Redstate

Because New Orleans, a heavily Democratic city with a strong Democratic political base and leadership - in a heavily Democratic State, had a hurricane and failed levees, John Roberts could be unfit to be on the Court??

Apparently the Court is suppose to change the way the Democratic Party handled the crisis. And the Court is suppose to fix the poverty problem the Democratic Party could not in New Orleans. I am a bit confused.....

since when is it the SCOTUS' job to close the gap between rich and poor.

Exactly what control does SCOTUS have over FEMA or disaster relief at all?

The only bright side is if the senators are jumping down this rabbit trail, they might not spend much time probing Roberts' views on abortion.

. . .on the moonbat rhetoric parade:  John Roberts took only five minutes to speak after the Windbag Brigade was finished; therefore, he's another dullard like Clarence Thomas who won't speak up at oral argument.  Clearly he is intellectually unfit to serve on the Supreme Court.

Just watch--some dummy will say this in earnest, and it will wind up on dKos and elsewhere.

and put on paperweight for the desk in the Oval Office?

We ought not to appropriate a national tragedy in a misguided effort to further a political interest of any sort.

I mean, if Bush can raise the specter of 9/11 in every context imaginable, why are Kennedy and Leahy any worse?

Editors, someone want to give the One Warning?

Article 18, Section 183 US Constitution (Rev 7594 © 2005 Democratic National Committee & MoveOn.org)

The Position of Chief Justice of the United States shall include annual inspections of the levees on all major rivers and around the city of New Orleans.

were national tragedies. They were acts of war by foreign powers intent on destroying this nation. It would be entirely inappropriate to use the images of 9/11 to support tax cuts or abortion restrictions, or to oppose those things. But it is entirely appropriate to use those images to remind the nation that we are still at war with those who harmed us on that day and to strengthen our will to win that conflict.

. . .don't harsh the man's BDS buzz.  }:-)

Okay, let's start by recognizing that opening statements (including that by Roberts) are no more than so much fluff.  Each member of the committee and the nominee have five minutes to once again expand their public face a little bit.  Every opening statement by a Congressman or senator is nothing more than a stump speech.

Next let's realize that Leahy and Kennedy are some vocal and rather shrill lefties, and those of us on their side of the aisle who want substantive discussion have long ago realized they are part of the problem, not the solution.  This particular post will not be a defense of them, but I do think it's important to recognize that mentioning the hurricane is not de facto inappropriate.

Moving on to substantive discussion now...

First counterargument: Democrats concerned about Roberts' treatment of civil rights laws, affirmative action, etc., need to lay a groundwork for their questions.  The best way to lay a groundwork to which people will actually pay attention and to which a nominee may need to be responsive is to make the issue salient.

The Democrats are pointing out something that, while politically beneficial, is also very true: the overwhelming majority of those left behind have been black and poor.  They weren't left behind because of any racist policies; to say that would be reprehensible and just short of criminal.  They were left behind because they were poor, because they could not afford to get out, because they lived on monthly government checks that were running dry on August 29th.  And the fact that they were overwhelmingly black should speak to something.

To Democrats, this speaks to the fact that there remain real disparities between the quality of life and the opportunities available to the different races.  If we understand affirmative action's existance to be predicated on counteracting specific past injustices that have created current inequalities, a first step is to make salient the fact that those current inequalities are, in fact, current.

Even aside from this, the fact that they were poor says to Democrats that more needs to be done.  Of course I recognize the response to this: government programs have failed to help; independence and self-reliance are what they need to advance.  I'm not here to argue policies; I'm here to defend (partially) their rhetoric.  My point: mentioning the hurricane is a way for Democrats to say the war on poverty has not yet succeeded.  New Deal and Great Society programs, long a not-so-sexy-but-very-heated topic of Constitutionality, are important, and a Supreme Court nominee needs to answer questions about them.

Second counterargument: this one is less analytical and more complaintive, but I cannot help it.  I don't want to hear anyone accusing anyone of using tragedy to promote a political agenda.  I'm so sick of it happening, and I'm so sick of people accusing the other side of doing it.

Anyone who thinks the President hasn't used 9/11 memorials and images to his political advantage is deluding himself.  And he ain't the only one.  John Kerry tried to use his Vietnam service to his advantage (in a move that backfired in a spectacularly huge way).

The actual occurrence is both good and bad.  On the one hand, when someone performs admirably or poorly during a crisis, that is an important political consideration, and political professionals should use it to point out strengths and weaknesses.  On the other hand, pretty pictures are so often misused for political ends as to make me want to hurl.

The accusations are always bad.  Let's just understand that everyone does it, point out when it happens, and let it go.  It's such a waste of everyone's time to lobby the devil to take his opponents' souls.

"He hit me first; they did it first; Bush did it too;" What, are you still in 4th grade? Your big sister give you a wedgie? Mommy, mommy, mommy. Is every thing a moral equivalency test?  

What a justice thinks about the poor, and federal efforts to help them. If our government wasn't all powerful then these arguments would not be so much more pointed than they need to be.

