Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

Tweet

Damn, George Bush didn’t take my advice to nominate Pat Fitzgerald to the Court! It would’ve been a perfect choice and sure to avoid the nuclear winter which Alito’s going to cause with his nomination.

Alito…rhymes with “Scalito”

But seriously, the National Jewish Democratic Council is reporting these first salvos from the far religious-right in the Samuel Alito SCOTUS war:

The Reverend Rob Schenck — self-described “missionary to Capitol Hill,” and president of Faith and Action– said this morning, “From what we know, Judge Alito has a proven track record of respect for the original intent of the framers of the constitution when it comes to the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage, and the public acknowledgment of God. We are calling on Christian people of every tradition to pray for Judge Alito and the members of the US Senate as the confirmation process begins, and for the future of the Supreme Court.”

** Priests for Life released a statement this morning in which National Director Fr. Frank Pavone commented, “We also welcome the debate over ‘conservative values.’ The nation is in a culture war, and there’s no need to hide that fact. Some Senators will oppose any change on the Court that would threaten so-called ‘abortion rights.’ But the American people are already deciding that their Constitution does not permit dismembering children. It is inevitable that the Court will catch up.”

What shocks about these statements is how bald-facedly they acknowledge that this nomination, for the Christian Right, is about making the U.S. a “Christian nation.” Which means that as Jews we owe every ounce of our political strength to opposing this nomination. As the Shma says: v-chol m’odecha (with all your might).

Then there was this over the top ululation from an obviously drunk (on power, God?) Christian-rightist:

“The difference from after the Miers nomination was like being at a morgue verses being at a combination of a wedding reception, Super Bowl party and bar mitzvah,” said Jordan Lorence, a lawyer for the Christian conservative Alliance Defense Fund, in a conference call with conservative groups.

A bar mitzvah? Really? I’m hoping that by the time this Senate review process is over it feels more like a train wreck for the good Christian fellow.

It is clear that with his confirmation Alito will once more not only criminalize abortion (something we haven’t seen for over 30 years in this country), but we are likely to have a Court which shows even more obsequious deference toward presidential power, which allows torture of terror suspects and indeterminate imprisonment of U.S. citizens, just to mention a few of the many human rights issues which will be snuffed out by an Alito court.

With Sandra Day O’Connor’s retirement there will no longer be a swing vote on the Court. The results of most decisions which involve an ideological or political component will be a foregone conclusion. We will now essentially have TWO Antonin Scalia’s on the court like legal Bobsy twins.

I feel a little like the widow in Jeremiah’s Book of Lamentations who sits weeping in the dust for the destruction of her beloved Jerusalem. Except I will be distraught over the wholesale passing of the Supreme Court into the ideological hands of American judicial extremists.

Tweet

Will Samuel Alito activate ‘nuclear option’? (credit: AP)

It’s all but certain that Bush will satisfy his conservative base by choosing a hard-right nominee in the aftermath of the Harriet Miers fiasco. I’ve written here about the political repercussions of such a choice. Democrats and civil rights groups are spoiling for the fight as are the far-right interest groups. If Frist, facing a Democratic filibuster, calls for a vote on eliminating the long-standing legislative tool used at various times by both parties, then you have all out war. Democrats have threatened to bring all Senate business to a halt which they no doubt would find some way to accomplish. It could be a long, cold “nuclear winter” in the Senate. The only question is whether the American people (shades of the Bill Clinton-Congress standoff resulting in an unprecedented government shutdown) would see things the Republican way or Democratic way in this constitutional crisis. I’d give the Democrats the edge here since Republicans would be the ones doing violence to Senate precedent.

J. Michael Luttig, another prime Bush nominee Democrats would mostly likely filibuster (credit: AP)

In my analysis, I assume that all Republican senators would vote to eliminate the filibuster. But David Kirkpatrick casts some doubt on this in today’s Times:

…It was never certain how many Republicans would vote for the rule change. And the decline in the popularity of the president since then weakens his ability to rally public opinion against the Democrats as “obstructionists.”

