Another Activist Judge

posted by John Nichols on 07/20/2005 @ 02:05am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (196)

Subscribe Now

In 1999, when he was trying to appeal to the conservative base that would eventually deliver the Republican presidential nomination to him, Candidate George W. Bush said the Supreme Court justices he most admired were Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. The clear intimation was that, given the opportunity, Bush would nominate someone like Scalia and Thomas-- a conservative judicial activist bent on upsetting established law--to the high court.

More recently, as he has finally been faced with the task of naming a nominee to the Court, President George W. Bush has attempted to sound more moderate and thoughtful, suggesting that "a nominee to that Court must be a person of superb credentials and the highest integrity, a person who will faithfully apply the Constitution and keep our founding promise of equal justice under law." President Bush has said that he prefers nominees who display "respect for the rule of law and for the liberties guaranteed to every citizen" and who "will strictly apply the Constitution and laws, not legislate from the bench."

So which George W. Bush named federal appeals judge John G. Roberts Jr. to fill the opening on the Supreme Court created by the decision of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor to retire? Is Roberts the Scalia/Thomas clone that Candidate Bush promised or is he the mainstreamer President Bush suggested he was looking for?

Chalk Roberts up as Candidate Bush's pick.

For more than a decade, Scalia and Thomas have campaigned without success to reverse the Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which removed barriers to a woman's right to choose. This is the hottest of the hot-button issues facing the Court. And on it, all indications are that Roberts will be the clone Scalia and Thomas need to complete their machinations.

When he served as principal deputy solicitor general of the United States from 1989 to 1993--under Solicitor General Ken Starr--Roberts filed a 1990 brief with the Supreme Court that declared: "Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled. [T]he Court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion," argued Roberts, "finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution."

Never mind that Supreme Court justices selected by presidents of both parties had consistently concluded otherwise. Roberts had a different opinion and he did not hestitate to advance it. As the deputy solicitor general, he argued for a "gag rule" that prevented physicians working with family planning programs that were recipients of federal funding from discussing abortion with their patients. He even went so far as to appear before the Court to argue in support of Operation Rescue during the period when the group's members were aggressively, sometimes violently, blocking access to healthcare clinics that provided abortions.

Roberts was so feverish in his attempts to find a way to overturn Roe that Supreme Court justices openly joked about his over-the-top antics. Once, during an oral argument before the Court, one of the justices asked the deputy solicitor general: "Mr. Roberts, in this case are you asking that Roe v. Wade be overruled?"

Roberts replied, "No, your honor, the issue doesn't even come up."

"Well," the justice responded, "that hasn't prevented the solicitor general from taking that position in prior cases."

The NARAL Pro-Choice America brief on Roberts, which reviews his aggressive advocacy for antichoice positions, is blunt: "If Roberts is confirmed to a lifetime appointment, there is little doubt that he will work to overturn Roe v. Wade."

On this point, NARAL Pro-Choice America is in full agreement with Roberts's old pals at Operation Rescue.

The militant antichoice group was among the first to hail Bush's selection of Roberts to fill the seat being vacated by O'Connor, who was generally a supporter of reproductive rights. "We pray that Roberts will be swiftly confirmed," announced Operation Rescue President Troy Newman.

Now, it is said that a President ought to have a great deal of latitude when it comes to making judicial nominations.

But all indications are that Roberts is not the nominee of President Bush, the man who condemns judges who would "legislate from the bench" and undermine "equal justice for all."

Rather, he is the political pick of Candidate Bush, the man who promised right-wing Republicans that he would give them another Scalia or Thomas. Indeed, Candidate Bush has found a nominee extreme enough to satisfy even Operation Rescue.

Comments (196)

Freiheit - I don't know whom I'd pick (or whom John Nichols would pick), but it could be someone like Souter - someone who is a moderate in other words, instead of a guy with a commitment to make abortion illegal again, and who is willing to support Operation 'Rescue's tactics, which include intimidation and threats of violence.

In the name of 'Freiheit', keep abortion legal!

Posted by atmur01 at 07/20/2005 @ 08:10am
I'm simply wondering why he wouldn't appoint a moderately positioned individual as nominee...? Where has the compassionate Conservatism gone?

Also, we don't necessarily even know where he is going. It is my understanding that generally once someone is appointed to a lifetime term, they usually begin their real agenda, much like Sandra Day O'Conner (who was thought of as more conservative when nominated than she ended up being). I give Roberts the benefit of the doubt that he would follow the mainstream opinion, if he is proven to be a moderate candidate.

Unfortunately, Roberts stance as a lawyer in the cases put forward by Mr. Nichols article are telling...he feels that there is no constitutional basis for Roe vs. Wade. If he is at all moderate, with this opinion, a mainstream poll of the American people would show an agreement with this idea (at least 50.1%).

I'd like some statistics as to what the mainstream opinion of America is on this issue...I am pretty sure that it is not a majority that oppose this Roe vs. Wade (though I could be wrong).

Posted by jacobsj at 07/20/2005 @ 08:30am
Based upon reading The Nation and an array of right wing news sites, as well as the msm I have concluded that this fight will likley come down to civil rights, specifically reproductive. The Washington Post pointed out that indeed their is evidence that Mr. Roberts noted he disagreed with Roe vs. Wade. However, Roberts has also been noted as saying that Roe is "settled." This question will be brought up in the senate for delegation. I don't know if it will have the force the Democrats need to challenge his nomination.

*** My blog at -Politics Blogged Now-***

I think the only thing that is holding back Roberts nomination is if something rare would come up about ih his background. Of course, that didn't even stop Justice Thomas.

Posted by AshtonP at 07/20/2005 @ 08:58am

While it was probably inevitable in this case, I really dislike the fact that this whole thing will most likely come down to the abortion debate.

I'm generally progressive, but I believe that a conservative or moderate candidate could do some good for the country. For instance, in an area like civil liberties, a conservative or moderate candidate would quite possibly be inclined to have serious reserrvations about the Patriot Act. Many justices have traditionally been highly critical of policies of the president that appointed them or an ideological successor.

The problem is that I don't know if we will ever get beyond the abortion debate.

Posted by jkoyon at 07/20/2005 @ 09:13am

I am hardly surprised that Roberts fits this "anti-choice" profile. It would be astounding if President Bush offered up someone like O'Connor or Souter. Why anyone takes anything he says at face value is a mystery in and of itself.

Once upon a time I can remember there were progressives who argued that men like Antonin Scalia should be given the chance to prove themselves highly competent and not be dismissed out of hand because of their conservative views. Scalia could have been a "paragon of restraint" if one actually could believe that right-wing ideologues mean what they say about strict-constructionism. Scalia was viewed as someone highly qualified and if qualifications are what we are looking for (I would argue "qualifications" now have little to do with jurisprudence and everything to do with culture) then who can argue with a "Qualified" nominee?

But this is a culture war. All of this compromise and moderation seem almost irrelevant now. In this highly charged atmosphere dominated by political leaders who really are actually "culture warriors", it seems naive at best to adopt a "wait and see" attitude. I hate to be the one to eschew moderation because I consider myself moderate -dare I say it? sensible even- but moderation in the defense of liberty is probably more of a vice now than ever before. Perhaps Senator Goldwater would have agreed with me? What sickens me is that we have moved into this fractious territory but we can't make it go away by pretending to be reasonable about it.

Posted by hhemwm at 07/20/2005 @ 09:28am

John, thanks for the insight. Watching the networks last night you'd never know this guy had a paper trail of any kind! This is why I subscribe to the nation. Keep up the good fight, and lets hope this guy goes down the way of Bork.

Posted by jwm1012 at 07/20/2005 @ 09:34am

A moderate like Souter?? Souter is a secularist left wing socialist. Calling Souter moderate helps explain why the GOP has won 7 of the last 10 elections and why they control the legislative branch too. The left has fallen way out of touch with Americans and their values. Each time they have lost an election, they haven't drifted towards the middle, instead their radical base becomes more and more mainstream in the Democratic party. The socialists don't have a chance of blocking Mr. Roberts. Again you on the left don't understand that the abortion issue is at best for you a 50/50 issue with Americans. You are so out of touch it's incredible. Of course, had abortion not been made legal, Al Gore would have walked away with the 2000 election. Too bad you on the left are killing off your own kind.

Posted by CiaoMSMedia at 07/20/2005 @ 10:31am

Central to the discussion that engenders so much passion on both sides of the Roe v Wade Supreme Court Decision has to be whether it was truly a good decision to the Constitution itself..

Those on the left like to rely upon the statement that Roe v Wade is settled law..on that basis do liberals believe that Dredd Scott was a good decision? How about Plessey v Ferguson (you know separate but equal)...

Ultimately, a brave Supreme Court will decide that Roe v Wade was a poor decision creating a "right" not found in the Constitution. Thus the issue will be returned to the States where it should be rightly decided.

Be honest you who call yourselves liberal or "progressive"; do you honestly believe that California, NY, Mass, Washington, Oregon, NH, Vermont, Rhode Island, Delaware, New Jersey, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, to name the obvious, wouldn't establish a state constitutional right to abortion?

Your attacks on Judge Roberts are filled with the usual diatribes and illogical emotional rantings that separate valid constitutional discussion from street mob mentality.

Posted by love liberty at 07/20/2005 @ 10:32am

Relax and take a Kava Kava and let the FBI and Senate examine his background and his positions. Then get back to the business of cleaning up the White House aka Rove and the VP's chief of staff. Then back to cleaning up the house with Tom Delay and his cronnies. There are alot worst candidates that Duyba can pick for the Court. Roberts may have skeleton's but proably alot less than others.

Posted by tginmn at 07/20/2005 @ 10:32am

While Nichols says "Bush would nominate someone like Scalia and Thomas -- a conservative judicial activist bent on upsetting established law -- to the high court" what he only means is Roe vs Wade and nothing else. Well, maybe he'll claim affirmative action too, but I doubt he's really all that worried about that one. He would like us to think ALL our freedoms are in danger by these wacky conservatives which, by liberal standards, constitutes a BIG LIE. (Remember, in liberal parlance, there are no little lies unless they are about sex.) Even our precious freedom to have our property stolen from us by wealthy developers via the government by eminent domain recently enshrined by the liberal half of the court. In any case, "established law" is a misnomer, it's really an "established interpretation" of the law. This is a crucial distinction, because even if Roe vs Wade was overturned it doesn't mean abortion will suddenly become illegal. It will, in fact, remain legal until someone tries to pass a law against it. Since recent polls show most people don't want to make abortion illegal, such laws would not be readily passed. But even if they were, abortion advocates would have the option of a constitutional amendment. What they are afraid of, however, is the right of the people to make laws. After all, the people elected George Bush so obviously they don't know what they are doing. Personally, I don't think abortion should be outlawed, but Roe vs. Wade truly is a bad interpretation of the constitution just as the eminent domain case was. It's an example of what happens when you attempt to bend the meanings of words to fit your beliefs. The same was true in the juvenile death penalty decision. Again, while I am opposed to the death penalty, it is not unconstitutional. To overturn bad interpretations is not "activist" no matter how you try to spin it, it's a matter of returning "choice" (hey, that makes me pro-choice!) back to the people to whom it belongs.

Posted by jeck at 07/20/2005 @ 10:37am

Why all this outrage over a conservative president nominating a conservative judge? No one expected Clinton to nominate anyone other than a liberal to the Court and there was no outcry over Justice Ginsburg's nomination or appointment. She was (and remains) a liberal judge nominated by a liberal president. That is as it should be - it is the perogative of the president to nominate these folks and there is no reason why they should not be permitted to nominate those who are in line with their ideology. It is short-sighted to engage in hysterics or in extreme actions, keeping in mind that eventually the shoe will be on the other foot and it will be a liberal democrat president nominating a liberal judge.

Posted by snrekw at 07/20/2005 @ 10:42am

Let's not act TOO surprised about this nomination. Dubya has always maintained a "my way or the highway" stance, so the perspective of the Dems is of no concern to him. This administration is not now, nor has ever been, concerned with uniting this politically fractured nation, but rather seeks to push everything as far right as possible. I can only envision that he (and others rowing that boat) think that if its pushed "way far right" that the world will become so glorious that we will all start cheering them on.

Posted by leftofcenter at 07/20/2005 @ 10:46am

What is inconceivable to me is how utterly inane this debate is turning out to be. For whatever it's worth, Roberts has at least proven himself to be a serious man of law, as his credentials point out. To reduce the former editor of the Harvard Law Review (a position that, by the way, Barack Obama once held) to a partisan hack seems rather premature to say nothing of being completely incendiary, especially considering none of us are the ones on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I would at least like to see an intelligent debate on his judicial philosophy, in academic terms, not a shouting match that could result in the spiteful nomination of someone worse.

Posted by bahiany at 07/20/2005 @ 10:49am

I am curious to Roberts position on environmental issues. I have read blurbs that he supports overturning large segments of the endangered species act and that he has provided legal services for companies looking to strip mine. Anyone have a link to a site that would show this guys track record? I'm fairly undecided on this nominee at the moment. It seems that the country is absolutely powerless at this time to oppose anything or anyone that the administration wants to push through. I have lost faith in our system of government and the so-called opposition party. Corporate America rules this country, not the people. Democrats and Republicans are one party. What Bush wants, Bush gets. Damn the polls!

Posted by CLLSLP at 07/20/2005 @ 10:53am

What really needs to be asked by supporters of the nomination is a question they should ask of themselves: how would they feel if a radical left president nominated a crusader lawyer advocate for a group like Earth Liberation Front to the SCOTUS?

Zero, we already have to live with an extreme lib in SCOTUS; Ruth Bader Ginsburg who was counsel to the ACLU...yet Repubs approved her even though they strongly disagreed with he judicial philosophy. But your analogy is so flawed; where is your evidence that Roberts supports groups carrying out violent destruction of those they disagree with? ELF members should be found, tried and put away for life. I use to debate several of them and found them utter lacking in any form of sane mental capabilities.

Posted by love liberty at 07/20/2005 @ 11:07am

It really is a crazy debate. Bush has won 2 elections. Conservatives(which out number liberals in this country) helped give Bush a mandate last November. When you are President, you nominate the SCOTUS judges. John Roberts, is an intelligent, exteremely qualified, conservative lawyer. To call his nomination extreme is nothing more than tears shed over the Democratic party losing touch with the American people over the past 20 years in national and local elections. The people have spoken, and their President has nominated a sufficient and respectable candidate. His nomination will most likely come easy, and will be a victory for the American voter and our great system.

