A hectic work schedule has kept me busy the past few weeks, but fear not; more ranting on the affairs of the day is to come. With the State of the Union speech scheduled for tomorrow evening, I am sure that the political rhetoric will soon heat up. I will be there to comment and do my own stirring of the pot.
the right wing zealot
Monday, January 30, 2006
Sunday, January 15, 2006
The Farce of the Alito Hearings
I actually agree with Joe Biden on something. The senator from Delaware said last week that he felt Senate Judiciary committee hearings for nominees for the Supreme Court should be eliminated and a nominee should go straight to the Senate for a full confirmation vote. I could not agree more, but my guess is my reasons for feeling this way are a bit different than those of Senator Biden.
At the outset I must say that personally, I think we should know as much as possible about a potential justice who is about to receive a lifetime appointment to the United States Supreme Court. The reason is that the Supreme Court, over time, has been made the sole arbiter of all of the laws of the land. While the Black Robes (Supreme Court justices) are supposed to interpret the law, specifically the U.S. Constitution, quite often they make the law. This is called judicial activism and that is a hip catch phrase today that is applied to a nominee by opposing political factions to stigmatize that nominee (or sitting judge) as being "out of the mainstream" because they are not afraid to "legislate from the bench". Thus they are guilty of creating their own laws. This is an issue for everyone, regardless of political leanings, yet only the guy with the other ideology ever seems to partake in it. While I see citation of foreign law in a Supreme Court decision as a clear example of such judiciary "legislation", I could likely find dozens of other examples of judicial activism. The point, however, is that no one really wants to admit to it but everyone admits, perhaps claims is a better word, that it goes on. That we actually have to have such a discussion is what bothers me the most.
Since his re-election, President Bush has had the opportunity to replace two Supreme Court justices. Part of the process of vetting a candidate is the Senate Judiciary committee hearings which these days are televised for anyone who is interested to watch. If these hearings really meant something, they might be compelling; compelling in content, as an insight into a nominee's judicial record, and maybe compelling enough that the average citizen (who is really the one who should be leery of how a justice might rule) might pay attention and watch. Yet, the hearings have become a platform for the senators on the committee to pontificate, ridicule, and even personally attack a nominee. Most of them really don't even ask any questions. What poses for questions is really nothing short of a sermon (if not even a tirade) by a given senator who hopes the nominee will somehow blunder in his or her response. That is assuming that a nominee really gives a response. Most of the time, the response is little more than a rebuttal to the senator's long winded stump-type speech. Basically, the process goes nowhere.
Since Samuel Alito, if confirmed, will be replacing Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a key 'swing vote' on the Court, the Democrats, backed by numerous far left organizations, tried to be at the top of their game in attempting to discredit, if not even smear, Judge Alito in hopes of somehow derailing his appointment. Joe Biden started out ranting about how he did not like Princeton, Mr. Alito's alma mater. This was in reference to Mr. Alito's membership in CAP (Concerned Alumni of Princeton), a conservative organization which was against quotas at Princeton. By being (in part) against quotas (read, against women and minorities), membership in this group somehow made Judge Alito a bigot. Ted Kennedy (D, Ma) ranted on and on about this, even threatening to shut the hearings (and ultimately the confirmation process) down while he subpoenaed documents pertaining to Alito's membership in CAP. The hearings erupted when committee chair Arlen Spector (R, Pa) reminded Sen. Kennedy who ran the committee. He [Spector] ultimately made a phone call at a recess to make arrangements to get the senator from Massachusetts the documents he wanted.