Think of those Republican moderates like Olympia Snowe, Lincoln Chaffee and Arlen Specter who are beginning to realize that they will have to run in swing states with the possibly attenuated support of a majorly divided and distracted Republican party. All of them support abortion rights. Would they walk the plank for George over a nominee for whom they and their constituents feel tepid? It’s a tough call.

Kirkpatrick does a nice job of summarizing the utter disaster that yet another failed nominee would cause GW should Frist and the Senate Republicans fail:

Combining the uncertainty in the Senate with the president’s other political problems makes the choice of his next Supreme Court nominee a delicate balancing act, said Charlie Cook, editor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

“He needs a fight that would help re-energize the conservative Republican base,” Mr. Cook said. “But at the same time he can’t afford a loss. He is in a profoundly weakened condition, and a loss on top of everything else that has happened all year would be terrible.”

Can he pull it off? If I were a betting man I wouldn’t put any money on him in his current state of weakness.

Tweet

Hey, Bud–looks like you dodged that bullet! (credit: Getty Images)

Many Americans (including this one) are gnashing their teeth over the apparent “get out of jail” card that Pat Fitzgerald may’ve handed Karl Rove by not indicting him yesterday. It is clearly (to my mind) a fate he doesn’t not deserve. But justice can’t always “get it right” and that may be the case here as well.

But there is a definite bright side to his not being indicted. Make no mistake, Karl Rove is damaged goods from here on out. He may still be able to rally the conservative base, but no one else in this country will give him the time of day. In the mid-term elections, Rove, Libby and Cheney will become the Democratic mantra of sleaze just as Newt Gingrich did during the Clinton years. A mere mention of the name “Rove” will become shorthand for slash and burn politics, lying to the American people and covering up for your misdeeds. He will become associated in the minds of Americans with every value they do not share with such Republican ideological extremists.

So in a way, Pat Fitzgerald has handed Democrats an inadvertent gift. I just hope they use it as wisely as the Clinton-era Democrats used Newt Gingrich to beat up on Republicans and win elections in the mid to late-1990s.

Bush strides purposefully toward future declaring: “What me worry?” (credit: Brendan Smialowski AFP/Getty Images)

George Bush gives every indication of believing there is nothing fundamentally wrong with his presidency. According to today’s Times, he doesn’t plan a housecleaning a la Ronald Reagan during Iran-Contra. That means he plans to stick by Rove no matter what. And that’s music to the ears of Democrats. They should be telling Bush to stick by his man, love him to death. Because by doing so it will make Rove the albatross hanging around Republican necks through the next presidential elections. Conversely, if Bush did own up to the disastrous situation he now finds himself in and sought out a Republican “wise man” (like Howard Baker was to Reagan and James Baker was to GHW Bush) to set the ship of state aright, then he might save his presidency. The longer it takes Bush to come to this realization the more damage it does him.

Here’s an example of the type of denial that spells doom to Bush:

“I don’t think you want to send a signal that this is a crisis bigger than it is,” said Vin Weber, a lobbyist and former Republican House member who is a White House ally. “This was a bad week obviously, but you cleared the board of a couple big problems or question marks hanging over us. It’s unfortunate for the individuals involved, but it gives us a chance to start rebuilding, clawing our way back.”

Representative Thomas M. Reynolds of New York, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, dismissed the notion that the week’s events had long-range political significance. The midterm election, Mr. Reynolds said, “is 12, almost 13 months away. All of this week will be forgotten in a year. It will be forgotten in two months.”

I hope those words come back to haunt this political numbskull.

And here’s more:

Allies of the White House said they hoped that Mr. Rove’s legal jeopardy in the leak investigation would end quickly, perhaps within days or weeks, clearing him of wrongdoing and allowing him to refocus his attention on stabilizing Mr. Bush’s presidency and advancing the Republican agenda.

“It is the thinking of most people at the White House, including the lawyers, that this is done,” said a Republican who is in close contact with senior administration officials, referring to the investigation.

