There’ll be plenty of time to discuss the ramifications of this, but I thought I’d just mention, in case you haven’t seen it, that Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist died last night. As The New York Times reports:
WASHINGTON, Sunday, Sept. 4 – Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist died Saturday night of the thyroid cancer he had battled for nearly a year, opening a second Supreme Court vacancy just days before Senate confirmation hearings were to begin to fill the seat being vacated by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
Kathleen Arburg, the court’s public information officer, said Chief Justice Rehnquist, 80, had died at his home in Arlington, Va., surrounded by his three children. She said he had been working at the court during the summer recess until his health declined a “precipitous decline” in the last few days.
Politically, in a sense this isn’t as big a deal as O’Connor’s resignation, because Rehnquist was really never a swing vote. On the other hand, the President has shown a knack for choosing people for top jobs who are even worse than I had imagined they could be. So I’m understandably nervous concerning who we might see nominated.
I don’t expect it to happen, but it would be an interesting state of affairs if O’Connor were to make it known she’d be prepared to stay on as Chief, were it to be offered to her.
September 4th, 2005 at 8:39 am
Just a very polite question: Is this now officially a Democratic blog ?
September 4th, 2005 at 9:37 am
iso42,
I would have to say no. Most democrats find out about the nominee, or at least wait for a nomination, before declaring opposition. That is not the policy here.
Some democrats are even willing to accept a conservative appointment from a conservative president, as long as the nominee is reasonable. However, I cannot say if that is the official Democratic position.
Gavin
September 4th, 2005 at 9:47 am
The blog doesn’t have an official party affiliation. Individually, I think we’d support whoever seems to have ideas that, to us, seem sensible, non-bigoted, rational, constructive and fair (I may be missing some criteria, since I’m writing this quickly). The current administration, in my opinion, has failed us on all these counts.
When I look at the Supreme Court, some issues I’m particularly interested in are: retaining a woman’s right to make decisions about her own body; the right of all Americans to love the person of their choice and be treated equally and with dignity; and the need to keep religion out of politics and policy.
You might call these Democratic ideals, but I call them civilization.
September 4th, 2005 at 9:50 am
I afraid I don’t undersand your comment Gavin.
September 4th, 2005 at 12:12 pm
Mark,
I agree, the “how bad could it be” line always fails with Bush, and is promptly replaced with “who would have imagined”…
The big deal here may be who is the next chief justice.
best,
Moshe
September 4th, 2005 at 12:20 pm
Mark,
I was not impressed with your title. Why are we declaring another battle ahead when there isn’t even a nominee yet? Does the nominee matter, or does our opposition to the President mean we are destined to oppose every decision he makes?
Gavin
September 4th, 2005 at 12:22 pm
There is plenty of room to the right of Rehnquist.
September 4th, 2005 at 12:39 pm
Gavin is right. Just because the administration has a long and detailed record of nominating right-wing hacks to positions of great importance, doesn’t mean it will happen this time.
Also, just because today is Sunday, doesn’t mean tomorrow will be Monday. Anything could happen.
September 4th, 2005 at 1:10 pm
Gavin, while it is logically possible that there will be no battle, and that left, right and center will immediately agree that the President’s nomineee is the best person for the job, one would have to be from outer space (or, alternatively, a member of the team who brought us the “we’ll be welcomed as liberators” idea) to think that’s what will happen.
Since I think we’d both agree that my title won’t actually affect what happens, let’s just see if I’m right that there’ll be a battle.
September 4th, 2005 at 2:33 pm
Maybe it is just a vocabulary thing. If assuming the foetal position and begging not to be hit in the face is enough to qualify as a battle, then I feel it coming too.
September 4th, 2005 at 2:49 pm
Still don’t get your point Gavin. I do think the Democrats have behaved this way on a lot of major issues. I do think that Roberts is a nominee to be feared, since he has a record of acting against the values I mentioned in an earlier response. There will be a battle, in that many of us who strongly dislike the kinds of candidates that Bush is likely to nominate will speak out loudly against them. But, my guess is that in the end it will have little effect partly because of the power that the Republicans now have and partly because Democrats in positions of power will not represent our views vociferously enough.
If your point is that there won’t be a significant battle among politicians, you may well be right, and we probably roughly agree about that. But it doesn’t mean that there won’t be vocal arguments in the country about the worth of the nominee, as there are about Roberts.
