FreedomWriting

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts

Friday, July 26, 2013

A Force of a Different Color

Posted on 1:39 PM by Unknown


"It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin. This policy shall be put into effect as rapidly as possible, having due regard to the time required to effectuate any necessary changes without impairing efficiency or morale."

Executive Order 9981
Issued by President Harry Truman
July 26, 1948

Harry Truman desegregated the U.S. armed forces on this day in 1948.

Some people cite this as an example of true presidential courage. Truman was running for re–election in a nation that was only starting to deal with its racial problems. His electoral prospects had been regarded as dim for months — ever since Gallup reported his approval rating was 36%. The New Deal wing of the Democratic Party had been trying to persuade Dwight Eisenhower to run as a Democrat, but he declined, and Truman was nominated by his party in mid–July.

Not quite two weeks later, he signed an executive order desegregating the military — and ushered in the modern civil rights movement.

The civil rights movement existed before Truman signed that executive order. While some may assign a different starting point, I have long believed that the Supreme Court's Plessy v. Ferguson decision in 1896, which upheld segregation under the "separate but equal" doctrine, is when the civil rights movement became more than a series of isolated acts. It was in the years following that decision that the NAACP was formed and the efforts for racial equality became more coordinated.

It is often implied, if not suggested outright, that segregation only existed in the South, but it was a national fact of life, and attempts to change that were largely symbolic until Truman desegregated the troops 65 years ago today.

Skeptics may observe — and with justification — that Truman's order was mostly symbolic as well, given the fact that it was not treated as seriously as it should have been for years. And, as I say, there also are those who believe it was an act of genuine presidential courage. It may have been.

But I wouldn't necessarily label it a completely altruistic act. In the context of the times, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss political influences.

At the Democrats' convention in Philadelphia earlier that month, the progressive mayor of Minneapolis, Hubert Humphrey, gave a stirring speech that prompted the delegates to adopt a stronger stance on civil rights. Truman unhesitatingly endorsed the plank, but delegates from Mississippi and Alabama walked out in protest.

Prior to this date in 1948, there was a certain amount of concern among Democrats about the prospects for their national ticket — as well as rumors (which proved to be true) of a schism that might lead to a split in the form of a third–party challenge. In fact, from what I have read, the only Democrat who thought Truman had a chance to win was ... Truman himself.

In fact, there were two challenges to Truman in 1948 — aside from the challenge from Republican nominee Tom Dewey, who had lost to Franklin Roosevelt four years earlier. The challenge from the right came from South Carolina's Strom Thurmond. The challenge from the left came from Henry Wallace, Truman's predecessor in the vice presidency.

Recent Gallup polls still had Truman's approval lingering in the 30s. He may have felt he had little to lose — other than members of his base who might otherwise choose to stay home in November. That may have been at least part of his motivation for issuing the order.

He may also have felt that the current of history was moving in the direction of desegregation.

In many ways, it was a symbolic gesture. Although the order called for its provisions to be "put into effect as rapidly as possible," there was foot dragging in its implementation.

Because of that, many modern historians will say the modern civil rights movement began with 1954's unanimous Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court ruling.

I suppose that is hard to dispute. Segregation had been the virtually unchallenged law of the land since Plessy v. Ferguson, but Truman's order was the first real crack in segregation, and it set things up for Brown v. Board of Education to wedge it wide open — and, in the process, set up the ripple effect that transformed America from a segregated society to an integrated one.

That is the history of the American civil rights movement. I am often inclined to think that American segregation was destined to fall — like the Berlin wall.

But transformations of this magnitude are not historically inevitable, and even when the wheels are set in motion, they can be exceedingly slow to turn.

Truman got the wheels turning on this day in 1948.
Read More
Posted in 1948, armed forces, Brown v. Board of Education, desegregation, Eisenhower, executive order, Henry Wallace, history, Hubert Humphrey, Plessy v. Ferguson, presidency, Strom Thurmond, Supreme Court, Tom Dewey, Truman | No comments

Friday, June 29, 2012

Read His Lips

Posted on 12:12 PM by Unknown

"My opponent won't rule out raising taxes. But I will. And the Congress will push me to raise taxes and I'll say no. And they'll push, and I'll say no, and they'll push again, and I'll say, to them, 'Read my lips: no new taxes.' "

Vice President George H.W. Bush

Aug. 18, 1988

George Stephanopoulos: [Y]our critics say it is a tax increase.

