Priscilla Owen may be through, but a number of papers note today how Monday’s compromise only sets the stage for an ugly battle over Dubya’s next Supreme Court pick, likely to be a conservative freakshow.
Category: Dubya’s New Justices
Spoiling the Spoils.
Even in success, it seems, the Right can’t be relied upon to play by the rules. As the House GOP moves to shield Tom DeLay from the Rostenkowski rule they passed eleven years ago (mandating that an indicted leader step down), Senate Republicans look to the “nuclear option” for ending filibusters of judicial nominees, which would allow said filibusters to be ended with a simple 51-vote majority. Finally, in a dubious display of bipartisanship, the Bushies aim to peel off one more Senate vote by offering Democratic Senator Ben Nelson the Agriculture post.
Portending the Nine.
“Indeed, former administration officials say all of the names on Mr. Bush’s short list for the Supreme Court are considered strict constructionists who are closer to Justice Scalia than to Justice O’Connor.” The New York Times tries to figure out if Dubya can actually remake the Supreme Court along “strict constructionist” lines as feared and concludes that, yeah, he probably can.
Chimp Nation.
Hope is on the…wait, what’s this? Oops, sorry about that. Turns out Hope took a wrong turn and got lost somewhere back there in Idiotville. Welcome to Despairtown, baby.
So, that’s that, then…the Idiot Wind blows anew. The American electorate has spoken and — despite all the shadiness and incompetence of the past four years — has given Dubya and his cronies the imprimatur to go hog-wild. 51-48%…this is pretty much a mandate, folks. (Big of those Red Staters to ensure that we will be woefully unprepared for the next terrorist attack on a Blue State.) Y’know, H.L. Mencken‘s whole Tyranny of the Booboisie schtick has always grated on my lefty sensibilities, but at this point I have to admit he may have been on to something.
Ugh. I’m too young to remember 1984 very well, but I’m curious as to how last night and this morning compared for America’s Left. (I’ve since been reminded by several people I trust that 1968 and 1972 were much more grievous blows.) Thing is, 2004 started out with such promise over here. But, right around the time I ended up on crutches in May, events personal and political took a nasty turn, and the past few months have been some of the most dismal I can remember. Now, it seems, I may just look back on this time as relatively calm and worry-free.
But, ok, enough wallowing…let’s start taking it frame-by-frame. Given the war, the economy, and Dubya’s obvious incompetence, how on Earth did we lose this election? Well, give credit where credit is due…all this exit-talk of “moral values” proves that Karl Rove pulled off his gambit: He got the extra 4 million evangelical votes he was targeting, partly, it seems, by judiciously invoking rampant anti-gay hysteria. Yet, for some reason or another — a lousy ground game, perhaps? — the Dems inexplicably didn’t counter with extra votes of our own.
Where do we go from here? The Dems are facing an ugly Rule of Four…We lost four seats in the Senate, at least four seats in the House, and likely four seats in the Supreme Court. Whatsmore, we now appear officially dead in the water in the South and Midwest. And, with Kerry and Daschle gone, our standard-bearers now appear to be Hillary Clinton (about whom the country has already made up its mind), John Edwards (whom I still admire, but he couldn’t carry his home state), and Barack Obama (who’s probably too inexperienced to make much headway in 2008.)
Obviously, it’s now well past time for the serious party overhaul we should’ve began last cycle, when Al Gore had an election stolen from him that he should have won hands down. Daschle & Gephardt are already in the dustbin of history, and Terry McAuliffe should probably follow them there. I for one don’t think Howard Dean was or is the answer, but he’s one of the only people injecting new blood and enthusiasm into the party right now, so he should have a seat at the table. Right now, I think Edwardsian populism is our strongest ideological card, but as I said, it didn’t seem to make much headway last night.
Silver lining? Yeah, right. Well, as this Washington Monthly forum noted in September, second terms are notoriously scandal-prone (Watergate, Iran-Contra, Monica), partly out of press boredom, and Dubya’s ilk seem particularly scandal-worthy…perhaps we’ll finally hear a little more about Halliburton. I’m sure there’ll be no shortage of horrifying policy decisions emanating from this administration that’ll keep lefty blogs like this one in business. And, on a purely selfish note, my likely dissertation topic on the fortunes of progressivism in the twenties is now seeming much more sexy in the wake of last night’s 1928-like cultural divide. Of course, none of these are really any consolation at all.
At any rate, I generally believe that America tends to get the president it deserves. So, God help us, we’ve brought this upon ourselves. And now, for we 48%, the hard work begins…we have to lick our wounds, get our act together, and figure out how we can best combat the rightward drift that’s afflicting our nation. Alas, I fear Dubya will do much of the heavy lifting for us, by running the nation further into the ground over the next four years. Still, we gotta keep on keeping on, y’all. I do not believe this darkness will endure.
Geneva Schmeneva.
Jan 25, 2002: “‘As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war,’ Gonzales wrote to Bush. ‘The nature of the new war places a high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians.’ Gonzales concluded in stark terms: ‘In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva’s strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions.’ Dismissing the Geneva Conventions, two full years before the atrocities at Abu Ghreib? That giant sucking sound you hear is the void left by White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales’s incredible imploding Supreme Court bid. He’s probably got less chance now than Ken Starr of taking the nation’s highest bench, and for good reason.
Bad Judge of Character.
Going over the heads of the Democrats in Congress, President Uniter-not-a-Divider gives segregationist Judge Charles Pickering a recess appointment (which he can hold until January 2005, after the seating of the next Congress.) In case you missed it, Pickering’s segregationist backstory was ably fleshed out by historian Sean Wilentz eight months ago.
Mr. Smith meets Allan Drury.
While the Dems continue their 30-hour marathon filibuster of three Dubya judicial nominees (stunt-scheduled by the GOP to draw attention to – gasp – the Dems fulfilling their advise and consent obligation under the Constitution), Nixon counsel John Dean explains the stakes in this fight…and the GOP’s “nuclear option.” Lest anyone forget, the Dems here are filibustering four of 172 Dubya nominations (2%). By contrast, the Republicans blocked over a third of President Clinton’s nominees to the Court of Appeals. As per usual, the hypocrisy of the Right knows no bounds.
Lie Down with Dogs…
Rejecting any attempt at rapprochement with Congress on the subject of judicial nominations, Dubya tries to ram a former Starr Chamber aide down the Democrats’ throats. To his credit, it sounds like this fellow Kavanaugh was against including salacious details in the Starr report, but he still comes off as yet another Clinton-hater on the IC’s payroll. And we really don’t need any more freak show conservative witch-hunters on the bench.
Checks and Balances.
While battle lines get drawn over possible Supreme Court vacancies at the end of the month, Timothy Noah makes the case for eliminating the filibuster using Robert Caro’s Masters of the Senate. His logic seems sound, but perhaps it’d be best to wait until at least the fall…
Here Comes the Judge.
With talk of Supreme Court vacancies opening up over the summer, the Post sits down with White House counsel (and prime contender) Alberto Gonzales. Good to hear that private sources find him “insufficiently conservative”…there might still be hope for the guy. In related news, Jeffrey Toobin surveys the judicial confirmation battlefield for the New Yorker.