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
• 
Bobb/bb: Question for the both of you (or for anyone, at this point). I do, of course, support legalized abortion. I am increasingly uncomfortable with this issue being regulated at the federal level, however. Do either of you believe this should be a state’s rights issue (or anyone, for that matter)? If so, why? If not, why?
What we choose to do with our bodies is one of the essential concepts included in the privacy right.
Yeah, right. When the pro-choice politicos start to roll-back the War on Drugs, then maybe I would stop seeing them as the hypocrites they are when they talk about a Right to Privacy. Right to Privacy is a polite way of saying Right to Do What I, Your Political Master, Think You Should Be Allowed to Do.
Knuckles,
The outcome of the debate about what are a person’s Natural Rights is best caried out at the local/state level for it to be most acceptible to the populace. However, there are times when local standards are simply unacceptible. Determining when those times are, and thus imposing a National doctrine, is probably the most important decision any SCOTUS jurist ever has to make. But there is certainly no clear way to determine when those times exist.
Personally, and constitutionally, I see it as a state issue. I suppose you could say that there’s some Federal commerce issue that you could invent to give the Federal government jurisdiction, but that’d be paper thin. Although the Feds, as they’ve tried in the past, will probably attempt to use finance power to regulate hospitals. It’s essentiallythe same trick they used to impose national speed limits…threaten to take away Federal highway money from any state that didn’t pass a 55 mph speed law. I guess someone could also put forward a General Welfare argument, but I don’t see abortion as such a wide-spread issue that it would fit that concept.
Roe v. Wade talks in general terms about the power of “the state,” but was specifically looking at a state law. Basically, I agree with the SCOTUS Roe v. Wade opinion, that being that the States have some interest in a developing fetus that at some point during the pregnancy trumps a woman’s right to do with herself as she wishes. While the Constitution does say something like “All men born…” when talking about rights, it seems rather arbitrary to use an event that means less and less as our medical science improves to decide when an individual’s personal rights begin. Recognizing this, Roe v. Wade grants that there’s some point where a state interest becomes more pressing that the woman’s privacy right in her own body. The troubling part is that, where those two interests clash, and the exact point where the State interest takes precedence, is unclear, and likely to keep sliding as medical science improves.
Which in my mind is fine. We’ll start with the easy steps. It’s fairly clear now that any third trimester abortion needs to have a medical need based on the health/life of the mother. And that’s the problem with all the state abortion laws (Michigan being the most recent, just this past week) that keep getting struck down. They try to abolish a practice, rather than regulate it, and the health exemptions they try to include do not go far enough to protect the mother. As gruesome as the so-called D&X procedure is, there are some medical conditions that occur to thousands of women in the US every year that call for such a procedure.
Bobb,
Don’t make the mistake SCOTUS did and forget about the Ninth amendment. Also, don’t confuse the concept of The State (a synonym for Government) with a State (i.e. one of 50).
MP took the post right out of my fingers (which, considering the debacle with Jerry over on the other thread, might be for the best).
“Yeah, right. When the pro-choice politicos start to roll-back the War on Drugs, then maybe I would stop seeing them as the hypocrites they are when they talk about a Right to Privacy. Right to Privacy is a polite way of saying Right to Do What I, Your Political Master, Think You Should Be Allowed to Do.”
Someone help me out here, but isn’t the War on Drugs mostly backed by Republicans?
“Don’t make the mistake SCOTUS did and forget about the Ninth amendment. Also, don’t confuse the concept of The State (a synonym for Government) with a State (i.e. one of 50).”
Ok, how did I or the SCOTUS forget about the Ninth Amendment (which, for those not keeping score at home, reads “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”)
I started to post that, Bobb, but then realized that there was a larger point that I think MP was making: Once the pro-choice (and by extension, pro-right to privacy) pols start supporting the legalization of drugs, then MP will believe that they are serious about the right to privacy. You are correct, the War On Drugs is a Reagan Administration holdover. MP is also correct, as there has never been any movement from the left on attempting to declare the “war” a failure, and try to approach the problem from a different direction.
That clears it up a little, kinda sorta (the War actually pre-dates Reagan, going back to Nixon and Rockefeller in the US).
Drug use is actually a good example of parallel logic when compared to abortion. It presents a clash between societal rights and interests against private rights. Drug use, or rather drug abuse, doesn’t impact just the individual using. There are a series of ripple effects that stem from drug abuse that implicates state action/regulation. The War on Drugs wasn’t initiated because some college kids wanted to get high behind their locked door on a weekend. It was initiated because of the criminal acts such abuse engenders, and it’s maybe a rare governmental act that recognized the cause of a problem, rather than just trying to treat the symptoms.
