From the big speech yesterday:
That is the liberty we defend – the liberty of each of us to pursue our own dreams. That is the equality we seek – not an equality of results, but the chance of every single one of us to make it if we try.
Isn't the the essence of classical conservatism?
Here's the whole thing:
Matt Y notes here and here the unlikelihood that conservatives will howl over some recent judicial activism.
It got me thinking whether or not I support judicial activism (indeed if I even know what the term means).
Judicial activism is, as I define it, judicial review yielding a law (or an interpretation of a law) that is not expressly articulated in the Constitution.
The Supreme Court is sometimes derided as quasi-philosopher kings who sit in judgment, making decisions based on their unique experiences that are sometimes out-of-step with popular opinion.
At the same time, The Supreme Court is sometimes lauded as quasi-philosopher kings who sit in judgment, making decisions based on their unique experiences that are sometimes out-of-step with popular opinion.
The benefit of judicial activism is that it can sometimes bypass the tyranny of the majority and mandate something that is manifestly "right" (see: Brown v. Board). The drawback is that the court can sometimes do things that are manifestly fucked-up (see: Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Bush v. Gore).
I have read (in a number of places) that one of the (many) complaints against Roe v. Wade is that it bypasses legislative/constitutional action and "hides" abortion as a privacy issue. Pro-life advocates maintain (perhaps dishonestly) that they would less-opposed to abortion so long as it was determined on a state-by-state basis.
I disagree with this opinion as I think it would unfairly penalize poor women who want abortions in, say, Alabama.
So I advocate judicial activism!
But wait, I disagree with the activism demonstrated in the DC handgun ban. In that instance a community, through legislation, decided the best way to govern itself on a particular issue.
The Supreme Court thought otherwise.
So I'm opposed to judicial activism!
So that's where I stand on the issue: I have no idea.
Last Sunday on Charlie Rose, Justice Scalia said that the death penalty was clearly not a violation of the 8th Amendment because when the Constitution was drafted, the death penalty wasn't cruel and unusual.
He stated that if through legislative action, the death penalty was outlawed then so be it, but until that time the DP complies with Constitutional law.
I think Scalia is hiding behind his rigid interpretation of judicial review.
The rapid evolution of crime-scene evaluation (DNA testing) demands a moratorium be placed on the death penalty; many (most? all?) politicians lack the courage to advance this moratorium.
The lifetime appointees on the court are not subject to political winds and should institute such a moratorium.
But that's just one case that I favor activism, I'll disagree with the next one.
A poor justice would I make...
This is what Wesley Clark said on Face the Nation
Clark, "I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war…But he hasn’t held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded—that wasn’t a wartime squadron. He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall.
Bob Schieffer “Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences, either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down"
Clark, "Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."
D'oh!
I guess what I would ask the recreationally outraged is: Do you think getting shot down in a fighter plane qualifies you to be president? If yes, why?
Because that's all Wes Clark fucking said.
This pretty much nails it:
It’s crucially important that we have a political debate in this country that’s at least sophisticated enough to be able to handle the following rather basic idea: Arguing that a person’s record of military service is not a qualification for the presidency does not constitute “attacking” their military credentials; nor can it be described as invoking their military service against them, or as denying their record of war heroism.
If/when Obama runs for president I will definitely vote for him.
At a press availability the next day, George W. Bush interrupted his own boring observation about “the importance of the Doha Round” to smilingly tell his pal Sarkozy: “It was a great pleasure to have been able to meet your wife. She’s a really smart, capable woman, and I can see why you married her. And I can see why she married you, too.”
Two Daily Show posts in a row is lame, but indulge me. Last night CBS News senior foreign correspondent (at 37!!), Lara Logan, was on discussing how little is reported on Iraq and Afghanistan.
As if to underscore her very point, I had never heard of her before in my life.
By the end of the interview I felt stupid, embarrassed and ashamed, while at the same time better off for having seen her - her affect on me is shared with beautiful women everywhere.
Watch the interview, great content and she is, of course, sublime.
Someone gave Liz tickets to AFI's honoring of Warren Beatty. I was tired and QL has another meeting today, plus it was black tie and I didn't want to rent a tux (apparently when people say "black tie" they don't mean "black bolo tie;" something I once found out the hard way).
Anyway, she went (looking bombshell, I might add) and hobnobbed (yeah, I said hobnobbed) with the following:
Dustin Hoffman, Jack Nicholson, Annette Benning, Dyan Cannon, Steven Spielberg, Faye Dunaway, Al Pacino, George Lucas, George McGovern, Gary Hart, Barbara Streisand, Halle Berry, Liz Taylor and Bill Clinton.
Liz said Clinton was incredible - eloquent, funny, self-deprecating; if he had spoken only to rooms of millionaire liberals Hillary totally would have beaten Obama.
The biggest news of the night was the discovery that Liz does a spot-on Clinton impression.
Anyway, glad I skipped it. Crap.
Examines Obama's "terrorist fist jab."(!!??)
In 2000 the White Stripes released De Stijl and I thought "ok, that was amazing, they'll never surpass that."
Then in 2001 they released White Blood Cells and I thought, "Crap. That's amazing. That is the height of their ability"
Then in 2003 they released Elephant and I thought, "Fucking hell. That's it, this is incredible and I won't be surprised if they out-perform themselves with their subsequent release."
That's sort of what it's like watching Fox News.
I think the obvious choice is Bill Richardson.
Obama-Richardson would force the Republicans to either restate their hardline position on immigration (Four! More! Walls!) and alienate Hispanics (who Bill could scoop up with a combination of fluent Spanish, common ancestry and extortion) or back off their current hardline posiion and alienate the Republican base (picture, right.)
My other choice (long shot) would be Yngwie Malmsteen. I know it's unlikely (given the Constitutional crisis that would ensue as he's not an American citizen) but it would be totally awesome. Malmsteen is a radical guitarist and the Obama/Malmsteen signs could read (front) Obama/Malmsteen 2008....(small lettering)...wait who?" (back) Yngwie Fucking Malamsteen, that's who!!!!"
Plus he could shred at the convention.
