Digby on the Beltway class that relentlessly sucks up to and makes excuses for Don Imus:
And I also listen to their complaints about the vituperation on the internet, how the bloggers — especially the “angry left” — are horrible people who treat them disrespectfully. And I have to laugh because I know that Don Imus can call them and their colleagues twits and pussies in Vanity Fair and they come back licking his boots, begging for more. And we know why.
They have earned their reputation — even some of the good ones, the ones who write things I like. When you sell your personal integrity for money to a racist scumbag like Don Imus, you have to expect that people are not going to treat you with a lot of respect.
Don Imus has been behaving badly and apologizing for it for many, many years. I expect he will continue to do so once he’s finished with his two week vacation. And all of these writers will once again make pilgrimages to his show and pledge fealty to him in order to sell books. Because, unlike those great basketball players he maligned so casually — they really are whores.
Indeed. Bob Raissman(via Jeralyn), who agrees that the one thing Imus will never lose is his army of sycophants promoting third-rate books, point out that the only the that will convince MSNBC and CBS to dump him is if the program will no longer be profitable. Since there’s a more sustained backlash against him than usual, this isn’t out of the question…
“On 1 March 07, I was scheduled to fly on American Airlines to Newark, NJ, to attend an academic conference at Princeton University, designed to focus on my latest scholarly book, Constitutional Democracy, published by Johns Hopkins University Press this past Thanksgiving.”
“When I tried to use the curb-side check in at the Sunport, I was denied a boarding pass because I was on the Terrorist Watch list. I was instructed to go inside and talk to a clerk. At this point, I should note that I am not only the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence (emeritus) but also a retired Marine colonel. I fought in the Korean War as a young lieutenant, was wounded, and decorated for heroism. I remained a professional soldier for more than five years and then accepted a commission as a reserve office, serving for an additional 19 years.”
“I presented my credentials from the Marine Corps to a very polite clerk for American Airlines. One of the two people to whom I talked asked a question and offered a frightening comment: “Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that.” I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September, 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the Web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the Constitution. “That’ll do it,” the man said.”
Fortunately, he finally got a boarding pass, although after a warning that his luggage would be ransacked it was lost (coincidentally or not) on the flight home. Graber points out that Murphy is nobody’s idea of a doctrinaire liberal, but in some sense this is beside the point. Given the importance of air travel in this country, using it to harass and deny access to people who have been critical of the government is appalling, period. As Murphy concludes:
“I confess to having been furious that any American citizen would be singled out for governmental harassment because he or she criticized any elected official, Democrat or Republican. That harassment is, in and of itself, a flagrant violation not only of the First Amendment but also of our entire scheme of constitutional government. This effort to punish a critic states my lecture’s argument far more eloquently and forcefully than I ever could.”
IMUS: So, I watched the basketball game last night between — a little bit of Rutgers and Tennessee, the women’s final.
ROSENBERG: Yeah, Tennessee won last night — seventh championship for [Tennessee coach] Pat Summitt, I-Man. They beat Rutgers by 13 points.
IMUS: That’s some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, they got tattoos and –
McGUIRK: Some hard-core hos.
IMUS: That’s some nappy-headed hos there.
Har-dee-har-har! You can see why MSNBC signed him up. (As the Media Matters story notes, this is not exactly an isolated incident.) Meanwhile, Roger points us to this story, who reminds us (the error Roger points to has now been corrected) about one of Imus’ regular guests:
Both Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, and Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, recently appeared on the show, and media figures including Frank Rich of The New York Times and Chris Matthews of MSNBC have also spent time with Mr. Imus. Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois, appeared on the show some time ago to promote his book “The Audacity of Hope.”
Ah, yes, that Joe Lieberman, the nation’s self-appointed morality co-czar (with Rambin’ Gamblin’ Willie Bennett). Note to all television producers and video game developers: make sure there isn’t a hint of nudity, and use lots of racism instead, and you’ll be fine! Finding some way for Lieberman to address his number one priority–promoting Joe Lieberman–would also help.
…And here, Holy Joe proves himself once again to be a more reliable recycler of feeble right-wing spin that Arlen Specter. Bravo!
Reacting to Phyllis Schlafly’s latest support of a husband’s right to rape his wife (another example here), the Happy Feminist makes an excellent point: Schlafly has essentially the same conception of marriage as Catharine MacKinnon. The only difference is that Schlafly sees this institution as normatively desirable, which is as serious problem since if this is true MacKinnon’s normative position is clearly right…
…as Matt says in comments, one can read MacKinnon as making an entirely (and largely valid) empirical and historical argument, rather than an argument about the inherent properties of marriage, although her structuralism can be so crude at times that there’s a lot of slippage between the two.
