12voltman59
Nov 6, 2005, 12:51 PM
I have always had a deep interest in politics--I graduated college with a degree in Political Science. I focused my studies on the law, with plans to go to law school. I did not do that--at least not yet.
Over the years I have taken part in many political campaigns of people runninng for office at every level of government from the proverbial "dog catcher" all the way to the big Kahuna--the presidency.
I have mostly, but not exclusively, worked for Democratic candidates. I have worked for a few moderate Republicans and Independents over the years.
Even though I have done more with Dems than others, I don't consider myself a partisan or an ideologue--it is simply that as a rule, those who run as Democrats tend to hold to the values, policies and priorities that I find to be important.
In recent years I have been working as a journalist, so instead of working for candidates--to keep the journalistic standard of maintaining objectivity--I have had to limit my level of active participation. This is one of the oddities of filling the journalist role---you are present at the event or situation you are covering whether you are at a serious car wreck or a campaign headquarters on election night---you are supposed to remain disspassionate and removed from what is taking place. Your role is to capture and relate what transpires.
I provide the information above in order to provide readers with an idea of my background and as they used to say "where I'm at."
Now to get to the topic: what impact Bush's appointments to the Supreme Court might have on our country.
With the announcement by Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor that she desired to retire from her position on the Court in order to tend to an ailing husband--President George W. Bush finally had the opportunity to fill a court position with a nominee of his choice.
O'Connor's announcement came as a surprise, for consensus held that the first opening on the Court would come from either the retirement or death of Chief Justice William Rheinquist who was suffering from an agressive form of thyroid cancer.
Bush named John Roberts--an attorney who was highly respected by many in the legal world on both the right and the left to fill O'Connors seat. Roberts has served as an appellate judge on the D.C District Court of Appeals and once served as Solicitor General of the United States.
Of course, the situation soon changed. Rheinquist died and almost immediately Bush announced that he was naming Roberts as Rheinquest's replacement as Chief Justice.
Bush then named his current White House Counsel, Harriet Miers as the nominee to replace O'Connors.
That nomination led to a political donnybrook of sorts for Bush, already taking hits for the state of the Iraq war, the post Katrina/Rita debacle, and the growing political scandals regarding top White House staffers, Bush came under attack from his own right wing base over the Miers' nomination.
After taking withering fire from Bush's conservative base--Miers conveniently withdrew her nomination for the seat, citing that she wished to prevent a fight between the Senate and the White House over issues of "Executive Privilege." Interestingly, an exit scenario for Miers' damaged nomination was laid out not long before by conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer in one of his pieces.
Bush has now named Samuel Alito, a jurist who has served on the 3rd US District Court of appeals since 1990, as the O'Connor replacement. Alito was named to that court by Pres. George H.W. Bush.
Roberts had not served long in his position as a judge, so he did not have much of a record to gain a great deal of insight regarding the hot button issue of today.
Most of Roberts' record came from his time as solicitor general, but as he told the members of the Senate Judicial Committee who questioned him during the confirmation process--he was an attorney representing a client and the positions of that client-albeit the "client" was the presidential administration for which he served--an administration with a conservative viewpoint.
Roberts passed muster and he now serves as Chief Justice.
Alito's record is more clear. From what can be discerned of Alito--he is very definitely a conservative. His nomination has warmed the hearts of conservatives from across that spectrum.
One of the major goals of many on the right, is to have the Supreme Court over turn Roe v. Wade, the case that established the right of American women to have access to abortion.
While overturning Roe is a major goal of the right--that is but one piece of the prize that they have set their sights.
Recently I saw Robert Bork being interviewed on a C-Span program.
For those of you who don't remember Bork--he was nominated for a Supreme Court seat by Ronald Reagan back in 1987. Bork's nomination was, thankfully, defeated after a contentious nomination proceeding.
Bork is one of the guiding lights of the judicial right. He is a prime advocate of the concept that there should be a "strict intrepretation" of the Constitution.
During the interview--Bork clearly stated that he believed that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, as should many other rulings made by the Court in the past half century because in his belief, they are "bad laws."
Some of the other rulings that he believes should be overturned include "Griswold v. Connecticut," "Mapp v. Ohio," and a whole series of cases that were decided under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution that provided for the protection of the civil rights of blacks and other minorities.
(Griswold allowed free access to use of contraceptives; Mapp allowed for greater access to erotica/porn)
Do they think old Joe six pack will be happy when he can't by a rubber or go to 7-Eleven and buy a Hustler or Penthouse?