Barack Obama: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I'm taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we're going to have an individual mandate or not, but ...

George Stephanopoulos: But you reject that it's a tax increase?

Barack Obama: I absolutely reject that notion.

Sept. 20, 2009

I remember the night George H.W. Bush made his famous "Read my lips" pledge to a convention hall filled with approving Republicans.

I had just moved to north Texas, where I had begun a new job at the local newspaper, and I had enrolled — that very day, as I recall — in graduate school. Settling in to my new apartment (i.e., unpacking boxes) had to be done incrementally.

It is safe to say I had several irons in the fire.

Anyway, I was unpacking some boxes that night, but I had the TV on so I could listen to Bush's acceptance speech. And, at first, I was inclined to dismiss that line as merely another political applause line — like when his boss, Ronald Reagan, appropriated Clint Eastwood's "Make my day" movie line for his own political purposes.

Reagan had a history of wrapping himself in socially popular phrases, sometimes to his detriment. Maybe it was the actor in him. When running for re–election as president, Reagan spoke of the "message of hope," a paean to patriotism, embodied in Bruce Springsteen's hit song, "Born in the U.S.A." when, in fact, the song was filled with images of gloom and despair.

But that was Reagan, the teflon president. He was always doing stuff like that, and people always let him get away with it, too. There he goes again.

I never really understood it. But I wasn't a Reagan fan, anyway.

I guess some politicians are like Reagan. They can get away with some of the most outrageous comments — and everyone seems to agree that they are outrageous.

But others can't get away with it.

Bush, for example. Lots of people probably responded dismissively to "Read my lips" as I did.

But there were plenty of folks who made notes of it and remembered it when Bush went back on his pledge in the 1990 budget compromise agreement.

In the storm of criticism that came Bush's way in 1992, I don't recall anyone pointing out that, in 1988, Bush faced considerable opposition from conservatives who had always doubted his commitment to cutting taxes, and many of his advisers thought a strong stand like his "read my lips" statement in his acceptance speech was needed to secure their active support in the fall.

To be fair, there were no new taxes in the budget, but, in his 1988 acceptance speech, Bush also drew the line against increases in existing taxes. That was a technicality as far as many were concerned. Agreeing to a budget compromise that raised existing taxes could only be seen as a broken promise.

And Bush 41 paid the price at the ballot box in 1992, first in a tougher–than–expected battle with Pat Buchanan for the nomination, then in his ill–fated campaign in the fall against Bill Clinton.

I thought a lot about Bush's famous remark yesterday after I heard that the Supreme Court had upheld the Obamacare legislation under congressional taxation authority.

The two situations are not mirror images of each other, but I suppose we won't really know that until after the voters have rendered their verdict in November.

Obama didn't break his promise not to raise taxes on anyone who made $200,000 a year or less; the Supreme Court decision did it for him.

As people absorb the court's decision and come to understand that the fee they will have to pay for noncompliance will amount to a massive tax increase on the very people Obama said had nothing to fear when he was running in 2008, their attitudes are likely to shift.

And, after watching him for four years, I have no doubt that Obama will spin it as something that was forced on him by the Supreme Court if it looks like there is going to be a huge backlash over it this fall.

Bush tried to spin his way out of trouble, too.

We'll see if it works any better for Obama.
Read More
Posted in George H.W. Bush, history, Obama, Reagan, Supreme Court, taxes | No comments

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Winning By Losing

Posted on 12:45 PM by Unknown


Occasionally in the past, I've heard it said that, at times, it is possible to win by losing.

I heard that — or its equivalent — said a lot in the lead–up to today's Supreme Court ruling on the legal challenge to the so–called Obamacare legislation.

Initially, I was inclined to think it was pre–emptive spinning — to mitigate defeat, not boast of victory.

Because, you see, both sides seemed to be convinced — to some extent — that the High Court was going to rule against them. And, I suppose, in these times of incredible uncertainty, that was the prudent thing to do: Prepare for the worst.

Therefore, this was the logic — on both sides.
If the Supreme Court rules against us, it will mobilize our people in the fall, and we will overwhelm the opposition with the backlash.

Now, on the surface, I supposed, that is a reasonably effective case for making chicken salad out of chicken sh*t.

