Sotomayor P.S.
A couple of additional points about the nomination of U.S. Circuit Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. The first is you’ve got to wonder how hard Republicans dare tread on the first Hispanic nominee to the high court, given that group’s growing electoral clout. A filibuster would please the party’s base, but at what price? And for what purpose? It’s not as though blocking Sotomayor would produce a more conservative nominee from President Barack Obama. Yet GOP senators can’t just wave Sotomayor on through. Some of her public comments over the years are eyebrow-raisers that need examination.
There’s the one about circuit courts making “policy” – fighting words for lawmakers worried about activist judges — that at a minimum showed a lack of political savvy in someone who had to know she would be on a Democratic president’s Supreme Court short list, thus making every word she uttered subject to intense scrutiny. Then there was the time she said a Latina judge would make better decisions than a white male because of her life experiences. She’s going to get grilled on that one. Hard to imagine John Roberts or Sam Alito getting confirmed if they’d said a white male would reach better judicial conclusions than a Latina or an African-American because of his life experiences.
Barring some major negative development, Sotomayor will be confirmed by the Democrat-dominated Senate. Even so, there’s enough out there for a revealing — and entertaining — few days on her way to confirmation.
California’s Prop 8 stands
The will of the people, expressed in a free and fair election, still means something in California. On Tuesday the state’s supreme court upheld passage of Proposition 8 last fall that banned same-sex marriage in the state. Basically, the court rejected arguments from gay marriage supporters that a majority of voters aren’t allowed to revoke equal rights intended for everyone. Prop 8 opponents said last fall’s 52 percent to 48 percent vote was a “revision” to California’s constitution and thus required a two-thirds vote in the legislature before going to the people. State justices disagreed and Prop 8 stands. At least for now. Gay marriage supporters say they’ll have their own proposition on the ballot next year. Sort of a gay marriage mulligan, apparently. Meanwhile, about 18,000 marriages performed before Proposition 8’s passage were left intact. Stay tuned.
Necessary fear?
Critics of the Bush administration and its conduct of the war against terrorism point to Guantanamo, “enhanced interrogation techniques” and other issues as examples of bad judgment. President Barack Obama added a new one Thursday, accusing his predecessor of acting in fear after 9/11.
Recalling that terrible day and its aftermath, probably many Americans will agree there were lots of reasons to be afraid. Fear was in season. Given the level of human carnage and destruction, you can argue fear generated focus, urgency and, yes, an awakening in a country that had developed a false sense of security in the world. “Fear was an entirely responsible response to September 11,” writes Commentary magazine’s John Podhoretz. “It was, in some ways, the only responsible response.”
Obama’s M.O. is cool, intellectual analysis. Maybe 9/11 wouldn’t have rattled him or his team, as he likes to call his staff. Pray we never have to find out. But maybe the new president, still shy of 200 days behind the Oval Office desk, shouldn’t sound so dismissive of a predecessor who kept the country safe from another monstrous attack over the next seven years. Maybe President George W. Bush and his team were fearful Sept. 12. Most Americans were. But Bush wasn’t paralyzed.
Guantanamo hiccup
President Barack Obama may be broadly popular, but congressional Democrats know all politics is local. That’s the main reason they don’t want any part of Obama’s plan to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba — at least until they know for sure what’s to become of Gitmo’s inmates.
In January the president announced Guantanamo would be closed within a year. But it’s clear now the administration had no concrete plan for dispersing the facility’s 240 or so detainees, some of whom are uber-dangerous terrorists. With whispers around Washington that the Obama team was thinking about moving detainees to U.S. locations, even Democrats sought distance. It’s hard to imagine an issue more toxic than being the member of Congress who let Khalid Sheikh Mohammed come to a prison near you.
First Democrats in the House and then the Senate omitted funds to close Guantanamo from a war funding bill. Obama says Gitmo still is going to be closed, and Democrats could quickly come up with the money if there’s a closure plan to their liking. But for now few in Congress are willing to be part of decision that’s looking more and more like it was rolled out before it was carefully thought out.
Case not made
A close U.S. Supreme Court ruling this week was good news for high-level government policymakers. The 5-4 decision in the case of Javaid Iqbal, a Pakistani Muslim who claimed he was mistreated after being arrested with other Muslims in New York City following the 9/11 attacks, cleared former attorney general John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller.
Iqbal was charged with fraud stemming from problems with his identification papers. He said he was subjected to harsher treatment because of his race and religion and eventually was deported to Pakistan. The court majority said Iqbal didn’t present enough facts early on in his case to prove his treatment directly resulted from policies created by Ashcroft and Mueller.
The ruling suggests claimants will have to do more than allege generic civil rights violations to create legal liability for top government officials. Anything less would have had a chilling effect on top officials, especially those trying to keep the country safe from terrorists.
