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 Chief Justice John Roberts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chief Justice John Roberts. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Obama v. Roberts, Round One
As the President begins one-on-one interviews with replacements for David Souter, his eventual choice will be only the start of a four- or eight-year struggle for the soul of the Supreme Court in the 21st century.
The lines are clearly drawn. In voting against the confirmation of John Roberts, then-Sen. Barack Obama acknowledged the Chief Justice's intellect and scholarship but questioned "what is in the judge’s heart. It is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak.”
In his tenure, Roberts has justified Obama's doubts. As Jeffrey Toobin observes in the New Yorker, "In every major case since he became the nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff...Roberts has served the interests, and reflected the values, of the contemporary Republican Party."
President Obama's choice now will not alter the philosophical makeup of the Court but may go some distance in shifting its tone. If the rumored list of finalists is right, the new Justice is likely to share Souter's opinions but express them with more passion.
Judging from the President's track record so far, his pick will be confirmable but not bland. Gender and ethnicity will be in play but not determinative.
The actuarial tables suggest that Obama eventually will have his chance to alter the balance of the Court away from the Bush mindset in his own direction. Next week's decision will be a preliminary skirmish with the main battles yet to come.
The lines are clearly drawn. In voting against the confirmation of John Roberts, then-Sen. Barack Obama acknowledged the Chief Justice's intellect and scholarship but questioned "what is in the judge’s heart. It is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak.”
In his tenure, Roberts has justified Obama's doubts. As Jeffrey Toobin observes in the New Yorker, "In every major case since he became the nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff...Roberts has served the interests, and reflected the values, of the contemporary Republican Party."
President Obama's choice now will not alter the philosophical makeup of the Court but may go some distance in shifting its tone. If the rumored list of finalists is right, the new Justice is likely to share Souter's opinions but express them with more passion.
Judging from the President's track record so far, his pick will be confirmable but not bland. Gender and ethnicity will be in play but not determinative.
The actuarial tables suggest that Obama eventually will have his chance to alter the balance of the Court away from the Bush mindset in his own direction. Next week's decision will be a preliminary skirmish with the main battles yet to come.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Vow-Taking and Language-Mangling
Barack Obama retook the oath of office yesterday after Tuesday's verbal mishap by Chief Justice John Roberts, but language lovers are still bemused by it all,
In today's New York Times, cognitive scientist Steven Pinker blames it on the outdated "prohibition against 'split verbs,' in which an adverb comes between an infinitive marker like 'to,' or an auxiliary like 'will,' and the main verb of the sentence.
"According to this superstition, Captain Kirk made a grammatical error when he declared that the five-year mission of the starship Enterprise was 'to boldly go where no man has gone before'; it should have been 'to go boldly.'”
The Chief Justice, Pinker theorizes, "joined the Flubber Hall of Fame" by trying to edit "I will faithfully execute the office" to "I will execute faithfully," leading Obama to stumble in the process of becoming president.
A psychologist, Pinker dismisses the conspiracy theory that "it was unconscious retaliation for Senator Obama’s vote against the chief justice’s confirmation in 2005," but there is an alternative explanation that tickles a lifelong critic of language use--pure nervousness.
The swearing-in called up Rowan Atkinson's turn as the bumbling clergyman officiating at his first nuptials in "Four Weddings and a Funeral," starting with "Hear our prayers... through your Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Goat," instructs the groom to take "his awful wedded wife" and concludes with a blessing by "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spigot."
The Chief Justice wasn't quite that unnerved but, like the minister, may get it right the next time.
In today's New York Times, cognitive scientist Steven Pinker blames it on the outdated "prohibition against 'split verbs,' in which an adverb comes between an infinitive marker like 'to,' or an auxiliary like 'will,' and the main verb of the sentence.
"According to this superstition, Captain Kirk made a grammatical error when he declared that the five-year mission of the starship Enterprise was 'to boldly go where no man has gone before'; it should have been 'to go boldly.'”
The Chief Justice, Pinker theorizes, "joined the Flubber Hall of Fame" by trying to edit "I will faithfully execute the office" to "I will execute faithfully," leading Obama to stumble in the process of becoming president.
A psychologist, Pinker dismisses the conspiracy theory that "it was unconscious retaliation for Senator Obama’s vote against the chief justice’s confirmation in 2005," but there is an alternative explanation that tickles a lifelong critic of language use--pure nervousness.
The swearing-in called up Rowan Atkinson's turn as the bumbling clergyman officiating at his first nuptials in "Four Weddings and a Funeral," starting with "Hear our prayers... through your Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Goat," instructs the groom to take "his awful wedded wife" and concludes with a blessing by "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spigot."
The Chief Justice wasn't quite that unnerved but, like the minister, may get it right the next time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)