The hearings for Chief Justice-in-waiting John Roberts begin today and can be seen and heard via C-SPAN beginning at 11:30 AM. As C-SPAN “warns,” however:
On Monday, the multi-day Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge John Roberts begin. They are expected to last all week. First, will be a series of opening statements by the eighteen members of the Senate Judiciary Cmte. These should take up most of the afternoon.
So get your hip-waders ready. For his part, Senate Judiciary member John Cornyn has outlined three things he’s going to be looking for throughout the hearings.
Will my colleagues misuse the term “judicial activism”?
Will my colleagues ask Judge Roberts questions they know he cannot answer?
Will my colleagues accuse Judge Roberts of being an extremist?
Cornyn elaborates on all three, so it’s worth reading the piece.
UPDATE:
Here is the text of Judge Roberts opening statement. Here is a substantive selection from his statement:
[Open full post]Judges and justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules; they apply them.
The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules.
But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire.
Judges have to have the humility to recognize that they operate within a system of precedent, shaped by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath.
And judges have to have the modesty to be open in the decisional process to the considered views of their colleagues on the bench.
Mr. Chairman, when I worked in the Department of Justice, in the office of the solicitor general, it was my job to argue cases for the United States before the Supreme court.
I always found it very moving to stand before the justices and say, “I speak for my country.”
But it was after I left the department and began arguing cases against the United States that I fully appreciated the importance of the Supreme Court and our constitutional system.
Here was the United States, the most powerful entity in the world, aligned against my client. And yet, all I had to do was convince the court that I was right on the law and the government was wrong and all that power and might would recede in deference to the rule of law.
That is a remarkable thing.
It is what we mean when we say that we are a government of laws and not of men. It is that rule of law that protects the rights and liberties of all Americans. It is the envy of the world. Because without the rule of law, any rights are meaningless.
President Ronald Reagan used to speak of the Soviet constitution, and he noted that it purported to grant wonderful rights of all sorts to people. But those rights were empty promises, because that system did not have an independent judiciary to uphold the rule of law and enforce those rights. We do, because of the wisdom of our founders and the sacrifices of our heroes over the generations to make their vision a reality.
Mr. Chairman, I come before the committee with no agenda. I have no platform. Judges are not politicians who can promise to do certain things in exchange for votes.
I have no agenda, but I do have a commitment. If I am confirmed, I will confront every case with an open mind. I will fully and fairly analyze the legal arguments that are presented. I will be open to the considered views of my colleagues on the bench. And I will decide every case based on the record, according to the rule of law, without fear or favor, to the best of my ability. And I will remember that it’s my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.
The senate race between Laffey and Chafee offers a rare opportunity for the Rhode Island Republican party–both its leadership and, especially, the rank and file–to define itself. For decades now, the “traditional” (elected) Rhode Island Republican seems to almost pathologically belong to the “can’t-we-just-get-along” club. They smile and wink and get gut-punched by the Democrats to which they respond with an “aw, shucks” and keep smiling and winking. The leadership of the RIGOP long ago seems to have given up hope of real, statewide political strength. Instead, they too-often seem happy to continue playing their role of Washington General-like foil to the dominant, Globe-trotting Democrats.
With this sort of mindset, it must seem to them well-nigh a miracle that they have managed to maintain a U.S. Senate seat. They’ve played it safe and won a small piece of the pie. Now is not the time to risk it! Instead, they want to trot out the prevent defense and hold on to what they’ve got. Despite the perception, this tactic actually does work in football, but it often fails in politics.
Why don’t they support Steve Laffey’s candidacy? Partly it’s because he’s not one of “them”, the establishment RIGOP, the whole handful of them who have led Republicans to the Governorship and not much else. (As an aside, we shouldn’t forget that Gov. Carcieri was the outsider when he ran for, and won, the Governorship). Partly its because Steve Laffey seems like too big of a risk and they don’t think he can win statewide. I have also expressed some of those same doubts (here and here). A smidgen of dislike can also be thrown in as many probably just don’t like the Steve Laffey “act.” But I think the largest reason as to why the don’t support Steve Laffey is because he isn’t their kind of Republican.
Nationwide, conservatives generally support Republicans because, on a broad range of issues, Republicans tilt towards those values held by the average conservative voter. Much of the leadership of the RIGOP does not hold conservative ideals (if Sen. Chafee’s record is any indication of what a traditional RI Republican believes) and seems to routinely attempt to distance itself from the conservatives within its ranks.