September 4th, 2005 at 3:00 pm
When i got back to my room at this Reno casino early this morning, from watching the Man burn at Burning Man, i flipped on the big screen TV to find the news of Rehnquist’s death. It literally staggered me with the hopelessness that has pervasively embodied the responses of this administration’s to anything.
It would be one thing if we could find some inspiring positive decision making from this Administration over the last five years, but sadly, and perhaps criminally, the choices made have been one nightmarish hell after another. The recent history is the worst of all, and seems to indicate an ever increasing disconnect from reality not just in Bush, but in his puppet masters as well. Who let him play guitar while NOLA was drowning? Who told the military to clean up his route to the residents of Biloxi in front of international news crews and then leave the waste of their cleanup–dead bodies, broken homes and dreams–in Biloxi in large piles(they didn’t bring supplies either)? Who insisted that Bolton get a recess appointment and then told him to go ahead and destroy the UN? The list goes on and on; if there is one thing i am forced to acknowledge it is that the possibility that Bushco will make and informed intelligent choice to replace Rehnquist is near impossible.
I cry for this nation; i haven’t felt this deeply despairing since May 5, 1970(Kent State).
September 4th, 2005 at 3:05 pm
Sean, Mike,
I thought the nomination of Supreme Court justices follows a process oulined in the constitution. The word “battle”, in this context, might be used by politicians, but I was surprised that it was used on this blog. Thus my original question.
I guess you have to live with the fact that a majority re-elected a Republican president and a Republican majority in Congress; Your views on science vs. religion, feminism, abortion, environment etc. are currently minority views in the US and no “battle” will change that and it is un-democratic to try and change the outcome of elections by whatever type of “battle” IMHO.
September 4th, 2005 at 3:06 pm
I am sorry, I mis-type Mike (a friend of mine) instead of Mark.
September 4th, 2005 at 3:40 pm
iso42. Could you please explain what is undemocratic about trying to help rally public opinion and attempt to get better people elected, and try to make those that are in place feel like they should moderate their behavior because many of the electorate want them to? I think this is the essence of democracy – free speech and open public debate. Nothing I’ve ever written here is undemocratic in my vview. Your comment is entirely nonsensical.
September 4th, 2005 at 3:56 pm
Your views on science vs. religion, feminism, abortion, environment etc. are currently minority views in the US and no “battle” will change that and it is un-democratic to try and change the outcome of elections by whatever type of “battle” IMHO.
How do you think that minority views ever become majority views? By having the minority sit, its thumb anally inserted, doing nothing? In your own words, they are only “currently” minority views. Things change, though, you know, and seldom on their own.
September 4th, 2005 at 4:02 pm
Mark,
I am sorry, but it seems that your reply is “entirely nonsensical”.
You have of course all the right to attempt to get better people elected.
But this is not the point at all here. The issue of Supreme Court nominees will be
discussed an decided before 2006 and certainly 2008. The relevant election was
2004 and the party that represents (to some extent) your views lost.
September 4th, 2005 at 4:17 pm
No iso42, you are wrong, and I think it is because you have a very simplistic view of the political process. The Supreme Court nominee will be selected by the President and confirmed, or not, by the senate. There is a chance that sufficiently coherent, frequent and well-expressed public opinion may sway the choice (although I doubt it) or the confirmation. Senators may think twice about confirming someone who seems at odds with what many of the electorate want. They may worry that making a choice so discordant with many voters will hurt their chances of reelection, or they might just change what might have been their opinion in the face of good arguments by the other side.
I’m under no illusion that either of these effects has a high probability, but attempting to make a difference in this way is important, I think, and entirely democratic.
Since you think what I’m saying is nonsensical, perhaps you can articulate what it is you find undemocratic about any suggestion I’ve made. If you can, I’m interested. If not, I suspect you’re following the tried and tested recent fad of accusing anyone who doesn’t agree with the behavior of the current administration of being anti-American.
September 4th, 2005 at 4:32 pm
Mark,
as you write yourself “The Supreme Court nominee will be selected by the President and confirmed, or not, by the senate.” Both are currently Republican, expressing the majority
view as of 2004.
