Back in the “West Wing” episode “A Proportional Response,” Leo and Bartlet have a blistering confrontation over the proper use of armed military might by the lone remaining superpower trying to maintain a degree of conscience. It’s a fascinating sequence, especially in light of Bush’s actions several years later. When Leo presents certain actions as essentially the worst thing someone in power can do, and then you realize Bush did it, it’s sobering to say the least.
In the second season, “In the Shadow of Two Gunmen,” the director of the NSA states–after a shooting incident involving the President–that they do not know the whereabouts of several key terrorist leaders, “including bin Laden.” This was a reference that meant nothing to most viewers (including me) because it was pre-9/11.
And now, in the current ramrodding down the nation’s throat of John Roberts, I am moved to remember the first season episode “The Short List” wherein Bartlet is looking to fill a slot on the Supreme Court. The initial prospect, played by Ken Howard, seems good to go…until it’s discovered that he does not believe that the right to privacy is a fundamental right of American society. The INSTANT that they determine that, Bartlet and his people show him the door because, to them, the right to privacy is such a given, such a necessity, such an obvious and basic right for any number of reasons–not just abortion, but mandatory drug testing, illegal search and seizure, internet activity–that putting Howard’s character on the bench is simply unthinkable.
Funny how the real life administration is 180 degrees from that, embracing a candidate who does NOT believe in the constitutional right to privacy…a belief that would nicely erode everything that bothers the Bushies, ranging from legal abortion to protections from the intrusiveness of the Patriot act.
Every single place where, on the “West Wing,” the Bartlet administration–an administration of conscience–zigs, Bush’s administration zags. I just find that interesting.
I wonder if the next real-life election will involve a youthful Hispanic lawyer/cop going head to head with a likable former surgeon from a MASH unit.
PAD
• 
At least you have to give Ken Howard’s character credit for something — Barlett asks him what he thinks, and Howard comes out and says it. Roberts, on the other hand, tries to duck and weave at every turn so he doesn’t nail himself to any opionion that he doesn’t have to — not only has he been coached that way, he’s been actively praised for it.
Forgive me if I’m wrong, but isn’t being a judge completely ABOUT assessing a given set of circumstances and developing a conclusion about them? If I were a nominee, I would WELCOME the opportunity to let the American public know where I stand on a lot of issues. Granted, I would have to qualify a lot of my responses on controversial issues like abortion or gay marriage (i.e. “I feel more this way than that way because …”), but I would come out and say it, and for two reasons — 1) If I feel I’ve spent enough time studying the law and justice, I would want the public to know that I’m capable of doing my job when it comes to making educated and informed decision; and 2) the public has a right to know what my mindset is, and have an opportunity to comment upon it. If either prospect indimidates me, I have no business on the bench in the first place.
Now, a lot of people are going to say that it’s prudent when a judge says that he’ll continually defer to the law, and let the law make decisions. But what is the law? The law is not a conscious thing. All law IS is the precedent of other human beings making decisions. Responsible legalists in days past gave their opinions and described their reasoning so that others may comment upon it, trusting that the marketplace of the free exchange of ideas would be able to assess and qualify these decisions for applicability in society. Now, too many people in government are about job security — which is making as little ruffles as possible. That’s hard to do when you speak your mind, and especially if you point out that society (or your bosses) may have made a wrong step here or there and suggest that changes should be made.
When it comes to the current administration, the truth is stranger than fiction. Ironically, it still relies on having script-writers behind the scenes to create interest.
John
I’d vote for Martin Sheen for President in a heartbeat.
Administrations lie — previous ones, the current one, future ones. And many will never be happy with whatever they do.
We have two choices: Do something to change it (other than just vote and talk, which is only marginally better than nothing) or learn to live with it.
ah. a Coup d’état. Cool. Who’s our candidate that we’ve brainwashed?
I’ve always been surprised that no one has worked to ensure that certain rights — from abortion to even slam dunks like privacy — remain permanent by writing them into the Constitution as amendments. It seems that folks have simply been content to cross their fingers and hope the Supreme Court will always and forever tilt the way they want it to.