For instance, in a recent airing of PBS-RI’s “Lively Experiment”, former Lt. Governor stated that Laffey was drawing support from the “extreme right-wing” (I saw it myself, no link to a transcript, but I’ll keep looking). Does that sound like a Republican amenable to party-building and fraternity by embracing the entire spectrum of Republican voters? And in the coming months, don’t let them fool you with the soon-to-be oft-parrotted reference to Laffey’s property tax hike in Cranston, either. Sen. Chafee is one of those Washington baseline budgeteers who thinks its a matter of course that tax-cuts have to be “paid for” and regularly receives mostly poor grades on tax issues.
It is ironic that 50%-Linc will be supported by the conservative Bush Administration that think it needs him to maintain the Republican Senate majority. They will do everything to keep Chafee in, which will include supporting a candidate against the wishes of their conservative (albeit relatively small) base in the Ocean State. It is the ultimate example of being on the wrong side of the ledger in political economics. Thus, RI conservatives have been left with a choice: standing up for political ideals in their state or striving to maintain national political power at their own continued expense?
Right now, many believe that a vote for the candidate with more conservative ideals, Steve Laffey, could result in a two-fold loss of Republican power: Rhode Island Republicans could lose a national voice and the National GOP could lose the U.S. Senate altogether. Yes, it is possible Steve Laffey could win in a statewide election, especially if he continues to emphasize the “populist” (as he did the other night) in his populist/conservative message. Nonetheless, even if he doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in Hades, Rhode Island conservatives will have been heard by bucking the establishment and sending Laffey on to the general election. Many ask: But what would be the purpose? The answer is: to find out who or what the RIGOP is going to be.
In the end, sending Laffey past Chafee to face a Democrat challenger may be nothing more than a romantically noble, and ultimately doomed, cause. Perhaps Rhode Island Republicans won’t see another of their own in the national delegation for decades. Yet, despite all of this and whatever the outcome may be, RICons will have made a statement about what they think the RIGOP should be and they will have forced the “establishment” to do the same.
The RIGOP needs to be shaken up and to find a direction. The political tactics used by the RIGOP over the last few years have not worked, if they existed at all. Wimpering under the table for scraps doesn’t make a party stronger–it barely keeps it alive and gives it false hope for more of the same. This sort of milquetoast Republicanism has failed in Rhode Island.
If nothing else, I hope that the coming debates will help RI Republicans decide the kind of party they want. I hope, like me, they will see that it’s time to heed a paraphrase of Robert Frost’s advice and take the road never traveled: the one that leads to a RI Republican party with conservative ideals at its core.
The Washington Times has this story about Mayor Laffey’s primary challenge against Senator Chafee:
[Open full post]White House adviser Karl Rove and Senate Republican campaign chairwoman Elizabeth Dole tried to discourage the mayor of Cranston, R.I., from running against the party’s liberal Sen. Lincoln Chafee next year, but to no avail.
Now Stephen Laffey, a former investment banker who announced his candidacy Thursday, is the target of a National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) broadside that accuses him of sharply raising property taxes on his city’s residents…
Meanwhile, Republican strategists have compiled a report showing that the mayor has raised property taxes substantially in his city. While the senator opposed Mr. Bush’s tax cuts, Republican officials say Mr. Laffey’s hands are not clean on the tax issue, either.
In a still-undisclosed research report titled, “The Laffey Tax Machine,” the NRSC says that “one of the first official duties as mayor was to raise taxes 12.8 percent, approximately $490 for a home valued at $150,000.”…
The NRSC report, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times, said the Laffey “tax hike was on top of an 11.5 percent increase property owners had already seen that year.”
“Adding in Laffey’s supplemental tax, Cranston homeowners’ taxes were 25.8 percent higher than the year before.”
But Mr. Laffey defended his actions Friday, saying the city had “the lowest bond rating in the United States.”…
Voters rewarded his actions by re-electing Mr. Laffey last year with 65 percent of the vote in a city where Democrats outnumber Republicans by more than 2-to-1.
Mr. Chafee made it clear last week that he is going to make Mr. Laffey’s property-tax increases a major issue in the campaign.
“The sole reason for the change in Cranston’s financial fortunes is Laffey’s unprecedented tax hikes. Some Cranston taxpayers have seen their tax bills double due to Laffey’s stewardship,” Mr. Chafee said.
I’m not picking sides, but a short Providence Journal bulletin by Scott MacKay turns an on-air spat between two talk radio hosts into a lesson in the methodology of media bias:
WPRO talk-show host Dan Yorke and John DePetro, a former Rhode Island talk-radio host, got into an on-air spat yesterday after DePetro showed up uninvited at a show Yorke was hosting in West Warwick, wrested a live microphone from Yorke and made derogatory comments that were broadcast on air.
