Right Wing Nut House

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

Watching the conservative coalition slowly unravel over the Miers nomination these past two weeks has been an extraordinarily painful experience. Despite all of the hard slogging work done by activists of various stripes over the past quarter century, the winning coalition that encompasses movement conservatives, main street Republicans, foreign policy hawks, and religious fundamentalists under one overarching banner is showing some wear and tear. Five long years of bitter partisan warfare, shocking tragedy, economic bust and boom, and a shooting war in Iraq, where the terrorists test our resolve to prevail every single day, produce a certain amount of stress.

This isn’t the first crisis for the conservative movement since it initially tasted electoral success in the 1980 elections. The world seemed young and full of possibilities then, as the landslide victory of Ronald Reagan, along with the Republican capture of the Senate for the first time since 1948, seemed to augur bigger and better things to come.

Then in the late 1980’s, conservatives fell victim to their own success, as the Cold War ended with astounding speed and the iron curtain fell. Politically speaking, these events started untying the part of the Reagan coalition that included what author Theodore H. White referred to as “urban ethnics.” These were white, middle class, blue collar, second and third generation immigrants, many with deep emotional and family ties to Eastern Europe, who were disgusted with the appeasement and unilateral disarmament policies of the McGovern-Carter wing of the Democratic party.

Economically liberal but socially conservative, they were bunched in an arc in what used to be referred to as “The Rust Belt” along the Great Lakes. Their support allowed Reagan to cut into Democratic strengths in the battleground states of the Midwest. Although considered “natural” Democrats due to their union affiliations, the political brain trust of the Reagan campaign successfully targeted them by appealing both to their patriotism and their unease with liberal values.

Then, in 1992, they went home. With the Cold war over, the Clintonites successfully appealed to the economic interests of this group, portraying George Bush 41 as out of touch with “regular” Americans and thus not able to “feel their pain.” Clinton pandered to their values by rushing home in the middle of his first presidential campaign to preside over the execution of an Arkansas death row inmate, and taking issue with rap singer Sister Souljah.

Many of these white ethnics have since made their way back to the Republican Party, as the Democrats have careened further and further to the left. They have become “values voters” whose allegiance to the party can be traced to its stand on issues like abortion, gay marriage, and the family values espoused so eloquently by President Bush. There is ample evidence that these values voters were the difference in Ohio during the election campaign of 2004.

The crisis over Harriet Miers, however, is much different. It reflects a schism not over ideology, but over perceptions of the President himself. While many activists are extremely unhappy with the choice of Miers and some conservative intellectuals have expressed opposition over her supposed lack of credentials, the question of supporting or opposing the nominee comes down to one, simple question.

How much do you trust George W. Bush?

Even before the Miers nomination, many conservatives have had to take deep breath in order to continue supporting a man whose veto pen seems to have been misplaced in the face of numerous budget-busting, pork-laden spending bills from a supposed conservative Congress. And the President’s support for the McCain-Feingold First Amendment-shattering campaign finance monstrosity has enraged web activists whose support has been so vital both to the Administration’s legislative successes and electoral victories.

But it is on the question of judges that many conservatives have nearly lost patience with the President. They have been frustrated by Bush’s seeming acquiescence in the face of Democratic tactics that seek to impede his most conservative choices. He has been given the benefit of the doubt thanks only to the hyperbole of the left with regard to the unconscionable filibuster tactics of Congressional Democrats.

But now the right is faced with a nominee whose name was put forward as someone who would be acceptable to many of these same Democrats. For some, that is reason enough to oppose Miers. For others, it is proof that the President has “caved in” to certain political realities and has arrogantly ignored the advice of his allies, just to avoid a bruising partisan debate. There has even been talk that Miers should be opposed to teach the President a lesson or to purge her supporters who come from the more moderate wing of the party.

This is idiocy. Prominent conservatives such as The American Thinker’s own Thomas Lifson have pointed out the utter and complete folly of such opposition:

I think these conservatives have unwittingly adopted the Democrats’ playbook, seeing bombast and ‘gotcha’ verbal games as the essence of political combat. Victory for them is seeing the enemy bloodied and humiliated. They mistake the momentary thrill of triumph in combat, however evanescent, for lasting victory where it counts: a Supreme Court comprised of Justices who will assemble majorities for decisions reflecting the original intent of the Founders.

All too often, conservatives have followed a “feel good” course of action and ignored what was possible or even necessary. This has resulted in Republicans devouring their own when it comes to Presidential governance. Only an iconic figure like Ronald Reagan could escape the fate of other Republican Presidents like Richard Nixon and George Bush 41, whose administrations were nearly torn apart by internecine battles between conservatives and pragmatists.

Reagan’s stature was so Olympian in the conservative movement that any visible moves toward the center were blamed on the moderates around him. “Let Reagan be Reagan” was a plaintive, even juvenile cry, first uttered by Interior Secretary James Watt, but which became a battle hymn for movement conservatives who thought they saw apostasy in what was actually Reagan’s deftness and agility in pushing his programs through a heavily Democratic Congress.

Both Lifson and blogger/radio host Hugh Hewitt make the same argument: Trust George. When it comes right down to it, pragmatic conservatives have very little choice. It’s not like they’re going to abandon Republicans and vote Democratic. And it is probable that, with a little coaxing, they can be made to come out and support Republicans in 2006. Indeed, as Democratic prospects have improved over the summer, it will become vital come election time that these same conservatives not sit on their hands and refuse to take part – not with the possible takeover of the Senate, or the House, or both by Democrats in the offing.

