Let the Supreme Court Nominee Stay Home

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/10/opinion/10carter.html

A short time ago, Justice David Souter announced that he would be retiring from the US Supreme Court. His retirement will create the first vacancy on the Court for President Obama to fill. Even now, the Obama administration is compiling a list of potential replacements, and vetting the candidates to see if they can stand up to the scrutiny of Senate confirmation hearings. Stephen L. Carter, a professor of law at Yale and sometime contributor to the New York Times op-ed section, makes the argument that although a nominee has to be confirmed by a majority of the Senate, nominees shouldn’t be expected to submit to confirmation hearings at all.

The only constitutional requirement for a Justice is that he or she will uphold the Oaths of Office by adhering to the United States Constitution as written. Justices are not supposed to make judicial judgments based on feelings, prejudices, or political beliefs. The entire point of confirmation hearings is to assess a 0.nominee’s feelings, prejudices or beliefs – with the expectation that they will be in line with the President that submitted the nominee. The president’s party uses the hearings to confirm that the candidate believes as they do. The opposition uses the hearings to show that the nominee has a warped sense of what matters.

With that in mind, Mr. Carter’s position is that the nominee’s almost always refuse to give meaningful answers to questions about judicial philosophy or how a particular issue should be decided. He also makes the argument that this position is right; lest a nominee commit to a position under oath only to have a change of heart as a justice on the court. This nearly uniform refusal makes the whole process of sitting before the Judiciary Committee seem pointless and silly.

History has shown us that you can’t guarantee what position a Justice will take. President Eisenhower was sorely disappointed in many of the positions taken by Chief Justice Warren. There have been other instances where Justices appointed by more liberal Presidents have unexpectedly shown a more conservative slant as well. A Supreme Court appointment is a lifetime appointment, with many justices serving in excess of 20 years. In many ways, a Supreme Court appointment is the most lasting legacy a President leaves; that is why Presidents must choose carefully, and wisely.

MIA On Gay Marriage

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/07/AR2009050703055.html

On Wednesday, Maine became the fifth state in the Union to legalize gay marriage, thereby pushing the issue of gay marriage to the forefront of American politics again. Many people are looking for President Obama to provide real leadership on the issue of gay marriage and gay rights. One such person is Eugene Robinson, columnist for the Washington Post.

In his article on May 8th, Mr. Robinson writes about Mr. Obama’s rhetoric about equality for all during the Presidential campaign. He also writes about Mr. Obama endorsing the idea if civil unions with all of the same rights and responsibilities as marriage. Essentially, civil unions would just be marriage under a different name. Calling gay unions civil unions instead of marriages could go a long way toward appeasing religious people who fear an eroding of the faith-based values. It would satisfy all of the legal concerns, without trying to force religious people to accept it socially.

Mr. Robinson also writes about the lack of forceful leadership with respect to the issue of gays serving in the military. As a candidate, President Obama called for the repealing of the Clinton-era “don’t ask don’t tell” policy about gays in the military. As president and Commander-in-chief he hasn’t done anything about changing the policy. Right now, with two wars going on simultaneously, we need to encourage all capable, patriotic Americans to enlist. It seems reckless to force qualified people out of the military because of a persons’ sexuality.

Mr. Robinson makes the argument that President Obama (and others in government) duck the issue of gay marriage and gay rights by calling it a states’ rights issue. That argument sounds a lot like the arguments used to subjugate African-Americans first making them slaves, then second-class citizens under Jim Crow. Mr. Obama is treading carefully, understanding that you can change laws, but you cannot easily or quickly change hearts-and-minds.

How Character Corrodes

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/opinion/03dowd.html?_r=1

Recently there’s been a lot of concern expressed by Republicans in Congress over the lack of real checks and balances between the legislative and executive branches of government. This concern has been evident since the 2008 election cycle, when Democrats captured the White House and expanded their majority in Congress. Now, with the recent defecting of Arlen Specter from the the Republican to the Democratic Party, the Democrats have 59 of 100 Senate seats. Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, writes about this ever-growing Republican concern in her May 6, 2009 opinion piece. In her piece, she points out that Republicans are concerned about President Obama acting with unfettered power to push his own agenda. Ms. Dowd feels that its absurd for Republicans to complain about Democrat President Obama potentially abusing his office in the same way that so many people feel that Republican President Bush did. Upon further examination, it’s hypocritical, but not necessarily absurd.

