![]() |
|
||
|
Three Words for Bush and His JudgesPosted on Jun 29, 2007By E.J. Dionne WASHINGTON—Just say no. The Senate’s Democratic majority—joined by all Republicans who purport to be moderate—must tell President Bush that this will be the answer to any controversial nominee to the Supreme Court or to the appellate courts. The Senate should refuse even to hold hearings on Bush’s next Supreme Court choice, should a vacancy occur, unless the president reaches agreement with the Senate majority on a mutually acceptable list of nominees. And no Bush nominee to a lower court deserves any deference now that we learn that U.S. Circuit Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh may have misled the Senate during his confirmation hearings. Kavanaugh claimed he was not involved in administration discussions about setting the rules for the treatment of enemy combatants. The Washington Post reported that he actually was. Although a spokeswoman for Kavanaugh insisted that his testimony was “accurate,” Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy said, “I don’t believe that he was truthful with us.” Advertisement Even after he was confirmed, Roberts was talking about something other than the 5-4 conservative court we saw this year on case after case. In a speech at Georgetown University Law School in May 2006, Roberts rightly argued that “the rule of law is strengthened when there is greater coherence and agreement about what the law is.” It’s a shame this quest for broader majorities had so little bearing on the 2007 Roberts-led court. Especially troubling was the opinion offered by Roberts and Alito this week eviscerating the rather modest restrictions on sham “issue” ads in the McCain-Feingold law. The provision, which applies for 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election, is aimed at preventing large amounts of corporate and union money from getting around campaign finance restrictions. Three conservative justices, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy, were willing to admit that in voiding the law they were overturning a precedent set by the court only four years ago. But Roberts and Alito pretended to follow the earlier ruling while ripping its guts out. Scalia called this “faux judicial restraint.” “The court (and, I think, the country) loses when important precedent is overruled without good reason,” Justice David H. Souter wrote for the dissenters. Exactly. But upsetting precedent, directly or indirectly, is a major goal of this new conservative majority. As Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute noted this week in Roll Call, the issue-ad decision demonstrated “not a careful, conservative deference to Congress” but instead “a willingness by Roberts to toss aside Congress’ conclusions to fit his own ideological predispositions”—the very definition of judicial activism. If another conservative replaces a member of the court’s moderate-to-liberal bloc, the country would be set on a conservative course for the next decade or more, locking in today’s politics at the very moment when the electorate is running out of patience with the right. That’s why a majority of senators should warn Bush now that they will not take up his nominee unless he strictly construes the Constitution’s provision that he appoint justices with “the Advice and Consent of the Senate.” The rule should be: If advice isn’t taken, there will be no consent. And if conservatives claim to believe the president is owed deference on his court appointees, they will be—I choose this word deliberately—lying. In 2005, conservatives had no problem blocking Bush’s appointment of Harriet Miers because they could not count on her as a strong voice for their legal causes. They revealed that their view of judicial battles is not about principle, but power. When they went after Miers, conservatives lost the deference argument. Much has been written about how the judicial confirmation process is “broken.” A more accurate view is that the ideological struggles in our politics have moved to the courts, and that the formal processes of the Senate don’t deal well with such conflicts. It would be far better to be honest about what’s going on. The Senate should be unapologetic in saying no, upfront, to loading the bench with conservative judicial activists. If Bush is given this warning and still refuses to engage in serious consultation, the burden will be on him. E.J. Dionne’s e-mail address is postchat(at symbol)aol.com. © 2007, Washington Post Writers Group Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
By PaulMagillSmith, July 3, 2007 at 4:25 pm #
The claim of Neo-Cons that judicial ‘activists’ are ruining our country is laughable if the consequences weren’t so tragic. With Bush re-writing congressionally passed laws through the use of ‘signing statements’ he shows his contempt for our legal (legislative) process, but now, by letting Libby off he shows his hypocrisy by his ‘post-judicial activism’.
Bush has thumbed his nose at decent law abiding Americans, and embarrassed us all by his delusions (about) & perversions (of) the Constitution.
Report thisBy 127001, July 3, 2007 at 5:30 am #
Kleptrocacy…
thru the Net no one can know the pain this post causes me.