Posted by CiaoMSMedia at 07/20/2005 @ 11:08am

Absent a major gaffe, or a "bombshell," at the confirmation hearings, I am afraid that Judge Roberts' ascension to the Supreme Court is a fait accompli.

Given that, I believe that the first question any White House reporter asks Bush, or Scott McClellan, about Judge Roberts should be . . . "Will the President fire Karl Rove for violating his non-disclosure agreement?"

Posted by Krashkopf at 07/20/2005 @ 11:18am

Not to dissent, but I think "Candidate" Bush made a brilliant pick. Politics aside (Like you, Mr. Nichols, I'm not enamored with Judge Robert's views, but do really expect President Bush to nominate a moderate), I can't think of a nominee that more closely adheres to the definition of an ideal pick, both academically and because of his focus on the law during a very distinguished career.

I really think the Nation, MoveOn.org and other progressive advocacy groups are falling into President Bush's trap by opposing such an eminently qualified (albeit too conservative for my taste) candidate. Instead of opposing Judge Roberts, we all should be focusing on the most important story -- one which the Administration wishes we'd ignore -- the Iraq fiasco and Rove's traitorious act "outing" an undercover CIA operative. Don't "snap like a salmon" and drop the Rove scandal because -- surprise surprise -- President Bush nominates a conservative to the Supreme Court.

Posted by trabaris at 07/20/2005 @ 11:19am

It'd been more fun if he'd nominated Alabama's Judge Roy Moore. Now that Ol' Roy ain't gonna be a Supreme, he'll probably run for Governor of Alabama and get elected, a great day for the Decalogue! Yee haw!

Posted by John Earl at 07/20/2005 @ 11:31am

If this blog is any indication, this is going to be an interesting summer after all.

When I was listening to NPR's coverage of the president's supreme court annoucement last night, I heard lots of sentiments like Ciaomsmedia's such as "we won, you lost, suck it up!"

So much for that whole "uniter, not a divider" thing.

Posted by edwriter at 07/20/2005 @ 11:32am

Zero, I don't really care how many people use the expression "established law", that doesn't prevent it from being a misnomer. Ever drive on a parkway but park in a driveway? Establishing laws is the job of the Congress, the job of the judiciary is only to interpret the law according to the Constitution, to essentially establish it's meaning vis a vis the Constitution. Indeed, Roe vs Wade itself overturned established laws but did not create new ones. The point is, the term "established law" is misleading to ordinary folk and in the matter of Roe is being used deliberately to lend credence to the notion of Roe somehow being set in stone. The Constitution is the established law, Roe just a bad interpretation.

Posted by jeck at 07/20/2005 @ 11:34am

I'm not surprised by the nomination of Roberts but I am worried. I was fully expecting a radical right-wing, conservative president to choose someone who subscribes to his beliefs. However, what makes this different from liberal presidents nominating liberal candidates is that the consequences of having a right-wing Supreme Court justice are much more dire than the ones brought about by a liberal judge. We're talking about a woman's basic rights. If Roberts becomes a justice and Roe v. Wade is overturned, women lose a fundamental right to control their bodies. And if they can't even make decisions about their health and well-being, we will be taking a HUGE step backwards, and all hope for women's equality will be lost. If we don't have the right to oversee our own bodies, we don't have anything. Of course, it's necessary to point out that right now reproductive rights are barely existent anyway, but if Roe goes, we're really done for.

Posted by RG at 07/20/2005 @ 11:49am

Nichols' attack on Judge Roberts is hyperbole wrapped in hysterics. His evidence that Judge Roberts is a "clone" of Justices Scalia and Thomas, ready to aid in their "machinations" to overturn Roe v. Wade (what loaded rhetoric!), are some briefs Judge Roberts submitted to the Supreme Court when he was serving in the Solicitor General's office. This ignores the fact that lawyers in the Solicitor General's office have as their job the duty to represent the United States government and to advocate its views, regardless of their own, as the United States government is their client. Every lawyer has the duty to represent their client's wishes, regardless of their own personal desire. That Judge Roberts was one of several lawyers in the office to contribute and sign on to a brief arguing to overturn Roe v. Wade does not indicate anything about Judge Roberts' own views.

The other so-called evidence is a snippet of oral argument between Judge Roberts and an unnamed justice, where that justice merely acknowledges that the Solicitor General's office in the past had argued to overturn Roe, but was not now. So?

If this is all the Left has in its quiver, it's Justice Roberts in a walk. I know that Nichols is paid to be a hyperpartisan, but perhaps your best strategy would be to simply NOT object to Judge Roberts' candidacy. That would make the Right start questioning itself. But, as usual, the Left is not about good strategy or good argument...just fireworks and diversion.

Posted by NaG at 07/20/2005 @ 11:50am

Has anyone clued in to the fact yet that Roberts was on the panel of judges that upheld the military tribunals at Gitmo?

In effect, Roberts went to bat for Bush to get him clearance to imprision, torture and kill any "enemy combatants," further moving the U.S. into the world spotlight as the premier exporter of state-sponsored terrorism. Since these new laws apply to anyone on the planet (excepting Bush and his Administration), it does include U.S. citizens.

Isn't that a LITTLE more scary (and important) than whether or not this guy supports abortion?

Here's the article: http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd07202005.html

And here's an excerpt for y'all:

"...on July 15, a panel of federal appellate court judges upheld Bush's sovereign right to dispose of 'enemy combatants' any way he pleases, the Washington Post reports. In a chilling decision, the judges ruled that the Commander's arbitrarily designated 'enemies' are non-persons: neither the Geneva Conventions nor American military and domestic law apply to such garbage. Bush is now free to subject anyone he likes to the 'military tribunal' system he has concocted - a brutal sham that some top retired military officials have denounced as a 'kangaroo court' that will be used by tyrants around the world to 'hide their oppression under U.S. precedent.'

One of the kowtowing jurists on the appeals panel was none other than John G. Roberts. Four days after he affirmed Bush's autocratic powers, Roberts was duly awarded with a nomination to the Supreme Court. Now he will be sitting in final judgment on this case - and any other challenges to Bush's peremptory commands. This is what is known, in the tyrant trade, as 'a safe pair of hands.'"

Posted by buddhaplex at 07/20/2005 @ 11:54am

I am glad that John wrote such a calm and reasoned article that points out so well just how clever Bush is and how partisan a voice Roberts is likely to be...and for a long time should he confirmed by a mostly confused and frightened Democratic party.

I must say that some of the comments here by folks who claim to be "progressive" what ever the hell that means these days, are surprising...they sound more like readers of the New Republic and DLC types than of the Nation. It is a mistake to cave in to the right wing juggernaut. Even though victory is uncertain if not improbable resistance must continue because in the clash of viewpoints people get a chance to see the nature of the two sides (or three or four sides even)...and are better able to form an opinion...dont you think?

And thanks to you Zero for your comments...makes me fell good and your spirit encourages me to keep on keeping on.

Posted by Rosalinda at 07/20/2005 @ 12:00pm

With all the economic issues, jobs, run away ruthless capitalism, the new gilded age, etc etc, on and on. With the many troubling issues we face, why is the left obsessed with abortion? I will tell you why, because they don't have any answers for the economic issues. They are bankrupt of ideas, so they obsess over abortion, affirmative action, etc

Posted by faulkenberg at 07/20/2005 @ 12:00pm

What surprises me most about the debate here is that people seem to be looking beyond Roberts' position as principal deputy solicitor general and assuming that the first Bush administration's position on abortion is his as well. As an attorney representing the government, Roberts was required to use the tools at hand to represent the administration's position, whatever his position on the greater issue of abortion rights. As far as I can tell, there is virtually no paper trail indicating that Roberts leans toward one side or the other in the debate; though he assuredly has a personal opinion on the matter, he has managed to refrain from allowing himself a colorful rant in the public discourse, avoiding the trap into which many other judicial hopefuls fall. It is likely Roberts agrees with the conservative view of abortion; he is, after all, the nominee of a conservative president in an era of unsurpassed conservative power. Nonetheless, witholding judgment until a closer examination can be made seems the most prudent course of action. I'll be interested to see what comes up in the confirmation hearings, though I'm sure Roberts will be carefully prepped to avoid the pitfalls of personal opinion.

Posted by ringo at 07/20/2005 @ 12:04pm

This guy Roberts could announce that he is a socialist, he could call for the dismantling of all capitalist institutions, insist upon universal health care. He could state categorically that the means of production should be controlled by the state. He could utter sweet sounding cliches such as "from each according to his talents, to each according to his needs. He could meet with Castro and call for the rebirth of socialism in the 21st century. He could do all of this, but declare that he is opposed to abortion and the hard core left would oppose him. They are totally obsessed with abortion. It is troubling that this is the number one issue with the left.

Posted by faulkenberg at 07/20/2005 @ 12:09pm

I'll agree with Faulkenberg on his point. The obsession with abortion is a little much. I'm not saying it's not important, but come on people. Whether or not you can get an abortion is a lot less important than the fact that Bush's economic and foreign policies are creating a country in which:

1. You may not be able to depend on your company's pension plan (because now they're being bailed out via the precedent that United set), and thereby your retirement income;

2. More and more of our relationships with our allies are disintegrating into tenuous partnerships where other leaders kowtow to the U.S. for fear of being invaded;

3. The entire population is being lulled into a false sense of security, while there is a mounting worldwide discontent with this country, making it more dangerous than ever for everyone in the world, including U.S. citizens.

Notice, I'm not going to deal with the Social Security issue. In fact, I tend to lean conservative when it comes to economic views. But conservative does not mean supportive of the gigantic militarized industrial complex that we call international business. Our businesses need to be regulated to a certain degree to make sure that they are being civil, and not exploiting labor while making their profits. There are ways to do this. But the Dems aren't showing that they've got the ability to get the job done right now.

It's really sad. Because in the meantime, we're stuck with projecting a vindictive, simplistic and tyrranical world-view to the whole of civilization.

Posted by buddhaplex at 07/20/2005 @ 12:11pm

Jacobsj, "I'm simply wondering why he wouldn't appoint a moderately positioned individual as nominee...? Where has the compassionate Conservatism gone? "

My hypothesis; Bush knows he's out after this term, he can't run again. He's spending ALL his remaining political capital to stack the courts with judges that are middle road enough to get through the nomination process but that he knows at heart lean to the conservative side. This will help his base and the republicans' base in the long run, and will help to ensure the conservatives like myself continue to vote republican based on our "moral" values. Which as we all know for conservatives is a HUGE voting issue. If conservatives perceive him doing the right thing in terms of the Supreme Court, we will be more inclined to continue to vote Republican, and that's his strategy in nominating Roberts. I could of course be totally wrong, but it seems relevant and very plausible.

Todd

Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/20/2005 @ 12:19pm

hey there...welcome to the new 19th century america! now with less regulation, unless we're talking about your bedroom!!

conservatives oughta be careful about what they wish for. in a few years, after this zealot gets to work, we'll find out just how conservative america really is.

Posted by dabar at 07/20/2005 @ 12:22pm

When he served as principal deputy solicitor general of the United States from 1989 to 1993--under Solicitor General Ken Starr--Roberts filed a 1990 brief with the Supreme Court that declared: "'Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled. [T]he Court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion,' argued Roberts, 'finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution.'"

This requires "further examination" to determine if Roberts has a history of official opposition to the fundamental RVW decision and the right to abortion?!

That's hysterical!

Perhaps my point wasn't clear: in arguing a case for a client, an attorney must represent the position of his client, not his personal opinion. Even when the client is the government of the United States, an attorney must represent the position determined by the president rather than arguing his own ideals. Roberts was simply using his skill as an attorney to build a case for his client; I'm sure he could have argued the other side equally as well, as any good attorney should be able to. I'm not suggesting that Roberts deviates from the Bush administration's view on abortion; I'm simply observing that his position as an attorney is not necessarily reflective of his personal beliefs, but of the position his client has taken. If you can point me to a document detailing his personal opinions, please do--there's a dearth of information on Roberts' views, given the relatively short length of his term at the bench.

Posted by ringo at 07/20/2005 @ 12:32pm

-- Be honest you who call yourselves liberal or "progressive"; do you honestly believe that California, NY, Mass, Washington, Oregon, NH, Vermont, Rhode Island, Delaware, New Jersey, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, to name the obvious, wouldn't establish a state constitutional right to abortion? --

Yes, they would. On the flip-side, however, Republican-majority states (again, I can't use the word "conservative", because fiscally-conservative people don't vote and support a president who increases non-defense federal spending by 36%, doesn't veto so much as a single spending bill, and racks up record deficits) wouldn't pass one, and that would leave women in those states having to seek abortions in those states you cited, and this would affect low-income women who couldn't afford to travel to those states. So to each his own: you may feel that the state government has the right to restrict a woman's right to choose; I don't. But just accept that low-income women will be affected by this -- no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Posted by Kevin Collins at 07/20/2005 @ 12:32pm

Had the GOP adopted the tactics and "tests" for Ginsburg, she would have never made it onto the Court. However, that is not the point I wish to make.

The whole concept that Roe is unassailable is spurious. No judgment is truly "final" and "settled" law. If that were the case, you would have never had the Brown v. Board of Education decision (as Plessy would have settled the question of separate but equal). Dred Scott would have settled the slavery question such that the Civil War would have been unnecessary. You would not have had the Supreme Court reversing decisions that were less that 20 years old on issues of sodomy laws or the death penalty for seventeen year old offenders. Somehow, the Court's decision to abandon "settled" law in those circumstances is to be lauded, but if Roe were to be added to that list, it would be the ultimate outrage.

With all due respect to liberals out there...you people are idiots sometimes.

Posted by scronin at 07/20/2005 @ 12:33pm

Zero: I'm aware there are other significant problems with the Roberts nomination besides the abortion one; as a woman, however, it's extraordinarily important for me to know I can do as I wish with my body. I've been enjoying your posts, but please know that I recognize the other issues here.

Faulkenberg: The reason the left is "obsessed" with abortion is not, as you state, because we don't have answers. Obviously my point was missed. As I stated above, if women cannot make decisions about their bodies, then we have no hope of ever being equal. It's as though we're being treated as animals who lack rational thought. And by the way, lack of abortion access (not to mention emergency contraception and birth control) has an enormous economic impact. What the left is obsessed with is social equality. Economic prosperity follows from that.

Buddhaplex: It's truly frightening that you think that "whether or not you can get an abortion is a lot less important than the fact that Bush's economic and foreign policies are creating a country in which..." If you were forced to go through a life-threatening pregnancy or to give birth to a severely defected child who would die shortly after, the last thing you'd be worried about is Bush's foreign and economic policies.

