March 17, 2005 PERMALINK
Drilling In ANWR: Put It In The ’06 File
(posted March 17 2:15 AM ET)
When Dems don’t control any of the branches of government, bad things are going to happen.
Like yesterday’s vote to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
And as nice as it is to stop bad things from happening, in the long-run, we’ll be able to stop Republicans from continually doing bad things if the public sees what they’re up to and demands a change in direction.
The public hasn’t really seen what the GOP is up to on the environment, because they have learned to be relatively cagey about their anti-environment platform.
This wasn’t always so.
After the GOP took over Congress in ’94, the House passed a number of overtly destructive environmental bills.
But the public backlash was strong, and Senate didn’t follow suit.
By 1996, Newt Gingrich found it necessary to repair the party’s image on the environment, convening a study group to publish a “vision statement” with calmer language.
The lesson: don’t get suckered by polls that put the environment low of people’s list of political priorities.
People only place it low when they don’t feel the environment is seriously threatened, not because they don’t care about it.
So, try to mess with it, and the environment will shoot up the priority list.
Bush learned that lesson, and has sought to wreck the environment in a relatively low-key manner. As Mother Jones put it:
What makes this administration different is the fact that it is filled with anti-regulatory zealots deep into its rank and file-and these bureaucrats … are politically savvy and come from the very industries they're charged with regulating.
The result is an administration uniquely effective at implementing its ambitious pro-industry agenda - with a minimum of public notice.
Bureaucratic moves are easier to keep below the radar than legislative ones.
But now, with the bigger GOP majority in Congress, more high-profile legislative actions are being attempted.
(Next up: the corporate-friendly energy bill that Bush has wanted for years.)
And whether or not they get blocked by Dems, like the Orwellian-named Clear Skies bill, or passed, like ANWR is about to, the GOP risks paying a political price in 2006.
If Dems can make it an issue.
Understand that it’s hard to make everything an issue. There’s finite space for news on any given day.
And Social Security, along with developments overseas, is taking up a lot of oxygen right now.
But Dems should not think that just because the environment hasn’t dominated the headlines in recent months, and GOPers will likely win much more than they will lose in the months ahead, doesn’t mean they can’t use the issue to pump up turnout in ’06.
Because the more damage done to the environment, and the more voters are aware of that damage, the more pissed voters are going to be.
March 16, 2005 PERMALINK
Dems Thrown Down On Nuclear Option
(posted March 16 2:15 AM ET)
Learning from their successes in opposing Social Security, Harry Reid and the Senate Dems took another positive step yesterday, throwing down on the “nuclear option”.
Reid sent a letter to Sen. Maj. Leader Bill Frist, telling him that Dems would effectively shut down the Senate on most matters if he dared take away the right of the minority to filibuster judicial nominees.
Which he followed with a sharp speech on the steps of the Capitol, backed by the bulk of his caucus, a visual show of strength.
Reid framed the Dem argument as “Preserving Checks and Balances,” which was smart.
Because the GOP is trying to get the media to use “constitutional option” instead of “nuclear option”, to argue that ending the filibuster would be constitutional.
By defending the principle of checks and balances, Reid is advancing the debate and refusing to cede the constitutional high ground.
The GOP did not try to engage Reid directly on that point. They see more value in harping on their “obstructionist” theme.
In fact, Sen. John Kyl, at a Senate press conference yesterday, went as far as comparing Reid’s threat to what the GOP Congress did in ’95, shutting down the huge portions of the federal government during a budget dispute with Clinton.
Newt Gingrich and crew thought it would be an opportunity to show how little the public cares about the government, but they bet wrong and the GOP bore the brunt of public criticism.
Kyl said Dems “should think twice” before going through with it. Should they?
No. These are not parallel situations.
For one, in 1995, more than 700,000 government employees were sent home.
That menat tangible services were denied to people who were used to getting them.
Today, we’re talking about preventing new legislation from being passed, not taking away already established services.