Would it really be that difficult to get a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing a right to privacy ratified?
Quotes by Roberts on privacy:
“Questioned about rights of privacy, the appellate judge cited several amendments in the Bill of Rights and said, ‘I do think the right to privacy is protected under the Constitution in various ways.'”
“‘I agree with the Griswold court’s conclusion that marital privacy…extends to contraception.'”
http://www.themoderatevoice.com/posts/1126627728.shtml
Roberts is doing exactly what he should be doing. He doesn’t make rulings by opinion, but by law and precedence. While the confirmation has been pretty boring, he’s been sharp as a tack.
The privacy that is so craved by the left that isn’t mentioned in the Constitution can be made mention of simply by crafting an amendment. Squishy “privacy rights” can be made to apply to anything if they aren’t spelled out.
IF Roberts were to help overthrow RvW (which he probably won’t) it wouldn’t be because he disagrees with it, but because it’s bad law.
There is NOTHING about Roberts that is off-base. He is a judge’s judge.
Roberts is doing exactly what he should be doing. He doesn’t make rulings by opinion, but by law and precedence.
Yes, but if he’s going to be on the Supreme Court, you’d expect him to know enough law that he could answer how he’d rule on major issues & cite the reasons (laws and precedences) for his ruling.
Edward James Olmos for the Supreme Court.
Seriously, I have a sticker in my cubicle that reads, “Don’t blame me, I voted for Bartlet.” However, Martin Sheen has been asked by reporters, and quips that he could never be president, he’s a pacifist and we’d be attacked the first week. 🙂
This is why we love(d) the West Wing. It’s the administration we wanted to have and never had the chance to vote for. At least it was until Sorkin left.
PAD concisely points out something I have felt for the last few years. We are living in the Bizzaro World of the West Wing.
If the West Wing and Barlett are Earth 1, we have the Bizzaro President who speaks in broken english and says everthing in opposites. War is peace, polution is good for the enviorment, deficit spending brings surpluses, etc…
“Me not make mistakes when am wrong”
Ehop:
Good one. I hadn’t thought of it like that, but you are CORRECT!
There is NOTHING about Roberts that is off-base. He is a judge’s judge.
You’re making a rather large presumption about a guy who’s only been on any judicial bench for a handful of years.
I’m sure many called Sandra Day O’Connor a “judge’s judge” when she joined the Supreme Court. Now look how badly she’s been villified by the right since she retired.
“Yes, but if he’s going to be on the Supreme Court, you’d expect him to know enough law that he could answer how he’d rule on major issues & cite the reasons (laws and precedences) for his ruling.”
This is exactly why he can’t answer these kinds of questions. Part of me hates to say it, but Roberts is giving exactly the kind of answers you want to hear from a candidate for any court. Judges don’t sit the bench to discuss what ifs and maybes, they decide factual cases and real disputes. And there’s been many a judge that has written an opinion that states they personally don’t like the outcome, but because of legal precedent, have to rule in a certain way.
The only criticism of Roberts that I have is his inexperience. By all accounts, he’s brilliant, certainly intelligent enough to sit on the Supreme Court, and he’s been pretty perfectly groomed for the job. I question his eligibility to take the Chief Justice spot, though.
But I don’t see his confirmation taking all that long. There really isn’t any reason not to confirm him.
Yes, but if he’s going to be on the Supreme Court, you’d expect him to know enough law that he could answer how he’d rule on major issues & cite the reasons (laws and precedences) for his ruling.
Oh geez..that’s smart genius. Let’s get the future Chief Justice of the Supreme court to specify in congress on how he’d rule on major issues, so that if and when those issues come before him, he has to recuse himself. Smaaaart….
Christ… I know the rule is to hate everything Bush or anyone related with him does, but pretty much all of the recent Supreme Court nominees (including those nominated by Democrats) won’t go on record with how they would rule on certain issues. It’s not proper. It’s one thing for a potential Justice to meet with the President and/or his staff in private and voice how he might rule. It’s another thing altogether to make those statements in a public hearing.