Posted by RG at 07/20/2005 @ 12:35pm

The hyperbole and name calling of the left is one more example of how bankrupt of ideas they are. "Zealot", "Theocracy" please.

Posted by faulkenberg at 07/20/2005 @ 12:37pm

Ref: Jacobs The most recent national poll on the subject shows that slightly over 60% of Americans polled oppose the overturning of Roe vs Wade.

Posted by Mike Brown at 07/20/2005 @ 12:37pm

Quite simply, a true "federalist" position on this issue would be a "state by state" approach (i.e., the "pre-Roe" state of the law). Mr. Collins' appraisal is correct. NOW and NARAL can put their money where their mouths are and assist all those poor women in obtaining transportation to states where abortion is legal (of course, we have to ignore the fact that most abortions are being performed on middle class white women). Any state that prohibited such activites would be interfering with the "right to travel" and those actions would be unconstitutional by any reading of the law.

Posted by scronin at 07/20/2005 @ 12:42pm

RG: I appreciate your example, though I still hold my opinion about the focus of your protests.

In fact, if you looked at:

1. The number of women who went "through a life-threatening pregnancy or to give birth to a severely defected child who would die shortly after," and then compared that to

2. the amount of people who might disagree with Bush's failed economic and foreign policies as VOTERS,

You'd probably find that focusing on the latter, and framing it squarely in the court of the current Republican party would give you MUCH more traction in the voting booths. And that's the point: it's all about getting ELECTED.

If your views are not represented in office, you can't effectively do much about anything. Protests, sure. But what does that accomplish, other than scorn from the ruling party?

Finally, if you focus on an issue that affects less than 1% of the population, who's focus and messaging is effectively getting through to the other 99%? Just consider it. Please.

Posted by buddhaplex at 07/20/2005 @ 12:44pm

-- With all due respect to liberals out there...you people are idiots sometimes. --

That's funny -- it wasn't a Democrat admimistration that launched an illegal, unnecessary war against Iraq on the basis of WMD that don't exist; that declared to the American people that "we found the WMD" when in fact we didn't; that cancelled Republican Curt Weldon's scheduled visit to North Korea because he supposedly shared classified information in his previous discussion with its leader when in fact not only was this unclassified but was available for viewing onj the Internet. I can go on if you wish.

And I find it highly laughable that the Bushies seem to have forgotten the obvious dubiousness of the Bush vs. Gore decision in that the justices made clear that this supposedly valid ruling was not to be used as a precedent in the future. Ever heard of the Supreme Court doing that before? No, neither do I.

Posted by Kevin Collins at 07/20/2005 @ 12:48pm

Dems have serious problems with opposing Roberts. First of all, all the democrats in the senate voted for his nomination to the circuit court of appeals just two years ago. That means that you would have to argue that his brief tenure on the court of appeals has been a dissappointment -- and there is little evidence of partisanship there.Roberts' participation in trying to overrule Roe v. Wade was marginal. He was just one of 9 attys who signed a brief in Rust v Sullivan. And again, it pre-dates his prior senate confirmation. To the dems, if he is good enough for court of appeals, why isn't he good enough for supreme court?

Posted by acquit at 07/20/2005 @ 12:50pm

Zero: Agreed. A whole lot of politicos would be goners if "the people" really were in charge.

Scronin: I think your inference about the actions NOW and NARAL can take is sound, and makes perfect sense. It's unfortunate that there are "disenfranchised" elements in our societies, but the power of organizations to help those people--without government subsidies--do make it possible to circumvent the ridiculous nature of this argument.

Now, if we could only find a reason to stop subsidizing the nuclear, oil and airline industries. Alas, I digress...

Posted by buddhaplex at 07/20/2005 @ 12:51pm

I could come right back with the fact that nearly every intelligence service in addition to the CIA (including many leading lights in the Democrat party [Bill Clinton, John Kerry, etc.]) similarly believed Iraq had WMD. I think NK and Iran were (and are) more significant threats and would have placed them ahead of Iraq in the "hit parade"; however, I am not the President.

My statement was singularly focused on the illogical position that has been advanced that Roe is somehow sacrosanct. It is not, nor is any other prior decision from the Supreme Court. Moreover, it is a terrible decision based upon weak legal arguments and a wholly unsupportable reading of the U.S. Constitution (and I say this as someone who is pro-choice). There is more legal justification for the Dred Scott decision than for Roe v. Wade.

Posted by scronin at 07/20/2005 @ 12:56pm

Additionally, as for Bush v. Gore...I questioned the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court in that case as I believe that it was (and is) a pure state law issue (amazing how liberals became staunch federalists when that fiasco was taking place) and still do to this day. However, you should also recall there were TWO decisions in that case: one was a 7-2 vote stating that the application of the standard approved by the Florida courts was unconstitutional and a violation of equal protection; the other was a 5-4 vote to stop the recounts all together.

Posted by scronin at 07/20/2005 @ 12:59pm

Scronin: Who are you billing these hours to? Is The Nation retaining you? ;-)

Posted by buddhaplex at 07/20/2005 @ 1:01pm

My own time...

I am a lawyer, don't hold it against me...:)

Posted by scronin at 07/20/2005 @ 1:02pm

Buddhaplex: I think I see what you're saying now, that left politicians should downplay the abortion issue and focus more on economic and foreign policies to get elected, and you're right: you need elected officials to make changes. The most common e-alerts I get from NOW and NARAL urge me to write to my senator or rep, or support a particular candidate. I think I misunderstood your point, I thought you were saying that abortion isn't as important as economic or foreign policy! It is as important in our day to day lives, but apparently not in terms of winning an election. I'm upset with your suggestion that the abortion issue does have to be swept under the rug in order to get the people we want elected...but if that's the way it is, we pro-choicers will do what's needed to make sure the right to choose stays somewhat intact. It just makes me sad that basic human rights have to be devalued and ignored in order to elect officials who will uphold those rights. Seems contradictory, no?

Posted by RG at 07/20/2005 @ 1:05pm

If you're basing your opinion of the Roberts nomination on what the right is saying, then I hardly think I'm the one whose behaving like an idiot. It's always easier to buy what someone's selling than to look for evidence on your own--especially when you automatically oppose what conservatives want. Though it seems to be overlooked, what makes for a good Supreme Court justice is not blind adhesion to one political faith, but an ability to honestly and accurately evaluate the law. Though I'm sure that point has escaped Bush, prospective justices have historically had little to say about their personal views in confirmation hearings and one-on-one interviews with the president, leading some presidents to view their appointments as the worst mistakes of their careers--Warren, Black, Kennedy and Souter have all fallen under that categorization at one point or another during their tenure. The fact that the right is selling Roberts doesn't dissuade me; neither does the fact that reactionaries are falling into the oppositional ranks without taking the time to fairly evaluate any credential other than an assumed opposition to abortion. I don't need to insult you intelligence, Zero, and I think more of the board's time is wasted by rants based on "foregone assumptions" rather than actual research. On the other hand, thanks for the tip about "Operation Rescue"--that's something I can actually research (whether it's widely available on the internet or not) and develop an informed opinion on.

Posted by ringo at 07/20/2005 @ 1:11pm

You are too kind.

Posted by scronin at 07/20/2005 @ 1:18pm

The remote possibility that Roe v Wade could be overturned is the most important issue of our time, of all time. Right.

Posted by faulkenberg at 07/20/2005 @ 1:30pm

I agree that the concept of "settled law" is kind of a misnomer, and ever since FDR we have had judges appointed who the president hopes and believes will be faithful to their own ideological stance, even if that means overturning established precedent. The majority elected a president who believes Roe was wrongly decided, and is bent on getting that decision overturned. He appointed a judge without a long record who may be faithful to his point of view.

I think this nomination will spur further efforts to forbid a woman the right to have an abortion. I believe Republicans are hoping Roe gets overturned, at which point they will attempt to enact national legislation which outlaws all abortions. Hopefully Roberts' views on federalism will prevent these efforts from taking effect. Even if they are not completely successful, many more women will be denied the right to abort their fetuses. I believe this is bad public policy because legislating morality is a futile effort, and abortions will not cease. In addition, the right to abortion allows mothers to make rational decisions about the circumstances under which they wish to bring a child into this world, which fosters love and happiness in the family.

If Roberts is a strict constructionist with a conservative worldview, in the mold of Scalia or Thomas, then I think we face a substantial reduction in the power of the federal government to regulate conduct. The language of the commerce clause, which in connection with the necessary and proper clause (or as strict constructionists like to call it, the "sweeping" clause, as in sweeping federal powers) forms the basis of all kinds of federal legislation from environmental legislation to federal criminal legislation, has in some ways been eviscerated in order to allow the federal government a broad range of regulatory authority. That regulatory authority is an explicit target of strict constructionists, who argue that the constitution has consistently been misinterpreted to allow the federal government greater power than it should have. This argument is strong, but because of the sheer volume of federal legislation that relies on nebulous commerce clause language, overturning this established precedent would fundamentally change the form of government we live under.

This is a question we all need to consider: what kind of power should the federal government have over our lives? Are there important issues which individual states cannot handle alone? How do we want to handle those types of questions?

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/20/2005 @ 1:31pm

Bush did what was expected. Roberts is a fascist; even Roberts knows that. Abortion rights are going to be curtailed. We all know this. What are we, brain dead. This administration has no respect for anything resembling freedom. I hate to say it, but if they do what they are trying to do with Roberts, it wouldn't suprise me if talk of secession would grow louder and louder. No one is prepared to live under these kinds of restrictions in America. Even countries like Italy and Ireland and Spain have abortion rights. And they are hard line Catholic countries wherre the church teaches that life begins at conception. This is a very dangerous pick, and he should be filibustered. If the Republicans want him, make them choose him on their own, do not give them any help.

Posted by blacksoul at 07/20/2005 @ 1:35pm

Should Roebe overturned, it would merely return the state of the law to its prior form: each state able to direct its own law and policy as to that issue. Any attempt by the Republicans to enact a national law outlawing abortions would be on very shaky constitutional grounds. If Roberts does lead a charge resulting in "a substantial reduction in the power of the federal government to regulate conduct", is that necessarily a bad thing? Would this not return the country to that system that the founders intended...where the individual states could be the "laboratories" for varying social experiments? It is just as unfair for the people of Mississippi to impose their societal beliefs and policies on the people of California as it is for the reverse to be operative; however, under the present state of the law, that is the case with abortion. School prayer, religious displays, gay marriage...all of these could return to where they belong, as STATE issues. To borrow a phrase from a well known felon..."it's a good thing."

Posted by scronin at 07/20/2005 @ 1:38pm

A couple brief refs on Roberts records are available at: HERE [pfaw.org] and HERE [pfaw.org]

Posted by leftofcenter at 07/20/2005 @ 4:04pm

ASIDE: Perhaps an appropriate supreme court justice would be someone who may finally strike down the notion that a corporation is "a person" according to the government. (But then, it may not be adhering to Madison's dictum. So, let the states decide it!)

In my opinion, I don't see corporations as my equal, in terms of relevance to the community. Their behavior is more akin to mob rule than individual and independent thought. Therefore, they should be treated as such. We don't consider the Congress a person (thank God). It is an assembly of people. So it should be for the corporation. That one minor tweak in classification would undo a lot of havoc that has come to pass on to the real, living people of this nation, and even the world.

+++++++++++++++++++++

Pardon me while I put on my lawyer hat...

The designation of a corporation as a "person" is a product of state law. There is no national corporate law, that is why you have "states" of incorporation (Delaware bing the most prominent). It is necessary for them to have such a status or else they could not be sued. They have to have a domicile so that a court (state or federal) can exercise jurisdiction over it in a proper venue. Moreover, where corporations may cause harm and do not have sufficient capital (or insurance) to pay the damages cast against them, there is always the potential (albeit unlikely) of "piercing the corporate veil" and getting to the personal assets of the shareholders. It is a legal fiction, not a value judgment of the worth of one "person" versus another.

Posted by scronin at 07/20/2005 @ 4:15pm

BTW, thank you for the compliment and the feeling is mutual.

Posted by scronin at 07/20/2005 @ 4:16pm

Buddha:

I agree about Corporate Personhood. What a silly and destructive notion. I don't think that the court is a good place to look to change this policy though. It's better left to the people to advocate for a Corporate Bill of Rights with restrictions on what a corporation can do to further its own best interests. We too often accord Corporations rights while being unable to denounce their abuses. A corporation will never be a person so long as it's only motive is profit.

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/20/2005 @ 4:19pm

Never mind that the so-called Senate "majority" actually represents a smaller population fraction than the so-called "minority", and that the current president was elected with a barely-greater-than-50% "mandate" that, in light of the fact that his approval ratings before and after the election both were less than 50%, was more of a bare statistical anomaly than anything else. And certainly never mind that these representatives of this "American majority" can never respond to the fact that their glorious president is currently polling less than 50% on general and issue-specific approval polls consistently, even as he appoints an apparent hardline rightwing nominee who seems tailor-made to take a position opposing a specific legal right that has long maintained much greater than 50% public approval, despite massive attempts across the board on the part of the christian right to change that public approval through various mechanisms.

++++++++++++++++++

1) The Senate was set up in 1787 based upon state status, NOT population. The purpose was to make sure even the smallest states in terms of population would have some degree of power in the national government. Bring your lamentations regarding the lack of "true" representation to Madison and Hamilton. Population is reflected in the number of seats in the House and I am fairly confident that the Founders would have been appalled at the idea that a single state (California) would have over 12% of the total seats in that body.

2) While no great fan of GWB, I would note that in both of his elections, he received more votes (and a greater percentage of the popular vote) that his predecessor did in either of his elections. You can seek to discredit his election all you want, but the fact is, he won, as did his party.

Posted by scronin at 07/20/2005 @ 4:37pm

You address none of my points, Scronin. Bush barely got above 50%, barely long enough to be finally elected legitimately and democratically for his second term as president. Bush is NOT a popular president, nor does this messianic radical have any mandate for his sweeping radicalism and in-your-face antagonism towards all who disagree with him on any issue whatsoever, despite the fanatical insistence of his followers, the popular minority.

Hence, I have reason to be exasperate by some of the people who fancy themselves "conservatives". Sorry about that.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

No need to apologize to me.

Applying your logic, Clinton had ZERO mandate during his entire two terms considering he received only 43% of the popular vote in 1992, which is six percentage points less than did GWB in the 2000 election (49%) and 49% of the popular vote in 1996, which was three percentage points below what GWB got in 2004 (52%). Plus, unlike the Dems during Clinton's tenure, the GOP has gained seats throughout GWB's tenure in office. It seems to me that your argument supports the contention that liberals (Democrats) have no legitimacy in opposing Bush's nominees and policies.

