The republicans and the Judiciary

I do hope the sane end of the Republican party reins these idiots in.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050425&s=blumenthal

God help us with these idiots in charge.

We need it.

Speaking of idiots:

And just how is Michael Schwartz “in charge?”

Way to miss the point, Unc. You’re good at it.

Look again at who hired this wacko to be his Chief of Staff. Look at who elected him, and on what ticket. That’s whose behavior and attitudes are worrisome.

Get it now?

Pretty pathetic if true, but the quote is hearsay and on an incredibly biased site. Plus it just doesn’t seem like a remotely realistic thing to say to someone that one has never met. They may as well have appended “pitchfork and hellfire” to “crooked smile.”

Not really Elvis. If reeder’s major concern was the Republicans as the current majority party, then why quote something that came only from an office functionary? It’s just not terribly germane and doesn’t really support what you claim his major concern to be. Michael Schwartz is the only demonstrable idiot in sight here. And the only thing he’s “in charge” of, is Coburn’s office staff. If I’ve missed the point, it’s only because whatever the point was, it wasn’t expressed clearly.

Perhaps reeder should just take my comments as editorial. And use them in the future to help guide himself into constructing a proper argument - thesis, support, conclusion.

You know what an “example” is, don’t you? Maybe not, you don’t know what “germane” means either. Schmuck.

How’s this, then, Unc?

It may be posited that the chief of staff of a given politician’s staff is selected for his (her) organizational and administrative abilities and for his like-mindedness to the politican in question. No matter how competent former HRC Executive Director Elizabeth Birch may be, she is not going to make a good chief of staff for Bill Frist, because she won’t be able (or willing) to work to advance his particular programs.

It is therefore a reasonable inference that a public statement of his views by the chief of staff of a Senator or Congressman is, in general, a guide to the views of that Senator or Congressman, unless the chief of staff makes clear that he is speaking as an individual or unless the elected official immediately speaks out to distance himself from his chief of staff’s remarks.

Sen Coburn is, according to his Senate homepage, a fiscal conservative with strong issues about the sanctity of life (abortion) and juvenile AIDS. It is a reasonable inference from his stated stances that he will not be a strong supporter of pro-inferred rights judicial decisions.

Mr. Schwartz, therefore, may have been speaking tongue in cheek to convey the extent to which he himself disagrees with so-called “judicial activism.” But it is reasonable to suppose from his remarks that Sen. Coburn is in general agreement with Mr. Schwartz’s position.

Let it be noted that Sen. Coburn is part of the Republican majority backing Sen. Frist as Majority Leader, and himself 1% of the U.S. Senate, whose consent is required to appointments of judges and to constitutional amendments. The term “in charge” is therefore not much of a stretch to apply to Sen. Coburn.

Let it also be noted that many politicians have over the years used “stalking horses” – people whose job it was to make statements that might be considered extremist, to see whether they are bought into or rejected by a majority of public opinion.

Offering a threat to “impale” Federal judges, by the way, strikes me as something that, if I were in political office and one of my staff, let alone my chief of staff, made a comment approximating it, I would ensure that he was checking out Marion Barry’s provisions for the unemployed post haste.

Yup. A representative portion of the whole used to elucidate a model. Reeder, in his concluding sentence shows us that his model is the current leadership of the country. Schwartz holds no position of leadership; he is an office functionary. Whereby, he’s neither an example, or germane.

Schwartz is, however, a consummate asshole; as are you. Therefore, he’s a fine example of the model to which you belong.

Poly, I would accept that your argument is well constructed. It’s not without arguable points, but it is at least properly formed: thesis, support & conclusion.

The arguable points, not that I necessarily wish to argue them are:

  1. Dennis Hastert strongly dislikes freshman Senator Coburn and therefore Coburn can’t necessarily be included in the Republican Party leadership
  2. Schwartz has somewhat of a reputation for “getting off the reservation” and
  3. Schwartz is also very closely associated with the group Concerned Women for America-led; a group led by none other than that crackpot Bevely LaHaye. The views expressed by Schwartz therefore cannot automatically be assumed shared by Coburn.

You’re still having trouble with the problem being a Senator who would employ such an asshole, and the people who would elect that Senator, aren’t you?

The rest of your “reply” is the product of your own imagination.

This is your party. These are your people. If you have to find excuses for that, maybe it’s time for a little thought on your part. Oh wait, *there’s * the problem …

Er, you have not addressed the point, which is that a politician’s chief of staff is selected for his willingness and ability to advance the politician’s agenda, and thus would not get the job unless the politician found his views to be highly sympatico. It is therefore reasonable to assume as a default position that the two share the same views unless and until one of them indicates otherwise.

From Coburn’s campaign site:

Looks pretty consistent to me.

A political figure’s Chief of Staff is far from an “office functionary”. Consider Leo’s role on The West Wing–this is a fairly typical depiction. The CoS is often considered nearly as powerful as the politician himself, as he controls his comings and goings and regulates who does and doesn’t get access.

He is, at the very least, influential enough for it to be frightening that he talks so gleefully of impaling judges.

I’m sure Andrew Card will be surprised to learn he is a mere “office functionary,” as would James Baker, Don Regan, Howard Baker, Leon Panetta and John Podesta. If you want to go back aways, Hamilton Jordan, Al Haig, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld might each object to that description.

Hell, maybe we were too harsh on H.R. “Bob” Haldeman with respect to Watergate; after all, he was a mere “office functionary.” Perhaps we should have treated him in like fashion to Nixon’s secretary Rose Mary Woods.

Wikipedia article on “White House Chief of Staff.”