The Daily Pulse will now appear (mostly, I miss sometimes) at My Left Wing, with cross-posting on Tuesdays to Daily Kos. For the first week or so I will also post daily to Daily Kos and MyDD, to let people know where to find it.
John Roberts is the story of the day. Basically, the thrust is all the same- highly intelligent, clearly qualified, but an unknown; therefore question intensely, but respectfully, no "Borking." Sounds about right. My concern? If we overplay our hand on this guy, who seems more like his mentor, Rehnquist, than the radicals Scalia and Thomas, we could end up with a "Constitution-in-exile" crazy with no respect for precedent.
But before I get to Roberts let me introduce a couple of other editorials. The first in today's Daily Pulse discusses the true human cost of the war in Iraq, in chilling fashion. It begins by pointing out that the policy against showing returned American remains is about far more than respect, it is about hiding the cost of the war. But then it observes that we also have a policy against counting civilian deaths, which number in the tens of thousands. If we are, as a nation, willing to go to war, we should, as a nation, face all of the consequences of our decision. Some of those consequences had little feet, and little hands, and big eyes, eyes that should haunt our national psyche for years to come.
The second explores the role of Christianity, or any religion, in public policy. It points out that religion can be used to support any, and even conflicting, goals, and should therefore probably NOT be used in the manner we see today.
The Star Ledger (Newark, New Jersey)
I have already introduced this, above, and it really does speak for itself.
The true human cost
It's U.S. policy to keep Americans from seeing photos of military caskets returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. The purported reason is to protect the privacy of the families of the dead. It's also American policy not to keep a record of how many civilian Iraqis have been killed since the U.S. invasion began in March 2003.
In both cases, the result is to sanitize the brutality of war. ...
Yesterday, a private British group called Iraq Body Count said that nearly 25,000 Iraqi civilians, who were victims, not combatants, have died violently in the past 2 1/2 years. Of those, nearly 20 percent were women and children; half the deaths were in Baghdad.
Part of determining how to go forward must include recognizing the toll the war is taking on civilian Iraqis. Part of being human is recognition that the pain of war isn't one-sided.
Letters to the Editor
The Decatur (Indiana) Daily Democrat
This starts well, pointing out that "religion" can mean different things to different people when public policy comes along. But as I read, I become suspect. The conclusion seems to be very loaded, reaching the conclusion we should NOT support public policy that aids the poor (and using a VERY bad example which is really not about aiding the poor, but about maintaining availability of needed food, farm subsidies) but SHOULD support reduction of government activity. I'm very suspicious, but I'm also very cynical. Do you really think Jesus would have voted against WIC?
Can religion, politics mix?
It is often said that polite conversation should avoid the topics of religion and politics. Growing up in my family, however, we thought those were the only two topics really worth talking about. ...
Dr. Eric Shansberg of Indiana University (New Albany) addresses this profound question in his book, "Turn Neither to the Right Nor to the Left: A Thinking Christian's Guide to Politics and Public Policy (Greenville, S.C., Alertness Books).
"Today the Religious Left focuses on using government to protect the environment and especially, to try to help the poor -- to legislate economic justice," he writes. "Meanwhile, the Religious Right is not excited about that agenda, but instead promotes the use of government to legislate social morality . . ."
Schansberg and others are beginning to outline a case that Christians should be cautious and circumspect about lobbying the state on social and economic issues. Such political activism by the church risks being divisive, detracts from the spiritual focus of the church and is a potential source of corruption as Christians succumb to the temptations for secular power. ...
Schansberg convincingly demonstrates that many government programs, putatively designed to promote the seemingly worthy goal of redistributing income to the poor and needy, in fact redistribute from the poor- and middle-classes to the rich. ...
It is not a simple matter, therefore, of choosing saintly legislators who will promise to only redistribute from the rich to the poor. ...
This can only be stemmed by limits on the scope of government activity, not by "better" representation.
