For Sotomayor, Against the Confirmation Process

Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold joined fellow Democrats and one Republican (South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham) on the winning side of last week's 13-6 vote on the Senate Judiciary Committee to approve the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

But the chair the Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on the Constitution wishes he knew a little more about the thinking of the woman who is now all but certain to be confirmed before the Senate breaks next week for the traditional August recess.

"I cannot say that I learned everything about Judge Sonia Sotomayor that I would have liked to learn," he said in an endorsement of President Barack Obama's first high court nominee by the Judiciary Committee's most determined defender of the Constitution. "But what I did learn about her makes me believe that that she will serve with distinction on the Court, and that I should vote in favor of her confirmation."

Feingold's measure of whether a nominee is serious about maintaining a system of checks and balances and protecting basic liberties is an important one. To a greater extent than other members of the Judiciary Committee or the Senate as a whole, he has been willing to stand alone when it comes to Constitutional questions. That has put the Wisconsin Democrat at odds not just with totalitarian Republicans like former Vice President Dick Cheney but with compromising Democrats such as former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle.

To Feingold's view, Obama's nominee meets Constitutional muster.

"Judge Sotomayor's record and testimony satisfied me that she understands the important role of the Court in protecting civil liberties, even in a time of war," the senator said. "She sat on a Second Circuit panel that struck down portions of the National Security Letter statute that was so dramatically expanded by the Patriot Act. And when I asked her how September 11 changed her view of the law, she gave the following answer: 'The Constitution is a timeless document. It was intended to guide us through decades, generation after generation, to everything that would develop in our country. It has protected us as a nation. It has inspired our survival. That doesn't change.'"

Feingold said he was especially impressed with Judge Sotomayor's answer to a question regarding the judicial decisions relating to the forced internment of Japanese citizens during World War II. In arguing that the nominee recognizes the awesome responsibility of jurists to prevent assaults of basic freedoms, he cited a response by the judge to one of his questions regarding the internment issue: "A judge should never rule from fear. A judge should rule from law and the Constitution."

"Those words give me hope that she will have the courage to defend the liberties of the American people from an overreaching executive or legislative branch," explained Feingold. "At the same time, she appreciates the deference the judiciary must give to the legislature as it seeks to solve the problems facing the American people. I don't see in her record or in her public statements a burning desire to overturn precedent or to remake constitutional law in the image of her own personal preference, and I certainly don't see bias of any kind. I was also impressed with her record and statements during the hearing on judicial ethics. Judge Sotomayor seems to understand that the extraordinary power she will wield as a Justice must be accompanied by extraordinary care to guard against any apparent conflict of interest."

That's about as warm an endorsement as a court nominee has gotten from Feingold.

Yet it was not an unqualified endorsement.

Said the senator, "I do want to express a note of dissatisfaction. Not with you certainly, or with my colleagues, and not with Judge Sotomayor, but with a nominations process that I think fails to educate the Senate or the public about the views of potential Justices on the Supreme Court. I've said before that I do not understand why the only person who cannot express an opinion on virtually anything the Supreme Court has done in recent years is the person from whom the American public most needs to hear."

Feingold explained that:

"It makes no sense to me that the current Justices can hear future cases notwithstanding the fact that we know their views on a legal issue because they wrote or joined an opinion in a previous case that raised a similar issue, but nominees for the Court can refuse to tell us what they think about that previous case under the theory that doing so would compromise their independence or their ability to keep an open mind in a future case.

I remain unconvinced that the dodge that all nominees now use – 'I can't answer that question because the issue might come before me on the Court' – is justified. These hearings have become little more than theater, where senators try to ask clever questions and nominees try to come up with cleverer ways to respond without answering. This problem certainly did not start with these hearings or this nominee, but perhaps it is inevitable. The chances of the Senate rejecting a nominee who adopts this strategy are very remote, based on the recent history of nominations. Nonetheless, I do not think it makes for meaningful advice and consent."

Political insiders on both sides of the partisan and ideological aisle will note Feingold's endorsement of Judge Sotomayor's nomination and pay scant attention to the rest of what the senator said.