For the conservative “true believers” however, this is the crisis of the Bush presidency. No amount of stroking by Bush aides is going to assuage their disappointment. In this respect, it remains to be seen if these disappointed activists will fall on their swords once again in a futile gesture of defiance by staying home on Election Day, 2006. If they do so, and if they hand the election to the Democrats, there could be a real bloodletting among conservatives that could split Republicans for a generation and perhaps even give impetus to the creation of a third party.

Any way you look at it, the President has his work cut out for him. And if Harriet Miers falters or comes up short in any way, the coalition that has elected 3 out of the last 4 Presidents could finally collapse in flurry of recrimination and anger.

The Presidency of the United States has been called both the strongest and the weakest elected office in democratic government. This is because the President has no real constitutional authority to enact laws, consent to treaties, (theoretically) declare war, or even choose his own cabinet. All of these Presidential actions are dependent on the suffrage of the elected representatives in the Congress. The President can only “propose” not “dispose” and thus in a very real sense is at the mercy of both the partisan opposition and the vagaries of electoral politics in his own party when it comes to enacting his policies.

But the President is not a helpless giant. His ability to get what he wants from the Congress is usually directly related to his standing with the American people. Before opinion polls, Congressmen relied on a keen political ear in their own districts and states to tell them whether or not supporting the President would lead them into trouble. Even today, legislators can get a good sense of where their own constituents stand on the subject of the President’s popularity simply by reading their mail. True, there are organized attempts to influence the Congressman’s position by flooding he email or deluging his office with telegrams. These interest-group driven campaigns are also helpful although are not given as much weight as the letter from the 80 year old grandma who is worried about having her social security check cut.

What this adds up to is one of the truly remarkable aspects of our republic; the power of the President to get things done being dependent on how well ordinary people think he’s doing his job. This is not some pie-in-the-sky, starry eyed first year poli-sci nonsense but rather the cold calculation of power used by both parties, honed to a fine point via the science of polling, and then sliced and diced by experts to determine what kind of influence the President can wield.

Lately, the process has become even more sophisticated as “talking points” for the party faithful are promulgated based on this polling data and surrogates pan out to hit the various cable news shows where no matter what question is asked by the host, the talking points are driven home at least twice in the segment. Then more polls are taken and the process repeats itself. Both parties do it as does the Administration. In this way, the public is cajoled, pulled, pushed, and even manipulated in a dizzying, head snapping, confusing and often contradictory manner.

Surprisingly, people tend to resist a change in their feelings toward a President. This is because most Americans feel that they have a personal relationship with the man in the White House. Even before television and mass media, this was so. If anything, the ubiquitousness of the media has intensified the relationship.

I don’t have a clue what the internal polls of both the White House and the Democrats are really telling them about the attitudes of the American people toward George Bush. I suspect that the numbers are slightly better than the published polls that have come out recently showing the President’s “approval” (Do you like him?) ratings in the low 40’s. As has been pointed out many times by people like D.J. Drummond, much depends on the way a question is asked and who is being asked in the first place. Most public polls are taken to prove a point. The private, internal polling done by the White House and the Democratic National Committee are done to find out what people really think.

And that brings me to George Bush’s choice of Harriet Miers for Supreme Court Justice.

This has been a summer of discontent for Americans as gas prices have skyrocketed, progress in Iraq has slowed, a hurricane has virtually destroyed a major American city, consumer confidence in the future of the economy is down, and there is an overall feeling of unease in the electorate. Anyone who doubts this need only look at the political smoke signals just this past week as two high profile Republicans have declined to run for high office.

Outgoing North Dakota Governor John Hoeven has declined to run for the Senate seat currently held by vulnerable Democrat Ken Conrad while former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar tearfully turned down the opportunity to run against another vulnerable Democrat, Rod R. Blagojevich, for the statehouse in Springfield. This may be an indication that those two experienced and able politicians see 2006 as the year of the Democrat. And in an uphill battle against an incumbent office holder - even against a vulnerable incumbent - it should be apparent that the calculations made by both men included how the President was viewed in their respective states.

Bush’s nomination of Miers for the Supreme Court must be seen in this political context; the President may not have the strength to engage in a bruising partisan fight for someone more experienced and perhaps even more conservative. Not so much with the Democrats but with members of his own party who are running for re-election next year. When members of your own party start to sidle away from you, chances are your Presidency is nearing the point where your influence is waning and the crew feels less compunction is supporting the Captain as the ship is tossed on ever stormier seas.

The Bush Presidency is far from dead. But the President may have to make more decisions like the Miers choice in the future as his Administration teeters on the cusp of irrelevancy. Perhaps an easy confirmation will help him regain some momentum. That, along with the probable passage of an Iraqi Constitution next week could help the Administration regain some of the luster it has lost off its election victory less than a year ago.

There has always been a fine line in the President’s personality between confidence and arrogance. I’ve pointed this out on more than one occasion, especially when it has come to the way the Administration has conducted some aspects the war as well as the President’s penchant for keeping advisor’s who have either proven themselves inept (Michael Brown) or outlived their usefulness (Rumsfeld).

To me, the most attractive aspect of the President’s personality has always been a confidence in his own judgment and innate abilities. It has allowed him to make tough decisions both domestically and in the foreign policy arena that I admire him for and continue to support. It places him on a level far above the craven Clinton and even his wishy-washy father whose backbone of jelly doomed conservatives to having to put up with two terms of a serial liar and pompous ass as well as possibly saddle us with his addle brained wife as President.

