jdcolv

Thursday, October 27, 2005

Withdrawal of Miers Nomination - Republican Hypocrisy

The withdrawal of the nomination of Harriet Miers to be a Supreme Court Justice certainly puts the lie to the Republican mantra that all they want is an "up or down vote" on President Bush's nominations. The radical right wing Republicans never even gave her an opportunity for a hearing, let alone an up or down vote. Let us never again be lulled by the Republican hypocrisy of affording a nominee "an up or down vote."

Monday, October 10, 2005

HARRIET AND THE RABID RIGHT

The nomination of Harriet Miers to be a Justice of the United States Supreme Court has created a most interesting paradox. The Democrats and liberals, who presumably would be shouting like banshees, are notably silent. On the other hand, the Republicans and conservatives, who heretofore have accepted President Bush’s judicial nominees with a Pavlovian lock-step affirmative vote, are screeching their protest.

Is it because she is too liberal? Hardly. Is it because she is not conservative enough? They admit they don’t know, but that she probably is. What then has the right wing intelligentsia so distressed and agitated?

The rabid right is up in arms over the Miers nomination because they got a conservative, but not an “in-your-face” conservative. They got half a loaf, and they wanted it all.

The rabid right may have gotten a judge who will vote to reverse Roe v. Wade, but they fear that she will not do so with the fire and brimstone of an avenging angel roaring out hellfire and damnation on all who oppose His will. They are infused with an arrogance that makes them more interested in polemic than principle.

It is not satisfactory merely to overturn Roe. Those who support a woman’s right to control her body must be crushed. Control of women must be burned into stone and placed in the courthouses of the country along with the Ten Commandments. Back alleys and coat hangers are of no concern when power to control the life of another is within their grasp.

At first the right was cool to John Roberts’ nomination. But the cockles of their hearts were warmed (if that is ever truly possible) when they took a look and discovered that Roberts was truly a believer who would project the right wing creed with a cold, nasty screed. When they saw that Roberts argued that Congress could strip the Supreme Court of the authority to rule on cases regarding school prayer, abortion, busing for desegregation and other issues, a position even more extreme than that adopted by the Reagan administration, they practically went into orgasmic ecstasy. Here was a man who would slay the dragon of equal rights, and would take no verbal prisoners. The reprehensible concept that government should be for the people and not just for the elite would surely be rendered asunder by the patrician Roberts.

With one more appointment, heaven on earth would be within their grasp. Evil would be given a severe blow, but by no means would it be vanquished; for the lack of an enemy doesn’t garner votes for the cause. And, as the right wing found upon the demise of the cold war, it is easier to work with the enemy you have created than to work to create a new one.

And then along comes Harriet! She is no burning Valkyrie like Priscilla Owen who ignites the right wing with judicial activism in attempting to rewrite a parental notification statute to fit her right wing ideology. No flim-flam man is she who can turn political contributions, contributed to buy favors, into speech; and say with a straight face that this was the original intent of the Constitution, as George Will pines for.

Listen to conservative activist Gary Bauer, "There are probably seven to eight names that have been looked to, have written wonderful decisions that are strong intellectually, compelling in their presentation.” “Compelling in their presentation?” Meaning that they give the right wing the red meat it needs to keep the masses agitated, restless, resentful, and malleable – and, most importantly, voting the right wing way.

We do not know yet what kind of judge Harriet Miers might be. What seems clear is that she will never be “right” enough to please the in-your-face mob of the rabid right. If she is confirmed, there seems no way that she can escape the right wing hall of infamy currently occupied by David Souter, John Paul Stevens, and Harry Blackman.

Tuesday, October 04, 2005

Fox News - Fair and Balanced?


Many questions have been raised about Fox News actually being “fair and balanced” as it claims. Following is a portion of an interview of David Shuster, a reporter formerly at Fox News, now with MSNBC, that appeared on HeraldTimesOnline.com. The entire interview can be found at http://www.heraldtimesonline.com/stories/2005/10/02/column.1002-SH-A3_CMK35541.sto.

He went on to recount his six-year tenure at Fox. "At the time I started at Fox, I thought, this is a great news organization to let me be very aggressive with a sitting president of the United States (Bill Clinton)," Shuster said. "I started having issues when others in the organization would take my carefully scripted and nuanced reporting and pull out bits and pieces to support their agenda on their shows.
"With the change of administration in Washington, I wanted to do the same kind of reporting, holding the (Bush) administration accountable, and that was not something that Fox was interested in doing," he said.

"Editorially, I had issues with story selection," Shuster went on. "But the bigger issue was that there wasn't a tradition or track record of honoring journalistic integrity. I found some reporters at Fox would cut corners or steal information from other sources or in some cases, just make things up. Management would either look the other way or just wouldn't care to take a closer look. I had serious issues with that."

The Bloomington native encountered a markedly different culture when he jumped to NBC/MSNBC in June 2002. "One of the first things that happens is you're given a 50-page manual of standards and practices … and you immediately sense this is an organization that cares very deeply about journalistic integrity."

Miers Nomination - Supreme Court

When you discuss the nomination of Harriet Miers' to be a Supreme Court justice, please remember that she was an integral part of the Bush Administration when the torture memos which were the proximate cause of the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo stains on the United States were developed and implemented.
Please also remember that only the portion of the infamous Bybee Memo that defines torture as those actions intended to inflict severe physical injury such as death or organ failure was rescinded. The portion of the memo which opines that neither the President nor anyone he designates is subject to the laws and treaties of the United States is still in effect.
The role of Ms. Miers in the development and implementation of the torture memos and whether she believes that the President is above the law need to be fully explored by the press and the Senate.