Those who take seriously the role of the Senate in checking and balancing presidents by providing advice and consent regarding high court nominees should recognize that Feingold's most important message has to do with the need for Congress to renew the separation of powers provisions of our battered Constitution.

Comments (50)

1. Ahhh, the Nichols-Feingold love affair continues...

   When Johnny Met Rusty.

   Seriously, I like Senator Feingold, but

   Mr Nichols, is there NOBODY else in the US Senate you like? I mean, enough to devote a column every two weeks praising them as the best thing since sliced bread?

   Posted by Mask at 07/28/2009 @ 11:06am

2. I remain extremely disgusted by Sotomeyer's handling of the New Haven firefighter's case. It was a no-brainer for her when it should have extracted much deeper thought, something she will have to supply on the SC.

   However, overall, her record doesn't reflect extreme views at all. Plus, she'll be replacing a Justice who is of the same ilk. Justices Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Kennedy aren't going anywhere for awhile unless the almighty has other plans. This will be Obama's only shot to keep the SC in the present makeup. The legislature knows this and it would be foolish for the republicans to mount any kind of resistance to her confirmation.

   Posted by gunslinger1 at 07/28/2009 @ 11:40am

3. That's SotoMAYOR, oops.

   Posted by gunslinger1 at 07/28/2009 @ 11:40am

4. Posted by gunslinger1 at 07/28/2009 @ 11:40am

   Actually in a week or so, that's "United States Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor".

   Posted by Mask at 07/28/2009 @ 12:19pm

5. Posted by Mask at 07/28/2009 @ 11:06am | ignore this person | warn this person

   It's called lobbying for a job if Feingold ever becomes President.

   Posted by urmygyro at 07/28/2009 @ 2:02pm

6. Posted by Mask at 07/28/2009 @ 12:19pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   Actually it's "Associate Justice Sotomayor"

   and the Chief Justice, incidentally, is often called the "Chief Justice of the Supreme Court."

   That is also incorrect. It's "Chief Justice of the United States."

   Posted by urmygyro at 07/28/2009 @ 2:05pm

7. Posted by urmygyro at 07/28/2009 @ 2:05pm

   I stand corrected.

   Posted by Mask at 07/28/2009 @ 2:25pm

8. John--this blog reviews complete political pandering by Feingold. If Feingold is truly interested in separation of powers then he should realize he shouldn't be asking potential Justices how they would rule in hypothetical cases. There's a rule in the judicial system against giving "advisory opinions." This means judges make judgments only when an actual case is in front of them. And the senators don't even give the nominees a hypothetical fact pattern and ask them to make a ruling of law on it. No, they just, as Feingold accurately stated, engage in "theater" asking "clever questions" in an attempt to get the nominees to reveal how they might rule on an issue. But that's not how the work of judging is done. Ruling on a case requires facts.

   Plus, who's the last nominee to the Supreme Court that wasn't federal or state judge (I believe Earl Warren was the last) and thus didn't have a judicial record the Senators could look at? Their records are plenty to look at to glean their "judicial philosophies" and allow the Senators to make an educated guess about what type of Justice the nominee would be--thus a lack of true "advise and consent" is an empty complaint.

   Let's see if Feingold puts his money where his mouth is. Next time a nominee comes before the committee, perhaps he won't engage in "theater" and "clever questioning."

   Posted by urmygyro at 07/28/2009 @ 2:29pm

9. also, for those truly "concerned" with separation of powers---the President is the head of the Executive Branch. Last I checked, that's one of the three "co-equal" branches of the federal government. The President won an election to hold his office (I'm against the electoral system, personally, but that's a different story; the electoral system far more times than not reflects the popular vote) thus his nominee should be respected unless the nominee has glaring unqualifications (and I'm not talking differences in judicial philosophy--like someone who believes in a living constitution versus an originalist, which, by the way, are not mutually exclusive ideologies, although they're often portrayed as such).

   Also, judicial nominees are not guaranteed to reflect the politics of the President that nominates them.

   George H.W. Bush nominated Souter who was liberal on the Court.

   Gerald Ford nominated Stevens who was liberal on the Court.

   Richard Nixon nominated Blackmun who was liberal on the Court.

   John Kennedy nominated White who was conservative on the Court.