Now, how that war has been prosecuted is fur sure up for grabs, but I haven’t seen any persuasive argument stating that there wasn’t a significant enough problem that justified the intrusion into the aspect of the right to privacy where drug abuse was concerned.
Just like any other right, the right to privacy is not absolute. There are always going to be times when that right must cede to some government regulation.
Ok, how did I or the SCOTUS forget about the Ninth Amendment
Roe was decided on Substantive Due Process grounds, a legal theory which I hold little respect for. Although the district court decided Roe on Ninth amendment grounds, Blackmun’s opinion specifically discards this in favor of Substantive Due Process.
BTW, I had briefly read your earlier post before. A more thorough reading shows that you did accept that there was a Natural Right to making a choice (at least early on in the pregnancy).
a significant enough problem that justified the intrusion into the aspect of the right to privacy where drug abuse was concerned
I absolutely reject this statement, but prefer at this time not to get into an in-depth debate over while I feel this is fundamentally flawed.
“I absolutely reject this statement”
That’s fine, you’re not alone in that stance. But you are in the vast minority, and there’s over 80 years of historical precedent suggesting that it’s true.
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…
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.
True enough. But the first season also gave us that great exchange between Bartlet and a Republican senator where Bartlet explains that they disagree because he (Bartlet) is “a lily-livered, bleeding-heart, liberal, egghead communist” to which the senator responds “And I’m a gun-toting, redneck son-of-a-bìŧçh.”
So, continuing talk of the West Wing and the real-life…anyone want to take a stab on incorporating the 5th Season episode “The Supremes” into this analysis? (That’s the one where our heroes have the opportunity to name a judge to the Supreme Court, become discouraged that politics would preclude appointing anyone of strong opinions such as Glenn Close’s character, then finnagle a way to get appoint two judges–Glenn Close’s “liberal lion” as the Chief Justics, and a conservative justice popular with the Republicans.)
After all, GWB has another appointment to make…
“The War on Drugs wasn’t initiated because some college kids wanted to get high behind their locked door on a weekend. It was initiated because of the criminal acts such abuse engenders, and it’s maybe a rare governmental act that recognized the cause of a problem, rather than just trying to treat the symptoms.”
But did it? I’d argue quite the opposite. The criminalization of drugs and alcohol caused the rise in drug and alcohol related crime, rather than the opposite.
My mistake on the Nixon/Reagan thing. I knew better, but had visions of Nancy and her oh so effective “Just Say No!” campaign in my head.
The Vietnam War didn’t help much with drug and
alcohol addiction either, of course.
Nancy popped first into my head, too, but I also had a vague recollection that Reagan wasn’t the first to come out strongly against drugs.
“But did it? I’d argue quite the opposite. The criminalization of drugs and alcohol caused the rise in drug and alcohol related crime, rather than the opposite.”
This is what I mean when it’s hard to argue against the War, but very easy and appropriate to discuss the battles. Drug abuse has long been a problem. The question is, how to combat it. And the 2 basic lines of attack are to either criminalize it or legalize it. The first does drive the market for the activity underground, and once removed from the protection of society’s laws, it leads to other crimes. The second allows you to regulate it, hopefully mitigating the worst of the impacts of abuse. And as you’re creating a legal supply, the demand for the worst of the product should go down, and you can also work on cutting back on the addictive drugs.
To a certain extent, I’d agree that some of the symptoms of drug abuse, especially the harder criminal aspects, are related to the underground nature of the market. But if you look at alcahol as an example of a regulated drug market, I don’t know that you can say that it’s entirely a success, either. There are still societal costs and impacts from abuse of alcahol. So maybe the lesson to be learned from booze is that there’s not enough regulation. There’s a news story floating around of two wedding parties getting into a 3am drunken brawl, and a co-worker back from Iraq told us how that “incident” on base were almost non-existant due to the abscence of booze.
Just like any other right, the right to privacy is not absolute. There are always going to be times when that right must cede to some government regulation.
I reject this as well. Natural Rights are not absolute with respect to other Natural Rights of other parties. However, they are absolute with respect to laws that suppress them, unless the laws in question are seeking to project other Natural Rights.
Would I be off base in guessing you support McConnell v. FEC?
I think the problem with the regulated market of alcohol is that it’s still restricted. You must be of age to purchase and consume alcohol legally. In many cases what that leads to is a complete abdication of responsibility on the part of those raising the children in terms of how to treat alcohol responsibly. So you are then dealing with the probelm in two ways:
1) Underage people that want it because it is verboten, and
2) New drinkers who are of age who haven’t the faintest idea how to handle alcohol responsibly.