The tussle started after Yorke made comments criticizing Cranston Mayor Stephen P. Laffey for having DePetro as master of ceremonies for Laffey’s Thursday announcement that he will challenge U.S. Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee in the Republican primary next year.
In contrast to direct quotes from WPRO’s director of operations and news, David Bernstein, that the incident was “a DePetro out-of-his-mind experience,” MacKay offers no explanation from DePetro’s side. For that matter, he doesn’t even report what Dan Yorke’s critical comments were. Furthermore, the fact that the particular broadcast was “designed to raise donations of items and money for victims of Hurricane Katrina” is related in context of DePetro’s “charg[ing] over to Cardi’s Furniture store,” without any indication that Yorke’s attack — whatever it may have been — might have been a similar impropriety.
The story’s lede perfectly captures the thrust of the subsequent text, with a splash of metaphor:
John DePetro, angry about comments made on Dan Yorke’s radio program, storms into a live show to benefit hurricane victims and briefly takes over the microphone.
DePetro “storms” into the hurricane benefit in response to vague “comments” made by somebody.
Again, I’m not picking sides, nor would I claim that this represents important news. (Although the Providence Journal saw fit to run the headline on the main page of its Web site yesterday.) The slant could be an indication of a larger political tug-of-war, or it could just be local inside-media stuff. Either way, however, we who participate in Rhode Island’s limited — but hopefully burgeoning — alternative media do well to be aware of who allies with whom.
In a 2002 editorial entitled Roe v. Wade at 25: Still Illegitimate, Michael McConnell wrote:
[Open full post]…Roe v. Wade is the most enduringly controversial court decision of the century, and rightly so. Rather than putting the issue to rest, the court converted it into the worst sort of political struggle–one involving angry demonstrators, nasty confirmation battles and confrontational sound bites. With ordinary politicians, who are masters of compromise, out of the picture, the issue became dominated by activists of passionate intensity on both extremes of the spectrum.
…The Constitution stands for certain fundamental principles of free government, and there are times when the courts must intervene to make sure they are not neglected. But when judges act on the basis of their own political predilections, without regard to constitutional text or the decisions of representative institutions, the results are illegitimate.
The reasoning of Roe v. Wade is an embarrassment to those who take constitutional law seriously, even to many scholars who heartily support the outcome of the case. As John Hart Ely, former dean of Stanford Law School and a supporter of abortion rights, has written, Roe “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”
The court’s reasoning proceeded in two steps. First, it found that a “right of privacy” exists under the Constitution, and that this right is “broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”…
But the right of privacy is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. Various judges, according to the court, had found “at least the roots of that right” in the First Amendment, in the “penumbras of the Bill of Rights,” in the Ninth Amendment or in the “concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment.” This vague statement is tantamount to confessing the court did not much care where in the Constitution this supposed right might be found. All that mattered was it be “broad enough” to encompass abortion.
Even assuming a right of privacy can be excavated from somewhere, anywhere, in the Constitution, what does it mean? The court avoided defining the term, except by giving examples from previous cases. The trouble is, counterexamples abound. The federal “right of privacy” has never been held to protect against laws banning drug use, assisted suicide or even consensual sodomy–just to mention a few examples of crimes that are no less “private” than abortion. It is impossible to know what does and does not fall within this nebulous category.
Even assuming that there is a right of privacy, and that its contours can be discerned from the court’s examples, surely it must be confined to activities that affect no one else. It would be an odd kind of privacy that confers the power to inflict injury on nonconsenting third parties. Yet the entire rationale for antiabortion laws is that an abortion does inflict injury on a nonconsenting third party, the fetus. It is not possible to describe abortion as a “privacy right” without first concluding that the fetus does not count as a third party with protectable interests.
That brings us to step two in the court’s argument. Far from resolving the thorny question of when a fetus is another person deserving of protection–surely the crux of the privacy right, if it exists–the justices determined that the issue is unresolvable. They noted that there has been a “wide divergence of thinking” regarding the “most sensitive and difficult question” of “when life begins.” They stated that “[w]hen those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary…is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”
According to the court, the existence of this uncertainty meant that the state’s asserted interest in protecting unborn life could not be deemed “compelling.” But this leaves us with an entirely circular argument. The supposed lack of consensus about when life begins is important because when state interests are uncertain they cannot be “compelling”; and a compelling state interest is required before the state can limit a constitutional right. But the constitutional right in question (“privacy”) only exists if the activity in question does not abridge the rights of a nonconsenting third party–the very question the court says cannot be resolved. If it cannot be resolved, there is no way to determine whether abortion is a “right of privacy.”