But the President’s choice of Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O’Connor as a Justice of the United States Supreme Court just strikes me as out and out hubris.

Miers is someone with no experience as a judge, which will anger some legal experts whose good opinion the President will need to get her confirmed. The choice has angered many conservatives because she has no track record on abortion or other conservative issues near and dear to the right’s heart. It will anger main stream Republicans because until recently, the woman has apparently been a supporter of Democrats. And it opens up a line of attack by the President’s enemies who are already charging “cronyism” in the selection.

In short, if the President wanted to piss off the most number of people in the shortest period of time, he should be congratulated.

But of course, that was not the President’s intent. Instead, it appears the President has rejected the advice of Republicans, Democrats, conservatives, liberals, pundits, and professionals and chosen a non-entity to fill the important position of Supreme Court Justice.

It is now an open question as to whether or not the President has become so cut off from real world exigencies that he is unable to gauge the reaction of both his opponents and supporters. This is not unusual in second term Presidents as both Reagan and Clinton showed at times that they had lost the sure political touch of their first terms. It comes from the inevitable staff shake-ups that occur in any administration. It could also signal that the President, a man who did not take criticism well in the best of times, has completely closed himself off to opposing viewpoints. And while I would hesitate to say that the President’s advisers have turned into a bunch of gonad-less “yes men,” it stands to reason that you’re not much use if the boss never listens to you. And by the way, those the boss doesn’t listen to tend to disappear from the circle of power and cease having any influence.

Perhaps there is something else at work here that we are unaware of but I think not. The President apparently decided that his judgment in the matter was so superior to others that it wasn’t necessary for him to listen to anyone else. If there is a better definition of arrogance, I’m listening.

The nomination announcement is less than 3 hours old and already Miers is in trouble. Perhaps the President can crack the whip and pull 51 Senate votes out of a hat but I’m doubting it. It’s also too late to pull back - unless something of a disqualifying nature can be found. Given how carefully the President’s team vetted her for her position of White House Counsel, that’s not likely.

Does this prove the President is a lame duck? Not hardly. Even though the left will spin the potential defeat of Miers as an indication of the President’s diminished ability to lead, the defeat of an unqualified, unwanted candidate for the Supreme Court would not be an indication of anything except the Senate showing good judgment in not having this nominee rammed down their throats.

Maybe we’ll get lucky and Miers will see the storm of controversy surrounding her nomination and gracefully withdraw. Anyone remember Alan Ginsburg? (10/3: Actually, as Erisamann points out in the comments, it’s Douglas Ginsburg not Alan, the Beat poet and author of one of my favorites, the epic poem “Howl.”)

UPDATE

I’m glad I wrote the above post without reading a single thing from any other source because I probably would have been even more negative in my assessment.

About the only positive note is being sung by the unflappable Hugh Hewitt who gives the selection a “B+.”

Elsewhere, not so good.

Captain Ed is “mystified.”

The Powerline crew is “disappointed.”

Lori Byrd wishes she was younger but is willing to trust the President.

Michelle Malkin is “underwhelmed” and does her usual spectacular job of rounding up reax.

Wizbang is not thrilled and links to Red State who has the skinny on Miers rather interesting camapaign contribution history.

Junkyard Blog makes many of the same political points I do.

Could the Prez run to the East Room and yell “Gotchya” at the press and then announce someone else? Not if he wants to be taken seriously.

I agree with Ann Althouse on this one: Is this for real?

IN THE presidential campaign, a new threshold in church-state relations was crossed when Catholic bishops threatened to exclude Senator John Kerry from the Eucharist because of his support for Roe v. Wade. The Senate Judiciary Committee is now fully justified in asking these bishops whether the same threats would apply to Supreme Court nominee Judge Roberts, if he were to vote to uphold Roe v. Wade.

The bishops have made this question legitimate because Americans no longer know whether a Catholic judge can hear abortion cases without an automatic conflict of interest.

Asking the bishops to testify would be healthy. If they rescinded the threats made against Kerry, then Roberts would feel free to make his decision without the appearance of a conflict of interest, and Catholic politicians who support Roe v. Wade would gain renewed confidence in their advocacy. If the bishops repeated or confirmed their threats, the Senate Judiciary Committee should draft legislation calling for the automatic recusal of Catholic judges from cases citing Roe v. Wade as a precedent.

That’s right. The author of the article Christopher Morris is advocating a law be passed to automatically mandate the recusal of a judge based solely on his religious beliefs.

Actually, this opens up some marvelous opportunities for legislative mischief aimed at miscreant judges. Imagine being able to bar minority judges from ruling on civil rights cases. Or white judges from ruling on reverse discrimination cases. Or women judges from ruling on gender equality cases. Or Quaker judges from ruling on death penalty cases.

While we’re at it, why don’t we make Catholic judges sew a great big red “C” on their cloak and make them clean the Supreme Court bathrooms?

A little too much hyperbole for you this early in the morning? Try not to choke on your danish when reading this:

One would think Catholic judges would want such a measure in place as a means of honoring their own convictions. That this proposal will no doubt be controversial should not be a reason for failing to pursue it: Political advocacy by religious organizations is on the rise and will only become stronger. If the subject is ducked this time by the Senate Judiciary Committee, it will only come up later in a more aggravated form.

It’s time to have this dialog. Without it, the decisions of our highest court, already tainted by the Bush-Gore election, will increasingly be perceived as self-serving, political, and illegitimate.

