Despite a consensus over his failed presidency, George W. Bush's enduring impact on American life is being marked this week by the slow-leak withdrawal from Baghdad and the end of a Supreme Court term in Washington dominated by his Chief Justice.
Behind headlines about the Obama White House's frenzy to resuscitate the economy from regulatory neglect, the Iraq war and Supreme Court makeover are reminders that eight years of Bush damage will take a long time to undo.
A New York Times analysis finds "a widening gap between the Democratic-led political branches and the Supreme Court" and that the court "appears poised to move to the right in the Obama era," noting that Bush's appointees, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, voted the same way 92 percent of time, the highest rate for any pair of justices.
The coming gabble over the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor to replace David Souter will obscure the hard fact that the Supreme Court will be little changed by her arrival.
Similarly, today's exit of American troops from Baghdad will be celebrated as a milestone but is more notable as evidence that President Obama's clear campaign promises have been muddied by the realities of ending a misbegotten war, leaving 130,000 American troops and who-knows-how-many security contractors in Iraq for who-knows-how-long.
Last November, Americans voted for Change, but the ghosts of Bush's presidency will be haunting them for years to come.
Showing posts with label Bush Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bush Supreme Court. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Monday, October 06, 2008
Supreme Decision
Behind the blather about William Ayers by Republicans and the resurrection of the Keating Five by Democrats, the start of the Supreme Court's new term today is a reminder of the high stakes in the presidential election.
In eight years, with the appointments of Samuel Alito and John Roberts, the Bush Administration has brought the Court within one death or retirement of a majority that would reverse Roe v Wade and who-knows-how-many other decisions that advanced individual rights and protections in the second half of the 20th century.
Those who love shooting moose from helicopters and firing automatic weapons at squirrels in their back yards after midnight are well-advised to vote McCain-Palin. The rest of us will go for the other guys, including Joe Biden who, during a primary debate, told a gun nut who called his weapon "Baby" that he needed mental help.
If Sarah Palin ever gets to picking members of the Supreme Court, so will we all.
In eight years, with the appointments of Samuel Alito and John Roberts, the Bush Administration has brought the Court within one death or retirement of a majority that would reverse Roe v Wade and who-knows-how-many other decisions that advanced individual rights and protections in the second half of the 20th century.
Those who love shooting moose from helicopters and firing automatic weapons at squirrels in their back yards after midnight are well-advised to vote McCain-Palin. The rest of us will go for the other guys, including Joe Biden who, during a primary debate, told a gun nut who called his weapon "Baby" that he needed mental help.
If Sarah Palin ever gets to picking members of the Supreme Court, so will we all.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
New Rules for American Shootouts
If your neighbor has been firing automatic weapons at squirrels after midnight, Antonin Scalia is willing to think about whether or not he is breaking the law.
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited," the Justice wrote in today's 5-4 Supreme Court decision striking down the District of Columbia's strict ban on gun ownership. "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
Otherwise: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to protect a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful proposes, such as self-defense within the home," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority, made up of Bush appointees Thomas, Roberts and Alito, along with the swing vote of Ronald Reagan's farewell gift to the Court, Anthony Kennedy.
"Unconnected with service in a militia" is the phrase that will open the door to challenges of gun laws everywhere, nullifying centuries of acceptance of the clear wording of the Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Before the Bushes, America was a country that did not wage preemptive wars abroad or encourage homeowners to take up arms at the slightest provocation. If the 21st century is not going to be a replay of the Wild West, voters will have to elect a President to appoint future Justices who agree with dissenting John Paul Stevens:
"The opinion the court announces today fails to identify any new evidence supporting the view that the amendment was intended to limit the power of Congress to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
If you hear gunfire late at night, pull down the shades and, before calling the police, check with Justice Scalia for an opinion.
