Harry Reid can't count...

Senate Minority leader Harry Reid showed off his amazing counting ability when he said today, "He has chosen yet another federal appellate judge to join a court that already has eight justices with that narrow background" with regards to the Alito nomination. Apparently, Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are white men now. I'm sure they'll be a bit shocked to hear that.

The Alito nomination is going to dominate the news for a couple days (if not longer). I expect that in the end he'll get the votes he needs, although it could be a pretty bloody fight. It's already been brought up that he voted against Planned Parenthood vs. Casey (second only two Roe in the Democratic pantheon of judicial rulings). I'm sure there's other skeletons in the appellate closet of the nominee.

I would have liked to see another moderate candidate or someone from a more diverse background (not necessarily speaking of white men either... also that he's a lawyer turned judge). It'll be interesting how he compares to the Federalist John Roberts.

Standing Ovation for Bush...

Everyone needs to stand up and clap. Whether you're Republican or Democrat, Liberal or Conservative, Socialist or Libertarian, you should be happy that Ben Bernanke is to be the new Fed Chair. Bernanke has been the second most quoted and influential Economics figure in recent years. Bernanke has been a big advocate for Fed transparency as well as for a continuation of Greenspan's brand of monetary policy. The Fed is one place that you need a relative insider. Someone who has a good academic background and understands the ins and outs of the system. It's also encouraging that we're getting a new Fed Chair that has seen the ups and downs of various business cycles and will not react spasmodically.

I can't imagine that there will be anyone upset by this nomination. This one's pretty much a slam dunk...

A better Vin Diesel script...

The Vin Diesel move, The Pacifier, probably could have been improved if this had been the script. It's good to see that the world is filled with sane, rational people...

Speaking of sane, rational people... This conversation took place on Chris Wallace's show the other night. Are there conservatives out there that think there's any chance of a judge being appointed to the Supreme Court if they'd been openly and publicly against Roe? It has become THE hot button question for judges. Unfortunately, the right answer is unacceptable. For the record, I believe the right answer is, "Roe was horribly decided. However, there are numerous other issues that should be considered in a court of law."

The fact of the matter, is that that answer would get a nominee a resounding 5-95 against vote. Pro-Choice and Pro-Life people would all see their worst nightmare in that statement. So we've created an atmosphere in which logical, rational thought and debate is anthema to us. We presuppose the answers and you only get to answer so many questions outside of our little box.

I'd like to see a candidate really buck the trend and do something unusual. I'd like to see a candidate give arrow straight answers on issues. I won't hold my breath though.

Confused by their own code

I've written a little about this already so it's nice to see my predictions coming true. Harriet Miers is quite an enigma but Republicans have fallen into a trap of their own making with regards to her. For the past 5-10 years the Republicans have been attacking judges in a subtle way. Republicans have consistently pushed the idea that "activist" judges are ruling against them. They have created the idea that if all judges ruled according a strict interpretation of the constitution and the law then they would rule in favor of Republican ideals. I'm willing to concede that this is true more often then not. But it's not quite the landslide that people might expect.

The Oregon case heard yesterday is a pretty good example. The case really revolves around questions of state rights vs. federal rights and whether or not the AG can make rulings on enforcement that are arbitrary. The legality of it has very little to do with assisted suicide (Ashcroft's motivation notwithstanding). A federalist (like I believe that John Roberts is) will likely rule in favor of the state. A constitutionalist will be quite torn but (I believe) will probably rule in favor of the federal government. A republican will be torn, but will likely rule in favor of the federal government (couching their ruling in terms that strengthen federal law enforcement rather than overall federal powers). A democrat will be ecstatic to rule against the federal government. So there's a whole spectrum of how these things can be viewed.

I believe Bush is appointing strict constructionists (in his words). I believe that political ideology is (rightfully so) a secondary consideration. He would prefer to appoint a liberal, who he was certain of judicial restraint, rather than a conservative whom he knew would be a judicial activist.

Is it possible?

Like many, I've been pondering the, seemingly inexplicable, nomination of Ms. Miers. Many conservatives are up in arms because they feel like President Bush broke a "promise" to appoint judges with conservative backgrounds. Every quote I've been able to find from the Pesident has been with regard to federal judges in general. Most of them speak more emphatically about judicial restraint rather then conservatism. In fact, the only mention of the word "conservatism" I could find was when it was preceded by the word "judicial".

Which brings me to my question: Is it possible that politics do not play a part in Bush's decision making? Is it possible that he is ONLY concerned with whether or not the prospective judge will legislate from the bench?

This was clearly the case with Roberts. Roberts was quite clearly a federalist. His most impassioned writings were against the expansion of federal power. His clearest statements were those in which he was asked about the role of congress and the executive.

Conservatives have been thinking that Bush wanted to stack the court with conservatives. Is it possible that he's actually doing the right thing? Is it possible that he wants to stack the court with strict constructionists?

Harriett Miers

I've been a big defender of President Bush when people have talked about cronyism. I believe that, as a person in power, you have to surround yourself with qualified people. I also believe that, given the level of power, you need to be sure that you can trust those people. I can't imagine being a congressman or President without a few of my friends around. People that I could trust to keep secrets, advise me well and be honest with me. I also think that, when it comes to emergency action, you go with the entities and people you trust. When you need to stop oil field fiers in a foreign war zone, you go with the company that has done it before.

However, I don't think that picking a friend for the Supreme Court is a very smart move. I find it difficult to believe that she could be the most qualified person out there. She has only been White House Counsel for a year (less actually). Prior to that she had a career that was distinguished only because she was the first woman to do alot of the things she did. There appear to be only two things that set her apart from others: That she's a woman and that she's President Bush's friend.

Were I a Democrat, I would be asking myself, "Why is the President putting her on the bench? What does he know that I don't?"  Were I a Republican, I'd be asking myself, "How much of the reasoning behind this pick is friendship? How much is that she's a woman?"

The President had painted himself in a corner on this one. He was going to take flak from Hispanics, Women, Democrats and Republicans no matter what he did. It'll be interesting to see what happens in the next few days. I can't imagine that Republicans are going to be very supportive, however. There has already been quite a bit of backlash against her (Pat Buchanon, Rush Limbaugh etc). It's a long confirmation process and there are many unknowns:

How much is she going to say in public? Roberts was qualified enough that he could get away with secrecy. I don't see Ms. Miers getting that slack.
What is the ABA going to rate her? I think even ranking her "Qualified" would be a stretch.
How much of her writings are going to be released? The White House didn't release many of Roberts writings because of privilege. If they keep that tac with Miers they're going to have a large uphill battle.

Tom Delay... the Wiley Hammer

The Tom Delay story is really starting to gain ground. This Fox News commentary (fair and balanced remember!) says about Delay, "Opponents cannot bring themselves to trust the democratic process to work." I find that a fantastically humorous statement given that Delay was critical in orchestrating the adjustments made to voting districts in Texas. You may remember the mass exodus of state representatives to the hotel across the border in an attempt to stall the proceedings.

Delay is a guy who has milked the system. He has had ethical run-ins several times (including being reprimanded on multiple occasions by his own party). This latest case is a prime example of how "soft" money is used in politics. Our political system hinges on two things, Freedom of Speech and Money. Unfortunately, those two things create a tidy little conflict of interest.

If I were to run for office (something which I can't imagine ever doing) I would have all of my money put in a blind trust. I'm not sure that that is the most practical way to do things but I think it's the only ethically clear way to do things. Sure, people could still tell me, "Hey I sent $20,000 to your trust" but really, everyone could tell me that and I'd never know which were telling the truth and which were exaggerating or even outright lying.