Hey, clinching is clinching even if you do it while losing to a team that I don’t believe had previously scored while Pelosi was speaker. The Flames/Red Wings matchup is interesting, and at least brings back good memories. The game above is the only playoff game I’ve seen the the last 10 years, and one of the 3 or 4 most exciting events I’ve seen live. I happened to be in town for my father’s birthday-anniversary party, and he had tickets to a potential elimination game, so I stayed an extra day and took a crack of dawn flight back to Seattle to give my lecture that afternoon. I doubt that was the best teaching I’ve ever done, but quite worth it.
Alas for my negative rooting interests, the Canucks have a really favorable matchup; playing against the conference’s worst playoff goalie (OK, who are you taking him instead of? Unless you’re worried about Hasek getting hurt, the answer is “you’re crazy”) is what they need — I’m afraid they’re going to round 2. More about this later, perhaps with special guests, I’m sure…
…oh, and in terms of today’s play-in game for the Islanders, Damien Cox anticipates whining by Leafs fans: “But imagine the angst in Leaf-land if that game matters and the Devils trot out Scott Clemmensen and sit Patrick Elias.” You hear arguments like this all the time–it’s very common in baseball too–but it’s an easy question. The responsibility of the Devils is to do what’s in the interests of the Devils, which includes not risking an injury to your stars in a meaningless game before the playoffs. If you need somebody’s help to get into the playoffs, tough shit. The Leafs could have solved this by winning another game, and the Devils don’t owe them a favor.
Interestingly, I think that the more Pelosi acts like a wannabe President, the worse it is for Hillary. And I think that Pelosi knows that.
Yes, and all those Republican Congressmen going to Syria–and, hence, wannabe Presidents–must be really bad for male Republican candidates, right? And we can just assume their motives are related to primary catfights, right? And George Bush’s failed, exceptionally unpopular presidency suggests that men are unfit to be President, right? Right? It’s just amazing that a law professor could still think this way in 2007.
…I agree with Sister Nancy Beth Eczema. I wish that Pelosi would stop worrying her pretty widdle head about big manly foreign policy issues. The administration’s immensely successful foreign policy will continue to create stable, pro-American and pro-Israeli liberal democracies throughout the middle east if the uppity women will just get out of the way and leave the big decisions to Bush and obscure members of Congress with more appropriate genitalia.
Exhibit Z. Well, at least we can be reassured that his assertions of unlimited executive power won’t extent to providing health care for poor working people, who frankly deserve to die if they “choose” not to purchase insurance.
Shockingly enough, assertions about operational connections between Iraq and Al-Qaeda turn out to be…completely bogus! Who would have thunk it? And just to pre-empt any claims that this is a strawman that nobody ever put forward as a justification for the war anyway, Glenn Reynolds thoughtfully compiled somelinks at the time to various conservative bloggers (in addition to himself) demanding more attention to Saddam’s fictitious connections to Al-Qaeda. I particularly enjoyed reading this one: “STEPHEN F. HAYES wonders why the White House continues to downplay the Saddam / Al Qaeda connection. I’ve wondered the same thing.” Yes, indeed, there was an obvious inference to be made from the fact that the administration (with the exception of the Vice President) largely declined to make direct assertions about Iraq’s alleged ties to Al Qaeda although this would have provided an unassailable justification for the war. The fact that Reynolds, Hayes, and other conservative pundits refused to connect the dots is quite remarkable; it’s not easier to make more hackish and factually bereft arguments in favor of the war than Bush himself, but some people succeeded.
I have a discussion of Jan Crawford Greenburg’s new book up at TAP. The most valuable part of the book, I argue, is that it emphasizes how contingent the (relative) moderation of the late Rehnquist Court was. To excerpt one point:
The most sophisticated denial strategy is to point out that the Court rarely stays outside of the bounds established by political pressures for long. Long-established by the political science literature, this claim actually has considerable merit, and it is true that worries about the return of a “Constitution in Exile” are overblown. (It is highly unlikely that anything like a radical, pre-New Deal vision of federalism will ever command five votes in the Supreme Court. Even if it happened, the effects would be temporary, as the Republican Party would essentially be finished as a political force in its current form.)