I’m not so sure that Judge Roberts doesn’t believe in a right to privacy. Here are some bits and pieces of his testimony.
SENATOR ARLEN SPECTER: [In] a 1981 memo to Attorney General Smith, December 11th, 1981, you were referring to a lecture which Solicitor General Griswold had given six years earlier and you wrote, quote, that, “Solicitor General Griswold devotes a section to the so-called right to privacy … arguing, as we have, that such an amorphous right was not to be found in the Constitution.” Do you believe today that the right to privacy does exist in the Constitution?
ROBERTS: Senator, I do.
The right to privacy is protected under the Constitution in various ways. It’s protected by the Fourth Amendment which provides that the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, effects and papers is protected. It’s protected under the First Amendment dealing with prohibition on establishment of a religion and guarantee of free exercise. It protects privacy in matters of conscience. It was protected by the framers in areas that were of particular concern to them. It may not seem so significant today: the Third Amendment, protecting their homes against the quartering of troops.
And in addition, the court has — it was a series of decisions going back 80 years — has recognized that personal privacy is a component of the liberty protected by the due process clause. The court has explained that the liberty protected is not limited to freedom from physical restraint and that it’s protected not simply procedurally, but as a substantive matter as well. And those decisions have sketched out, over a period of 80 years, certain aspects of privacy that are protected as part of the liberty in the due process clause under the Constitution.
SPECTER: So that the views that you expressed back in 1981, raising an issue about “amorphous” and “so-called,” would not be the views you’d express today?
ROBERTS: Those views reflected the dean’s speech. If you read his speech, he’s quite skeptical of that right. I knew the attorney general was. And I was transmitting the dean’s speech to the attorney general, but my views today are as I’ve just stated them.
…
SENATOR JOSEPH BIDEN: Do you agree that there is a right of privacy to be found in the liberty clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
ROBERTS: I do, Senator. … Liberty is not limited to freedom from physical restraint. It does cover areas, as you said, such as privacy. And it’s not protected only in procedural terms but it is protected substantively as well. Again, I think every member of the court subscribes to that proposition.
If they agree with Bowling against Sharpe, as I’m sure all of them do, they are subscribing to that proposition to some extent or another.
BIDEN: Do you think there’s a liberty right of privacy that extends to women in the Constitution?
ROBERTS: Certainly.
BIDEN: In the Fourteenth amendment?
ROBERTS: Certainly.
…
SENATOR HERBERT KOHL: The Griswold v. Connecticut case guarantees that there is a fundamental right to privacy in the Constitution as it applies to contraception.
Do you agree with that decision and that there is a fundamental right to privacy as it relates to contraception? In your opinion, is that settled law?
ROBERTS: I agree with the Griswold court’s conclusion that marital privacy extends to contraception and availability of that. The court, since Griswold, has grounded the privacy right discussed in that case in the liberty interest protected under the due process clause.
By no stretch am I fan of the current administration, but the only thing that Roberts has not answered about the right to privacy are its parameters. He does believe the right exists, but he hasn’t laid out how far it goes. As a judge, this probably is something he should wait to decide until a specific set of facts reaches him.
There is justifiable disagreement on the issue, precisely because it is not defined explicitly in the Constitution (e.g. the people shall have the right to privacy in form of person, body and dwelling). Instead it is implicated by some of the Bill of Rights.
There is some disagreement over how far the Supreme Court, a court of limited jurisdiction, can go in interpreting those parameters without becoming a legislature.
I’m of mixed mind about his tactic in answering questions, but his views do hold historical and precedential value.
Stuff the West Wing.
My favorite “how can this be a repeat if it’s real life” moment came back during Clinton thanks to, Yes, Prime Minister.
There was an episode titled, “The Bishop’s Gambit” that centered around a you English student abroad who broke a foreign law and was sentenced to a public caning. The English public went goofy and the people in the places of power lost their minds trying to figure out how to get out of the situation and what voter block they most needed to appease (there was a bit more going on as well involving the appointment of a bishop.)