AZTeach: Aside from the fact that link takes me to a site dedicated to refuting the mythical “liberal media bias” (every bit as ridiculous as Hillary’s “vast right-wing conspiracy), it doesn’t take me to anything about the post-presidential debate interviews. It takes me to something about Katrina victims loving Bush and blaming Nagin. Now if you like, I could provide you with a link to Media Matters for the liberal perspective…
Crap. Wrong thread. Dammit.
“Would I be off base in guessing you support McConnell v. FEC?”
Now, be honest, MP…you really asked this question just to get me off the boards for the rest of the afternoon, right? 🙂
Ok, I didn’t read every page of the 298 page opinion, but I think I have the gist of it…controls on how money is spent to influence an elections. Specifically so-called soft money, in this case.
I can’t say that I support or oppose the holding in McConnell. Personally, I don’t think that a corporation should be allowed to spend money on a campaign at all. There’s nothing in the Constitution that suggests that corporations have any rights, legal, natural, or otherwise. And since they’re legal creations to begin with, I don’t have any issue whatsoever in regulating them up the ying yang.
Private donations are another matter, I’d say. I recognize the rationale to regulate private spending on election issues, but it leaves me uneasy. If pressed on the particulars of such regulation, I’d probably come out against them.
“However, they are absolute with respect to laws that suppress them, unless the laws in question are seeking to project other Natural Rights.”
You say you reject that no right is absolute, but then you turn around and say that no right is absolute. Hah! Duck Season!
Your reasoning, phrased differently, is how I read Roe v. Wade. The state interest in protecting the unborn is more or less born from an advocacy of future rights. If we use your language, the State is stepping in to protect the Natural Right of the unborn to life, conflicting with the Natural Right to privacy of the mother. In criminalizing and regulating drug use, the state is again advocating for the Natural Rights of the many innocent victims of drug abuse and the crimes that surround it, conflicting with the private right of the individual to use such drugs.
At least, that’s the idealogy that supports such regulation. Whether the government acts in ways that are consistant with this ideology is another matter alltogether.
I concur with your Roe reasoning. However, I do not believe that preventative laws are just. I do believe that premeptive laws are just. Admittedly, there is no razor sharp distinction between the two. It is a matter of degrees of separation. If some is actively planning to murder another person, then a charge of attempted murder is sound. But a wife beater could not be charged with attempted murder, even if there was a pattern of escalating violence, unless the intent can be proven.
This is the same with drugs. It is one thing to use drugs. However, it is not clear-cut to say someone is abusing drugs. It is even a further leap to say that a user and/or abuser will conduct a criminal act. And without an actual criminal act, you are engaging in statistical profiling.
Finally, this waterfall logic (A may lead to B may lead to C) is the same errant logic that leads SCOTUS to uphold Wickard and Raich, thus making a mockery of the Commerce Clause.
“This is the same with drugs. It is one thing to use drugs. However, it is not clear-cut to say someone is abusing drugs. It is even a further leap to say that a user and/or abuser will conduct a criminal act. And without an actual criminal act, you are engaging in statistical profiling.”
I can’t disagree with anything you say here. It is true, by criminalizing, we’re casting a very wide net, and in addition to all the tuna we catch (drug abusers) we’re also getting some dolphins (drug users). Although in actuallity, it’s probably more accurate to say that we’re catching mostly dolphins, and only a few tuna.
But to come from the other side, there’s the issue of child pørņ. In order to protect a vulnerable class (children) from the abuse that forced (or even consentual) child pørņ creates, we make all child pørņ illegal. Creation, distribution, and possession.
At least in these 2 cases (better supported in the child pørņ instance, perhaps, then for drugs), it’s not an assumption that A leads to B leads to C. It’s based on historical observation. The fact that the logic theorem does not always hold true does not dispute the fact that in some instances, it does. In those cases, society, acting through the government, decides that local preemptive measures do not go far enough to protect those that are injured by such acts, and thus consents to enforced restrictions on what would otherwise be a natural liberty.
Which is not to say that such laws should remain in force for all time. I’m actually in favor of legalizing many so-called recreational drugs. The advent of the more potent chemical high is, to my mind, reaching a critical mass. And as Knuckles said, the taboo nature of drugs makes them appealing to many younger folk, in addition to preventing or discouraging parents from instilling temperance and responsibility in their kids. After all, if all a parent has to say about drugs is “don’t do them, they’re illegal,” that doesn’t really present any helpful knowledge to a child. But this has more to do with the Zero Tolerance nature of the drug regulations. It’s quite apparant by now that there’s a sizable population that wants to be able to use drugs, so this idea that we can stamp out drug use through criminalization is pretty hopeless. And doctors are writing scrips for controlled substances that are just as addictive, and potentially dangerous, as many things found on the street.