But it seemed to me that it perpetuated the mindset that believes in complacency politics — that success makes people complacent.

That has not been my experience.

In my experience, whether it is business or politics or whatever, success only whets one's appetite for more. I never expected the side that was perceived to be the winner today to sit back and relax.

Americans have always been competitive. Historically, success seldom makes people complacent. If anything, having acquired power, they put that power to work in an attempt to keep it.

Well, most do. Some don't, I admit. But those people don't tend to last too long.

Anyway, now that the Supreme Court has ruled the legislation to be constitutional — and in the most improbable way imaginable, by upholding the mandate as being within congressional taxation authority — I have been re–thinking my opinion on that.

And I'm beginning to think that, yes, there could be a considerable backlash on this at the polls in November.

In the first place, the introduction of that word tax is something the Democrats in Congress — and Barack Obama himself — sought to avoid when they were ramming through the health care reform act.

Legal defenders of the legislation only threw it into the mix in their Supreme Court arguments as a last–minute thing — yet that turned out to be the argument that the Supreme Court bought.

The High Court didn't go along with the commerce argument. It upheld the constitutionality of the legislation with that last–minute taxation argument — which, ironically, was never part of the original deal.

And it made things a bit sticky for the Obama campaign. Obama has repeatedly assured Americans that, during his presidency, there would be no tax increase on anyone making under $200,000/year.

Now, with the help of the Supreme Court, he has pulled off the greatest bait and switch in American taxation history.

And, if there are any folks who need a quick reminder of how the American people feel about anything that is labeled a tax, let me refer them to the election returns from 20 years ago — when President George H.W. Bush was defeated in large part for going back on his 1988 campaign pledge to resist any tax increases.

And make no mistake about it. This will amount to a massive tax increase — mostly on the middle class. Countless people will look at their annual incomes and do the math — and they will conclude that it will be cheaper for them to pay the tax than purchase the insurance.

That doesn't mean they will like it. It just means they will do it.

There's no doubt in my mind that the Supreme Court handed Obama a victory with today's ruling. It would have been indescribably embarrassing for the signature legislation under a president who was once a constitutional law professor to be declared unconstitutional.

Obama was spared that embarrassment — and, because of that, he has to be regarded as the winner of today's round. His signature legislation — virtually the only accomplishment he has to show for his 3½ years as president — survived.

Without it, he would have had no case at all for re–election.

But the Republicans have been given a huge banner to follow into battle this fall — and, with it, I think Romney may well win the war.
Read More
Posted in Congress, Democrats, health care, legislation, Mitt Romney, Obama, Republicans, Supreme Court | No comments

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

He Said, She Said

Posted on 3:17 AM by Unknown


Twenty years ago, the nation watched as the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas — while outside opposition to his appointment was growing, based on his past positions on topics like affirmative action and abortion.

Many Democrats suspected that Thomas had been selected to replace retiring Justice Thurgood Marshall solely because both were black and Thomas would maintain the Supreme Court's existing racial balance. But Marshall and Thomas certainly didn't share the same views, and groups like the NAACP and NOW feared a shift in the Court's ideological balance.

Absent something truly troubling, though, most presidents' Supreme Court nominees are approved, regardless of how they may affect things ideologically, so Thomas seemed sure to receive the Senate's routine blessing — until this day in 1991.

For it was on this day 20 years ago that something troubling did emerge that threatened to derail Thomas' confirmation.

On Oct. 11, 1991, University of Oklahoma law professor Anita Hill walked into the hearing room and dropped a bombshell.

As Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post recalled recently, it was "both riveting and horrifying."

A former colleague, Hill testified that Thomas made sexual comments to her on the job and pressured her to go out with him. She wasn't sure if his conduct would meet the legal conditions for sexual harassment, but she said that, in her opinion, it was illegal.

That wasn't the issue, though, she said. She wanted to focus on the nature of Thomas' behavior and the fact that it had been inappropriate — even if it was not explicitly illegal.

And, after she related her version of events, no one really knew what to expect. But everyone had an opinion.

If you believed Thomas, it followed logically that you thought Hill was lying. If you believed Hill, the logical conclusion was that Thomas was lying.

There was simply no way to reconcile the two as some kind of bizarre misunderstanding that could be easily clarified — as in, "Well, yes, senator, as a matter of fact I did make a rather casual remark about a pubic hair on a Coca–Cola can, but what I really meant by that was ..."

