Heh. I love that the President, in a clear attempt to deflect attention away from the Plame scandal, pushed forward a nominee to the Supreme Court that’s been described as “non-controversial”, “affable”, and “boring”. If they honestly thought somebody as bland as John Roberts would dominate the news for 6-8 weeks, then the White House is even more off its game than I thought.

Please tell me this is a joke. The exact same attacks again??

The most enlightening thing you can read about the upcoming confirmation hearing for John Roberts is this transcript (huge PDF warning) of his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee two years ago. (via How Appealing) Since the focus seems to be on Roe v. Wade lately, here are some exchanges that might shed some light on where Roberts stands.

Senator DURBIN. So, in 1991, you are in the Solicitor General’s Office, and in Rust v. Sullivan, you end up signing on to a brief which calls for overturning Roe v. Wade, one of the more controversial Supreme Court cases of my lifetime. When we asked repeatedly in questions of you what your position is on Roe v. Wade, you have basically danced away and said, “No, no, my personal views mean nothing. I am just going to apply the law.”

This, in my mind, is evasive. I need to hear something more definitive from you. Was the statement in that brief an expression of your personal and legal feelings about Roe v. Wade, that it should be repealed?

What is your position today, in terms of that decision?

Mr. ROBERTS. The statement in the brief was my position as an advocate for a client. We were defending a Health and Human Services program in which the allegation was that the regulations issued by the Department of Health and Human Services burdened the constitutional right to an abortion recognized in Roe v. Wade.

At that time, it was the position of the administration, articulated in four different briefs filed with the Supreme Court, briefs that I hadn’t worked on, that Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

Now, if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned, the challenge to the regulations that we were tasked with defending would fail, and so it was appropriate in that case to include that argument. I think it was all of one or two sentences. The bulk of the brief was addressed to why the regulations were valid, in any event.

But since that was the administration position, and the administration was my client, I reiterated that position in the brief because it was my responsibility to defend that HHS program.

Senator DURBIN. Understood. I have been an attorney, represented a client, sometimes argued a position that I did not necessarily buy, personally. And so I am asking you today what is your position on Roe v. Wade?

Mr. ROBERTS. I don’t—Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. It is not—it’s a little more than settled. It was reaffirmed in the face of a challenge that it should be overruled in the Casey decision. Accordingly, it’s the settled law of the land. There’s nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent, as well as Casey.

Not exactly music to the ears of Roberts’ Operation Rescue defenders. Care to elaborate a little further Mr. Roberts?

Mr. ROBERTS. Roe v. Wade is an interpretation of the Court’s prior precedents. You can read the opinion beginning not just with Griswold, which is the case everybody begins with, but going even further back in other areas involving the right to privacy, Meyer v. Nebraska, pierce v. Society of Sisters, cases involving education. And what the Court explained in that case was the basis for the recognition of that right.

Now, that case and these others—certainly Brown was subjected to criticism at the time as an example of judicial activism. Miranda was as well. But, again, all I can do as a nominee is look to the rationale that the Supreme Court has articulated.

Senator SCHUMER. So you don’t think Roe v. Wade was judicial activism as you defined it in your—

Mr. ROBERTS. The Court explained in its opinion the legal basis, and because the Court has done that, I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to criticize it as judicial activism. The dissent certainly thought it was and explained why, but the Court has explained what it saw as the constitutional basis for its decision.

My definition of judicial activism is when the Court departs from applying the rule of law and undertakes legislative or executive decisions.

So, based on his appearance before the Senate, Roberts isn’t quite the hardliner that Bush promised and we feared. Then again, when pressed on his judicial philosophy, he wasn’t exactly forthcoming :

Senator DURBIN. I found your answer evasive. When I look at what you had to say about your philosophy, you said, “In short, I do not think beginning with an all-encompassing approach to constitutional interpretation is the best way to faithfully construe the document,” and then you went on to say I am not going to draw any conclusions on the Supreme Court decisions.

I need more. I need to hear more from you about where you are coming from and, at least hypothetically, if you agree that those who call themselves strict constructionists would not likely be in the vanguard of the socially important Supreme Court decisions that we have seen in Brown v. Board, Miranda or Roe v. Wade.

