another dispatch from the culture wars from Liberal Street Fighter

The truly remarkable thing about the recent announcement that Judge John Roberts is Bush’s pick to serve a lifetime appointment on the highest court of the land was this — how incredibly shallow the coverage of it was. It was as though all the television channels had become E! Entertainment and all of the publications had become People magazine, only in some twisted Republican universe where Ozzie & Harriet’s America had never “disappeared”.  Oh the cultural buttons that were pounded on by the infobots on the “news” shows:

Nominee’s Son Shows Family’s Playful Side
Steps away as the president introduced John Roberts as a choice for the Supreme Court, the nominee’s young son danced the heart out of his saddle shoes.

The boy’s mother had a less-than-approving look on her face as she watched. At one point, she even held 4-year-old Jack by the arm of his light blue short-pants suit.

Judge Roberts did not seem to flinch.

“It was classic and it showed John being able to maintain his composure while his son was dancing in front of the president,” said David Leitch, a former deputy White House counsel to Bush who worked with Roberts at the law firm of Hogan & Hartson.

Roberts and his wife, Jane, also have a daughter, 5-year-old Josie.

With the children, Roberts “has this real element of playfulness in his life,” Leitch said.

Judging by the coverage, and the all-out media enabled charm offensive, one must wonder if this was an important appointment, or a casting announcement for a new Dobson-pandering made-for-tv movie.
The culture war proceeds apace, and even fulfilling some idealized image is more important than actually having a proven record. In fact, we heard over and over that this nominee is a really “nice guy” with a “great sense of humor.” Several Democratic “leaders” were quick to announce that a filibuster is unlikely:

“This is a credible nominee, and not one that — as far as we know now — has a record that in any sense could be described as extremist,” said Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn. Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., said Bush had “made a wise choice.”

Asked whether a filibuster was likely, Nelson said: “I think it’s fair to say I don’t see anything coming out right now.”

“My sense is so far, so good,” summed up Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark.

So, we can see what the media and the politicians see in those “all-American” good looks, with the perfect, pretty and smart wife, the two adorable children (with the added plus that the two anti-abortion activists adopted them). A new nuclear family for a new Xtian Century. We can see that the culture wants to gaze into those perfect blue eyes and see the American Family Man that we left behind, even though that picture was always a fiction. The entire Republican movement since the end of WW2 has sought to create this perfect, happy and safe world.

That’s not what I see when I look into those blue eyes. I see a man who has been a Republican warrior since the Reagan administration. I see a man with a troubling inclination to put the demands of law enforcement before individual liberties. A man who has ruled that the President can subvert the Constitution and International Law with impunity. I see a man who has given the anti-woman theocrats some reason to cheer, and not just because of his arguments before the Supreme Court on abortion. I see a partisan who worked with Ken Starr to bring down a President and a man who worked with the Governor of Florida to steal an election.

When I look into those eyes I see the dark side of that American past that Republicans claim to champion. I see the eyes of misogynists who wanted to keep women in their place. I see the managers who hired Pinkertons for Robber Barons to bust up unions. I see the insurance executive and the banker who redline inner city neighborhoods. I see the law-and-order authoritarians who lock up the poor indefinitely while looking away from white collar criminals. I see the flashing blue eyes visable through the holes in white hoods.

Is that an unfair attack? Is that too much of a caricature of someone who may very well be a very nice and tolerant man? It’s certainly no more of a distortion than this weird projection of the idealized 1950’s that we’ve seen over the last couple of days. I suspect my version is closer, because I’ve found that you can judge a man by the company he keeps, and he’s kept the company of the greediest Corporatists and Religious Zealots in the Republican coalition.

This wasn’t a nomination, it was the casting of a role, filled by a member of the troupe who’s been groomed for this part. Behind those blue eyes I see glimpses of the darkest reaches of the American Right, glimpses that are apparent in the causes he’s supported and the briefs and decisions he’s written or signed onto in his relatively short career.

The Democrats in the Senate should keep their mouths shut about strategy until he’s sitting at a table in front of him. They should work closely with civil liberties and women’s health activist groups, and they damned well better ask some hard questions. Some would say he’s going to be confirmed anyway, so why fight now? How can anybody expect the American People to turn back toward a Party that won’t, ever?

As Erwin Chemerinsky put it in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

For example, Roberts must be asked detailed questions about how he believes a Supreme Court justice should interpret the Constitution. Does he agree with Justices Scalia and Thomas that the meaning of the Constitution was fixed when it was adopted? Or does he believe, as do a majority of current justices, that there is a living Constitution? Does he believe in the protection of rights not mentioned in the Constitution, such as privacy and its protection for such rights as access to contraception and abortion? Undoubtedly, Roberts will try to sidestep questions that might generate opposition. But it is up to the Democrats to insist on answers to these and similar questions. The Constitution creates no presumption in favor of presidential nominees for the Supreme Court. President Bush undoubtedly chose Roberts because of Roberts’ conservative views. The Senate needs to know these views before deciding whether to confirm him.

It is impossible to overstate the importance of this seat on the Supreme Court. In the last few years, Justice O’Connor has been the fifth vote in 5-4 decisions to strike down laws restricting access to abortion, to uphold federal campaign finance laws, to allow colleges and universities to take actions to ensure diversity, to invalidate death sentences for ineffective assistance of counsel and to limit the presence of religious symbols on government property. Roberts has the chance to change the law in all of these crucial areas.

Roberts is 50 years old. If he remains on the high court until he is 85, the current age of Justice John Paul Stevens, he will be there until the year 2040. The Senate and the American people need to know what they’re getting in Roberts. Senate Democrats should ask probing and detailed questions and make clear: no answers, no confirmation.

Sometimes it’s important to fight, even to a loss. That’s how one LEARNS how to fight even better next time. I know damned well that this is a fight the Senate Democrats must make, because we’re all going to be looking into those blue eyes for the next thirty years.

note: Find a good overview of recents stories and posts about the nomination from How Appealing and an overview of the Judge’s record from People for the American Way