I was in graduate school at the time, studying journalism and working part time as a teaching assistant, and I remember watching my students, especially the girls, as they listened to the radio broadcasts of the hearings in the editing lab, where I worked on weekday afternoons.

It had been a newsy year, what with the whirlwind Gulf War and all that, but this was a different kind of topic for the girls in my news editing lab. They couldn't necessarily relate to the experience of fighting in a war on foreign soil, even though many people their age (and, almost certainly, people with whom they had been in high school only a few years earlier) were serving their country in that part of the world, but the hearing's subject matter was something to which they could relate, something with which many of them had dealt at one time or another and in one form or another, even at that tender phase of their lives.

And they didn't like what they were hearing from someone who could serve on the Court for an indefinite period of time (in fact, Thomas is still on the Court nearly two decades after being confirmed and, at the age of 63, conceivably could be on the Court for two more).

When the full Senate voted on Thomas' nomination shortly after Hill's testimony, the girls in my lab listened intently to the radio. Nearly all seemed dismayed when the Senate approved that nomination by the closest margin in more than 100 years.

We never discussed that event in depth, but I overheard snippets of their conversations, and I have often wondered what kind of message that confirmation vote sent to the young women of America.
Read More
Posted in 1991, Anita Hill, Clarence Thomas, confirmation hearing, history, Supreme Court | No comments

Wednesday, July 6, 2011

Shattering the Supreme Court's Glass Ceiling

Posted on 10:48 PM by Unknown


Seeing a woman on the Supreme Court raises no eyebrows today.

One–third of the justices are female, and two of them were appointed by the current president. In fact, it wouldn't be surprising if Democrats are perceived as far more likely to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court than Republicans. The three women who sit on the bench today all were nominated by Democrats.

But 30 years ago today, Republican Ronald Reagan made history by appointing Sandra Day O'Connor to replace Potter Stewart on the Supreme Court.

It was historic because O'Connor was the first woman to be designated to join what had been called "The Brethren" for a couple of centuries, and it was the fulfillment of one of Reagan's campaign promises.

Since it had been a campaign pledge, the nomination probably didn't surprise many in Reagan's inner circle. But my recollection of that day is that nearly everyone else was surprised.

"My nomination was a great surprise to the nation," O'Connor later recalled, "but an even greater surprise to me."

Her gender may have played no role, but some of Reagan's supporters in Congress insisted they could not support O'Connor, many because they were not sure she would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade if given the chance.

(Now, you may think there are litmus tests in the appointments that are made in American politics today — and there are. But much more of an effort is made today to conceal that fact.

(The early 1980s was a period when people were defiant about it, almost proud of it. By and large, the attitude could be summarized this way — Yeah, we're applying litmus tests. Wanna make something of it?)

Some openly suggested O'Connor would support the Roe v. Wade ruling — and if you know anything about politics in America in the 1980s, it should be that the Republican Party had embraced conservative Christians, and a person's position on abortion was the litmus test for being a true Republican. (Those who were found to be lacking were treated as derisively as today's so–called RINOs.)

Yet, when the Senate voted on O'Connor's nomination in September, she was confirmed by a 99–0 vote.

(Around the time of her confirmation, O'Connor was quoted by the Washington Post as saying something that would, no doubt, be welcomed by a certain segment of the modern population: "I do not believe it is the function of the judiciary to step in and change the law because the times have changed. I do well understand the difference between legislating and judging. As a judge, it is not my function to develop public policy."

It is, as I say, nothing special to see a woman nominated for the Supreme Court now. Three other women have been nominated since that day 30 yeas ago. All three were confirmed, and all three sit on the bench today.

And, in the peculiar logic of American politics, when those seats are open again, due to retirement or death, I suspect they will be regarded as belonging to women, in much the same way that open seats have been considered liberal or conservative, depending upon who last held them, and only a like–minded jurist would be an acceptable replacement.

It is the same sort of thinking, for that matter, that made Thurgood Marshall's seat the black seat on the court when he retired — but race trumped ideology when his replacement had to be selected.

(It was always odd, I thought, that George H.W. Bush chose to replace Marshall with Clarence Thomas, who shared the same skin color but little else with the man he succeeded.)