Posted by scronin at 07/20/2005 @ 4:54pm

With all due respect, the only poll that matters is the one where people win (or lose) political offices.

Posted by scronin at 07/20/2005 @ 4:56pm

Scronin: Thanks for the clarification (and compliment).

Your response actually helps me to argue my point more efficiently, so thanks in advance.

I want to address two things:

1. I don't consider the status "person" with respect to individuals vs. corporations a value judgement; rather, I'm concerned with how it has been used as cover for some executive officers to engage in unfair practices that would land them in jail as indivuals.

2. You wrote: "Moreover, where corporations may cause harm and do not have sufficient capital (or insurance) to pay the damages cast against them, there is always the potential (albeit unlikely) of "piercing the corporate veil" and getting to the personal assets of the shareholders."

My question would be: if the status of "person" was redefined, or the "corporate veil" was a little easier to pierce, would that not empower the shareholders and board members to force more appropriate behavior of the corporations, lest they lose their capital? And shouldn't the "veil" be easier to pierce? Lack of accountability in a company's officers (read: individuals) is what causes these offenses to take place.

As a shareholder of a few companies, it would be scary to think that "the courts" could come and take everything away from me, with regard to my positions in a company that was involved in wrong-doing. It would be particularly scary to think that I may be held liable for these actions taken by the execs who run the place.

But isn't there a balance that can be struck that might curb the now obvious potential for the executives in companies to abuse their positions?

Or am I missing your point entirely?

I just think that redefining the way in which corporations are governed (both internally and externally) is a good starting point.

Posted by buddhaplex at 07/20/2005 @ 5:06pm

I'd suggest that intelligent contributors to this blog drop the food fight with school yard bullies like Freiheit above. If Freiheit stopped reading bumper stickers during his midnight manic cruises he'd have damn little food for thought. Grow up, son. And try reading the Constitution and Lincoln's second inaugural address. American constitutionalism interpreted is all about tolerance and respect for positions/views other than one's own. The Republican Party of today does not, repeat, does not promote these ideals. This is common knowledge, not rocket science.

Take a basic course in political science if the tolerance bell still doesn't ring in your heavy head. If you still feel the need to finger point and provoke others you may need sedatives, or maybe even a spanking depending on your age (19??).

And please stop throwing around the term "liberals". Liberal thinking espoused by folks like John Locke, Madison, Hamilton, John Jay gifted us with what we have today. Contemporary conservative thinking demanded that we remain obedient, servile subjects of the Crown. Those guys eventually ended up leaving for Canada never to return. Think about that for a few minutes.

Insofar as Nichol's comments are concerned....... aw, forget it.

Posted by DownWithW at 07/20/2005 @ 5:08pm

If we were all honest, and gave leaders of the Democratic Party truth serum, I'll bet they all secretly hope a Right Wing-dominated Supreme Court "messes" with Roe v. Wade. Why? This would be mass suicide for the Republican Party with many of their own voters who, while conservative in all other ways, support abortion rights.

Posted by trabaris at 07/20/2005 @ 5:20pm

"1. I don't consider the status "person" with respect to individuals vs. corporations a value judgement; rather, I'm concerned with how it has been used as cover for some executive officers to engage in unfair practices that would land them in jail as indivuals."

Actually, for the most part the corporate structure does not insulate officers and directors from liabilty (civil or criminal) arising from illegal conduct. The purpose of establishing the corporate entity was to "escape" from the imposition of liablity on investors for the whole of the debts of the business (regardless of the source of those debts). Partners in a business are personally liable for the debts of the partnership such that where the assets are insufficient to satisfy the obligations, they are personally responsible to satisfy those debts. This operated in inhibit economic growth.

"2. You wrote: "Moreover, where corporations may cause harm and do not have sufficient capital (or insurance) to pay the damages cast against them, there is always the potential (albeit unlikely) of "piercing the corporate veil" and getting to the personal assets of the shareholders."

My question would be: if the status of "person" was redefined, or the "corporate veil" was a little easier to pierce, would that not empower the shareholders and board members to force more appropriate behavior of the corporations, lest they lose their capital? And shouldn't the "veil" be easier to pierce? Lack of accountability in a company's officers (read: individuals) is what causes these offenses to take place."

Shareholders already have that power...their ability to vote for the members of the board of directors as well as to place matters before the other shareholders for consideration to be added to the corporate articles and/or by laws of the corporation. The problem is (and there's really now way to fix it) that many shareholders either do not vote their proxies, or large number of shares are held by institutional investors (pension funds, mutual funds, etc.) which merely care about the "bottom line".

"As a shareholder of a few companies, it would be scary to think that "the courts" could come and take everything away from me, with regard to my positions in a company that was involved in wrong-doing. It would be particularly scary to think that I may be held liable for these actions taken by the execs who run the place."

Shareholders liability is limited to the extent of the capital invested. In other words, if Microsoft were to go under tomorrow, the shareholders would "only" lose what they put in. They would not be personally liable for the debts or obligations of the corporation beyond what they put in. However, if the corporation was a mere shell with no assets, then the courts may well look to the stockholders (because these set-ups are typically either sole proprietorships [set up for tax purposes] or are subsidiaries of larger, capitalized parent companies).

"But isn't there a balance that can be struck that might curb the now obvious potential for the executives in companies to abuse their positions?"

I think that some of the legislation that has come in the wake of all the corporate scandals, as well as the active prosecutions by the Bush Justice Department, will serve to help make corporations better "citizens".

Posted by scronin at 07/20/2005 @ 5:22pm

Nattie-B: Agreed. But the majority of money that pours into the Congress-peoples' and Senators' pockets is corporate money. It is a foregone conclusion that the corporations control what goes on there.

It may be a representative government; but right now, the House and Senate are mainly representing the corporations.

Also, the people that work for corporations (I do, and so probably do a great many of us) would easily be fearful of their livelihoods being threatened because of this new legislation.

It's not an easy war to fight. Big businesses have taken on a very important part of our lives. They do enable us to prosper, grow and "put food on our families" (I couldn't resist). Still, the ultimate goal of profit creates a soulless monster that could potentially devistate many more lives than it nourishes. How to deal with such a monster?

Posted by buddhaplex at 07/20/2005 @ 5:26pm

"American constitutionalism interpreted is all about tolerance and respect for positions/views other than one's own. The Republican Party of today does not, repeat, does not promote these ideals. This is common knowledge, not rocket science."

And the Democrat Party is a font of tolerance of "other" positions? Explain Bob Casey, Democrat governor of Pennsylvania, who was barred from speaking at the 1992 Democrat Convention due to his pro-life stance (he was the Casey of Casey v. Planned Parenthood). Explain how every black politician or judge that does not "toe the party line" on affirmative action is an "Uncle Tom"...

Posted by scronin at 07/20/2005 @ 5:31pm

Scronin: I guess the point is: there's not much to be done about it, unless masses of shareholders can get together, spend all of their time researching the corporate execs that seem to float in and out of jobs, and vote their proxies. Even then, if they don't combine their proxy votes to equal or outnumber the institutional investors' votes, it's a moot point.

BTW, thanks for fleshing out your SS proposal. I'm digging it. But I'm still worried about that 6.25% the companies are kicking in to the government, instead of my "personal account". I want it back!

Maybe I'll ask for a bigger bonus. ;-)

Posted by buddhaplex at 07/20/2005 @ 5:35pm

"But I'm still worried about that 6.25% the companies are kicking in to the government, instead of my "personal account". I want it back!"

You have to feed the dog... Considering tha SS will not exist by the time I hit retirement, it's an easy call for me to make. I get a tangible result now and a better return later in exchange for forsaking benefits I would never have received in the first place.

Posted by scronin at 07/20/2005 @ 5:39pm

I support Roe v. Wade. I oppose multinational corporate control of White House, Congress, courts and media. But you had best face it. John Roberts will be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court unless his brief but important work on the bench can be used to demonstrate and to illustrate that he either has insufficient knowledge of law, or an inability to hear cases fairly, question testimony thoroughly and with integrity, or a demonstrable and willful shifting of his perceptions upon pressure from vested interests he wishes to please. You are dreaming if you think he will be rejected on the basis of what he once said when not on the bench, or a conservatism he may most likely reflect.

I think that resurrecting Roe v. Wade would horribly disrupt the country. But there is far, far more to the honest practice of Constitutional law than one case and one issue. Find more stuff, or resign yourself to the inevitable.

Posted by jbetterl at 07/20/2005 @ 5:51pm

"You have to feed the dog... Considering tha SS will not exist by the time I hit retirement, it's an easy call for me to make."

I guess you're right. It's not going to be around by the time I retire, either. Hopefully, the markets will sustain themselves as they have been over the years.

Although, have you given thought to the possibility that the markets' performance will not be as "dynamic" with such a huge influx of capital investments from many, many more people?

All that money isn't necessarily going to make the money that it once made. It will have to be dispersed over many more accounts, which means its value will in effect, be lessened. At least, that's how dilution is supposed to work.

Posted by buddhaplex at 07/20/2005 @ 5:53pm

Oops. Forgot to stay on topic:

Let the Judges make that call. ;-)

Posted by buddhaplex at 07/20/2005 @ 5:53pm

Certainly, an infusion of investment into the markets does create an unknown in that these companies (or mutual fund companies) will have do do SOMETHING with the money. A lot more R & D and a lot more capital investment to start, but that usually provides better returns down the line. Even if they used the money for debt service (shoring up pensions perhaps...), it would improve the economic health of those companies and the economy generally. Hell, just investing the money in T-Bills or bonds would yield a better return than what SS is getting now.

Posted by scronin at 07/20/2005 @ 6:02pm

True enough. Great blogging with you. I'm signing off.

Posted by buddhaplex at 07/20/2005 @ 6:13pm

Same here buddha.

Gentlemen (and ladies [the anonymity of the Internet makes being well-manner difficult]), it has been a geniune pleasure chatting with you all during the course of the day. Hopefully, we can do it again soon.

Posted by scronin at 07/20/2005 @ 6:24pm

Zero, it's time to get off your ego train! What makes you think that any of the conservatives posting here cares one way or another whether you stand or fall on your face, and definitely we aren't looking for your respect. I might as well ask a jihadist to drop his sword (or explosive filled back pack) and give me a big hug.

Without really trying to speak for others, I would assume most are like myself and we post here to provide our opinions wherever it is permitted. Further while it is interesting, infuriating, perplexing, and sometimes all three at once, I'm sure most enjoy as I do, reading these views from someone other than the talking heads that appear for both sides in the media.

Sometimes they simply affirm what we believe are the "shortcomings" of liberals, and sometimes they indeed challenge us to better defend our viewpoints. There are good, bad, and ridiculous on all sides of politics...but other than a few who intrude, I don't see most of the conservatives with the kind of immature responses that you employ to virtually every conservative... we are cranks, idiots, and filled with hysterics. You somehow can't even comprehend why to a conservative, the ACLU is just as dangerous and a threat to our values and way of life as you see Operation Rescue. You simply dismiss it is idiocy and not worthy of your superior intelligence. Just like your denigration of states not having an equal voice because they are less populated; that one is truly self-serving drabble. Thank goodness your world view is not in control, California and New York would dictate to the rest of Americans. As a Californian, that would scare me as I see the absence of thoughtful participation in electoral politics as virtually pandemic here...just look at the evidence that keeps returning Barbara Boxer to the Senate. Now there is an emptyheaded liberal bigot if ever existed ( a little over the top but not by much).

Posted by love liberty at 07/20/2005 @ 6:32pm

Love Lib: I know I said I'd signed off. But I had to answer this last post. As a Libertarian-leaning liberal (meaning, a more European version of big-L Liberal), I take issue with your characterization of the ACLU, and your allegations that it is "threatening your way of life."

Operation Rescue actively encourages violence to acheieve their ends. They use sensationalist tactics to provoke overtly-emotional reactions from its members, those who align themselves with its causes, and the general public. Their cause, stated on their website, is "Dedicated to ending abortion in America."

The ACLU, by a mighty big contrast, is dedicated to the preservation of everyone's civil liberties: conservatives, liberals, libertarians, blacks, gays, Jews, men, women, etc. Here is thier "mission statement":

"Advocating individual rights by litigating, legislating, and educating the public on a broad array of issues affecting individual freedom."

The ACLU essentially engages the government to change its policies through the COURTS, with the specific aim of protecting the individual liberties promised us in our Constitution.

The actions of the ACLU are a far cry from Operation Rescue's use of scare tactics and threats to attain legislative victories. And in the end, probably will be more effective.

If you wouldn't mind telling me specifically what the ACLU stands for that threatens your way of life, I'd love to hear it.

Thanks.

Posted by buddhaplex at 07/20/2005 @ 6:55pm

Freiheit: While you may be right about some of your points, your logic is a little muddled. The situation in Iraq is about oil, no doubt about it. But to suggest that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by the CIA, when there's no evidence to support that, sounds a little off. As in off your face.

Also, as far as Chomsky goes, he would never have voted for Kerry, had there been any candidates opposing Bush that could potentially have beaten him. The Democrats and Republicans both share very similar views overall on foreign policy. Don't YOU read Chomsky?

Presidents Carter and Clinton both have as much blood on their hands as Bush & Co. Carter looked the other way when East Timor was being decimated by the Indonesians. In fact, he GAVE some weapons to the Indonesians, fully knowing they were doing it. Do you know this? Chomsky wrote about it. Next time you bring up Chomsky, maybe you should come to the table having read a larger body of his work than just "9/11", because he's got criticisms for the entire political spectrum here in the U.S., if you can call it that.

Yes, it's scary. But if you look in the mirror, you'd just as easily see the "cause of terrorism." So would Chomsky, for that matter.

Posted by buddhaplex at 07/20/2005 @ 7:42pm

To correct myself, I meant to type: "Also, as far as Chomsky goes, he would never have voted for Kerry, had there been any alternative candidates opposing Bush that could potentially have beaten him on a ticket that proposed to completely overthrow (or overhaul) the U.S. government as we now know it. The Democrats and Republicans both share very similar views overall on foreign policy. Don't YOU read Chomsky?"

There, I feel better.

Posted by buddhaplex at 07/20/2005 @ 7:46pm

Could it be that Bush actually expects Roberts to go the way of Bork, i.e. down to defeat, then he can throw up his hands in the direction of his radical far-right base and say with resignation "Oh, well, I tried; guess we'll have to be a bit more realistic with the next nominee" - then possibly go with a Souter or Kennedy type. Anyway we can hope.