I like Dale Frank’s take on this:

Why, you know I hadn’t thought about that before. But, while we’re on the subject, maybe Jews could be forced to wear yellow stars, so they can more easily identify their fellow co-religionists in public. I mean, you know, they’d feel so much more secure if they could look around in a crowd and see a fellow landsmann, wouldn’t they?

Please note that all decisions of the Court have been “tainted” for their defiance of the Democratic party in upholding state election law in Florida which was passed by state legislators who were voted in by the people of the State of Florida. It’s amazing that to this day, liberal partisans like Mr. Morris are still grumpy over the fact that the Supreme Court refused to nullify state law and dictate to the state of Florida how the people’s representatives should conduct the business of elections.

But, hey! Why let a little thing like, you know, the law stand in the way when there are Christians to be publicly gored:

In theory, the same Holy Spirit that made evangelicals born again could also move them to change a social or political view at any time. (In drafting mandatory recusal legislation, senators should probe the foundations of these beliefs and persuade themselves that evangelicals retained a meaningful, not just a technical, choice.) Inquiry into Judaism, Islam, and other religions should also focus on whether any of them make threats against members who hold particular views about abortion.

In other words, in order to see if our Christian judge “retained a meaningful, not just technical choice” in their ability to change their minds about Roe V Wade, we should delve deeply into their religious convictions by asking them all sorts of personal questions not related to their ability to carry out their duties as impartial jurists.

Mr. Morris is not a serious man. He is instead, in need of attention. I recommend his mommy come to his home in Vermont and deliver a few well aimed whaps to his backside and give him the love and consideration he so obviously missed out on as a child.

If it’s attention he seeks, Mr. Morris has got it. And perhaps a little history lesson is in order for Mr. Morris and anyone else who seeks to revive religious litmus tests for any issue and for any public servant whose personal beliefs may conflict with the law.

The anti-Catholic bigotry that roiled this country’s politics for more than 300 years reached a zenith of sorts in the election of 1928 which saw Democrat Al Smith, a Catholic, face off against Herbert Hoover. The nauseating display of ant-Catholic bigotry which directly led to Smith’s defeat convinced both parties that nominating a Catholic for high office was the kiss of death.

This all changed in the election of 1960. Historians have long pondered the reason for the dissipation of anti-Catholic sentiment in the electorate that finally allowed for a Catholic to be elected President. At first, as historian Thomas Carty points out, there was even a high level of anti-Catholic bigotry among liberals:

Author James A. Michener recalled feeling quite startled when guests at publisher Bennett Cerf’s early 1960 dinner party challenged John F. Kennedy’s presidential candidacy on religious grounds. In an educated, professional crowd, Michener encountered “American liberals [who] … had the most serious and deep-seated fears of a Catholic in the Presidency.” One individual called the Vatican “dictatorial, savage[,] … reactionary … [and] brutal in its lust for power.” Others feared that clerical pressures would determine Kennedy’s political decisions. One colleague declared that “Irish priests” would manipulate a Catholic president “as if he were their toy.” A Catholic at Michener’s table characterized her church as antidemocratic and incompatible with church-state separation and religious liberty. According to Michener, these individuals claimed to know many other ideological liberals who mistrusted Catholic presidential candidates.

Kennedy had to prove to Kingmakers - even Catholic ones like Mayor Richard Daley in Chicago - that his Catholicism would not be a liability in a general election. The first test of his viability was in the West Virginia primary where his main rival, Hubert Humphrey, tried to play the old “Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion” card with elliptical references to Kennedy’s faith.

Kennedy fought back with both political savvy and a few dirty tricks of his own, trying to tar Humphrey as a draft dodger during WW II (he served variously as state director of war production training and reemployment and State chief of Minnesota war service program in 1942 and assistant director of the War Manpower Commission in 1943) while addressing the issue of his Catholicism head on.

In what author Theodor H. White pointed to as a public appearance almost as important as JFK’s speech at the Ministerial Association of Greater Houston, Kennedy was asked point blank at a press conference about his religion. Rather than remain silent on the issue as he had in Wisconsin two weeks before, Kennedy framed the issue as one of fairness. He said “I do not believe that forty million Americans should lose the right to run for president on the day they were baptized.” In short, Kennedy challenged voters to prove they were not bigots by voting for him. It was a brilliant political stroke and Kennedy’s subsequent win effectively ended Humphrey’s challenge.

Later that fall in Houston, Kennedy buried the issue before one of the most conservative Protestant organizations in the country, the aforementioned Ministers group. In one of the more memorable lines, Kennedy once again, gives people a reason not to use anti-Catholicism as a reason to vote against him:

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish — where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches, or any other ecclesiastical source — where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials — and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

On election day, the American people made a conscious choice to elect a Catholic President not because of his religion, but in spite of it. Now Mr. Morris would have us choose judges for exactly the opposite reason. In Mr. Morris’ world, either Catholic judges need not apply or they should be hamstrung with litmus tests and background checks and God knows what else. Once you let loose the dogs of legislation on judicial qualifications, we’ll have litmus tests for all sorts of issues; gay marriage, school prayer, eminent domain, and on and on.

For a country founded both because of religious freedom and in spite of religious differences, we’ve done remarkably well in tolerating one another’s religious viewpoints. But politics is another matter. There are still barriers to high office for people of certain faiths that need to come down.

Mr. Morris isn’t helping matters any.

