Alan Dershowitz on MSNBC’s The Abrams Report yesterday:
” [T]he whole thing [the Roberts confirmation hearing] has been a sideshow. We didn‘t hear one word about the rights of atheists, of dissidents, of criminal defendants, of people on death row, of the homeless, of the truly disenfranchised. We only heard questions relating to special interest groups on the right and on the left. This has become a clash between Republicans, Democrats, special interest groups, and it has nothing to do with the rights of the people, the disenfranchised who really need the Supreme Court.” Read more of Dershowitz’s comments below, with a POLL … OPEN THREAD:
More Dershowitz:
DERSHOWITZ: Well, Robert Bork in many ways is like me. I‘m not confirmable for anything because I mean (INAUDIBLE). I say whatever I think. I write everything all the time. I upset people on the right, people on the left. I couldn‘t get a single vote from a Democrat or a Republican.
Robert Bork decided to lead his life in that manner. I admire that. And he spoke his mind at all times and he paid a very, very heavy price for that. Roberts is the anti-Bork. He has never said anything controversial in public and what few things he said controversial in private he seems to be taking back a little bit.
But look, the whole show is a charade. It‘s all about Roe v. Wade, which will never be overruled because it‘s been the greatest support the supreme court ever gave to the Republican Party and the Democrats would love to see Roe v. Wade overruled so that every election becomes a plebiscite over a woman‘s right to choose, which would win because those of us support a woman‘s right to choose have the vote.
So the whole thing has been a sideshow. We didn‘t hear one word about the rights of atheists, of dissidence [I think the transcriber meant to type dissidents, so I changed it above the fold], of criminal defendants, of people on death row, of the homeless, of the truly disenfranchised. We only heard questions relating to special interest groups on the right and on the left. This has become a clash between Republicans, Democrats, special interest groups, and it has nothing to do with the rights of the people, the disenfranchised who really need the Supreme Court.
A message, and photo, from the wildlife rehabber on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, who has a great, short wildlife FAQ … it’d be perfect to share with kids too.
Lorinne writes:
I think Alan is right that the Dems would win more elections if the states had to decide abortion policy and therefore it actually mattered what state politicians thought about choice. But I doubt too many Dems are actually relishing that messy ugly outcome.
I think it’s possible that Roberts will uphold Roe and Casey and that is exactly why Bush chose him. I think the opposite is also possible.
My best guess is that Bush’s Wall Street instinct trumped his down-home Texan style. But we’ll see.
I used to think it would be overturned. Then I decided I was being naive.
So then I thought like Dershowitz said.
But now I know better. They’ll overturn it, even tho that was never their real intention.
Republican voters are screaming children begging for a drum set. You just know their parents (party) don’t want them to have it, but if they keep promising it, they’ll get some compliance with other “more important” requests.
Well, the kids have grown into very angry teens, and it could be to the point where not giving them the drum set will be even more painful than giving in, for the Republican Party.
In the long-term, I think Dershowitz is right, the Dems could use the loss of Roe to their own advantage. But that would require a Dem party that would actually stand up and fight for a basic right. Haven’t seen too many of them since the DLC was created as a Republican hedge fund against anti-republican sentiment.
The Republicans are the party that convinced the majority of people that tax cuts only for the upper 1.5% are right, not because of any personal benefit to the majority, not because of any cost-benefit analysis involving economic stimulus, not for the good of the country, but merely because “it seems fair”.
Once they figured out how to use the good principles and aspirations of the average American to get that person to sacrifice not for the good of the country, but merely to enrich the well-to-do because of a damn slogan…
Well, why wouldn’t they keep pounding the simplistic “life begins at conception” meme, make it a matter of fairness/principle, and get Americans to support a movement to ban abortion right. Contraceptive rights, too. Any damn carrot they can offer their cultists and the hoodwinked good people to keep them “energized” about giving more and more power to a political elite who don’t give a damn about anyone outside their own social circles — as long as it doesn’t actually cost money, and as long as it doesn’t hurt their corporate friends. So-called “moral” issues fit the need perfectly. Pure posturing, zero outlay.