The most intriguing part of the hearings came during the quest to ascertain Judge Alito's position on abortion and what he might do to Roe v. Wade as a court case. Diane Feinstein (D, Ca) as much as said that Roe v. Wade was her major (if not only) concern going into the hearings. But, the abortion issue was best illustrated by Charles Schumer (D, NY) in his questioning of Alito. As he sat and waved a copy of the U.S. Constitution, he asked the nominee about Roe v. Wade. Judge Alito answered that any potential challenge to the abortion ruling would likely be decided on merit along with stare decisis (or legal precedent) but he would not say that the ruling or abortion could never be visited by the court. Wrong answer Judge! Schumer pressed on baiting the judge to say that abortion and a woman's right to choose were guaranteed in the Constitution. The judge throughout all of the questioning referenced stare decisis but would not say that a right to an abortion was actually written in the Constitution. Ultimately Alito referenced and compared the 'right' to abortion to the right to free speech since the right to free speech is explicitly in the Constitution...it says so in the First Amendment. It was as if Sen. Schumer had never actually read the words in the Constitution and (even though he is a lawyer) had no idea of law as it is written in the Constitution versus a decision long held based on precedent, i.e., stare decisis. Correct answer Judge!!
The highlight of the entire hearing was when the TV cameras caught Mrs. Alito breaking down in tears during Senator Lindsey Graham's (R, SC) apology to the judge for the cruel treatment he was receiving in the hearings. Sen. Graham indicated he felt the process was unfair and an embarrassment not only to the nominee, but to the Senate, and (by implication) the entire country. And like Joe Biden's statements about the hearings, I agree.
I am not a big fan of the Supreme Court because of the ability of the Court to basically legislate from the bench. The abortion issue is tired. It is a rallying cry of the left and an issue that the far right refuses to acknowledge might just be decided law because of stare decisis. (Whether it is a right or not will likely be the subject of debate long after I have passed on.) But, the far-reaching actions of the Court on subjects like eminent domain weren't even mentioned during the hearings. The Kelo decision is one where the Court's view, to me, is flat out incorrect and there should be many challenges to that ruling as far as I am concerned. There will obviously be challenges to presidential powers, particularly in light of the NSA intercepts that the Bush Administration authorized in the post 9/11 era as part of an ongoing war on terror. That issue was demagogued, but nothing of substance was really discussed on the issue. Judge Alito really did not answer because it is a case that will undoubtedly come before him if he is confirmed to the Court. Opponents say that he gives too much authority to the Executive branch. Yet the lackeys of these opponents (lackeys being Senate judicial committee members, predominantly the Democratic ones) just used the subject as a way to pontificate during their time to 'ask questions'. The hearings process has eroded to political grandstanding (by both parties) and outright character assassination of the nominee. Is this the best that we can expect?
The next step in the drama appears to be a delay of a full Senate vote on Judge Alito. Senate minority leader Harry Reid (D, Nv) wants to delay the vote so that Democrats can spend more time considering the nominee. That just equates to more time for attack ads on TV slamming a man who is obviously very qualified for the job. On the last day of the hearings, several of his peers and colleagues (of both political persuasions) came to testify on his behalf. All of them found his judicial temperament acceptable. Yet, we waited until the last day to hear what we needed to hear and what should have been asked and ascertained by the members of the judicial committee in the first place. It is a sad testament to our system, one which (by virtue of a bitterly divided two party system) has become more parliamentary in recent years. I am no fan of the lifetime appointment because I think it only exacerbates the problems we have seen in these hearings. It also allows for the development of a rogue justice because, once confirmed, a justice on the Supreme Court has no reason to not become an ideologue. While justice is supposed to be blind, political pressures have been allowed to creep into our courts. They are almost invited.
The entire process needs to be changed, or this is what we will get. Made for TV drama that no one really watches and, sadly, likely cares about, even though it ultimately affects us all. Until then, I think we need to hear what Senators Biden and Graham are saying. The hearings are pointless and they are an embarrassment, not just to the nominee, but to every proud citizen of the United States.