Posted by phildtm at 07/20/2005 @ 7:59pm

Zero: I know you have signed off, but I was out listening to a seminar on how to manage my retirement portfolio (not relevant, just a capitalist ragging). Hopefully you will have a chance to read this thread.

Love Liberty: the ACLU is not a "threat to your way of life," let alone any kind of "threat" like "Operation Rescue". That second group is a group that uses violence to people and property, threats of this violence, and other forms of intimidation to attempt to force political change on America by creating a climate of fear amongst those who support abortion rights and/or want to peacefully access a clinic.

Well, let's examine your standard.

The ACLU was founded in 1920 by Roger Baldwin a member of the Communist Pary. Earl Brawder then General Secretary of the Comm. Party USA said the "ACLU is a transmission belt for the Party".

They have never renounced that history nor has that political philosophy ever been removed as a driving force behind their actions. Just some samples:

The continued Harrassment of the Boy Scouts because a private organization has since it's founding, required an oath of allegiance to God (while non specific and totally non creedal) and to remain morally straight. This offends the ACLU.

They have an active and open hostility towards Christians and Jews while not finding it a violation of Church and State for Hinduism and Satanism in the public arena. Too many cases to cite and most are well known by all.

They are against the US maintaining sovereign control of it's borders and who comes in. They have a current lawsuit against the US Gov't for daring to arrest 400 illegal immigrants at other than a border crossing and "creating fear for themselves and their families to work, shop, and go to school."

They have legal action going against the US Gov't to release 2 admitted supporters of Hamas because they are being deprived of their right of association.

Their internal policy documents and I give an example from the Southern California Chapter, continue to expouse transforming this nation into a communist one. In their Economic Bill of Rights Policy #318 states that everyone must be guaranteed a job at a living wage, housing, helthcare, and food to eat. Tthat is straight from Communism.

Finally, Ramona Ripston who is President of the Southern California ACLU has stated many times in interviews that I have listened to on KPFK the LA Pacifica radio station that she considers conservative Fundamentalist Christians to be America's Taliban who must be stopped because we are equally as dangerous as the Taliban were in Afghanistan.

And you say I'm silly and not to be taken seriously when I say they are a threat to my way of life...

Posted by love liberty at 07/20/2005 @ 8:08pm

Get over it!! You lost the election. The president will appoint his choice. The longer you folks present Katrina as your representative, the longer Repulicans will stay in office. Roberts is our guy, and he is smart and more than qualified. Keep up the good work Democrats...you have lost the majority forever! Isn't it sweet to see Ted Kennedy denouncing Judge Roberts on the annivesary of him drownning a girl on Martha's Vineyard. Way to go Ted! Lecture us about morality. Jim

Posted by cuda at 07/20/2005 @ 8:28pm

Bush made a brillant move with the Roberts nomination. Hia past advocacy as counsel has only limited merit and his court record is a short one. All said, he appears better behaved than Scalia, smarter than Thomas and will certainly outlive most of his colleagues. As a ACLU member, I suspect Roberts will be a independent jurist that leans to the right initially. Beyond his first few years I'm not so sure the conservatives have a reliable vote. He won't be the last court member whose opinions and world view change with the job. For one, I want to hear what the man has to say and what his critics have found. Far to soon to hit the barricades!

Posted by Terry Day at 07/20/2005 @ 8:57pm

what is this the fascist comment page? we have been invaded by a bunch of fascists! this guy roberts is a fascist with a harvard law degree. filibuster him, send him back to whereever he came from. curtail abortion? what a joke. women should be able to control their own bodies and not to birth children they don't want. this guy is a racist and a fascist, if republicans and demoncrats don't dump him, that's just another sign that this country has lost its way. we need some real courageous people in there. he wants to make women have babies???!!! what kind of sick, deranged world is he from? doesn't he know that even in italy, women have a right to an abortion? catholic italy!

Posted by blacksoul at 07/20/2005 @ 11:28pm

In my book, anyone -- and I mean anyone -- who makes Ann Coulter this angry [news.yahoo.com] deserves serious consideration!

Posted by idea_hamster at 07/21/2005 @ 12:09am

LL,

I have to say that to think that people don't have the right to a living wage, a place to live, healthcare & food to eat is a silly idea. I would think that to guarantee people these essentials, would be to guarantee a much better society for us all. It's a shame that some people (mainly the wealthy, but others as well) see this as a threat. The only ones who seem to desire the status quo, are those that benifit the most from it (ie: the rich & those who hope to fulfill "The American Dream" & become rich).

Posted by thejman at 07/21/2005 @ 08:50am

Perhaps it is blasphemous (constitutionally speaking) to suggest this, but has anyone considered the possibility that lifetime appointments are not the best idea? After all, what makes the judiciary so sacrosanct that judges be allowed to hold a position indefinetly? If many are opposed to tenure for teachers and college professors, why do we allow this type of luxury for judges?

Posted by hhemwm at 07/21/2005 @ 09:25am

If we want "responsible judges" who will maintain their "good behavior", why don't we consider granting appointments comparable to what members of the Federal Trade Commission are allowed? After all, how reasonable is it to have this type of knock down and drag out fight every time there is a vacancy on the court? This is hardly about constitutional law any more and every bit about culture war. Isn't it ludicrous to think that thirty years from now we might have a country held captive by the views of some justices who still operate in a late twentieth-century mindset? Conservatives might be alright with this fealty to the past, but what about the majority of Americans seeking practical solutions to contemporary problems?

Posted by hhemwm at 07/21/2005 @ 09:30am

If responsible constitutional interpretation is what we are after, why should we worry about replacing the judiciary more regularly to reflect the mindset of those occupying the seats of power? Responsible jurists will always look at the constitution to the best of their ability and if we do not think their decisions are compatible with contemporary issues we need only wait a few years until they are replaced.

The Supreme Court is not a holy body and tinkering with term limits certainly isn't the worst thing we could do. After all, once upon a blue moon the GOP flirted with term limiting Congress to give the voters a better chance at representative and responsive government. How would term limiting the court be in any way a hindrance to American Democracy? Perhaps we should not fear the power of the people and actually give them THREE branches of government that -theoretically- change with the times. The senate was designed to be a curb against the passions of the unruly and popularly elected House and that was changed and the roof has not fallen in yet. Furthermore, in an age in which competitive congressional elections are become evermore rare, what are we really worried about? Everyone nopw seems to be becoming ensconced in government as perpetual bureaucrats. . . .

Posted by hhemwm at 07/21/2005 @ 09:37am

HHEMWM. I agree totally. The power of the Supreme Court is too great to have lifetime appointments & no viable way for the people to impeach the justices that the majority may not like. The Governments first duty should be to it's people. Unfortunately this has become less and less the case as far as the Supreme Court is concerned. Lifetime appointments seem to conflict with democratic principles. At least in my opinion.

Posted by thejman at 07/21/2005 @ 10:14am

The point I'm trying to make is, to whom does the Supreme Court answer?

Posted by thejman at 07/21/2005 @ 10:21am

the best thing that could happen is IF a case to the supreme court DID overturn Roe v Wade.

It would prove to those that have taken it for granted that they should go out and vote Democrats in, just like the Republicans have used abortion to hammer the otherwise democrats to vote Republican on just this ONE ISSUE!

Screw Rowe V Wade and the pro choice stance, looks where its gotten the liberals and the democratic party. A government totaly controlled by the right wing extremists.

Posted by oc2001 at 07/21/2005 @ 10:46am

Wow! There were quite a lot of battles yesterday.

Roberts will be confirmed, guys. Unless we find out that he's been having an affair with a monkey (or something like that) he's in.

Let's try something radical. Let's start our discussion from points in which we (liberals and conservatives) are in agreement. For example, I think we both agree that murderers should not be elected to the Supreme Court. See, that wasn't so hard. I think we both can agree that the candidate should have superior credentails, experience, and intellect. Yes, we all want this.

The problem with almost all blogs, conversations, editorials, etc. these days is that the other side is always an idiot. How can you have meaningful discussion with an idiot? How can you truly consider the point of view of an idiot? How can an idiot change your mind?

Let's face it. No matter how righteous we feel, it is HIGLY unlikey that either side has it completely right. Each of us is probably wrong about something. How are we ever going to find out what that something is if we never really consider other points of view?

Posted by bcantello at 07/21/2005 @ 10:52am

There is no fundamental difference between "socialism" and "capitalism," so that accusations mean very little: 1/ The "ideologies" of all workplaces are the same; "bosses" are not elected by their employees, including the children or parents. 2/ The Bush concept of an "ownership society" is borrowed from the founding principle of socialism, i.e., "workers should own the means of production." 3/ Article I of the Constitution was written by and for slaveowners. It took 70 years and a ghastly war to even begin to undo that monstrosity. 4/ It took 60 years for the Supreme Court to even declare that school segregation was insane, and it took military force to even begin implementing that decision. 5/ When civil rights legislation finally was enacted in the 1960s, the descendants of the slaveowners promptly decided to make their peace with the party of Lincoln instead of the party of Lyndon Johnson. This created the solid "red state" map that the opponents of civil rights now label "mainstream America."

thinkman67

Posted by thinkman67 at 07/21/2005 @ 11:03am

It is also fair to note that as a recent trial in Philadelphia, MS demonstrated, the foes of civil rights legislation have not hesitated to become "insurgents" and "terrorists" when supporting their version of "states' rights."

Posted by thinkman67 at 07/21/2005 @ 11:09am

This is really great! The nomination to the supreme court, this smarmy white boy, this stealth candidate is really flushing out the right wing thugs and neo-facist ideologues. Just a word to the surprisingly naive comments made by some....dont think these guys are kidding. They mean what they say. If they could they would lock this country up in a theocratic/capitalist dictatorship that would be oh so painful for most of us. This offer to try to unite liberals and conservatives in areas of common interests is made contigent that first the liberals give up supporting a woman's right to choose whether or not she will get pregnant and with whom and when. Then of course the guns...we need to stop supporting anys sort of gun regulations at all...yes of course. So...beware these offers are trojan horses. These are not real conservatives anyway....they are fascists and sexist thugs.

Posted by Rosalinda at 07/21/2005 @ 11:53am

The purposes and intent of lifetime appointment was/is to remove the judges (and justices) from the influences and vageries of the inevitable swings in political fortunes. Think about it, would Souter sill be on the Court in the present climate if he were subject to some sort of "review"? I don't like his rulings, but I also do not support any move to remove this "insulation" from the courts. I live in a state where the judges are elected (i.e., politically beholden to constituencies to maintain their position) and witness firsthand the abuses that result from such an arrangement. Despite the "appeal" of the idea, lifetime appointment is the way to go.

The only change I might make is to impose a retirement age of 70 and require that the judge must retire within 2 years of his/her 70th birthday (thus, they could techincally serve until they are 72). This way, a "liberal" justice could theoretically delay their retirement until a Democrat president can nominate the replacement (the same with a "conservative" justice)

Posted by scronin at 07/21/2005 @ 11:57am

I find this column and the knee-jerk responses to Roberts irritating. It's just not fair game to attribute to a lawyer views he presents in a brief on behalf of a client, like in this case, a government, at least not without a lot of nuanced qualifications. It's making the commentators look silly and hysterical to me, and, therefore, ineffective.

Who knows, Roberts may turn out to be a Blackmun, a conservative with some integrity who moves to the left during a long tenure on the Court.

The point is, there appears to be no evidence he is an ideologue, or not qualified for the job.

My theory is the Bush administration has scored a coup here. They have put forward Roberts, who's recently been confirmed for his present very good job, on the theory that the Democrats will embarrass themselves trying to attack him on spurious grounds like briefs he may or may not have authored himself as solicitor general. Then, after a battle in which the Democrats are made to look like ideologues, and so politically weakened,

THEN the Bush administration will put forward a real radical for Rehnquist's spot.

DON'T FALL FOR THE BAIT!

Posted by imgold at 07/21/2005 @ 12:04pm

IMGOLD...I think you have probably hit the strategy on the head. Additionally, considering that this nominee is a white male, I suspect that GWB has a very good idea that another slot will be opening up soon.

Posted by scronin at 07/21/2005 @ 12:07pm

Scronin, You said you "I live in a state where the judges are elected (i.e., politically beholden to constituencies to maintain their position) and witness firsthand the abuses that result from such an arrangement." If you refer (as I believe you do) to the conflicts of interest that occur as a result of campaign contributions & the like I understand your concern. I can't stand that type of behavior either. But couldn't publicly financed campaigns curb most of this?

Posted by thejman at 07/21/2005 @ 12:18pm

I do not believe so...

In the present situation, judicial nominees are not really "political" animals in the truest sense of the word. Certainly, they have to engage in a political process for the purposes of being confirmed; however, they are essentially apolitical in respect to actually "campaigning" for the position. Such a scheme as has been proposed here would change that dynamic. If a justice/judge were coming up for a "retention" election in the next few years, he/she would look to where the political winds are blowing and possibly mitigate their positions to placate certain elements of the electorate. Just look at what presidential candidates do to make sure they have the "broadest" appeal.

Would it be a national election, or would the judges be assigned "districts", with the USA being divided into nine districts. If the Congress draws up those districts, do you not think that the GOP (or Democrats should they be in control) would not "gerrymander" the districts to ensure results?

It goes far beyond just conflicts of interest.

Posted by scronin at 07/21/2005 @ 12:28pm

TheJMan:

I agree with Scronin. Politically beholden justices on the Supreme Court would inevitably increase the beholden nature of their opinions. Justices would campaign on the basis of results of individual cases, creating a conflict of interest between the apparent justice of their opinions and fairness under the law.

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/21/2005 @ 12:38pm

I have to say that to think that people don't have the right to a living wage, a place to live, healthcare & food to eat is a silly idea. I would think that to guarantee people these essentials, would be to guarantee a much better society for us all. It's a shame that some people (mainly the wealthy, but others as well) see this as a threat. The only ones who seem to desire the status quo, are those that benifit the most from it (ie: the rich & those who hope to fulfill "The American Dream" & become rich).

Posted by THEJMAN 07/21/2005 @ 08:50am

I believe you misconstrue "why" we conservatives find the ACLU policy I quoted to be a threat. We obviously desire all Americans to enjoy the fruits of liberty; however, we don't believe the Government as defined by our Constitution should guarantee these things. That requires the government (and hence the American taxpayer) to fund all these things whether a person can or even wants to earn them or not. Furthermore, what level of satisfaction do you guarantee? Is an apartment enough for taxpayers to pay for, or must we provide them with a house? And what standard of living for jobs, healthcare, and food is acceptable? I can easily see where nothing less than a middle class lifestyle would be required so as not to maintain class distinctions which the ACLU and other Socialist organizations see as evil.

