Phone service was restored today at my home (no power or phone yet at the Church) so I can blog, post, and do all the necessary things we cyber-types do. Yesterday was a good day especially when I heard of Mier’s withdrawal. By all appearances she was a good woman but out of her league. I’m glad she withdrew.
Someone sent me this quote from Ann Coulter. It hits the nail on the head.
THE LAST WORD
We’ve been waiting 30 years to end the lunacy of nine demigods on the Supreme Court deciding every burning social issue of the day for us, loyal subjects in a judicial theocracy. We don’t want someone who will decide those issues for us—but decide them ‘our’ way. If we did, a White House bureaucrat with good horse sense might be just the ticket. Admittedly, there isn’t much that’s more important than ending the abortion holocaust in America. (Abortionist casualties: 7; Unborn casualties: 30 million.)
But there is one thing. That is democracy. Democracy sometimes leads to silly laws such as the one that prohibited married couples from buying contraception in Connecticut. But allowing Americans to vote has never led to créches being torn down across America. It’s never led to prayer being purged from every public school in the nation. It’s never led to gay marriage. It’s never led to returning slaves who had escaped to free states to their slavemasters. And it’s never led to 30 million dead babies. We’ve gone from a representative democracy to a monarchy, and the most appalling thing is—even conservatives just hope like the dickens the next king is a good one. —Ann Coulter
Today was a good day too, with the indictment of Scooter Libby. Unless Libby decides to take one for the team and plead guilty we should have a trial that will, in its course, reveal the great lengths the administration went to decieve the public and supress contradictory information.
Is the world better off with Saddam Hussein, a man who killed and tortured many thousands, removed from power and behind bars? Of course it is, but that’s not a question that can be considered in isolation to justify the invasion.
Another question is “Do the ends justify the means?”. Did the end of removing Saddam Hussein justify means that required deliberately and systematically lying to the American people? Apparently the Machiavellian members of WHIG (the White House Iraq Group) believed it did. Even after the CIA informed the White House that the “evidence” of Iraqi uranium purchases from Niger was a forged document peddled by an Italian con man, the White House decided to inform the American people that it represented legitimate proof of an imminent threat.
If we allow the WHIG conspirators to treat the American people like dupes and patsies without consequence, what precedent does that set for future administrations?
Dean, you have it exactly backwards.
First, the investigation was launched in order to determine whether a federal law protecting COVERT CIA agents had been broken. Two years later there was NO INDICTMENT for “outing” a CIA agent. NO ONE IN THE WHITE HOUSE OR THE ADMINISTRATION IN GENERAL WAS INDICTED FOR “OUTING” ANYONE.
What was the indictment? It was derivative from the investigation and only the investigation. The prosecutor claimed that Libby deliberately lied to the grand jury when he stated that he first heard that Plane was CIA from reporters as opposed to hearing it first from Cheney. Keep in mind it was perfectly legal for both Cheney and Libby to know that Plame was CIA because they had the highest security clearance in the government. There is no government secret that Libby and Cheney did not have the right to know about. Plame was not covert at the time of the alleged leak and had not been covert for more than 5 years.
Lastly, had Libby had anything to hide he COULD HAVE asserted his 5th Amendment right NOT TO TESTIFY. If he had done this there would NOT have been a charge because there was NO UNDERLYING CRIME. Waiving of a 5th Amendment right is rare and I would not have let my client do it, this is why. Had Libby not waived his right, he would not have had to testify and the prosecutor would have had to shut down his grand jury without an indictment because he could not prove ANY UNDERLYING CRIME.
Yes, I take perjury seriously, but, I question a charge of perjury when someone waives their 5th Amendment right to decline to testify, that is NOT the action of someone with something to hide. Libby also released all reporters from any pledge of confidentiality, again, something NOT DONE by someone with something to hide.
We’ll see what a jury says about the charges. I think Libby has a good chance of success at trial. The White House was exonerated today. NO ILLEGAL LEAK OCCURRED, PERIOD.
Dean an indictment is not a conviction.
Do you realize that you’ve just argued that the White House is a bigger evil than Saddam and his prodigy torturing, raping, and murdering Iraqis?
I forgot to add.
Dean don’t go dancing on the grave of Republicans so quickly.
Until the Democrats actually develop national policies that the majority of American people will accept (other than the present Democratic one that places the butchering of millions of babies and homosexual marriage as the two most important planks of the platform.) And until the Dem.s stop denegrating people of faith. The Republicans aren’t really going anywhere soon.
