Scare Tactics

There are a lot of articles on the Sotomayor hearings, as you might expect. With the Republicans/Conservatives pretending that the Moderate Obama is practically a Stalinist, it's not too hard for them to approve the balanced Sotomayor is a fringe and somewhat crazed judge. One example comes from Horace Cooper, in which he trots out the standard arguments.

He references the Wise Latina, but like all conservatives, leaves out the context. For those who don't know the quote, while a bit further than I would go, was basically saying that her experience brings some value to the role of judge. In a judicial system, that by any measure, treats blacks and Hispanics differently than it treats whites, and treats the poor differently than it treats the wealthy I don't know what's so controversial about saying that.

And then he brings up the line about the courts of appeals being where policy is made. And he takes this further out of context. Again Sotomayor was asked what is the difference between Courts of Appeals and other courts, and what she said is, in reality, completely non-controversial. But Cooper, of course, reads it as a prescription for activist courts.

. . . policy making is among the least appropriate practices of the judiciary and her comments raise the question as to what policies will be promulgated and for whose benefit and perhaps most importantly if the U.S. Constitution and American law won’t be used, on what will she use instead as the basis for these policymaking decisions?

Except that of course precedent is a key part of our legal system. Yes the Congress passes the laws, but interpreting them often falls to the courts. And that's where Sotomayor is, naturally, completely right in noting that they are required, in listening to their cases, to decide what that precedent is going to be. And they determine that precedent by referring to the Constitution and American Law.

What exactly is controversial about that?

He also pads out his article by talking about a Clinton era appointee who he sees as similar; subtly equating the two, although it's clear she went a good deal farther than Sotomayor.

I do think it's interesting that in her legal decisions, with the exception of Ricci (in which they believe she should have had empathy for a white fireman and ruled in his favor regardless of the law), they aren't finding anything. She wasn't appointed yesterday. You'd think with that record they'd have more substantial criticisms, but I guess not.

For more on the court of appeals policy quote, check out this post at the Huffington Post.

Permanent Republican Majority

For a while there you saw a number of Republicans arguing that we were entering a time of permanent Republican majority. They aren't doing that as much these days, probably because the idea doesn't sound as believable as it once did. But there are still some Republicans supporting it, like Horace Cooper in his latest article.

He notes that Republicans do have some structural benefits (i.e. they have more safe districts than Democrats), and trots out the old argument that if Democrats want to be successful they should copy Republicans.

If the party is primarily coastal and urban, the party's activists are disproportionately so. Ceding much of the heartland is a strategic failing for Democrats. The party's insularity makes it unable to fairly evaluate the public's misgivings about gay marriage, aggressive secularism, anti-Americanism, gun control and related social schemes as anything other than uninformed bigotry. Soliciting the votes of people you believe to be ignorant bigots requires a degree of cynicism difficult to mask from the voter. And such a task is impossible if it turns out the voters are neither ignorant nor bigoted.

There are Democrats who fit this parody, but they aren't the majority, or even a significant minority.

But let's look at how this deep thinker characterizes the Democratic view they have a hard time explaining to middle America. Gay Marriage, I get. The Democratic Party and middle America do seem to have different opinions on that issue. Aggressive secularism? Again there is some differences here - but obviously Cooper hasn't heard of the Dominionists if he thinks that Democrats are the only ones being "aggressive" on this issue.

And then we get to Anti-Americanism. One of the policies of America that we have a hard time explaining to our friends in middle America. Not hard to see why that would be a tough sell. If it were true. I mean if we Democrats were really consumed with Anti Americanism, I frankly think that Americans would be right to be suspicious of us. But we aren't. And the cynical Cooper presumably knows this.

Democrats are pro America and pro American - we want our country to be both just and successful. We believe that our country has the potential for greatness, a potential being squandered by a shortsighted Republican Party who sees belligerence as strength.

I think the American people can see what the Republicanoids have brought us, and I think they are smart enough to reject it.

Who Watches the Watchmen?

There is no need to watch the watchmen; they have the authority to do whatever they want. Horace Cooper, in an article at Townhall, argues that President Bush has the power to do whatever he wants if he deems it to be in the interest of protecting the United States.

The Iraq War resolution gives the President the authority to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." And the Patriot Act, among many significant changes, included enhanced FISA surveillance of foreign nationals. Combined with his constitutional powers, the president clearly has the legal authority to carry out this surveillance.

One thing my clever readers will note is that the quote from the Iraqi War Resolution is not in fact from the Iraqi War Resolution. It is rather from a joint resolution "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States. NOTE: Sept. 18, 2001 - [S.J. Res. 23]" Something to keep in mind.

That said, it certainly is optimistic of Mr. Cooper to assume that the legality of the President's actions are not in question. This is, of course, the old "pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain" strategy. Not always successful, and it doesn't seem like it will work in this case, except on those already inclined to give the President the benefit of the doubt.