To Bork, he holds that we should only look to the Constitution for what was there as laid down by the "Founding Fathers" and nothing more.
Bork, and others in his camp, want the Supreme Court to invalidate any case that helped establish these so called "penumbral rights."
To Bork and others--they believe the court, when it ruled in these areas, exceeded the boundaries of the court and embarked upon "judicial acitivism."
Bork's desire is that his extensive list of 'bad cases" would be summarily undone.
If such a thing were to take place--it would set the clock back many years in terms of civil rights, environmental protections, labor relations, contraceptive rights and many other areas that Americans have come to hold dear as their rights.
He has no respect for the long term concept in law of "stare decisis" (the concept of holding to precedent).
It is unclear where on the spectrum both Roberts and Alito are at in this regard. I do wonder--do they hold to Bork's extreme notion that the "faulty laws" should be simply swept away or will they hold to the concept that these are the laws of the land, and that while they may find them objectionable--will not seek to push for such a dramatic change in the law.
Robert Bork is also affiliated with the Federalist Society. This organization was founded in the early 1980s as a way for those in the conservative movement to fight the percieved excesses of the left in the judicial realm.
The organization today is a large and influential entity with members who are law students, attorneys, jurists, academic scholars and others who hold to the view that the Constitution has narrowly defined limits.
I hold the view the Constitution, as do many in the legal field, that the Constitution is not limited--it is an expansive document that can change as the country changes.
Our Consitution is a great document that embodies the high ideals and concepts that the Founding Fathers set forth in the Declaration of Independence.
From the left/progressive side--there is no counterpart to the Federalist Society to argue the expansive position. There is now a fledgling movement by progressives to create something like the Federalist Society--I just hope that is not "too little and too late."
It is a good thing for this to take place--we need to have this discussion in this country.
We need to have law schools, colleges, universities, churches, civic groups, and others step forward to educate people about what these concepts mean and their consequences to our society--for it goes to the very fundamental nature of what the country is.
They need to have free seminars all over the country so that people can come learn, to be really informed and not sound bited--this is not something that can be fitted into a 30-second sound bite--it has to be explained in detail---and then let this matter be debated and hashed out.
Let the chips fall where they may then--that's democracy--it's messy but it has to be done.
The right is very adept at putting ideas out there and having them become the standard by which everything is debated.
I would hope that for those who are members of this website--you don't buy one of the biggest falsehoods of the day that "the media is so liberal."
I won't spend time discussing this issue--just look around--is the media really that liberal?
I will talk a bit about Rupert Murdoch's little channel: FOX News
You may not be able to stand it--but it is instructive to watch FOX if for no other reason than to know what the subject matter is for the latest conservative talking points memos that come from the major right wing groups, the RNC and the White House.
The latest thing to come from the talking heads---Bill Maher showed this in clip he had on a recent show---a term was used by guests and FOX commentators: "what we have now is a criminalization of politics."
The phrase was being used in connection with the investigations of Libby and Rove in "Plamegate."
Tom DeLay-under indictment for a variety of misdeeds--used a version of the phrase just a few days ago in a press release.
There are alternate media sources like Amy Goodman's "Democracy Now!", Air America Radio, Arianan Huffington's HuffingtonPost.com, Jim Hightower, TomPaine.com, Mother Jones and others.
For one reason and one reason alone--I wished that I did have bundles of money like George Soros or Bill Gates.
If I did--I would dedicate to spend every last red cent to get a true and meaningful discussion about what I have talked about here--that we need to have an open discussion about the way we want things to be--what kind of America we really want for ourselves and to leave to future generations.
That discussion is not happening--maybe the average Joe and Jane American doesn't want to have it and they will continue to be dumb, blind and happy so long as they can have their cable tv, their beer and all of --as George Carlin said last night on his HBO special--"their stupid shit"
I don't know if I am as cynical as old George (Carlin). I do think that the country is on a wrong path and something has got to be done about it--sooner than later!!!
I do know this: I don't want to live in the kind of America that the fundamentalist Christians dream about--I don't want to live in the kind of America the big corporatists dream about.
What kind of America do you want to live in? For those who will follow you?
I am not a rich person like Soros or Gates, so I don't have access to a bully pulpit. The way for me to do something is to start at the grassroots level.
I hope that you take to heart what I have said and consider it but don't take my word for anything--go out and educate yourself in any way you see fit--take part in anyway you can.
