WaxWorks
|
Saturday, July 02, 2005
Remember, It's About the "Rule of Law"
Hmm, this could get interesting. It's now been revealed that none other than Karl Rove was Matthew Cooper's source for the Plame leak. It's also been rumored that Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald is investigating possible perjury by the leaker during Fitzgerald's investigation. Which creates some really delicious possibilities.
You have the situation where Karl Rove, the most powerful person in the World, could be indicted for perjury and then the Bush White House would have to figure out what to do with him. And this wouldn't be John Sasso leaking a videotape about Joe Biden not crediting a Neil Kinnock speech the 500th time he used it, but rather perjury involving blowing a CIA operative's cover and endangering our national security. Could Democrats really be so lucky as to get rid of the evil genius?
It would also be great to see how the same people who lambasted Clinton about his alleged perjury concerning sex deal with alleged perjury about blowing a CIA operative's cover.
After all, this is what Bush Sr. said in 1999 about what Rove would be accused of:
Your mission is different now than it was back then. The Soviet Union is no
more. Some people think, "what do we need intelligence for?" My answer to that
is we have plenty of enemies. Plenty of enemies abound. Unpredictable leaders
willing to export instability or to commit crimes against humanity.
Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, narco-trafficking,
people killing each other, fundamentalists killing each other in the name of
God. These and more. Many more. As our analysts know, as our collectors of
intelligence know - these are our enemies. To combat them we need more
intelligence, not less. We need more human intelligence. That means we need more
protection for the methods we use to gather intelligence and more protection for
our sources, particularly our human sources, people that are risking their lives
for their country.
Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing
the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of
traitors.
Remember back to 1998 everyone: it's about the "rule of law." (And as if that comparison isn't apt enough, Michael Isokoff, a veteran from the 1998 battle, is up on Newsweek with a story about Rove and Plame.)
Friday, July 01, 2005
Advice and Consent
Something worth remembering, as we see how the next few weeks unfold, from Senator Orrin Hatch's autobiography. Hatch, you may recall, was the ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee (just as Senator Patrick Leahy is now) when Clinton made his two nominations to the Supreme Court:
[It] was not a surprise when the President called to talk about the
appointment and what he was thinking of doing.
President Clinton indicated he was leaning toward nominating Bruce
Babbitt, his Secretary of the Interior, a name that had been bouncing around in
the press. Bruce, a well-known western Democrat, had been the governor of
Arizona and a candidate for president in 1988. Although he had been a state
attorney general back during the 1970s, he was known far more for his activities
as a politician than as a jurist. Clinton asked for my reaction.
I told him that confirmation would not be easy. At least one Democrat would
probably vote against Bruce, and there would be a great deal of resistance from
the Republican side. I explained to the President that although he might prevail
in the end, he should consider whether he wanted a tough, political battle over
his first appointment to the Court.
Our conversation moved to other potential candidates. I asked whether he
had considered Judge Stephen Breyer of the First Circuit Court of Appeals or
Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
President Clinton indicated he had heard Breyer’s name but had not thought about
Judge Ginsburg.
I indicated I thought they would be confirmed easily. I knew them both
and believed that, while liberal, they were highly honest and capable jurists
and their confirmation would not embarrass the President. From my perspective,
they were far better than the other likely candidates from a liberal Democrat
administration.
In the end, the President did not select Secretary Babbitt. Instead, he
nominated Judge Ginsburg and Judge Breyer a year later, when Harry Blackmun
retired from the Court. Both were confirmed with relative ease.
Oh, I'm sure we'll be hearing about a similar conversation between Bush and Leahy, right?
The Balance is Due
I agree completely with Ed Kilgore on this one:
[A friend of Kilgore's] said his hunch was that Bush would send up Alberto
Gonzales. Sure, the Right would go nuts, but Bush's approval rating would
jump ten points; a lot of Republicans would go along out of loyalty or even
relief; and Democrats would be placed in the uncomfortable position of either
eating the words they said about Gonzales' unfitness to serve as Attorney
General, or making a confirmation fight based on Gitmo, an issue that the
administration thinks still cuts in its favor. And if Gonzales went
down to a Left-Right coalition, then Bush could shrug, say he tried to be
reasonable, and then send up somebody really outrageous.
It's an interesting hypothesis, but I just don't buy it. This
appointment represents the giant balloon payment at the end of the mortgage the
GOP signed with the Cultural Right at least 25 years ago. Social
conservatives have agreed over and over again to missed payments,
refinancings, and in their view, generous terms, but the balance is finally
due, and if Bush doesn't pay up, they'll foreclose their entire alliance with
the Republican Party.