Posted by love liberty at 07/21/2005 @ 1:09pm

IMGold, I think you just might be right about that. . . assuming Rehnquist is ever willing to give up his job. My take on that is he thinks that he can finally preside over the changes he has been gunning for these past thirty-three years. Once the changes come, then Rehnquist will retire.

Posted by hhemwm at 07/21/2005 @ 1:29pm

Assuming he can remain alive long enough to see it happen. . . he looks pretty ill these days.

Posted by hhemwm at 07/21/2005 @ 1:29pm

LL:

There is a point to your welfare as socialism critique, but the Republican administration would just as soon throw the baby out with the bathwater. The administration would be happy if the government played no role in ensuring that the poorest among us had a decent standard of living, with no right to healthcare, housing, or food. The administration feels America would be better off if the poorest were required to beg for the charity of religious institutions. While I think the administration is generally wrong about these types of questions, I'm curious where you come down on what the richest society in the world should ensure that each of our members have? What about those who are mentally or physically unable to secure a decent living? Out on the street?

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/21/2005 @ 1:54pm

The problem is that states and private charities carried this "burden" until the 20th Century, when the national government took it upon itself to assume these functions. Admittedly, the Depression forced the government's hand in this; however, even the New Deal's "make work" programs (CCC, WPA, etc.) required the recipients to work for the money they received. There was very little in the way of outright governmental "charity". If such a program were put in place today, there would be a tremendous hue and cry from the left (as there was in 1996 with welfare "reform").

The conservative (Republican) idea is that a thriving and growing economy benefits all (rising tide lifts all boats). I will aver that some will fall through the cracks and will not received the benefits; however, a fair number of those are unwilling to expend the effort to try to access the system (for whatever reason). As for those who have disabilities that absolutely prevent them from working or earning, that is a different story; however, they should not be entitled to a standard of living beyond the means of someone who is actually working and contributing to the economy.

American society has tried to guarantee the opportunity to succeed, not success itself.

Posted by scronin at 07/21/2005 @ 2:10pm

Nattie: most conservatives agree that apart from the work of both religious and non-religious organizations which should bear the bulk of relief efforts, Government does have a role in providing a safety net for those like you have cited. The problem that developed with first "New Deal" and then Johnson's "Great Society" government action is that they have proven not to work.

There have been some excellent studies that indicated there was a dramatic increase in a "welfare" class of African Americans for example since the 1940's. Between 1880 and 1940, there was a much larger African American middle class and a higher rate of African American owned businesses. Even radical groups like the Nation of Islam stress that the way to change their situation is to stop depending on Government and take control of their own lives and also and equally important,start doing more to take care of those in need without government intervention.

I go back to my point again about your valid question on living essentials. What level is sufficient? Most on the left want to create a classless society and that can only come if we abandon capitalism and the ability to make free choices over where we live, work, associate, and how we live.

P.S. As I have said before, I enjoy your questions and responses because they are reasoned and open to legitimate dialogue.

Posted by love liberty at 07/21/2005 @ 2:11pm

nice additional commentary to my posting and to Nattie's questions scronin.

thank you!

Posted by love liberty at 07/21/2005 @ 2:12pm

Anytime

Posted by scronin at 07/21/2005 @ 2:18pm

LL & Scro: What health care benefits should be denied to the low income individuals who work in service jobs because they are unable to earn enough money although playing an important role in our economy?

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/21/2005 @ 3:16pm

LL,

Sorry for such a late response. I'm not saying that we should just give everything away. I am aware that there are people who would try to milk society for everything they could (there are some who do it already). I'm saying that we can do better. I see a point to your critique. But I think that those who demonstrate a desire to learn & better themselves could use a little help from society & government to make society better. I'm not looking for an all out welfare state or a bunch of state owned enterprises.

Posted by thejman at 07/21/2005 @ 3:21pm

Here's a non-conservative answer...

I would take all of the money allocated for Medicare and Medicaid (and any other money going to health care for low income workers [CHIPS]) as well as the VA, add 10% to that, then modernize and expand all VA hospitals as well as establish regional primary health centers. I would offer waivers of repayments of student loans for medical students/doctors and nurses who would give a certain committment to working at those hospitals/clinics. Liablity against these providers would similarly be limited for malpractice claims (capped damages) while they worked there. There would be some rather tight utilization rules for diagnostic and surgical procedures.

THIS would be the medical care that would be availble to anyone that does not have their own private health care coverage. Employers that did not offer health care coverage (in whole or in part) would have to pay a 2% tax on their gross income into the program.

People who want their own private health care coverage (or want to pay fee for service) could continue to do so, and deduct 75% of the premium paid for the insurance policy from their income taxes. Additionally, the deductibility for medical expenses would be any amount over $3,000.00 regardless of income (not any amount above 7.5% of tabable income, as is the current requirement).

There...

Posted by scronin at 07/21/2005 @ 3:29pm

First of all, ROSALINDA, I hope you weren't referring to my post when you referenced an offer on finding common ground. I'm about as left as you can get, and I am female. I just don't see how we (humans) expect to advance our causes if we just shout, name call, and refuse to listen. (I'm not suggesting that you are doing these things, I'm just restating my point.)

Secondly, Love Liberty, it's pretty silly to just say that is has been proven that government sponsered social programs do not work. Experts on the subject can site as many statistics/studies as you can that prove that they do. Everyone agrees that many of these programs are flawed, but that does not necessarily make them a failure or mean that they should be scratched completely. Besides, determining success or failure is a pretty subjective endeavor.

Posted by bcantello at 07/21/2005 @ 3:30pm

LL & Scro: What health care benefits should be denied to the low income individuals who work in service jobs because they are unable to earn enough money although playing an important role in our economy?

Nattie, to use California as an example, no one is turned away from health services simply for an inability to pay..that is our MediCal. Qualifying income levels are stated to allow those precisely as you describe to still have access to health services. As I stated previously, there is a role for Government safety nets and it should fall primarily on the state and local level

ditto in this to Jman...thanks for your comments also.

Posted by love liberty at 07/21/2005 @ 3:37pm

oops sorry for the formatting..

Posted by love liberty at 07/21/2005 @ 3:51pm

SCRO,

Sounds like an excellent start.

Posted by thejman at 07/21/2005 @ 3:53pm

As I said yesterday, I am not a doctrinaire conservative.

Posted by scronin at 07/21/2005 @ 3:55pm

Right LL, but what about necessary specialized care & prescriptions? There are way too many people unable to take the recommended prescriptions given to them by their doctors (seniors cutting there pills in half & many not filling prescriptions at all because they have no prescription plan at all & can't afford them).

Geez, could we have drifted any further off topic! :-)

Posted by thejman at 07/21/2005 @ 3:58pm

"Geez, could we have drifted any further off topic! :-)"

I guess the powers that be will be deleting about 80% of the posts...

Posted by scronin at 07/21/2005 @ 4:05pm

I am new to this method of conversation but I have to tell you that I am a bit appalled by so much childish name-calling and insults, back and forth. Fortunately there are some here who reason well and can make a coherent and lucid argument. I am up for intelligence, whether it comes from the Right or the Left. The childish yammerings and yowlings, though, do get in the way of that. Perhaps the yowlers mommies should give them a time out to calm down.

Posted by JosephD at 07/21/2005 @ 4:48pm

John Nichols wrote "For more than a decade, Scalia and Thomas have campaigned without success to reverse the Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which removed barriers to a woman's right to choose."

ARE YOU NUTS???

Roe v. Wade wasn't even ABOUT abortion! It was a State's Rights issue that was probably one of the worst decisions since Lincoln said the States don't have the right to susceed from the Union!

The Constitution lays out EXACTLY what rights the Federal Government has. Please, someone, ANYONE point out in the Constitution where it says the Federal government has the right to legislate abortion (or ANY medical treatment for that matter).

Just be aware...if Roe v. Wade is overturned it is not the end of legal abortion. It just reverts back to the States to decide whether abortion will be legal in that state. By the way...there never was a time when abortion was illegal in the whole country...there were always certain states that allowed it.

Posted by RUNuts? at 07/21/2005 @ 4:52pm

Josephd, That is true, but I don't know if anyone noticed ... it happened back at around 2:11, Nattie&Scronin & LL had a moment that might have been lost among the noise. At the risk of sounding sappy, two sides of a deeply divided America stated their case, showed respect for the other side, and for a moment, albeit a small one, a divided country took at least one small step closer.

Hats of to Natti, Scronin and LL for elevating the level of respect in the discourse.

Perhaps there is hope for us all.

Posted by NJDevil at 07/21/2005 @ 4:55pm

Thank you. It's just too bad the "leaders" or "spokespersons" of our respective political philosophies cannot do the same...

Posted by scronin at 07/21/2005 @ 5:07pm

Sorry for the double posting, but as I read through some of the postings I found people who as recent as 7/20 are saying "Will the President fire Karl Rove for violating his non-disclosure agreement" and "Rove's traitorious act 'outing' an undercover CIA operative".

ARE YOU NUTS???

OK...first...She was not an "undercover" agent and hadn't been for 6 years (I believe it was 6...maybe more). She works a desk job in DC for heaven's sake!

Second...Rove didn't "out" her...Robert Novak, a journalist did. How come nobody's calling for him to resign or be fired? HMMM?

Third...the bipartisen Grand Jury has said Rove did nothing wrong.

What does it take for you people to understand this was nothing but a political witch hunt? The Democrats think Karl Rove runs the White House and thought if they could get rid of him, Bush and his administration would fold like a house of cards. No such luck folks!

The real question here that no one in the media seems to be asking is who is it that the Judith Miller is protecting by sitting in jail?

Posted by RUNuts? at 07/21/2005 @ 5:12pm

The media dropped the ball???? Shocker!

Posted by NJDevil at 07/21/2005 @ 5:14pm

Thank you RUNUTS, for saying what very few others recognize. ROE V WADE is not "The Rule of Law". If you want to define Judicial Activism, lets do that. Judicial activism is when you take *1* Supreme Court Case that dealt with *1* specific issue, and somehow turn it into a piece of legislation and refer to the precedent as "The Rule of Law". ROE V WADE is not the name of a law passed by congress. They are simply the pseudonames of the plaintiff and defendent of *1* particular case. I love how it is NOT okay for the republicans to require a litmus test but it IS okay for Decmocrats. It's okay for Democrats to require a *Pro Choice* judge but NOT okay for a Republican to nominate or even suggest nominating a *PRO LIFE* judge. Talk about hypocrisy! Oh, and by the way. The President is a *Conservative* Republican. Both houses of Congress consists of a majority of *Conservative* Republicans. The majority of Governors and State Legislatures are controlled by... you guessed it, *Conservative Republicans*. The Democrats are not exactly in a position to demand anything from anyone. They are *lucky* that the Republicans have been kind enough to include them in anything. At least the Republicans are trying to be as bipartisan as possible, yet the Democrats insist that *everything* be approved by them, even though they are in the minority. Amazing. Just amazing. Time for Republicans to start playing some hardball for a change. I really hope that Roberts is confirmed. If he is vehemently opposed by the socialists that run organizations like NOW and the ACLU then he certainly gets a Thumbs up from actual freedom loving Americans such as myself.

Posted by ShawnInSD at 07/21/2005 @ 5:18pm

A few points of clarification...

There is still an open question as to whether Valerie Plame was a "covert" CIA agent. The key question is whether the CIA was taking active measures to conceal her identity. However, your reference to the six (6) year period is the significant part of the purported violation of the statute in that said agent, even if covert, must also have been stationed overseas within five (5) years of the disclosure. That does not appea to be the case here.

Additionally, there is the question of intent. The statute is very narrowly crafted and requires knowing disclosure with the equivalent of "malicious intent". Nothing that has been disclosed thusfar shows any such intent on Rove's park and it appears that he has been up front with the grand jury from the start (no claims of executive privilege and no assertions of the 5th amendment).

You are similarly correct in that R. Noval actually divulged her name. However, if Matt Cooper's e-mail is to be believe (it is unquestionably hearsay), Rove did identify her as Wilson's wife. Very little legwork would be involved in getting to her name. The statute is not limited to disclosure of the actual name, but merely the identity.

Finally, the grand jury is still empaneled and has made no recommendations (either indictments or "no true bills"). The prosecutor has stated that Rove is not a "target" of the investigation, which is a specific legal term and does indicate that he is not the focus of the criminal inquiry.

Posted by scronin at 07/21/2005 @ 5:20pm

thank you NJDevil..thankfully there are a few on both sides of the political spectrum who are grateful for the opportunity to engage in honest open debate which is the mark of a great nation.

I am thankful for those like Nattie who I disagree strongly with but can have a true dialogue about the future of our country and our relationships with the rest of the world.

Posted by love liberty at 07/21/2005 @ 5:21pm

BCANTELLO; could you point to the section of the US constitution that authorizes the Federal Government to spend money on ANY social program such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, NEA, etc? Oh, and don't forget to take that pesky 10th amendment into consideration which specifically clarifies Article I section VIII. I don't want to hear any *General Welfare* responses as the 10th amendment specifically clarifies that all powers to the Federal Government must be specifically enumerated. Whether social programs are effective or not, makes no difference to me. Our government was designed in a certain way; for the greater good of society, to prevent the Federal government from becoming too powerful and essentially trampling on the rights of states and citizens to enact their own social and community policies; and to prevent the fiscal fiascos associated with trying to figure out how to organize funding when 5 different levels of government are all trying to compete to solve the same problem.

Posted by ShawnInSD at 07/21/2005 @ 5:26pm

amen SHAWNINSD

Posted by love liberty at 07/21/2005 @ 5:36pm

Gentlemen (and ladies)...

Once again, an enjoyable discussion of some weighty issues. We will have to do it again soon.

Have a good evening.

Posted by scronin at 07/21/2005 @ 5:59pm

Okay, one more note before my boss fires me. First, I'd like to share that I'm quite impressed with the level of debate here. Most of what I have read from both sides have been pretty reasonable. With a few exceptions, there hasn't been a lot of nasty back and forth name calling and rhetoric.

Now; back to Judicial Activism. Unfortunately, I digress and got caught up in the other side topics. But the main point of this particular board is to talk about the Supreme Court Nominee.