Join groups and orgs like MoveOn.org, Amnesty International or start your own. Move.On is pretty good because they do have money and an effective web presence.
Let's just start the debate....
Over the years I have taken part in many political campaigns of people runninng for office at every level of government from the proverbial "dog catcher" all the way to the big Kahuna--the presidency.
I have mostly, but not exclusively, worked for Democratic candidates. I have worked for a few moderate Republicans and Independents over the years.
Even though I have done more with Dems than others, I don't consider myself a partisan or an ideologue--it is simply that as a rule, those who run as Democrats tend to hold to the values, policies and priorities that I find to be important.
In recent years I have been working as a journalist, so instead of working for candidates--to keep the journalistic standard of maintaining objectivity--I have had to limit my level of active participation. This is one of the oddities of filling the journalist role---you are present at the event or situation you are covering whether you are at a serious car wreck or a campaign headquarters on election night---you are supposed to remain disspassionate and removed from what is taking place. Your role is to capture and relate what transpires.
I provide the information above in order to provide readers with an idea of my background and as they used to say "where I'm at."
Now to get to the topic: what impact Bush's appointments to the Supreme Court might have on our country.
With the announcement by Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor that she desired to retire from her position on the Court in order to tend to an ailing husband--President George W. Bush finally had the opportunity to fill a court position with a nominee of his choice.
O'Connor's announcement came as a surprise, for consensus held that the first opening on the Court would come from either the retirement or death of Chief Justice William Rheinquist who was suffering from an agressive form of thyroid cancer.
Bush named John Roberts--an attorney who was highly respected by many in the legal world on both the right and the left to fill O'Connors seat. Roberts has served as an appellate judge on the D.C District Court of Appeals and once served as Solicitor General of the United States.
Of course, the situation soon changed. Rheinquist died and almost immediately Bush announced that he was naming Roberts as Rheinquest's replacement as Chief Justice.
Bush then named his current White House Counsel, Harriet Miers as the nominee to replace O'Connors.
That nomination led to a political donnybrook of sorts for Bush, already taking hits for the state of the Iraq war, the post Katrina/Rita debacle, and the growing political scandals regarding top White House staffers, Bush came under attack from his own right wing base over the Miers' nomination.
After taking withering fire from Bush's conservative base--Miers conveniently withdrew her nomination for the seat, citing that she wished to prevent a fight between the Senate and the White House over issues of "Executive Privilege." Interestingly, an exit scenario for Miers' damaged nomination was laid out not long before by conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer in one of his pieces.
Bush has now named Samuel Alito, a jurist who has served on the 3rd US District Court of appeals since 1990, as the O'Connor replacement. Alito was named to that court by Pres. George H.W. Bush.
Roberts had not served long in his position as a judge, so he did not have much of a record to gain a great deal of insight regarding the hot button issue of today.
Most of Roberts' record came from his time as solicitor general, but as he told the members of the Senate Judicial Committee who questioned him during the confirmation process--he was an attorney representing a client and the positions of that client-albeit the "client" was the presidential administration for which he served--an administration with a conservative viewpoint.
Roberts passed muster and he now serves as Chief Justice.
Alito's record is more clear. From what can be discerned of Alito--he is very definitely a conservative. His nomination has warmed the hearts of conservatives from across that spectrum.
One of the major goals of many on the right, is to have the Supreme Court over turn Roe v. Wade, the case that established the right of American women to have access to abortion.
While overturning Roe is a major goal of the right--that is but one piece of the prize that they have set their sights.
Recently I saw Robert Bork being interviewed on a C-Span program.
For those of you who don't remember Bork--he was nominated for a Supreme Court seat by Ronald Reagan back in 1987. Bork's nomination was, thankfully, defeated after a contentious nomination proceeding.
Bork is one of the guiding lights of the judicial right. He is a prime advocate of the concept that there should be a "strict intrepretation" of the Constitution.
During the interview--Bork clearly stated that he believed that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, as should many other rulings made by the Court in the past half century because in his belief, they are "bad laws."
Some of the other rulings that he believes should be overturned include "Griswold v. Connecticut," "Mapp v. Ohio," and a whole series of cases that were decided under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution that provided for the protection of the civil rights of blacks and other minorities.
(Griswold allowed free access to use of contraceptives; Mapp allowed for greater access to erotica/porn)
Do they think old Joe six pack will be happy when he can't by a rubber or go to 7-Eleven and buy a Hustler or Penthouse?
To Bork, he holds that we should only look to the Constitution for what was there as laid down by the "Founding Fathers" and nothing more.
