While new Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid shores up Scalia’s creds for Chief Justice (ugh, the new Congress hasn’t even met yet and he’s already Daschle redux), Howard Dean preps for a big State of the Party speech tomorrow in which he’ll “argue that the Democratic Party should be rebuilt from the grass roots up, that it should be driven by millions of Americans who make small contributions rather than by a handful of moneyed interests, and that the party should focus not just on presidential politics in swing states like Ohio and Florida but also on down-ballot races even in the reddest of states.” If these are my choices, put me on the Dean Machine…the endless protective camouflage song-and-dance perp’ed by Reid this past weekend has to stop. Update: More on Dean’s speech.
Tag: The Supreme Court
Portending the Nine.
“Indeed, former administration officials say all of the names on Mr. Bush’s short list for the Supreme Court are considered strict constructionists who are closer to Justice Scalia than to Justice O’Connor.” The New York Times tries to figure out if Dubya can actually remake the Supreme Court along “strict constructionist” lines as feared and concludes that, yeah, he probably can.
Chimp Nation.
Hope is on the…wait, what’s this? Oops, sorry about that. Turns out Hope took a wrong turn and got lost somewhere back there in Idiotville. Welcome to Despairtown, baby.
So, that’s that, then…the Idiot Wind blows anew. The American electorate has spoken and — despite all the shadiness and incompetence of the past four years — has given Dubya and his cronies the imprimatur to go hog-wild. 51-48%…this is pretty much a mandate, folks. (Big of those Red Staters to ensure that we will be woefully unprepared for the next terrorist attack on a Blue State.) Y’know, H.L. Mencken‘s whole Tyranny of the Booboisie schtick has always grated on my lefty sensibilities, but at this point I have to admit he may have been on to something.
Ugh. I’m too young to remember 1984 very well, but I’m curious as to how last night and this morning compared for America’s Left. (I’ve since been reminded by several people I trust that 1968 and 1972 were much more grievous blows.) Thing is, 2004 started out with such promise over here. But, right around the time I ended up on crutches in May, events personal and political took a nasty turn, and the past few months have been some of the most dismal I can remember. Now, it seems, I may just look back on this time as relatively calm and worry-free.
But, ok, enough wallowing…let’s start taking it frame-by-frame. Given the war, the economy, and Dubya’s obvious incompetence, how on Earth did we lose this election? Well, give credit where credit is due…all this exit-talk of “moral values” proves that Karl Rove pulled off his gambit: He got the extra 4 million evangelical votes he was targeting, partly, it seems, by judiciously invoking rampant anti-gay hysteria. Yet, for some reason or another — a lousy ground game, perhaps? — the Dems inexplicably didn’t counter with extra votes of our own.
Where do we go from here? The Dems are facing an ugly Rule of Four…We lost four seats in the Senate, at least four seats in the House, and likely four seats in the Supreme Court. Whatsmore, we now appear officially dead in the water in the South and Midwest. And, with Kerry and Daschle gone, our standard-bearers now appear to be Hillary Clinton (about whom the country has already made up its mind), John Edwards (whom I still admire, but he couldn’t carry his home state), and Barack Obama (who’s probably too inexperienced to make much headway in 2008.)
Obviously, it’s now well past time for the serious party overhaul we should’ve began last cycle, when Al Gore had an election stolen from him that he should have won hands down. Daschle & Gephardt are already in the dustbin of history, and Terry McAuliffe should probably follow them there. I for one don’t think Howard Dean was or is the answer, but he’s one of the only people injecting new blood and enthusiasm into the party right now, so he should have a seat at the table. Right now, I think Edwardsian populism is our strongest ideological card, but as I said, it didn’t seem to make much headway last night.
Silver lining? Yeah, right. Well, as this Washington Monthly forum noted in September, second terms are notoriously scandal-prone (Watergate, Iran-Contra, Monica), partly out of press boredom, and Dubya’s ilk seem particularly scandal-worthy…perhaps we’ll finally hear a little more about Halliburton. I’m sure there’ll be no shortage of horrifying policy decisions emanating from this administration that’ll keep lefty blogs like this one in business. And, on a purely selfish note, my likely dissertation topic on the fortunes of progressivism in the twenties is now seeming much more sexy in the wake of last night’s 1928-like cultural divide. Of course, none of these are really any consolation at all.
At any rate, I generally believe that America tends to get the president it deserves. So, God help us, we’ve brought this upon ourselves. And now, for we 48%, the hard work begins…we have to lick our wounds, get our act together, and figure out how we can best combat the rightward drift that’s afflicting our nation. Alas, I fear Dubya will do much of the heavy lifting for us, by running the nation further into the ground over the next four years. Still, we gotta keep on keeping on, y’all. I do not believe this darkness will endure.
Stakes is High.
Just in case anybody needed it spelled out, Rehnquist’s recent health problems make it explicit: next week’s vote will in fact determine the Supreme Court. It’d be hard to find a judge more Right-Wing than the Chief here, but I’m sure a second Dubya administration would do its damnedest to find one nevertheless.
Reclaiming Texas.
In “something of a surprise,” the Supreme Court authorizes a three-judge district court to review its earlier decision upholding Tom DeLay’s partisan gerrymandering of Texas. It’s too late for 2004, but perhaps this will bear fruit before 2006, as the Hammer’s other shady dealings come to light.
Kerry v. Bush?
The NYT‘s Linda Greenhouse and Slate‘s Thomas Baker preview the coming Supreme Court term, which we already know won’t involve appeals by Roy Moore, credit card companies, or telemarketers. Update: Dahlia Lithwick talks Blakely.
With all Deliberate Speed.
“Although these events concern different legal issues and different sets of detainees, they share a common denominator: a legal strategy to keep the rule of law out of the war on terrorism by whatever procedural, legal, or administrative means are available.” According to Slate‘s Phillip Carter, the Dubya administration is obstructing and/or ignoring the recent Supreme Court decisions on the Gitmo Gulag. Sadly, I guess we couldn’t expect any less from this crowd.
Show us the bodies.
In three separate cases, the Supremes invoke the Magna Carta and the Founding Fathers to call out Dubya for the trampling of civil liberties under his watch. In the words of the Post, “the opinions, concurrences and dissents were decisive on this: They represent a nearly unanimous repudiation of the Bush administration’s sweeping claims to power over those captives.” (Nearly unanimous because Clarence Thomas, he of the “high-tech lynching,” saw no problem with the US government holding prisoners indefinitely without cause or access to courts…perhaps he’s trying to get invited to Cheney’s next hunting trip.) It’d have been nice if the Supremes had gone farther and also decided on the Padilla case rather than kicking it back to a lower court, but still, this is a solid showing by the Bush v. Gore gang. As Salon waggishly put it, let freedom reign.
Poker-faced Liars.
“Editors: Can you show us your cards? Cheney: Sure. One of them’s a six.” By way of Value Judgment, experience the tribulations of poker with Dick Cheney. “Cheney: We will show you our cards after we have collected the pot. It is important that things be done in this order, otherwise the foundation of our entire poker game will be destroyed.” Update: In semi-related news, the Supreme Court bails out Cheney 7-2 on the energy task force documents, although they also decided to punt the case back to a lower court. Hmmm.
Not yet overcome.
“We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” As Brown v. Board turns 50, segregation persists, such that America’s schools are now barely as integrated as they were in 1969. Let’s get it together, y’all.