For Republicans, after years as the party in power, establishing a precedent for executive abuses, they lost that power with those bad precedents firmly in place. Now they’re worried that the Democrats will follow that same attitude of abusive power. Human nature tells us that this is possible – even likely. Happily, so far President Obama’s rhetoric and his actions haven’t proven this out. The previous administration redefined torture to include practices that it deemed necessary for extracting information from terror suspects. This administration has done the opposite. The President has called waterboarding and similar techniques torture. He has publicly spoken out against torture, not because it’s ineffective, but because it’s a shortcut that betrays our ideals as Americans. In citing Winston Churchill during WWII, he spoke of how resorting to such tactics corrodes our character as Americans. By implication, those who have already given themselves over to these shortcuts have started to rust a little.

Trillion Dollar Baby

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/opinion/11dowd.html

Maureen Dowd is widely known as a left-leaning columnist at the New York Times as well as an early and ardent Obama supporter, both as a candidate and as a President. Given her past praises of Obama and the way she has defended him with such zeal, it's especially interesting to read her criticism of President Obama's Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and his approach to the bank bailout. What makes it all the more enjoyable is that I think she's right.

Tim Geithner's latest announcement about banking bailout efforts did not inspire much confidence. This is proven by the continued dropping in the stock market overall, and the banking sector in particular. Ms. Dowd attributes his lack of motivational success in part to his dry, nervous speaking. She also blames the failure on his inability to show real leadership in directing banking to act more in the public interest. She gives several examples of banks that have accepted government help, or bailouts only to squander significant amounts of money on retreats or employee getaways - all while refusing to make loans. According to Ms. Dowd (and affirmed by what I read and see everyplace else) there were caps on the salaries of the highest paid executives, but no such caps but on the pay of other bank employees. There was also no real mechanism put in place to curb wasteful (and offensive) spending. In fact, she points out that Mr. Geithner engages in a kind of protectionism, fighting to limit the amount of real oversight the government exercises with these bailout banks. She talks about his relationship with Wall Street and banking in a way that suggests his motivations are something close to nepotism.

My only real criticism is that she doesn't do enough to show how Tim Geithner is representing the interests and ultimately the policies of President Obama as well. Mr. Geithner may be an inartful speaker in articulating President Obama's bailout execution plan, but it's still President Obama's plan. Her inability or unwillingness to more directly connect President Obama to the poorly administered bank bailout may be an indicator that her bias for him could blind her in the same way that she criticized Bush loyalists for not holding him fully accountable.

On the other hand, we're not even halfway through the first 100 days, or the "honeymoon" period of this administration. If she's willing to point out such embarrassing flaws this early in President Obama's administration, she and other left-leaning columnists like her may actually be willing to hold this administration accountable in a way that Bush supporters could never do to president Bush. While this higher level of accountability may be uncomfortable for Obama, if it spurs him to perform well, it could be great for him politically and great for the country.

100 days - Starting the Job, From FDR to Obama

http://100days.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/get-out-of-the-white-house/

Lou Cannon wrote an interesting article in today's New York Times, about a President's ability (or inability) to maintain a sense of normalcy while in office, and how this sense of normalcy or balance can allow for personal happiness even while governing in troubled times. The article talked about FDR and how he maintained a "social hour" where he sat aside pressing presidential issues and engaged in pleasant conversation for a while. The writer also talked about Ronald Reagan's frequent visits to his ranch in California for horseback riding and relaxation. Mr. Cannon drew a strong comparison of the efforts of Reagan and FDR, and those of our current president Obama. The writer also talked about the efforts of FDR and Reagan to connect to everyday Americans with weekly radio addresses, and how President Obama carries the tradition forward with weekly postings on Youtube. He ends the article by pointing out that staying "normal" is no guarantee of a successful presidency; citing the low approval rating of George Bush even the article talked about FDR & he maintained a "social hour" where he set aside pressing presidential concerns though he appears to have enjoyed his time in office. He notes that while Obama's personal happiness and sense of normalcy doesn't insure success though it can't hurt.