The law may be done with Karl, but you can bet the Democrats aren’t.

So George, sleep peacefully at night. All’s well in your world. And whatever you do don’t spoil things by starting to read any of those nasty newspapers you don’t trust anyway. They’d only tell you what you don’t already know.

Tweet

(credit: Elena Steier)

Tweet

Harriet Miers is gone. Bush can ‘pose’ all he wants about documents being what did her in. But his own far-right supporters did her in–that seems clear to everyone except those who drank the cool aid at the White House. The most important lesson to be drawn from this outcome is that Bush is not only unpopular in the country with 38% approval ratings; he’s also rapidly losing political firepower even among his own base. That base would never have turned on his hand-picked nominee unless they smelled blood in the water in this presidency. As I’ve written here before, I’m amazed (and pleased) that things could turn so fast for him.

What are the conservatives thinking? Why would they willingly jettison a ‘pretty-good’ choice from their perspective in favor of waiting for a “home run” nominee? It seems to me that they’re hoping for a far right nominee in the mold of Scalia–say, Michael Luttig, Janice Rogers or Priscilla Owen. But they have to know that Democrats would likely filibuster such a candidate. Then they’d have to use the nuclear option and abandon the Senate’s filibuster tradition. At this stage of the game do the Republicans really think that they can carry the majority of the American people with them on this strategy? When you’re selling a war that’s one thing. People might trust you and give you the benefit of the doubt. But when you mess with congressional precedent, I don’t think you carry a lot of good will with you on that.

Since the day after Kerry’s loss I’ve been writing about the Republicans overreaching and saying that this would be their downfall. I think that the arch-right strategy in the Miers confirmation battle is yet another example of overreaching. The potential for nuclear annihilation in the Senate chambers with an extreme-right nominee will only amplify the overreaching. Who knows where it will lead?

But one thing that concerns me deeply is that the Democrats have articulated no real message or agenda that resonates with anyone. It’s all well and good for them to sit back while the Harriet Miers immolated herself. But what comes after that? And if the Republicans do engage in continuing missteps over a future nominee, how will Democrats take advantage? Do Democrats expect that the House or Senate will simply fall into their hands come the mid-terms? If they do and it does then woe unto them because again it seems to me that they have absolutely no clue of an agenda should they take a majority in either house (and it appers increasingly possible that this might happen). “People get ready, there’s a train that might be comin’,” I say.

It will be an interesting (as in the Chinese saying: “May you be cursed to live in interesting times”) and scary time.

Tweet

Pat Fitzgerald: next Supreme Court nominee? (credit: Jim Bourg/Reuters)

I just had a brilliant idea! Well, at least I think so. If George Bush takes my advice he’ll solve two vexing problems that are about the biggest thorns in his side right now. Nominate Pat Fitzgerald to the Supreme Court.

You heard me. It’s simple. With one fell swoop, he’ll rid himself of one of the most dangerous prosecutors who ever stalked a sitting vice president and he’ll fill a Supreme Court seat that seems too hot for any other nominee to handle. Democrats AND Republicans will fall over themselves to vote for him. After all, Pat’s essentially a blank slate politically. No one knows if he’s a Democrat of Republican. Unlike Miss Harriet, he does have a paper trail of countless indictments and prosections with the federal prosecutors offices in New York and Chicago. Additionally, not even Republicans have been willing to go after him personally because of his impeccable reputation. Pat would be a home run in the same way John Roberts was one.

Well, maybe not quite the same way since Pat’s never been a judge and his legal expertise is mainly in criminal law. Roberts certainly had a broader legal background. But hell, Pat’s smart enough that he could master that stuff in a few weeks tops!

In case you guessed, I’m being facetious, but only half-facetious. Besides, I don’t want to see Bush, Cheney and the boys let off the hook so easily.

As for Fitzgerald, some smart senator or president should nominate him as a federal judge right away and then after a few years I think he’d make a great SCOTUS nominee. But why not speed up the process a bit and do an end-around a few of those onerous legal experience ‘requirements’ that seem to have mucked up the chances of the previous failed nominee??

