankly, I found the graph not in support of your argument!
With minor exceptions (ie: GE/NBC, MSNBC, Disney/ABC and a few other `news' names), the overwhelming proportion of consolidations highlighted were in the realm of entertainment and/or advertising!
Not knowing how well you follow the rather large media industry (yes, I own media stocks), your MotherJones piece left out a LARGE universe of actual news gatherers or Op-Ed sources.....just off the top of my head, with Parent co. w/most well-known subsidiary:
Dow Jones (Wall St. Journal)
New York Times Co. (NYT)
Tribune Co. (LA Times & Chicago Tribune)
Gannette USA (USA Today)
Hearst Corp. (Houston Chronicle & ?San Diego Daily?)
Washington Post Co. (WaPo)
Reuters
Newsweek
Associated Press
Now, THAT's what I call the actual news originators or gatherers and opinion-influencing MEDIA!
While we are at it, let's not overlook GLOBAL sources of news, in any major language....all available just a click or search away! Even on small scales, you've got The Nation and MotherJones!
Sorry, your fear-mongering of media consolidation is overblown....even if Murdock buys Dow Jones and Sam Zell have a career change and takes down Tribune Co.
Posted by Happy at 07/26/2007 @ 3:59pm
Saw it and responded in that thread. Been checking out The Nation only when I have some time, something I don't have as much of these days.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/26/2007 @ 7:11pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 07/26/2007 @ 3:15pm
What I really think is happening is that our arguments are effectively talking past one another, because the clash is at a "framework-level." You accept legal realism and I don't, and since our arguments proceed from those respective theoretical assumptions, the only way to resolve this dispute (other than, say, resorting to wizards' chess or just doing a good old-fashioned duel, Zell Miller-style) is to get at that core issue.
First of all, I have to admit that there is some grain of truth to your analysis. It's true that Supreme Court justices are often tempted to remake the law in their own image, and sometimes succumb to that temptation (particularly when trendy theory seems to justify it). I don't, though, think that it's nearly as common as you seem to suggest. In many cases, judges have held back on striking down policies distasteful to them because they couldn't find adequate Constitutional warrant for invalidating the law.
I think that judges are often in-between, torn by conflicting legal impulses, and in a lot of cases, will go with the Constitution as they understand it, which (of course) brings in the next issue. You're also right to suggest that there are differing interpretations of what the Constitution was originally understood to mean. That's why we have human beings and not computers placed in the position of interpreting the law. It's not because we expect them to act as superior moral arbiters, but because we ask them to make judgment calls confined as closely as possible to what the law itself says. That often isn't easy, but it's the only way for a system to remain democratic. For that reason, if a judge came to confirmation who would uphold Roe but gave even halfway decent justification for doing so, I would have no objection whatsoever to that person being confirmed.
Ultimately, I just don't think that an absolute legal realism can account for the kinds of decisions that we see in our judicial system. Nor do I believe that moral justifications don't matter, and based on your attacks on conservatives in general and Bush in particular, I don't think you believe it either. When an institution is democratically illegitimate, that's a real problem, but I don't think our judiciary has that problem, because in most cases, they make a strong effort to adjudicate rather than legislate.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/27/2007 @ 12:56am
Posted by THRAWN 07/27/2007 @ 12:56am
I'll agree it's a framework issue. I don't think a theory based on a strict constitutional interpretation accurately describes the world. I'll even agree that a belief in the Constitution may exercise suasion over the decision making process, but then again so do politics, the social questions of the day, the judge's home life and various other factors. At the end of the day, it's human beings - for the most part - making an effort to be just on behalf of society.
The last bit is where you and I differ that is somewhat of a artifact of our respective philosophical frameworks. I don't think justices should try to follow the letter of the law as they understand it. I think justices should follow of the spirit of the law as it applies to a specific situation and a specific time that factors in everything from the Constitution, common law, social conditions in society and so forth. In other words, I'm thinking of justices with the wisdom of Solomon not justices blindly applying Leviticus hundreds of years later to a different time and completely different situation. In a word, justices need good judgment - and thinking their job is just following the instructions is proof positive that they don't have it.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/27/2007 @ 01:31am
In other words, I'm thinking of justices with the wisdom of Solomon not justices blindly applying Leviticus hundreds of years later to a different time and completely different situation. In a word, justices need good judgment - and thinking their job is just following the instructions is proof positive that they don't have it.
Posted by SRJENKINS 07/27/2007 @ 01:31am
I think your example here is incredibly telling. So you are looking for a kind of "philosopher-king," then?
Posted by Thrawn at 07/27/2007 @ 08:00am
I think your example here is incredibly telling. So you are looking for a kind of "philosopher-king," then?
Posted by THRAWN 07/27/2007 @ 08:00am | ignore this person
this is a bridge too far, so to speak. neither the word nor the concept of "king" has appeared in SR's post. only in yours. don't smoke too near the strawman you have erected.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/27/2007 @ 09:21am
Posted by THRAWN 07/27/2007 @ 08:00am
Solomon is an example of good judgment. I'm not arguing for the political system to which he belonged - didn't even suggest it as Johannesrolf correctly points out.
I think it is more telling that you make this demarcation between your supposedly correct view and "philosopher-king" . First, I find it odd you add quotes since I've never used the term before now because I am not particularly sympathic to Plato's Republic - being anti-authoritarian and all that. Second, with some imagination, you might be able to think of alternatives - such as immediately recallable justices or other mechanisms - that would make the reality more democratic.
Being a anti-authoritarian also means that I don't particularly care for having people in a position to judge at all. But, unfortunately, I don't see much of an alternative and if we are going to have them, let them at least be wise and not bound by some ideas that they have to follow the letter and by doing so violate the spirit. It was exactly this quality that Christ hated about the Pharisees, and I think, for good reason.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/27/2007 @ 09:42am
Posted by SRJENKINS 07/27/2007 @ 09:42am | ignore this person
Pharisees, we got 'em, Liberty, who spends most his time insulting other people, being the most prominent.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/27/2007 @ 09:54am
there's something else that isn't in the constitution...
executive privilege
Posted by Will C. at 07/28/2007 @ 02:10am
yet the strict constructionists swear by it.
Posted by Will C. at 07/28/2007 @ 02:10am
lifetime judicial appointments are also in the constitution, yet the strict constructionists can't stop bitching whining and moaning about them
Posted by Will C. at 07/28/2007 @ 02:12am