I second what you said.

I can think of three reasons why you'd want to ask your opponents to stop politicizing a disaster:

1. We should be concentrating on the disaster.  Unfortunately for people who make this argument, the other team can both complain about the Republican response and simultaneously put their full energy into the relief effort.  You've seen how slowly the wheels turn in government; there's plenty of spare time to find fault with the ruling party and complain loudly about it.
   
2. You want the complainers to stop making you look bad.  Asking that people stop trying to take political advantage of a situation is an underhanded manuver to get them to be quiet.  The straightforward manuver would be to show them how mistaken they are about you looking bad--this is a big challenge when it comes to Katrina, so I'm not surprised the former approach is the one being used.
   
3. You want the complainers to look bad instead of you, so you accuse them of doing something bad.  This sounds like misdirection to me.  And people have actually said, "I blame Democrats for politicizing this situation," completely unaware of the irony of the statement.

"Stop politicizing" is an off-topic cop-out.  Either you rocked in the response, or you didn't. If you rocked, give the evidence and tell the complainers to get lost; the evidence will stand for itself.  If you didn't rock, well, you should admit that the respose is unacceptable, like Bush did, take whatever licks you have coming to you, and tell everyone how you're going to improve.  Sure, it's a painful lesson, but next time you bet you'll be better prepared.

just how scared you folks were until just then

must be awful to be you now, eh?

Can you imagine,polititions playing politics with the cofirmation hearings!You people seem aghast at such a notion.I have no doubt the republicans will play their share of politics with them too.

If the author of the previous comment wishes to indulge his BDS, he can go back to the fever swamp of his own blog and do it there.

There are plenty of decent left-of-center posters here who actually contribute and no good reason to put up with the worthless ones who have little more than talking points and other Known Facts to clog up the comments section.

The ONLY thing that should matter to a judge is what the law says. Period.

I didnt know you had to be a republican to offer comments on this site.I am Canadian,neither right or left.Dont I have a right to my opinion on this site?If not,just say so,Ill go to KOs.

. . .at the political landscape and snickers*

Somehow, I have the feeling you'd change places with us right now if you could, Edward.  It's a long way to November 2006, and the fact that your fellow travellers will be making fools out of themselves during the confirmation hearings won't hurt Republicans much, either.

. . .how much the Democrats help.  If they even briefly contemplate a filibuster over this nomination it will be the end of the judicial filibuster, and a pile of bad PR for Captain Teddy and his minions.

Canada is so screwed up there is a lot of work you can do there and little damage.

Let me be clear: whether the judge likes or dislikes certain federal activities should not be at issue here.  But nobody is going to care what questions are asked of the nominee if the questions aren't salient to their lives.  By tying issues of Constitutionality to a topic well at hand, senators can get people to tune in to what they have to say.  Is this an inappropriate use of the process?  Probably.  But if people aren't paying attention, the nominee's answers to questions won't matter, and they should.

Moreover, I myself am not particularly interested in whether Roberts likes big government programs to help the poor.  But caselaw around affirmative action really is built on the premise that correcting current inequalities stemming from past injustice is an appropriate task of the government.  Therefore, it does matter what he thinks about whether this very task is a Constitutionally appropriate task of government.

My guess is that if questions like this are answered, it won't matter; he'll give non-committal answers.  That's what nominees do.  So be it.  It's still important to ask the questions, and I do think it's appropriate to admonish a nominee for giving noncommittal answers.  Understand, I don't mean he should commit to speculative cases, but I think he should answer the following question: "Is it an appropriate Constitutional role of the federal government to establish policies and programs that aim to correct current inequalities caused by past injustices, even if those injustices are no longer actively occurring?"

A senator doesn't necessarily need to like his answer, but he needs to see open and fair reasoning around the question.

Republican majorities all over the place and a 5-4 SC majority on the near horizon and Howie and the DKos Dross on the other side. You're right, I'm scared to death. eh?

im for starting back at square one

cant we fire everyone and get a whole new crowd in?

How adult of you.Resort to insults when you have nothing inteligent to say.

Pay no attention this guy is always about personal attacks not arguments.

Somehow, I have the feeling you'd change places with us right now if you could, Edward.

Really depends on the details Scott. An exact change? No way...I'd have to live with myself.

Actually, I've mostly come to peace with the situation as it is. It's sort of how I imagine many Republicans must have felt voting for Bush in 2004. Sure, they had to hold their noses while doing so (OK, just that last bit of snark), but I honestly believe a good percentage of them felt: What harm can he do, really? He's gonna finally accomplish some of the things I've always felt were important, and the fact that I don't really trust him is not important enough for me to vote for the opposition. Again, he can't do that much harm really, can he?

I think we're discovering just how much harm, through negligence, he is capable of though.

For me, I can see the light at the end of the tunnel. Look at who the GOP has to put up front and central to get Bush elected...its moderates. The Bush administration represents no more of a Reagan style conservative revolution than its choices for important post represent an appreciation of how important they can be.

