I know, I know. I should just let it rest. But Bush#43 wedges his foot in his mouth all the time, and tonight, he did it whilst standing up....what a foot feat!! (or is that foot fault?!?)
The State of the Union is pure political theater, and despite Josh Marshall's lack of desire to watch it, I'm continually amazed by the pomp and circumstance.
And like every senator/congressman in sight, I've got some commentary:
1) Where was Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg? And did anybody ask Sandra Day O'Connor if she might like to come? I mean, she's been retired for less than 12 hours, and it seemed rather uncivilized to swear Alito in all in a rush just so he could swipe her front row seat. I don't know, maybe she was glad she didn't have to come and be all smiles, but I'd have at least asked, ya know? [Update: CNN reported today that she didn't show at Alito's swearing in, either. Anybody know why?]
2) The Democratic ovation to the line about Congress not passing social security reform was a classic blindside. Bob Schieffer lobbed a softball in his after speech comments by saying that Bush#43 lured them into a trap by pointing out the problems left behind without reform, but it was funnier than that. Bush knew he'd been tagged.
3) The POTUS' defense of his domestic surveillance program left me seething. How on earth can we accept warrantless wiretaps? If it's okay for Uncle Sam to listen into phone calls placed by Americans, whether international or across the street, then we've lost the freedoms that make this America. It's right there in the Constitution. See U.S. CONST. amends. I, IV.
George Bush is totally, completely wrong on this. Congress established and funded a specialized FISA court to deal with the sensitive issues and grant warrants without notifying the suspect/victim...Bush#43 ignored the process laid out in the federal law and is squashing civil liberties.
Someone needs to ratchet him down a notch on wiretaps, and I hope it's Arlen Specter, who has scheduled hearings on the subject in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The land of the free cannot be a land where the government listens in. There are big, bad violations of freedoms of speech and assembly here, and fearmongering simply cannot justify the impact of such actions on the First Amendment rights of U.S. citizens.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Monday, January 30, 2006
A Day in the Life of G. Spinach
Today gets a 9.2 out of 10. Why?
First, to steal a page from Bliss, I've got a litigation glory tale:
As a trusts & estates lawyer, I don't do many depositions, but I had one today in a contested year's support case (in Georgia, we reject the idea of the spousal elective share, apparently on the grounds that 12 months is plenty of time for a surviving spouse to get themselves hooked up with a new sugar daddy, or moolah mama, whichever. The deal is, you can usually claim 12 month's expenses from an spouse's estate).
So Opposing Counsel serves me 37 days ago with interrogatories and a notice to depose my client today. And the interrogatories contain very clear instructions that responses shall be served within 45 days after service (the usual rule here is 30 days + 3 for mailing). So when he shows up, the conversation goes something like this:
OC: Did you get my interrogatories?
GS: Yes.
OC: And you haven't answered them yet?'
GS: They're not due yet.
OC: How do you figure?
GS: They were served on December 22nd...
OC: And today's January 30th, right?
GS: Yes, and responses are due 45 days after that, which is sometime next week.
OC: The rule is 30 days!
GS: Let's take a look, shall we?
[paper rustling]
GS: Right here, in your interrogatories, you say 45 days.
OC: Well, it does say 45, doesn't it? [getting red]
GS: [innocently] You'll get your answers next week.
Second, Igots over at Color of Law has added me to the blogroll. Very nice!
So why not a perfect 10? Well, that's a story for another post.
First, to steal a page from Bliss, I've got a litigation glory tale:
As a trusts & estates lawyer, I don't do many depositions, but I had one today in a contested year's support case (in Georgia, we reject the idea of the spousal elective share, apparently on the grounds that 12 months is plenty of time for a surviving spouse to get themselves hooked up with a new sugar daddy, or moolah mama, whichever. The deal is, you can usually claim 12 month's expenses from an spouse's estate).
So Opposing Counsel serves me 37 days ago with interrogatories and a notice to depose my client today. And the interrogatories contain very clear instructions that responses shall be served within 45 days after service (the usual rule here is 30 days + 3 for mailing). So when he shows up, the conversation goes something like this:
OC: Did you get my interrogatories?
GS: Yes.
OC: And you haven't answered them yet?'
GS: They're not due yet.
OC: How do you figure?
GS: They were served on December 22nd...
OC: And today's January 30th, right?
