The Price of Law and Order
It was never just about abortion. The struggle for America’s soul goes deeper, as the Supreme Court and Congress have been showing us this week.
It was never as simple as faith vs. reason. Rational people can recognize a Higher Power, the religious can respect science and logic.
What it has been about is the conflict between our hopes and fears, between the risks of freedom and the comfort of control, between our needs to feel decent and to feel safe.
Before the trauma of 9/11, the tension between those impulses could be kept in balance. Without that, the vicious idiocy of Bush’s Neo-Cons would never had free rein. For a time, the frustrations of Vietnam allowed Nixon’s paranoia and secrecy to subvert basic American values, but it never came to this.
This is an Executive Branch that makes Nixon look like a paragon of openness and respect for the law.
This is a Congress without the will and guts to stop a war started out of fear and stupidity and too craven to resist the hysteria over immigration and navigate through competing passions and interests toward a responsible compromise.
This is a High Court retreating from messy freedoms such as individual privacy, racial equality, protections from predatory business practices and the right to express unpopular opinions.
A living symbol of all this is Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has emerged, at least for now, as the deciding voter in our losing 5-4 struggle to balance freedom and responsibility.
The duty of judges, he once told an audience, is to “impose order on a disordered reality.” But at what price?
By January 2009 we may, to our sorrow, have found the answer to that.
Cross posted from my blog
opinions powered by SendLove.to
33 Responses to “The Price of Law and Order”
Wrong. Inept, not vicious, not necessarily idiotic.
Exaggerated. We’ll have to wait another year and observe more behavior to learn for certain.
Wrong. Congress and its Democrats are dysfunctional and know they dare not go too far.
Wrong. There is no mass hysteria, or bigotry. They are not craven.
Wrong. It struck down part of McCain-Feingold, which was anti-American, and it struck down illegal racial discrimination, which it should have done, and which Americans support and cheer.
It has has merely failed to be as leftist activist as has been desired, demanded, even expected by those who can’t win arguments or elections, and seek the courts as their legislative alternative and political weapon to use against everyone else. Only those against legitimate rule of law and the Constitution are upset by this.
Wrong. Your false “responsibility” [sic] (or “duty” [sic] or “reciprocal obligation” [sic]) is coerced unconstitutional racial discrimination (even if called by a saccharine substitute trendy name, “race-consciousness”).
Things are getting, and will continue to get, better…
Can’t you feel it in the air?
[...] Clark Link to Article george w bush The Price of Law and Order » Posted at The Moderate Voice » [...]
I mostly agree. The SCOTUS decision to let manufacturers set prices for retailers is really beyond the pale for those who believe in the free market system, but its a boon for business, and Bush’s wealthy ownership class. These types of decisions minimize consumer rights will eliminate discounters from the marketplace. A permanently ultra-wealthy class will be Bush’s legacy, but G-d help the rest of us.
Steve Has become obsessed with poll numbers.
A little history lesson which Im sure you know but don’t want to remember.
In 1992 Clinton won the White House. In 1994 the Democrats lost 62 seats in congress and there was not even a war going on.
Americans seem to want the minority party in charge, but once they win and are put in charge the public seems to want the minority party in charge.
Its actually comical to watch you guys whoooooping out your poll numbers and dancing around in glee.
What will it net you when the Democrats are in charge?
Universal health care?……………..NO………..Proceedure…..the republicans will just delay and stall and use proceedure to kill it.
Gay rights……..NO………Proceedure…..the republicans will just delay and stall and use proceedure to kill it.
In other words………..WELCOME to the Republicans WORLD.
Hi Somebody,
Thanks for your kind words. Happy days are here again.
It appears though that someone forgot to give David Broder the ‘heads-up’. (not to mention Lugar, & Voinovich, & Hagel, & Smith, & Warner, & Collins, & Snowe… but that’s another post):
Thanks for your input Somebody… I’ll make sure to watch for the fallout… Conservatives falling out with the GOP, and failed republicans falling out of the beltway.
As I said in my comment above – Things are getting, and will continue to get, better… Can’t you feel it in the air? Life is good.
Steve It just depends on what flavor of outrage you choose to wear.
All the stuff you guys keep pointing too as being an outrage is really legal.
It was not illegal, and it was not unconstitutional, but it could not have happened unless the president permitted it and enabled it.
