Text 14022, 151 rader
Skriven 2005-07-10 17:44:32 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
     Kommentar till en text av Alan Hess
Ärende: interest groups good?
=============================
09 Jul 05 18:40, Alan Hess wrote to all:

 AH> So says Mr. Dionne re the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice.
 AH> *****

Mr. Dionne is a bloody fool.


 AH> washingtonpost.com
 AH> Let's Have This Fight

 AH> By E. J. Dionne Jr.
 AH> Post
 AH> Saturday, July 9, 2005; A15

 AH> Should a temporary majority of 50.7 percent have control over the 
 AH> entire United States government? Should 49.3 percent of Americans 
 AH> have no influence over the nation's trajectory for the next 
 AH> generation?

Perhaps Mr. Dionne hasn't heard that we have a two party system in which the
majority rules?  Whichever majority that might be.  Perhaps he should remember
that the Democrats held the reins for nearly 50 years before the present
majority took over.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander as well.

 AH> Those are the stakes in the coming fight over the next Supreme 
 AH> Court justice. The much-maligned "outside groups" preparing for 
 AH> battle over President Bush's choice deserve credit for openly 
 AH> acknowledging this struggle for power.

 AH> Speaking from Denmark on Wednesday, Bush couldn't resist a knock 
 AH> at "special-interest groups" for exploiting the court debate on 
 AH> behalf of "their own fundraising capabilities." Okay, shame on 
 AH> them for raising all that money. But these groups -- left and 
 AH> right -- are fighting because they know how much this matters.

 AH> Paradoxically, that's why the White House is telling its 
 AH> right-wing allies to shut up. It's not just that the president is 
 AH> understandably peeved over conservative attacks on his attorney 
 AH> general, Alberto Gonzales. By being so vocal, the conservative 
 AH> groups are making clear what the administration would like to 
 AH> obscure: that this is a political and philosophical choice. We are 
 AH> deciding whether one ideological orientation will hold sway over 
 AH> all three branches of the federal government.

The one single criteria for what makes a suitable judge is whether or not that
judge follows the rule of law - the Constitution, that is.  To imply anything
else means that things are way out of whack, and one side or the other is not
the "norm" no matter what they might think.

 AH> That means that the most important questions for senators to ask a 
 AH> nominee have to do with his or her philosophy. It is preposterous 
 AH> to rule such questions out of bounds. It's also hypocritical.

 AH> On the Sunday after Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced her 
 AH> retirement, a front-page story in The Post noted that "the 
 AH> conservative movement has within its grasp the prize it has sought 
 AH> for more than 40 years: the control of all levers of the federal 
 AH> government." The story quoted Manuel Miranda, former counsel to 
 AH> Senate Republican leader Bill Frist, as declaring: "It is the 
 AH> moment of conclusion." That is an entirely forthright statement of 
 AH> the conservative hope.

 AH> But another story in the same edition quoted a planning document 
 AH> for Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee. It urged its 
 AH> side to avoid disclosing the "personal political views or legal 
 AH> thinking on any issue" of Bush's prospective nominee. The idea, as 
 AH> the story put it, was "to focus on qualifications rather than 
 AH> specific issues."

Exactly as it should be.

 AH> In other words, to win an ideological fight and take control of 
 AH> "all levers of the federal government," Republicans will insist 
 AH> that the battle has nothing to do with either power or ideology. 
 AH> The conservative "special-interest groups," no less than their 
 AH> liberal counterparts, have so far refused to play this misleading 
 AH> game.

The problem here is that Democrats think that you can tinker with the
Constitution, "making law" or "finding" it buried in some heretofore
undiscovered clause of the Constitution.

 AH> Many Republicans are already saying that since Bush won the last 
 AH> election and since Republicans control the Senate, the president's 
 AH> choice should be confirmed with dispatch. But as former judge 
 AH> Robert Bork wrote recently in the Wall Street Journal, the Supreme 
 AH> Court "is the most powerful branch of government in domestic 
 AH> policy." Today's Republican majority, based on Bush's 50.7 percent 
 AH> of the vote in 2004, has no inherent right to exercise near-total 
 AH> control over that "most powerful branch."

 AH> Consider that since 1992 the Republican presidential vote has 
 AH> averaged only 44 percent and the vote for Republican House 
 AH> candidates has averaged roughly 48 percent. In 2004, with large 
 AH> margins in some of the largest states, Democratic candidates for 
 AH> the U.S. Senate received nearly 5 million more votes than their 
 AH> Republican opponents.

So what?  Total votes cast means nothing.  Each person elected ran in a
specific individual election and only those in that district can vote for or
against that candidate.  5 million more Democrat votes cast is meaningless.

 AH> Those numbers don't change the fact that the GOP controls both the 
 AH> White House and the Senate. But they do suggest that the 
 AH> Republicans owe a decent respect to the opinions of the Democratic 
 AH> minority and have no mandate for pushing the court far to the 
 AH> right. Yes, this is a "political" assertion. But debates over 
 AH> Supreme Court nominations have been political throughout our 
 AH> history.

Guess what?  Republicans control the House and Senate because the PEOPLE
elected them.  Mr. Bush is President because the PEOPLE elected him.  

 AH> Those who say that politics, philosophy and "issues" shouldn't be 
 AH> part of the confirmation argument typically bemoan the prospect of 
 AH> a mean and dirty fight. But if the only legitimate way to stop a 
 AH> nominee is to discover or allege some personal shortcoming, all 
 AH> the incentives are in favor of nasty ad hominem attacks. If 
 AH> senators disagree profoundly with the philosophy of a nominee who 
 AH> happens to be a perfectly decent human being, isn't it far better 
 AH> that they wage their battle openly on philosophical and political 
 AH> grounds? Why force them to dig up bad stuff on a good person? 
 AH> Paradoxically, denying that politics matter in confirmation 
 AH> battles makes for uglier politics.

Of course, the Democrats would never stoop to such tactics, right?  Of course
not.

 AH> So, in the coming contest, I say hooray for those supposedly awful 
 AH> outside groups. Yes, they often behave in troublesome ways. But 
 AH> because these groups tell the truth about how important this 
 AH> battle is for the future of our country, I hope they ignore the 
 AH> high-minded scoldings they'll be getting and refuse to shut up.

Yeah?  How many of those high minded ideals are the bread and butter of the
Democrats?  Why is it that Democrat ideas are the so-called mainstream (if you
believe the press that's near to gospel as what Moses brought down from the
mountain) and anything from the GOP is extremist and ultra right-wing radical?
Seems to me that even when we try to be reasonable and even-handed, we get the
high hat from the left every time.  Seems to me if the left doesn't like what
we do or say, then they should be a damn site more careful about what they say
and do.  In other words, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

John 

America:  First, Last, and Always!
LIBERALS AND DOGS KEEP OFF THE GRASS!

--- Msged/386 TE 05
 * Origin: We are the Watchmen of our own Liberty! (1:379/1.99)