GS: Yes, and responses are due 45 days after that, which is sometime next week.
OC: The rule is 30 days!
GS: Let's take a look, shall we?
[paper rustling]
GS: Right here, in your interrogatories, you say 45 days.
OC: Well, it does say 45, doesn't it? [getting red]
GS: [innocently] You'll get your answers next week.
Second, Igots over at Color of Law has added me to the blogroll. Very nice!
So why not a perfect 10? Well, that's a story for another post.
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Obama gets it!
Participating in the Sunday roundup of politico-TV, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) apparently threw in his $0.02 on the idea of filibustering the nomination of Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court.
I didn't see the segment, but an AP article is posted here at Yahoo! News, confirming the rumor reported here by Buzzflash.
Obama is correct when he says that Alito is "contrary to core American values, not just liberal values." But more importantly, Obama pointed out that the best way to ensure that judges mirroring the values held by the blue states is to elect Presidents and Senators who believe them also. This is exactly the point: John Kerry lost his filibuster call on Alito in November of 2004, when by a scant majority in Ohio, he lost the White House to Bush#43.
The answer here is not to fight the battles we know we'll lose, but to look to the battles we can win. In last week's Kiplinger Tax Letter (pricey subscription required), the analysts highlighted one version of a proposed Democratic tax reform package. Seems that Bush#43 didn't like what his tax reform panel had to say, and has decided to let it slide for a while...can't imagine why?
Cost overruns in Iraq, and sizable federal subsidies after Katrina are turning his deficits into three-headed fire-breathing dragons.
But back to the Democratic ideals: let's take the reform bill out and let it shine in the light of day. Put it on the test track, and see how it runs. I kind of like the idea of beating Bush on the tax question...
---
And on a tangent, I'd just like to congratulate Alan Greenspan on a great job at the helm of the Federal Reserve. He's been running the show since I was in middle school, and he's done an amazing job. Thanks, Alan, for giving us "Irrational Exuberance," a phrase so entwined into American culture that a modern composer (arggh, can't find his name!) recently stole it to title a piece of contemporary classical music that debuted at the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra last fall.
So now we turn to Ben Bernanke, a first rate economist, and small-town native of the Carolinas. I wish him the best of luck, and look forward to his sound bites on N.P.R.
I didn't see the segment, but an AP article is posted here at Yahoo! News, confirming the rumor reported here by Buzzflash.
Obama is correct when he says that Alito is "contrary to core American values, not just liberal values." But more importantly, Obama pointed out that the best way to ensure that judges mirroring the values held by the blue states is to elect Presidents and Senators who believe them also. This is exactly the point: John Kerry lost his filibuster call on Alito in November of 2004, when by a scant majority in Ohio, he lost the White House to Bush#43.
The answer here is not to fight the battles we know we'll lose, but to look to the battles we can win. In last week's Kiplinger Tax Letter (pricey subscription required), the analysts highlighted one version of a proposed Democratic tax reform package. Seems that Bush#43 didn't like what his tax reform panel had to say, and has decided to let it slide for a while...can't imagine why?
Cost overruns in Iraq, and sizable federal subsidies after Katrina are turning his deficits into three-headed fire-breathing dragons.
But back to the Democratic ideals: let's take the reform bill out and let it shine in the light of day. Put it on the test track, and see how it runs. I kind of like the idea of beating Bush on the tax question...
---
And on a tangent, I'd just like to congratulate Alan Greenspan on a great job at the helm of the Federal Reserve. He's been running the show since I was in middle school, and he's done an amazing job. Thanks, Alan, for giving us "Irrational Exuberance," a phrase so entwined into American culture that a modern composer (arggh, can't find his name!) recently stole it to title a piece of contemporary classical music that debuted at the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra last fall.
So now we turn to Ben Bernanke, a first rate economist, and small-town native of the Carolinas. I wish him the best of luck, and look forward to his sound bites on N.P.R.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Fili-bloopers
Well, it's pretty clear that John Kerry's staff doesn't read this blog. If so, maybe they'd have thought twice about his decision today to lead a filibuster against Alito's confirmation.
Kerry is trying hard to keep himself in the hearts and minds of America's Democrats. It's fine with me that he's using his status as a 'just-barely-short' Presidential candidate and a U.S. Senator to steer Congressional policy, but I can't imagine that a filibuster against Alito will succeed. It may instead threaten the Republicans into exercising the 'nuclear' option of changing the Rules of the Senate to prevent filibusters of judicial nominees, and that will make future nominees who are genuinely unqualified (Bork, for example) impossible to deter.