Still, it’s important not to overstate the restrictions on the Court’s autonomy, or to assume that justices will always act in the strategic interests of the party that appointed them. In retrospect, it may seem inevitable that the Court has failed to take the highly unpopular step of overturning Roe v. Wade, but as Greenburg reminds us, Roe’s survival (in diluted form) was highly contingent. Had Ronald Reagan nominated Robert Bork when the GOP still controlled the Senate and saved Scalia to replace Lewis Powell, for example, he almost certainly would have gotten both confirmed. Similarly, Souter’s nomination by George H.W. Bush was a fluke based on the influence of John Sununu and Warren Rudman in the White House and strange internal machinations in the Department of Justice; without those things, Kenneth Starr would have been the likely nominee. Either result would have ended in Roe being overturned, and would have had a considerable impact in many other areas of law as well (most notably affirmative action and church and state issues). The Rehnquist Court could have been much more conservative than it was. Liberals shouldn’t get too complacent about the consequences should a Republican president get to appoint the replacement for John Paul Stevens or Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
As I say, it’s true that the Court–in general–tends to gravitate towards the political center. But there are also any number of exceptions to this rule, and (particularly during times of closely divided government) the Court often has considerable discretion about individual issues. The fact that overturning Roe might not be optimal for the Republican Party doesn’t ensure its survival by any means, and in fields where a great deal of rollback can be done outside the public eye the potential damage of making Roberts or Scalia the median vote on the Court is even greater.
Jessica breaks it down; read the whole etc. Elsewhere, Ann Althouse uses the article to once again to repeat a shamelessly misleading narrative about the incident, pretending that her silly, oft-refuted claim that being seen with Bill Clinton is a betrayal of feminism (while enthusiastically supporting Sam Alito and George Bush, of course, isn’t) was the only point she was making. But, of course, nobody would remember her post if this was her only argument; feminism being used as a transparent prop for right-wing resentment is pretty banal on the intarweb these days. Rather, people have criticized Althouse because she repeatedly mentioned Jessica’s body for no reason whatsoever, made puerile sniggering remarks about her (how can somebody look like both Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky anyway?), and put forward grossly dishonest characterizations of the content of Jessica’s website in the midst of deranged conspiracy theories about the meetup. (To state the obvious, claiming that NARAL’s house blogger was invited to a Hillary Clinton event to get set up with Bill Clinton isn’t just evidence of a rather unhealthy obsession with Bill Clinton’s sex life at this late date, but implies that the most prominent feminist blogger in the city where the meetup occurred has nothing to offer a political campaign but her body.) If Althouse doesn’t want to be criticized for her behavior, she should stop being dishonest about why she’s being criticized.
I finally got a chance to readMA v. EPA, the recent decision requiring the EPA to reasonably justify its decision not to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The first component of the case is whether or not the parties challenging the regulation had standing to challenge the regulatory decision; this part of the opinion I completely agree with, and indeed I only wish that Stevens had the votes to overturn the key rule established in Lujan (a 1992 standing case in which Stevens wrote a concurrence persuasively rejecting Scalia’s narrowing of standing doctrine.) I would strongly recommend Jack Balkin’s twoposts on the subject. First of all, he correctly notes that “[s]tanding doctrine is among the most unprincipled and arbitrary parts of American constitutional law.” And second, he’s also correct to point out that the narrowing of standing doctrine under the Rehnquist Court isn’t random, but will generally favor litigants seeking conservative outcomes. (People bringing property rights claims can always claim a direct injury, for example, but challenging the potentially unconstitutional funding of religious organizations becomes much more difficult.) My favorite quote about standing is William O. Douglas’ counter to the arguments of Warren Court house conservative John Marshall Harlan: “Taxpayers can be vigilant private attorneys general. Their stake in the outcome of litigation may be de minimis by financial standards, yet very great when measured by a particular constitutional mandate. My Brother HARLAN’s opinion reflects the British, not the American, tradition of constitutionalism. We have a written Constitution; and it is full of “thou shalt nots” directed at Congress and the President as well as at the courts. And the role of the federal courts is not only to serve as referee between the States and the center but also to protect the individual against prohibited conduct by the other two branches of the Federal Government.” In the American system, the merits of a constitutional argument should be more important than the identity of a litigant, and standing rules are particularly likely to be deployed in an outcome-oriented manner.
On the merits of the case, I’m actually a little more ambivalent. While I have little sympathy for conservative arguments about standing, I do think they have a point about deferring to reasonable executive applications of statutes. (This is not just conservative, of course; the crucial Chevron case, which requires the courts to defer to reasonable executive interpretations of statutes, was written by Stevens and joined by Brennan.) And it is important to keep in mind that as early as 2009 we could have a Democratic administration being supervised by very conservative federal courts. Still, for better or worse under the modern regulatory state judicial review plays a significant role, I’m much less optimistic than Balkin about the Court’s conservatives being as deferential toward a Democratic administration, and certainly I think that the majority’s construction of the Clean Air Act was far more plausible than the EPA’s (or the dissenters’), so this is probably a good outcome on balance. It is, however, important to remember that the modern state grants enormous policymaking discretion to the executive, and it would be dangerous to count on the Courts to overturn bad administrative decisions in most cases. Control of the White House is extremely important even if the climate for major legislative reform is unfavorable.