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, Senator, I don’t know if that’s a flaw for a judicial nominee or not, not to have a comprehensive philosophy about constitutional interpretation, to be able to say, “I’m an originalist, I’m a textualist, I’m a literalist or this or that.” I just don’t feel comfortable with any of those particular labels. One reason is that as the Constitution uses the term “inferior court judge,” I’ll be bound to follow the Supreme Court precedent regardless of what type of constructionist I, personally, might be.
[. . .]
Senator DURBIN. That is a reasonable answer. It is also a safe answer, and I am not going to question your motive in that answer. I accept it at face value as being an honest answer, but it raises the question that comes up time and again. If this job is so automatic, if the role of a judge is strictly to apply the precedent, then, frankly, I think we would have as many Democrats being proposed by the Bush White House as we do Republicans, but we do not. They understand that it is not automatic, it is not mechanical.

There are going to be discretionary and subjective elements in decisions, and that is why we have people coming from major law firms who have made a living representing rather wealthy clients. We have people who are conservative in their philosophy. We have many, many members of the vaunted Federalist Society, which my Chairman is so proud to be part of, all of these people come before us because I think, when it gets beyond the obvious, we understand that there is subjectivity here.

Again and again, when pressed to state his personal preferences, John Roberts obfuscated, reminding the Senators that the role of an appellate judge is to apply Supreme Court precedents, not to question them. You’ll be hearing a lot on the right about how John Roberts has already been confirmed once, but it bears repeating that the answers that Roberts gave in his previous testimony aren’t applicable to a Supreme Court confirmation. He shouldn’t be allowed to stonewall again on questions of judicial philosophy.

Needless to say, Roberts’ mealy-mouthed answers give me a lot of reservations about what kind of jurist he’d be. My continuing hesitancy can be summed up by this statement by Ted Kennedy earlier in the transcript :

President Bush ran on a platform of selecting judges who will be like Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas. We all understand that meant judges who will be activists in reducing the power of Congress to protect people’s rights. You must understand, as everyone else does, that you were selected because those at the White House and the Justice Department knew your record and assured the President your decisions would please President Bush.

Since the President made sure to cover all his bases by picking someone who has very little experience on the bench and a lifetime of opinions that he can blame on his clients (whether fairly or not), our best bet is to research the hell out of this guy and be prepared for some serious grilling.

There’s nothing that Fox News hates more than having to cover a story that makes the President look bad. That’s probably why they temper their coverage of the Plame scandal with teasers of completely irrelevant bullshit (via Crooks and Liars) :

Stay tuned guys! When we’re done with this boring stuff we’ll talk about the sex teacher. Also, stick around through our fleeting coverage of the latest suicide bombings in Iraq for an encore presentation of the hour-long documentary, Big Butt Sluts Go Nuts, an expose on what happens to our vulnerable little girls during spring break and why they deserve it.

Just to put things in perspective, my website is older than the judicial career of the man George Bush chose to put on our highest court. Not that his inexperience means that the President has any doubts about how John Roberts is going to rule on issues like abortion. You don’t pluck somebody from the mailroom to be CEO unless you know what you’re getting. With a resume light on jobs that require a black robe, the Roberts pick is less about picking the right man for the job and more about screwing the American people out of the ability to adequately evaluate the President’s choice. I’ll keep my fingers crossed until the hearings, but I’m not gonna get my hopes up.

You also have to wonder how seriously the President takes this appointment when it’s been hastily announced in a transparent attempt to deflect attention away from the Plame matter.

Wow. A conservative white male for the Supreme Court? I dunno if America is “ready” for that.

Daryn, Jose Padilla’s name is pronounced pa-DEE-ya not pa-DILL-uh. For future reference, with Spanish words ending in -illa, think “tortilla” not “gorilla”.

There have been countless stories the last couple weeks that have quoted Karl Rove’s lawyer Robert Luskin, but has anyone tried calling Jim Sharp lately? I’d love to know what the President discussed during his 70 minutes with Patrick Fitzgerald and whether or not recent developments might cast some new light on that interview. It would be a damn shame if the prosecutor interpreted the President’s testimony as an obstruction of some sort. Also, I wonder if the Justice Department has anything to say about John Ashcroft’s recusal from the case or the grand jury appearance by then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales. I know this is just speculation, but I wouldn’t be shocked to hear that Alberto’s grilling included “So, have you and the President had any interesting conversations lately?”