For the forseeable future, Judge Roberts would appear to be the kind of Supreme Court nominee we’re likely to get; relatively young, limited service on the appellate bench, hence, limited ammunition that can be used by the President’s political opponents to block a potential nominee.

In short, with nothing much to hang their hat on with regards to Roberts’ record, the Democrats will be forced to make his appearance before the Judiciary Committee a time for speechifying rather than serious questioning of the candidates qualifications.

This will no doubt anger their more rabid partisans at the Alliance for Justice, People for the American Way, and the other far left organizations who have taken over the grass roots of the Democratic party. But the fact is, unless some transgression committed by Judge Roberts can be found, there is very little chance the Reid-Boxer-Kennedy wing of the party can block him.

Looking at statements made by the few center-left Democratic Senators left, the President should be encouraged. Here’s Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE):

The best case scenario for Judge Roberts, the President and the country is for Judge Roberts to emerge from these proceedings with broad appeal. There’s always a danger in being defined as an activist judge with an agenda and a willingness to legislate from the bench. The confirmation process will shed light on Judge Roberts’ and what kind of Justice he might become.”

Senator Landrieu (D-LA):

“As I wrote the President last week, I hoped for a nominee who could unite the nation and muster the enthusiastic consensus support that Justice O’Connor and six other current Justices earned. As the Senate examines Judge Roberts’ credentials and hears his testimony, we will begin to learn whether this support is attainable.

And Senator Lieberman said last week that if Roberts were picked, he would “be in the ballpark” as far as acceptability.

These three Democrats, along with Mark Pryor (D-AR) and perhaps Ken Salazar (D-CO) could make this a fairly easy confirmation if they get on board early enough. Their support would more than offset any opposition from Repbublican moderates like Chaffee and Snowe.

Lincoln Chaffee may be a lost cause given that he’s in a tight re-election fight in liberal Rhode Island. But the Maine Senate duo of Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins would probably be inclined to support Roberts despite his being wobbly on Roe. As for others in the gaggle of 7 GOP Senators who voted to stop the nuclear option, Senators Graham, Warner, and McCain will almost certainly vote to confirm and Senator DeWine will want to start repairing the damage he did to his base in Ohio following his participation in the “gang of 14.”

What are the prospects for a filibuster? Captain Ed has an interesting scenario:

My prediction: we will see a Bolton-style stall tactic, where the Democrats demand more and more documentation from prior cases, and then filbuster when the White House finally balks. The Democrats started this tactic during Miguel Estrada’s confirmation hearings.

Interesting scenario but, I think unlikely. First of all, unless the Democrats are going to demand raw FBI reports on Roberts, just about everything else is about him is in the public domain. As far as his work at the Justice Department in the late ’80’s and 90’s, I’m almost certain the White House has vetted that documentation very carefully and would probably make them part of the confirmation package they send to all Senators on the Judiciary Committee. In short, unless the White House rushed the nomination in order to drive the Rovian mess off the front pages and have been careless in their vetting of the nominee, I doubt whether the Democrats could stall the nomination by asking for “further documentation.”

Here’s some reaction from some of the saner members of the left:

Out Loud:

the gop controls all three branches of our government. it’s just not going to happen. this doesn’t look like the “extraordinary circumstances” that was part of the filibuster deal. in addition, we are basically sitting where the GOP was when clinton got his two picks. the GOP mustered token opposition, but ginsburg and breyer got through easily.

Shadow of the Hegemon:

According to common sense, he’s worth of a filibuster if anybody is.

According to Demosthenes, he’s a test of courage. If the Dems don’t act, they’re invertebrates.

MyDD:

You know what? If Republicans are forced to use the nuclear option to confirm Roberts, then so be it. As far as I am concerned, that is the only way he should be confirmed. People will pay attention to this one. We just have to make the case ot them why he was unacceptable.

Daily Kos (Kos Post):

So who is this guy Roberts? He has only two years of judicial experience, and his legal advocacy can be dismissed as doing the bidding of his bosses.

Fair enough. I’m willing to hear the guy out. We’re not going to get a Ginsburg, but I’d be happy with an O’Connor-style moderate conservative. For all we know (and for all the religious-right knows), Roberts might be that sort of guy.

But he has to be honest and forthcoming, unlike his previous confirmation hearing. The Senate must take its time deliberating over the nomination. And this is something that all sides should want, not just ours. For all the right wing knows, this guy may be the next Souter who simply pretended to be virulently anti-privacy.

I think that if the Senate Republicans can peel off 3 or 4 Democratic Senators then the prospects of a filibuster are lessened considerably. There would be two reasons for this:

1. Reid may not want to appear to be too obstructionist.
2. Senate Democrats may want to save the filibuster to use against a successor to Rehnquist.

By getting 58 or 59 votes to confirm, Reid and the left may want to throw in the towel on Roberts and keep their powder dry for the day when Rhenquist finally leaves. And, as some believe, if Rehnquist is delaying his announcement until the fall, the confirmation battle would butt up against the 2006 Congressional elections. This would give the Democrats exactly what they want; a bruising confirmation fight where they would force the Republicans to “destroy the constitution” in order to confirm the President’s choice.

Then again…I may be completely wrong and Reid, Boxer, and the entire Democratic party may be under such pressure by the moonbats at Moveon that perhaps they’ll feel they have no choice but go to the mat over Roberts. Are they that stupid?

Time will tell.