For the most part, I guess, O'Connor lived up to the hopes of conservatives. When the Supreme Court was called upon to break the electoral deadlock in Florida in 2000, for example, she voted with the Republican appointees, allowing George W. Bush to prevail over Vice President Al Gore.

But, overall, her voting record seemed to move more to the center as her Supreme Court career continued. I often wondered if Reagan ever imagined in 1981 the votes she might cast or the decisions she might influence in the quarter of a century that she sat on the bench.

The night before he announced her nomination, Reagan wrote in his diary that he thought she would make "a good justice."

She's only been retired for five years.

It will take awhile for history to render its verdict.
Read More
Posted in 1981, history, Reagan, Sandra Day O'Connor, Supreme Court | No comments

Sunday, December 12, 2010

Head for the Mountains

Posted on 6:53 AM by Unknown


Back before George W. Bush's father was Ronald Reagan's running mate, "Head for the mountains" was the commercial pitch for Busch beer.

It may well have been the perfect advice for those who opposed Bush's ascension to the presidency in 2000.

If you were around in those days, I guess I don't have to remind you of the national ordeal that Americans went through in the five weeks between Election Day and this day, when the Supreme Court, after narrowly voting to halt the recount in Florida, effectively awarded the state — and, with it, the election — to Bush.

Recrimination was in the air long before the Democrats took a severe beating on Election Day last month, but it only makes sense, really, to put blame where it rightfully belongs — on the doorsteps of the five U.S. Supreme Court justices who halted the Florida recount with Bush narrowly leading Al Gore.

I suppose things started innocently enough. Bush's initial lead over Gore in Florida was less than 2,000 votes. Percentage–wise, the margin was narrow enough to qualify for a state–mandated machine recount.

That recount only took a few days. When it was done, though, Bush's lead had dwindled to a few hundred votes, and Gore requested a manual recount in four counties that typically voted for Democrats.

The recounts began, but they were being held in heavily populated counties, and officials feared the recounts could not be completed in time to meet the state's seven–day deadline for certifying election results. The Florida Circuit Court decided that the certified results had to be submitted by the deadline, but amended returns could be submitted later.

As it turned out, one of the counties completed its manual recount before the deadline. The recounts continued for the other three.

Well, one thing led to another. There was a lot of wrangling on both sides, a lot of hyperbole on both sides. There were legal challenges and counter–challenges.

The concept of "every vote counts" seemed to have been lost in the pursuit of victory at any price.

And, through it all, there was the concern that the next president needed time to make his transition. January 20, after all, was less than six weeks away.

In his memoir "My Life," the outgoing president, Bill Clinton, wrote, "If Gore had been ahead in the vote count and Bush behind, there's not a doubt in my mind that the same Supreme Court would have voted 9–0 to [re]count the vote and I would have supported the decision. ... Bush v. Gore will go down in history as one of the worst decisions the Supreme Court ever made, along with the Dred Scott case."

It was a terrible decision. Eventually, it may be seen to have caused as much — or nearly as much — damage to the nation as the Dred Scott case to which Clinton referred.
Read More
Posted in 2000, Bill Clinton, Busch beer, Bush, Gore, history, presidency, Supreme Court | No comments

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

A Matter of Faith

Posted on 7:46 AM by Unknown

"I don't see how we can have a separation of church and state in this government if you have to pass a religious test to get in this government. ... [I]f you demand expressions of religious faith from politicians, you are just begging to be lied to. They won't all lie to you, but a lot of them will. And it will be the easiest lie they ever had to tell ..."

Arnold Vinick
The West Wing

A couple of days ago, I examined the likelihood that Barack Obama will have the opportunity, either this year or next, to nominate the replacement for Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.

I discussed a number of the issues involved. But there was one angle I didn't explore. Today, Nina Totenberg of NPR did bring it up, and I am glad. Not because it matters to me but because it could influence the debate over Obama's nominee.

The angle Totenberg brought up? "[W]hen Justice Stevens retires, it is entirely possible that there will be no Protestant justices on the Court, for the first time ever."

That might not be an issue. When Stevens retires and Obama announces his choice for a successor, that successor could turn out to be a Baptist or a Methodist or a Presbyterian — or a member of another Protestant denomination.

But what if he nominates a Catholic? Or a Jew? Totenberg points out that three of the people who are frequently mentioned as the leading contenders are Catholic or Jewish.