As you very well know, there is only an issue because of technicalities around the filibuster loophole(s). Therefore, if there is any “battle” it will be between lawyers and strategists of both
parties. There are also various campaigns of intimidation on both sides to make sure Senators
vote as expected/needed.
I was surprised that “Cosmic Variance” wanted to be part of this “battle”.
I wrote: “it is un-democratic to try and change the outcome of elections by whatever type of “battle”
nothing more and nothing less. I do not think it is difficult to understand this sentence.
PS: And before somebody draws the wrong conclusion, I problably support most of your views.
But I accept that in the US and probably in many other countries I am in the minority.
September 4th, 2005 at 4:52 pm
Dear iso42,
I’m curious about something. Do you consider the process of debating and voting on proposed legislation on the floor of the house or the senate to be part of the democratic process? I think that the founding fathers did. A debate is a “battle” in this sense. I don’t think that we’re supposed to sit back and let the people in the white house, and whoever has the majority in the house and senate, do whatever they want for four years. How is the confirmation process for a president’s supreme court nomination not also subject to this democratic process?
Furthermore, “Cosmic Variance” does not express an opnion on anything. Cosmic Variance is not an individual with an identity and a political opnion. There are five people here blogging on the site called “Cosmic Variance”, and we happen to have five different sets of opnion. So your “surprise” about CV “wanting to be part of” anything, is wrong-headed. Get that our of your head. We are five people who can and will express our opnions on or draw attention to any issue without implication that it represents (or not) the opnion of the others.
Having said that, and before anyone runs off with the wrong impression, I must say that I support Mark’s (and earlier, Risa’s) expression of concern that the upcoming debate about nominations and confirmations for the Supreme court is something on which we should all keep an eye and learn more about, and thus informed -if an individual (blog host or reader) so chooses- work hard to make sure that, within the democratic mandate afforded us as taxpayers and voters, the process is properly and thoroughly carried out to whatever ends the individual sees fit.
Thanks for your opinion!
Cheers,
-cvj
September 4th, 2005 at 5:05 pm
iso. I know what you wrote, and it wasn’t difficult to understand. What was hard was to understand how it was relevant to my post and to the kinds of things I’ve written on this blog.
I have absolutely no idea what you mean by “trying to change the outcome of elections”. I have never advocated this, although note that it is possible to do this in the U.S., as was done in Florida in 2000.
I do not consider publically expressing my opinion, attempting to rally others, or making it known to senators that there are many people who feel this way to be a) undemocratic, or b) intimidation. I call it democracy, and I think most people (even those with wildly diffferent political views to mine) would also.
September 4th, 2005 at 5:06 pm
Clifford,
” Do you consider the process of debating and voting on proposed legislation on the floor of the house or the senate to be part of the democratic process? I think that the founding fathers did.”
Absolutely. I agree with you completely, we both embrace democracy!
The problem with the nominee process is that exactly such a discussion and voting are delayed using all kinds of technicalities and the filibuster rule.
September 4th, 2005 at 5:19 pm
Well, iso42, given that I can see nowhere in Mark’s post any suggestion of trying to invite people to somehow circumvent the process, you, Mark and I appear to be in agreement, and therefore can move on from this.
Excellent.
-cvj
September 4th, 2005 at 6:12 pm
There are only two types of nominations we can reasonably expect from Bush.
1) A very conservative nominee who is well qualified and exactly the sort of nominee that Bush said he would give us during the Presidential campaign.
2) A very conservative nominee who is either an unqualified hack or so far right that even many Bush supporters are startled by his extreme views.
There is no chance that he would appoint someone who you and I would like to have on the supreme court. However, I believe that both 1 and two are real possibilities, and we need to decide what to do in each case. If he picks 2 Mark and I would both vigorously oppose the nomination and we might be able to get some support from conservatives who value competence or moderation. I’d call that a battle.
However, if he picks 1 then democrats are divided. Many think that it is not a good idea to put up a big fight over this type of nominee. Iso expresses one such view. Others might view it as a poor use of resources, as it is doomed to failure. Some consider it poor political strategy, as it is likely to alienate swing voters. I think battling a 1 is a poor idea, but I can understand why many liberals disagree. Because of the division I see the candidate sailing through nomination without much trouble. I wouldn’t call this a battle, but I can see why Mark, who will vigorously oppose a 1, would call it a battle. He’s going to be battling, even if the Senate Democrats just fold.