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited," the Justice wrote in today's 5-4 Supreme Court decision striking down the District of Columbia's strict ban on gun ownership. "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
Otherwise: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to protect a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful proposes, such as self-defense within the home," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority, made up of Bush appointees Thomas, Roberts and Alito, along with the swing vote of Ronald Reagan's farewell gift to the Court, Anthony Kennedy.
"Unconnected with service in a militia" is the phrase that will open the door to challenges of gun laws everywhere, nullifying centuries of acceptance of the clear wording of the Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Before the Bushes, America was a country that did not wage preemptive wars abroad or encourage homeowners to take up arms at the slightest provocation. If the 21st century is not going to be a replay of the Wild West, voters will have to elect a President to appoint future Justices who agree with dissenting John Paul Stevens:
"The opinion the court announces today fails to identify any new evidence supporting the view that the amendment was intended to limit the power of Congress to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
If you hear gunfire late at night, pull down the shades and, before calling the police, check with Justice Scalia for an opinion.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
"9/10 Mindset" vs. "1984"
The McCain campaign is pouncing on Barack Obama for a "9/10 mindset" in his approach to the treatment of suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay.
In a conference call with reporters, they trotted out former CIA chief James Woolsey and others to charge that Obama’s is, to resurrect an old GOP Cold War word, "soft" on terrorism.
“If a law enforcement approach were accurate," a McCain policy adviser said, "then you wouldn’t have had Sept. 11."
They were inspired by Obama's approval of the Supreme Court decision that detainees have the right to seek habeas corpus relief.
"(W)e have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, ‘Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims,'" Obama said. “We could have done the exact same thing, but done it in a way that was consistent with our laws.”
Obama's camp will no doubt respond, but conservative columnist has already done that for them in today's Washington Post by parsing McCain's response that it was "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country":
"Does it rank with Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), which concocted a constitutional right, unmentioned in the document, to own slaves and held that black people have no rights that white people are bound to respect? With Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which affirmed the constitutionality of legally enforced racial segregation? With Korematsu v. United States (1944), which affirmed the wartime right to sweep American citizens of Japanese ancestry into concentration camps?
"Did McCain's extravagant condemnation of the court's habeas ruling result from his reading the 126 pages of opinions and dissents? More likely, some clever ignoramus convinced him that this decision could make the Supreme Court--meaning, which candidate would select the best judicial nominees--a campaign issue."
Will, a Pulitzer-Prize-winning Reagan supporter, may just be out of step with the new conservative thinking. He may just not realize that a "9/10 mindset" is more dangerous these days than going back to the totalitarian mindset of George Orwell's novel, "1984."
In a conference call with reporters, they trotted out former CIA chief James Woolsey and others to charge that Obama’s is, to resurrect an old GOP Cold War word, "soft" on terrorism.
“If a law enforcement approach were accurate," a McCain policy adviser said, "then you wouldn’t have had Sept. 11."
They were inspired by Obama's approval of the Supreme Court decision that detainees have the right to seek habeas corpus relief.
"(W)e have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, ‘Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims,'" Obama said. “We could have done the exact same thing, but done it in a way that was consistent with our laws.”
Obama's camp will no doubt respond, but conservative columnist has already done that for them in today's Washington Post by parsing McCain's response that it was "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country":
"Does it rank with Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), which concocted a constitutional right, unmentioned in the document, to own slaves and held that black people have no rights that white people are bound to respect? With Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which affirmed the constitutionality of legally enforced racial segregation? With Korematsu v. United States (1944), which affirmed the wartime right to sweep American citizens of Japanese ancestry into concentration camps?
"Did McCain's extravagant condemnation of the court's habeas ruling result from his reading the 126 pages of opinions and dissents? More likely, some clever ignoramus convinced him that this decision could make the Supreme Court--meaning, which candidate would select the best judicial nominees--a campaign issue."
Will, a Pulitzer-Prize-winning Reagan supporter, may just be out of step with the new conservative thinking. He may just not realize that a "9/10 mindset" is more dangerous these days than going back to the totalitarian mindset of George Orwell's novel, "1984."