The arthritis and carpal pain in my hands and arms.
the pain of a brain injury from 3 decades ago.
the time it takes me to writeand edit this.
the despair of more than 50 years of belief in this country and the principles of America… my home my beliefs are based on it
i have tried to think what this article means to me since i say it.
i think that america is no longer free.
i think that america is no longer a place of haven even for its own people.
i weep for the things i grew up believing ... not from my parents but from my school and govt and from the politics around me.
as i become more old and ill, i plead to the gods to save this world to give our children a future.
but today i read that bush aka the twig forgave much of libby a man who lied and cheated the people of this world.
libby did not just cheat americans.
he cheated the citizens of the world.
how many who read this site are not in america and do not believe in killing?
how many of us do not believe in lying or cheating or stealing to have what we want?
but america ... which was the statute of liberty who gave hope to a globe ...
has set an example by EVERY facet of its govt to destroy humanity thru laws and policy.
i prefer the Will of the God that I follow.
Report thisBy ardee, July 1, 2007 at 8:53 pm #
The SC selected George Walker Bush as President in 2000 when the law was clear that the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling calling for counting ALL the ballots took precedence and was accurate. Three of the Justices who made that ruling had relatives working to elect George Walker Bush.
Roberts, Thomas and Alito stated, under oath, during their confirmation hearings that they held that precedence should be honored in extremis and only overturned with great care, great deliberation and for very great necesity. In other words they lied like a rug and should be taken to task for such rulings as they have delivered that ignored precedence..
This is what you get when the two party system fails to actually have an opposition component.
Report thisBy John Hanks, July 1, 2007 at 4:27 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
The Supreme Court is a vicious royal travesty. It has given us a civil war, a corporate state, segregation, rigged elections, and money as speech. It is unutterable filth.
Report thisBy jbart, July 1, 2007 at 1:30 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I agree,wholeheartedly,with PAULMCGILLSMITH. But,do our laws/constitution allow for Supremes to be impeached? If so, I’m all for it. If not, what other recourse do we have except to wait for serious illness or death to remove them? Dubya got some guys in there with a lot of years left(a.k.a. meat on the bone)before they croak of old age.Call me a conspiracy nut but I called it at the time(not hoping I was right, of course). They(the neocons)needed at least 2 terms to effectively “stack the court” and, unfortunately for all of us, they got the time to do so. Idiot America, indeed!!
Report thisBy babaloo, July 1, 2007 at 12:27 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Formally accuse U.S. Circuit Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh of lying to Congress, contempt of Congress. He does not get to keep his job!
Report thisAs an AZ resident, I am extremely embarrassed that my own Senator Kyl lied to the Supreme Court. We need to get rid of all these lying Republicans.
By Margaret Currey, July 1, 2007 at 8:00 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
When will people wake up, the thing about illegal immigration was brought to you by the Chaney/Bush lean toward helping the corporations out.
The ceo’s get richer, but the workers get poorer, the way out I see is to buy less that way maybe things will have to return to to way things used to be.
Report thisBy PaulMagillSmith, July 1, 2007 at 7:16 am #
RE: #82784 by steve benjamins on 6/30 at 4:19 pm
(Unregistered commenter)
“This toxic back-scratch ring, Supreme Court picks Bush, Bush’s picks for more right wing activists, to strengthen his chances of getting away with murdering the constitution, is being replicated in other departments of government. Until we finally declare the illegal usurpation and coup performed by this now bolstered Supreme Court, we won’t be able to do the truly neccessary; Impeachment of his choices for the supreme bench, in fact nullify his presidency’s choices altogether, apologise to the world community and hope for peace and understanding to flow from our national act of contrition.”
——————-
So how do you suppose doing this, Steve? Where does the impeachment of a supreme court justice originate? Is it from Gone-zales’ justice department? Fat chance! Will Bush, Cheney, and other neo-cons come out of their bunkers to answer charges? I don’t think so. Will the Democratic majorities, enjoying temporary public support, grow some? Only with intense public pressure, and on their sponsors as well.
At this time I must rise in partial respect for the Democrats, despite Pelosi’s, “Impeachment is off the table” gross mistake in choice of words, or intent. A serious error in judgement of true feelings of the majority of the electorate. To use some stupid words of the village idiot who should have stayed at home, “Bring ‘em on!”.
