Hey kids, let's talk about the Supreme Court! Or, if you're feeling *saucy,* "the SCOTUS!"
So, Bush nominated Alito. What can I say? He's certainly not the guy I would have picked. The abortion issue raises some real questions, and apparently he believes in a pretty traditional definition of marriage. That said, he does have a reputation for being a smart, thoughtful guy. Also, while politically a jerk, he is generally not considered, ya know, a dick (*courgh*Scalia*cough*). In the end, he is not an embarrassing chioce.
Alito is distressting, but we could be cynical and say that courts don't really do much anyway. The Warren court is a bit of a historical aberration, and even then - what did their landmark cases do? Brown v. Board doesn't matter for years, until Ike makes it happen. Abortion was legal in like 35 states by the time Row vs. Wade rolls around. But we're really venturing out of my territory now - I'm neither a lawyer or an scholar of the courts. So, it could be that our attitude about the courts is skewed by this aberration. Again, this doesn't make it all OK. But this is the perogative of the President. And it could certainly be *worse* (to come back to it: at least this guy is *qualified*).
Well, yea. However, I still think that Democrats should fight this. I'm not talking filibuster or anything. That will just leave a bad taste that will come back to bite them in the ass the next time a Democratic president has to make appointments. Rather, the Republican party is a bit woozy right now: Iraq continues to go badly, people are pissed about torture & secret prisons, DeLay & Libby are getting indicted, people are still pissed about the hurricanes, and then we have Harriet Miers. Democrats made a nice, cute little move with that secret session to raise the issue of moving along the investiation into the Iraq war. Making a stink about Alito, challenging him and the Republican Party, is a good way to build strenght and keep the president (and his party) "on the ropes" so to speak.
But with all that, it's damn time for the Democrats to find something to talk about. The Republicans have screwed up quite a bit in the past few months, and that's going to hurt them. Gaffes can cost elections, and they send signals to voters. But, Democrats need a strategy beyond "the other guys SUCK ASS." That's a bit too much like their current strategy of "RepublicanLITE." Ultimately, you're just defined against the other party - which just underscores how organized and energetic the other fellow is.
It's distressing because there are themes the Democrats could pick up on. Bill Clinton had this famous slogan: The Man from Hope. I love that. The Democrats need to space themselves as the champions of choice, as visionaries looking to a new future. Democrats need to show us that we can move beyond, to some new *space* where we are united as one country, at peace with the world. They need to sell us a story of prosperity, where we all work together, and help each other to succeed. It's a story about community, friendship, and prosperity. It's empowerment, choice, and freedom. They need to turn out a *positive* story, and policy to back it up (even if it doesn't always pass - they need to send us *signals* of what they would do if they could).
Democrats could win big in '06 and '08. There are races paring up in Ohio and Virgina, for example, that are tight. The VA race is tighter than it should be ... but still. Similarly, Illinois Republicans are still in shambles. There is a space here for a real move.
But, it's going to depend on who runs - on who the party is going to be. You want to know who the party should not be? It should not be Hillary Clinton. Not because she's a woman or a liberal or a carpetbagger ... but because, well, what has Hillary done? Really? I mean, she's all right be me. But man, it's like Hillary gets to run for President because it's her "turn" or something. I'm not sure she has the big vision, the sense of strenght and charisma that Democrats need to sell to Americans. I don't buy that Hillary has the *strength* to push us to better, to renew us. I don't see the vision. And honestly, I never have. I just don't get what people see in her.
So, who does that leave us? I really think John Edwards has got it. While he's junior, Barack Obama has "it" too. They have that optimism, that strength, that eloquence to show us something better, and passion to make me believe they can make it happen. I dunno. Just my two cents.
So, Bush nominated Alito. What can I say? He's certainly not the guy I would have picked. The abortion issue raises some real questions, and apparently he believes in a pretty traditional definition of marriage. That said, he does have a reputation for being a smart, thoughtful guy. Also, while politically a jerk, he is generally not considered, ya know, a dick (*courgh*Scalia*cough*). In the end, he is not an embarrassing chioce.
Alito is distressting, but we could be cynical and say that courts don't really do much anyway. The Warren court is a bit of a historical aberration, and even then - what did their landmark cases do? Brown v. Board doesn't matter for years, until Ike makes it happen. Abortion was legal in like 35 states by the time Row vs. Wade rolls around. But we're really venturing out of my territory now - I'm neither a lawyer or an scholar of the courts. So, it could be that our attitude about the courts is skewed by this aberration. Again, this doesn't make it all OK. But this is the perogative of the President. And it could certainly be *worse* (to come back to it: at least this guy is *qualified*).