And can you imagine the reaction if Obama nominates a Muslim?
"In fact, six of the nine justices on the current court are Roman Catholic. That's half of the 12 Catholics who have ever served on the court. Only seven Jews have ever served, and two of them are there now. Depending on the Stevens replacement, there may be no Protestants left on the court at all in a majority Protestant nation where, for decades and generations, all the justices were Protestant."

Nina Totenberg
NPR

Given the fact that, as Totenberg observes, "almost nobody has noticed" the impact that Stevens' departure could have on the religious balance on the court, it might not be important to many Americans.

On the other hand, when you consider the issue of child sexual abuse that has plagued the Catholic church, adding a seventh Catholic to the Supreme Court might do more than raise a few eyebrows.

And if another Jew was nominated to the highest court serving a self–identified Christian nation (where less than 2% of the population is Jewish), there might be some backlash in the Christian community.

Personally, I don't think a jurist's religion should be of any more consequence than his/her political party affiliation. It smacks of a litmus test, like inquiring about a potential nominee's views on abortion.

But that's probably a perfect world we're talking about — and God knows this world is far from perfect.

The fact that a nominee has a religious faith — whatever it may be — seems to me to be a good thing. It shows that he/she has given a lot of consideration to issues that affect the human condition, that go well beyond his/her personal circumstances. Even if a nominee is an agnostic or an atheist, that, too, suggests the nominee has thought about things that are bigger than himself/herself and has come to a conclusion with which he/she is comfortable.

Such a demonstration of mental acuity does have meaning for me because it shows that the nominee (or, if confirmed, the justice) is capable of evaluating an issue from many sides and arriving at a fair and reasonable conclusion. That is relevant to all sorts of matters that could come before the Supreme Court — not just cases involving religious freedom.

In my own case, I am a journalist. I believe that freedom of speech and freedom of the press matter, and protecting those freedoms is paramount to me. I believe that all of our freedoms are important, but everything else depends on those freedoms.

Justice Louis Brandeis, the first Jew appointed to the high court, penned perhaps the greatest defense of freedom of speech in the high court's history in his concurrence in the Whitney v. California (1927) case (in which the concept of a "clear and present danger" played a prominent role):

"Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self–reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."

I am a Protestant, but I would support whole–heartedly the nomination of anyone — Catholic, Jew, Protestant, whatever — with that kind of agile mind.

It doesn't seem to me that it could be said of a nominee who has simply shown no interest in religion (or, at least, not enough to form an opinion) that he/she has an agile mind — beyond cynically calculating how an expression of religious faith (sincere or not) could help his/her career goals.

And, as Arnold Vinick implied on The West Wing, some potential nominees will say whatever they think their listeners want to hear if they believe it will make it easier to get what they want.

A nominee's religion could be very important to some Americans, though, and for good reason. Supreme Court justices are not subject to the whims of voters so Stevens' successor could very well be on the court for two or three decades.

If a Protestant is not nominated, some Protestants in America might wonder if their interests will be represented in the high court's rulings.

Timing, as they say, is everything, and a lot may depend on whether Stevens decides to leave this year or next year.

Few Republicans in Congress have shown any interest in cooperating with Obama, and it is reasonable to expect that any new Republicans who are elected this fall will be unlikely to extend an olive branch to the administration.

If Stevens retires this year, Obama knows he will have 59 Democrats in the Senate who are likely to support his choice. But, rather than risk a messy confirmation proceeding that could further endanger Senate Democrats (nearly half the Democratic seats on the Senate Judiciary Committee will be on the ballot this year, and two are already believed to be at risk of a Republican takeover), he might choose a safe nominee (which might include picking a Protestant).

If Stevens waits until next year, it's anyone's guess at this point whether Democrats will still be in the majority in the Senate. But Obama will know that the next election will be more than a year away. If he prefers a nominee who breaks boundaries, 2011 may be a better time to do so — although not if his party loses its majority.

Given all the political considerations Obama will have to juggle, one would be justified in wondering whatever happened to the (alleged) separation of church and state.

Or, to quote an exchange from The West Wing, when Vinick asked President Jed Bartlet that question, Bartlet replied, "It's hanging in there, but I'm afraid the Constitution doesn't say anything about the separation of church and politics."
Read More
Posted in freedom of speech, freedom of the press, John Paul Stevens, NPR, Obama, religion, Supreme Court, The West Wing | No comments

Monday, April 5, 2010

Choosing a Justice

Posted on 10:14 AM by Unknown
Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is a bit of a throwback.

