Wednesday, February 24, 2016

"Scalia worked to make the United States less fair, less tolerant." -- Jeffrey Toobin

Jeffrey Toobin is a lawyer, former assistant U.S. Attorney, journalist, and author of The Nine:  Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court.  His scathing article on the legacy of Antonin Scalia is in the February 29th issue of the New YorkerIt begins:

"Antonin Scalia, who died this month, after nearly three decades on the Supreme Court, devoted his professional life to making the United States a less fair, less tolerant, and less admirable democracy. Fortunately, he mostly failed. Belligerent with his colleagues, dismissive of his critics, nostalgic for a world where outsiders knew their place and stayed there, Scalia represents a perfect model for everything that President Obama should avoid in a successor. The great Justices of the Supreme Court have always looked forward; their words both anticipated and helped shape the nation that the United States was becoming. . . .  Scalia, in contrast, looked backward.

"His revulsion toward homosexuality, a touchstone of his world view, appeared straight out of his sheltered, nineteen-forties boyhood. When, in 2003, the Court ruled that gay people could no longer be thrown in prison for having consensual sex, Scalia dissented, and wrote, 'Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.' . . .  

"But it was in his jurisprudence that Scalia most self-consciously looked to the past. He pioneered “originalism,” a theory holding that the Constitution should be interpreted in line with the beliefs of the white men, many of them slave owners, who ratified it in the late eighteenth century. . . . "
*     *     *
Toobin then focuses on Scalia's 2008 majority opinion that interpreted the Second Amendment's right to bear arms as applying to an individual's right, thus opening the door to today's unfettered claim to own and carry almost any firearm of choice.   My answer to Scalia is this:   If you insist that it means only what the authors meant at the time it was written, then I insist that it should apply only to the types of firearms available at the time.   Let people have all the barrel-loading muskets they want.   Since it takes about two minutes to reload after each firing, not too much damage can be done.   But let's agree that the Second Amendment does not apply to modern weapons.
*     *     *
Back to Toobin, who continues:

"Scalia described himself as an advocate of judicial restraint, who believed that the courts should defer to the democratically elected branches of government. In reality, he lunged at opportunities to overrule the work of Presidents and of legislators, especially Democrats. Scalia helped gut the Voting Rights Act, overturn McCain-Feingold and other campaign-finance rules, and, in his last official act, block President Obama’s climate-change regulations. Scalia’s reputation, like the Supreme Court’s, is also stained by his role in the majority in Bush v. Gore. His oft-repeated advice to critics of the decision was “Get over it.”

"Not long ago, Scalia told an interviewer that he had cancelled his subscription to the Washington Post and received his news from the Wall Street Journal, the [ultra conservative] Washington Times . . . and conservative talk radio. In this, as in his jurisprudence, he showed that he lived within the sealed bubble of contemporary conservative thought. . . . 

"Scalia . . . and his allies succeeded in transforming American politics into a cash bazaar, with seats all but put up for bidding. But even though Scalia led a conservative majority on the Court for virtually his entire tenure, he never achieved his fondest hopes—. . .  Roe v. Wade endures. Affirmative action survives. Obamacare lives. Gay rights are ascendant; the death penalty is not. . . . .

"[T]he Justices rarely stray too far from public opinion. And, on the social issues where the Court has the final word, the real problem for Scalia’s heirs is that they are out of step with the rest of the nation. The public wants diversity, not intolerance; more marriages and fewer executions; less money in politics, not more. Justice Scalia’s views—passionately felt and pungently expressed though they were—now seem like so many boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past."
*     *     *
Ralph

Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Ted "Dirty Tricks" Cruz fires senior staff member

The truth of Ted Cruz's dirty tricks mentality is beginning to seep through the cracks in his fake piety facade.   Whether its Chris Christie and Bridgegate or Richard Nixon and Watergate, what one's staff does usually reflects what they know the boss wants them to do -- whether he explicitly knows the details or not.

I don't doubt for a minute that all the dirty tricks attributed to the Cruz campaign had his tacit approval.   But now the latest one backfired, and Cruz has made his senior communications director, Rick Tyler, fall on his sword and take the blame -- and resign.

Tyler apologized to Marco Rubio for putting out a false rumor that Rubio had mocked a Cruz staff member he saw reading the Bible.   Tyler says that the audio he based the claim on was indistinct and therefore he shouldn't have put the story out, since he couldn't back up his charge of what Rubio actually said.

Rachel Maddow, for one, spoke up for Rick Tyler, describing him as a nice guy.   He doesn't sound like a dirty-tricks kind of guy -- except in doing the job his boss wants.   Definitely, others in the business do not talk about him the way they talked about Lee Atwater and Karl Rove.

Here's the Rubio campaign's response, which puts it square on Cruz himself:

"Rick (Tyler) is a really good spokesman who had the unenviable task of working for a candidate willing to do or say anything to get elected.   There is a culture in the Cruz campaign, from top to bottom, that no lie is too big and no trick too dirty.   Rick did the right thing by apologizing to Marco.  It's high time for Ted Cruz to do the right thing and stop the lies."

One thing can be said about Donald Trump.   He does his own mud slinging rather than blaming in on the hired help.

Ralph

PS:  On another front, Cruz has now flip-flopped from what he said just a month ago about deporting illegal aliens.   Then he rejected the notion of mass deportation and "jackboots" like in a police state.  "That's not how we enforce the law for any crime."

