Although they were written without knowledge of the other, R. Emmett Tyrrell's essay and the one penned by yours truly form a perfect complementary tandem in today's American Spectator. Both are responses to the Alito job application which was discussed below by the estimable Mr. Karnick, who astutely assayed its radioactivity.
Tyrrell focuses on the fact that liberals have been pretending for at least a quarter-century that Reaganite ideas do not exist, and to the extent that they do exist they are outside the "mainstream" - this despite these ideas being in the political ascendancy since 1980.
I concentrate more on the need within the conservative camp for a pact of total loyalty, not to abandon Alito come Hell or high water. Here's a teeny excerpt:
All the gung-ho movement types were itching to volunteer for the battlefield. Okay, here it is. They had better be as good as their word. Because there will not be another chance. If Alito ends up twisting in the wind, with conservatives suddenly finding some taint in an obscure ruling of his and leaving his carrion in the open field for the vultures, then it's over for them. They won't get another chance. Not now, not ever. Not with this President. Not with any future Republican President.
It's very nice that everyone thinks of himself or herself as a person of principle. Not a sell-out. Motivated by morality. Informed by reason. Modified by experience. Calibrated by individuality. Guided by the spirit of the past. Animated by the spirit of the present. Inspired by the spirit of the future. We know all the lines, pal, but now is not the time: now it's time to put up or shut up. To, er... do your business or get off the pot. Push, as we have noted, has in fact come to shove.
There's no question that Alito has to be suppported. If he isn't, then that means no matter how outstanding one's legal resume', a failure to agree with a highly controversial ruling would void one's chances to serve. I don't think the American people expect or want that.
ReplyDeleteI am far more concerned with Alito's "Conflict of interest? I know no conflict of interest... Promise to Congress? Pshaw, I see no need to be bound to promises to Congress given under oath..." line of thinking than his opinion on Roe. I'm in the (unfortunately small) liberal camp that realizes very little will change if Roe is overturned. It's impossible to exercise your right in 87% of all counties. That's not going to change, Roe or no. For luvva Pete, let's be pragmatic for once and take the issue off the table.
ReplyDeleteThat "small amount of interest" were holdings that amounted to (depending on what year you ask) $400,000 to over $1 million in assets at that mutual fund. To the fund, that might be small. To an individual, that's huge.
ReplyDeletePattern? What about refusing to recuse himself from a case with huge financial implications for his sister's law firm? A judge jockeying for the Supreme Court must be above reproach, and you're parsing this?
...he did recuse himself when someone brought it up.
ReplyDeleteIsn't that kind of a problem? Someone shouldn't have had to bring it up in order for him to recuse himself. Ethical standards are something you hold yourself to, not something others call you on!
...he just happened to make a similar ruling in each case, using different reasoning.
I tend to agree here. I'm not as worried by his actual judicial reasoning. I read an analysis by Jeffrey Rosen, a liberal judicial analyst whose opinion I trust, that explained his rulings pretty well and didn't see anything that implied judicial misogyny. His reasoning was, however, flawed and he was rightly taken to task for it.
Ruling that the two groups have the same rights in one case is not "equating" them! (Do we "equate" school teachers with sexual predators by ruling that they both have the right to a driver's license?!)
That said, the above is rather glaring sophistry, JC.
Where's the misogyny exactly? Are 3/4 of Americans misogynists?
ReplyDeleteGiven the barriers women still face in society? Probably. And most probably don't know it.
Oy, the old "You're a racist and you don't even know it; you're a misogynist and you don't even know it" canard.
ReplyDeleteYears ago, Joe Sobran wrote some fabulous pieces showing what a malicious tack this is in debate, to attribute to your interlocutor subconscious thoughts and attitudes. If you say "I'm innocent," the other guy gets to cluck his tongue and give you a pitying smile - you poor schlub, so deep in denial.
Where's the misogyny exactly? Are 3/4 of Americans misogynists?
ReplyDeleteThe question before Alito was whether spousal notification was an undue burden (and reasonably within the state's interest). With respect to undue burden, the issue here seems to be whether or not the notice would stop women from having abortions if they wanted them. Alito references the parental notification case and draws the conclusion that notice (assuming exceptions are available) does not limit the ability of the woman to have an abortion - she retains full control over the decision.
You may disagree with his conclusion and say that notice harms women, but you can't say that his reasoning is based on his treatment of women as inadequate to make the decision.
Careful, Homnick. Your denial's showing.
ReplyDeleteWe're all parties to misogyny, Jay, willing and unwilling. Just as white people do benefit from a racially imbalanced societal power structure, again, willing or unwilling, consciously or unconsciously. That includes me. It's not an attack. It's an observation.