In any event, the court’s claim that it was not resolving the issue of “when life begins” was disingenuous. In our system, all people are entitled to protection from killing and other forms of private violence. The court can deny such protection to fetuses only if it presupposes they are not persons.
One can make a pretty convincing argument, however, that fetuses are persons. They are alive; their species is Homo sapiens. They are not simply an appendage of the mother; they have a separate and unique chromosomal structure. Surely, before beings with all the biological characteristics of humans are stripped of their rights as “persons” under the law, we are entitled to an explanation of why they fall short. For the court to say it cannot “resolve the difficult question of when life begins” is not an explanation.
It is true, of course, that people honestly disagree about the question of when life begins. But divergence of opinion is not ordinarily a reason to take a decision away from the people and their elected representatives. One of the functions of democratic government is to provide a forum for debating and ultimately resolving controversial issues. Judges cannot properly strike down the acts of the political branches that do not clearly violate the Constitution. If no one knows when life begins, the courts have no basis for saying the legislature’s answer is wrong. To be sure, abortion is an explosive issue…But the Supreme Court made it far more so by eliminating the possibility of reasoned legislative deliberation and prudent compromise.
It is often said that abortion is an issue that defies agreement or compromise. But if the polling data are correct, there has been a broad and surprisingly stable consensus among the American people for at least the past 30 years that rejects the uncompromising positions of both pro-choice and pro-life advocates. Large majorities…believe that abortion should be legally available during the early months of pregnancy. There is also widespread support for legal abortions when the reasons are sufficiently weighty (rape, incest, probability of serious birth defect, serious danger to the mother’s health).
But only 15% believe that abortion should generally be available after the first three months, when the fetus has developed a beating heart, fingers and toes, brain waves and a full set of internal organs. Majorities oppose abortions for less weighty reasons, such as avoiding career interruptions. Even larger majorities (approaching 80%) favor modest regulations, like waiting periods and parental consent requirements, to guard against hasty and ill-informed decisions…Most Americans would prohibit particularly grisly forms of the procedure, like partial-birth abortions.
These opinions have persisted without significant change since the early 1970s, and are shared by women and men, young and old alike…If the courts would get out of the business of regulating abortion, most legislatures would pass laws reflecting the moderate views of the great majority. This would provide more protection than the unborn have under current law, though probably much less than pro-life advocates would wish.
The Supreme Court brought great discredit on itself by overturning state laws regulating abortion without any persuasive basis in constitutional text or logic. And to make matters worse, it committed these grave legal errors in the service of an extreme vision of abortion rights that the vast majority of Americans rightly consider unjust and immoral. Roe v. Wade is a useful reminder that government by the representatives of the people is often more wise, as well as more democratic, than rule by lawyers in robes.
We all have vivid memories of where we were on September 11, 2001.
On that fateful morning, my wife was in surgery at Rhode Island Hospital and I was sitting in the waiting room when the morning television programs switched to viewing the World Trade Center buildings with the then-unconfirmed story that a plane had hit one of the towers.
With a view of only the North Tower from the television camera’s midtown angle, all of us sitting there saw – live – a second plane fly in from the right side of the television screen and not continue to be visible on the left side of the screen. It had hit the South Tower.
Our thoughts and prayers go out again to all of the families who lost loved ones on that horrible day. And our thanks go out to those many Americans who joined in numerous efforts to save lives and take care of the injured and grieving.
We salute all of you with pride, gratitude, and a commitment to never let your memory, bravery and acts of kindness be forgotten.
On this fourth anniversary of that horrible day, we can only benefit from rereading some key speeches (here, here) that remind us how we are engaged in an ongoing war against a treacherous enemy who seeks nothing less than our country’s demise.
Unfortunately, we also face some domestic foes whose actions (here, here, here, here, here) are misguided and dangerous because they fail to accept the enormous evil of an enemy which has been attacking and killing American citizens for much longer than just the last four years.
Addendum: Thanks to Greg Wallace, here are some other special links commemorating 9/11: The Blue State Conservatives, American Digest, Winds of Change.
Here are numerous links from Michelle Malkin.
PoliPundit has more. Follow the many links at the bottom of the posting.
The domestic spending habits of the Republican Congress were criticized in an earlier posting about the Chafee-Laffey race.
Previous postings (here and here) discussed the outrageous spending contained in the recently passed highway bill.