While we’re discussing alcohol laws, can someone please tell me why making moonshine is illegal (unless it’s happening in dry counties, in which case I get it)?
For the record, we don’t have a great moonshine tradition here in the Pacific Northwest, other than watching an assload of ‘Dukes of Hazzard’ episodes when I was a kid.
AFAIK, moonshine remains illegal in many states under the pretense that it is potentially a very dangerous, and possibly fatal, substance to consume.
Because the Feds don’t get their taxes on alcohol made by private citizens. Hence, the Revenue Dept being the ones to go after moonshiners. (aka ‘Revenoors’…)
As with so many of our laws, it’s all about the mighty dollar, bay-bee! *g*
But MP, if that were true, then the theme song to the “Dukes of Hazzard” would be a like. They may be good ol’ boys, but apparently they WERE meaning some harm.
Aha. Thanks, Patrick. I frequently need the obvious pointed out to me, and hadn’t even considered that angle.
Patrick,
In light of recent (past 20 years) homebrewing laws, that rationale is no longer valid.
I reject this as well. Natural Rights are not absolute with respect to other Natural Rights of other parties. However, they are absolute with respect to laws that suppress them, unless the laws in question are seeking to project other Natural Rights.
But that’s exactly what (at least as ideals) all laws are: Attempts to protect the rights of other members of the society or community from the excesses of the individual. And as such, no single Natural Right is absolute, because the rights of every individual are held in tension with the rights of every other individual, and the point at which the line should be drawn (i.e., the legal equivalent of “your rights end at the tip of my nose”) are determined by the appropriate legal bodies — sometimes, as we see both in the appellate process and in the case of the SCOTUS overturning its own previous rulings, having to go through several drafts before an appropriate balance is reached.
In light of recent (past 20 years) homebrewing laws, that rationale is no longer valid.
Actually, MP, that’s not true. Moonshining is a for-profit business, whereas home brewing is not. Were you to get caught selling your home brew (as a home brewer myself), you’d get your ášš handed to you by the feds. That said, I think your explanation probably plays into it as well.
Bootlegging is the sale of Moonshine. Moonshine is simply homebrewed whiskey. To my knowledge, federal law prohibits the production of “spirits” other than Beer and Wine, even simply for personal use. See more here.
The other thing to consider, of course, is the bifurcated nature of alcohol laws. There is wine and beer (and sometimes mead), and there is hard liquor. The difference, of course, is that hard liquor is distilled, wine, beer and mead are not.
A fitting quote for this useless TV show:
“Hollywood executives really love the smell of their own urine and what they really like doing is urinating on things. And then going, ‘Hmm, now this smells really good” and being really puzzled when the rest of the world goes ‘No, actually that smells like pee.'”
– Neil Gaiman
I can see how useless people would consider it a useless TV show…
PAD
> 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.
The political appointee members of the cast will undoubtedly change (Richard Schiff has already noted in newspaper interviews that he will leave the show part-way through this new season) but others don’t have to change: for example, Vinick could keep a Bartlett appointee or two to show national unity after the campaign, or as an example of “competence over partisanship”; also, as a career military officer, Mary McCormack’s character would likely stay on as Deputy National Security ‘Advisor.
New West Wing aides: Patricia Richardson character seems a shoo-in for Chief of Staff, and undoubtedly Stephen Root, an extremely versatile actor, might continue in his role as a Vinick staff member as well.
The obvious thing to do would be to do the fantasy version of the 2000 election–the Republican wins a razor thin close race but loses the popular vote so he decides to make his administration a unity one–keep lots of the old administration’s people. If his Vice President dies he could even take his defeated foe into the fold.
Or maybe the race gets thrown to the House and the two guys work out some kind of unity administration.
“I can see how useless people would consider it a useless TV show…”
What about people who consider it ham-handed and overwrought political fanfiction?
As a conservative and a screenwriter, I love the West Wing. Great characters, great conflict, and flat out incredible writing (although I’m watching it on DVD from the library, so I’ve only seen the first four seasons). While I find many of the arguments easy to shoot down, I like the fact that the people “care” and I’m only lightly annoyed by the villianization of Republicans. I do miss the cute blonde Republican lawyer, though.