I know I’m a little late on this one, but Salon’s Imperfect Martyr piece from the other day was complete bullshit. Andrew O’Hehir draws a false analogy between Judy Miller’s jailing and the ACLU defending Nazis, claims that the majority of liberals favor her jailing because of residual anger over the Iraq war^{[1]I want to see Miller punished for her misinformation laundering as much as the next guy, but the reason she belongs in jail right now have nothing to do with that.}, and wraps himself in the first amendment so tightly that he’s in danger of suffocating. And I haven’t even mentioned how patronizing and self-righteous it is…

The antidote to these “If you disagree with me, you hate the bill of rights” slurs can be found in three great articles from this week. First is this piece that Sid Blumenthal wrote for Salon :

In the best-case scenario for Miller, Bill Kovach believes that any pledge she may have made to a source should be invalid. Kovach is the former Washington bureau chief of the New York Times, former curator of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University and founding director of the Committee of Concerned Journalists. He describes the internal policy set within the Times on sources. “By the 1980s, we decided that we had to set some limits because reporters had been misled and the credibility of the news reports had been damaged by misleading sources. When I was chief of the bureau in Washington, we laid down a rule to the reporters that when they wanted to establish anonymity they had to lay out ground rules that if anything the source said was damaging, false or damaged the credibility of the newspaper we would identify them.”

In the Plame matter, Kovach sees no obligation of the reporters to false sources. “If a man damages your credibility, why not lay the blame where it belongs? If Plame were an operative, she wouldn’t have the authority to send someone. Whoever was leaking that information to Novak, Cooper or Judy Miller was doing it with malice aforethought, trying to set up a deceptive circumstance. That would invalidate any promise of confidentiality. You wouldn’t protect a source for telling lies or using you to mislead your audience. That changes everything. Any reporter that puts themselves or a news organization in that position is making a big mistake.”

Next up is this mea culpa^{[2]Latin for “my bad”.} from Robert Kuttner :

After a week’s reporting and reflection, I also suggest a different view of press privilege and the public interest. In the Alice in Wonderland world of the Plame-Rove story, Judith Miller, who worked hand in glove with the Bush administration to publish bogus stories about Saddam Hussein’s alleged nuclear program, is a hero – for going to jail to protect, once again, her friends in the administration.

And Time-Warner, which turned over Matt Cooper’s notes (for the wrong reasons – Time-Warner’s corporate interests – but that’s another story) is the villain. Yet it may be Cooper’s testimony that finally sinks Rove. So who’s the hero and what’s the public interest?

As Michael Kinsley has observed, not all leaks are created morally equal. It’s one thing for reporters to protect a brave whistle-blower who has taken personal risks to serve the public interest. It is another thing for reporters to collude with the powerful to punish the whistle-blower, in this case Joseph Wilson, and his wife, an innocent bystander.

Is the public good served by helping Fitzgerald learn who at the White House broke the law? Or is it served by having reporters protect Karl Rove? We need a public interest test, not an absolute privilege.

This quaint and outdated talk about reporters serving the public interest segues nicely into the third, and best, article from Jacob Weisberg at Slate :

Journalists make a fetish of anonymous sources. They do so for reasons ethical, psychological, and anthropological, including genuine principle, the lure of heroism, and—especially in Washington—a culture of status based on access to inside information.

But let’s ignore the ulterior motives and focus on the principle Judith Miller has so forcefully asserted by going to prison. To Miller and the Times, confidentiality is the trump value of journalism, one that outweighs all other considerations, including obedience to the law, the public interest, and perhaps even loyalty to country.

This is indeed a strong principle, but it is a misguided one. In the Mafia, keeping confidences is the supreme value. In journalism, the highest value is the discovery and publication of the truth. When this paramount value comes into conflict with others—such as following the law, keeping your word, and so on—hard choices have to be made.

There was an episode of Murphy Brown about fifteen years ago called “Subpoena Envy” in which Candice Bergen’s character refused to appear before a grand jury. As she was awaiting her jail sentence, her trepidation about doing time was overwhelmed by the congratulations she received from her fellow reporters. That’s exactly what Judy Miller is going through now. Sure, a few months in jail sucks, but it’s a small price to pay to get the journalistic equivalent of canonization. She’s probably so drunk with glory, I doubt she’d even recognize the real issues that are at stake in this case.

What is the role of a reporter? When the leak initially occurred, Robert Novak’s defenders were quick to say that a reporter’s job is to “reveal the truth” and that anyone who questioned this didn’t understand the value of a free press. Now that the exploits of Cooper and Miller have taken the spotlight, the utmost concern is for the confidentiality of anonymous sources. From where I’m sitting, there’s not enough room on the journalistic soapbox for both of these contradictory (in this case) notions. You either stand for protecting the public interest by revealing the inner workings of our government or you stand for protecting anonymous traitors.

---

1 : I want to see Miller punished for her misinformation laundering as much as the next guy, but the reason she belongs in jail right now have nothing to do with that.

2 : Latin for “my bad”.

Hi Guys, Ross A Lincoln here!

Time to come out of the closet. I am utterly opposed to Hillary Clinton running for president in 2008, or any year.

