Seriously, his no-holds-barred acceptance by radical right groups is the most troubling thing I can find out there, but you know what - I bet they don’t know anything for sure about him either. Otherwise, why the advance hard sell?
Maybe good old billmon is right, and the best thing the so-called lefties can do is embrace and accept him without reservations. Play with their heads. Smoke them out. Be like Michael and not Fredo for a change.
Make them say, “Hey, wait a minute. If the libruls like him then he can’t be “our guy” like they promised. Something’s wrong here. Maybe they sold us out like all the other times…”
Fingers (and toes!) crossed this guy surprises everyone. Here’s hoping he tastes as good as his pr sounds and looks.
The argument in that piece is an attempt to determine what level of scrutiny (sctirct, intermediate or rational basis) is appropriate in this case. Since that method of judicial review is modern in aspect (ie, well after “1791”), I find the Rubin article to be, at best, misleading if it is in fact based on the writings you cited above. At worst, it’s an out and out lie.
Scalia isn’t noted for his personableness, that’s for sure. He’s an intellectual and does seem to delight in pointing out inferior intellects. That, however, doesn’t make his judicial rulings suspect. Keep in mind that it’s the “strict constructionists” on the court (to use Bush’s terminology) like Thomas who ruled on the “liberal” side of three recent court cases: medicinal marijuana, flag buring, and eminent domain. I was disappointed that Scalia ruled with the majority on the first case, but he did take the “liberal” view on the other two.
I think that’s a key reason Bush appointed him. He’s probably not too differnt from Scalia in philosophy, but he’s just a much more likebale guy.
Personally, I think it would be all that bad to let them pack the court and challenge RvW. My reasoning is thus:
Marginalize the far right. Most sane people are pro-choice or at the very least don’t care and think the ruling should stand. It seems to me that Republicans put up Catholics (I’m a Catholic myself which may help to explain the dichotomy of thought amongst us) because they are gunning to overturn RvW. Let them and let us reap the political windfall that results. Then you can pack the court with our guys and send it back the other way.
It would be a waste of time to oppose this guy. Where did Rove go? He’s the one we need to focus on. This is all diversion in the meantime.
And most importantly, if they challenge RvW, it should motivate our side more than anything else Bush has done in the past. We need something that is going to make our people hit the mattresses. Your average redneck Bush voter isn’t some super religious person who is concerned about poor people’s babies. These people are so sucked up with fear and hate that I’m sure they don’t really care if some welfare mother, or liberal “fem-nazi,” gets an abortion. This issue really only motivates the religious right wing of the party, who like the extreme left wing of our party, are not the majority of republicans. So, this issue will not help them whatsoever but has the potential to inject into our party the motivation we need. To my mind this will be just one more nail in the republican’s coffin for the next elections.
The draw back is that this Roberts dude might not be a real threat to RvW but is something that is more nearer and dearer to Bush’s heart than the religious right: A friend of the corporation and the foe of the working man and the environment.
My initial reaction was to worry about Roe, but now that my knee has jerked and gone back again, I’m more worried about what you characterize as a “draw back”.
In this way Roberts is the perfect stealth candidate - just enough pro-life cred to assuage the religious right and divert the pro-choice opposition groups - while the real reason he is so desirable slips under the radar. Stoid’s Hamdan cite is yet another troubling aspect.
I do agree that this is also a diversion from Rove, but AFAIK neither issue will come to a head until after the summer is over. Can’t we juggle both until then?
I won’t be able to access pdf files until I get back home end of this week (I’m using an old laptop while visiting family). The Salon article doesn’t offer a particular pdf cite for the quotes - I just found the one I gave you while searching for possible html versions. So I can’t really respond to your comments other than to wonder what you mean about misleading or lies. It seemed to me that Rubin was trying to point out how Roberts is an “originalist”, much like Scalia. You go on to suppose that yourself so your comment is confusing without access to a definitive cite of what Roberts wrote about that case.
IMO, it’s not Scalia being a “strict constructionist” (or “originalist”) that makes him “suspect” (I’ll accept that word over the previous “invalid” ). Without knowing much, it seems to me that there are drawbacks to both strict construction and “living document” interpretations. What I “suspect” about Scalia is that he is more strict idealogue than strict constructionist. But as I say, I’m no lawyer, and I could be wrong.
). Without knowing much, it seems to me that there are drawbacks to both strict construction and “living document” interpretations. What I “suspect” about Scalia is that he is more strict idealogue than strict constructionist. But as I say, I’m no lawyer, and I could be wrong.