Working toward that end, people of faith should examine their thinking on public-sector policies in the light of economic theory, humbly recognizing that good and reasonable people can differ. In the same vein, social scientists should be open to what religious wisdom might imply for social and economic policy.
Cecil E. Bohanon, Ph.D., an adjunct scholar of the Indiana Policy Review Foundation, teaches economics at Ball State University.
Waterbury (Connecticut) Republican-American
Roberts is basically an unknown. But, if this (conservative) paper believes, he really is a "strict constructionist" willing to interpret the Constitution "as written," he should be seated. It also takes a shot at Roe, "pulled out of this air 32 years ago." Well, it really wasn't. You might argue Griswold, upon which it was based, was pulled out of thin air, but if you did, you would clearly not have studied the history of the right of privacy, going all the way back to Brandeis' study in the Harvard Law Review in the 19th Century. Roe was not well written, but it was not well written because nobody has the stones to actually discuss the nebulous 9th Amendment, the Amendment that completely shatters the entire "strict constructionist, if it ain't there it ain't a right" theory. It says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Judge Roberts seems like a solid choice
Is John G. Roberts a moderate conservative, a la Justice Sandra Day O'Connor whom he would replace, or is he a right-wing ideologue who will serve to roll back the liberal legislating done by the U.S. Supreme Court since the days of Earl Warren? ...
There is no question the Democratic minority would delight in sidetracking the nomination if their inquiries pointed to strict constructionism guiding Judge Roberts' opinions. Their greatest concern will be Judge Roberts' attitude on "abortion rights." Those who fight vigorously to keep "abortion rights" untouchable beg the question: How can those rights exist when the Supreme Court pulled them out of thin air 32 years ago?
This was pretty much the stand taken by Judge Roberts when, as deputy solicitor general in the first Bush administration, he helped write a brief in which he held, "We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled." Democrats are bound to bombard Judge Roberts with this bit of history. But he settled that concern at his confirmation hearing for the appeals court when he said, "There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent" set by Roe vs. Wade.
If the Democrats are not fully reassured by that comment, neither are conservatives likely to be, particularly since there's been a recurring phenomenon of some appointments by Republican presidents changing their colors after taking their seats on the high court. Two current sitting justices, David H. Souter and Anthony M. Kennedy, were thought to be conservative in their legal outlooks when nominated, but their votes on cases showed them to be otherwise. Likewise Justice O'Connor was nowhere near as reliably conservative as President Reagan said when he nominated her.
The committee questioning of Judge Roberts will be critical for both sides. But if he turns out to be as advertised, Republicans should do whatever is necessary to get him confirmed.
Letters to the Editor
The Star Ledger (Newark, New Jersey)
Roberts, and anybody else, aspiring to the Supreme Court should expect tough questions. The Senate should ask them, but should do so absent the hyperbole and hatred that has marked politics lately. Fair enough. Let's find out who this guy is, and THEN give our advice and consent.
A civil debate on Roberts
Anyone aspiring to serve on the nation's high court ought to expect tough and probing questions. No one doubts that will be the case for John Roberts Jr., the federal appeals court judge nominated by President Bush to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. But not everyone is willing to hear Roberts' responses before they denounce him.
While Democrats might have selected someone else, it should come as no surprise to them, or to the nation, that Bush has offered a conservative as a candidate for the Supreme Court.
Ah, but is he conservative enough? Some of the president's critics in his own party have already worried that Roberts might not be trusted to view every case the way they would. ...
While tough questioning at his confirmation hearings will fill in a lot of blanks -- particularly about abortion rights, the role of the federal government, the legal advice he gave regarding detainees at Guantánamo -- there is a lot to like about Roberts and the approach taken by Bush in choosing him. ...
The crucial hearings that must be conducted before the Senate can offer -- or not offer -- its advice and consent on the nominee are yet to come. If the far right has its doubts about Roberts and the extreme left is disappointed, it would appear Bush has found a consensus, albeit conservative, candidate.