Before I’m misunderstood, let me state outright that I do happen to think we’re ready for a woman to lead us. Furthermore, it’s long, long overdue. There are countless bright, innovative, gutsy and courageous women right now who would make excellent first citizens and comanders in chief, and that the first noteable woman to run for president (in the modern era) was Liddy Dole and not a prominant democrat is shocking and infuriating.

I think it’s shameful that the Democrats haven’t made it a matter of party policy to place more women on the fast track to high leadership positions. But then, the Democratic party is awful at grooming anyone to take the reigns of power. Whether this is due to myopia, stupidity, or just plain corruption is beyond me, but part of the reason Republicans are kicking us around so effectively is that they’re soo good at party building, for administrative AND for PR reasons.

They’re astoundingly good at promoting minorities and women with controversial veiw points, not only to deflect criticism of those views, but to give the (HIGHLY FALSE) impression that their party represents diverse interests. Well written blog The Talking Lion had a good take on this earlier today with a post entitled African-Americans. are. not. stupid:

Say whatever the fuck you want, George. Promise’em the sky and the moon. Pretend you don’t mind shaking their hands you elitist asshole. They’re still not going to vote for your tax-cutting-for-the-obscenely-wealthy, anti-civil-rights ass.

However…

The RNC is aiming at converting black voters to their side by supporting controversial conservative minority puppets for local office. This is a scary strategy that may yield long-term dividends for the R’s.

So, Democrats, you listen up too. You have a lot of minorities in your camp. Put them in office. Let’s show some good faith efforts to represent the diversity of our party in it’s elected officials. There are smart people of every color.

(Post quoted in its entirety. Please click the link and spend a lot of time reading their other wonderful posts.)

They’re right of course, and this applies to everyone.

So why mention Hillary? Because if we stop deluding ourselves, we’ll see that the fact that we’re talking about her as a shoo in in 2008 isn’t due to her actually being a good choice for the spot. It’s that there just isn’t a significantly powerful female Democrat with the name recognition and moneyed backing neccesary to comepete against the other (inevitably republican-appeasing) male competitors she’s likely to run against.

That my friends is insane.

But back on topic, what reasons do I have for opposing her. Well, you can relax, because I promise I’m not going to get bogged down in the “She’s too divisive” argument, or at least, not in the way you think.

Is she too divisive? I don’t know, honestly. I don’t think her politics and persona are more divisive than the weakest Republican. However, I’m from Okahoma, and I’ll bet 100 bucks right now that she will never, ever, ever win that state. And I can say with some authority that Texas wouldn’t go for her, and neither would Arkansas, Georgia, nor Missouri, or most of the South and a sizeable portion of the West.

People in that part of the country HATE HER with a passion that make so-called Bush hatred look like a Roman Empire-style triumph. For those people, Hill is the living embodiment of every single thing they hate. Consider the following:

* They believe she is a murderer.

* They believe she is a stupid, mewing woman who tolerates her husband’s abuse.

* They believe she is a lesbian, which of course proves to these insane people that she’s not a “real” woman, and therefore a threat.

* They believe that she’s an evil, man hating feminist who wants to destroy masculine culture.

* They believe she’s a machiavellian super criminal who, with her husband, is behind a string of murders and crimes that even John gotti couldn’t pull off.

In short, they are as crazy as rabid dogs when it comes to their hatred of Hillary. No contradiction is too galling, no sci fi cliche is too obvious. If it’s evil and someone pins it on Hillary, they’ll eat it up.

They also number in the hundred of thousands, maybe millions, and they are the dominant electoral base in entire regions of this country. I am not saying that she couldn’t ultimately overcome that, (Though I personally think it would take her giving all of these people $1,000 each), but I promise you that if she runs, we will see a fringe right wing mobilization that will astonish us. Pretending otherwise is dangerously naive.

However, I’ll explain why I think her “controvery” isn’t the problem a lot of people assume it is in a moment. I actually have two major complaints about her that actually, truly, inform my reasons for being extremely opposed to her being our candidate, and I think they’re much more sound. I hope, anyway.
(more…)

Brilliant bit of political maneuvering by Sen. Reid :

Senate Democrats moved forcefully into the controversy surrounding White House aide Karl Rove on Thursday, calling for legislation to deny security clearances to officials who disclose the identity of an undercover agent.

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., sought to attach the proposal to a spending bill for the Department of Homeland Security, and aides said he hoped for a vote by day’s end.

It’ll be hard for the Republicans to hide their feelings about this situation much longer. As craven as Rove’s vocal defenders have been, you’ve gotta give them credit for at least being brave enough to speak in Rove’s defense. The rest of the GOP has been hiding under their desks all week hoping this whole mess will go away. You either take the leaking of national security secrets seriously or not. The Republicans in the Senate are about to find out that their days of having it both ways are numbered.