   Dwight Eisenhower nominated Brennan who was extremely liberal on the Court. He also nominated Warren whose tenure as Chief Justice saw quite possibly the most liberal Court in the Court's history.

   Franklin Roosevelt nominated Jackson and Frankfurter who were both quite conservative on the Court.

   Herbert Hoover nomianted Cardozo who was quite liberal on teh Court.

   We can go all the way back to Thomas Jefferson, an anti-federalist, whose three nominees were dominated by the federalist Chief Justice John Marshall

   Posted by urmygyro at 07/28/2009 @ 2:45pm

10. Mr Nichols, is there NOBODY else in the US Senate you like? I mean, enough to devote a column every two weeks praising them as the best thing since sliced bread?

    Posted by Mask at 07/28/2009 @ 11:06am

    well, you pay a lot for that bread -- might as well demand quality.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/28/2009 @ 3:42pm

11. The Borgen Project has some good information on the cost of addressing global poverty (www.borgenproject.org). It only takes $30 billion annually to end world hunger! Yet... we are spending $550 billion annually on the defense budget.

    Posted by hawaiianchica423 at 07/28/2009 @ 5:12pm

12. The price of fame...people want to know you better..esp. playing games w/taxes. Gates needs to go study under Charlie Rangel! Oh, note the irony that Gates sit on the board that reported his tax schemes......sorry, I mean, mistakes!

    From the TaxProf Blog:

    July 28, 2009

    Henry Louis Gates' Tax Problem

    From Inside Higher Ed:

    A foundation created and led by Henry Louis Gates Jr. is amending its federal tax form after questions were raised about $11,000 paid to foundation officers -- funds that the original tax form called research grants, but that should have been classified as compensation, ProPublica reported. When the payments are accounted for accurately, the foundation's administrative expenses will account for 40% of its spending in 2007, not 1% as originally reported to the IRS. Gates created the Inkwell Foundation with the goal of supporting work on African and African-American literature, history and culture, the article said. The report by ProPublica also noted that some of the actual grants went to people close to Gates. Gates told ProPublica that the foundation's second-largest grant, for $6,000, went to his fiancée, Angela DeLeon,. DeLeon was formerly on the foundation board and Gates said he recused himself from a vote on the grant. A grant of $500 went to Evelyn Higginbotham, chair of the foundation's board and chair of Harvard University's Department of African and African-American studies. Gates said she didn't vote on the grant. ProPublica is an organization that conducts investigative journalism. The article noted that Gates -- the Harvard scholar who is a leading figure in African-American studies whose arrest at his home has set off a national debate about the way black men are treated by law enforcement -- also serves on ProPublica's board

    Posted by Happy at 07/28/2009 @ 5:54pm

13. Silly me.

    All along, I thought this thread was about Sotomayor and the confirmation process.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/28/2009 @ 8:18pm

14. yeah; happy--take that gates talk to the approriate thread.

    Posted by urmygyro at 07/28/2009 @ 8:29pm

15. All along, I thought this thread was about Sotomayor and the confirmation process.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/28/2009 @ 8:18pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    yeah; happy--take that gates talk to the approriate thread.

    Posted by urmygyro at 07/28/2009 @ 8:29pm

    Ha! I have been really, really busy studying up on Vegas real estate. Drops in 4+ hours later, I can just see this thread is thriving!

    Sotomayor is now, uninteresting news, that's a fact!

    Posted by Happy at 07/28/2009 @ 11:00pm

16. Sotomayor, is that in Japan or Korea?

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/28/2009 @ 11:20pm

17. Apart from anything having to do with Sonya Sotomayor as a person, or her religion, it can be categorically asserted that the Supreme Court of the United States must not be packed with a 2/3 Catholic majority. With seventy six percent of Americans non-Catholic, that is a whopping reversal of legal orientation whereever issues of potential conflict arise.

