Scott Spiegel

Subscribe


Archive for May, 2009

Party of Warmongers Waves White Lace Hankie

May 31, 2009 By: Scott Spiegel Category: Supreme Court

How did the Republican Party’s approach to dealing with objectionable Supreme Court nominees come to resemble the Democrats’ strategy for the war on terror: scorn anyone who says anything critical of the opposition and settle for second-class citizen status, dhimmitude-style?  Are Republicans trying to balance Obama’s cooption of Bush’s war policy to restore some kind of harmony in the universe?

Over the past week, we’ve been treated by Republicans to a range of subtle and nuanced political stratagems for dealing with the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, including: shut your mouth, don’t speak, zip your lip, don’t make waves, and while you’re at it, don’t say anything.  This, from the party of “hawks” who bravely fought and won the Civil War, the Cold War, and the Battle of Chad.

Let’s examine the reasons offered by Republican turncoats why we should not tender a whisper against the Sotomayor nomination:

It’s mean-spirited. Well, Democrats successfully mobilized before Reagan’s fourth Supreme Court nomination, Robert Bork, savagely vowing to form a “phalanx of opposition” against anyone at all Reagan deigned to choose.  Democrats tried to destroy George W. Bush appointees John Roberts and Samuel Alito but failed only because they lacked the votes (at least they managed to invade Roberts’ family’s privacy and make Samuel Alito’s wife cry!).  The Republicans have not opposed a Supreme Court nominee by a Democratic president since 1968.  I think that at least qualifies as “sporting.”

It’s immature. In the Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan scolds Republicans for not “play[ing] grown-up” and calls those who want to fight against Sotomayor’s nomination “idiots” who refuse to “think” or “dress the part.”  Let’s see: Five members of the Supreme Court have the power to make sweeping, life-or-death decisions that affect hundreds of millions of Americans and countless future generations.  I think raising forceful objections to Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy and temperament comes down more on the adult side than “She has cooties!”

The Republicans will lose independent voters. Republicans have most often converted independent voters and won elections when they have stuck to the party’s principles rather than offering a watered-down version of the Democratic party line, as in November 2008.  So remind me: How will consistently standing up and making a compelling case for their views cause Republicans to lose voters who are looking for a party that can offer consistent, compelling views?

The Republicans will lose political capital. Obama’s political goodwill toward Republicans began and ended with inviting John McCain to the White House for bean dip on Super Bowl night.  Congressional Democrats’ political goodwill toward Republicans has yet to materialize, and never will until Republicans regain both houses and Democrats are on the defensive again.

Sotomayor is not that liberal. Just as Obama is the most leftist president we’ve ever had, Sotomayor would be the most leftist justice on the current Court, even more of a liberal activist than Ginsburg, Breyer, and Stevens, who seem like Daughters of the American Revolution in comparison.

Sotomayor won’t change the balance of power on the Court. Both Souter and Sotomayor are liberal on social issues, but they are not both liberal on economic issues.  Souter is no Steve Forbes, but Sotomayor’s ruling in the shocking Port Chester “eminent domain” private property grab places her ideologically to the left of Marx.

Republicans will lose the Hispanic vote. Putting aside the condescending “voting bloc” mentality this ascribes to Latinos, it should be noted that Democrats weren’t worried about losing Hispanic votes when they opposed Bush’s nomination of Miguel Estrada to the D.C. Court of Appeals in 2002—indeed, they had enough stomach for the fight to wage seven filibusters against bringing him to a vote.  If Republicans are concerned about losing Hispanic votes, I suggest they offer the thoroughly vetted Estrada as their preferred nominee.

Sotomayor has an impressive resume. Newsflash: So do a lot of people!  I would wager that the number of potential nominees who went to top-tier undergraduate and law schools and managed to get a few employers and coworkers to say nice things about them numbers—oh, at least two or three.  Also, Sotomayor’s supporters defend against the charge that a majority of her appeals court decisions were overruled by the Supreme Court by stating that such cases are difficult—yet we are now expected to support her addition to the same team of justices who are capable of correcting the types of rulings she screwed up.  Finally, as Andrew McCarthy points out, Sotomayor’s ravings about the superior decision-making ability of certain races and genders doesn’t even quality her to be on a jury, let alone the Supreme Court.

Her confirmation is inevitable. The Supreme Court will be ruling on the Ricci v. Destefano firefighter discrimination case in June, weeks before Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings.  It is expected that the Court will overturn the decision Sotomayor supported, thus further energizing opponents of legalized racism (i.e., “Americans”).  Republicans should also remind the nation that Obama hasn’t demonstrated the most thorough vetting acumen in his first few months in office, having nominated a “phalanx” (if you will) of tax cheats and ethically challenged miscreants to Cabinet and other posts.

How about this strategy for dealing with the current nominee?  I say that even if Sotomayor’s resume is as long as the phonebook; even if someone makes a persuasive case that she’s not the most liberal justice in the world; even if Republicans are accused of being mean-spirited and immature; even if we lose a few wishy-washy independents, have a few Hispanics look at us askance, and ruffle a few Democratic feathers; and even if it’s not 100% certain that her confirmation can be stopped; the Republican party should fight this nominee kicking and screaming, hammering home the message about her record until her supporters get tired of brushing it under the rug, until we’ve made our point to the American public.

And they say the Republican Party doesn’t have any fighting spirit left.

As Featured On EzineArticles

AP: Oklahoma Druggist Arrested for Killing Holdup Man

May 30, 2009 By: Scott Spiegel Category: News Links

“If convicted, Ersland could be sentenced to life in prison with or without parole, or receive the death penalty.”

