One problem with pointing out that if torture and preventative detention are such nifty tools in the fight to keep Americans “safe” why aren’t we using them against common murderers, given that they’re about 10,000 times more common than terrorists, is that lots of people are sure to say that’s a really good idea.
A few random thoughts/links about the big news you may have already heard about, Obama tapping Sonia Sotomayor as his first pick:
- It’s a good, solid pick. Not a home run like Karlan would have been, but I also don’t think she’ll be another Breyer; I see another Ginsburg at worst. For me, she would have been #2 among the viable candidates after Wood, and I don’t think Wood is clearly more liberal; they’re within a range in which appellate court records don’t reveal enough information to make firm judgments.
- If the GOP wants to make a big stand on affirmative action in the context of the first Hispanic-American nominee — and hence continue its demographic death spiral — I say bring it on.
- Useful link of cases at the Times here. If you didn’t see it at the time, this Goldstein post is also excellent.
- At the very least, this pick will make Jeffrey Rosen and Stuart Taylor cry. Let’s just hope that their respective predictive track records continue to be what they’ve been. Amusingly, Taylor recently moved Sotomayor below well-known no-hoper Jennifer Granholm on his Supreme Court short list. Well, at least that’s not as bad as “Sam Alito, the moderate who will disappoint conservatives”…
[X=Posted at TAPPED.]
Good Christ, the idiocy is flowing like wine this morning from the right. It’s hardly surprising that right-wing bloggers can’t tell the difference between the argument that a) North Korea won’t test another nuke, and b) a North Korean nuclear test doesn’t matter; they are, by and large, morons. In fairness to John Bolton, he was as critical of the Bush administration as he has been of the Obama, but that’s why he’s viewed as a crazy person by the greater portion of the American foreign policy community. It wasn’t that difficult to predict that North Korea might test a nuclear weapon; I predicted such on May 7, fully thirteen days before the oracular John Bolton made his pronouncements in the Wall Street Journal. The question is, and has always been, what the US can and should do about North Korea’s weapons program. The answer that the Bush administration discovered and that John Bolton never grasped is this: Not much.
That “not much” is the answer is pretty clear from this garbage by Bahukutumbi Raman at Forbes. North Korea has tested another nuclear device, we learn, because Obama is weak like Jimmy Carter. That Raman notes himself that North Korea pursued precisely the same strategy under the Bush administration doesn’t dissuade him from this conclusion. Raman’s policy recommendation? The US needs to be more supportive of Israel and India. That’ll teach the North Koreans that we mean business, and how!
Last week I spoke with Vanda Felbab-Brown of Brookings about gangsters, pirates, insurgents, and weak states. Here we talk a bit about the violence of the Mexican drug cartels:
Vanda also has a paper on the Mexican drug cartels from Brookings that’s worth your valuable time.
Not that anyone expected otherwise, but it remains unfortunate. I do suspect, though, that there’s at least some political positioning going on here, emphasizing the moderation of even pretty liberal picks. Wood, in particular, seems definitely better than Breyer, and has a more liberal record than Ginsburg did when she was appointed. Similarly, I’m not really bothered by Geoffrey Stone’s claim that she would be “an “incrementalist” not inclined to take on broad structural changes in the law.” Broad structural changes, after all, can only happen with 5 votes. I’ll say more about this issue tomorrow, but let’s just say that I think most progressives would be overjoyed with a liberal Alito, but Alito prefers incrementalism to broad pronouncements. If they’re in the right direction, incrementalism and broad strokes can be nearly indistinguishable, as the first terms of the Roberts Court should teach us.
A writer for the Weekly Standard begins with the premise that opposition to same-sex marriage is not always motivated by anti-gay bigotry or fundamentalist nonsense. He then goes on to make a case against SSM consisting almost exclusively of…creepy misogyny. So I suppose you’d have to say that he proved his point; there really are a multitude of indefensible reasons for supporting marriage discrimination…
…the great sky-blue satan IDs another choice quote.
…Chotiner hands out more rope.
Ronald Reagan received well-deserved scorn in 1985 for visiting Kolmeshöhe Cemetery, where several dozens of SS members were buried; even so, the circumstances of that visit could at least be rendered moderately sensible, given the incompetence that preceded the trip in the first place (e.g., Michael Deaver’s inability to realize who were buried there) and the political conditions that Reagan claimed had boxed him in (e.g., Kohl’s earlier support for missile deployment). The fact remains, though, that Reagan’s gesture of “reconciliation” was a disaster that subsequent presidents have wisely elected not to repeat.
By way of comparison, I have no idea why US presidents continue to honor the memory of soldiers who died fighting for the rights of white people to own black people.
A little over 140 years ago the residents of the American south rose up and began brutally slaughtering thousands of their fellow citizens to defend a despicable system of slavery. They chose to kill and destroy instead of recognizing that the tide of history had finally turned against them. Yet the memory of these traitors and murderers is honored, the reasons for their crimes santized. Deserters from the US military – men who took and then broke an oath of service to the Constitution of the United State – are given memorials and characterized as men of honor.
No shit. What respectable constituency is served by this annual rite of national humiliation? That anyone would mourn the confederate dead is beyond my range of comprehension; it’s unfortunate enough that William McKinley ever set in motion the process that eventually brought tens of thousands of Southern corpses under the care of the US government, when the nation would have been more properly served by stacking them on barges and launching them onto the North Atlantic current. But I’m kind of an asshole that way. The scandal here, however, is that Obama and his predecessors have specifically granted legitimacy to a memorial that — as a heap of scholars properly note — is nothing more than an ode to white supremacy and Lost Cause mythology. It continues to serve as a beacon to neo-Confederates who believe the South was engaged in a divine struggle against evil and that its founding principles have been vindicated over the past century and a half. Unless the wreath Obama sent to the memorial happened to be attached to a jackhammer, the effort was surely wasted.
…to go after a fraudulent religion just because it comes from the United States:
The Church of Scientology’s French branch went on trial on Monday on charges of organised fraud, in a case that could lead to the group being dissolved in France.
Registered as a religion in the United States, with celebrity members such as actors Tom Cruise and John Travolta, Scientology enjoys no such legal protection in France and has faced repeated accusations of being a money-making cult.
The French branch of the group said on Monday religious freedom was threatened.
Performance this year notwithstanding, this is a beautiful picture for any Mariner fan:
Made by Charlie Savage:
Most of the half-dozen or so candidates Mr. Obama is weighing have little by which to gauge whether their appointment might create a majority with greater sympathy for the White House.
But one, Judge Diane P. Wood of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, has expressed doubts about claims of sweeping executive powers in national security matters. Another, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, has a history of advocating for presidential powers in domestic matters, along with a mixed record of statements on counterterrorism issues.
I’ve become more and more convinced that Wood is the best candidate on what seems to be the short list. And given the Court’s current makeup, a significant possibility that a judge could join the Court’s reactionary wing on arbitrary executive power cases should pretty much be a disqualifying factor.