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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)