Its not like the Dems are even trying to make the case to preserve such a basic right as self-determination. They rush to appear “compassionate”, to say how utterly tragic abortion is, etc — to say “yeah, the Republicans are right on this one”.
How about asking the touch questions: if the govt can force a woman to carry an unwanted child to term, what exactly can’t they do? Take away your guns? Physically prevent you from smoking (to protect your life)? Require organ donation upon death? Sooner?
Do we exist to serve govt, or does govt exist to serve us?
(trick question — the govt exists to force us to serve the corporations)
what exactly can’t they do? … Physically prevent you from smoking (to protect your life)?
Depending on what you’re smoking, they already do… and what you’re smoking doesn’t matter at all if you’re not 18 yet.
I like the juxtaposition of the gun-restriction scenario, though there is the counterargument that the right to keep and bear arms is explicitly in the constitution whereas privacy was there because the SCOTUS (very wisely) said so. It would be nice if something explicit about privacy could be added as an amendment, but I’m not holding my breath.
U.S. President George W. Bush writes a note to Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice during a Security Council meeting at the
2005 World Summit and 60th General Assembly of the United
Nations in New York September 14[…] Reuters, 14 SEPT 2005.
This is real? I thought it was Dood Abide’s!
I’ve quit doing Satire… the truth has become far sadder and funnier… ; )
on a hockey thread – and WOW it is real.
What kind of a dumb asshole ASKS to use the bathroom by another adult????
Why isn’t this on the news?
Tonight Bush will be on TV explaining how he wants the homeless to get job training… while he already has given Halliburton no bid contracts and the right to not pay workers a decent wage during recontstruction.
Flush the Bush
Reuters
Editor & Publisher
Yahoo
etc.
in upper case, then lower case. I’m not interpreting this, I just thought that adults usually ‘write.’
After some 50 years historians will be baffled about this modern political “intelectual” discourse. Especially about these Roberts hearings, perhaps. How can they appoint a relatively young judge, with relatively little experience on the bench, with partisn record and many undisclosed sides, WITHOUT appropriate inquiry and with all the freedom to evade questions? Directly to a most powerful position on Earth, for life besides?
Why simplest sensible questions cannot asked? For example, do corporations have the right to privacy? This is a tricky question, which superposes two important issues. If Roberts answers “yes”, he has a big logical problem unless he admits that humans have the privacy right too. How it come that corporate persons have the right to privacym but natural persons not?! Otherwise, one may question why implicit “corporation rights” are valid, but just as implicit right to privacy not? This question allone may lead to a filibuster, if Dems are so interested in results. After all, how long do Dems have to wait for “winnability”? Won’t the outcome be the same as with Kerry’s “electability”?
The issue is not only whether Roberts will be confirmed or not, and what he would do with that. The issue is also whether Dem Senators have balls to raise any relevant questions. It is the question of political relevance of objective truth against blatant power abuse. If no one plays “reality based” cards, well, too bad for the reality…
To lighten up, some fun from the Rude Pundit:
This is the blog post about John Roberts’ confirmation hearing, and because it is the blog post about John Roberts’ confirmation hearing, it will be devoid of content, it will not have any links to anything concrete, it will be circular in logic because it is the blog post about John Roberts’ confirmation hearing.
This is the blog post about John Roberts’ confirmation hearing, and because it is the blog post about John Roberts’ confirmation hearing, it will contain no obscenities or arguments, it will have no sexual or violent imagery, it will do everything it can not to offend anyone because it is the blog post about John Roberts’ confirmation hearing.
This is the blog post about John Roberts’ confirmation hearing, and because it is the blog post about John Roberts’ confirmation hearing, it is merely a formality, it is something that a blog needs to do, it does not, however, need to actually speak in specifics because, indeed, it is the blog post about John Roberts’ confirmation hearing.