Laugh-in
The White House Correspondents annual dinner is one of the rites of spring in Washington. Journalists and their guests get all gussied up to hear the president crack a few jokes — and then wait with baited breath to see whether the professional comic for the evening crosses any lines during their performance.
This year’s dinner was no different. President Barack Obama made the predictable comedic passes: at his dependence on a teleprompter, wife Michelle’s guns (arms) and the Washington press corps’ leftward lean — “Most of you covered me, all of you voted for me” — which for its near-truth quality barely qualified as humor.
Then funny woman Wanda Sykes showed the president how it’s done. Or not done. By the time people got back to work on Monday some of Sykes’ riffs were drawing penalty flags. She called talk radio right-winger Rush Limbaugh the 20th hijacker and said she hoped his kidneys would fail. Limbaugh can take care of himself (and no doubt welcomed the controversy because it means r-a-t-i-n-g-s). But the White House backpedaled, saying 9/11 isn’t appropriate territory for humor, even though still photos and video captured Obama laughing at Sykes’ bit.
Sykes and Limbaugh can take the heat. In fact, they revel in it. Obama’s certainly capable of handling it as well, though he’s probably figured out there’s a different standard for what can crack up a president in public, no matter how funny it may seem at the time.
Show U.S. the money
Who’s following the money, the $787 billion federal stimulus package passed earlier this year? Members of Congress hope the taxpayers are. Just three of 10 members of the subcommittee charged with tracking the funds showed up for a meeting this week. Interestingly, the session was dubbed, “Follow the Money Part II.” A couple of those present remarked that taxpayers can follow the stimulus’ expenditures on the Web, which is good as far as it goes. Still, taxpayers who essentially hire public officials to perform these tasks in Washington must be concerned by the lack of official enthusiasm for following this great big money trail.
Same-sex hot potato to Congress
The same-sex marriage debate moved to another level Tuesday with the City Council in the District of Columbia voting 12-1 to recognize such unions from states that allow them. Although Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa permit same-sex marriage, the District’s vote lands the issue squarely in the lap of Congress.
Federal lawmakers have 30 days to review and overturn the council’s decision. That’ll be a debate worth watching, as members of Congress and President Barack Obama are forced to take sides on the issue.
Tuesday’s D.C. council meeting was emotional, with a number of black ministers vowing to work for reversing the decision. There’s evidence suggesting the preachers may reflect public attitudes in the District. Although it’s overwhelmingly Democratic, it’s also majority-black. Exit polls in California last fall showed seven in 10 African-Americans opposed gay marriage in a vote there.
By the way, the lone dissenting council vote was cast by former Mayor Marion Barry.
Aporkalypse now
Nothing like a pandemic scare to bring out the capitalists and the scam artists. One man’s swine flu symptom is another’s fatter pigskin wallet. Stores and Web sites have sold out of masks and hand sanitizers. Web sites created overnight are offering illegal and counterfeit flu drugs. Investment advisors are pointing out how to leverage swine flu into market gains. Designer breathing masks are on order, along with T-shirts that say “My folks went to Mexico and all they brought me was the flu.” Swine flu video games invite players to fatally inoculate pigs. An Australian newspaper dubbed this “aporkalypse humor,” but the flu is no laughing matter to pork producers and the capitalists who’ve been hurting due to curtailed travel and sick employees. Not to mention the survivors of those killed by this outbreak.
After Justice Souter
President Barack Obama might have a conversation with his predecessor before he settles on a replacement for U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter, who is expected to retire from the court when the current term ends in June.
Former President George W. Bush could prepare Obama for the flak he might take over whomever he nominates — from supporters!
Bush ran into a buzz saw with his 2005 nomination of Harriet Miers, whose lack of judicial experience and flimsy grasp of constitutional law factored into her ultimate decision to withdraw from consideration. Another drag on Miers’ nomination was strong criticism from some Bush supporters who didn’t think she was conservative enough.
It’s not hard to imagine a scenario where Obama could find himself at odds with his base.
First, it’s a relatively small window to replace Souter before the court’s fall term begins. If Obama nominates a pure liberal, Senate Republicans could filibuster — recalling that then-Sen. Obama voted to filibuster Justice Samuel Alito (who was nominated after Miers’ withdrawal). Others who voted to block Alito’s nomination included current Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Democrats would be foolish to count on party-switcher Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania to automatically support a liberal nominee.
If Obama opts for a more moderate nominee, the liberal base will be angry. It wants a justice who reflects its views. And there’s always a chance a “confirmable” pick, someone without a long judicial track record or published views, could be a stealth conservative.
Indeed, Souter turned out to be a stealth liberal after Republican President George H.W. Bush nominated him in 1990. Souter didn’t have much of a paper trail, which helped his nomination hurdle the Senate. But early on he became a fairly reliable liberal vote on the court.
Souter’s impending departure, then, is both an opportunity and a lesson for the new president.