I guess there will never be an end to this whole *judicial activism* debate. Of course conservatives say that liberal judges are *activists* and liberals say the same about *conservative* judges. This is why I am happy with the current process of nominating Supreme Court Justices. The *only* thing I'd like to see changed is term limits. I'd love to see a constitutional amendment limiting justices to serve say 12 years or something like that. I actually like Rehnquist, however I don't know about the soundness of decisions when judges are in and out of the hospital and making decisions on their death bed. I don't like the idea of such powerful people serving until either they *Die* or voluntarily resign. I suspect that they can be impeached but rarely, if ever, would that occur.

Democrats should remember the Judical Activism during FDR's administration which is responsible for adding justices, specifically, for stacking the court in favor of unconstitutional social programs; before they accuse Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas of being judicial activists. Remember, that these are the guys that sided WITH California in the medicinal marijuana case. It was the liberals, Ginsburg, Souter, etc. that voted for the US Government in asserting that the Feds DO have the right to prosecute people for distributing or possessing Marijuana even if they were doing so with the authority under CA's law. I would think that liberals would have been happy with this. Or is ROE V WADE the ONLY thing liberals care about? It seems that there are many issues besides ROE V WADE to consider. I wonder if the liberals have been studying any of the cases for the past few years because it seems to me that the conservative judges have voted against the US government in a number of instances. But I guess the liberals don't care about property rights, drug laws, law enforcement, or anything else. Evidently, ROE V WADE is the only thing they care about. If you are PRO LIFE, you are automatically a JUDICIAL ACTIVIST, right? If not, then I'd appreciate it if a liberal could respond by defining what it means to be a JUDICIAL ACTIVIST. Please respond to the FDR comment and explain why FDR supported adding more SC justices. Please cite additional cases where the *Conservative Activists* on the Supreme Court tried to *Legislate from the bench*, rather than simply interpret the US Constitution to the letter.

As for the suggestion to Elect all judges, and to have elections publicly funded. Publicly funded elections would do more to take a way our rights as voters. Tell me; whether you vote for Dems or Repubs, we still have to pay enormous income taxes. Do you really want the Government A) taking your money B) Using that money to decide who can run and represent you? This would be a disaster for a free country. The last thing we want is the government funding their own elections with our money. Think about it. It really makes no sense in my mind. The point is that no matter who we vote for, we still pay huge taxes and seem to have little control over how much of our own money we get to keep. The government is essentially *Taking* our money and if you don't pay or refuse to pay, you'll end up in jail. Now someone is saying that government should take that money and use it to decide who gets funded as a potential candidate too? Now the people will have ZERO power in affecting their government.

Posted by ShawnInSD at 07/21/2005 @ 6:06pm

Shawninsd: you are a welcome addition to the dialogue! Reasoned arguments from either side of the spectrum generate honest debate which we need more of in this country and not less!

Posted by love liberty at 07/21/2005 @ 6:26pm

Roberts will probably be affirmed on something in order of a 80-18 vote (2 Senators will find a way to have "missed" the vote due to an "important function").

Hillary has got to be so conflicted at this moment, desiring to vote no but equally hungry for the vast middle she needs if she has any chance to be president.

Posted by love liberty at 07/21/2005 @ 6:29pm

The Supreme Court can not make abortion illegal any more than the Court made it "legal." If Roe were overturned tomorrow, the legislatures would decide if abortion would be restricted. Justices should not (and under the Constitution cannot)create laws. That is what we elect our representatives to do.

Posted by Childrex at 07/21/2005 @ 7:04pm

Looking at this, it becomes painfully obvious that the only real issue, the only "good versus evil" in america today is the issue of abortion. It just won't go away. The last civil war in america was fought over property rights; who owned the bodies of slaves. (I know, revisionists might disagree). I do hope the next civil war will not be fought over property rights; who owns the bodies of unborn children. Personally, I think abortion is a grievous evil, and the primary victims are women. But I'm not persuaded that it should be illegal. I do think RvW is ineptly decided. There are other arguements for the legality of this sort of procedure which make more sense.

Posted by jonb at 07/21/2005 @ 8:51pm

Incidentally, the person in that case that argued for the PRO CHOICE side is now PRO LIFE. I actually saw her speak with Alan Keyes in St. Louis, MO a few years ago. Sort of interesting, that the person who is responsible for bringing the case before the court has changed her tune and is now a PRO LIFE conservative. Talk about "Unintended Consequences"!

Posted by ShawnInSD at 07/21/2005 @ 9:50pm

Scronin, aka Randle Patrick McMurphy, is getting the inmates all riled up.

Are those who've posted that they're against abortion also against the death penalty?

Not to be too much of a stickler, but please call yourself "anti-abortion" and not "pro-life". And by the way, I know it's a completely different discussion, but I'm "pro-life" when it comes to punishments for serious crimes. The death penalty is way too easy. I know religous types believe in an after life of hell for these people, but this skeptical non-believer thinks it's just as likely an exit to nothingness. Let the loneliness and suffering continue in a tiny, smelly, dank cell.

Posted by urmygyro at 07/21/2005 @ 10:12pm

The plaintiff, if I recall correctly.

But lets look ahead to what we can expect.

The Republicans will probably gain seats in the midterm elections, and the filibuster of nominees will become less of an option. Bush will nominate 2 or 3 more Justices, who will be progressively more conservative (constructionist), as the democrats will be in too much of an identity crisis to effectively oppose them. If a strict construction of the constitution is followed, it will undo RvW, that is clear. Not because it is evil, (a topic for a different discussion) but simply because it is inconsistant with a strict constuctionist view of the constitution. That will push the abortion rights battle into the states, and it will become more difficult and expensive to obtain that procedure. Expect reasonable regulation of the industry, which gets less state government attention and oversight now than tatoo parlors, if you believe some people.

A futurist view would have the two camps segregating themselves in locations where the laws support their particular views. Since the one group would clearly out reproduce the other; eventually the "pro life" group would dominate. Social darwinism at work... (I'm sorry, I couldn't resist... but put "christianexodus" in a search engine, and see what comes up!)

Seriously, I would like to know what else would fall out of the federal jurisdiction if a strict construction of the constitution were followed. Is there any hope that the business of bribing us with our own money would be reduced? I refer to things like "federal" money for highways, which is used more for social engineering than for civil engineering. Example: My sister who lives in Harvey LA explains the roads are bad because LA won't comply with some of the requirements needed to get Federal highway funds. (The rest of the states have caved in, because they want their own money back) Apparently, the drive-through Daquiri stands help smooth the bumps in the road though....

Perhaps the takings clause of the forth amendment might be strictly constructed, eliminating most zoning ordinances, and placing the burden on the regulating bodies to show they were not depriving citizens of the value of their property by restricting its use. (happy thought)

Perhaps, perhaps...

What will happen if we go to a strict construction of the constitution. Not RvW. That is a slam dunk. What about the rest?

Posted by jonb at 07/21/2005 @ 10:40pm

Hmmm

Hard to get every body to play by your style book.

Now someone on the other side will say, "Rather than Pro-choice, they should refer to themselves as pro-death"

After that, it gets to be name calling. Ugly. Better to let people refer to themselves in whatever manner they prefer, and cut them some slack.

I think I understand you see a logical inconsistancy, but it only exists if you have a particular world view.

The problem with the parallel of capital punisment is that it is entirely unpersuasive to those who are not in the "abortion is a right" group.

I can probably explain why, if you like.

Posted by jonb at 07/21/2005 @ 10:55pm

RPM, eh? I have been called many things, but that one is a first for me. That said, I doubt anything I have contributed to the discussion has "riled up" the so-called inmates.

I am pro-choice, but anti-abortion. To explain: I personally do not like abortion nor would I advise someone to get one. However, as a federalist, I believe the electorates of the individual states should have the right to decide for themselves whether the procedure (and to what degree) will be legal or illegal. I suspect that some states would be "true" abortion on demand (CA, NY, Mass) while others would probably outlaw it altogether (LA, MS, AL). The rest will be somewhere in the middle with varying degrees of access. Thus, I favor the repeal of Roe v. Wade because: 1) it is bad law; and, 2) it impinges on the rights of the states and interjects federal authority where it does not belong. I am pro-death penalty. I see the wisdom of making criminals suffer in this life; however, that $50,000.00 per year to keep them incarcerated could be better spent elsewhere.

As for the GOP prospects for the mid-term elections, I think they will hold serve in the Senate but will lose seats in the House if things remain on their present course. GWB will have one more SC slot to fill for sure (Rehnquist) and possibly one other (Ginsburg has health problems and Stevens is hanging on by a thread).

Despite your disdain for the man and fears for his "reshaping" the Court, that is what presidents do. FDR reshaped the court from a strict-construction, anti-New Deal court to a rubber stamp in the span of a few years thanks to the threat of his "court packing" scheme. It is inevitable. You don't have to like it (just as I don't like much of what the Court has done under Warren and Burger insofar as the expansion of "federal" ["national"] power).

Keep one thing in mind, if GWB only gets one more selection for the SC before the end of his term, there is little question that the winner of the 2008 race will be picking at least two new justices in the first term (Ginsburg and Stevens). While the selections GWB will make (or has made) will effect the Court, those two picks will decide the direction of the Court for the next 20 years.

Posted by scronin at 07/21/2005 @ 11:07pm

yup

Posted by jonb at 07/21/2005 @ 11:11pm

Sorry for the brief visit, but slumber is calling.

Good night.

Posted by scronin at 07/21/2005 @ 11:19pm

I admit that I do not have a crystal ball, so I won't presume to guess what position Roberts might take on any issue once he gets on the court. There have been too many surprises on that score over time. However, anyone who had Dr. Samuel Johnson as bedside reading while in college CAN'T be all bad. Roberts' opinion of Tom Paine might be more illustrative of who he is than his opinion on Roe vs Wade.

Posted by JosephD at 07/22/2005 @ 12:27am

Scronin and JonB:

why is it better for each state to determine if a woman can terminate a pregnancy over it being the law of the land?

So women in New York will be free to have abortions if they so choose but women in Mississippi will be criminals for doing the same?

separate but equal indeed

Posted by urmygyro at 07/22/2005 @ 01:16am

I would like to see a supreme court nominee who stands unequivocally for civil rights such as Ruth Bader Ginsberg or John Paul Stephens.

Posted by miffella at 07/22/2005 @ 01:56am

Look at the argument this way if it helps you:

Abortion is a necessary evil that causes more good than harm. It protects resources, and even though it costs the lives of the young (really, really young), it saves more adults in the process. Just like war!!

Posted by urmygyro at 07/22/2005 @ 02:48am

"why is it better for each state to determine if a woman can terminate a pregnancy over it being the law of the land?"

Because vast majorities of the populations of certain states are vehemently opposed to it on any number of grounds (mainly moral). The inherent problem with the "law of the land" argument is that on issues like this, and contrary to the tortured legal gymnastics of one Harry Blackmun, there is no "equal protection" issue (I can say with absolute confidence that none of the crafters of the 14th Amendment, nor any of those voting for its ratification in the 1860s and 1870s, would have agreed to the use of its language as a rationale for abortion). I am not calling for an outright abolition of abortion, I am calling for a return to the proper constitutional framework whereby the individual states can decide this issue (as well as other "social" issues [gay marriage, right to die, school prayer, school choice, etc.]).

The left is up in arms over the possibility that Roe would be overturned by this new nominee. Assuming that is true, and assuming the effect is the outlawing of all abortions (which would not be the result of such a ruling), then you have the will of people who live in states like Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, etc. being imposed on the people of California, New York, etc. by force of a Supreme Court decision. Is that right? NO. That is NOT how the federal system was supposed to operate. However, that is the current state of the law under Roe.

Posted by scronin at 07/22/2005 @ 08:29am

SHAWNINSD:

I'm not an expert on the Constitution. Trying to determine "what the founders intended" is useful, but it seems simple minded to me to think that some really, really smart guys back in the 1700's had all the answers for us today.

For agruments sake, let's just say that there are no provisions for government sponsered social programs in the constitution. That in itself doesn't make these programs a bad idea. The constitution can and has been ammended.

This idea that charitable organization can take care of all persons in need in our complex and populous society is REALLY difficult to swallow. Do you folks who say this should be so really believe it could work? What about all the people who need healthcare now? Why aren't charitable organizations taking care of them?

Guys, sorry about the infrequent posts, but I just joined and I'm really busy at work right now. Maybe I should just pipe down until I've got some real time for debate.

Posted by bcantello at 07/22/2005 @ 10:07am

"That in itself doesn't make these programs a bad idea. The constitution can and has been ammended."

EXACTLY!!! The problem is that the Constitution provides specific provisions on HOW amendment of the Constitution is to be done, and neither statutory enactments, nor judicial fiat, are accepted methods for amending the Constitution.

Posted by scronin at 07/22/2005 @ 10:13am

SCRONIN: Regarding social programs, let's get off this constitutional angle. These programs already exist. Whether or not they are currently constitutional is not a valid reason to choose to discontinue them (in my opinion.) Let's get to the bottom of this.

1. You believe in the survival of the fittest, period. 2. You believe that a society should care for its less fortunate member, but such programs belong in the private sector. 3. You believe the society should care for its less fortunate members, and that the govermnent should sponser these programs.

If your a "1" then we don't really have much to talk about. If you are a "2" then we aren't that different.

Assuming you are a "2", let me ask you a question. What exactly is your big beef with goverment sponsered social programs (besides there constitutionality)?

Posted by bcantello at 07/22/2005 @ 10:56am

I am sorry, but as someone that has a certain reverence for the Constitution, I cannot just ignore the fact that these programs are ILLEGAL insofar as a constitutional basis. The fact that they exist does not make them any less unconstitutional.

As to the remainder of your post, please pardon the repost...

"The problem is that states and private charities carried this "burden" until the 20th Century, when the national government took it upon itself to assume these functions. Admittedly, the Depression forced the government's hand in this; however, even the New Deal's "make work" programs (CCC, WPA, etc.) required the recipients to work for the money they received. There was very little in the way of outright governmental "charity". If such a program were put in place today, there would be a tremendous hue and cry from the left (as there was in 1996 with welfare "reform").

The conservative (Republican) idea is that a thriving and growing economy benefits all (rising tide lifts all boats). I will aver that some will fall through the cracks and will not received the benefits; however, a fair number of those are unwilling to expend the effort to try to access the system (for whatever reason). As for those who have disabilities that absolutely prevent them from working or earning, that is a different story; however, they should not be entitled to a standard of living beyond the means of someone who is actually working and contributing to the economy.

American society has tried to guarantee the opportunity to succeed, not success itself."