Another thing that needs to be kept in mind. Going to war with Iraq was more than just Iraq attempting to acquire nuclear weapons.
Jerry writes: “Another thing that needs to be kept in mind. Going to war with Iraq was more than just Iraq attempting to acquire nuclear weapons.”
From what I’ve read there were 27 different reasons for going to war with Iraq. At least these were the reasons promoted in the U.S.
Osama Bin Laden also had reasons for the war in Iraq. These include drawing the U.S. into an expensive, long-term, probably unwinnable guerilla war, taking pressure off the war in Afghanistan, using the invasion as a recruiting tool for new terrorists, and using the war to give budding terrorists a graduate education in how to fight against a modern mechanized army — training that they will then be able to use to undermine other governments in the region.
Iran also had reasons why the U.S. should go to war in Iraq. These include the removal of Saddam and his party, the elimination of all possible WMD, and the installation of a Shiite-dominated government. These were all things that Iran was unable to do by force of arms, but which we have done for them.
So far I’d say Osama and Iran are getting the better end of the deal. Well, this is what happens when a simpleton president is surrounded by ideologues who have no use for contrary facts.
By the way, I heard Bush’s speech today. Listening to Bush speak without notes is intolerable, rather like watching a wounded bird try to fly. His speeches are better, but even they have a strange, artificial quality that I was never quite able to pin down. Finally today I realized that listening to a Bush speech is like listening to a photocopy machine. There’s no flow, no variation in speed. no difference in emphasis or tone from one line to the other, each phrase spoken as a separate unit. Some people find it inspiring, but then I suppose photocopy machines are kind of inspiring too.
Wow Osama must be some kind of super genius to plan to draw the US into a war that had been going on prior to his ascension as chief terrorist in the world.
And double wow we get a real honest leftist mantra about Bush not being as talented or as educated or as enlightened as any liberal speaker. It only shows how empty the left’s agenda is. Instead of offering ideas the only thing offered is ad hominem.
You can go on and on about how Bush is like a photocopier, but the truth still is the only thing the left offers is higher taxes, repressive business laws, dead babies, and fruitless marriages.
Jerry writes: “Instead of offering ideas the only thing offered is ad hominem.”
How about these ideas:
1) don’t cherry pick the intelligence prior to going to war
2) don’t go to war without a clear goals and and exit strategy
3) don’t ignore the advice of the professional military
4) have enough troops to properly occupy the country
5) have an occupation plan larger than a pamphlet.
Let’s start with these.
Jerry: “And double wow we get a real honest leftist mantra about Bush not being as talented or as educated or as enlightened as any liberal speaker.”
Having brains isn’t everything, but it does help when you’re the president. I never though I’d see the day when desiring a president who can think and speak well were considered liberal biases. But here we are. What’s next, an illiterate president? A president who doesn’t speak English? Why not, as long as he’s against abortion.
Missourian writes: “Two years later there was NO INDICTMENT for “outing” a CIA agent. . . .there was NO UNDERLYING CRIME. . . . NO ILLEGAL LEAK OCCURRED, PERIOD.”
Saying it in capital letters doesn’t make it true. You’re making a simple error here. We don’t know if there was an underlying crime, because, as Fitzgerald noted, we don’t know Libby’s state of mind. If the indictment is correct, then as Fitzgerald suggested, had Libby not perjured himself and obstructed justice we might have known definitively if a crime was committed. There is a distinction between what may actually have happened and what Fitzgerald thought could be proven in court. That doesn’t mean no crime was committed. You’re a lawyer; you know that. In any case, it’s hardly reassuring that the vice president’s office would expose a CIA operative, either intentionally or through stupidity or carelessness or from a desire for revenge. Remind me not to take a job as a CIA operative as long as those scoundrels are in office.
Missorian: Thank you for your response and analysis. To answer your question I believe that Libby didn’t invoke his 5th amendment right against self-incrimination because he thought his perjury would succeed. He gambled that the reporters he spoke to wouldn’t reveal their source.
What was it that Libby lied about? He claimed to have learned about Valerie Plame from the reporters, and the special prosecutor found that, in fact, the reporters learned about Plame from Libby. That’s very damaging I think, and suggests that Libby was the person who exposed Plame, although the facts may have been too unclear to charge him with the underlying crime.
A trial will direct much attention on specific discussions in the White House and Vice President’s office about how they went about how to diseminate false information about Iraqi WMD and attack critics of the war. As these details emerge in trial they can only cast the administration in a very unfavorable light. The fact that Karl Rove remains in legal jeapordy suggests that Libby may have colluded with Rove and that the matter of the underlying crime has not yet been put to rest.