Since then, it's been the All-Newt Tour.

Oh, I know, A Serious Republican Is Saying What Democrats Want to Hear And Should Therefore Be Heeded.

I remember how Serious Republicans Opposed Bush in 2000, and how Serious Democrats Pointed Out That We Should Listen to the Serious Republicans Who Were Saying What Democrats Wanted to Hear.

Check back in with us when Enron becomes an issue again.

doesn't it speak volumes?

Because that was the thrust of not only my argument (you know, that the new law wouldn't impair property or contract rights -- remember?), and was, briefly, where Rauch was (and where you were by adoption) before the hysterics started.

An honest legal analysis would never assert that an Act of the General Assembly could supersede a provision of the Virginia Constitution. Of course, Rauch wasn't interested in an honest legal analysis. He was interested in generating agitprop. Awful agitprop, too.

You, by contrast, either didn't understand what he was omitting, or didn't care. Which makes you only slightly less culpable.

On the issue that is currently impaling your massive herbivore, I'd be significantly more upset if your side of the aisle hadn't slowly increased the State's power to interfere with parent-child relationships over the last hundred years. Now, there's a legitimate, and outside of agenda-driven politics, well-accepted argument that the State may dictate custody terms, adoption conditions, and may even, yes, terminate parental rights altogether. This is simply a sub-species of all that.

Y'all sowed the wind. No fair crying now that the whirlwind is in your prized cornfield.

Sorry about that.

In answer to your question, actually, unsurprisingly, I see nothing selective at all.

I'm learning here Thomas (no snark, really), so thanks.

impaling your massive herbivore

No idea at all what that means, but it's the best writing you've thrown at me, and I'm a total aesthete, so...kudos.

Here's what's scary from my point of view. The law in Virginia does nothing to protect the mother who didn't give birth. Maybe she should have adopted the child, knowing there was always a chance her partner would move outside of Vermont, but...

I'd be significantly more upset if your side of the aisle hadn't slowly increased the State's power to interfere with parent-child relationships over the last hundred years.

Thanks for that (even buried in snark, there's a kernel of humanity in there I appreciate). I don't think it's very kind to suggest that it's OK to leave children to such a fate because you feel certain political types had been confused, but, I appreciate that you see sanctity in the child-parent relationship.

Y'all sowed the wind. No fair crying now that the whirlwind is in your prized cornfield.

This is gratuitous, but OK, whatever.

I thought I got trapped in the wreakage of my own ignorance again.

4.  The disaster has nothing to do with the current activity (checking out John Roberts as a potential SCOTUS Justice) and you think it's morally wrong to use people whose whole lives have been shattered in a weak attempt to stop someone in an unrelated activity.

like yourself (I've been to your diary and comments sections), I'm sure getting rid of a Republican president and Republican majorities in both houses is a nice dream ... especially since the Dems can't seem to win an election.

im for starting over, not to get rid of the right

but to start fresh without those ensconced in the system

and how can any of my responses be construed as liberal?

because i dont walk lockstep with a party line?

i prefer to think of myself as a free thinker

if that's liberal....so be it

your comment, and then forget to include any hint that you were being sarcastic.

Dont I have a right to my opinion on this site?

Nope. Unless you are paying for the bandwidth, you, like most of us here, only have the privilege, granted by the site owners, to post. It is not a right.

But you have to be polite.

We hid it under the topic MISSION.

You have the right to your own opinions, you may find out that we have the right to not have them posted here.

As the recent Supreme Court case Gadman v. RedState clarified, the right to post is covered under the EPC of the 14th Amendment. It's also in the 9th and 10th Amendments, actually, but not the 1st, which confuses some people.

Let's hope the radical activist Roberts doesn't try to repeal that one.  

I don't believe that Senators like Leahy, Kennedy, and Schumer recognize the concept of shame.

But as the majority noted, and Scalia put it so well in his concurrence, "Nothing in this, however, in any way minimizes the inherent right of a site operator to delete comments, diaries, or other inanity at their own discretion." Gadman v. RedState (I), 695 U.S. 323, 380 (Scalia, J., concurring).

The Democrats are pointing out something that, while politically beneficial, is also very true: the overwhelming majority of those left behind have been black and poor.  They weren't left behind because of any racist policies; to say that would be reprehensible and just short of criminal.  They were left behind because they were poor, because they could not afford to get out, because they lived on monthly government checks that were running dry on August 29th.  And the fact that they were overwhelmingly black should speak to something.  

Not to mention, the black Democrat mayer didn't make use of any of the city/school buses to remove those people.

4.  The disaster has nothing to do with the current activity (checking out John Roberts as a potential SCOTUS Justice) and you think it's morally wrong to use people whose whole lives have been shattered in a weak attempt to stop someone in an unrelated activity.

Yeah, that would be weak, and obviously has no place being brought up in the hearings.  Indeed, I was unaware that anyone had brought up the federal handling of the hurricane in the Roberts hearing, but I admit I haven't read the transcripts.