Meanwhile, Black Panthers who threatened and intimidated voters with nightsticks at polling places on Election Day go free.

http://tinyurl.com/ktowhq

Jake Tapper: Stimulus Overhype?

May 29, 2009 By: Scott Spiegel Category: News Links

“[T]he first one of the projects featured in ‘100 Days, 100 Projects’  doesn’t seem to withstand the scrutiny of its description…

“‘Using $27 million of Recovery Act funding, a public housing development in Washington, D.C., the Regency House, has undergone a green retrofit…’

“In reality, the work done on the Regency House that was funded by the stimulus package amounted to $59,000 in parts and labor, according to Dena Michaelson, director of public affairs for the Washington DC Housing Authority…

“The response of the White House to questions about the claim in the book evoked a critique of journalists.”

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/05/stimulus-overhy.html

NewsBusters: ABC Offers Skeptical Take on Obama’s Stimulus Claims; CBS, NBC Uncritical

May 29, 2009 By: Scott Spiegel Category: News Links

Thank God for Jake Tapper!

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2009/05/29/abc-offers-skeptical-take-obama-stimulus-claims-cbs-nbc-ignore

Andrew McCarthy: Forget Whether She Qualifies as a “Racist.” Would Judge Sotomayor Qualify as a Juror?

May 29, 2009 By: Scott Spiegel Category: News Links

“Let’s say she forthrightly explained to the court during the voir dire (the jury-selection phase of a case) that she believed a wise Latina makes better judgments than a white male; that she doubts it is actually possible to ‘transcend [one's] personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law’; and that there are ‘basic differences’ in the way people ‘of color’ exercise ‘logic and reasoning.’ If, upon hearing that, would it not be reasonable for a lawyer for one (or both) of the parties to ask the court to excuse her for cause?”

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWRkYThkNDUzN2ZhOTUwOTEyMjIyZGQ2MjcxMzBmMDY=

Washington Times: The Franchise for Felons – Sotomayor Would Let Prisoners Vote

May 29, 2009 By: Scott Spiegel Category: News Links

How about a little ‘empathy’ for the victims of the crimes prisoners committed?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/the-franchise-for-felons/

NYT: Organic Dairies Watch the Good Times Turn Bad

May 28, 2009 By: Scott Spiegel Category: News Links

“When Ken Preston went organic on his dairy farm here in 2005, he figured that doing so would guarantee him what had long been elusive: a stable, high price for the milk from his cows…

“But soon the price of organic feed shot up. Then the recession hit, and families looking to save on groceries found organic milk easy to do without. Ultimately the conglomerate, with a glut of product, said it would not renew his contract next month, leaving him with nowhere to sell his milk…

“Organic Valley, a nationwide cooperative, told Maine organic dairy farmers last month that its sales growth had dropped to near zero from about 20 percent six months ago…

“In an effort to provide a safety net, Vermont last month expanded a low-interest loan program for farmers.

“While most conventional farmers are accustomed to withstanding price volatility, ‘organic hasn’t weathered this kind of storm,’ said Mr. Allbee, the state’s agriculture secretary. Farmers are finding that organic food is not for every consumer, he said, ‘and doesn’t guarantee that you will have a market forever.’”

Now what lesson do you suppose automakers could draw from this sad, self-destructive story?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/us/29dairy.html?hp

WSJ: Millionaires Go Missing – Maryland’s Fleeced Taxpayers Fight Back

May 28, 2009 By: Scott Spiegel Category: News Links

“The Maryland state revenue office says it’s ‘way too early’ to tell how many millionaires moved out of the state when the tax rates rose. But no one disputes that some rich filers did leave. It’s easier than the redistributionists think. Christopher Summers, president of the Maryland Public Policy Institute, notes: ‘Marylanders with high incomes typically own second homes in tax friendlier states like Florida, Delaware, South Carolina and Virginia. So it’s easy for them to change their residency.’

“All of this means that the burden of paying for bloated government in Annapolis will fall on the middle class.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124329282377252471.html

Spanish Report: ‘Green Jobs’ Agenda Destroys Net Jobs

May 27, 2009 By: Scott Spiegel Category: News Links

“[I]n March, one of Spain’s leading universities, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, published an authoritative study ‘of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources.’ The report pointed out: ‘This study is important for several reasons. First is that the Spanish experience is considered a leading example to be followed by many policy advocates and politicians. This study marks the very first time a critical analysis of the actual performance and impact has been made. Most important, it demonstrates that the Spanish/EU-style “green jobs” agenda now being promoted in the U.S. in fact destroys jobs, detailing this in terms of jobs destroyed per job created.’

“The central finding of the study is that — treating the data optimistically — for every renewable-energy job that the government finances, ‘Spain’s experience reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created.’”

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_tony_blankley/economic_reality_of_5_million_green_jobs

Sotomayor’s Support for Shocking Port Chester Eminent Domain Private Property Grab

May 27, 2009 By: Scott Spiegel Category: News Links

“In 2003, property owners Bart Didden and Dominick Bologna approached Wasser for permission to build a CVS pharmacy on land they own inside the zone. His response: Either pay me $800,000 or give me a 50% partnership interest in the CVS project. Wasser threatened to have the local government condemn the land if his demands weren’t met. When the owners refused to oblige, their property was condemned the next day…

“Sotomayor’s endorsement of this ruling is a strong sign that she has little or interest in protecting constitutional property rights. Her appointment is likely to exacerbate the second-class status of property rights in the Court’s jurisprudence.”

http://volokh.com/posts/1243364120.shtml