    Several very large issues of this sort affecting national discourse await the pleasure of the next Court. They will arbitrate laws passed by Congress concerning who Americans are, how we think of each other, and our standing in the world,

    One such issue is abortion. Although anti-abortion politics did not begin as Catholic, but with Randal Terry's Operation Rescue monement here in Binghamton, Catholic politicians are constantly harangued about Roe v Wade by the hierarchy. Sinful America we are, to them. Anti-abortionists want the federal government to predicate on fetuses in the womb, as entities separate from mothers, protected by rights under law. Special designators, e.g., "the unborn", are introduced to serve as subjects of such predicates. Those who think this way invite state control of female interiors; mothers who accept such views tacitly express willingness to give their children to it. Ms. Sotomayor may think of herself as a surrogate mother of The Unborn through the Law. . Another impending issue in national discourse is so called gay marriage. The legal issues relating to this pivot on use of this word, marriage. "Aw shucks, let ‘em do it," blogged one wiseacre. With its deep, sacral resonance based on millennia of tradition, no legal body on earth has the authority to reverse, or even tinker with its meaning. tbc

    Posted by jones at 07/29/2009 @ 12:23am

18. "Another impending issue in national discourse is so called gay marriage. The legal issues relating to this pivot on use of this word, marriage. "Aw shucks, let ‘em do it," blogged one wiseacre. With its deep, sacral resonance based on millennia of tradition, no legal body on earth has the authority to reverse, or even tinker with its meaning."

    50% success rate is all it takes to be "sacred" huh?

    another person who thinks gays will threaten the "sanctity" of marriage.

    Posted by urmygyro at 07/29/2009 @ 12:30am

19. That meaning is climaxed by sexual union leading to reproduction. Sexual union. in turn, is climaxed with ecstatic pleasure; the shift of origins of sensations leading to nature's culmination, some say God's, is a reversal of the union that terminates this highest expression; this blocks the inner ‘taste' of the process required for completing ecstasis of the soul itself.

    Perhaps it is the Catholic understanding that freedom of religion, originally extended to them in American, even though the bloody 30 years war of the 17th century in Europe was fought and won by Protestants fighting for just that right against them, leads consistently to extension of "marriage" to those of same sex. As if what were given to them deserved to be gladly passed on. That would be entirely understandable, but it would block the assumed sense and significance of "marriage" shared by the 74% Protestant, and Protestant secularized, majority.

    A third issue is torture. Verbal depictions of what was going on at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, plus the pictures, released and unreleased, go considerably beyond waterboarding torture. In fact, that term washboards, or whitewashes, sadistic terror, the psychosexual equivalent of evil dramatized for all time, for all to see and know who did what to whom. Jimmy Carter has called for release of all photos.

    Perhaps American minds are so destroyed by drugs, sex and TV, as John Lennon said, and Alec Baldwin's Superbowl XLIII hulu TV commercial showed, they could really use a good Catholic Mom appointed to the Supreme Court, bearing the ‘superior wisdom' (cf. Aunt Jemima) required to pragmatically adapt post-911 U.S.law to the exigencies of a situation old white traditional males have created for themselves and can't deal with. tbs

    Posted by jones at 07/29/2009 @ 12:31am

20. Other Catholic members of the Court might well take the same view, even while its 1/3 minority representing the 76% public majority might see this going on and be unable to speak up without sounding anti-Catholic. Philosophically, this counts as ‘framing' our understanding of the historical situation.

    Sid Thomas, Ph.D.

    Associate Professor of Philosophy, emeritus State University of New York at Binghamton

    Posted by jones at 07/29/2009 @ 12:32am

21. "That meaning is climaxed by sexual union leading to reproduction."

    --so what about childless heterosexual marriages? why don't they get scrutinized for not adding to the population?

    " Sexual union. in turn, is climaxed with ecstatic pleasure;"

    --i'm willing to bet many gay couples have more ecstacy than heterosexual couples

    "the shift of origins of sensations leading to nature's culmination, some say God's, is a reversal of the union that terminates this highest expression; this blocks the inner ‘taste' of the process required for completing ecstasis of the soul itself."

    you lose me when you incorporate "God" and "soul" into a secular definition of marriage

    Posted by urmygyro at 07/29/2009 @ 01:08am

22. "Other Catholic members of the Court might well take the same view, even while its 1/3 minority representing the 76% public majority might see this going on and be unable to speak up without sounding anti-Catholic. Philosophically, this counts as ‘framing' our understanding of the historical situation."

    --the oppressed WASPS of America must united to protect their 3/4 population advantage over the rest of the country. enough is enough with the lack of opportunity white protestants have at getting married and being happy.