Sure, they care about other issues, from gay marriage to taxes to Iraq, but
abortion is the issue that makes most Cultural Right activists get up in the
morning and stuff envelopes and staff phone banks for the GOP. And for
decades now, Republicans have told them they can't do anything much about it
until they can change the Supreme Court. With a pro-choice Justice
stepping down, the subject can no longer be avoided. And thanks to the Souter
precedent (and indeed, the O'Connor and Kennedy precedents), there's no way Bush
can finesse an appointment that's anything less than a guaranteed vote to
overturn Roe.
Game On
It's hard to overstate how big this news is: Justice O'Connor announces her retirement. If you thought the fight over judicial nominations was bitter before, just wait. And so much more is at stake than if Rehnquist retired because O'Connor is such a pivotal swing justice. It will be interesting to see if there is pressure on Bush to fill O'Connor's slot with a woman, similar to how Bush Sr. filled Marshall's spot with Thomas. (Of course, Marshall was the only black on the Court, while this time there is still Ginsburg.)
Boy, Karl Rove couldn't have planned this better. 43% approval rating. Iraq war getting compared more and more to Vietnam. Nice to have a distraction, and trust me, this will suck all of the oxygen out of the political air until her successor is confirmed.
On O'Connor, it's been rumored, since 2000, that she wanted to retire. Indeed, it was widely reported that she was visibly upset during a 2000 Election Night party when Gore appeared to have won Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida. However, as events unfolded, she then was able to select who would select her successor. But she apparently realized that the stench from Bush v. Gore required her to wait until after another election to step down.
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Deep Throat Revealed in 1976
Bob Woodward's new book on Deep Throat, Mark Felt, comes out July 6, but some details have leaked. Here's what I thought was the most interesting so far:
Former Justice Department official Stanley Pottinger figured out in 1976
that Felt had been Deep Throat, but never told anyone but Woodward of his
conclusion. Pottinger discovered the truth during testimony Felt was giving
before a grand jury in 1976. The grand jury's probe was not related to
Watergate, but one of the jurors asked Felt if he had been Deep
Throat.According to Woodward, Felt answered "no." Pottinger then reminded
Felt he was under oath, and offered to have the question and answer withdrawn
because they were "outside the bounds of the investigation."
"Flushed," Woodward writes, "Felt very rapidly requested, 'Withdraw the
question.' " Woodward writes that Pottinger knew then that Felt had been Deep
Throat. Pottinger did not reveal what he had heard, Woodward writes, because he
did not think it appropriate to unmask a reporter's confidential source.
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Rove Keeping You Up?
I haven't read too much of Ariana Huffington's blog, but this post by Larry David made me laugh. It also made me miss Curb Your Enthusiasm terribly. Please come back soon, Larry.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Supreme Court Madness
So far, no retirements. It will be interesting to see if that holds, particularly as the summer goes on and things fail to improve politically for this Administration.
Two comments on the recent flurry of activity by the Court these last two weeks. First, many conservatives who value private property over all else (yet don't seem to share the same view of personal liberty, go figure) are worked up by the Supreme Court's takings clause decision in Kelo v. City of New London. In Kelo, the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Stevens, joined by Souter, Breyer and Ginsberg, with Kennedy concurring, endorsed the use of the eminent domain power by the City of New London, Connecticut to buy a home as part of an economic development project.
Well, now some very angry private property advocates have decided to try to see if they can take Justice Souter's New Hampshire home under the eminent domain power to teach him a lesson. I've got to give them credit for trying...
Also, Justice Scalia has been very open about his disdain for the citation of international law or authority in interpreting the U.S. Constitution, particularly in connection with the recent cases involving youth offenders and the death penalty. According to Scalia, such citations are just examples of activist judges who refuse to be limited by the restrictions of our written Constitution.
Well, then imagine my surprise when I read Justice Scalia's dissent in the Kentucky Ten Commandments case and saw that, right on the first page of his opinion, he discusses a conversation he had with a European politican on the eve of 9/11:
On September 11, 2001 I was attending in Rome, Italy an international conference
of judges and lawyers, principally from Europe and the United States. That night
and the next morning virtually all of the participants watched, in their hotel
rooms, the address to the Nation by the President of the United States
concerning the murderous attacks upon the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, in which thousands of Americans had been killed. The address ended, as Presidential
addresses often do, with the prayer "God bless America." The next afternoon I
was approached by one of the judges from a European country, who, after
extending his profound condolences for my country's loss, sadly observed "How I
wish that the Head of State of my country, at a similar time of national tragedy
and distress, could conclude his address 'God bless ______.' It is of course
absolutely forbidden."
Hmm, Antonin? I'm a little puzzled. I'm not really sure what significance a conversation you had on 9/11/01 with a European judge could possible have on the original meaning of the U.S. Constitution...