Bush learned well from Clinton. If confronted………tell the truth. Democrats are pissing on themselves for 6 years now because this administration just keeps fessing up to everything whenever its discovered because they are NOT doing anything illegal. They are only doing things LIBERALS dont like.
So like I said “We’ll be dancing in the rain!” That is until the voters decide the democrats are no better then the Republicans and forget all about how evil Bush is and vote them out.
I welcome the Democrats being in charge. I look forward to it. Because you see……unlike you….I think this country is just “fine” no matter who is in charge and cant wait for them to have their turn in the new blogosphere run White House.
Even though I think Harry Reid is a bumbling Idiot, I know that Mitch McConnell is equally a bumbling idiot on the other side.
But thru it all our constitution works, our slow, archaic pace of doing things works and our country will survive no matter who is in the white house.
So yes I feel the optimism in the air. It feels good. I just hope that the democrats are smart enough to elect a moderate like Clinton instead of a far lefty like Edwards or Obama. If not we will have 4 more years of Republican rule and liberals will once again prove to America that their values are not what gets them elected nationally. Maybe locally, but not nationally.
Sure when you put loyal toadies in the Justice Dept and stack the courts with pro-business, anti-civil rights, anti-consumer rights conservatives- you can make anything legal that you want. Instead of having activist judges with a liberal bent (that talk radio hosts just love to demonize) we now have activist judges with a conservative bent, who will decide every time against the individual and in favor of large corporate interests. But, hey —its legal isn’t it? Why the outrage?
you can make anything legal that you want. Instead of having activist judges with a liberal bent (that talk radio hosts just love to demonize) we now have activist judges with a conservative bent
Activism is meant to achieve something. Nothing ACTIVISTS do ever achieves anything except Polarization and division and rancor. Until we learn that the world is not a fair place and we leave activism in the junkyards of failed policies we will continue to have a divided nation.
Because despite what you might think….America is basically 50/50. So when you are happy with a liberal activist supreme court the other half of this country is truly pissed off…..Just as you are now.
No matter HOW STRONGLY you believe YOU ARE RIGHT…There is another person on the other side who believes THEY ARE JUST AS STRONGLY RIGHT AS YOU ARE…..Thus Activism only insures continued animosity within the borders of this American Nation.
Until we ALL are willing to compromise and get along we will NEVER compromise and get along. Until we are willing to have Civil Unions instead of Marriage so that once you have the foot in the door maybe in 20 or 30 years you can convert that to Marriage………but no……there is no compromise……….compromise means today WE LOST.
Until we can get beyond the WE LOST mentality then this nation will be activist, unyielding and polarized.
Quite true Somebody…
I’ve never been one able to buy into the “my mother drunk or sober” view of government.
You seem to have missed the last part of the Broder paragraph you quoted…
The middle section is pretty important, too, but what the hell.
Help me out here, you’re the second rightie in the last few diary’s with an apparent fixation with urine (“Democrats are pissing on themselves” “We’ll be dancing in the rain!†“Some of us can look at reality without wetting our pants” – MdvG)… What gives?
This is becoming a desperate situation.
Business, via corparations, is emerging as the de-facto governing body.
Social conservatism, enabled and protected by an ideological SCOTUS, will be the boot heel on our necks.
We are now seeing how fatal was the SC decision giving Bush the presidency.
Considering the age of the SC jusges, I see how important it is to prevent another conxervative president from having the power to install the next and the next new judge.
I’ve been a fence-sitter as far the political parties go. Now I’m off the fence: anything to counter a court majority like the present one.
Hillary Clinton is learning well from Cheney.
No, we don’t. The Supreme Court is simply less left-activist than it used to be. The Ninth Circus and other courts certainly aren’t. Activism by any court or judge is wrong, no matter how much their fellow activists among the laypeople support and demand it.
When a judge rules for radical change, that’s activism, whether it’s liberal or conservative.
‘Radical’ should be the antithesis of ‘conaervative’
according to their claims.
When decades of precedent are thrown out, by the current SCOTUS, that’s a radical ruling and, therefore, activism.
I would respect a conservative judge who is conservative in action as well as judicial philosophy.
I can’t respect a judge who embraces radical change to promote his political or judiciary philosophy.
The Roberts court is conservative in philosophy, but radical in rulings. They are activists, the last thing we need in a country at war with itself.