Alito is conservative, yes. More so than Harriet Miers ever dreamed of being. And Alito's going to shift the Court to the right. Okay. But he's smart, cordial, and his opinions are clear. So says the ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. In 50 or 100 years, law students will be reading his opinions and shaping their views of what the word "constitutional" means. And after viewing his hearings, I'm confident that there will be opinions in which he rules against the government. Alito recognizes the difference between an advocate and an arbiter. I think he'll choose to be the latter.
I recognize that Democrats are crying out for a leader, and we need one, that's for sure. But Kerry can't win here. Let's focus instead on the environment, education, and civil rights. Let's work on developing a corollary to the "Contract for America" that spells out Democratic ideals. Let's rally around principles and not people. Show me a leader that puts out a comprehensive party platform, and I'll carry the flag for votes.
Kerry is trying hard to keep himself in the hearts and minds of America's Democrats. It's fine with me that he's using his status as a 'just-barely-short' Presidential candidate and a U.S. Senator to steer Congressional policy, but I can't imagine that a filibuster against Alito will succeed. It may instead threaten the Republicans into exercising the 'nuclear' option of changing the Rules of the Senate to prevent filibusters of judicial nominees, and that will make future nominees who are genuinely unqualified (Bork, for example) impossible to deter.
Alito is conservative, yes. More so than Harriet Miers ever dreamed of being. And Alito's going to shift the Court to the right. Okay. But he's smart, cordial, and his opinions are clear. So says the ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. In 50 or 100 years, law students will be reading his opinions and shaping their views of what the word "constitutional" means. And after viewing his hearings, I'm confident that there will be opinions in which he rules against the government. Alito recognizes the difference between an advocate and an arbiter. I think he'll choose to be the latter.
I recognize that Democrats are crying out for a leader, and we need one, that's for sure. But Kerry can't win here. Let's focus instead on the environment, education, and civil rights. Let's work on developing a corollary to the "Contract for America" that spells out Democratic ideals. Let's rally around principles and not people. Show me a leader that puts out a comprehensive party platform, and I'll carry the flag for votes.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
The Senate Sanitarium
The Senate Judiciary Committe voted today along party lines (10 yeas, 8 nays) to send Samuel Alito's nomination to be Associate Justice to the floor. This called for a C-SPAN fix!
Sen. Leahy (D-VT) did a pretty good job of stating his case: his tone was that Alito defers too much to the executive branch of gov't....Alito earned his stripes fighting for the Reagan administration, and while you can take a boy out of the country.....
Leahy's statement appears on his website here.
Sen. Hatch (R-UT) did a pretty good job of explaining his vote, too, by repeating that Alito is well-qualified and has logical reasons for his rulings. Hatch referred to Ginsburg and Breyer as justices who were too dang liberal for his taste, but got his vote.
Sen. Biden, however, went over the edge (not the first time in these hearings), complaining about how Alito refuses to punish police officers for searching a 10 year-old girl... I haven't gone back to check the transcripts, but I remember Alito's answers relating to that case being something like this: if I stopped the police from searching kids in a crime scene, then I'd be sending a message to criminals that exploiting kids as messengers or drug-runners is okay, and that would be worse for kids. Posner would be proud; Alito here looks at the consequences of his decisions, and I've got to respect that.
I didn't get to hear all of the senators' statements, but I get the feeling that these votes weren't cast with the American public (or the future of confirmation hearings) in mind (oh, how naive you must be, G. Spinach!).
---
Josh Marshall, who writes the Talking Points Memo, had this post up today arguing against a Hillary Clinton run for President in 2008. I agree wholeheartedly. FLOTUS #42 has too much history as an insider (Whitewater hasn't faded from memory yet), and as much as I'd like to see a woman president, I'd vote Liddy Dole over Hillary most days of the week.
My eyes are on Bill Richardson. He's got the foreign policy background and the populist stance to make a go of it. We shall see; we shall see.
Sen. Leahy (D-VT) did a pretty good job of stating his case: his tone was that Alito defers too much to the executive branch of gov't....Alito earned his stripes fighting for the Reagan administration, and while you can take a boy out of the country.....
