Obama taking on the Base

Despite the cartoon (sorry, I just couldn't resist) this post actually compliments Obama. This past week, he made a couple of tough decisions which have inflamed the ACLU, other human rights organizations, and much of the liberal base. He has reversed on his promise to release several controversial photos of detainees because, according to Obama, "the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger." It was reported that this was actually the belief of his top military commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan who were concerned less about politics and more concerned about saving American lives. They urged the President to reconsider his position, which he did.

The second decision was to restart the Bush-era military tribunals - which Obama halted by executive order during his first week in office. Regarding this policy reversal, Obama said, "These reforms will begin to restore the commissions as a legitimate forum for prosecution, while bringing them in line with the rule of law. This is the best way to protect our country, while upholding our deeply held values." Contrast this statement with something he said on the compaign trail when he described Guantanamo tribunals as "a flawed military commission system that has failed to convict any one of a terrorist act since the 9/11 attacks and that has been embroiled in legal challenges."

Amnesty International's Larry Cox is ticked. "President Obama is reinstating the same deeply-flawed military commissions that in June 2008 he called an 'enormous failure.' In one swift move, Obama both backtracks on a major campaign promise to change the way the United States fights terrorism and undermines the nation's core respect for the rule of law by sacrificing due process for political expediency."

So I'm curious, what is really going on here? Was it really 'politically expedient' for Obama to make these decisions? It doesn't seem like it. It seems, based on the leftist critics, that he's departing from campaign promises of transparency, accountability, and a different direction than Bush. I personally applaud President Obama for these two moves. He showed real courage knowing that he would upset the liberal base. This was also a step towards more Presidential maturity. I think he has come to realize that it is one thing to talk big on the campaign trail. But if staying true to some of these campaign promises means endangering American lives in the real world, I'm glad he decided that it was more important to protect those lives than to appease the party base. To me, these developments are encouraging. What do you guys think?

Was Pelosi Dishonest?

I'm sure many of you will be surprised, I'm actually not quite sure on this one. Here's her original statement with the conservative spin:



So are they being unfair? Was it reasonable for her to wait until they come and tell her after they've actually done it before she will give an OK? Was that ex post facto-type entrapment, where she's egging them on by not expressing initial disapproval so they can illegalize it later and then arrest everyone? I'm not quite sure what to make of this to be honest.

Heated Interview

This post doesn't really have a purpose, I just wanted to show you guys this heated interview because it's just intense and I think it's kind of funny:

Carrie Prejean and Liberal Double Standards

I'd like to make a few comments about the recent Miss America controversy. For those who aren't up to speed on it, here's a quick vidcap:



By now you all know I'm conservative, so my feelings on this aren't exactly a mystery. However, in this case my discomfort runs deeper--I think--than mere conservatism. As I mentioned in my comment on the previous post, I think there are common standards of decency that apply across the board, whether you're liberal or conservative. One of the most important ones, I think, is consistency, which I think has been violated by many of the left with a glaring double standard. Here's another video which I think illustrates my point:



So here's my question: can you imagine Martin Luther King trying to make sure that his civil rights movement applied ONLY TO BLACK LIBERALS? To be fair I can understand the uneasy feelings feminists have about the whole pageant scene because it degrades women, but as you saw on that clip that's not what they really have a problem with. If it were the other way around, for example, and a conservative judge wasn't happy with a liberal contestant's answer, this feminist would be outraged. In short, I think it's clear that only women who sympathize with the entire liberal agenda are "worthy" of the benefits of feminism, at least to this particular feminist. So again, isn't that the equivalent of M.L.K. achieving conditional civil rights only for black people who have certain beliefs? Would that even make any sense? And if not, then why would it be any different for feminism? Isn't it just another civil rights issue? I thought part of the reason M.L.K.'s movement caught on was because it harmonized with the Declaration of Independence that you don't have to earn rights because "all men are created equal" and that they are all "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights"? If I'm not mistaken, M.L.K. actually quoted the Declaration in his famous "I Have a Dream" speech. Maybe I'm just not supposed to understand it because I'm a conservative, but I still can't see how such a stance can do anything but hurt her cause...am I wrong?

But here's the funny thing about all this: if anything Carrie Prejean has only benefitted from all of this. I think she's actually better off now than if she had actually won the pageant, because nobody would even be talking about her. But thanks to all this controversy, she's on the news all the time now. Anyway, I just think it's ironic that Perez Hilton actually jump-started her career in the process of trying to destroy it. I guess it's like they say, there's no such thing as "bad publicity," though I guess that also applies (unfortunately) to Perez Hilton. For the record, though, I think Prejean came out on top.

Finding an "Empathetic" Replacement for Souter

President Obama will soon release the name. The pundits are predicting that it will likely be a female from a different ethnic background. I’m fine with that, as long as she is otherwise qualified. So what are important qualifications that Obama looks for in a perspective Supreme Court judge? Here’s a quote from 2007 with some commentary from me in brackets:

“We need somebody who’s got the empathy to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American [um, like Thurgood Marshall or Clarence Thomas?] or gay or disabled or old [aren’t all the current judges except maybe Roberts and Alito “old?”]. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.” And now one from this week: “I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.”