This is the blog post about John Roberts’ confirmation hearing, and because it is the blog post about John Roberts’ confirmation hearing, you may ask it anything you like, you may praise it, you may decry it, but it will not say anything that might compromise its objectivity because it is the blog post about John Roberts’ confirmation hearing….
Ha..how very true and the reason I decided it was absolutely to pointless to watch the hearings…it would only make me mad and I already know the outcome. Why piss myself off for no good reason when I read enough every day to fill the pissed off quota as it is. The only possible way to follow along is to check in with Catnips great diaries for this whole show/tell by Senators.
My only surprise is that Congress-the Repugs are even bothering with the hearings at all..seems the only real purpose is for various Senators to do some grandstanding or cry crocodile tears(like Coburn-learned that via the Daily Show)for their constituents back home-presuming any of the general public is watching the hearings.
Sounds like a Sub atomic particle… Quark…Anti-Quark… Or! Like that classic episode of Star Trek… with the Spock/Anti-Spock…
Keith Olbermann stated last night that Roberts is only providing one word for every three put on the record by the senators. Roberts has shown a vast awareness of the work of earlier judges by way of “answering” questions but has provided little of use to this inquiry. Some interesting positioning by the senators but in the end it is all a farce. As to Roe, I suspect that there will be continuing attempts to narrow its application but that it will not be overturned.
Of course Dershowitz is right. The “advise and consent” clause has been completely distorted in recent decades and now the only way to get confirmed is to have no history on anything.
And the reason RvW won’t be overturned is that there is no practical alternative. It doesn’t have anything to do with morality, it has to do with defining something practical. Judges do that all the time: Find a compromise that works in the real world.
Since this is an open thread, and one dealing with charades… I was looking through the Yahoo slideshow and saw this yesterday… they’re apparently protesting Iran’s president and Iran’s nuclear policies outside the UN… kind of a very special interest, I would think…
I was amazed at the quality and concept of their protest materials… I would think that it would take some serious bucks to come up with this stuff… could they be funded?… Don your tinfoil hat here, but… could not a bunch of them have work addresses at Langley? Just wondering…
Bood! I see that dastardly minds think alike! I already wrote to our local Port Angeles mailing list, and suggested that on SEPTEMBER 24’s local protest, we come in costume as much as is possible…
my daughter’s boss has two real HAZMAT suits — a couple years ago he and my daughter wore them to an anti-Iraq war protest.
I’ve urged them to bring the suits out again. (Plus, thinkin’ like a mom, they might keep them warm.)
It’s already been overturned in all the ways that matter. Oh, not in a formal legal ruling, but by restricting access to abortion providers, making it harder for the poor and less educated to find services, pay for them, gain access.
If you look at pictures of Roberts, the eyes are like Bush’s. There’s nobody home.
I commend you, Susan, and Catnip, too, for blogging the hearings. I can’t read or listen. They nauseate me. Literally.
I just posted that upthread also..I can’t bear to watch this stupid charade when we know the outcome is a foregone conclusion…the only place it’s bearable is the Daily Show take on the hearings.
Well half the time I agree with him and half the time I think his conclusions are idiotic. This is one of those times-saying democrats want roe v wade overturned is a sweepingly asinine statement.
I do think the repugs really want it overturned..they aren’t smart enough to strategically think long term like that not with so many repugs absolute whacko fundies now. They are particularly drunk with their own power right now and they are doing everything they can to advance the religious and corporate takeover.(although the corporate is fairly well complete)
Besides they have the whole gay marriage issue for a huge rallying cry for them once they get rid of Roe. They can dine out forever on that issue. Also overturning Roe would give their base an incredible boost to work even harder against gay rights/marriage because they will have seen the overturning a Wade as a huge moral victory thus believing(wrongly)that the country and the law is behind them.