Leahy's statement appears on his website here.
Sen. Hatch (R-UT) did a pretty good job of explaining his vote, too, by repeating that Alito is well-qualified and has logical reasons for his rulings. Hatch referred to Ginsburg and Breyer as justices who were too dang liberal for his taste, but got his vote.
Sen. Biden, however, went over the edge (not the first time in these hearings), complaining about how Alito refuses to punish police officers for searching a 10 year-old girl... I haven't gone back to check the transcripts, but I remember Alito's answers relating to that case being something like this: if I stopped the police from searching kids in a crime scene, then I'd be sending a message to criminals that exploiting kids as messengers or drug-runners is okay, and that would be worse for kids. Posner would be proud; Alito here looks at the consequences of his decisions, and I've got to respect that.
I didn't get to hear all of the senators' statements, but I get the feeling that these votes weren't cast with the American public (or the future of confirmation hearings) in mind (oh, how naive you must be, G. Spinach!).
---
Josh Marshall, who writes the Talking Points Memo, had this post up today arguing against a Hillary Clinton run for President in 2008. I agree wholeheartedly. FLOTUS #42 has too much history as an insider (Whitewater hasn't faded from memory yet), and as much as I'd like to see a woman president, I'd vote Liddy Dole over Hillary most days of the week.
My eyes are on Bill Richardson. He's got the foreign policy background and the populist stance to make a go of it. We shall see; we shall see.
Sunday, January 22, 2006
One-ten. One-ten. Do I hear One-eleven?
I've been quiet for about a week, lurking around some, but mostly watching too much of the Barrett-Jackson car auction. Hypnotic stuff, though I couldn't afford much more than this '53 Beetle. What this thing needs is some racing stripes, and a Lindsey Lohan endorsement!
Readers of this blog also know that I'm a regular viewer of Underneath Their Robes. Howard Bashman over at How Appealing has a note directing his readers to this NY Times article with an interview with the creator of Article III Groupie. Slick blog success story, though I wouldn't have wanted to be in A3G's shoes when he/she was meeting his/her boss to discuss things after the "unveiling."
Anyhow, the Alito vote will be coming up in the Senate shortly, and I hope the Democrats don't make fools of themselves trying to oppose the confirmation. The left's best efforts should be put toward securing a majority vote in the Senate after the '06 midterms, and I don't see a leader from the Democratic side...Harry Reid was my guy until he went a little overboard on personal attacks and then backed up with this apology. IMHO, he just doesn't have his act together.
FLOTUS #42 (a/k/a Hillary R. Clinton) seems to be making waves, but I read "It Takes a Village" and it seemed too phony to be useful. We need another Democratic leader in the mold of Sam Nunn...if only Max Cleland were more of a household name in Des Moines (sigh!).
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
When Law and Politics Collide
Maybe law school corrupted me...I remember being awestruck with the knowledge and ability demonstrated by the senators and candidates during confirmation hearings in the past.
This week, however, I've recognized the names of about 2/3 of the cases cited by Judge Alito, and could have rewritten about half the questions from senators so people could actually understand them.
I'm ashamed of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Chairman Specter, Orrin Hatch, and Lindsey Graham spend more time talking about how Alito's critics are full of hoo-hah than they spend talking with the candidate before them...and Senator Kennedy isn't asking questions because he wants to know the answer.
Alito's not my kind of guy...he leans to the right, but I've decided that despite his personal politics, he's got a decent respect for judicial restraint, and is certainly capable of holding his own on the Court. I don't think I'll be watching any more of the hearing replays...put him on the Court and let Sandra Day O'Connor do what she asked to do more than seven months ago: retire.
This week, however, I've recognized the names of about 2/3 of the cases cited by Judge Alito, and could have rewritten about half the questions from senators so people could actually understand them.
I'm ashamed of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Chairman Specter, Orrin Hatch, and Lindsey Graham spend more time talking about how Alito's critics are full of hoo-hah than they spend talking with the candidate before them...and Senator Kennedy isn't asking questions because he wants to know the answer.
Alito's not my kind of guy...he leans to the right, but I've decided that despite his personal politics, he's got a decent respect for judicial restraint, and is certainly capable of holding his own on the Court. I don't think I'll be watching any more of the hearing replays...put him on the Court and let Sandra Day O'Connor do what she asked to do more than seven months ago: retire.