To me, “empathy” sounds more like code for an activist judge. An empathetic, activist judge is one who really has no qualms about bending the law or making new law to arrive at his or her preferred outcome. In my opinion, this offends fundamental separation of powers principles upon which our country was established. It is the legislature’s job to make laws, the executive’s to enforce them, and the judicial’s to interpret the Constitution, the laws that Congress passes, and apply them neutrally and fairly to the facts of each case. If the people feel that the laws unfairly favor certain groups over the other, they are certainly free to lobby those in Congress who are their direct representatives, not those sitting on the bench, to get them changed. That is why we have the democratic process in the first place.

So here are some questions that (hopefully) illustrate some problems that an “empathetic” judicial philosophy may present. Should the determination of a case turn on whether the plaintiff or defendant is rich or poor, citizen or alien, teenage mom or disabled grandma? Would you want to go before a judge who has “empathy” for Party X if they are on the opposite side? Would you get a fair shake? Doesn’t the Constitution guarantee to all persons equal protection of the laws? Wouldn’t the protection just be more equal for some parties than others with an “empathetic” court, and therefore by definition, be inherently unequal? Wouldn’t this damage the social confidence in the impartiality of the legal system?

Lady Justice is blind for a reason. In resolving a dispute, a truly neutral judge should not see or recognize the personal features of the parties that bear no relationship to the actual merits of the case. The rule of law and due process require nothing less. Forsaking this conception of judicial blindness to “empathize” with the vulnerabilities of the preferred tips the scales of justice in their favor before the case even begins. It is for the lawmakers and the attorneys to be “empathetic,” not judges. I recognize that every judge will naturally be biased towards certain parties. I’m just saying that these biases should not determine how they rule in cases. The law applied to the facts should be determinative.

Former S.C. Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes understood this. A friend once told him to “do justice sir, do justice.” Holmes replied, “That is not my job. My job is to apply the law. I see that the game is played according to the rules whether I like them or not.” Current Chief Justice Roberts compared his role to that of a baseball umpire, calling balls and strikes based on the rules of the game. If you give me the choice between a judge with this philosophy versus an “empathetic” judge who favors some people above others, I’d take the former any day. But that is just me. Obama has a different opinion, which is fine, and I recognize that whoever he nominates will easily be confirmed by the Senate. To the victor go the spoils. Am I reading too deep into this? What are your thoughts? Sorry for the lengthy post.

Is the GOP on its way out?

I want to relate two stories, and hopefully tie them together. This post is not an attack on republicans by the way.

A week ago I was listening to Utah Public Radio and heard a story about Governor Huntsman. Here is the story:

"Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., sometimes mentioned as a possible Republican presidential candidate in 2012, got an early taste of party politics, Michigan style, this week when an invitation to appear at a Kent County Republican event in Grand Rapids was abruptly retracted.
Huntsman, serving his second term in the most Republican state in the country, apparently got crosswise with Kent County political leaders because of his endorsement earlier this year of civil unions for gay and lesbian couples.On Tuesday, Gary Glenn, chairman of the Campaign for Michigan Families and a prominent supporter of the state’s marriage amendment in 2004, issued a statement of his own on the disinvitation to Huntsman that said “Kent County’s principled stand sends a strong message nationwide that grassroots conservatives will not embrace liberals who want to abandon the GOP platform’s commitment to traditional family values.”
Other Michigan Republicans, who spoke on a condition of anonymity, said the brouhaha over the Huntsman invitation and snub perpetuates an image of the party as dominated by social conservatives unwilling to entertain opposing views."

And here's story #2.

Arlen Specter on Sunday defended his stunning defection to the Democratic Party and urged Republican leaders to stand up to right-wing activists seeking to purge moderates from their party. In a pair of televised interviews, the 29-year Senate veteran and now Democrat from Pennsylvania said his decision to switch parties was a principled one, that Democrats did not promise him anything other than allowing him to keep his seniority and that the GOP should broaden its tent. “There’s more than being reelected here,” Specter, who concluded he could not win a GOP primary next year, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “There’s the factor of principle. The Republican Party has gone far to the right since I joined it under Reagan’s big tent.”

Just for the sake of argument, let's assume Arlen Specter's decision to leave the dark side was purely motivated by the fact he could not get reelected as a republican after voting for the stimulus package.

Let me tie these two together with a question...is the republican party getting too conservative to be competitive in national politics? In the latest Quinnipiac (KWIN'-ah-pee-ack) University poll By a 55 to 38% margin, respondents say they don't want same-sex couples to marry in their states. But they do favor -- by a slightly larger margin -- allowing civil unions. So is the fact that the party platform of no civil unions - not just for gays and lesbians but any two adults like brother and sister benefiting financially from a civil union - being left behind by the rest of America?

Recently a few republicans have gotten together with the likes of Eric Cantor, Mitt Romney, and Jeb Bush on what they call The National Council for a New America. Here's what FoxNews had to say about the Grand Old Party Party.

"Republicans, who have suffered two consecutive electoral beatings in Congress and a Senate defection this week, launched on Saturday the first of a series of forums and town hall meetings to engage the American public in policy discussion. The GOP leaders have their work cut out out for them. A recent Pew poll found that 22 percent of voters now identify themselves as Republicans compared with 35 percent who say they are Democrats. That is a severe drop-off from the same poll five years ago, which showed Republicans at 30 percent, only down three to Democrats."

Where did the GOP go wrong? What will be the new direction for the party? I'm curious to see what you guys have to say, considering you're all the conservatives. From what I can gather from speaking to conservatives and listening to the likes of Hannity and Rush on the radio, they are happy with the job Bush did with national security, but think he blew it in terms of fiscal conservatism and growing the size of government. Will the GOP ever make a comeback, or are they out like the Wiggs?