    Posted by urmygyro at 07/29/2009 @ 01:12am

23. p.s.--jones, why did you not provide a link to the copy-and-paste job you provided in those two posts? those aren't your words (unless you're Sid Thomas)

    Posted by urmygyro at 07/29/2009 @ 01:53am

24. I guess this article on Sotomayor is the place to air my gripe about Honduras.

    For seven of the last eight years I have endured undless bitching about how Bush shreaded the Constitution. Our own John Nichols wrote a book about how important impeachment is. He also wrote an article every other week predicting that next week the House was going to impeach Bush for his violations of the Constitution.

    Invariably, his supposed crimes related to "lies". He didn't really believe the tubes were for centrifuses so even though he is technically correct, they COULD be used for centrifuses, Bush KNEW that Centrifuses were not the intended purpose so that means he lide. In order to convict Bush, you need to know something unknowable: What Bush was thinking and what his motivation was.

    Down in Honduras, the Honduran Constituion says that any President taking action to extend his term is automatically stripped of office. The key here is action, not motivation. Ex-president Zelaya let a violent mob that stormed an Air Force base to steal referrendum ballots sent by Chavez to have a vote on EXTENDING THE PRESIDENT'S TERM. Because this is a clear, unambiguous violation of the Honduran Constitution, the Honduran Supreme court voted 15-0 to remove the Zelaya. (This vote included 8 members of Zelaya's party.)

    And now The Nation cheers when the US imposes sanctions against Honduras.

    I guess the message is, "Silly Hondurans, Constitutional protection are for US Citizens, not Central Americans."

    The stench of hypocrisy is appaling.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/29/2009 @ 06:23am

25. The stench of hypocrisy is appaling.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/29/2009 @ 06:23am

    Last I saw, every govt in Central America has condemned Zelayas removal, along with most other western democracies. A coalition of the willingly hypocritical? Oh, no. Coalitions are now made up of minorities.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/29/2009 @ 06:36am

26. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/29/2009 @ 06:23am |

    "I guess the message is, 'Silly Hondurans, Constitutional protection are for US Citizens, not Central Americans.'

    The stench of hypocrisy is appaling."

    You can almost smell the tomatoes from here...or at Chipotle.

    undless: adj both unending and endless, yes, that infinitely, pedantically infinite.

    Posted by snowball777 at 07/29/2009 @ 07:28am

27. "He didn't really believe the tubes were for centrifuses so even though he is technically correct, they COULD be used for centrifuses"---Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/29/2009 @ 06:23am

    If Saddam had hired MacGyver.

    Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 08:07am

28. Yep,I'm Sid Thomas and the words are mine. The piece was published as Viewpoint in local Binghamton paper last week.

    The ONLY other reference to SS making 6/9 Catholics on the U.S. Supreme Court was in The New York Sun, to wit: http://www.nysun.com/opinion/sotomayor-and-spellman/86872/

    "The United States Supreme Court Justices are there for life. If confirmed, Judge Sotomayor will be the first Hispanic on the bench and bring to six out of nine the number of Catholics. She will no longer have to look over her shoulder for assurance from liberal peers. Here is one Newyorican who hopes that maybe, just maybe, she will be able to give the Constitution and unborn Americans the honor they deserve."

    One blogger attacked it for accusing the RC hierarchy of haranguing U.S. politicians the way right wing Likuds harass Emanuel ("remember you are Jewish!"). They nothing odd about this stunning situation. The editor of the (Black) Sun covered that: "If the question of abortion arises during the confirmation hearings, it will be interesting to hear how Judge Sotomayor addresses this issue. Is she a Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Thomas Catholic or a Pelosi, Kerrey, Biden, Kennedy Catholic?'

