.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

 k / o
                                       politics + culture

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Supreme Court "Surprise"

It looks like what the future of the Supreme Court comes down to is how deceiving Roberts and Alito will prove to have been in their confirmation hearings.

For all the conservative bullshit about Ginsberg's hearing, the fact is, every single American knew exactly what we were getting from Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Whatever she chose to say or not to say, she was unequivocal about the basics. And that's the point, and why the whole comparison is misleading. Democrats don't hide our values, we don't have to.

You can't say that about GOP nominees. Not with Alito, not with Roberts, not with Souter, not with Thomas, not with Kennedy, not with O'Conner. The essence of GOP jurisprudence is this dance between what one has said in private and in the past, what one seems by all accounts to stand for, and what one is willing to say in public when it counts, before the United States Senate. Confirmation hearings are the one moment that American citizens are supposed to get to hear from a nominee before that nominee's word, literally, becomes law.

Fact is, the GOP hides their real values.

It's cagey, it's deceiving, it's a crapshoot.

  • Do women have a right to a legal and safe abortion? Who knows.
  • Do racial minorities have a right to affirmative action programs? Maybe.
  • Will my child have to stand in silence while others pray to Jesus? We're considering it.
  • What are my rights when stopped by the police? Depends.
  • Will the government be able to spy on me next year without me knowing? Distinct possibility.
  • Will my gay or lesbian child have workplace protection if they move from my state? We're mulling that one over
  • Will the big company I worked for have more rights than me when I retire? Hmmm, we'll get back to you.

  • We Democrats may not be perfect, but we can answer those questions in a straightforward manner. The Republicans can't.

    There's a reason for that. Put GOP values out in the light of day...like during Katrina, or with the torture memos, or Tom DeLay's backroom money laundering, or Grover Norquist's behind the scenes power brokering, or Jack Abramoff's swindels, or any time Pat Robertson opens his mouth...and they STINK.

    Americans are about to get a big helping of Supreme Court "Surprise" courtesy of the GOP.

    Don't complain if it tastes like tuna casserole and we have it for dinner every night...

    for the next twenty five years.


    • You articulated exactly what I've been feeling as I hear non-answer after non-answer from these creatures.

      By Blogger Man Eegee, at 2:19 PM  

    • For anyone interested:

      firedoglake and king of zembla are BOTH chock full o' goodness tonight.

      Btw, please treat every thread like an open thread here. Feel FREE to post what you want and to promote your blog and your writing. That's what this zone is about.

      Yeah, I get grumpy at cynically snark directed at me...(but, hey, we've done pretty well on that front lately)...especially when I read it at 5AM running off to work. BUT...

      if there's a comment thread on k/o it's an open thread. Post away!!!!!


      By Blogger kid oakland, at 6:11 PM  

    • You're creeping me out, Kid. Do you have the NSA spying on my clicks of the "preview" button, or something? Truth is, I spent some time earlier tonight tapping out some thoughts on, "Fact is, the GOP hides their real values." But I eventually gave up and navigated away from what I was writing. Just didn't feel right for a thread called "Supreme Court 'Surprise.'"

      When I was doing that earlier tapping, I chanced across the second Bush-Gore debate (plenty of wonderful examples in there of Bush pretending to hold values he clearly does not, by the way--a swell trip down hypocrisy lane). Anyway, there was one part in there that cracked a bit of a morbid smile. In the spirit of Open Thread, I share it now:

      MODERATOR: ... I figured this out; in the last 20 years there have been eight major actions that involved the introduction of U.S. ground, air or naval forces. Let me name them. Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, the Persian Gulf, Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo. If you had been president for any of those interventions, would any of those interventions not have happened?


      MODERATOR: What about Lebanon?

      BUSH: Yes. [i.e. Bush would have supported it]

      MODERATOR: Grenada.

      BUSH: Yes.

      MODERATOR: Panama?

      BUSH: Yes. Some of them I've got a conflict of interest on, if you know what I mean.

      MODERATOR: I do, I do. The Persian Gulf, obviously. And Bosnia....

      Now I suppose Bush must have meant he had a conflict of interest about the Persian Gulf because it was Poppy's war. But for the failed oilman to use the words "conflict of interest" regarding a war in Iraq--and given all we now know about Bush... Well, the quote kinda made me chuckle.

      By Blogger &y, at 7:51 PM  

    • VPO at SayNotoPombo has a great post up about how utterly corrupt Richard Pombo is...

      definitely worth a read.

      By Blogger kid oakland, at 11:47 PM  

    • Just look at a Republican convention. If you're a true believer you'll never get to the podium.

      By Blogger Ratprick, at 6:02 PM  

    • You can't resist throwing in lies about Dean.

      Howard Dean got "huggy" and "open-minded" on the issue of choice, not backing down personally...but open the tent doors to avowedly pro-life candidates: Democrats who would VOTE pro-life.

      You know damn well that is an out right lie. Dean made it clear that he was opened to those who were in principle against abortion BUT DID NOT WANT TO CRIMINALIZE IT.

      By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:10 AM  

    • re: anonymous

      You're responding to a comment from another website, one where, uh...you can't just anonymously drive by. At any rate, Booman asked why we are "losing" on Alito. The quote you pulled was part of my response.

      Vis a vis, Dean's comments. Here's a link.

      The key quote from Dean is this:

      ''We do have to have a big tent. I do think we need to welcome pro-life Democrats into this party,'' Dean said.

      Still, he added, ''I think that we must be absolutely firm in being the party of individual freedom and personal freedom, which means that in the end the government doesn't get to decide, we do.''

      The effort to attract such voters comes as Senate Democrats are preparing for confirmation hearings on Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. Roberts' views on abortion are being scrutinized."

      For a party that is firmly pro-choice, I don't think the above counts as "making it clear" in the least.

      Dean's phrase: 'the government doesn't get to decide, we do" does not offer clarity.

      It's vague. Who's "we"?

      A Husband?
      Doctor and patient after viewing a state-sponsered video?

      Those questions are germane, especially in the context of Alito and Roberts and our likely candidate in Pennsylvania.

      My point on booman was, as the article notes, that Dean's "embrace" of Pro-Life Dems happened as exactly the Roberts nomination came forward. The timing of Dean's statement was simply inexcusable.

      It is ironic and typical of the Democratic Party that in the name of electing Bob Casey to the Senate in Pennsylvania we rolled over on a woman's right to choose at exactly the moment Alito and Roberts nominations came up. (Wow, some "fighting Dems".)

      Of course, what the Roberts and Alito nominations are really about...is not the reversal of Roe, but its curtailment...the emergence of a de facto roll back of what the right to a safe and legal abortion means in states like South Dakota and Mississippi. The extent to which this achieves legal standing is EXACTLY what I'm calling 'Supreme Court Surprise'.

      But, hey....at least we'll have Senator Casey to look out for women's rights in the context of the Roberts/Alito court!


      By Blogger kid oakland, at 10:02 AM  

    Post a Comment

    << Home