DLS- I don’t see how you could come to that conclusion- less activist would mean adhering to precedent. The precedent for the antitrust decision was a decision made in 1896 to protect the public from price fixing by unethical businesses. Here they overturned a 110 year old precedent, in order to yield the advantage to big business. The convergence of wealth, big business and government is a fascist trend- especially when the rights of the individual are diminished by doing so.
Roberts and Alito specifically pledged during their hearings to uphold precedent, but obviously were less than candid when they did so.
About 1/4 of their decisions in this session were 5-4 indicating divisiveness on the court which mimics our political environment.
Elections have consequences.
Never forget it.
Steve even though I think you are far left and I am moderate to far right I like you. You are a man after my own heart who just writes what he thinks, but has the temperate nature to stop and reflect on things from time to time.
Our two party system is and has been designed to make sure that this nation smoothly moves along on its social pathways. Lets be honest. Man is a social animal and as a result his every action is rooted in Social behavior…..Good or bad.
From time to time we make grave mistakes. The government does not move fast enough for Liberals and TOO fast for conservatives. But thru it all the government actually moves just about right.
It is why our founding fathers put the 60/40 vote scheme into the constitution for our senate. For if something in this nation is trully wanted and needed then there should be no reason not to have 60 percent of our elected representatives voting in favor of it.
Yet along comes Activism….and the Democrats are now pissing their pants because they can’t get the goods on Tricky Dick or Slimy Shrub.
Just as the Republicans pissed in their pants for 8 years over a president they dubbed as the DO nothing President….Which I happen to think is a GOOD thing.
So therein lies the assertion. Nothing Bush has done is against the law. Even his NSA wiretaps were overseen by Congress….just secretly. The torture in Guantanamo…waterboarding and giving the inmates radios that only played static. That was overseen by congress too. Our government was fully engaged in this as well. Bush has done nothing that is illegal or unconstitutional and if he has then he will be able to point to a whole long list of senators and representatives who helped in and advised him and said its okay George. The justice department right or wrong said go for it. They gave him the green light. So in the end when the crying by the left is over there will be nothing to pin on Bush or Chenny. Except perhaps BAD Judgement.
I saw worse abuse then that in the military for 25 years and I volunteered for it. So yes I reassert that Bush and Company have done nothing illegal………only aggrevating and with questionable decision making but the suspension of Habeus Corpus is not without preceedent. Lincoln did it, FDR did it, Now Bush is doing it to ONE American citizen and perhaps 500 Terrorists.
So while I must reiterate that once the Democrats are in charge if they can stop playing to the radical left and nominate someone who is electable they too will be faced with the same cold hard facts Bush was faced with. How to protect America and its citizens when there are people that would murder us by the bushel basket without compunction.
So why the left has cause to dance in the street, I truly find it sad that they choose to do so. For after all it is there country too.
Amen to that. These decisions, plus the failure of American foreign policy over the last 7 years may create a real anti-conservative backlash for the ’08 elections.
Amen to that. These decisions, plus the failure of American foreign policy over the last 7 years may create a real anti-conservative backlash for the ‘08 elections.
Yes it may but that is nothing different then the anti liberal backlash felt in 1994 by the dems. This is politics. It is not the end of the Republican party, just as it was not the end of the Democratic party.
Thanks Somebody… I enjoy our back and forth’s, too. I also believe that we’re both probably a little more moderate than we appear to our opposites. I consider myself a member of the ‘loyal opposition’ and when (not if) Democrats hold the same total control recently lost by the Republicans I plan to hold them to the same accountability.
The Moderate Voice is a great resource for opposites to discuss and debate the serious times that WE are ALL living through TOGETHER. That’s probably why I go a bit overboard when pejoratives and ad hominem get used in lieu of discussion and debate.
DLS says:
LOL What about the 60′s, that SCOTUS was LIBERAL. Remember the days of Warren,Burger and Marshall, now those were the “smelly hippee” days.
Umm… not in the Constitution. The Constitution says that the Senate (and the House) make their own rules. The 60-vote cloture rule is of recent vintage; orignally, it took a *unanimous* decision to close debate, and even one senator could filibuster a bill out of existence.
And as long as you’re citing the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, you might want to check on what Washington thought of political factions…
Your right I was thinking of the 2/3rd vote necessary for amendments and impeachment. And Yes I remember about Newt Gingrich and his contract with America in which he guaranteed that this country so polarized would need a 60/40 split in order to get things done in the senate.
President George Washington, September 17th, 1796 “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible”
Therefore If I am to agree to his view on parties as gospel then I should also subscribe to his apparent demands that Christianity be a prerequisite for governing.