    How odd to be the only one defing this clear and present danger to principle of democracy on which the nation was founded. Its like being the only one left to point out that ejaculation leaving the most sacred substance of the human body deposited on feces cannot,in principle, complete the subjective side sexual intercourse is about. The same stuff just doesn't get through to the brain. You can tell by the way they act (from buddies to romantic first nights for Newly Married's bliss! --whoopee blow job lip simulacra, like Bruno says that Man 'o God has! $24.95 at Sugarlakes)

    Posted by jones at 07/29/2009 @ 08:46am

29. Since I have, in fact, anticipated that, soul cucklolded as SS may -- none of them seem to have any fathers, except Hillary Rodham Clinton, and look how his brat turned out; fatherless children, all, which is why the can'y sell the nanny state budget -- too much "killer mommy" except for those used to such (kids who are allowed to curse their mother wihout correction; why wouldn't they grow up to do Abu Ghraib?). It's this: She will be seen squired around town squired by no other than ... Sasha Baron Cohen! King Of the Gay Jew hate baiters! LOL U hRd it here1st.

    From my blog "Black Sun Over the Palisades"

    BRUNO  "I AM A GAY AMERICAN" (…friend over there .. Golan Cipel, NJ Homeland Security liason, and dual citizen of Israel) <=anti-Prop. 8 GAY MARRIAGE AGENDA TO MILK THE WHITE CASH COW GOYEEM. ) And Queen…

    There has simply been too much homosexuality in politic to avoid notice, except by compulsive psychological avoidance and denial. They not only came out; they came out and took over – or would, at least, if Bruno had his way with your mind, as he apparently has millions of others. Such over-the-top sustained, wanton debauchery is equalled in film only by Pasolini's Salo: 120 Days in Sodom. Pasolini's child pornographers were ultimate high-up fascist-capitalists. Bruno is a buggered kid from Austria, teabagging balls to the forehead of "rightwingers" all. From Arnie's army (Schwarzenegger weilding BIG hunting knife) to Ron Paul's posse, thowing eminem under the angel's butt, this covers the waterfront for insulting those who react to homosexual forms of intercourse with revulsion. They are put in the position of waiting for a shameless child to get through trying to shock grown-ups by disgusting behavior. It is characteristic of an inferior human type

    Posted by jones at 07/29/2009 @ 09:20am

30. If Saddam had hired MacGyver.

    Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 08:07am

    unfortunately for him he hired macgruber.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/29/2009 @ 11:13am

31. just maybe, she will be able to give the Constitution and unborn Americans the honor they deserve."

    Posted by jones

    To be an American you have to either be naturalized or born in America. Therefor those unborns aren't Americans yet.

    Posted by abell12ct at 07/29/2009 @ 11:41am

32. Posted by abell12ct at 07/29/2009 @ 11:41am

    You hitting your fellow righties, abell???

    Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 11:58am

33. Hey Sid/jones--is this how an "emertius" professsor of philosophy tries to make a "name" for himself?

    ;)

    Posted by urmygyro at 07/29/2009 @ 12:00pm

34. The stench of hypocrisy is appaling.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/29/2009 @ 06:23am

    While I think there is a fairly strong case against Chimpy I don't know much about Honduras constitution.

    The case against Chimp is more than just the war in Iraq, and the lies that led us there. It is appointing officials to our federal agencies that purposefully broke the law and rules to implement anti-environmetal policies (Macdonald, WOPR, Rey, etc), it was the breaking changing of law/rules to allow no bid contracts which then let soldiers die from faulty wiring. Imagine your child/brother/father going to Iraq only to die because a Haliburton subsidary hired the cheapest electricians, and put faulty wiring in the barrack showers.

    Not to mention the treasonous acts that outed a CIA agent, for political reasons. The follow up lies and more lies. It would be a difficult case to PROVE everything, but the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.

    I wonder if the republicans now that under chimp the size of the federal goverment doubled. Although the number of federal employees decreased?

    Does not make sense, unless you realize that through no bid contracts and out sourcing, the chimp admin started hiring private corporations to do gvt jobs, to save money, susposedly, although it cost more than twice as much. Remember those passport file breaches done by the state department of Obama and Clintons during the primaries? Well it actually was not state department federal employees who did that but a private firm hired to do gvt jobs. In some cases pvt can be more efficient, but in others the profit motive more than negates any paper savings.

    Posted by Extraneous at 07/29/2009 @ 12:06pm

35. Extraneous,

    You are going off on a number of tangents related to no-bid contracts, the size of the federal government, and the efficiency of private vs. public, etc.