We could argue over whether Roberts is a 1 or a 2, but based on the rather muted response to his nomination, it appears that the Democrats, at least the ones in the senate, are not gearing up for battle. This suggests to me that they consider him a 1 and are not willing to battle over a 1. Maybe I am misreading the situation.
It was in this context that I responded to Iso’s polite question. Many Democrats want to see the candidate so they can determine if he is a 1 or a 2 because this will determine their response. Mark does not need to wait for the nomination because he is going into battle either way. I don’t think that is productive, but you have my best wishes.
Gavin
September 4th, 2005 at 6:38 pm
> who you and I would like to have on the supreme court.
It is not, or at least should not be, about who you and Mark want on the Supreme Court. It should be about who the US citizens want on the Supreme Court as expressed by voting for a President and Senate.
If you think that it is ok to “battle” this out using whatever loopholes there are you might even succeed. But I would remind you that such an “ends justify the means” phiilosophy can lead you quickly on a slippery slope.
But I appreciate that this is not my message board and will “move on” as cvj has suggested.
September 4th, 2005 at 7:03 pm
Hi,
I was not suggesting that you move on. I just meant that we might move on from the topic of whether it was democratic or not, and whether the blog has a specific political stance or not. We appreciate the discussion, and varying opinion.
Sorry if I gave the wrong impression.
-cvj
September 4th, 2005 at 7:44 pm
Gavin – eminently sensible points. You are right that we will take different actions, but I think you put the points eloquently and correctly.
iso42. According to your logic, after the Presidential and mid-term elections, everyone in the country should then remain completely quiet, expressing no opinions and accepting that every act of the government will undoubtedly be one that more than 50% of voters agree with. How many votes do you think Bush would have got if he’d campaigned on the promise “I will outright lie to get this country into an ill-fated war”?
I think we get to express our opinions on every issue at any time and that sometimes this has political effect within the legal political structure that exists. In this sense it is about who I want on the Supreme Court, and about who Gavin wants and who you want, etc. I don’t think the ends justify illegal means. But legal ones seem fine to me. Therefore, expressing my opinions about Supreme Court nominees who I think are very poor choices, and trying to help with opposition to them is perfectly fine, while destroying ballots and knowingly lying about evidence for war are not.
September 4th, 2005 at 9:26 pm
Mark,
Due to my inability to clearly articulate my points in the earliest posts, I deserved the comments from you and Sean insinuating that I was either deluded or “from outer space” (#9) or an idiot (#8).
However, Iso has clearly articulated his point patiently, even after being told that his possition is nonsensical. The fact that you do not agree with someone on the first reading is not a guarantee that the person is a fool.
If a politician makes a campaign promise and is elected some people will chose to oppose the action, even after the election, while others will say “that’s democracy” and work to convince people that they should support different policies in the future. There are certain issues that fall clearly on both sides of this. Even though there is a Republican majority in congress, we want or Democratic representatives to do what they can to minimize the damage. On the other hand, it doesn’t make sense for us to oppose the President’s swearing-in just because we wish he hadn’t been elected (2000 being an exceptional case).
The judicial nomination process is somewhere in the middle. You believe that the minority should do everything they can to prevent any nominee that they don’t love from being appointed. Iso thinks that the minority should only block appointments that are unqualified or unlike what the voters could expect when they elected the President. His argument that obstructing the President’s ability to do his job is “undemocratic” might be strong, but it is not nonsensical.
In your last post you slay a fine straw man. It is an interesting way that you prepare for battle: alienating your fellow pro-gay-marriage, anti-war, pro-chioce liberal allies. I look forward to more strategic surprises.
Gavin
September 4th, 2005 at 9:40 pm
Gavin. I referred to his point as unreasonable after multiple attempts to explain my point to him and, in my opinion, not much understanding. Please don’t make out that it was my immediate reaction.
It’s possible I’m alienating iso, but it’s not my intention – we’re discussing. Your sarcasm in the last line is a nice attempt at alienation though – nice job.
September 5th, 2005 at 2:35 am
However, Iso has clearly articulated his point patiently, even after being told that his possition is nonsensical.
Well, it is.
The fact that you do not agree with someone on the first reading is not a guarantee that the person is a fool.