Other facts may emerge if the Wilsons decide to seek civil action against Libby and/or Rove for loss of income resulting from their statements to reporters. We can thank Paula Jones for the Supreme Court decision that private citizens may sue a sitting President or White House oficials, and ask all sorts of embarrasing questions.
You correctly state that the charges against Libby are derivative of the investigation – but you failed to note the most prominent recent example of a similar situation: Bill Clinton’s misleading statements regarding his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. The Lewinsky question never would have been asked in the first place if the special prosecutor had not decided to roam far afield from his original charge of investigating a savings & loan scandal in Arkansas.
It must be a great relief to all Republicans to know that Patrick Fitzgerald is no Ken Starr.
Note 9Holding Fast to the Conclusion in the Absence of Evidence
Dean,you have directly contradicted the basic principle of due process and that is that WITHOUT PROOF it is DEFAMATORY to accuse someone of a crime. You have basically stated that the ABSENCE of PROOF will not dissuade you from the conclusion you adopted BEFORE the results of the investigation were announced, that is the VERY QUINTESSENCE of BIAS. Here is your quote:
Start Dean quote:
What was it that Libby lied about? He claimed to have learned about Valerie Plame from the reporters, and the special prosecutor found that, in fact, the reporters learned about Plame from Libby. That’s very damaging I think, and suggests that Libby was the person who exposed Plame, although the facts may have been too unclear to charge him with the underlying crime.
End Dean quote:
Note that you STILL refer to the “underlying crime” yet NO ONE was even CHARGED with the “UNDERLYING CRIME” let alone CONVICTED of an underlying crime. No one “exposed” Plame. She was NOT COVERT. If Libby were not classified as a “public figure” under the law of defamation, he could sue you for defamation for those claims. The prosecutor has had two years and access to all of the witnesses, repeated access. No dice. No intelligence act or espionage act crimes alleged. None.
At least be honest enough to admit that you are convinced that a “crime” occurred and NOTHING will dissaude you, even a two year investigation by a seasoned federal prosecutor who had access to all information, including testimony of Libby, which Libby could have constitutionally withheld.
Dean writes: “He claimed to have learned about Valerie Plame from the reporters, and the special prosecutor found that, in fact, the reporters learned about Plame from Libby.”
And Libby learned definitively about her identify from Vice President Cheney. From the indictment:
“On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilsonâ��s wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Division. LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA.”
This is interesting, because Cheney claimed that he knew nothing about Wilson the following September:
“No. I donâ��t know Joe Wilson. Iâ��ve never met Joe Wilson. . . . And Joe Wilsonâ��I donâ��t who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back. . . like I say, I donâ��t know Mr. Wilson. I probably shouldnâ��t judge him. I have no idea who hired him.”
In fact Cheney’s office was obsessed with Wilson, to the point that they were getting information on his wife.
Missourian writes: “Plame was not covert at the time of the alleged leak and had not been covert for more than 5 years.”
She worked in counterproliferation, which is not under the Directorate of Intelligence, but under the Directorate of Operations. She wasn’t stationed overseas, but travelled overseas. From the CIA web site, employment page:
“Operations Officers and Collection Management Officers spend a significant portion of their time abroad, on tours of two to four years. Typically, Operations Officers will serve 60-70% of their careers overseas, while Collection Management Officers will be overseas for 30-40% of their careers. Staff Operations Officers, although based in the Washington, DC area, travel overseas on a temporary basis. . . . Officers in each of these careers are under cover.”
http://www.cia.gov/employment/clan_aboutcomm.html
Drafter of 1992 law states Plame was not covert
Victoria Toensing was the lawyer who drafted the 1992 law intended to protect the lives of active covert CIA agents. She has been publicly interviewed many times on the subject and she states that Plame was NOT covert within the meaning of the law. Fitzgerald was expressly commissioned to investigate alleged violations of this 1992 law. He did. He spent two years investigating it. He interviewed any and all reporters who might have had knowledge. Libby WAIVED his 5th Amendment rights. Had Libby exercised his rights there would have been no indictment handed down. The irony is, of course, that he was charged with “obstruction of justice” when in fact he cooperated more than would have been required by law.
