Pangloss

Time ran a fascinating piece by Amy Sullivan yesterday about in-fighting in the religious right. One of their more interesting points is that when James Dobson came out slinging mud at Obama this week, there was a backlash within the religious conservative community. One brand new anti-Dobson PAC was created and, low and behold, immediately picked up thousands of dollars in Colorado Springs, the small, overwhelmingly conservative city where Focus on the Family is located! The piece goes on to look at the struggles of political evangelical leaders right now. Rush Limbaugh is no doubt playing this as attributable to "white guilt" and "racial fears". (sigh) But the article talks about how there has been a very real movement toward the left within the religious community, especially amongst young people (as we've talked about here previously). There was also the report last week showing that most Americans are just fine with members of other religious faiths, even evangelicals, something that makes the Dobson types really crazy. http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1818313,00.html I think she's got some great points. I don't think the religious right has EVER been as unified as they wanted people to believe they were, and what unity they had has been severely compromised by Iraq and the economy, and I also suspect by more subtle (less talked-about amongst them) factors, such as detainees and torture (i.e. it bothers them even if they don't say so).

Why wouldn't that be relevant? It wasn't a pejorative; the whole point was that he spent millions of dollars of his own money on his own campaign. The law was designed to balance things out for the "little guy" when that happens. It's a little thing called "campaign finance reform". Read the link.

The Supreme Court snuck in a final ruling at the last minute yesterday, issueing a decision in the case of Davis v Federal Election Commission. Davis, a wealthy New York Democrat, lost a couple of elections in which he spent a great deal of money. He argued against a state law that allowed his opponents, once Davis had put more of his millions into his kitty (information which was exposed to the public as part of this law), to raise money of their own beyond the normal spending limit. He was denied at the district appeals level but appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled in his favor. The New York Times has a write-up here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27money.html?ref=us

The idea that just this ruling means that handgun laws may be overturned is a slippery slope fallacy. It's really in a gray area that always comes up in slippery slope arguments, so perhaps I'm exaggerating the point, it's just odd to see a justice even go into that area. He's correct in pointing out that all those other laws will now be challenged, but there's no particular reason to think they would be overturned. The one does not lead logically to the other, such that the one must be prevented for that reason.

Yes that's a good assessment. Not to detract from that, what I was getting at really was the use of the slippery slope in his argument, vis-a-vis talking about how this decision would lead to the loss of other gun-control legislation. It was a little painful to see a Supreme Court justice use such an obvious logical fallacy. The fact that Scalia touched on the same points suggests that the subject came up in debate between the justices, which is also a little disappointing. But of course they're only human.

Sure. But two steps forward and one step back is still one step forward. Given the overall course of humanity, mostly peaceful but rarely free, I'll take the last century of global violence and conflict.

But apparently we've established that a "freedom fighter" can also be an advocate of religious zealotry and fascist oppression. One man's "freedom" is another man's (or woman's) "slavery".

I'm surprised you didn't mention Breyer's slippery slope argument in today's ruling, doG (interesting post, though). Anybody want to grab that ball and run with it? Incidentally, I thought Obama's comment on today's gun control ruling was interesting when viewed in contrast with Bush's reaction to earlier decisions. Obama seemed to recognize the importance of this and the fact that it doesn't ultimately threaten gun control efforts. But from the news reports today it does sound like we're entering a period of numerous legal challenges to all forms of gun control. That's how the single-issue special interest groups react to things like this, spending our money on stuff we don't want.

"Freedom fighter" is an equally abusable word. We're just (rather pointlessly) discussing politically correct semantics here, IMO.

Exactly. There's an interesting parallel here with the issue of separation of church and state. This "comma" issue was considered moot and irrelevant -- there was never any question about ownership as a basic right of citizenship -- until the rise of the gun control movement in the late 20th century. So you could say that the over-analysis of commas was partisan to that issue. It's very similar to the way those who advocate total separation of church and state harp about the fact that the word "God" was only added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950s. Neither argument is relevant to the matter at hand. It's just something used to give the appearance that the other side's argument is weaker. I mention it here just to show how often and thinly these constitutional questions digress into modern, applied ideological concerns.

What's really notable about the voting above is not who appointed them but what side of the "strict constructionism" vs "living constitution" debate they're on. Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer are the "living constitution"-ers, and the others at least tend towards the direct, literal interpreation of the document. It's no accident that Scalia wrote the majority opinion, even though Chief Justice Roberts was amongst the majority -- Scalia is the self-proclaimed champion of strict constructionism. I haven't seen this in any articles yet, but I've no doubt that this will be seen as Scalia's legacy, this decision right here. Americans have been waiting for a decision on this obscure constitutional wording since 1791. Do the extra commas, which are included in the document I saw hanging under the dome in the National Archives two weeks ago (I failed to disguise it as a souvenir and escape through the gift shop, so it should still be there!), mean that the amendment only applied to state militias, and not to all people? It was one of the Great Unanswered Questions, and now we have an answer, for what it's worth. That's not to say that they weren't giving their honest opinions and efforts, but I can't help but think that was a factor in this. I don't even think that's necessarily a bad thing (that they debate such fine legal points, or that they might consider it their legacy). Who am I to say he's wrong?

I guess that makes sense. I don't think I could support a "freedom fighter" who deemed it necessary to attack non-combatants. And I agree that it's largely about poverty, or at least lack of opportunities.