Since the White House’s efforts to spin their way out of the fact that they’re harboring a traitor have been a huge failure, here are a few suggestions for ways Republicans who don’t really care about national security can defend Karl Rove :

The Polyamory Defense

In an email to Time’s Matt Cooper, Karl Rove mentioned “Wilson’s wife” works for the CIA, but everybody just jumped to the conclusion that Wilson is only married to one woman. While the investigation is ongoing, it’s too early to tell whether Wilson was or wasn’t a bigamist. Until Fitzgerald has completed his inquiry, the question isn’t whether or not Rove revealed Valerie Plame’s CIA status (which is obviously wrong), but which one of Wilson’s wives was Rove referring to?

The Unwritten Rule Defense

What people outside of Washington don’t understand is that it’s common for government insiders to reveal top secret information to reporters with the understanding that the information in question will never, ever find its way into print. What’s truly unusual in this instance was the snitching of that rat bastard Matt Cooper. Everyone who’s worked in the Capitol for a while has received a few phone calls which anyone with an understanding of journalistic ethics knows you’re not supposed to talk about. Just ask any Washington insider about Bill Clinton’s late night phone calls to tell people what’s really in Area 51 or Bush Sr.’s chats with reporters about hiding out on the grassy knoll waiting for Kennedy’s motorcade. This isn’t a big deal.

The “Librul Commie” Defense

When Valerie “Wilson” gave $1000 to Al Gore in 2000, it compromised her the CIA dummy corporation she used as a front, Brewster-Jennings & Associates. But if one of our CIA covert operatives is aiding and abetting that nerd who thinks he invented the internets, where do her allegiances really stand? That alone is enough to suggest she may have been a double agent working for the Reds.

The “He Was Helping Her” Defense

It’s funny how much these silly little “bloggers” think they know about how the CIA works. At a certain point, an operative’s cover becomes so deep that it wraps around like a Moebius strip. At that level of cover, CIA operations require the outing of an agent as an exercise in black ops reverse reverse psychology. Rove, showing a clear understanding of CIA procedures, outed Plame in order to help her. If you want to know how the CIA really works, you’ve got to read one of the more informative manuals like “Confessions of a Dangerous Mind”.

The 16 Words Defense

Karl Rove was trying to ensure that Joseph Wilson’s lies didn’t hurt our national security. Yes, Joseph Wilson went to Niger and determined that the documents regarding uranium shipments to Iraq were forgeries, but the President explicitly said “uranium from Africa“, not just Niger. Has Wilson looked into uranium shipments out of Lesotho, Burkina Faso, or Djibouti?? I didn’t think so…

This video clip^{[1]Which is truly insane. This guy thinks Rove deserves a medal for outing Plame. Also, his casual use of the terms “peacenik” and “wifey” makes me think he needs a slap upside the head.} over at Oliver’s place has made me realize one of the reasons that I hate, hate, hate Fox News. Yeah, there’s the overwhelming conservative bias, but that’s only part of it. Even worse, to me, is the fact that every anchor has the exact same patronizing tone in his/her voice. It’s as if every inflection is meant to imply “If you don’t already agree with me, you’re a complete moron.” Granted, there’s plenty of this attitude in the punditocracy as well, but Fox is the only place that tolerates this sort of elitist swagger among its anchors. CNN and MSNBC have their faults, but neither network regularly lets their staff shoot off their mouths like a drunk uncle^{[2]I should mention that my uncle isn’t like this at all.} at Thanksgiving lecturing everyone about how things work in “the real world”. I hate being talked down to, especially by partisan assholes, so I can barely watch more than five minutes of Fox News without wanting to punch the screen.

---

1 : Which is truly insane. This guy thinks Rove deserves a medal for outing Plame. Also, his casual use of the terms “peacenik” and “wifey” makes me think he needs a slap upside the head.

2 : I should mention that my uncle isn’t like this at all.

Rove’s lawyer has the lamest defense ever (via TalkLeft) :

“Look at the Cooper e-mail,” Luskin continues. “Karl speaks to him on double super secret background…I don’t think that you can read that e-mail and conclude that what Karl was trying to do was to get Cooper to publish the name of Wilson’s wife.”

Good thing for Karl that the Intelligence Identities and Protection Act has a “double super secret background” clause. It’s right between the sections concerning “my fingers were crossed” and “just kidding”. I just hope Ruben Bolling is getting a commision from this schmuck.