The prosecutor interviewed neighbors of Plame and asked them whether it was common knowledge that Plame worked at Langley. The anwer was uniformly, yes, it was known to all the neighbors. Ms. Plame got in the same car and drove the same route to the front/public door of the CIA building at Langley and did so daily for years. This is NOT covert within the meaning of the 1992 or, for that matter, within the meaning of common parlance.
No charges were brought under any law relating to espionage or the CIA or any other matter. NONE.
Missourian writes: “This is NOT covert within the meaning of the 1992 or, for that matter, within the meaning of common parlance.”
From the indictment: “At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilsonâ��s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.”
Missourian: “The prosecutor interviewed neighbors of Plame and asked them whether it was common knowledge that Plame worked at Langley. The anwer was uniformly, yes, it was known to all the neighbors.”
“Before publication of Plame’s name in a July 2003 newspaper column by Robert Novak, her identity had been so closely guarded that even neighbors living close to the Wilsons for five years in Washington had no clue that she worked for the CIA.
“It’s true, none of us knew,” said Marc Lefkowitz, who lives across the street and was interviewed by FBI agents apparently attempting to determine how secret Plame’s identity had been. Lefkowitz thought she was a consultant.”
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/13004363.htm
“When she met her future husband, Joseph Wilson, an ambassador, at an embassy party, she introduced herself as an “energy analyst.” It was a story she would tell her closest friends and neighbors for years.”
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/
ny-usspy1030,0,2467645.story?coll=ny-nation-big-pix
“WASHINGTON — David and Victoria Tillotson knew Valerie Plame as a neighbor and friend for more than five years. Plame was, the Tillotsons believed, an international economic consultant, taking occasional trips abroad while looking after her young children in an upper-class enclave of Northwest Washington. Then, one morning in 2003, David Tillotson read a Robert Novak column that quoted two unidentified administration officials as saying Plame was a CIA operative. ”I was stunned,” Tillotson said. . . . Tillotson’s wife, Victoria, recalled that she shouted in disbelief ”because I thought that Novak had it wrong. I really thought that Novak was misinformed because I was so convinced she was an economist.” Indeed, Victoria Tillotson recalled asking Plame about the stock market and got what turned out to be good advice.”
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/10/27/
the_spy_next_door_left_couple_in_dark/
#13 Articles from Newsday and Boston Globe, and you don’t think there’s bias in these newspapers? (And as a side note, having worked in the media for several years from a professional persepctive these are really poorly written articles).
The truth is Jim most people who work in intelligence whether they are out in the field or pushing papers in the office, don’t talk about what they do. And even admit to working for their organization at all. So it’s no surprise that not all her neighbors didn’t know what she did (I really can’t believe the author put in a quote about the stock market. It’s laughable as some kind of “evidence”).
I bet if I canvassed your neighborhood long enough we’d find that very few people knew what you did. Or they have some sort of distorted view of you.
The point is though, Plame was well known in the Washington Cocktail circuit. And if she was really that covert she wouldn’t have been.
Note 12,14: To argue that releasing Plame’s position was “no big deal” because she wasn’t that secretive (supposedly) is akin to saying it’s quite okay to place a full page ad in the NYTimes displaying someone’s medical records simply because they may have told a few co-workers of their medical status. Isn’t it at least ethically the prerogative of the person involved to disclose that information?
But I guess we’re not talking ethical … it’s about the letter of the law and making sure that our political allies slide through.
Jerry writes: “Articles from Newsday and Boston Globe, and you don’t think there’s bias in these newspapers?”
No, not in the sense you’re talking about. Look, this was reported all over, and even mentioned by Fitzgerald. If you don’t like those references, how about the Voice of America:
“During a news conference to outline the charges against Mr. Libby, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald said protecting the secrecy of CIA operatives is crucial to U.S. national security. ‘Valerie Wilson’s friends, neighbors, and college classmates had no idea that she had another life.'”
http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-10-29-voa35.cfm
Jerry: “I bet if I canvassed your neighborhood long enough we’d find that very few people knew what you did. Or they have some sort of distorted view of you.”
Perhaps so, but certainly not because I had fabricated a cover story. It’s not that Ms. Wilson’s neighbors didn’t know what she did; it’s that they thought she did something else, based on her cover.
Jerry: “The point is though, Plame was well known in the Washington Cocktail circuit. And if she was really that covert she wouldn’t have been.”
I heard nothing in Fitzgerald’s presentation to indicate that. In fact, Fitzgerald’s comments contradict that. And nothing in the indictment supports that.