Still, there could be a risk if the public is clamoring for the GOP’s legislative agenda.
But all the public has heard lately from the GOP is Social Security privatization, which they are rejecting.
That’s a big reason why the approval rating for Congress has slid to 37%.
With people so unimpressed, they likely won’t bat an eye if they aren’t able to pass more bills that haven’t heard much about or aren’t excited about.
Furthermore, Reid isn’t going absolutist, saying Dems won’t block action to protect our national security or to keep government services going.
So what Dems block is only going to deny the GOP political victories. It won’t disrupt the lives of Americans.
Reid’s timing is good, making his move as the GOP is losing public support, putting them in a weaker position.
The GOP desperately would like to enact some legislation to try to turn perceptions around and set themselves up for the ’06 elections.
But if they go nuclear, they won’t get the chance.
Though, if they don’t go nuclear, the conservative base will be livid that they (and especially, prez wanna-be Frist) didn’t go to the mat for their precious right-wing judges.
Bit of a bind, ain’t it?
March 15, 2005 PERMALINK
Debunking "Originalism" In 60 Seconds
(posted March 15 1:45 AM ET)
MSNBC.com notes that Supreme Court Justice Scalia has, twice in the last two months, uncharacteristically allowed live broadcasts of his public speaking engagements.
Some are interpreting that as a sign he is campaigning to be Chief Justice, though others note he’s not exactly using fresh, poll-tested language to broaden his appeal.
In fact, he appears to giving a similar version of the same speech he’s been giving for years, promoting his “originalist” view of the Constituion, mocking those who believe that Constitutional interpretations can evolve over time.
(His key argument, “The Constitution is not a living organism, for Pete’s sake, it is legal document” is something he has said several times before.)
Whether or not he’s angling for a promotion, at minimum, he appears to be trying to gain further acceptance for his right-wing legal views – perhaps in preparation for the knock-down drag-out nomination battle that is expected soon.
The Right has always tried to position their judicial philosophy as not one of mere opinion but one of fact: judges must follow the literal language of the Constitution and adhere to the views of the Founders.
If the Founders didn’t explicitly put racial equality, gay equality, or privacy rights in the Constitution, then those rights just aren’t protected.
As Scalia said yesterday, criticizing the recent ruling banning the death penalty for minors:
What was “cruel and unusual” and unconstitutional in 1791 remains that today.
Executing someone under 18 was not unconstitutional in 1791, so it is not unconstitutional today.
Now, it may be very stupid, it may be a very bad idea, just as notching ears, which was a punishment in 1791, is a very bad idea.
But the people can ... eliminate those stupidities if and when they want ... All you need is a legislature and the ballot box.
There are two big problems with Scalia’s logic.
First and foremost, if you’re going to swear by the text of the Constitution (and you should, as it is a legal document), you got to swear by all of it.
And there is a section that governs the judiciary; it’s called Article III.
In short, all Article III says is:
The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority
It doesn’t say that the “Judicial Power” can’t be used in this way or that way.
It doesn’t say judges can’t use this or that sort of reasoning when ruling on cases.
It doesn’t even say judges must explain their reasoning by issuing opinions.
(Does Scalia violate the Constitution by writing legal opinions? The Founders didn’t say he could!)
They are free to use whatever rationales they wish, stated or unstated, to get to whatever outcomes they wish.
(The only real check on their power is the possibility of impeachment by Congress.)
Now, to paraphrase Scalia, some might think it a bad idea for judges to adapt their reasoning for the times they live in, but nothing in the Constitution says they can’t.
Secondly, Scalia tries to bolster his argument by saying if there’s anything the people want that the Constitution doesn’t allow for, their elected representatives can take care of it.
But this is completely disingenuous.
Because the real goal of right-wing judicial movement is not to reign in so-called “activist judges,” but to embark on their own activism:
To restrict the ability of Congress -- elected by the public -- to do anything to protect people’s rights.