Incidentally, the Court today issued its last decision of the term, and I think it is a perfect example of what I'm talking about above. The Court rejected Washington, D.C.'s total ban on firearms, and clarified that the Second Amendment does, in fact, allow for all citizens to bear arms, not just "militias", something that was considered one of the great pending Constitutional questions. Many on the left, and I believe the mainstream media on tonight's news broadcasts, will characterize this as a victory for the right, a conservative decision, and/or at least remark on the fact that it was made after the appointments of Alito and Roberts. And to some extent that's understandable, given the serious rift apparent in the dissent. But the fact is, this decision doesn't mean guns can't still be registered and/or licensed. Nor does it stop the state from placing reasonable and logical restrictions on ownership (crazy people, convicted criminals, etc). All it actually does is confirm a right that most Americans already believe that they have. So why will it be characterized tonight as "conservative"? The debate between the "originalists" (or "strict constructionists") and the "living Constitution" types is a fascinating legal argument, but it should have absolutely nothing to do with modern politics, and should never -- not ever -- be used to propound an ideological viewpoint or to further a specific cause. The sooner people realize that, the better.

I thought the plan was to recycle the waste like the French do? (Am I really out of touch on this?)

What's wrong with saying that they are the same in terms of tactics, and that the difference is that the freedom fighter is the one I agree with and support, and the terrorist is the one I wish to destroy?

That's a much more reasonable way of putting it; at least less blatantly partisan. I can understand the fear that underlies some of these decisions, and why people may see them as more conservative and less liberal. But the purpose of the Supreme Court is not to represent liberal or conservative viewpoints, it's to interpret the Constitution as it applies to the law, and to do so as accurately and objectively as seven human beings can do. Look at it this way: The nomination process is sufficient to ensure that no blatant ideologues get seats. We know this because it's worked for so long and because there's so much logical rationale behind it. If that is true, then it therefore stands to reason that if you see a particular decision as being partisan in nature -- too conservative or too liberal, or not meeting some personal moral standard, such as humane behavior or what you feel is justice or sane reasoning, then you may need to review your own motivations, rationale, or understanding of the issue. That's not to say that they're always right and observers who disagree with them are always wrong. But do you really think George W. Bush is qualified to call the recent Guantanamo decision "the worst decision in legal history"? Of course not. But what makes you think you're a more qualified judge? (I don't mean Phil here, I mean all of us.) All I'm saying is, when the Supreme Court makes a decision, that is a very good time for a personal partisanship reality check. Read BOTH decisions, those in support and those in dissent. Read them carefully and with an open mind. Especially note any differences between the dissent and your own opinion. You may be surprised at the reasons why they dissented -- that may not be the same reason you disagree with the majority. --------------- That having been said, I agree that it's hard not to see a shift to the right in the court's decisions following the appointments of Alito and Roberts. But I'm not convinced that almost all of those decisions would not have been exactly the same had the composition of the court remained the same. The court's own opinion on numerous issues has seemed to many observers to be shifting for some time prior to those appointments, and some of those issues (particularly pertaining to unpopular Bush administration decisions, such as those related to detainees and surveillance) simply had not come before the Court prior to their appointments, at least not in that specific way. And some of the decisions have been downright unfriendly toward the Bush administration. That follows the Court's very long and illustrious history of running counter to what the nominating administration planned. And finally, be careful what you wish for, because that last axiom above runs both ways, and those liberal judges you so crave may surprise you when it comes down to real cases.

That was actually something I wondered about, whether new plants would contribute to the waste problem before Yucca was ready. I take it that new plants (built today) would start spitting out spent rods well before 2016, eh? I don't know much about this stuff.

They also looked pretty "Bush-packed" in cutting the damages award over Exxon Valdez today. Still, it's Phil's argument, I'm not going to make it for him. If he wants to run for cover, that's his business, I suppose.

Yes, he should have raised the bar, perhaps proposing improvements and more funding for advanced technology disposal facilities, for example. He can still do that, pledging something along the lines of building more plants once the disposal issue "is fully resolved", etc.

No, it wouldn't:

Today that Bush-packed, partisan conservative Supreme Court dealt a severe blow to one of the conservative movement's greatest causes: capital punishment. The court banned the death penalty for cases of rape involving a child.

I'll answer that. I happen to agree with the Court's decision, but I think my assessment of your reply was spot on. If you were being objective you would note that if the court were so partisan toward the Bush administration then it would NOT have given that decision, and instead supported the Bush administration's position regardless of what the Constitution says.

Ah yes, the old "when they agree with me they're only being logical, it's when they disagree with me that they're being partisan" argument, the fast friend of unilateralism everywhere. ------------------ I'm still waiting for Phil to defend his assertion that "we all know" that McCain will pack the court with conservatives, and that only a pro-life president is acceptable because he would pack the court with liberal justices.

There's no particular reason to think that Roe v. Wade will come up again, and there's also no particular reason to think that a McCain-appointed judge would overturn the ruling. Both of the current-Bush-appointed Justices stated during confirmation that they considered the issue a settled matter of law. No challenges to Roe v. Wade have been accepted by the Court since they sat. In fact, 7 of the 9 current Justices were appointed by Republican presidents (excepting only the two Clinton appointees, Ginsburg and Breyer), and, aside from perhaps Ginsburg, the justices most likely to be replaced during the next administration were all Republican appointees. None of the nine were on the court when Roe v Wade passed. Seven of them have been there since the '90s. And yet Roe v. Wade remains the law of the land. So... why are we afraid of Roe v Wade being overturned, exactly?

So you would characterize the current court as too conservative? I certainly wouldn't say that the Bush administration would call it too conservative, given their recent decision regarding Guantanamo Bay detainees. And while I have no particular qualms about Obama-appointed justices, I have no particular qualms about McCain-appointed ones either.