I was laughing my tail off when it started to play out, almost as per scripted more then a decade earlier, scene for scene in real life(minus the Bishop.) I could actually see Clinton in the Jim Hacker role in my mind’s eye.
God, I thought that was funny.
What many people seem to misunderstand about what Roberts has said about his views on Roe v Wade is that, AS AN APPELLATE JUDGE, he believes that Roe is “settled law”. Unfortunately, as a SUPREME COURT JUDGE, the whole “settled law” argument flies out the window. He has not put forward any statements that would indicate that a Supreme Court Justice is free to completely undo prior Court decisions. In my opinion, Roberts likely believes that Roe could be overturned just as other “wrong” decisions have been, but he won’t admit to such a theory because he will lose support from the pro-choice Republicans (or, at least, those Republicans who are not actively anti-choice) and other Senators who may not like the idea of abortion but feel that the procedure is wholly a private medical matter that should not be a matter of government concern (at any level of government).
This little tidbit was reported by the Associated Press and can be found at http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-scotus261.html (this is the Chicago Sun-Times’ printing–well, okay, the electronic-printed version–of the story), but as Atty Gen Alberto Gonzalez is quoted, “If you’re asked as a circuit court judge . . ., it is settled law because you’re bound by the precedent. If you’re asked as a Supreme Court justice, that’s a different question because a Supreme Court justice is not obliged to follow precedent if you believe it’s wrong.” Granted, that is the Attorney General’s statement, but I have little doubt that the AG has some insight into Roberts’ views.
“Questioned about rights of privacy, the appellate judge cited several amendments in the Bill of Rights and said, ‘I do think the right to privacy is protected under the Constitution in various ways.'”
“‘I agree with the Griswold court’s conclusion that marital privacy…extends to contraception.'”
Very clever, very carefully phrased responses. It’s interesting that people were quick to jump all over Clinton when he carefully parsed specific language in lawyerly fashion, but when Roberts is doing pretty much the same thing, people are nodding and saying, “See? There’s your answer.” And by the phrasing, I think that, yes, the answer is very much there…but I’m seeing a different answer.
“The right to privacy is protected in various ways.” Yes. There are specific enumerated instances of right to privacy. That is indisputable (and, indeed, they were enumerated in “The Short List”). Any first year law student–hëll, any bright high school student–can tell you that. So it’s nice to know that he’s got a body of knowledge on par with a qualified high school freshman or an avid “West Wing” fan. But he is not saying that the right to privacy is an absolute. He is not saying that the right to privacy should be extended beyond that which is specfically enumerated in the Constitution. This makes him the ideal nominee for Bush who actively opposes “activist judges”…except, of course, when those activist judges are on the Supreme Court and fabricating law in order to put him in office.
Of course privacy extends to marital contraception. To say otherwise would violate the prohibition against illegal search and seizure. But it is abundantly obvious that that answer not only doesn’t cover abortion, IT DOESN’T EVEN COVER NON-MARITAL CONTRACEPTION. Consider that that answer leaves open the door for government intrusion into contraception decisions if the people are not married. Taken to extremes, it even means that he’s leaving open the door to forbid–for instance–lesbian couples from embarking upon artificial means to conceive a child.
And if there’s one thing this administration has proven, it’s that there’s no aspect of life that they’re not willing to stick their noses into given the opportunity. The right to marry…the right to let loved ones pass away in privacy…the right to take out a dámņëd book in a library without prying eyes looking over your shoulder…this government just loooooves to know what you’re up to, and they’ll cloak that nosieness in everything from moral high-horse to national security in order to do it.
And there’s nothing in Roberts’ carefully phrased answers that indicates to me he’d oppose this.
PAD
“But he is not saying that the right to privacy is an absolute.”
The right to privacy isn’t absolute. No right is.
What I see about Roberts is this: For a Bush guy, he’s not all that bad, considering that Bush also gave us Chertoff and Brownie. At least it appears that Roberts has the pedigree of a Supreme Court Justice, and once he’s appointed, all his ties and obligations vanish. He’s there for life.