Monday, January 09, 2006
Sam's Story
After 13 hours at the office, I came home to watch some C-SPAN reruns of the first day of Judge Samuel Alito's confirmation hearing, and look for some blog material. I wasn't disappointed.
I missed Senator Kennedy's reputed antics, but I did catch Senators Brownback and Coburn spin their single-issue stories, arguing that abortion is the only issue before the Court worth talking about (or basing one's vote on).
I fear that their laser-beam focus is sorely misplaced, as the Supreme Court hears hundreds of cases, each fraught with implications and lasting consequences. So many other important Constitutional issues come before the Court: First Amendment freedoms; Fourth Amendment protections from unreasonable searches; Fourteenth Amendment restrictions on state legislatures pushing the due process envelope. Bush 43 has claimed there is no litmus test, but if the Republican senators from Oklahoma and Kansas are any indication, it looks to be the sole criterion.
Judge Alito himself came across with little fanfare in his opening statement. Nothing surprised me, except perhaps his reference near the end of his speech that when he was sworn in as a Judge for the 3d Circuit Court of Appeals, that he "placed [his] hand on the Bible." Is that still done? Did he really do that? Isn't raising one's right hand enough? And how does that practice stand up against the current analysis required to review statues under the Establishment Clause? How about putting your hand on the tax code: equally mysterious, and nearly as authoritative.
Last but not least, props go out to Christine Todd Whitman (despite the '-R' after her name). Her words were clear, and her recommendations sound. She did a much better job than Sen. Lautenberg in introducing the candidate and persuading the Judiciary Committee to see and respect her position. If only the Senators were paying attention...
I missed Senator Kennedy's reputed antics, but I did catch Senators Brownback and Coburn spin their single-issue stories, arguing that abortion is the only issue before the Court worth talking about (or basing one's vote on).
I fear that their laser-beam focus is sorely misplaced, as the Supreme Court hears hundreds of cases, each fraught with implications and lasting consequences. So many other important Constitutional issues come before the Court: First Amendment freedoms; Fourth Amendment protections from unreasonable searches; Fourteenth Amendment restrictions on state legislatures pushing the due process envelope. Bush 43 has claimed there is no litmus test, but if the Republican senators from Oklahoma and Kansas are any indication, it looks to be the sole criterion.
Judge Alito himself came across with little fanfare in his opening statement. Nothing surprised me, except perhaps his reference near the end of his speech that when he was sworn in as a Judge for the 3d Circuit Court of Appeals, that he "placed [his] hand on the Bible." Is that still done? Did he really do that? Isn't raising one's right hand enough? And how does that practice stand up against the current analysis required to review statues under the Establishment Clause? How about putting your hand on the tax code: equally mysterious, and nearly as authoritative.
Last but not least, props go out to Christine Todd Whitman (despite the '-R' after her name). Her words were clear, and her recommendations sound. She did a much better job than Sen. Lautenberg in introducing the candidate and persuading the Judiciary Committee to see and respect her position. If only the Senators were paying attention...
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
A fine day in Spinachland
It's a great day because the latest issue of The Green Bag arrived in the mailbox. I'm such a periodicals junkie! Three quick highlights:
1) It reminded me to post the picture of the SCOTUS bobblehead collection slowly forming in my office (the googling monkey on the left is an unofficial "wobble-on" representing Chief Justice John Roberts until his bobblehead is professionally designed).
2) The poem by James Rosenbaum (at 9 Green Bag 2d 13) detailing the woes of the new 'pick-up-your-own-darn-doll' policy reminded me of my own special purpose road trip.
3) Vikram Amar and Alan Brownstein's article titled "Academic Freedom" cited a 1998 Colorado Supreme Court case against a high school English teacher of mine who (according to the court) crossed the line in bucking the school administration...the bummer of that whole thing was that the push to punish him had so little to do with his conduct with students, and so much more with his desire to inspire debate among his colleagues. A good man shot down without cause, IMHO. See 960 P.2d 695 (Colo. 1998) (sorry, free link unavailable).
------
And I'm very glad to see the return of A3G and his/her blog: Underneath Their Robes.
Welcome back, Article III Groupie! While you were gone, you missed a SCOTUS rockslide. And we're sorry you'll be AWOL during Samuel Alito's confirmation hearings. You'll miss a good show.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)