As a recent report from the Center For American Progress put it:
The Supreme Court and the lower federal courts have become increasingly dominated by ultraconservative and “activist” judges who, far from deferring to the political branches, as they claim to do, have taken a restrictive view of Congress’s powers to regulate under the Commerce Clause and to enforce the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In a series of 5-4 decisions, the Rehnquist Court has struck down more laws than any court in modern history, invalidating statutes that:
prohibited the carrying of guns near school grounds;
required local police officers to carry out criminal background checks on gun purchasers;
permitted state employees to challenge discrimination based on age and disability;
and permitted victims of sexual assault to sue their attackers.
So please, Scalia fans, spare us the whining how the Constitution has been in exile.
If anything has been wrongly subverted in modern times, it’s not the Constitution, but the power of the people and their representatives in Congress, thanks to Scalia and his pals.
March 14, 2005 PERMALINK
The Sunday Talkshow Breakdown
A weekly feature of LiberalOasis
(posted March 14 1:45 AM ET)
Four years ago, Sen. Joe Biden made a very astute comment during a hearing on the nomination of John Bolton, a foreign policy unilateralist to a State Dept. post:
My problem with you over the years is that you've been too competent … I would rather you be stupid and not very effective.
Biden, a multilateralist, appeared to understand that the deft execution of a unilateralist strategy is nothing to applaud.
That even if some short-term goals are met, the endpoint of such a strategy – widespread resentment leading to more terrorism and/or encirclement by second-tier powers -- will be bad for America, not to mention the rest of the world.
However, Biden seems to have to forgotten his past foresight.
On CBS’ Face The Nation yesterday, when asked how well our foreign policy was going, Biden gushed:
The thing I'm most optimistic about ... is sort of the change of policy of the administration. We're getting Powellism without [Colin] Powell now.
The UN is deeply involved with us. We've signed on with the French. We have a coordinated policy with the Europeans with regard to Iran.
It's been long overdue.
But he’s treating a couple of superficial tacks towards multilateralism as a fundamental change in philosophy, when it’s far more likely to be just some pragmatic steps within the larger neocon strategy.
Take Iran.
On Face The Nation, NBC’s Meet The Press and ABC’s This Week, Condi Rice went out of her way to stress that the US and Europe have “a common front, a common approach” that will make Iran “uncomfortable”.
But some are seeing through the multilateral rhetoric.
Such as War and Piece blogger Laura Rozen, who noted in a (Note that yesterday, Condi and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, who was on Fox News Sunday and CNN’s Late Edition, both kept up the crypticness by using careful language to avoid direct answers about our current policies toward Hezbollah.)
Hezbollah has been able to rally support for Syria’s interference in Lebanon’s affairs by attacking the US for doing the same thing.
Saber-rattling with Hezbollah would give them more rhetorical ammo. Being cryptic gives them less to work with.
They pointed the finger to advance their own ideological interests: weaken Syria and ripen it for regime change.
But that interference from the White House risks causing an anti-US backlash and strengthening Hezbollah.
So the current “pragmatic” moves regarding Hezbollah may be deft, but they are still damage control of a problem partly of our own making.
On top of that, our calls for a Lebanese election without foreign occupation, which were echoed Sunday by Rice and Hadley, are smacking of hypocrisy throughout Iraq, which just had an election with foreign occupation.
And like Iraq, whatever new governments that may come about in Lebanon and Syria may more reflect US desires than those of their own people, which can sow serious resentment.
So the perception that the Sunday shows solidified was that the Bushies are being competent and effective.
That may all be true, but as Biden once realized four years ago, sometimes competent and effective is even more dangerous than the reverse.
Even when Dems have had critical things to say about Bush nominees, they have been undercutting their criticism by predicting the nominees will be confirmed anyway.
So it was refreshing to hear Sen. Chris Dodd concede nothing about the nomination of Bolton for UN Ambassador.