Bork, and others in his camp, want the Supreme Court to invalidate any case that helped establish these so called "penumbral rights."
To Bork and others--they believe the court, when it ruled in these areas, exceeded the boundaries of the court and embarked upon "judicial acitivism."
Bork's desire is that his extensive list of 'bad cases" would be summarily undone.
If such a thing were to take place--it would set the clock back many years in terms of civil rights, environmental protections, labor relations, contraceptive rights and many other areas that Americans have come to hold dear as their rights.
He has no respect for the long term concept in law of "stare decisis" (the concept of holding to precedent).
It is unclear where on the spectrum both Roberts and Alito are at in this regard. I do wonder--do they hold to Bork's extreme notion that the "faulty laws" should be simply swept away or will they hold to the concept that these are the laws of the land, and that while they may find them objectionable--will not seek to push for such a dramatic change in the law.
Robert Bork is also affiliated with the Federalist Society. This organization was founded in the early 1980s as a way for those in the conservative movement to fight the percieved excesses of the left in the judicial realm.
The organization today is a large and influential entity with members who are law students, attorneys, jurists, academic scholars and others who hold to the view that the Constitution has narrowly defined limits.
I hold the view the Constitution, as do many in the legal field, that the Constitution is not limited--it is an expansive document that can change as the country changes.
Our Consitution is a great document that embodies the high ideals and concepts that the Founding Fathers set forth in the Declaration of Independence.
From the left/progressive side--there is no counterpart to the Federalist Society to argue the expansive position. There is now a fledgling movement by progressives to create something like the Federalist Society--I just hope that is not "too little and too late."
It is a good thing for this to take place--we need to have this discussion in this country.
We need to have law schools, colleges, universities, churches, civic groups, and others step forward to educate people about what these concepts mean and their consequences to our society--for it goes to the very fundamental nature of what the country is.
They need to have free seminars all over the country so that people can come learn, to be really informed and not sound bited--this is not something that can be fitted into a 30-second sound bite--it has to be explained in detail---and then let this matter be debated and hashed out.
Let the chips fall where they may then--that's democracy--it's messy but it has to be done.
The right is very adept at putting ideas out there and having them become the standard by which everything is debated.
I would hope that for those who are members of this website--you don't buy one of the biggest falsehoods of the day that "the media is so liberal."
I won't spend time discussing this issue--just look around--is the media really that liberal?
I will talk a bit about Rupert Murdoch's little channel: FOX News
You may not be able to stand it--but it is instructive to watch FOX if for no other reason than to know what the subject matter is for the latest conservative talking points memos that come from the major right wing groups, the RNC and the White House.
The latest thing to come from the talking heads---Bill Maher showed this in clip he had on a recent show---a term was used by guests and FOX commentators: "what we have now is a criminalization of politics."
The phrase was being used in connection with the investigations of Libby and Rove in "Plamegate."
Tom DeLay-under indictment for a variety of misdeeds--used a version of the phrase just a few days ago in a press release.
There are alternate media sources like Amy Goodman's "Democracy Now!", Air America Radio, Arianan Huffington's HuffingtonPost.com, Jim Hightower, TomPaine.com, Mother Jones and others.
For one reason and one reason alone--I wished that I did have bundles of money like George Soros or Bill Gates.
If I did--I would dedicate to spend every last red cent to get a true and meaningful discussion about what I have talked about here--that we need to have an open discussion about the way we want things to be--what kind of America we really want for ourselves and to leave to future generations.
That discussion is not happening--maybe the average Joe and Jane American doesn't want to have it and they will continue to be dumb, blind and happy so long as they can have their cable tv, their beer and all of --as George Carlin said last night on his HBO special--"their stupid shit"
I don't know if I am as cynical as old George (Carlin). I do think that the country is on a wrong path and something has got to be done about it--sooner than later!!!
I do know this: I don't want to live in the kind of America that the fundamentalist Christians dream about--I don't want to live in the kind of America the big corporatists dream about.
What kind of America do you want to live in? For those who will follow you?
I am not a rich person like Soros or Gates, so I don't have access to a bully pulpit. The way for me to do something is to start at the grassroots level.
I hope that you take to heart what I have said and consider it but don't take my word for anything--go out and educate yourself in any way you see fit--take part in anyway you can.
Join groups and orgs like MoveOn.org, Amnesty International or start your own. Move.On is pretty good because they do have money and an effective web presence.
Let's just start the debate....