WaxWorks
|
Tuesday, March 04, 2003
It looks like Estrada Cloture Vote #1 is scheduled to take place on Thursday, with Democrats feeling pretty certain they will be able to hold steady. Interestingly, the full transcript of Estrada's confirmation hearing is now available, as are his written responses to questions posed by Senator Durbin and Senator Kennedy.
Some of these answers are particularly illuminating. Here's one response to a Durbin question:
Question: 1) During your nominations hearing, Senator Edwards asked whether you consider yourself a “strict constructionist” when it comes to interpreting the Constitution. You described yourself instead as a “fair constructionist.” . . .
b) Of the current members of the Supreme Court, who would you characterize as a strict constructionist? Who would you characterize as a fair constructionist? How would you characterize the remaining justices?
RESPONSE: Although the current members of the United States Supreme Court sometimes emphasize different interpretive tools—giving, for example, greater or less prominence to text, history or precedent in a particular case—I believe each of them attempts in good faith to give a fair reading to the Constitutional provisions that come before the Court. For that reason, I would characterize each member of the current Court as a “fair constructionist.”
That answer alone should disqualify him.
Monday, March 03, 2003
Here's some more frightening thoughts in the news today, this time about Bush's reelection campaign.
First this:
President Bush has postponed his reelection campaign until after a war with Iraq, but White House and Republican Party strategists have begun planning for a contest in which they envision raising as much as $250 million to wage a battle designed to break the political stalemate of the 1990s and make the GOP the country's majority party.
Then this acknowledgement that the terrorism issue will be milked out as long as possible to help Bush:
White House and GOP officials remain concerned about the sluggish economy, which contributed to the defeat of Bush's father in 1992. They differ, however, with strategists for some Democratic presidential candidates who believe that once a possible war with Iraq is over, economic and domestic concerns will dominate the 2004 campaign. Top Bush advisers say that even if Iraq is settled quickly, concerns about international terrorism will compete with anxiety about the economy, much as they did in 2002.
"Iraq is one chapter in the war on terrorism, as Afghanistan was one chapter in a war against terrorism," said a senior Bush adviser.
There are several disturbing aspects to this Time magazine piece. It's got something for everyone.
First, for those of you cynical believers that this war has political underpinnings for Bush, there's this:
But the war may also be the White House's way out of the problem. Bush advisers say the economy will surge after the war, as businesses start investing and consumers start spending. And victory in war can jump-start a President's stalled poll numbers. With a postwar mandate, say advisers, congressional opposition to his tax cuts will melt away. "History shows," a top Bush adviser tells Time, "once the shooting starts, the public rallies around the President. And once it's over, this President will use his political capital to get things done at home."
And for you deficit-hawks, here's the attitude of the administration about the potential cost of the war:
Meanwhile, an easy victory over Saddam may still not deliver what Bush needs and may contribute instead to the government's financial burdens. The budget deficit, already more than $300 billion, will probably grow by at least an additional $50 billion to $100 billion to pay for the combat, the cooperation of allies and the beginning of a multiyear commitment to rebuild Iraq.
Bush aides say the deficit doesn't worry them because it remains a small percentage of the $10 trillion economy. "Even if it is 500 (billion), so what?" asks one, adding that the public is willing to put up with deficits to pay for security at home and abroad.
Speaking of homeland security, does this reassure anyone?
Shortly after noon on Friday, Feb. 7, the nation's secretary of homeland security, Tom Ridge, announced that the nation had been placed on "high risk" of terrorist attacks. As he issued his dire warning, almost nobody in Washington knew that eight hours earlier, a team of heavily armed security agents of a hostile foreign government had landed on American soil.
Luckily, the four men were not terrorists. They were defecting Cubans, agents of the Cuban coast guard, who arrived in Key West, Fla., aboard a 30-foot government patrol boat, the Cuban flag still flapping from the mast.
Carrying two AK-47 rifles and full clips of ammunition, they docked their boat before dawn at the marina of the local Hyatt hotel, a short distance from the United States Coast Guard station. Undetected, the Cubans, still in their camouflage uniforms and black boots, marched into the middle of the sultry Florida resort town looking for someone to surrender to.
Maybe Hillary and Schumer have a point about protecting our borders and ports?