Tweet

Hey, by now everybody and his brother and sister knows Libby’s been indicted. But what’s most interesting about the New York Times chronology of the Libby/Cheney perfidy is this passage:

Pat Fitzgerald: man of the hour (credit: Jim Bourg/Reuters)

¶On June 12, 2003, Mr. Libby was told by Mr. Cheney that Ms. Wilson worked in the C.I.A. counterproliferation division, most of whose employees work under covert or classified status. Mr. Cheney’s information was understood to have come from the C.I.A. Lawyers involved in the case have said that Mr. Libby’s notes of the meeting indicated that Mr. Cheney’s information came from George J. Tenet, then the direction of central intelligence. Mr. Tenet has declined to comment.

Earlier, the Times had reported merely that Cheney told Libby that she worked at the CIA (but not the specific division within it). If the remainder of this passage is indeed true, then one would have to ask why Tenet outed one of his own covert operatives? One would also want to know why Cheney passed the information on to Libby IF NOT to blow her cover.

With gnashing of teeth, Cheney girds for war? Speaking in Georgia Friday during Fitzgerald’s press conference (credit: Stephen Morton/AP)

I don’t want to jump the gun here, but if I’m reading this correctly then Cheney is directly implicated in outing Wilson. What I can’t understand is why Fitzgerald is essentially letting Cheney off the hook. Yes, I can certainly understand why politically he might not want to escalate his investigation so that it threatens a sitting vice-president. But if everything leads to Cheney and you don’t charge him then it seems passing strange. Perhaps, Fitzgerald’s thinking that by the time he’s done tearing Libby into shreds on the stand that Cheney’s reputation too will be irreparably harmed even without an indictment.

As for Rove, I hope this speculation (probably emanating from defense lawyers–possibly even his own) turns out not to be true:

Lawyers in the case said Mr. Fitzgerald had misgivings about whether he could prove that Mr. Rove had deliberately sought to mislead investigators about his conversation with a reporter. Allies of Mr. Bush said the expectation within the White House was that Mr. Rove would not be charged although he had received no official word of being cleared.

I think it’s really pernicious for the Times to allow such vague sourcing. If they don’t give you even a hint of which side the lawyers are on you can’t judge the credibility or veracity of the information. I just hope the reporters are double sourcing so that they don’t rely only on a dubious, self-interested attorney for their material.

NPR reports that Rove’s attorney said that when he met with Fitzgerald this week, the latter told him he planned to indict Rove. But the attorney claimed that his arguments against an indictment “gave Fitzgerald pause.” We’ll see. It all seems too self-serving. I’m hoping Pat’s just keeping his powder dry and crossing every ‘T’ and dotting every ‘I’ in the case before bringing a Rove indictment.

Tweet

One of the themes of the Republican “counterattack” against Pat Fitzgerald’s investigation is that he began with a mandate to determine whether the Bush Administration revealed Valerie Wilson’s covert status. Now, it appears that the investigation may’ve diverged into a search for violations of perjury laws. To conservatives like John Tierney and Kay Bailey Hutchison, Fitzgerald is violating his mandate from the attorney general. Today’s Times pretty much stops this approach dead in its tracks:

As early as February 2004, two months after he was appointed, Mr. Fitzgerald obtained a specific written authorization from James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general who appointed him, permitting him to investigate efforts to mislead the inquiry.

Too bad, all you Republican hatchet-persons out there. You’ll have to go back to the drawing board for a more persuasive smear against Fitzgerald’s work.

Does anyone want to speculate who is the Times’ inside source for these stories (“Lawyers in the C.I.A. leak case said Thursday…”). Everyone says Fitzgerald’s running a tight ship so it seems unlikely the spill is coming from that direction. But what other lawyers might have access to this information? Ones working in the Justice Department? Why would they be willing to talk to the Times? It could be Libby or Rove’s attorneys though I’m not sure I see any benefit to them from this.

Howard Kurtz has an interesting column on this question at the Post.