George Washington shocked General Lafayette one morning by merely being, what the father of our country described as, a gentleman. It seems George Washington and Lafayette were talking together when a slave passed. The old colored man paused, tipped his hat and said, “Good Mo’nin, Gen’l Washin’ton.”
Immediately George Washington removed his hat, bowed and wished the man a pleasant day.
After a moment of shocked silence General Lafayette exclaimed, “Why did you bow to a slave?”
The great man smiled and replied, “I would not allow him to be a better gentleman than I.”
Michael H. Hart calls Washington “the predominant figure in the establishment of the United States of America.”
The United States was fortunate indeed to have as its first president a man of the caliber and character of George Washington. As can be seen from the history of many [other young nations] it is all too easy for a new nation — even if it starts out with a democratic constitution — to degenerate into a military dictatorship.
Washington was not as original or incisive a thinker as some of the other leaders of the day ….
Nevertheless, he was far more important that any of those more brilliant men; for Washington, both in war and in peace, supplied the vital ingredient of executive leadership, without which no political revolution can succeed. [Others' roles were important; but] Washington’s was well-nigh indispensible.
This very fact can be seen in the early days of the Democracy of Turkey. Look at their leader at that time. Crisis is upon them and perhaps they need to reach deep and find a leader with George Washingtons zeal for democracy, much as Ataturk has the zeal and drive and stature to make Democracy more important then the man.
Yes it may but that is nothing different then the anti liberal backlash felt in 1994 by the dems. This is politics. It is not the end of the Republican party, just as it was not the end of the Democratic party.
I’m not saying that I think it will be the end of the Republican party- I believe the government acts as a pendulum swinging back and forth from liberal to conservative. We have had a long conservative period on the court with the Rehnquest court being followed by the much more conservative Roberts court. The difference lies in having Kennedy as the swing vote instead of a moderate like O’Connor.
These decisions will serve as a wake-up call for those who didn’t connect a vote for Bush with moving the court sharply to the right for the next generation. Unfortunately, it is too late to reverse the damage.
While the arguments here center around Dem/Rep advantages, my main concern is the effect of radical change Making 180 deg. turns in rulings can not be good for any society. The purpose of resoecting precedent is to safeguard smooth transitions and protect against violent jerking back and forth.
It was ecpected that the Roberts court would be conservative. The unhappy shock rests in how radical it is in turning the country in a reverse direction
The worry is that after many more radical rulings like what we’ve seen, we won’t recognze anymore what a truly centrist conservatve position is It will become a question of whether a ruling is less or more radical. than the last one. And that’s a truly frghtening picture.
.
K. Ritter:
No, it means less arrogation of legislative powers, less creation of legislation out of nothing, as well as less engaging in highly creative, unusual, and nonsensical interpretation of laws on the books.
It was noted:
1. How often were there 5-4 decisions before?
2. It’s certainly better than 9-0 and definitely liberal to radical, substituting whims and political desires for real law, isn’t it? (Yes.)
Rudi:
Dark, disgusting days as far as the Court’s and the judiciary’s reputation goes. Forcing both houses of bicameral legislatures to be apportioned on a population basis, on no true legal basis whatsoever? Inventing rights not found in the Constitution? The “trimester rules” (okay, Seventies, but a hangover from earlier, dark days of the Court and an equally dark day)? Etc.
What’s equally disgusting is that many want the Court to regress to such ways, and any deviation from that they dishonesly claim is “conservative activism” [sic].
Such as respecting the Dred Scott decision?
Today’s Court is not “radical” simply because it has been reformed to some measure, something long overdue and long sought by Americans.
K. Ritter:
Long-overdue reform is hardly “damage,” K. What has been damaged is the Court’s future tendency to continue engaging in leftist activism rather than to behave as a court should. The reform is refreshing. There is no regret from me that activism has now become more inhibited than it used to be. That is a good, welcome, long-overdue thing. This is the judiciary, not the legislature, which should make rulings that are legal, not political. The reform is overdue.
Even the evil Arabs who want Israel destroyed accept incremental victories, such as pushing Israel back to the 1967 boundaries. Any partial defeat for Israel constitutes a partial victory for them.
Thomas Jefferson abhorred legislating from the bench. He cautioned against it. yet. Given the times and the make up of the supreme court there is no way that men….human beings….cannot instill their feelings and personal bias into decisions where such is available to do so.