And Knuckles, you must live a sheltered life in the PNW if you think Moonshine wasn’t big business. Either that, or you didn’t live by any of the reservations. Rotgut whiskey killed more of my friends than car accidents (and there were a lot of those. Took a stroll through the cemetery where my grandparents are buried and was horrified to see so many young people I knew planted there as well. Statistically way off the charts, but true nonetheless).
What about people who consider it ham-handed and overwrought political fanfiction?
Not watching much of real life, are they….
And Knuckles, you must live a sheltered life in the PNW if you think Moonshine wasn’t big business. Either that, or you didn’t live by any of the reservations. Rotgut whiskey killed more of my friends than car accidents (and there were a lot of those. Took a stroll through the cemetery where my grandparents are buried and was horrified to see so many young people I knew planted there as well. Statistically way off the charts, but true nonetheless).
Sheltered? Not really. Where in the NW did you live? I’m talking moonshine/bootlegging. People running from the revenooers. Brewing rotgut whiskey on the res isn’t illegal. Taking it off the res is. There is a strong history of smuggling alcohol in across the border from Canada, but not much of one here in the Puget Sound area.
That said, I’ve got a ton of friends who grew up on the res in WA, ID and MT. None of them have ever had moonshine (or homemade whatever). It was far easier to jus tget someone to buy the šhìŧ off the shelf for you than actually try to get your hands on it.
Mind you, Robb, I’m not saying it didn’t exist. I know it did/does. But as mentioned before, I’ve got a lot of friends from the res (Colville, Crow, Puyallup, etc.) and none of them were ever crazy enough to try it. The point I was trying to make, and clearly didn’t, is that moonshine is not just a pastime in the South, it’s big business. That big business simply does NOT exist here in the PNW.
I have a mason jar full of moonshine in my cubbard, given to me as a Christmas gift. Since I’m not a drinker (to the eternal shame of my ancestors) I have no idea what to do with it. Are there recipes using moonshine? Right now it’s just there in case I need to make a molotov cocktail.
I used to love West Wing, even when a great deal of what they were saying flew right over my head. Not so into it now but anyways… I’d just be happy if next election there were a Democrat candidate with a backbone.
One of my favorite “fun” scenes from the early episodes of West Wing is Sam debating Toby on whether 2000 is the millienium or not. (“In Excelsis Deo” is the episode – probably one of the top five shows).
(Being a math geek, I was in Toby’s camp.)
Peter, the solution to privacy concerns is simple:
BUY A GUN.
Gun privacy is the one form of privacy Bush holds sacrosanct–even over the threat of terrorism. Whatever information is included on the documents of gun transactions won’t be searched.
[Exit Smart Alec Mode]
Or wait until high-ranking Republicans their privacy intruded upon at which point they’ll discover an appreciation for privacy (often when accused of illegal or unethical behavior)
It’s kinda like how Repubs and Dems did a 180 flip about the Independent Prosecutor when their president was in office, suddenly both sides saw the need for limiting it.
— Ken from Chicago
P.S. “Conservatives are liberals who’ve just been mugged. Liberals are conversative who’ve just been arrested.”
P.P.S. EVERY year is the end and start of a millenium. And if you’re talking about 2000 years the birth of Christ, pretty strong evidence points more to 1996-7 instead of 1999-2000 or Y2k-Y2k1.
Ken,
Haven’t you heard? The PC movement has eliminated BC and AD from the calendars. It’s now BCE (Before the Common Era) and CE (Common Era). So, marking the calendars in 2000 compared to Christ is now irrelevant.
🙂
I always liked the bit from “Sports Night” where Casey (I think it was) receives an invitation to some fancy event, and the invite says the event is “7PM, October 18, 2001 AD.” And Casey says, “I’m glad they put the ‘AD’ to clarify it. It would have been embarrasing to accidentally arrive two thousand years before the birth of Christ.”
PAD
Haven’t you heard? The PC movement has eliminated BC and AD from the calendars. It’s now BCE (Before the Common Era) and CE (Common Era). So, marking the calendars in 2000 compared to Christ is now irrelevant.
Soooo….what exactly do they say it was that started the common era?
This is one of those things that actually calls MORE attention to the thing that they are trying to hide in the first place. It’s like how I now hear, when people say the pledge of allegence, the “Under God” part is much, much louder than the rest of it.
Oh, lighten up, codgers. Using “BCE” or “CE” isn’t PC, it’s just good manners when publishing for a worldwide audience. I still teach “BC” and “Anno Domini” to my students (most of them think it stands for After Death) and it’s no big deal to add the information about CE as a synonym. The customs of your tribe and island, paraphrasing Shaw, are not the laws of nature.