At the outset I must say that personally, I think we should know as much as possible about a potential justice who is about to receive a lifetime appointment to the United States Supreme Court. The reason is that the Supreme Court, over time, has been made the sole arbiter of all of the laws of the land. While the Black Robes (Supreme Court justices) are supposed to interpret the law, specifically the U.S. Constitution, quite often they make the law. This is called judicial activism and that is a hip catch phrase today that is applied to a nominee by opposing political factions to stigmatize that nominee (or sitting judge) as being "out of the mainstream" because they are not afraid to "legislate from the bench". Thus they are guilty of creating their own laws. This is an issue for everyone, regardless of political leanings, yet only the guy with the other ideology ever seems to partake in it. While I see citation of foreign law in a Supreme Court decision as a clear example of such judiciary "legislation", I could likely find dozens of other examples of judicial activism. The point, however, is that no one really wants to admit to it but everyone admits, perhaps claims is a better word, that it goes on. That we actually have to have such a discussion is what bothers me the most.
Since his re-election, President Bush has had the opportunity to replace two Supreme Court justices. Part of the process of vetting a candidate is the Senate Judiciary committee hearings which these days are televised for anyone who is interested to watch. If these hearings really meant something, they might be compelling; compelling in content, as an insight into a nominee's judicial record, and maybe compelling enough that the average citizen (who is really the one who should be leery of how a justice might rule) might pay attention and watch. Yet, the hearings have become a platform for the senators on the committee to pontificate, ridicule, and even personally attack a nominee. Most of them really don't even ask any questions. What poses for questions is really nothing short of a sermon (if not even a tirade) by a given senator who hopes the nominee will somehow blunder in his or her response. That is assuming that a nominee really gives a response. Most of the time, the response is little more than a rebuttal to the senator's long winded stump-type speech. Basically, the process goes nowhere.
Since Samuel Alito, if confirmed, will be replacing Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a key 'swing vote' on the Court, the Democrats, backed by numerous far left organizations, tried to be at the top of their game in attempting to discredit, if not even smear, Judge Alito in hopes of somehow derailing his appointment. Joe Biden started out ranting about how he did not like Princeton, Mr. Alito's alma mater. This was in reference to Mr. Alito's membership in CAP (Concerned Alumni of Princeton), a conservative organization which was against quotas at Princeton. By being (in part) against quotas (read, against women and minorities), membership in this group somehow made Judge Alito a bigot. Ted Kennedy (D, Ma) ranted on and on about this, even threatening to shut the hearings (and ultimately the confirmation process) down while he subpoenaed documents pertaining to Alito's membership in CAP. The hearings erupted when committee chair Arlen Spector (R, Pa) reminded Sen. Kennedy who ran the committee. He [Spector] ultimately made a phone call at a recess to make arrangements to get the senator from Massachusetts the documents he wanted.
The most intriguing part of the hearings came during the quest to ascertain Judge Alito's position on abortion and what he might do to Roe v. Wade as a court case. Diane Feinstein (D, Ca) as much as said that Roe v. Wade was her major (if not only) concern going into the hearings. But, the abortion issue was best illustrated by Charles Schumer (D, NY) in his questioning of Alito. As he sat and waved a copy of the U.S. Constitution, he asked the nominee about Roe v. Wade. Judge Alito answered that any potential challenge to the abortion ruling would likely be decided on merit along with stare decisis (or legal precedent) but he would not say that the ruling or abortion could never be visited by the court. Wrong answer Judge! Schumer pressed on baiting the judge to say that abortion and a woman's right to choose were guaranteed in the Constitution. The judge throughout all of the questioning referenced stare decisis but would not say that a right to an abortion was actually written in the Constitution. Ultimately Alito referenced and compared the 'right' to abortion to the right to free speech since the right to free speech is explicitly in the Constitution...it says so in the First Amendment. It was as if Sen. Schumer had never actually read the words in the Constitution and (even though he is a lawyer) had no idea of law as it is written in the Constitution versus a decision long held based on precedent, i.e., stare decisis. Correct answer Judge!!