In a well-known case such as this there will always be rumors and allegations flying around. (We certainly saw that in the Schiavo case.) But ultimately we have to rely on the prosecutor and the legal documents in the case, and on what we can reasonably infer from those documents.
There has been a lot of misinformation around the Plame case. The problem here is not bias. Rather, the problem is that there exists an entire right-wing media empire, some pieces of which work to communicate a consistent message, and other pieces of which merely repeat what everyone else is saying. So you’ll have something show up on the Druge report — for example, that the bag boy at the local grocery store knew that Plame was a CIA agent — and then this will be picked up by Rush, Bill, Sean, Pat, Ann, Faux News, NRO Online, the Heritage Foundation, and by the thousands of lesser talk show hosts, right-wing blogs, and web sites. Within a week the whole country is talking about how Plame’s grocery bag boy knew she was CIA, even if it isn’t true, and even if the allegation is flatly contradicted by an official prosecutor.
This is why I have a hard time talking about “bias” in the right wing media. To say that the right-wing media are biased is like saying that the New York Yankees and their fans have a “bias” toward Yankees winning ball games. It’s not a bias at all; it’s what they do. It’s the purpose of the organization. The only difference is that the pieces of the right-wing media are not under any central control; they operate independently, though sometimes with a high degreee of official or unofficial coordination.
When Prosecutors “”HAVE THE GOODS” they indict
When prosecutors “have the goods” they indict, when they don’t have the goods, they don’t indict. He didn’t indict.
Fitzgerald did not indict. Everything else is hand-waving and nonsense.
James writes: “But I guess we’re not talking ethical â�¦ it’s about the letter of the law and making sure that our political allies slide through.”
There’s a practical side as well. It’s one thing if a few people outside of the CIA know that someone is or has been a CIA operative. It’s quite another thing to have that information show up in media reports all over the country. That puts at risk all other people in foreign countries with whom the agent has had contact. It also eliminates the possibility that the agent can be used in overseas operations in the future. But in the Shrub administration, politics and ideology are the driving forces, so these other considerations are not very important to them.
The Shrub apologists dismiss all this as nothing more than a typical “liberal” diatribe. It’s not. I’ve voted for conservative candidates before, and I’ll do it again, especially if it’s a choice between a competent Republican who isn’t in the pocket of James Dobson, and an incompetent Democrat.
New Nominee ROCKS
Bush has named Alito. Joy in Mudville.
Background of Alito
Judge Alitoâ??s entire career since graduating from Yale Law School in the mid-1970s has been devoted to public service in the law. His range of experience dealing with difficult questions of federal law is unmatched. After a prestigious clerkship on the Third Circuit, he worked as a federal prosecutor in New Jersey for four years. Then, as assistant to the Solicitor General, he briefed and argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court for four years. He next served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justiceâ??s Office of Legal Counselâ??the office that was previously headed by Rehnquist and Scalia and that advises the White House Counselâ??s office and the entire executive branch on the proper meaning of the Constitution and other federal law. In 1987, Alito became United States Attorney in New Jersey. In that capacity, he was responsible for all federal prosecutions in New Jersey for three years (including the successful prosecution of a Libyan-sponsored terrorist who planned to attack various New York targets). And for the past 15 years, Alito has served with great distinction on the Third Circuit.
Note 19. Yes, this is good news indeed.
Judge Alito seems well qualified, but his lack of deference to the legislative branch is very troubling indeed. In a lone dissent, Alito voted to strike down a federal law prohibiting the ownership of machine guns.
“Alito insisted that the private possession of machine guns was not an economic activity, and there was no empirical evidence that private gun possession increased violent crime in a way that substantially affected commerce–therefore, Congress has no right to regulate it. Alito’s colleagues criticized him for requiring “Congress or the Executive to play Show and Tell with the federal courts at the peril of invalidation of a Congressional statute.” His lack of deference to Congress is unsettling.”
http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=3199
Samuel “Machine-Gun” Alito’s narrow, pinched reading of the commerce clause, reveals an ideological bias against government action to protect human life (the lives of people killed by machine guns flowing easily into the hands of criminals). This dissent is inconsistent with and much in conflict with the respect for human life supposedly motivating his anti-abortion views.
Misssourian: RE: No. 17, Libby’s perjury may portrayed as a minor matter, just as some described the Watergate break-in as a “third-rate burglary”. But both incidents are the minor acts in much larger dramas. The Watergate break-in revealed the lengths that Richard Nixon was willing to go to destroy his political enemies, and the Plame leaking reveals an equally vengeful and obssesive desire to crush those who questioned the justifications for the Iraq war.