Now, Gonzalez is another matter entirely. I’m hoping O’Conner’s husband talks her into sticking around another 3 years before stepping down.
>And if there’s one thing this administration has proven, it’s that there’s no aspect of life that they’re not willing to stick their noses into given the opportunity.
I was always taught that Republicans were the party that took a hands-off approach to most matters and only intervened in matters of NATIONAL importance: defense, taxes, etc. How has this changed in the (wow!) 25 years since Reagan was elected??
Yes, but if he’s going to be on the Supreme Court, you’d expect him to know enough law that he could answer how he’d rule on major issues & cite the reasons (laws and precedences) for his ruling.
He could, but the judicial canons of ethics specifically forbids him from doing so. That makes this whole week of hearings just a farce to allow the senators on both sides to do some posturing for the cameras.
He has not put forward any statements that would indicate that a Supreme Court Justice is free to completely undo prior Court decisions.
The Supreme Court can undo prior Court decisions. The SC is the only court that isn’t bond by precedent because it’s the last word on what is precedent. If it were bond to precedent, we never would have gotten Brown vs. Board of Education. Most justices, however, have enough respect for Stare Decisis that they are reluctant to reverse an earlier SC ruling unless they believe that it had been grossly decided. The only one that has no regard for Stare Decisis is Thomas and that makes him the most activist justice on the bench.
But it is abundantly obvious that that answer not only doesn’t cover abortion, IT DOESN’T EVEN COVER NON-MARITAL CONTRACEPTION. Consider that that answer leaves open the door for government intrusion into contraception decisions if the people are not married. Taken to extremes, it even means that he’s leaving open the door to forbid–for instance–lesbian couples from embarking upon artificial means to conceive a child.
The rational part of my brain tells me that under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, you can’t make it crime for nonmarried couples to do something that is legal for married couples to do. But the half of my brain reminds me that as long as Scalia and Thomas are on the bench, no one’s sex life is safe. Which is ironic, given Thomas’ documented love of pørņ.
I was always taught that Republicans were the party that took a hands-off approach to most matters and only intervened in matters of NATIONAL importance: defense, taxes, etc. How has this changed in the (wow!) 25 years since Reagan was elected??
Even during Reagan’s time, the GOP was the party of regulating America’s bedrooms. That hasn’t changed one bit. The GOP is only opposed to regulations that may cut into Haliburton’s profits. Period.
Peter, others have pointed out that Roberts openly and plainly admits he believes that a right to privacy exists in the Constitution. I will ask you how Bush is “shoving” Roberts down our throats? An opening on the court exists, Bush has nominated a judge to fill it. How is that “shoving” anything? If you see too much of Roberts in the media, blame them, not Bush. This blog is all about your opinions, but when you exaggerate even how the president you don’t like presents his nominees (along with how that nominee presents his beliefs), how can one take you seriously?
Because as I have pointed out to others, “a” right to privacy is different from “the” right to privacy. I have exaggerated nothing. I don’t have to.
PAD
I was always taught that Republicans were the party that took a hands-off approach to most matters and only intervened in matters of NATIONAL importance: defense, taxes, etc. How has this changed in the (wow!) 25 years since Reagan was elected?
Well then you were taught wrong. For most of the past century Republicans have had moral issues as part of their platform. As the minimum, pro-life has been part of the part platform since Reagan was elected.
The fact of the matter is, both parties LOVE to get into our personal lives, just in different areas. And they both love to claim some sort of moral superiority when they do it. And party fanboys (really, is there a better description for it?) like to imagine their party doesn’t do it, but the other does. Anyone who believes that is fooling themselves.
if accepted practice is for candidates not to state their positions, how can an appointment be anything but a crap shoot?
prior to Bork, i believe, appointees did tend to state their positions on hot-button issues.
as i recall, Ginsburg made quite clear her stance on abortion (and other issues) during her confirmation hearings.
if accepted practice is for candidates not to state their positions, how can an appointment be anything but a crap shoot?