Well, yea. However, I still think that Democrats should fight this. I'm not talking filibuster or anything. That will just leave a bad taste that will come back to bite them in the ass the next time a Democratic president has to make appointments. Rather, the Republican party is a bit woozy right now: Iraq continues to go badly, people are pissed about torture & secret prisons, DeLay & Libby are getting indicted, people are still pissed about the hurricanes, and then we have Harriet Miers. Democrats made a nice, cute little move with that secret session to raise the issue of moving along the investiation into the Iraq war. Making a stink about Alito, challenging him and the Republican Party, is a good way to build strenght and keep the president (and his party) "on the ropes" so to speak.
But with all that, it's damn time for the Democrats to find something to talk about. The Republicans have screwed up quite a bit in the past few months, and that's going to hurt them. Gaffes can cost elections, and they send signals to voters. But, Democrats need a strategy beyond "the other guys SUCK ASS." That's a bit too much like their current strategy of "RepublicanLITE." Ultimately, you're just defined against the other party - which just underscores how organized and energetic the other fellow is.
It's distressing because there are themes the Democrats could pick up on. Bill Clinton had this famous slogan: The Man from Hope. I love that. The Democrats need to space themselves as the champions of choice, as visionaries looking to a new future. Democrats need to show us that we can move beyond, to some new *space* where we are united as one country, at peace with the world. They need to sell us a story of prosperity, where we all work together, and help each other to succeed. It's a story about community, friendship, and prosperity. It's empowerment, choice, and freedom. They need to turn out a *positive* story, and policy to back it up (even if it doesn't always pass - they need to send us *signals* of what they would do if they could).
Democrats could win big in '06 and '08. There are races paring up in Ohio and Virgina, for example, that are tight. The VA race is tighter than it should be ... but still. Similarly, Illinois Republicans are still in shambles. There is a space here for a real move.
But, it's going to depend on who runs - on who the party is going to be. You want to know who the party should not be? It should not be Hillary Clinton. Not because she's a woman or a liberal or a carpetbagger ... but because, well, what has Hillary done? Really? I mean, she's all right be me. But man, it's like Hillary gets to run for President because it's her "turn" or something. I'm not sure she has the big vision, the sense of strenght and charisma that Democrats need to sell to Americans. I don't buy that Hillary has the *strength* to push us to better, to renew us. I don't see the vision. And honestly, I never have. I just don't get what people see in her.
So, who does that leave us? I really think John Edwards has got it. While he's junior, Barack Obama has "it" too. They have that optimism, that strength, that eloquence to show us something better, and passion to make me believe they can make it happen. I dunno. Just my two cents.
VIEW 4 of 4 COMMENTS
Hey kids, let's talk about the Supreme Court!
i'll bite (with my undereducated self). later.
Or, if you're feeling *saucy,* "the SCOTUS!"
when folks refer to the SCOTUS using "the SCOTUS", it gets me all hot and bothered. now, if i could just find some sexy, nerdy girl to use that on me. ♥
I think you're underestimating the impact of the court. It's not a policy-setter, really, no. But a lot of stuff goes on in the court system itself - to give just two important examples: challenges to extraordinary detentions and trials (e.g., Hamdi) and reproductive rights claims (the fight is no longer over legislation; at the moment it's over whether the states can make the process impossible to navigate). And, the way our system is set up, we have torts where many countries have crimes (e.g., for most kinds of pollution) - part of why we're perceived as so litigious.
Now, of course, the court system is much more than just the SCOTUS. But SCOTUS sets policy for all the lower courts (er... maybe except the 9th circuit), so it's pretty damn important.
Yes, of course Brown would have meant little without muscular enforcement. But it's not as if Eisenhower would have gone and enforced desegregation WITHOUT Brown.
I also have to disagree with you about Edwards. Aside from a couple good lines about the "Two Americas" he was just as hollow and practical policy-less on the campaign trail as Kerry (though more likeable, which would've meant something in the general). He's done little of note in his rump Senate career, and now he's out of politics. I like Obama too (though I'd like to see some ACTUAL action out of him to match the hype - it's not like he's been a notable leader in the Senate too far), but he'll still be too young for the top slot in 2008. If these are our idea men, we're in deep shit.
Not that I have much in the way of a better suggestion. I supported Dean last time around because, frankly, he and Kucinich were the only two candidates who had POSITIONS on anything, as near as I could tell (and I didn't agree with Kucinich). Clark *almost* took stands on things, but he turned out to be a nightmare of a campaigner. Clinton is positioning herself as "Bill, but more socially conservative and without all that economics stuff," which I can't get behind. The most interesting Dem politician I can think of at the moment is Eliot Spitzer, and he's not running for President any time soon.