The highlight of the entire hearing was when the TV cameras caught Mrs. Alito breaking down in tears during Senator Lindsey Graham's (R, SC) apology to the judge for the cruel treatment he was receiving in the hearings. Sen. Graham indicated he felt the process was unfair and an embarrassment not only to the nominee, but to the Senate, and (by implication) the entire country. And like Joe Biden's statements about the hearings, I agree.
I am not a big fan of the Supreme Court because of the ability of the Court to basically legislate from the bench. The abortion issue is tired. It is a rallying cry of the left and an issue that the far right refuses to acknowledge might just be decided law because of stare decisis. (Whether it is a right or not will likely be the subject of debate long after I have passed on.) But, the far-reaching actions of the Court on subjects like eminent domain weren't even mentioned during the hearings. The Kelo decision is one where the Court's view, to me, is flat out incorrect and there should be many challenges to that ruling as far as I am concerned. There will obviously be challenges to presidential powers, particularly in light of the NSA intercepts that the Bush Administration authorized in the post 9/11 era as part of an ongoing war on terror. That issue was demagogued, but nothing of substance was really discussed on the issue. Judge Alito really did not answer because it is a case that will undoubtedly come before him if he is confirmed to the Court. Opponents say that he gives too much authority to the Executive branch. Yet the lackeys of these opponents (lackeys being Senate judicial committee members, predominantly the Democratic ones) just used the subject as a way to pontificate during their time to 'ask questions'. The hearings process has eroded to political grandstanding (by both parties) and outright character assassination of the nominee. Is this the best that we can expect?
The next step in the drama appears to be a delay of a full Senate vote on Judge Alito. Senate minority leader Harry Reid (D, Nv) wants to delay the vote so that Democrats can spend more time considering the nominee. That just equates to more time for attack ads on TV slamming a man who is obviously very qualified for the job. On the last day of the hearings, several of his peers and colleagues (of both political persuasions) came to testify on his behalf. All of them found his judicial temperament acceptable. Yet, we waited until the last day to hear what we needed to hear and what should have been asked and ascertained by the members of the judicial committee in the first place. It is a sad testament to our system, one which (by virtue of a bitterly divided two party system) has become more parliamentary in recent years. I am no fan of the lifetime appointment because I think it only exacerbates the problems we have seen in these hearings. It also allows for the development of a rogue justice because, once confirmed, a justice on the Supreme Court has no reason to not become an ideologue. While justice is supposed to be blind, political pressures have been allowed to creep into our courts. They are almost invited.
The entire process needs to be changed, or this is what we will get. Made for TV drama that no one really watches and, sadly, likely cares about, even though it ultimately affects us all. Until then, I think we need to hear what Senators Biden and Graham are saying. The hearings are pointless and they are an embarrassment, not just to the nominee, but to every proud citizen of the United States.
Monday, January 09, 2006
The Lunacy of the Extremes
What the Hell was Pat Robertson thinking? Does he really believe that God is mad at Ariel Sharon for "dividing his [God's] land" and that is why the Israeli Prime Minister is having serious health problems at present? An even more intriguing question is who are the "...not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of American people...[who] support your revolution" that Harry Belafonte was talking about when he visited Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez? Has Pat lost his mind? Is Harry so far beyond Geritol that we have to start talking senility? Do these guys take themselves seriously or are they just trying to ruin America?