It isn’t. Why do you think that conservatives are fuming about how Souter “betrayed” them?
prior to Bork, i believe, appointees did tend to state their positions on hot-button issues.
Bork is regarded a watershed moment where the SC nomination process was believed to become very polticized. Politics have always played a role, but Bork was the first nominee in modern times to have his views put under a microscope.
as i recall, Ginsburg made quite clear her stance on abortion (and other issues) during her confirmation hearings.
Not really. Many of her earlier writings on the subject were dredged up, but at her hearings, she declined to answer any questions about how she would rule in a specific case.
“[The right to an abortion] is something central to a woman’s life, to her dignity. It’s a decision that she must make for herself. And when government controls that decision for her, she’s being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices.”
–Ginsburg, from her confirmation hearing.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200507060008
my understanding (upon further scanty research) is that she demurred on several topics (gun control, gay rights).
however, while she may not have said how she would rule on an abortion case, i believe she made her position clear.
What’s interesting about Ginsburg views, however, is that while she very obviously held the personal view that abortion should be legal, she had criticized the logic of using the “right to privacy” penumbra in Roe v. Wade than the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. So there was no certainty that Roe v. Wade was “safe” under her. She might have ruled that abortion should be legal under equal protection, but sided with the justices who wanted to overturn it by a concurrent opinion that the right to privacy didn’t extend to abortion.
So no, she never made a clear statement on how she would rule if given the chance on Roe v. Wade.
however, while she may not have said how she would rule on an abortion case, i believe she made her position clear.
And? She was more than willing to discuss her positions on issues where she had previously published papers or had made her position clear, but on other issues that might come before her, she refused to answer. See this quote…
Senator Thurmond: What are your views on the constitutionality of some form of voucher system, so that working and middle-class parents can receive more choice in selecting the best education available for their children?
Judge Ginsburg. Senator Thurmond, aid to schools is a question that comes up again and again before the Supreme Court. This is the very kind of question that I ruled out.
Senator Thurmond. Would you prefer not to answer?
Judge Ginsburg. Yes.
Now do you or do you not think it is pretty bloody likely that some sort of abortion rights case will come before the SCOTUS in the next few years? How stupid would it be for the next chief justice to have to recuse himself on that issue?
Or the privacy issues?
Lets take it another way. This candidate could be the best advocate for privacy, gay rights, and women rights the left could ever have, but if he did state his views, he would (assuming he’s an honest man) need to recuse himself from those cases, if they came before him.
Watching some of the hearings made me a little nervous. Not because I don’t like Roberts or Bush or y’know, whoever. No, what concerned me was the fact that several states have had large portions pretty much decimated and not one of the participants have been shown to be interested in anything other than where Roberts may fall on their particular views. Granted, not much that they can do from Washington…or is there? Couldn’t their time be better spent working with their various constituencies to help in the recovery and maybe pushing this off until at least some modicum of order has been established? Call me short sighted, but to use an analogy, when one of your bedrooms is falling off your house, you don’t keep interviewing the housekeepers until everything’s been fixed.
The extent of the coverage of any unenumerated Natural Right will forever be open to debate. Natural Rights theory is not set in stone, and neither are the rights ascribed to it. SCOTUS precedent does not solidify a Right as being a fundamental Natural Right, because that is a philosophical concept that is always open to debate. SCOTUS precedent does carry a lot of weight with jurist though, as Roberts has said it would with him, because of concerns about the ramifications of a constantly changing legal foundation.
That said, if an individual does not ascribe to your particular take on Natural Rights, that does not mean the individual would not be upholding his/her duty on SCOTUS.
“And there’s nothing in Roberts’ carefully phrased answers that indicates to me he’d oppose this. -PAD”
Good. There isn’t anything that suggests he would necessarily support it either.
Not committing to a specific answer because it’s a situation that might come before the court.
On another subject, it’s fun to watch Roberts blast folks like Teddy, who seems more interested in happy hour than understanding any of the questions that he’s posing to Roberts.