Come on, Nancy. It’s time!
If you don’t do it now you never will. Attack the problem at its source. You know who that is .
Let’s face the music, get this impeachment elephant out of the room, even if it fails in the process despite encouraging the people there is a movement toward their desires being met. We don’t need more fear. We don’t need more dominance by the military sucking funds from every worthwhile humanitarian project. We don’t want to be known as the once glorious country that lost its moral compass, then emulated tyrannies of the previous century.
Where are the priorities that will provide the most far reaching benefit to the most people?
Report thisEmpires fall yet concepts live. The concept of Democracy has survived many empires. Will it survive the American?
By steve benjamins, June 30, 2007 at 8:19 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
This toxic back-scratch ring, Supreme Court picks Bush, Bush picks more right wing activists to strengthen his chances of getting away with murdering the constitution is being replicated in other departments of government. Until we finally declare the illegal usurpation and coup performed by this now bolstered Supreme Court, we won’t be able to do the truly neccessary; Impeachment of his choices for the supreme bench, in fact nullify his presidency’s choices altogether, apologise to the world community and hope for peace and understanding to flow from our national act of contrition.
Report thisBy THOMAS BILLIS, June 29, 2007 at 7:04 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Well here is my favorite quote again"the fault dear Cassius lies not in the stars but in ourselves”.We elected a conservative moron President and now we are whining that he did exactly what he said he would do.Nominate judges in the Thomas, Scalia mold hear that anywhere before?
Report thisBy PaulMagillSmith, June 29, 2007 at 6:16 pm #
“And no Bush nominee to a lower court deserves any deference now that we learn that U.S. Circuit Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh may have misled the Senate during his confirmation hearings. Kavanaugh claimed he was not involved in administration discussions about setting the rules for the treatment of enemy combatants. The Washington Post reported that he actually was.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it a felony to lie to Congress. If so, why isn’t Kavanaugh disbarred and sharing a cell with “Scooter” Libby?
Report thisBy Michael Boldin, June 29, 2007 at 1:43 pm #
It may be late, but it’s never too late to “wake up” and do what’s right.
Yes, the court is what the court is. But that should be our lesson - to demand that only judges that follow the constitution and uphold our liberty are approved.
period.
Anything else is just complicity.
Report thisBy Tony B., June 29, 2007 at 1:34 pm #
A day late and a dollar short, my friend. This would have made for a fantastic argument, a year and a half ago, when Alito and Roberts were still waiting on deck. But since we’re about to be on the losing end of a constitutional showdown, we can at least be redeemed with the knowledge that EJ is finally on board.
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, June 29, 2007 at 12:36 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
EJ,
You are a day late and a dollar short.
It is now too late. There will be very few fascist reactionary cases that won’t go 5-4 in favor of gutting our Constitution.
Only Kennedy of the 5 was unwilling to kill an insane man by execution. It has long been a principle of American and before it English law that if you aren’t sane, you cannot be executed.
If you get deliberately cheated by your stockbroker, you can’t sue him. Why? The 5 said so. So, just imagine: If Bush were EVER to get his way to force Social Security accounts to be put into Wall Street, these brokers can find ways to empty that hundreds of billions of peoples’ savings AND NOT BE SUED FOR IT!
Just wait: Now that both the House and Senate have subpoenaed the White House, and they are claiming Executive Privilege…Betcha 50 bucks the “5” agree and egregious crimes against our nation will be hidden and the criminals will walk free.
Report thisBy Skruff, June 29, 2007 at 9:48 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
This is not a “partisan” issue as E.J. Dionne pretends, but a bipartisan refusal to uphold the law.
Neither party had the guts or desire to say what needed to be said at Clarence Thomas’ hearings. and neither party had the guts to engage in removal proceedings when it was proven that he lied under oath.
So long as no one in Washington has the guts to do their job, there will be no change. For this reason it matters little that the Democrats appointted a Byron “Wizzer” White or the Republicans appointted a Earl Warren. The court will continue to be dominated by folks who will do what they have to do, legal or not, to get their team a “win” So we have flawed “affirmative action” on the left, and free speech restrictions on the right.
This is no way to run a railroad!
Report this