I am admittedly conservative and hold many political views that are on the right of the political spectrum. I believe strongly about many issues because I have researched them and have meticulously thought through them on my way to formulating my opinions. I would likely never be classified as a moderate, regardless of where I might fall on a particular subject. My beliefs are strong, never moderate. Still, I respect the opinions of others and I can agree to disagree on many issues. I truly believe that the political left in the United States is somewhat 'off the hook' of late, however. Be it in Congress, the media, the entertainment elites, or the intelligentsia, those on the left truly seem to be losing their grip. Yet, over a year ago I commented to a relative that the religious right could possibly be the undoing of the Republican Party. Now, the only play in the left's playbook is to do the opposite of whatever George Bush proposes. Take the nomination of Sam Alito to the Supreme Court. He is being attacked as an ideologue and his character was assassinated on the first day of his hearings. Senator Dianne Feinstein has come out and said Roe v. Wade is her only real concern regarding Judge Alito. She wants to know before hand how he feels about abortion and wants to disqualify him on personal opinions, not his ability to be an impartial judge. (More on all of this in a later post.) The left asserts that George Bush nominated Alito to pander to the religious right base of the Republican Party. Assuming that is true then we are back to the extremes, one far left view versus one [perceived] far right view. And the division in America continues.
Keep in mind, I do not oppose anyone's right to their own opinion. I also don't oppose the freedom they have to voice said opinion. I personally believe strongly in free speech. So when Pat and Harry make the comments they make, they do have the right. But, I must find fault in the way they went about expressing their thoughts.
First, does Pat Robertson really believe what he said and, if so, why then did he have to say it in the public domain? Is Pat somehow closer to God than anyone else? Does he really know that God is punishing Mr. Sharon? I doubt it. What I take from Pat's comments makes me feel like he is somehow exercising and expressing some form of divine judgment with regard to Mr. Sharon. Personally, I don't think even Pat is that close to God. Besides, the Prime Minister is still living. My guess is that we can leave all of the divine judgment to God himself. That can be between him and Ariel Sharon, accomplished on God's time table, not Pat's.
Then there is Harry. He is suddenly pals with the dictator, umm, elected leader of Venezuela. He traveled there (with liberal pals Danny Glover and Cornel West no less) to extol the virtues of Mr. Chavez and all he stands for. Well, Harry, I hate to break it to you, but I don't think Mr. Chavez is the man of the year. (And why AARP gave you their award is beyond me. Oh, they are a liberal group as well. My mistake.) My big issue with Harry is not that he makes such statements, but that he (like so many Hollywood types and out-of-power liberals) managed to bad mouth this country on foreign soil. He called George Bush "the greatest tyrant in the world, the greatest terrorist in the world," all the while chumming it up with Hugo Chavez. Now, George Bush was actually elected in real elections twice, so to me Mr. Belafonte has done a good job of insulting a majority of Americans and therefore he has insulted his country. Dissent is fine. Doing it on foreign soil to me is not. Cheap shots and character assassination of the president of the United States is not. You can disagree, fine. But Mr. Belafonte's actions are irresponsible. They are also in poor taste.
The point to me is this...be you liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, be responsible in your comments. Start by being intellectually honest in your thoughts. Do not make outrageous public comments or characterizations based on ideology and lacking in fact. And do not assume because you have the pulpit, as a civic or political leader, as a religious leader, or as a 'celebrity' that your opinion is fact. As as an ordinary citizen...an American...don't let fools like Pat and Harry make your decisions through their comments. And don't be afraid to point out how inappropriate their comments are because you are an 'everyday American', you are the 'mainstream', and your voice resounds as loudly as does Harry's or Pat's.
I am admittedly conservative and hold many political views that are on the right of the political spectrum. I believe strongly about many issues because I have researched them and have meticulously thought through them on my way to formulating my opinions. I would likely never be classified as a moderate, regardless of where I might fall on a particular subject. My beliefs are strong, never moderate. Still, I respect the opinions of others and I can agree to disagree on many issues. I truly believe that the political left in the United States is somewhat 'off the hook' of late, however. Be it in Congress, the media, the entertainment elites, or the intelligentsia, those on the left truly seem to be losing their grip. Yet, over a year ago I commented to a relative that the religious right could possibly be the undoing of the Republican Party. Now, the only play in the left's playbook is to do the opposite of whatever George Bush proposes. Take the nomination of Sam Alito to the Supreme Court. He is being attacked as an ideologue and his character was assassinated on the first day of his hearings. Senator Dianne Feinstein has come out and said Roe v. Wade is her only real concern regarding Judge Alito. She wants to know before hand how he feels about abortion and wants to disqualify him on personal opinions, not his ability to be an impartial judge. (More on all of this in a later post.) The left asserts that George Bush nominated Alito to pander to the religious right base of the Republican Party. Assuming that is true then we are back to the extremes, one far left view versus one [perceived] far right view. And the division in America continues.