RLR
edhopper: good point! Bizzarro president! (Though it’s almost an insult to Bizarro to say that he speaks as badly as Bush 😉 … Kidding! Kidding! Pretty much ….)
Elizabeth Donald: cool sticker! Cool post end-to-end, actually.
As far as Roberts goes, I’m unsure at this point. Accidentally or not – weighing the decent regard in which I hold Bush Senior against the fact that he also gave us Clarence Thomas – we did get a good justice, David Souter, from the last Republican administration. The idea that Roberts can just walk in as Chief Justice doesn’t feel right, though. I’ve learned that it has been done before, and that they want to have a Chief who will lead the court for a very long time – so let’s name the newbie – but still ….
Anyway, back to West Wing – thanks for bringing it up, PAD; Aaron Sorkin did give us some amazing eloquence and remarkable thought in this series. Again and again recently, I’ve been brought back to something which I believe President Bartlett – during re-election? – said about the office of the President of the United States being something to which surely we can rise above aspiring to the lowest common denominator for (and I KNOW my feeble memory has butchered the hëll out of it; but the gist of it – that “At least he’s not THAT bad” just SHOULDN’T be the best thing anybody can say about a president – has stuck with me). Yes, I would love to have that adminstration running things … but it is (especially under Sorkin, yes) such an idealized administration.
While Bartlett and his west wing staff consider political factors (especially Josh), the primary concern of their administration is doing what is best for the country, led by an amazingly intelligent and eloquent, idealistic, compassionate president with a strong conscience. Unfortunately, I’m not naive enough to expect to see a comparable administration here on “Bizzaro World” from either party, possibly ever. All of the party politics and the garbage necessary for “our side”, whichever side is in power, to stay in power – whether power for power’s sake or “OUR side is the right side, the other side can’t be trusted” is the motivation for a particular administration – is the primary focus of whichever side is in control of our real-life government. When I read in high school that one of the Founding Fathers (for years I was thinking it was Washington, but something I came across later made me think – Jefferson?) argued against having established political parties, I thought “Hey, that’s a pretty good idea”; hasn’t really been much subsequently to exactly drive me away from that opinion ….
Okay, could I FIND more ways to spell “Bizarro” if I tried?! 🙂 (Also, the end of that paragraph should read “Kidding! Kidding! … Pretty much ….)”.)
Being somewhat left of center I wish there was a right to privacy in the constitution for the usual birth control, p0rn and abortion reasons. However I don’t know that I think there IS one in it (excepting the 9th, which leaves it open to be limited by the states in the 10th). It’s a flaw we should fix with an amendment. I won’t bash someone for not demanding that there is when there’s little support for it, however.
Bork got Borked because he was so ugly.
Roberts sucks. 🙂
I worked with a twit who, after Twice-Elected President George W. Bush, won his first election in 2000, commented: “I like watching The West Wing because it’s like Clinton is still in office.” It’s. A. TV. Show. And not a very good one at that.
Peter David: But he is not saying that the right to privacy is an absolute.
Luigi Novi: Well, thank God for that, since the right to privacy isn’t absolute, nor is any other right. If a nominee for Chief Justice asserted that a right were “absolute,” then I’d have a big problem with him.
I’ve just finished watching the third day of the Roberts hearings (or – the reruns on CSPAN2). I think I’ve watched about 6-8 hours in total since they started. What strikes me is how much he’s been able to go around the political pandering of both parties. Feinstein tried to ask him about a 9-survey case review of his opinions where he had “always” ruled for the corporation. He immediately brought up a larger study that contradicted hers. Feinstein – clearly not expecting that response – said “Let’s move on”.
The Democrats have been trying time and again to tar him as an extremist and haven’t been able to land a serious blow. Yes, he’s conservative, but he’s not an extreme conservative like Scalia. As a replacement for Rehnquist, he will not affect the court balance much at all.