Another posting discussed how actions by the small, but powerful, sugar lobby go against the interest of average Americans.
The energy bill was another pork-laden feast that recklessly spent even more of our hard-earned monies.
There has also been no lack of criticism on this blogsite of the outrageous demands by public sector unions where pension benefit demands alone (see here and here) have numerous states and towns across America facing financial ruin.
And now the ProJo highlights a pork-laden water bill.
All of these deals – that benefit a few to the detriment of the many – are examples of an ever increasing diet of rancid pork that makes the body politic sick.
It seems to me, Don, that the well-poisoning of your closing question elides precisely the benefit of a Laffey run for U.S. Senate. Tweak your perceptive hypothetical of a primary-free Chafee’s positioning:
While sitting on the sidelines eating popcorn, Chafee would have been able to size up his opponent, research weak points, and come out swinging after the Democratic primary.
A primary race with a rumbler like Laffey will undoubtedly expose Chafee’s weaknesses (even more than the Senator has managed to accomplish simply by being in view of the public in a post–9/11 world). Of course, one should offer the passing disclaimer that citizens benefit whenever candidates’ weaknesses are exposed, but that byproduct of a primary race is even more valuable for Rhode Island Republicans: No matter who wins the primary — or the election, for that matter — the political calculus will have become less of a factor in our state.
One thing that Laffey has shown successfully as mayor of Cranston is that Rhode Island needs to be shaken up a bit. If that means that we have to fall to form with another Democrat in a key government position for the time being, at least we on the right will have the opportunity to offer a different vision without a might-as-well-be-a-Democrat Republican blurring our voices with the mild morphine drip of political power that he represents.
Senator Chafee finds himself in a very awkward position: As Andrew noted on Thursday, Cranston mayor Stephen Laffey announced his intentions to run for his U.S. Senate seat in 2006. Unfortunately for Chafee, this is going to be a very tough pill to swallow for many reasons.
First, without having to face a primary, it would be very likely that Chafee would have had a sizeable cash advantage over his Democratic challenger because of the potentially heated race between Sheldon Whitehouse and Matt Brown. While sitting on the sidelines eating popcorn, Chafee would have been able to size up his opponent, research weak points, and come out swinging after the Democratic primary. However, in facing arguably Rhode Island’s third most recognizable figure, even if Chafee wins the primary, he will do so with much less money in the bank. Yet, that isn’t even Chafee’s biggest concern.
More troubling for Chafee will be the waltz he will be forced to learn. I do mean waltz. Laffey, considered a hero to many hard-line and progressive RI Republicans, is far more to the right than Chafee on many issues. So, while Laffey runs a balanced budget/immigration friendly/pork killing campaign, Chafee may be forced to move toward him on issues that RI Republicans have chided him about for years in order to stem the Laffey-train. However, even if he does this successfully, Chafee would then need to drift back toward the left in order to beat his Democratic challenger. And I don’t know if he can do that and keep the respect and trust of Rhode Islanders, his most valuable political resources.
As a Rhode Islander for the last ten years, I can’t remember a Republican primary as compelling as this one will be. The ultimate question: will we look back at the Senate 2006 race as a watershed moment for Chafee — who solidified his power base — or a moment when an opportunistic challenger allowed his hubris to cloud his judgment with dire consequences to the political futures of both himself and the Rhode Island Republican party?
Andrew has just posted the results of the vote on the Cranston teachers’ union contract. [Read the first comment to that posting for an interesting perspective from someone who attended the meeting.]
Steve Stycos, a School Committee member, was quoted in the referenced ProJo article as saying that board did not have sufficient information about the cost of the contract.
How thoroughly typical. And how absolutely improper.
A contract extension came up when I served on the East Greenwich School Committee. The union had voted to accept that contract extension before the School Committee had even discussed the contract terms for the first time. Former Superintendent Jolin had unilaterally gone out and struck the deal without a full Committee discussion in advance. Then, when we did meet to vote on it, the school administration provided zero information on the cost of the contract – and expected us to vote immediately to approve the contract.
And that is why I voted against the contract extension – which, it turns out, awarded 9-12% annual salary increases to 9 of the 10 job steps, required a zero co-payment on health insurance premiums, and provided a rich cash buyback (worth $6,800 last school year) for those employees who did not use health insurance.
We are overpaying for underperformance across all of Rhode Island. It is critical that these games involving spineless politicians and bureaucrats as well as far-too-powerful public sector unions stop for the good of all the working people and retirees whose hard-earned monies fund these extravagent actions.
No more rides on the gravy train.