That’s true, but here, it happens to be the case that iso is a fool.
If a politician makes a campaign promise and is elected some people will chose to oppose the action, even after the election, while others will say “that’s democracy” and work to convince people that they should support different policies in the future.
What do you mean by “oppose the action”? Isn’t trying to convince people to support different policies in the future a form of “opposing the action”?
His argument that obstructing the President’s ability to do his job is “undemocratic” might be strong, but it is not nonsensical.
It’s not “obstructing” if it’s within the bounds of the law and the rules of the houses of Congress. If the people don’t like the laws and rules that allow such “obstruction,” then they should choose new legislators. Filibusters did not come out of a space pod or through a communist plot; they are a legitimate application of the Senate rules. If enough people get fed up with filibusters, then they will elect Senators who will amend the Senate rules to do away with them. To contend that filibusters were somehow sneaked in under the radar of democracy is indeed nonsensical. The same goes for other forms of “obstruction.”
It is an interesting way that you prepare for battle: alienating your fellow pro-gay-marriage, anti-war, pro-chioce liberal allies.
The fact that iso is a political ally doesn’t mean that he’s not an idiot.
September 5th, 2005 at 7:11 am
Anti-Gavin,
while I gave a link to my webpage so that everybody can know who I am,
you hide behind an anonymous nickname to call me “fool”, “idiot” and my views “nonsensical”.
Is it ok that I consider you an Anonymous Coward ?
September 5th, 2005 at 8:20 am
I appreciate that you guys are writing on the site, and that you are passionate about your views. That can make for good and meaningful discussions. I’d just like to request that we keep things civil please. Thanks.
September 5th, 2005 at 2:03 pm
Is it ok that I consider you an Anonymous Coward ?
Sure. Knock yourself out.
September 5th, 2005 at 6:31 pm
While we’re busy being civil, I wish to greet each of you, with your name!, especially Dr. Fyodor.
September 6th, 2005 at 1:27 am
I am not very much acquinted with american judicial system. But isnt it a matter of principle that the task of judges is to interpret the constitution and not to bring their own political views , be it be conseravtive or liberal , into consideration? So in this sense the judges are supposed to be politically neutral, in fact apolitical, as they are acting as referees. Then whats the point of saying what I keep hearing again and again that the american people wanted certain kind of judges when they voted for bush in 2004.
Also shouldnt there be a procedure of appointment based on merit , performance and internal evaluation, lets say with a final endorsment of president? Why is this process so much politicised in USA? Is not the judiciary supposed to be totally independent of the politics? I am sorry ,may be I dont understand the american system, but I was always having these views about any judicial system, that people can rewrite or change the constitution but even the people dont have a right to interfer in the judiciary (e.g., by appointing judges sympethetic to their political point of view). Similarly , judges dont have a right to write decisions , as if they are re writing the constituion, based on their personal political beleifs.
I must confess, all my information about american judicial appointments is based upon print and electronic media and some times the whole exercise seems quite strange to me.
September 6th, 2005 at 6:44 am
In short. Yes, judges are there to interpret, not make, law. But interpreting law (in particular, the constitution) is a subtle issue, with much ground for subjectivity. Just to give you an example; what might a right to privacy mean? Therefore, one’s opinions (often political, or social) can be extremely important.
People certainly do appoint judges sympathetic to their political (often social) point of view.
September 8th, 2005 at 9:57 am
iso. Am I to conclude from your comments that you would have advised the participants in the civil rights movement to “live with” the fact that a majority of people in the country disagreed with their views?
If you’re just trying to make a point about the unfairness of the filibuster, then I suppose an argument can be made (although for better or worse the filibuster *is* a part of our political culture). But you seem to be arguing more deeply about the role of political (or other) minorities in America.
I would submit that social change almost *never* happens at the ballot box. Most movements for social change started out as distinct political minorities. Women’s suffrage, labor rights, civil rights, marriage equality for GLBT people — none of these things were accomplished by voting in politicians to do their bidding. The victories came about because of popular struggles (or “battles”, if you will). Probably a lot of tactics of those movements could be seen as “un-democratic” I guess — civil disobedience, sit-ins, etc. In today’s parlance, they would all probably be denigrated as “special interests” trying to thwart the will of the majority.