Letters to the Editor
Houston (Texas) Chronicle
On paper, Roberts might be as good as we could expect from Bush. He has not, to date, come out as a wild-eyed radical. And there is certainly something about the Supreme Court that makes the truly intelligent and introspective (Thomas just isn't, and Scalia is too egomaniacal to allow any idea to supercede one that happens to be hanging out in his brain) to mollify their views. I am not optimistic. I'm just not suicidal yet.
Roberts satisfies Bush's conservative base without provoking rabid opposition
Since U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor resigned July 1, speculation has focused on who would be President Bush's first nominee to the high court. Would it be another woman or a Hispanic? Would it be a hard-line, "movement" conservative or a moderate, nonideological figure?
With Bush's nomination of Judge John G. Roberts Jr., the answer is known: none of the above. ...
Both critics and supporters describe Roberts' record of briefs and opinions as thin and enigmatic, but the thrust seems clear enough. Hardly surprising, Roberts' views dovetail with the policies of George W. Bush.
Roberts ruled that the Constitution does not require police to act sensibly at all times, leaving officers free to arrest and cuff a child who eats a forbidden french fry on the subway. Roberts agreed that the administration could use military tribunals to try suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay.
Conservative supporters say Roberts is reluctant to write new law, all the while hoping he will vote to overturn the settled law regarding abortion rights established by Roe v. Wade.
Within the bounds of civility, these topics will be fair game when Roberts is questioned by the Senate Judiciary Committee. For some Americans, the hearings given Supreme Court nominees are their best exposure to constitutional history and law.
In addition to his credentials, Roberts has arithmetic on his side. The Senate contains 55 Republicans, and Roberts' solid record is likely to attract at least five conservative Democrats, such as Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. If President Bush intended to satisfy his conservative base without provoking a Democratic filibuster, he probably could not have made a better choice than Roberts.
Letters to the Editor
The Mercury News (San Jose, California)
But if Roberts is so reasonable, why are the crazies so happy? I really don't know, but I'm very suspicious. That, as well as Bush's appointment of him in the first place, is reason for probing questions from the Senate. Look, people, everybody knew they were voting for the Supreme Court in '04. If you start with the premise that we lost (and I don't, because I was in Ohio on election day, and if we didn't get screwed with voting machines or anything else that Machiavellian, we got screwed the old fashioned way, by not letting Democrats vote, but that's an argument for another time), America chose a conservative Court. We only have the right and authority to question whether we are talking conservative, or fundamental radical.
Questions for John Roberts
The re-election of President George Bush and Republican majorities in Congress guaranteed that the nation will get an unequivocal conservative for the vacancy on the Supreme Court. What the nation must be spared is a judicial activist who views the court as a ship to be wrecked, not as an institution to be revered.
Based on what's known about him, John Roberts, Bush's choice to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, would appear to be smart, intellectually honest and non-ideological. Senate Democrats and those Americans who don't want to see decades of individual rights and government-mandated protections reversed should be tentatively relieved about that. There were far worse candidates on Bush's short list. They will reappear if he gets to name another nominee. ...
That is why it is critical that senators inquire -- civilly but vigorously -- into Roberts' judicial philosophy and personal beliefs: his views about a constitutional right of privacy, the federal government's role in regulating interstate commerce and the environment, the balance between federal and states' rights, the powers of the president in wartime and the role of religion in public life. ...
Roberts would appear to be a classic establishment lawyer who would base rulings on the facts of each case, often in unexpected ways, not on his own overarching theory or predetermined outcome. But if so, why are so many religious and social conservatives, from Pat Robertson and James Dobson to Tony Perkins and Gary Bauer, profusely praising Roberts' nomination and likening him to Supreme Court activists Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia? Is it simply hyperbole to counter liberal groups' demonizing, or do they know something that the others don't?
Senators cannot rest easy until they find that answer.
Letters to the Editor
The Dayton (Ohio) Daily News
This paper says much of the same, question respectfully, but it also makes (in passing) a more interesting point. Maybe Bush just liked the guy. We should start with one basic premise, Bush is a petulant moron. It's just possible that Roberts likes the same baseball teams and the same workout schedule as Bush, so Bush thinks he "has a good heart," or some such bullshit. Also, as noted above, this is a quickie pick, and a more moderate pick that we could otherwise have expected, because it is really more about Rove than Roe.
