October 27th, 2005
So, one of my co-workers is currently theorizing that Harriet Miers’ nomination to the Supreme Court was a ruse all along. He thinks that Bush nominated a moderate who he knew would be questioned so that he could nominate a real conservative when her nomination caused enough rucus to force her to withdraw. The idea then is that we’ll be so happy to have anyone other than Miers that Congress will just rush the new person right on through the obstacle course with little whining.
Another co-worker thinks that the first co-worker is assuming Bush is smart enough to think that sort of plot through.
If Rove wasn’t so distracted by Patrick Fitzgerald, I’d be willing to consider that the Harriet Miers Gambit had his fingerprint.
Now, what would be interesting is if Bush now nominates Patrick Fitzgerald to the Supreme Court and PlameGate just disappears…
Tags: Harriet Miers, politics, George W. Bush, Supreme Court, Karl Rove, Patrick Fitzgerald, PlameGate, Conspiracy Theories
October 6th, 2005
I find it amusing that less than a month ago, when Democrats were agonizing over the nomination of now Chief Justice John Roberts and they were nitpicking over important questions like Robert’s positions on the woman’s right to choose and minority rights and all the big Supreme Court issues, Republicans were indignantly telling Democrats to just sit down and vote “yes” and let the President have his chosen man.
Now just weeks later, the President’s second nominee is out there and the conservative Right aren’t so sure about where she stands on those same important issues and now they’re agonizing over the choice they’re same lord and chief has made.
It would serve them right if the Left told them to just lay down, close their eyes, and imagine they’re somewhere else until it’s over.
Tags: politics, Women's Rights, Supreme Court, Democrats, Republicans
August 14th, 2005
I am pro-choice. It’s not a choice I would make for myself and I don’t know who’s right about when a fertilized egg technically becomes a living being, but I am a supporter of a woman’s right to make that choice for herself. Granted I have all sorts of qualifiers about what I think is right or wrong. I do think there should be a cut-off of some sort. I don’t think women who are more than five or six months pregnant should be able to abort their child unless it’s for a medical reason, but again, who makes that cut-off decision? I don’t know.
What I do know is that I’m tired of people misrepresenting the facts that are undeniable. I’m tired of organizations using the television and big-names spokespeople to mislead and misdirect the public. I was tired of it last year long before Nov. 2nd and I’m still tired of it. I have no patience for it anymore.
The NARAL Pro-Choice America TV ad depicting Supreme Court nominee John Roberts as supporting bombers of abortion clinics is one on of those such misrepresentations. It uses words and images to make implications that are just not true.
As Associate Counsel to President Reagan, in a 1986 memo, John Roberts wrote that abortion-clinic bombers “should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.” He refered to the bombers as “criminals.” [“NARAL Falsely Accuses Supreme Court Nominee Roberts”]
Furthermore, the brief the ad claims Roberts filed was written seven years before the abortion clinic bombing depicted and and talked about in the NARAL ad. The brief itself was regarding a case where an abortion clinic had sued protestors blockading the clinics. Bombs were not involved.
The ad contends that Roberts “filed court briefs supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber.” Indeed, Roberts’ name appears on the “friend of the court” brief in Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic that the ad shows. But what Roberts was supporting wasn’t violence or bombing or even the behavior that was the subject of the lawsuit - blockades of clinics. In fact, Roberts went out of his way to say that the blockaders were trespassing, which is a violation of state law. What Roberts argued was that a federal anti-discrimination law couldn’t be used against abortion blockaders because they weren’t discriminating against women – they were blockading men, too. [“NARAL Falsely Accuses Supreme Court Nominee Roberts”]
*sigh*
The sad part is that the damage is already done. Of all the people who saw the ad, very few will check the facts or even believe the facts now that the misrepresentation is “out there”. Those of us who care enough to be well-informed take in all sorts of resources and we know how to use factcheck.org. No wonder we’re becoming a country of lemmings.
Well, at least for me, the more I read about John Roberts, the more I like what I’m finding out about him. He seems to be an upstanding guy with the courage to interpret the law without letting any personal or political beliefs get in the way.
Tags: pro-choice, John Roberts, Supreme Court, NARAL
July 15th, 2005
Am I the only one that thinks that Rehnquist is trying to hang on until Bush is out of office? If so, my hat’s off to Rehnquist!
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Chief Justice William Rehnquist announced Thursday night that he has no plans to step down from the Supreme Court and will continue to serve as long as he can.
“I want to put to rest the speculation and unfounded rumors of my imminent retirement,” Rehnquist said in a statement released through his family. “I am not about to announce my retirement. I will continue to perform my duties as chief justice as long as my health permits.”
A Bush administration official involved in the judicial selection process said the White House is aware of Rehnquist’s statement, which was sent to the White House counsel’s office.
“We take him at his word,” the official said.
Two sources close to the chief justice told CNN they were not surprised because Rehnquist enjoys his work on the court — but were surprised he felt the need to take the unusual step of issuing a statement to shoot down the retirement rumors.
Read the rest at CNN.com
Tags: William Rehnquist, George W. Bush, Supreme Court, politics
July 1st, 2005
Is this a sign of the apocolypse or a harbringer for a return to the Dark Ages?
CNN.com - O’Connor to resign from Supreme Court - Jul 1, 2005
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman appointed to the high court, has told the White House she will resign effective the confirmation of her successor.
In her resignation letter that was delivered to the White House on Friday, she wrote, “I will leave it with enormous respect for the integrity of the court and its role under our constitutional structure.”
The 75-year-old Reagan appointee is considered a moderate conservative on the high court and often cast the pivotal swing vote in important cases.
Her replacement could swing the high court’s ideological balance.
I must say that despite my liberal views, I have always respected Justice O’Connor and I have always seen her as a role model as she is a strong, intelligent woman who helped pave the way for women in power. She will most certainly be missed. I just wish she could have held out a couple more years until the Administration that thinks it’s the Right Hand of God was on its way out.
Tags: Sandra Day O'Connor, Supreme Court, politics