    So let me refocus on the rank hipocrisy:

    During Bush's two terms, John Nichols called for Bush's impeachment every other week for 350 weeks. The "case" against Bush always required a leap of faith. You had to presume that he knew X when he said Y. You had to presume that the reason Dick Ameritage mentioned Valerie Plame to Novak is because Bush and Cheney's intentions were to discredit Wilson. You had to assume the the conversation took place and you had to assume the most reasonable explanation, Dick Ameritage just has a big mouth, was not the real reason.

    The "case" again Bush and Cheney requires speculation about motives and thinking. The conclusion is ambigous and belief generally fall along partisan lines.

    The case against Zelaya is open and shut. He violated article 238 (or 235 or whatever) of the Constitution that says any president seeking to extend his term is immedately stripped of office. The Supreme Court ruled 15-0 that Zelaya violated it and the Congress voted overwhelmingly to remove him.

    The case against Zelaya requires no speculation. It is an objective fact that Zelaya violated the article of the Constitution, yet The Nation now feels that Constitutional protections are nothing but a minor nuciance that should be discarded without a second thought in this case.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/29/2009 @ 12:27pm

36. In the words of LBJ:

    He may be a Constitution shreader, but he's our Constitution shreader so we are going to hypocritically support him no matter what.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/29/2009 @ 12:31pm

37. You hitting your fellow righties, abell??? Posted by Mask

    I'll hit whoever asks for it.

    Posted by abell12ct at 07/29/2009 @ 12:35pm

38. Not to mention the treasonous acts that outed a CIA agent, for political reasons.

    Posted by Extraneous

    It wasn't treasonous or even illegal apparently but say it long and loud enough and it becomes accepted as fact.

    Posted by abell12ct at 07/29/2009 @ 12:39pm

39. Posted by abell12ct at 07/29/2009 @ 12:39pm

    "It's not illegal if the Vice-President does it"--Dick Nixon-Cheney

    Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 1:18pm

40. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/29/2009 @ 12:27pm

    Your right my previous post lived up to my monaker, I was all over the place. :)

    I agree some of the nations calls for impeachement assumed some unproven facts to be true. But if they were true then calls for impeachment would have been appropriate. But your right we may never know the truth.

    As far as Honduras. I don't agree that "It is an objective fact that Zelaya violated the article of the Constitution"

    I think that is subjective. I don't know what level of involvment he had, or what the ramifications of it would be. Are allowing people to vote on an issue equal to seeking stay in office? I don't think it is clear cut, what his intentions were. I think your claiming that this case is clear cut while the Nations case was not, I think they are equally as jumbled.

    Obviously Zelaya did not have a opportunity to defend himself, and I find that deeply troubling. Had they gone through a legitimate process there would have been a public trial, then the removal, not this secret military action that occured. Nothing seems to be an objective fact here and I think there are serious issues with the process (or lack thereof) they followed that makes everything suspect. Why was there formal impeachement proceedings, why was his conviction by the court done in secret? Did he even do what they are claiming he did? and do those actions actually equate to a violation of their constitution? They way the process worked was very coup like, not what you would think a democratic country would do.

    Posted by Extraneous at 07/29/2009 @ 1:22pm

41. It wasn't treasonous or even illegal apparently but say it long and loud enough and it becomes accepted as fact.

    Posted by abell12ct at 07/29/2009 @ 12:39pm

    Yes it was treasonous! It was a betrayal by the Chimp admin against the country. I don't know about the illegality, but treason is a crime.

    As far as saying long and loud enough and it becomes accepted? You mean like the existence of the liberal media? Or that Saddam Hussien has weapons of mass destruction? Or that Iraq is part of the war on terror? Or what about that if we drill for oil off our coasts somehow we will be magically "energy independent" even though oil is traded globally? Or that trickle down economics works?

    Funny...

    Posted by Extraneous at 07/29/2009 @ 2:03pm

42. Crabcake doesn't respect the hounduran constitution anymore than he, and most libs, respect the U.S. constitution. The factsis, whether it's crabcake, sean penn, danny glover, barack obama, thenation, the congressional black caucus (racist group to the bone ), or any other demented liberal....they all LOVE dictators! Don't think, for a second, that these lunatics/sheeple would not hesitate to support obama violating our constitution, which he's been doing at a fast pace. The american people a quickly becoming fed up with osama and you nutjob libs, and "liberalism" will soon be pushed back into the shameful hole it found itself in after 9/11. Dictator-loving-lunatics! If you nuts aren't defending dictators, you're defending terrorists, pedophiles,tax-cheats, racists, etc. Who raised you, and would somebody please slap them?