It concerns me when intelligent people like yourself are willing to overlook the fact that our government almost certainly lied to us regarding the reasons for going to war in Iraq. No decision made by a Commander-in-Chief is as grave and serious as the decision to send young men and women into harms way. Every man and woman killed in Iraq was someones’ son or daughter, husband or wife, or father or mother. When I read the stories of the soldiers killed in the war I am overwhelmed by both admiration and pain. Admiration for their sense of duty, honor and patriotism; and pain over the manner in which their precious lives are carelessly tossed into the meatgrinde.
It’s said that many of the Neocons like Richard Cheney, Scooter Libby and Paul Wolfowitz are admirers of classical philosopher Leo Strauss. Strauss distrusted democracy and championed the Aristotelian idea that societies should be ruled by an elite class of philosopher princes. Strauss believed that all knowlege was “esoteric” and “exoteric.” Exoteric knowlege is the information fed to the masses for public consumption. Esoteric knowlege is the truth that only the inside elite is qualified to possess.
Clearly the Straussians in the Bush administration were guided by the “esoteric” belief that an American client-state needed to be installed in Iraq so that the United States could control the middle-east, and fed the public the “exoteric” information about Iraqi WMD and ties to Al Qaeda to build support for their plan.
Here is a good description of the Strauss philosophy from Frontpage magazine, “Leo Strauss, Conservative Mastermind”, http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1233
“According to Strauss, Machiavelli is the key turning point that leads to modern political philosophy, and Machiavelliâ??s sin was to speak esoteric truths openly. He told all within hearing that there is no certain God who punishes wrongdoing; the essence of Machiavellianism is that one can get away with things. Because of this, he turned his back on the Christian virtue that the belief in a retributive God had upheld. ”
The Straussian view of government is clearly at odds with democracy because it assumes that the ordinary people are unqualified to partipate in the major decisions of state and must be lied to, manipulated or coerced into compliance with the elite. When we give in to the Straussian philosophy and excuse and justify lies by our government we become the willing enablers of athiesm, fascism and dictatorship in our own country.
Note 22. Looks like the spin is beginning. I’m not a lawyer and I will defer to Missourian on this matter, but my read is that Alito is arguing that the regulation of machine guns does not fall under the purview of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. It’s called strict constructionism. Charges of ideological bias buttressed by emotional appeals are not relevant to the central constitutional question at issue.
Note 23. Your rather convoluted and over reaching argument proves a charge from the right concerning the alleged Plame outing (never mind Vanity Fair): the left wants to turn the Libby indictment into an indictment of Iraq. As a practical matter it won’t work. Too much noise, not enough facts.
In fact, Watergate (which was as much an effort to shift culpability for the Democratic failure in Viet-Nam onto a Republican administration as it was about a break-in and coverup), probably would not have have ended in the same way today as it did thirty years ago, because of the presence of an alternative media. Mainstream media simply cannot drive pet issues like they did in the days before the internet and cable.
That’s one reason why the herculean effort to brandish the Bush administration with this little whip cannot work like it did with Watergate. This is a cultural observation, not a partisan one. The liberals are reacting with the Watergate playbook. They don’t seem to understand the full extent of the media/cultural shift.
Note 22Dean, Machine Gun Reference
Dean, I followed your citations but I didn’t find an actual case reference on the machine gun case. If I can find the case referred to I will look at it. Commerce clause cases involve very different considerations than abortion cases.
I disagree with your use of the term “ideological bias” with respect to Alito. Alito is a true scholar of the law. He has developed a consistent judicial philosophy over decades of work in the law. Few people have invested the time and intellectual labor necessary to truly build a consistent judicial philosophy; Alito has. As I have mentioned in other posts, there are attornys who disagree with him on various issues but there is no one I know of who has ever questioned his scholarship or intellectual integrity. So ixnay on the “ideological bias” charge.
As to his “pro-choice” background, his position is probably being oversimplified by both supporters and opponents. He has written over 300 opinions and there is a real danger that his writings will be distorted by simplistic summaries. Again, give me a case reference and I will look at it. Or give me some information that will allow me to find the case reference like parties names, year of decision, the state the case was decided in, etc.
To my knowledge Alito is a Roman Catholic, but, I don’t want to overemphasize his personal beliefs or personal life because I support him based on his professional record.