The 89–year–old jurist, who has been on the Supreme Court for 35 years, says he will retire either this year or next year. Whichever one he chooses, though, he insists he will leave during Barack Obama's term in office to give him the opportunity to maintain the court's ideological balance.

Isn't that a quaint notion?

Stevens was nominated by a Republican president, Gerald Ford, who may have expected a centrist (or even a conservative), but he has turned out to be a leader of the liberals on the high court.

I guess it's possible Ford — who was more of a moderate than most office–holding Republicans are today — knew he was nominating a liberal back in 1975 (although I have heard Stevens describe himself, in spite of his opinions, as a conservative centrist). The backlash of Watergate had given Democrats huge majorities in Congress following the 1974 midterms, and Ford may have felt it was important to appease Democratic lawmakers.

All I really know about Stevens' nomination is what I have read in the Bob Woodward–Scott Armstrong book on the Supreme Court, "The Brethren," which suggested that Ford's main concern was not ideology.
"Ford finally concluded the best choice would be a sitting judge, someone virtually unknown who had worked with distinction for years on the federal bench. ...

"A former law partner considered Stevens a lawyer's lawyer, and on the appeals court Stevens had been thought of as a judge's judge. He was noted both for thoroughness and for his sophisticated arguments.

"On the basis of a few moments of small talk, Ford had preferred Stevens. Stevens also seemed to have no partisan politics, no strict ideology. His anonymity would ensure a quick confirmation."

The Brethren
(1979)

I have to assume that, as brilliant as Stevens is reported to be — he had the highest grade–point average in the history of Northwestern University Law School — he is hopelessly mired in the past.

Why do I say that? Because, based on his statements, Stevens believes that a presidential nominee for the Supreme Court is habitually rubber stamped by the Senate. I guess that is understandable, given the fact that he sailed through, winning Senate confirmation by a 98–0 vote — although he ought to know better. During his tenure, not all Supreme Court nominees have sailed through the way he did. Ronald Reagan nominated Robert Bork, who was rejected by the Senate, and two other nominees — Douglas Ginsburg (in 1987) and Harriet Miers (2005) — were withdrawn when it became clear that they lacked enough support to be confirmed.

In fact, even before Stevens was appointed, both Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson ran into problems with their Supreme Court nominees.

Prior to that, though, no Supreme Court nominee had been rejected or forced to withdraw in Stevens' adult life so it isn't hard to see how he may have formed the impression that a president's choice for the Supreme Court usually gets the green light.

But things weren't as polarized when Stevens was a young adult as they are today.

Many political observers who have been studying the political terrain are predicting that the folks in Congress who belong to Obama's party are facing an uphill climb this year. Some — but not all — are forecasting that one chamber or both will shift from a Democratic majority to a Republican majority — and it hasn't been necessary to be a political science major to see that Republicans have grown less inclined to support Obama's proposals as time has passed.

One can only imagine how obstinate they will become if they take control of the Senate.

Of course, things can change between now and November. Unemployment may drop dramatically (although the administration is warning jobless Americans not to expect anything like that because last week's jobs report, which indicated the most significant gains in jobs in three years were posted in March, is likely to lure many discouraged job seekers back into the job market), and other things that could give Democrats a boost could happen.

And a Supreme Court nomination does not have to be confirmed by the House, only by the Senate, so, for the purpose of replacing Stevens (or any other justice who retires or dies), retaining control of the Senate is what matters. But, if those predictions prove to be accurate, Democrats may lose control of the Senate — or retain it by the slimmest of margins — when the voters go to the polls in November.

If that happens, Obama may not feel that he has the luxury of nominating a liberal if he must fill a vacancy next year. He may opt for a centrist, believing that person would have a better chance of avoiding a contentious battle and being confirmed.

Now, personally, I wouldn't have a problem with a centrist. I've never felt that ideological inflexibility had a place on the Supreme Court, whether it was a rigidity of the right or the left. But selecting Stevens' successor — or anyone else's — might be a much different exercise for Obama if he must wait until 2011.

There is a lot of uncertainty. The ominous predictions for Democrats may not come to pass. Or they might.