UPDATE

Captain Ed has an excellent round-up of major newspaper editorials that show some respect for Bush’s political skills in choosing Roberts as well as a measured “wait and see” attitude that’s somehow refreshing. The Captain also correctly identifies a probable line of attack against the nominee:

On the other hand, the LAT finds the two issues I think will likely be the biggest hurdles of his confirmation, apart from Roe: his membership in the Federalist Society and his recent vote upholding military tribunals for terrorist detainees at Gitmo and elsewhere. Given the recent histrionics in the Senate involving Gitmo, I expect the latter will give Democrats not just an opportunity to beat up Roberts, but to use him as a proxy to grandstand against the Bush administration on the war.

The Powerline crew mentions possible avenues to attack Roberts but curiously leaves out the detainee decision which upheld the idea that the government could create special tribunals for the terrorists being held at Guantanamo. I agree with the Captain that along with his views on Roe, Roberts will receive the most flack for that decision.

Hugh Hewitt has a personal recollection of Roberts that makes him sound compelling:

Judge John Roberts may be the smartest lawyer I have known, and he combines that intellect with a graciousness and good humor that will make it hard for any except the most extreme ideolouges to oppose him. Here’s his bio, but it cannot fully convey the great intellectual force which Justice Roberts will bring to the SCOTUS.

Full disclosure: Judge Roberts and I were colleagues in the White House Counsel’s Office in 1985/1986.

Calling Roberts a “judicial superstar,” Mark Noonan is extremely pessimistic about the prospects for a relatively easy confirmation:

Some people are saying that there might not be that big a fight over this nominee - that with Roberts having been confirmed for his current position by unanimous consent, there is no way “extraordinary circumstances” can come into play; that while there may be some delaying tactics employed, what we should look forward to is a swift and painless confirmation of this nominee. That, unfortunately, is nonsense. Our Democrats, it must be remembered, are entirely enthralled to the far left these days - additionally, we have learned in the Delay and Rove affairs that nothing as trivial as facts and common decency will divert Democrats from their attack-dog tactics. We’re in for a very large and long fight on this nominee.

I don’t usually disagree with Mark but in this case, I think he’s wrong. If Reid can’t get his caucus to march in lockstep on this one - and it appears to me that would be a steep, uphill climb at this point - there’s no way he’s going to advocate a filibuster. Why waste your best ammunition on a lost cause? Better to wait and use it to block either a replacement for the Chief or, more likely, a nominee to fill Rehnquist’s seat. Remember, when Rehnquist goes, there will be two confirmation fights; one on Bush’s choice for a new Chief and one on a replacement for Rehnquist.

And a very interesting take on the battle shaping up between Schumer and Roberts via Thomas Lifson at The American Thinker:

Schumer, who loves TV cameras almost as much as he loves being the smartest guy in the room, is about to clash with a guy who outdid him. John G. Roberts and Chuck Schumer both did the Harvard College and Harvard Law School thing. But Roberts graduated from Harvard summa cum laude, and from Harvard Law School magna cum laude.

These are not just funny words. They mean something. A lot, in fact.

Read the whole thing. I think Lifson has Schumer down to a “T.”

UPDATE II

Jeff Goldstein asks the question of questions…the mother of all interrogatories…a plaintive cry from the blogging wilderness that all bloggers ask themselves but don’t have the cohones to actually put out there for all to see:

Question for the blogosphere: Who does a guy have to bang to get included in a roundup these days?

Thirteen updates!

That much work deserves recognition, even if it comes from me and my small, insignificant corner of the Shadow Media. Therefore, in recognition of yeoman’s work done in rounding up reaction from left, right, center, and other planets not of this solar system, I hereby link to Protein Wisdom and recommend that any and all attend to his site and read what Jeff hath wrought.

As expected, the liberal left has eschewed partisan politics and, as is their wont, taken the high road in their opposition to John Roberts to replace Sandra Day O’Connor as Supreme Court Justice.

Don’t believe me? Here’s a comment thread at Daily Kos that shows the kind of principled opposition we can expect from our patriotic friends on the left:

Did You Catch His Wife?

When Roberts thanked his family, he mentioned his son, Jack…Roberts’ wife’s face fell. It was like a poker tell. I think we should research Jack.

interesting observation…
wonder if anything will come of it…

He’s probably gay.

Of course, this is how ridiculous rumors get started, but extreme conservatives seem to have a lot of homosexual children…

A Trangendered One at that

And an alcoholic and drug addict…That’s how Karl starts the smearing process, isn’t it???

What a brilliant and ethical approach to opposing the Supreme Court nominee; go after his children!

Not to be outdone by their fellow tin foil hat wearers, the Democratic Underground weighs in with their own special definition of “The Reality Based Community”:

With his bush close ties and background he’ll be an internal spy on the Supreme Court for bushco for years to come. Just the 2000 election advice/crap should make him suspect. Bush is surrounded by people that can blackmail him…and people he can blackmail.

Didn’t the Federalist argue against the Bill of Rights? n/t

a.k.a. jackbooted goose-stepping blackshirt thug

…those who support choice, environmental protections, and freedom from theocracy are screwed…

Fortunately they are in recess for the next five weeks, so nothing is going to happen. We’ve got five weeks to pick this guy apart and find the ghosts in his closets. Bush is proving how desperate he is. Otherwise he would have waited until Congress is back in session so that there wouldn’t be time to dig up any dirt on this one.

Most of us would prefer to argue the merits of Judge Robert’s nomination based on his knowledge of the law, his judicial temperament, and perhaps opinions he has authored. For some reason - probably because they realize they can’t win that way - the left will take the low road here and dig up something that I’m sure Mr. Roberts, Mrs. Roberts, and his children would prefer not see the light of day.