Note 22 Dean, found the “machine gun case”
I think the case you must be referring to is U.S. vs. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273. Here is the web reference: http://www.healylaw.com/cases/rybar.htm
DEAN QUOTE STARTS:
Samuel “Machine-Gun” Alito’s narrow, pinched reading of the commerce clause, reveals an ideological bias against government action to protect human life (the lives of people killed by machine guns flowing easily into the hands of criminals). This dissent is inconsistent with and much in conflict with the respect for human life supposedly motivating his anti-abortion views. DEAN QUOTE ENDS.
MISSOURIAN REPLIES:
Actually the primary difference of opinion between the majority and Alito was over the precedential value of U.S. vs. Lopez, ad 1995 Supreme Court case. Essentially Alito argues that U.S. vs. Lopez is binding precedent which controls the outcome of the Rybar case and the majority opinion does not. Alito does not actually give a “reading of the Commerce Clause.” His argument is about whether a particular Supreme Court case is controlling precedent. His dissent starts in section 78. Alito makes a perfectly rational argument. The issues raised in Rybar are very different than the issues which arise in abortion cases. Read it for yourself.Nothing in the Alito argument would prevent states from regulation machine gun ownership, so you accusation about Alito’s supposed “disregard” for human life is not apposite.
Here is an interesting nutshell quotation. But, again, read the whole case and the entire dissent.
MISSOURIAN REPLY ENDS
ALITO QUOTE BEGINS:
The majority’s suggestion (Maj. Op. 21) that my analysis “requires either Congress or the Executive to play Show and Tell with the federal courts” is simply wrong. The Supreme Court has recognized the importance of congressional findings. See, e.g., Lopez, 115 S.Ct. at 1632. Indeed, in United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. at 336 (1971), where the Court construed ambiguous language in a felon-in-possession statute to require proof that the possession was connected with interstate commerce, the Court wrote: “In light of our disposition of the case, we do not reach the question whether, upon appropriate findings, Congress can constitutionally punish the `mere possession’ of firearms.” Id. at 339 n. 4.
With respect to the Executive, it is a litigant seeking to persuade us that there is a reasonable case to be made for the proposition that the intrastate possession of machine guns substantially affects interstate commerce. There is nothing improper or unusual about asking a litigant to point to support for its position, whether in the form of evidence in the record or legislative facts that can be judicially noticed. Such assistance would have been particularly valuable here, since the Executive is in a far better position than we are to determine whether there is a reasonable empirical case to be made for the proposition it is advancing. Without congressional findings or empirical support, it is not possible for appellate judges, who are not experts on firearms, machine guns, racketeering, drug trafficking, or crime in general, to verify in any intellectually respectable way that there is a reasonable case to be made for the proposition that the interstate [sic] possession of firearms substantially affects interstate commerce.
ALITO QUOTE ENDS
To me Dean’s objections are just another incident of the left not wanting legal issues to be decided on the law, but on their feelings about issues. Of course the right does the same thing with their pet issues.
Using the feelings standard has led to an amazing array of really stupid rulings in both civil and criminal cases. As Missourian noted, few take the time and effort to develop a judical or legal philosophy.
The same might be said in matters of the faith. Few take the time to really think through issues from the foundation of the Church and her teaching but rather prefer to attempt to force the Church into supporting a particular ideolgical/political stance.
While logic and cosistency have their own pitfalls, they certainly provide a better foundation for decision making than does emotional and intellectual chaos. Unfortunately, when our ox is gored, we react in an effort to throw out the facts and attempt to create a world that fits our own vision.
Some Interesting Alioto Quotes
Source: Hamilton, New Jersey newspaper article. Hamilton is Alito’s home town
Walter F. Murphy, an emeritus professor of jurisprudence at Princeton who advised Alito on his senior thesis on the Italian Constitutional Court said Alito was probably his most judicious student. “I do not think that Bush will nominate a more qualified or fairer-minded person,” Murphy said in a statement on Alito’s nomination provided by the university. “I confess surprise that a man so dreadfully intellectually and morally challenged as George W. Bush would want a person as intellectually gifted, independent and morally principled as Sam Alito on the bench,” Murphy said. Trenton attorney Jerome Balloratto, who was at Steinert at the same time as Alito, said he got to know the new Supreme Court nominee when both worked in the U.S. Attorney’s Office. “He’s very quiet and smart,” Balloratto said. “He’s a thinker, a decent, kind guy, whether working together on a brief or going out to lunch. He never had an unkind word for anybody. He’s a listener not a talker. He’ll think before he answers – a classic appellate lawyer.”