Thus, I am not a "survival of the fittest" adherent insofar as those persons who truly need the help. However, as to those persons who are able, but consciously choose to glom onto the charity of others, they can starve in the street for all I care.

Posted by scronin at 07/22/2005 @ 11:10am

I believe women have a fundamental right to get an abortion grounded in the penumbra or 9th Amendment of the constitution, however you want to put it. The 9th preserves to the people rights not explicitly mentioned in the text of the constitution, and one of these rights that the people have retained is the right to dominion over their own bodies. The state should not prevent a person from exercising control over their body and how that body is used.

I am not necessarily opposed to a renewed focus on federalism, especially since the federal government is controlled by folks I radically disagree with. I would be much happier if the leaders of my state were in control of the social policies I live under. I doubt this court nomination will effect that radical change in policy on state-federal balance of power, because that would mean invalidating a gigantic number of laws that have previously been adjudicated by the Supreme Court. What the nominee is more likely to do is selectively invoke federalism to restrict progressive social programs that the president is unwilling to repeal through the political process. This is what I would call "judicial activism."

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/22/2005 @ 11:30am

Additionally, Scronin, I don't understand the fundamental difference between the healthcare system you propose for low-income individuals and the one already in place. How does your program increase local control? How does your program eliminate waste in Medicare of Medicaid (programs that are successful and well liked by many already taking part)?

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/22/2005 @ 11:32am

Sorry for the multiple posts but Scronin said:

The conservative (Republican) idea is that a thriving and growing economy benefits all (rising tide lifts all boats).

I would like to point out that social programs have been in place for quite a while, and have not stopped the economy from growing at a rapid pace. While you'll probably respond that the economy is strong despite those programs, and eliminating them would speed the pace up, my question is why is that necessary when we can have our cake and eat it too? Lastly, how do you explain the fact that our economy didn't demonstrably weaken under Clinton's increased tax loads?

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/22/2005 @ 11:36am

"I believe women have a fundamental right to get an abortion grounded in the penumbra or 9th Amendment of the constitution, however you want to put it. The 9th preserves to the people rights not explicitly mentioned in the text of the constitution, and one of these rights that the people have retained is the right to dominion over their own bodies. The state should not prevent a person from exercising control over their body and how that body is used."

The 9th Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Bear in mind that the limitations contained in the Bill of Rights were specifically as to the national government created in 1787. With the exception of those sections which specifically remove certain matters from the purview of the individual states, NONE of the provisions of the Constitution were intended to operate to interfere with the power of the states to address these issue.

Posted by scronin at 07/22/2005 @ 11:37am

"Additionally, Scronin, I don't understand the fundamental difference between the healthcare system you propose for low-income individuals and the one already in place. How does your program increase local control? How does your program eliminate waste in Medicare of Medicaid (programs that are successful and well liked by many already taking part)?"

Well-liked? I am sure many of the people accessing those systems would disagree. The question posed was what to do about those working who cannot afford insurance. Moreover, placing all of these programs under a singular umbrella (rather than mutiple separate bureaucracies) would lead to efficiency and cost savings.

Bear in mind that there is no lack of access to healthcare. Any person can see any doctor or go to any hospital right now for any ailment. However, they will be expected to pay the bill at some point and THAT is the issue.

"I would like to point out that social programs have been in place for quite a while, and have not stopped the economy from growing at a rapid pace. While you'll probably respond that the economy is strong despite those programs, and eliminating them would speed the pace up, my question is why is that necessary when we can have our cake and eat it too? Lastly, how do you explain the fact that our economy didn't demonstrably weaken under Clinton's increased tax loads?"

Take a look at the deficit/debt. Not all of this is the result of rampant defense spending (as many on the left would like to argue). The largest segment of the US budget is "social programs". If we are to believe that large deficits/debt is a drag on the US economy, then these programs have played a role in that respect. As for the Clinton economy, some of that growth (and I do give the man credit for some of it [although, in all honesty, presidents deserve neither the praise nor the blame for economic cycles]) was the result of the "fuzzy bookkeeping" that came homw to roost with Enron, Worldcom, Dynegy, Tyco, Global Crossing, etc...

Clinton (and the economy) also benefitted from stabilty in the oil market which was the result of the 1991 Gulf War (I have no doubt that the Saudis and Kuwaitis quietly agreed to keep the spigots wide open in repayment for the US's actions in the war [my suspicion, it was for ten years]).

Posted by scronin at 07/22/2005 @ 11:48am

Darn it, I've got to get to work!

What I'm trying to say is that whether these programs are constitutional or not is a different issue from whether they are a good idea or not. I'm saying let's focus on whether or not they are a good or bad idea.

Sound to me like you are not opposed to a government sponsered disability program. Is that correct?

I admit that I can be dense, but where do you specify your objections to government sponsered social programs? I saw some talk of who used to handle this burden, a little left bashing (no offense taken), and a little talk of capitalism.

Is it that you feel that these programs are too abused, or that they create too many freeloaders? Is it that you think they are managed too inefficiently?

Let me just ask you this. If there was mythical government social program that only offered aid to those truly in need and that was managed in a cost effective manner, who you still be against it?

Incidentally, I have no problem with abled bodied individuals being required to work for whatever government assistance they receive. I think it is a great idea, as long as single moms are awarded a decent amount of time to stay home with infants and are provided with some kind of decent daycare for their children while they work these government assigned jobs.

Posted by bcantello at 07/22/2005 @ 11:50am

Scronin: your 9th Amendment analysis is inconsistent with the plain language of the document. It says that rights are retained by the people rather than by the states.

So it sounds like you don't advocate ending federal social programs like VA hospitals. How is this consistent with states rights?

Your debt numbers and alternate explanations for economic growth don't answer the question. What I asked was why eliminate social programs when the economy grows with them in place? Additionally, higher tax rates did not end economic growth either.

Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/22/2005 @ 11:58am

The fact that I consider many of these programs to be unconstitutional does not mean I necessarily think they are all a bad idea. The "mythical" government program you speak of would be unobjectionable to me in the abstract; however, I would like for the authority for the program to exist within the charter of government.

As for government day care, I would not want anyone's child to be cared for by people chosen in the same manner as postal workers and IRS agents. Tax credits for the cost of the daycare would be fine with me (not fully refundable [i.e., the credit would not operate to actually pay the worker...if the credit resulted in a zero tax liablity, that would be it]).

I concede there is a role for government, but that role should be "last resort" and only where the private sector (and I include secular and non-secular charities in that term) cannot fill the void. Moreover, the state governments should be the ones to deal with this as the "back up". Reduce the federal tax burden on all and allow the states to raise the revenue accordingly (and let those states decide how "generous" or "spartan" their social programs will be).

Posted by scronin at 07/22/2005 @ 12:13pm

As for the VA, the justification for its existence and funding at the federal level can easily be justified by the national government's enumerated authority to maintain an Army and Navy along with the other provisions regarding the governments obligations and powers to defend the nation. As an aside, this was the justification for the Interstate Highway System (it was enacted and funded as a defense program).

Posted by scronin at 07/22/2005 @ 12:15pm

According to the date/time stamp on my last two posts...I have traveled back in time to this morning.

Posted by scronin at 07/22/2005 @ 12:27pm

Scronin:

If you are to stick by your states right versus federalism argument, then clearly the Brown v. Board of Education ruling must upset you. By your logic, Mississippi, Alabama, etc. should have been able to make their own decisions to keep segragation legal.

You answered my question of why choose states rights over federalism with: "Because vast majorities of the populations of certain states are vehemently opposed to it [abortion] on any number of grounds (mainly moral)".

Your argument for states rights trumping federalism logically takes that previous statement and uses it to defend other things, like "because vast majorities of the populations of certain states are vehemently opposed to it [desegregation] on any number of grounds (mainly moral)." In fact, that type of argument was used by many politicians and powerful people from southern states to defend segragation and their racist views.

Posted by urmygyro at 07/22/2005 @ 12:36pm

For those who have been serious participants on both sides of our dialogue, I submit for your mental digestion, this segment of dialogue from Federalist #10 on the Union (our govt) as a Safeguard against factions between domestic groups. It provides a illuminating insight into the knowledge by some of the Founding Fathers that factionalism like we are experiencing today was well anticipated. ENJOY, all who seek truth and enlightenment.

The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good.

The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.

It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.

The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.

Posted by love liberty at 07/22/2005 @ 12:36pm

Scronin:

If you are to stick by your states right versus federalism argument, then clearly the Brown v. Board of Education ruling must upset you. By your logic, Mississippi, Alabama, etc. should have been able to make their own decisions to keep segragation legal.

You answered my question of why choose states rights over federalism with: "Because vast majorities of the populations of certain states are vehemently opposed to it [abortion] on any number of grounds (mainly moral)".

Your argument for states rights trumping federalism logically takes that previous statement and uses it to defend other things, like "because vast majorities of the populations of certain states are vehemently opposed to it [desegregation] on any number of grounds (mainly moral)." In fact, that type of argument was used by many politicians and powerful people from southern states to defend segragation and their racist views.

+++++++++++++++

Wow...you sniffed me out. I hate black people.

Surely you are not serious (as I am not).

The purpose of the Reconstruction Amendments (13th, 14th & 15th) were to abolish the slave system and recognize the former slaves as citizens (which under Dred Scott, they were deemed not to be). I do not see the Brown decision as contrary to that. I do object to the later SC decisions (e.g., Swann v. Mecklenburg) which changed the formula from removing the institutions of legal segregation (noth de jure and de facto) to requiring active integration. Just to be clear, my objection to these later decisions is NOT because I think the intentions of the court were evil or wrong, but because the Constitution is solely a document intended to limit or enumerate the powers of GOVERNMENT relative to the people, not to dictate the realtions of the people as between themselves.

Posted by scronin at 07/22/2005 @ 12:47pm

Scronin:

Don't be juvenile. I wasn't attacking you personally. I don't know you. I'm talking about the logic of your argument. You are arguing for states rights over federalism for everything that is not specifically enumerated as the purvue of the federal government in the constitution. I was giving an example of why your argument of states rights doesn't always apply. It's not fair to allow black people in Mississippi to suffer the burden of segragation while black people in New York are given the ability to strive in a free (at least in principle) society. The majority is not always moral (subjective term), in fact it's oftentimes not. If it was, there'd be no need for law in the first place, because the majority would treat each other equally and fairly and treat the minority equally and fairly. If the judiciary can protect the minority from the oppression of the majority views when the executive and legislative branches have been impotent in doing so, then so be it. I'm glad the supreme court isn't just a puppet to the majority opinion.

Posted by urmygyro at 07/22/2005 @ 1:18pm

My apologies. I am well aware of the history of misuse of the "states rights" argument.

Again, the Constitution merely enumerate the powers of GOVERNMENT and the realtions between GOVERNMENT and the citizenry. It does not govern the relations between citizens. For Brown to strike down Plessy and "separate but equal" on the basis that states (or political subdivisions [e.g., school boards]) cannot enact laws which violate due process or equal protection is proper and valid. To recognize that these states and political subdivisions have done this, but that abolishing laws, regulations and institutions that support segregation is insufficent because there has not been integration is entirely different.

Posted by scronin at 07/22/2005 @ 1:31pm

BTW, "states rights" IS federalism.

The reference to the U.S. Goverment as the "federal" government is a misnomer. It is the national government. Federalism is the concept that a group of sovereign entities combine to create a signular political entity wherein the individual entities cede some of their power/authority to the single entity, but where the individual entities retain power (and the right to withdraw from the compact). Such an arrangement sets forth and delineates the powers each of the govenments has. Some are shared, some are limited to one or the other.

In the present context, especially in light of the wholly inappropriate expansion of the commerce clause which started with the New Deal, the pendulum of power in the arrangement has moved significantly in favor of the national government such that there is very little power vested in the states. The demands by states (or citizens) for a return to the "balance" of the federal system envisioned and memorialized by the Constitution is essentially a "states rights" argument.

Posted by scronin at 07/22/2005 @ 1:59pm

It's tough to understand the anger that can swell up knowing your ancestors were the reason this country became rich, but you don't today benefit from it. The U.S. is all about property rights and amassing wealth. But the rich folks in this country got that way very undemoncratically on the backs of free human labor.

It's wrong, and trying to right that wrong is something that will forever be in the works. People wonder why the U.S. is screwed up? Look at it's entire history. It's always been screwed up. We try to paint a nice picture because who wants to remember the atrocities of the past?

Posted by urmygyro at 07/22/2005 @ 2:02pm

It's tough to understand the anger that can swell up knowing your ancestors were the reason this country became rich, but you don't today benefit from it. The U.S. is all about property rights and amassing wealth. But the rich folks in this country got that way very undemoncratically on the backs of free human labor.

It's wrong, and trying to right that wrong is something that will forever be in the works. People wonder why the U.S. is screwed up? Look at it's entire history. It's always been screwed up. We try to paint a nice picture because who wants to remember the atrocities of the past?

++++++++++++++++

While I do not understand how your post has anything to do with the discussion we were having, I will attempt to respond...

1) While in no way defending slavery or the "Jim Crow" laws of the late 1800s/early 1900s, to contend that blacks do not benefit (and have not benefitted) from the economic success of the United States is without a shred of historical support. If you wish to make the argument that they have not received their proportionate "share" of the success, you are on better footing.

2) As for referring to slavery as an "atrocity", I believe the term "injustice" is better. The systematic extermination of Jew by the Nazis is an atrocity. The slaughter of millions of Cambodians by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge is an atrocity. The murder of over 20 million Soviet citizens at Stalin's direction is an atrocity.

Slavery's goal was not the extermination of blacks, in fact, considering that slave labor was the underpinning of the staple crop economy, such a goal would have been illogical. A dead slave is not a productive slave (both in terms of his labor and his offspring). Moreover, there was a significant capital investment involved in purchasing slaves such that killing one would be a significant diminution of the value of the enterprise.

As for the history of this country...it has no more, or no less, warts than any other country. Slavery was not unique to the US (although, the US is the only circumstance where the black slave population actually INCREASED after importation was outlawed due to natural population increase [in every other case, the slave population died out]), racism is not unique to the US, economic disparity is not unique to the US, abuse and decimation of indigenous peoples is not unique to the US. That said, you would be hard pressed to find a country, and a people, that has been more generous and a more positive force that the US.

Posted by scronin at 07/22/2005 @ 2:24pm

Calling it a weekend gentlemen. Have a good one.

Posted by scronin at 07/22/2005 @ 4:42pm

John Nichols

Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.

Archives

November 2009

October 2009

September 2009

August 2009

July 2009

June 2009

Subscribe to The Nation RSS Feed

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