Friday, April 25, 2008
Supreme Indifference
Just as the '08 election heads for a Democratic-Republican choice, Antonin Scalia comes out from behind the robes to tell us on 60 Minutes this weekend to stop moping about the Supreme Court's award of the presidency to George W. Bush in 2000.
"Get over it," he says in an interview with Lesley Stahl. "It’s so old by now." He may be right. The war in Iraq, the wrecking of our economy, the usurping of traditional American legal rights are so yesterday.
But Scalia himself is a living reminder of what's at stake in this year's election beyond all the mumbo-jumbo of the campaigns--the president's power to name Supreme Court Justices.
If Obama or Clinton is in the White House, it probably won't be someone who goes duck-hunting with Dick Cheney as he is considering a case over the Vice President's meetings with industry officials, including Enron's Ken Lay, while formulating the Administration's energy policy.
Meanwhile, not to worry about Scalia's role on the Court: "I am a law-and-order guy," he tells Stahl. "I mean, I confess to being a social conservative, but it does not affect my views on cases."
Now that is something it make take some time to get over.
"Get over it," he says in an interview with Lesley Stahl. "It’s so old by now." He may be right. The war in Iraq, the wrecking of our economy, the usurping of traditional American legal rights are so yesterday.
But Scalia himself is a living reminder of what's at stake in this year's election beyond all the mumbo-jumbo of the campaigns--the president's power to name Supreme Court Justices.
If Obama or Clinton is in the White House, it probably won't be someone who goes duck-hunting with Dick Cheney as he is considering a case over the Vice President's meetings with industry officials, including Enron's Ken Lay, while formulating the Administration's energy policy.
Meanwhile, not to worry about Scalia's role on the Court: "I am a law-and-order guy," he tells Stahl. "I mean, I confess to being a social conservative, but it does not affect my views on cases."
Now that is something it make take some time to get over.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
3972 Reasons for Nader Not to Run
John Roberts, Samuel Alito and US fatalities in Iraq head the list of what might have been avoided if America's crusader had stayed off the ballot in 2000 and not provided George W. Bush with the margins he needed to win the White House.
Now here he is again, on Meet the Press, puffing away at the importance of third-party candidates in pushing Democrats and Republicans toward ideological purity, pooh-poohing the complaint that he gave us a President who has tilted the Supreme Court away from what Nader's admirers believe and into a war that he and they deplore.
In declaring his candidacy yet again, Nader, who will be 74 this week, is in a dead heat with Ann Coulter for becoming this year's foremost example of Reverse Attention Deficit Disorder, the compulsive need to preen for TV cameras at any cost.
What they have in common is Hillary Clinton. Coulter claims she would support her rather than John McCain, and Nader would do anything to keep another Clinton out of the White House.
Of the two, Coulter is a more benign case, providing only passing amusement in her quest for attention. Nader is a self-deluded disgrace who might pose an actual danger of electing Bush's anointed successor if it were not for the comforting fact that he drew less than half of one percent of the vote in 2004.
Now here he is again, on Meet the Press, puffing away at the importance of third-party candidates in pushing Democrats and Republicans toward ideological purity, pooh-poohing the complaint that he gave us a President who has tilted the Supreme Court away from what Nader's admirers believe and into a war that he and they deplore.
In declaring his candidacy yet again, Nader, who will be 74 this week, is in a dead heat with Ann Coulter for becoming this year's foremost example of Reverse Attention Deficit Disorder, the compulsive need to preen for TV cameras at any cost.
What they have in common is Hillary Clinton. Coulter claims she would support her rather than John McCain, and Nader would do anything to keep another Clinton out of the White House.
Of the two, Coulter is a more benign case, providing only passing amusement in her quest for attention. Nader is a self-deluded disgrace who might pose an actual danger of electing Bush's anointed successor if it were not for the comforting fact that he drew less than half of one percent of the vote in 2004.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)