Keep in mind, I do not oppose anyone's right to their own opinion. I also don't oppose the freedom they have to voice said opinion. I personally believe strongly in free speech. So when Pat and Harry make the comments they make, they do have the right. But, I must find fault in the way they went about expressing their thoughts.
First, does Pat Robertson really believe what he said and, if so, why then did he have to say it in the public domain? Is Pat somehow closer to God than anyone else? Does he really know that God is punishing Mr. Sharon? I doubt it. What I take from Pat's comments makes me feel like he is somehow exercising and expressing some form of divine judgment with regard to Mr. Sharon. Personally, I don't think even Pat is that close to God. Besides, the Prime Minister is still living. My guess is that we can leave all of the divine judgment to God himself. That can be between him and Ariel Sharon, accomplished on God's time table, not Pat's.
Then there is Harry. He is suddenly pals with the dictator, umm, elected leader of Venezuela. He traveled there (with liberal pals Danny Glover and Cornel West no less) to extol the virtues of Mr. Chavez and all he stands for. Well, Harry, I hate to break it to you, but I don't think Mr. Chavez is the man of the year. (And why AARP gave you their award is beyond me. Oh, they are a liberal group as well. My mistake.) My big issue with Harry is not that he makes such statements, but that he (like so many Hollywood types and out-of-power liberals) managed to bad mouth this country on foreign soil. He called George Bush "the greatest tyrant in the world, the greatest terrorist in the world," all the while chumming it up with Hugo Chavez. Now, George Bush was actually elected in real elections twice, so to me Mr. Belafonte has done a good job of insulting a majority of Americans and therefore he has insulted his country. Dissent is fine. Doing it on foreign soil to me is not. Cheap shots and character assassination of the president of the United States is not. You can disagree, fine. But Mr. Belafonte's actions are irresponsible. They are also in poor taste.
The point to me is this...be you liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, be responsible in your comments. Start by being intellectually honest in your thoughts. Do not make outrageous public comments or characterizations based on ideology and lacking in fact. And do not assume because you have the pulpit, as a civic or political leader, as a religious leader, or as a 'celebrity' that your opinion is fact. As as an ordinary citizen...an American...don't let fools like Pat and Harry make your decisions through their comments. And don't be afraid to point out how inappropriate their comments are because you are an 'everyday American', you are the 'mainstream', and your voice resounds as loudly as does Harry's or Pat's.
Sunday, January 08, 2006
Welcome Home Mike
There are men and women serving the United States in various places around this world of ours. Some of those places are likely relatively safe and boring. Some are very dangerous and are places where a soldier's life is not guaranteed from one moment to the next. Yet, the brave individuals who make up our Armed Forces follow the orders that they are given, regardless of the risk. They protect us, whether they know us or not. They all have families and they all have something to lose. But they serve, no questions asked.
This soldier just got back from Iraq. It is a very dangerous place. And, it is a place where many think we should not be. I think otherwise because I fear what might happen if we don't fight this war somewhere besides here, on our soil. Nevertheless, this is a picture of a soldier and his dad after he returned from Iraq. It makes me proud to know someone who would serve my country and ultimately me in the manner that he did. Please, think about this before you speak out against the war. People that you will never meet are willing to risk their own lives to serve, to fight, and to protect you and your liberty...today and into the future. Thank God for our troops.
Welcome home, Mike.
the right wing zealot
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
