“And that’s why John Roberts doesn’t alarm me much. The same conservatism that leads him to decry judicial overreaching in the privacy and civil rights contexts is part and parcel of a larger conservatism that distrusts reckless grandiosity…Roberts cares a lot about looking temperate, and that isn’t a bad thing in a judge.” As Senators Ted Kennedy and Patrick Leahy turn up the heat on the Roberts nod, Slate‘s Dahlia Lithwick argues that, at the very least, he seems temperamentally unsuited to be a judicial bomb-thrower. That’s good, ’cause even with today’s news of a missing civil rights folder and a possible conflict-of-interest in a terrorism case, there doesn’t yet seem to be a silver bullet that could derail this nomination. Update: Dahlia Lithwick reconsiders after pondering Roberts’ “Woman Problem.”
Tag: Ted Kennedy
Let me Hammer them today…
“The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior.” Did Boss DeLay really call for a hit on federal judges overseeing the Schiavo case? Senator Ted Kennedy, for one, seems to think so. If nothing else, his language seems remarkably intemperate for a Congressional leader…but, really, when it comes to the Hammer, what else is new? Update: DeLay tries to get the Judiciary Committee involved.
Cooking Rice.
“‘I really don’t like being lied to, repeatedly, flagrantly,’ Mr. Dayton said.” In a display of dissent that bodes well for the Dems’ outlook in the coming term, several Senate Dems — most notably Ted Kennedy, Mark Dayton, Carl Levin, Evan Bayh, Robert Byrd, and Barbara Boxer — use the Condi hearings to call out the administration on Iraq. (Newcomer Ken Salazar and Joe Lieberman, on the other hand, rolled over immediately.) Update: She’s through, but not before racking up the most No votes (13) in 180 years (since the “Corrupt Bargain” backlash against Henry Clay in 1825.)
Lies in, Lies out.
Building on the recent revelation by Bush Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill that the administration started planning a war in Iraq immediately upon taking office — a revelation that dovetailed all-too-well with the recent Carnegie Endowment report on the administration’s WMD deceptions — Senator Ted Kennedy puts the war in perspective. “President Bush said it all when a television reporter asked him whether Saddam actually had weapons of mass destruction, or whether there was only the possibility that he might acquire them. President Bush answered, ‘So what’s the difference?’ The difference, Mr. President, is whether you go to war or not. No President of the United States should employ misguided ideology and distortion of the truth to take the nation to war. In doing so, the President broke the basic bond of trust between government and the people. If Congress and the American people knew the whole truth, America would never have gone to war.” Quite a good speech and worth a read, if nothing else than because no less a right-wing freak show than Tom DeLay found it “sad” and “disgusting.”
In related news, Rick Perlstein examines Dubya’s electoral exit strategy: “George Bush is selling out Iraq. Gone are his hard-liners’ dreams of setting up a peaceful, prosperous, and democratic republic, a light unto the Middle Eastern nations. The decision makers in the administration now realize these goals are unreachable. So they’ve set a new goal: to end the occupation by July 1, whether that occupation has accomplished anything valuable and lasting or not. Just declare victory and go home…Such is the mess this president seems willing to leave behind in order to save his campaign.“
Pile On.
Weaponsgate fallout continues, with Ted Kennedy decrying Dubya’s foreign policy, John Kerry lambasting Homeland (in)Security under Bush, and Dean and Lieberman calling for Tenet’s head. Whether or not Tenet continues to fall on his sword for the Bushies, the buck stops with the White House, and the GOP Senate can only play defense for so long. What did Dubya know, and when did he know it?