And the sad thing is, they will have willing partners helping them do their dirty work; the mainstream media and its thirst for scandal and controversy.

UPDATE

D.J. Drummond has a much more complete, er profile of the sanity or lack thereof from our lefty friends. One sample jumped out at me:

A great indicator of the Leftist mind is presented by Volvo Liberal, who suggests “Draw Blood, Move on. We really don’t have a winning hand here, and in the big pig picture, we are making traction with the American people. So my suggestion is:

Make sure people know what kind of thug Roberts is, who he cares about (corporations) and who he doesn’t (citizens, poor people), use him to further illuminate the frame that Republicans aren’t for middle-class Americans, take a few good shots at him and move on…”

Yeah, that’s a real good idea, trashing what little image of restraint and rational consideration the Democrats have left. It’s worked out real well the last few elections, hasn’t it?

And Bill Ardolino links to a post from Conservative Yankee that says little Jack Roberts is in kindergarten. So what line of attack can the pond scum take to smear a 6 year old?

Tell us, Conservative Yankee-dog, does he put away his toys? Sass his parents? Does he have a paste-eating habit?

Does he have a Tinky-Winky lunch-box, Conservative Yanqui?!

Does he support Bush’s illegal war in Iraq and sanction shackling the women of Amerikkka in patriarchal chains of reproductive oppression?!

Just what exactly does Jack Roberts have to hide?!

Bill also thinks Roberts looks like the “auto-pilot” Otto of Airplane II fame. Surely, he must be joking?

No he’s not…and don’t call him Shirley!

Lots of righty bloggers are posting about this story regarding the potential seizure of Justice David Souter’s house under new eminent domain rules in which he concurred in the Kelo case.

The commercial project envisioned for Souter’s homesite - The “Lost Liberty Hotel” with “Just Desserts Cafe” - is a publicity stunt by Freestar Media owner and political nutcase D. (Logan Darrow) Clements who ran as an “Objectivist” for Governor of California in the 2003 California recall.

This guy is a loon:

I want to make government as small as possible so the economy can be as large as possible. For starters, I would reduce by 50 percent the government spending on education by making all the schools private, from K through Ph.D universities. I would make the government so that it is only dealing with proper functions to protect our rights, like state troopers, courts, prisons, police, plus minor administrative functions. Almost everything else would be eliminated.

In addition to his foray into politics, Clements also has a “Reality TV” program on “Freenation” TV called The Lexington League” that highlights David versus Goliath stories of citizens against government.

This “proposal” to seize Souter’s land stinks to high heaven of a publicity stunt put on by an egotistical political gadfly who must really be enjoying being linked by The Captain, Glenn Reynolds, Michelle Malkin, and several dozen others.

Forget the silliness, let’s stop and think about this for a moment, shall we? Do we really want to practice this kind of intimidation against judges, be they Justices of the Supreme Court or any lesser judge? If we can’t insulate judges from this kind of pressure, what faith will we have in the decisions handed down by judges who are looking over their shoulder to see if there’s any chance they will personally suffer for interpreting the law?

Fruitcakes like Clements abound in this country. The potential for mischief is great. Any hint of intimidation would color the decision of a judge and invalidate it in the eyes of the public. The very idea of it smacks of dictatorship, especially if the intimidation were to be carried out by the cronies of powerful men.

It disturbed me when Judge Greer’s life was threatened in the Schiavo case. Yes he had conflict of interests (Greer was on the board of the hospice where Mrs. Schiavo was placed) and yes there were other legal aspects of the case that troubled many who are much more familiar with the law than I am. But to threaten a man’s life? That kind of thing can never be countenanced in a democracy if our judiciary is to remain free. And this attempt at punitive action against Justice Souter that has so many on the right cheering is no different in its goal - to intimidate a judge to rule in their favor.

It may feel good to envision a “Just Desserts Cafe” on property owned by one of the architects of the execrable Kelo decision. But somehow, I don’t think Justice Souter feels very good about it.

It’s no secret that one of the banes of modern society for the left is private property. Why, the very concept of “private” property screams of inequality. Some people got it. Some don’t. Ergo, in order to level out society private property rights have got to go.

What’s that you say? The Constitution says what?

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

(HT: George Mason)

The decision handed down by the Supreme Court yesterday in the Kelo case where a group of Connecticut homeowners lost their fight to keep the city of New London from bulldozing their houses in order to put up a a host of projects that would benefit already wealthy developers (and incidentally bring in much more in tax revenue for the city than the working class homeowners currently pay) is one more indication that the “Age of Enlightenment” that played such an important role in defining individual rights for American citizens may have finally become irrelevant to the continuing experiment that our republic represents.

The touchstone to our past has always been a reverence for the primacy of the individual over the state. In order to insure this - and to insure that the Constituion itself would be ratified - many of the Founding Fathers insisted that a “Bill of Rights” be appended to the original Constitution. We’re mostly familiar with the first ten amendment’s guarantees of our freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, the press, as well as our rights to bear arms, to be tried by a jury of our peers, and to remain silent so as not to incriminate ourselves. But equally important to all of these rights was that simple declaration of private property rights, an echo of the masterful annunciation of our right to “life, liberty, and property” found in the DECLARATION OF COLONIAL RIGHTS from the First Continental Congress in 1774 and generally considered one of the cornerstones of personal liberty in the United States.