    Posted by barry25 at 07/29/2009 @ 2:17pm

43. Sure looks like.....I won, and turned this into an Open Thread.....HA!

    Like my style, urmygyro?

    Posted by Happy at 07/29/2009 @ 2:19pm

44. Ok, back on point. Sotomayer is a racist! Obama is a racist! Gates is a racist! Rev. Wright is a racist! Bill Ayers is a terrorist! Rezco is a felon!.....And they're all Obama's peeps! Birds of a feather.......

    Posted by barry25 at 07/29/2009 @ 2:27pm

45. Sure looks like.....I won, and turned this into an Open Thread.....HA!

    Like my style, urmygyro?

    LOVE IT!

    Posted by urmygyro at 07/29/2009 @ 2:30pm

46. Damn it! Eric Holder is a racist/terrorist sympathizer! Janet Napolitano, AKA "MUTT", is a terrorist sympathizer! There's many more lunatic racists in obama's favor but i don't have anymore time right now, so just chew on these for a while! LOL!

    Posted by barry25 at 07/29/2009 @ 2:30pm

47. Posted by barry25 at 07/29/2009 @ 2:30pm

    Can we get you a sign and a street corner?

    Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 2:37pm

48. You can get me yo' mama (what street corner is she workin'?)! The esteemed (racist) prof. Gates taught me that one.....LOL!

    Posted by barry25 at 07/29/2009 @ 2:46pm

49. topic is Sotomayor.. (level 1) utter, or should one say udder -- mooo -- the me bad, B bad Beat It boys undergoing total mental dissociation.

    None of 'em seem to have had a dad. But now they've got Sonya Sodomayor! New Deal New Dem from the Bronx, she warr.

    yessir, yuppies. Look like guppies

    that's a hit? Boy, I can tell the hard rights got these weasel board boyz in the 'hood under their gun! Wha Wha Wha and a LOL or two too!

    God, I get off on your stupid inanity. I want to get a job on the Boston police force guarding the upper crust really smart black academic dude's digs in Cambridge

    6 out of 9 Cathos on the U.S.Supreme Court!

    2/3 grew up thinking the law was created by G-d, not m-n. Imagine that. Strict constructionists, all these really REALLY REALLY I MEAN IT YOU HEAR? REALLY!!! SMART, HIP, DEEPLY COMMITTED AMERICANS POSTING UP RIGHT HERE ON THE NATIONS BLOG BOARD! oh oh that fate should have taken me so far, soared so high,

    Hell, its only two thirds majority. Its only religion.

    *** I tell ya folks.. you 'progressive libruls' (not 'the left' which remains relatively sane) have come completely unhinged -- threatened by "paranoid right" from tough cops at Harvard to screaming birthers to C Street froomkins. You must understand this: "BIRTHERS" -- your term of flatulence -- ARE SCREAMING WITH FETAL RAGE. THEY FEEL AS IF YOU HAVE TAKEN AWAY THEIR COUNTRY/WOMB-SURROUND AND GIVEN BACK SOTOMAYOR, HUSSEIN OBAMA, AND POISONOUS BLUE/WHITE PILLS FROM BIG PHARMA.

    And they know from Austrian whistleblower Judy Bergameister this Swine Flu shtick is part of the Jewification of Amerika. They better get questioning Obama's birth declared criminal, quick, like the holocaust is Euro. A. Huff was saying on NPR.

    Posted by jones at 07/29/2009 @ 3:05pm

50. Posted by barry25 at 07/29/2009 @ 2:17pm

    Do I still make you hot?

    Want to go walking the Appalachian trail sometime, cutie pie? Only if you wear those boxers Rep Foley gave you!

    ----

    Good Job Darin. Excellent hijacking of a thread with suppositions engineered to deride suppositions.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/29/2009 @ 6:34pm