Roberts’ view time and again (including his opinions quoted by the witnesses) has been that he examines the law and facts, but not his personal feelings. That’s what makes him more conservative than not. Liberal judges are interested in legal evolution, conservative judges in legal consistency. Both are needed. If there is room on the Court for Stevens and Ginsburg – who continue to move the Court to the Left, then there should be room for Roberts.
As far as the comparison to The West Wing. Well, TWW is an idealistic fantasy. Killing a slam-dunk nomination on principle? Doubtful. A President accepting a Congressional censure? Highly unlikely. A President invoking the 25th Amendment giving control to the opposition? I don’t think it would ever take place.
One of my favorite episodes of TWW is the one where Sam wrote the opposition memo on public education and vouchers. He spent the entire episode arguing “in favor” of vouchers (only to have the Deus Ex Machina ending that he was really opposed to it. However, they had a good discussion on it from both sides. TWW typically shows all the major White House players as people of principle, but almost everyone on the Hill (Republicans and Democrats) as creatures of politics and power. If there was one improvement in the show, it would be to have REAL debates with people on both sides being people of principle. I don’t mind that the liberals always seem to win on the show – in fact I expect it, but I would rather the other side be given the same eloquence.
>Luigi Novi: Well, thank God for that, since the right to privacy isn’t absolute, nor is any other right. If a nominee for Chief Justice asserted that a right were “absolute,” then I’d have a big problem with him.
The right to chocolate is sacred.
actually borks appearance didnt help him
he practically looked like satan with that beard
actually borks appearance didnt help him
he practically looked like satan with that beard
> Every single place where, on the “West
> Wing,” the Bartlet administration — an
> administration of conscience — zigs, Bush’s
> administration zags. I just find that
> interesting.
>
> I wonder if the next real-life election will
> involve a youthful Hispanic lawyer/cop going
> head to head with a likable former surgeon
> from a MASH unit.
I predict that the West Wing election will be won by Arnold Vinick. The prospect of showing a “good” Republican president in contrast to Bush will be too great an opportunity to ignore.
Also, given that fact that while Vinick is good, the conflict he’ll have with Republicans in Congress (and perhaps with his own West Wing staff) who are more like real-life Repulbicans will provide plenty of “dramatic” conflict.
Oops. Sorry for the typo, I need to go to bed.
I’ve wondered… if Vinick wins, does that mean a whole new cast? Otherwise, the idea of a REPUBLICAN keeping these staunch DEMOCRATS in positions of power is just to hard to swallow.
As big a fan of West Wing as I am, one thing that bothered me about the first season especially, was how two-dimensionally the Republican ‘villain of the week’ was presented.
The one that leaps to mind was the general who was going to do the ‘ring and run’; at his retirement, he planned to go on the talk-show circuit and loudly disagree with the way that President Bartlett was running things.
C.J. intelligently debated with him before shutting him down by pointing out that he had been photographed wearing a medal that he hadn’t earned, and threatening to expose him to the media if he didn’t get in line.
What bothered me was the show’s early core belief that the Republicans didn’t disagree with ‘our’ side because they had a different point of view; they disagreed because they were evil and corrupt.
What if the general in question hadn’t been stupid enough to claim a medal he didn’t earn? How often does that sort of thing happen in real life (I mean, since it’s so easily checked)? What if it had been someone like Powell or Schwartzkopf (I apologize for any misspelling), whose service records are pretty much unimpeachable?
I’m glad to say that WW got better quickly at their portrayal of Republicans. I don’t like knee-jerk liberal propaganda any better than I like knee-jerk conservative propaganda.
Abortion is a matter of the right of privacy? Bizarre. Just what couldn’t you shoehorn into being a matter of privacy with that mindset?
“Abortion is a matter of the right of privacy? Bizarre. Just what couldn’t you shoehorn into being a matter of privacy with that mindset?”
What’s bizarre about it? So long as the debate about when human life begins is still open, what else could it be? If human life is legally recognized to begin sometime after conception (i.e., sometime along the development path of the fetus) then any regulation on abortive procedures prior to that point in an infringment on a woman’s ability to decide what to do with her body. What we choose to do with our bodies is one of the essential concepts included in the privacy right.