No more. George Will sums up the catastrophe nicely:

Those on the receiving end of the life-shattering power that the court has validated will almost always be individuals of modest means. So this liberal decision — it augments government power to aggrandize itself by bulldozing individuals’ interests — favors muscular economic battalions at the expense of society’s little platoons, such as homeowners and the neighborhoods they comprise.

Imagine working for 10 or even 20 years to be able to afford a house only to have the government come along and take it for “the greater good” of the community? Of course, some argue that the erosion of private property rights has been going on for some time now:

There is a sense in which it is perfectly logical to say that the democratically elected branches of government are in the best position to decide what is a legitimate “public use,” and the courts shouldn’t second-guess those decisions. And in many contexts, we conservatives do argue that the courts should defer to legislatures and local governments. The problem here is that accepting that principle would read the relevant language out of the Fifth Amendment. If anything that a state legislature or city government calls a “public use” is, ipso facto, a public use, then the constitutional protection is gone.

My only other observation on the case is this: I defer to no one in my admiration for Glenn Reynolds, but I don’t understand why he seems to think that the issue is a wash as between liberals and conservatives. Just look at how the decision broke down: Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer–the Court’s liberals–voted to uphold the taking, while O’Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas dissented. I don’t see how the ideological lineup could be clearer; if you care about property rights, vote for conservatives.

Indeed, the “Newspaper of Record” - for the left anyway - celebrates the decision:

The Supreme Court’s ruling yesterday that the economically troubled city of New London, Conn., can use its power of eminent domain to spur development was a welcome vindication of cities’ ability to act in the public interest. It also is a setback to the “property rights” movement, which is trying to block government from imposing reasonable zoning and environmental regulations. Still, the dissenters provided a useful reminder that eminent domain must not be used for purely private gain.

Notice the use of quotes for the term property rights, as if the term had no meaning outside of a few mossbacks who actually take the Constitution at its word.

The Captain points out the sophistry of the Times argument:

The Times laughably argues that even though government acting as an unwanted arbiter between two private property owners is a serious concern, the fears that a government will choose the one with deeper pockets is “exaggerated”. Oh, yeah, sure. In fact, that’s exactly what happened with New London. No one argued that the houses being condemned were “blighted”; the neighborhood was working class but maintained well. Some of the people arguing their case had, in fact, recently put a lot of money into renovations, money that they now will never see. Most had lived in the neighborhood for decades, and one house had remained in the same family for over 100 years, with the current resident having lived there for 60 of them. New London decided that the waterfront view had more value as commercial property than for the people who actually owned it, and sold out for a few extra tax dollars.

In short, a man’s home is no longer his castle, it’s whatever the hell the government decides it is. If it’s in the way of some Village Trustee’s pet development project that benefits some of his wealthy friends and contributors, too bad. Again, Mr. Will:

Liberalism triumphed yesterday. Government became radically unlimited in seizing the very kinds of private property that should guarantee individuals a sphere of autonomy against government.

If you were to examine the property rights of our neighbors to the south in Central and South America, you’d see a disturbing parrallel in the way that property can be expropriated. Of course, in those benighted societies, you suffer this fate if your politics doesn’t jibe with the local family or of the government. In our own republic, you only get your property stolen from you if your politicians want to insure their re-election by satisfying some of their big contributors.

Private property as a bulwark against the power of government, as a means of independence, as a sacrosanct and inimitable part of our heritage, and as an American birthright took a huge hit yesterday. It remains to be seen whether the coming battle over the next Supreme Court Justice(s) will incorporate arguments for private property rights into the debate in order to bring into stark relief the differences between liberal and conservative jurists.

UPDATE

Michelle Malkin has an excellent media and Shadow Media roundup and says this:

The (right side of the) blogosphere’s response to yesterday’s SCOTUS ruling on Kelo v. New London has been stunning. And heartening. Eminent domain isn’t usually the first thing that comes to mind when one thinks “blogswarm.” But the fierce reaction to the decision shows that core economic liberty issues can still unite disparate factions of the right (South Park cons, neocons, Schiavo-cons, whatever-cons) who have been fretting about a conservative crack-up.

I’d also add that it appears from my reading that the traditional (sane) left is also decrying this decision. In addition to Michelle’s speculation about the decision uniting the current warring factions on the right, might this be the beginning of a beautiful friendship with some of our more traditional liberal friends?

Bill Ardolino also has a superb round-up and adds “A man’s home is… somebody else’s piggy-bank.”

By the end of the day, there will be 50 variations on a theme of that old saw.

Jeff Goldstein is full of disdain and satiricalness besides also having a gay old time linking here, there, and everywhere. I’m surprised he didn’t drag the armadillo out for this:

Lovely how the majority justices tried to cover this decidedly anti-Lockean decision with a rhetorical appeal to federalism (”local officials, not federal judges, know best…”). But just because the decision allows a local government (rather than the federal government, as it did with its cynical appeal to a malleable Commerce Clause) to assert what appears to me to be an extra-Constitutional claim on a private citizens’ property rights doesn’t make it any more kosher—and today’s decision, in its expansion of what can be shoehorned into the category of “public use,” gives carte blanche for municipalities to remake the geography in any way they see fit, so long as they can make the argument that they are doing so for the common weal (which in many cases is really just an excuse for gentrification—and legalizes the taking of private property from one owner and transferring it, by municipal will, to another government approved private property owner; it’s a plutocrat’s wet dream).

Flog that doggie!