Bush's pick deserves respectful grilling
President George W. Bush could have nominated someone to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor whom the president's critics could have objected to fiercely. Judge John G. Roberts is not that nominee. ...
Some people were absolutely certain that President Bush would pick a conservative lightning rod, which Judge Roberts is not. The president certainly hinted at that when he has said that his ideal for a justice would be in the mold of Justice Antonin Scalia.
Maybe the chemistry was just right between the president and Judge Roberts when they talked. Or maybe Mr. Bush realized that he could lose necessary Republican votes in the Senate if he nominated an ideological warrior. With the problems he has in Iraq and the difficulty he's having at home with some parts of his domestic agenda, there is a limit to how many battles he can take up. ...
Interest groups on the left and right now are doing what they do so well -- trying to get their people pumped up in support or opposition. ...
Because Justice O'Connor held such a pivotal position on the court, Judge Roberts knows he's in for intense questioning. That's fair. He is just 50, and he's seeking a lifetime appointment on a nine-member court that makes momentous and long-standing decisions. Nobody should get that job without having to jump through demanding hoops.
But how his confirmation hearing is handled matters. The inquiry should be civil, probing and thorough. Judge Roberts should have to show how he thinks, but not commit to how he'd decide cases.
Letters to the Editor
St. Petersburg (Florida) Times
This paper does point out that while Roberts would not be the 5th vote on Roe, he could be the 5th vote on important federalism issues, especially including the environment. There is a lot more than abortion at stake here, what is at stake is the vision of America as a 21st century nation, or a 19th century federation of states. As Europe moves together to the future, are we moving back to the past?
Judging John Roberts
With the nomination of appellate Judge John Roberts Jr. as the replacement for retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, President Bush has fulfilled his promise to appoint a conservative jurist who is expected to pull the U.S. Supreme Court to the right. Just how far to the right is likely to be the central question of his confirmation hearings. ...
Still, Roberts' record both as a judge on the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals and in the Justice Department indicate a strong conservative approach to the law. There is some concern that he will regularly side with Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice William Rehnquist, whom Roberts clerked for at one time, on key issues, thereby shifting the court's balance.
During the confirmation process, the Senate must determine whether Roberts, who has left a thin paper trail for Democrats to scrutinize, will approach cases with an open mind or a political agenda. There are those who contend the Senate has a narrow and crimped role in judicial confirmations. As long as the nominee has the legal experience, good standing and temperament for the position, some say, there should be no further inquiry. We don't agree. The Constitution grants the Senate an "advice and consent" role, asking it to scrutinize the president's pick to ensure his addition to the court will be in the national interest. Roberts is only 50 years old and could potentially influence the direction of constitutional jurisprudence for the next 30 years - long past a Bush presidency. The Senate's role should not be relegated to that of a rubber stamp. ...
Roberts, however, would not be the swing vote needed to overturn Roe, since Justice Anthony Kennedy has joined the four liberals on the court to uphold the 1973 ruling.
Senators should instead focus their attention on Roberts' views on federalism. In a troubling dissent in a case involving the Endangered Species Act, Roberts strongly suggested that new limits should be imposed on Congress' ability to protect endangered species on private property. If Roberts turns out to be an activist on states' rights issues, he could seek to overturn longstanding federal environmental protections, health and safety standards and labor rights.
To Bush's credit, he chose a nominee who was not as provocative as some others being suggested. Democratic senators have essentially acknowledged the president's restraint by being duly respectful since the announcement. But that doesn't mean Roberts should have a free ride into one of the most powerful seats in the country. Roberts should be confirmed if he is shown to be a mainstream conservative thinker who will judge cases fairly. To find that out, the confirmation process should be deliberate, dignified and thorough, with as much candor from the nominee as possible.
Letters to the Editor