Now that he's falling behind, he told Bill O'Reilly on Fox News last night that he would definitely deport all 12 million undocumented people and wouldn't allow them to return.  O'Reilly asked if this would include those who simply overstay their visas.  Cruz replied:  "You better believe it.  Both Donald Trump and Marco Rubio would allow those 12 million people to become citizens.   I will not.That's the most extreme position any one of the candidates has taken.   This has been a bad day for Cruz's campaign;  he must really be worried. 

Monday, February 22, 2016

Is Hillary "inevitable" again ? ? ?

I don't get this sudden rush to say that Hillary Clinton is "inevitable" again, as one headline on Huffington Post suggested.   Another: "Nevada win bodes well for Clinton's national chances."

She won Nevada by about 600 votes.   Bernie Sanders won New Hampshire by 50,000 votes.   And the caucuses are terrible predictors of real preference, given the difficulties people go through to participate and the vagaries of turnout.

That small number doesn't tell us much -- except that the media is paving the way for Hillary at the expense to fairness to Bernie.

Ralph

Was Scalia truly a "dedicated public servant"? Or was he a biased bully who had no self-awareness?

I did not like Justice Antonin Scalia, and it baffled me that he and the totally admirable Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg were close personal friends.   He also is said to have reached out in kindness to Elena Kagan when she was first appointed to the court and took her duck hunting.   There must have been something likeable about him that I did not see.

As a member of the Supreme Court whose decisions I almost always disagreed with (at least those that were controversial and made the news), I thought he was a bigoted bully who had no self-awareness.   He famously said that he never let his emotions enter into his decisions about the law.   Perhaps he honestly believed that -- which is what convinces me that he had no self-awareness.   That is simply not true . . . about anyone.

That belief is probably what allowed him to justify not recusing himself from cases where he clearly had a conflict of interest.   Some who knew him say that he did at times adhere to a strict, originalist, textual reading of the Constitution, even when the resulting opinion was the opposite of what he would have liked. 

Maybe so, but I can also point to cases where he obviously should have recused himself, and didn't -- e.g., when he accepted a ride on Air Force 2 with VP Cheney to go on a hunting trip, at a time when a case against Cheney was coming up before the court. 

With prejudice, we tend not to see our own blind spots.    This was, in my opinion, startlingly true about Scalia.    What most helps combat that bias is knowing what your blind spots are and admitting them to yourself.   Scalia apparently never did.

Now is the time that I should pause and acknowledge that I am biased when it comes to Antonin Scalia (1) because I disagreed so thoroughly with his originalist and textualist ways of interpreting the Constitution, and (2) because he was a bigot and a blustering bully, characteristics I particularly abhor.  Because of my bias, I try extra hard, in writing about him, to make sure that my facts are correct and back up what I'm saying.

One particular disagreement I had with him was over his opposition to the recent SCOTUS decision that legalized marriage equality.   If Scalia had voted in that case consistent with some of his previous decisions, he should have voted in favor of it.   Instead he wrote a scathing denunciation of the majority opinion with which he disagreed, ignoring his own precedent votes that, in my view, rested on the same underlying constitutional principle.

This week, I have tried not to rejoice in the death of another human being, but I do agree with Clarence Darrow, who said:

"I have never killed any one, but I have read some obituary notices with great satisfaction.” 

Ralph

Sunday, February 21, 2016

Bush SuperPac wasted $116 million dollars

Perhaps at the beginning, Jeb Bush seemed like a good investment for all those 11,000 donors who wrote the big checks for his SuperPac "Right to Rise."

But you need to have a good candidate;   money alone won't do it.  Even former President George W. Bush and Mother Barbara couldn't bring it home for hapless Jeb!

Could it be that Citizens United will die of natural causes . . . that money no longer works like it used to?   Compare Jeb's 11,000 big-money donors with Bernie Sander's 3,500,000 and counting, individual small donations. Then think of all the better purposes that $116 million could have been put to.

Ralph

Clinton wins in Nevada

[Data updated from earlier post]

Hillary Clinton won over Bernie Sanders in the Nevada caucusesThe final tally was Clinton 52.7%, Sanders 47.2%According to exit polls, Clinton won it in urban areas and among African-Americans, while Sanders did better in rural areas and among Latinos.

But let's put some perspective here too.   Although it's being ballyhooed as "decisive" and giving Clinton "a clear path to the nomination," the total vote was something like 12,000.   Her win of 5.5% sounds big, until you realize that represents just a little over 600 votesThat's a pretty small sample to call decisive.   Sanders himself defeated Clinton in New Hampshire by over 50,000 votes.

Further, Sanders won 16 delegates to Clinton's 22 in Nevada.  Polling is difficult in there, because you never know who's going to show up at the caucuses.   Nevertheless, Sanders came from way, way behind in the polls:  a deficit of 25% just a few months ago.

So I'm not sure how decisive this is.   But Clinton and the media are quick to claim it to be that, just as they did her virtual tie with Sanders in Iowa.

Ralph 

Trump wins S.C. . . Bush drops out.

Saturday, 9:00 pm:  After coming in a distant fourth place in the South Carolina -- with the possibility still of slipping into fifth behind John Kasich -- Jeb Bush has announced on Saturday evening that he is suspending his campaign.

Donald Trump has clearly won the primary with about one-third of the vote.  As of 9:00 pm, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are virtually tied for second place with 22% each, although Rubio pulled ahead enough finally for him to claim his "victory" of second place, 22.5% to Cruz's 22.3%.

It's important to note that two-thirds of the voters did not vote for Trump.  Some pundits are still saying that he will not ultimately win the nomination when the Rubio-Bush-Kasich vote consolidates around one candidate.    But what if it remains a three-way with Trump, Cruz, and Rubio? -- as it seems likely to do, since they all have billionaire sources of campaign money to keep going.

Ralph