References from people who either went to school with Alito or worked with him are uniformaly positive.
So, disagree with his judicial philosophy if you like, but, his academic, legal and personal credentials are impeccable.
No. 29: Doesn’t it seem self-evident that public safety is one of the most important prerequisites for commercial tranactions involving goods and services from many states?
Several years ago two bank robbers wearing bullet proof vests and carrying machine guns managed to rob a Bank of America facility in Los Angeles, and afterward keep several dozen Los Angeles policemen at bay for hours.
“..the Los Angeles Police Department was unprepared for the frightening firepower displayed by two bank robbers, who fired hundreds of rounds at police after the heist went awry.
“These guys obviously were committed to getting away and were prepared to do so,” police Chief Willie Williams said Saturday. ‘They emptied a 100-round drum before they even left the door of the bank.’
..The gunmen fired steel-jacketed bullets easily capable of penetrating body armor worn by patrol officers, Cmdr. Tim McBride said.
“Maybe an armored tank would stop these rounds,” Zingo said. “If our officers were hit in the chest cavity area they would have been dead…”
The mismatch prompted Zingo to send officers out for more firepower. The nearby gun shop, B&B Sales, provided two AR-15s, the civilian version of the Army’s M-16 assault rifle, a shotgun and rifles with telescopic sights. ”
“Stunned police, residents cope with aftermath of L.A. shootout” March 1, 1997
http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/01/bank.shootout/
How can merchants and businessmen be expected to transact business when they must fear pitched battles in the street between police and criminals armed with military style weaponry? Do we really need “empirical data” to tell us that this is a dangerous situation?
Alito’s objection is artificial. By demanding empirical data to validate what common sense tells every human being Alito throws an unnecessary impediment in the path of the State in order to satisfy his ideologically narrow view of the powers of government.
Note 29, Ixnay on the “narrow ideological view” argument, it is stare decisis, not Alito’s personal view
Alito argued that Lopez controlled the outcome in Rybar, the majority decided that Lopez didn’t control the outcome in Rybar. Lopez was a U.S. Supreme Court case that Alito did not participate in any way.
By definition, making an argument to FOLLOW SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT cannot be a decision geared to “satisfy [Alito’s] narrow view of the powers of government.” Why? It wasn’t Alito’s view, it was the view of the U.S. Supreme Court. Alito is arguing for following precedent. Following precedent is the very essence of the rule of law. The Third Circuit does not have the discretion to decide when it follows the Supreme Court’s decision, it must follow them by definition.
Lastly, I pointed out that nothing in the dissent written by Alito would have prohibited state and local government from regulating machine guns.
I stand with my conservative friends in their opposition to Roe v. Wade and was actually disappointed to read that Judge Alito respects the “right of privacy” asserted in the Supreme Court’s opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut. I wasn’t disappointed that he respects the right of privacy, but because he used this statement as a sort of secret code to suggest that he might also respect the right of privacy advanced in Roe v. Wade, a statement that may have been intended to throw his detractors off balance. I would have more respect for Alito if he stood up for the rights of the unborn.
I’m not sure why there are so few legal scholars willing to stand up and assert the that the unborn have rights as well. In a book called “What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said”, only one expert does that, while the rest hide behind privacy.
“Michael Stokes Paulsen offers a forthrightly pro-life opinion, arguing that abortion is deeply immoral and that the Court has severely damaged its authority by recognizing it as a fundamental right. â??Abortion,â?? he insists, â??does not destroy potential life. Abortion kills a living human being.â?? Paulsen writes in a prophetic voice, denouncing the evils of abortion and condemning the Court for having been complicit in the destruction of so many innocent human lives. Paulsen calls on the conscience of Americans to abandon what he regards as the Courtâ??s most lawless and immoral opinion, or, as he describes it, â??the most awful human atrocity inflicted by the Court in our Nationâ??s history.â??
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/07/what-roe-v-wade-should-have-said.html
A pregnant woman has a right to control her body, but there is a person in her body who also has rights. The legal fiction that the body within her body is a mere tissue no different than a wart or a cyst is an expedient falsehood that no person who believes in a consistent ethic of life can accept.
The abortion issue is very complicated, but I believe that if we allowed the States to develop legislation to regulate abortion, they would pass laws that would better address the various complexities of the issues involved. I plan to vote “yes” for California Proposition 73 next week, which requires parental notification for minors seeking abortion. I think it is one of many good sense restrictions of abortion, short of outright criminalization, that the public is seeking.