Anyway, my suggestion to Justice Stevens would be this: If he really wants Obama to choose his successor, he should announce his retirement soon — perhaps in a couple of weeks, when he turns 90 — while the Democrats hold the majority in the Senate.

While Democrats hold 59 seats in the Senate, Obama would be more likely to choose someone who would be to Stevens' liking.

If Stevens really wants to influence the selection, it's too dicey to wait until next year.

By then, the influence may belong to someone else.
Read More
Posted in Gerald Ford, history, John Paul Stevens, Obama, retirement, Senate, Supreme Court, The Brethren | No comments

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Barack and the Supremes

Posted on 9:17 AM by Unknown


As Andrew Malcolm writes in the Los Angeles Times, it is not unusual for presidents and the Supreme Court to butt heads.

I guess that is to be expected when the tenure of a Supreme Court justice easily can be two, three or four times as long as the president who appointed him/her. I'm sure no one has to remind Obama that Republicans held the White House for 28 of the 40 years prior to his inauguration — or that six of the eight current justices who were not appointed by Obama were appointed by Republican presidents.

But the dressing down that Barack Obama gave the justices during his State of the Union speech in January was virtually unprecedented. It isn't that it was mean–spirited, salacious or particularly nasty. But the setting, as Chief Justice John Roberts said, was "questionable."
"The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court — according to the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling."

Well, it took a month and a half, but Roberts finally responded, yesterday at the University of Alabama. He called the scene "very troubling," and he bemoaned the "political pep rally" the address has become.

I feel like I'm having a Claude Rains moment — Political? The State of the Union speech is political? I'm shocked!

Sure, there are certain traditional formalities that must be observed when a president addresses Congress. For example, the president cannot enter the House chamber until he is invited to do so. They've been doing that for a long, long time, and, even when a majority of its members hasn't belonged to the president's party, the House has never turned away a president yet.

As far as I know.

But the State of the Union speech has been political as long as I can remember. It is not a recent development. In 1986, for example, Ronald Reagan intended to use the space shuttle and its teacher in space for his personal propaganda purposes while delivering his State of the Union speech — until the shuttle exploded shortly after liftoff, forcing him to postpone his address for a week.

And, for nearly 45 years, someone (often — but not always — a member of Congress) belonging to the opposing party has been granted "equal time" for a rebuttal address immediately after the president's speech. There have even been times when both parties have put together elaborate television programs to air along with their rebuttals. During Clinton's presidency, the Republicans became the first to hold their rebuttal in front of an audience (partisan, of course).

Heck, these things couldn't be more political if you advertised them with the president's party preceding the phrase "state of the union" and you served fried fish or chicken dinners to the attendees.

No one could possibly know this better than Obama. He delivered the Democrats' response in January 2008 — long before he secured his nomination for president and nearly a year before taking the oath of office.

And Obama wasn't shy about expressing his own political views on that occasion — although, in hindsight, his response is amusing when one thinks about how often his words contradict his later actions as president.

Anyway, after a presidential campaign that went on for nearly two years, followed by more than a year in the presidency, Obama must be pretty thick–skinned by now. But what about his press secretary?

Although the Washington Post asserts that the White House "fired back," it was actually Obama's spokesman, Robert Gibbs, who said that the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, which was handed down the week before Obama's address, opened "the floodgates for corporations and special interests to pour money into elections — drowning out the voices of average Americans."

And, as you will see if you watch the attached video clip, echoed his boss' choice of words.

Well, that tends to be the nature of the role of the press secretary, I suppose. Whether most people recognize it or not, there are times when a press secretary expresses his/her own beliefs and not the president's — especially at times when a president has deliberately sought to keep the press secretary out of the loop.

But this doesn't seem like one of those times. And it cannot be stressed too much that press secretaries have to be careful. They can't be casual about the words they use. Too many people presume that anything a press secretary says is straight from a president's mouth, word for word.

In this case, though, it's hard not to make a convincing case that Gibbs was repeating precisely what the president said. Nothing new was included in Gibbs' response. So what was the purpose? If you have nothing to add to your argument, why repeat the argument that provoked the justices to begin with? Won't that just keep the fires burning?

More than 400 years ago, Shakespeare wrote that discretion is the better part of valor.

So I have to wonder how prolonging these testy public exchanges will serve Obama's stated objective of improving the atmosphere in Washington.
Read More
Posted in John Roberts, Obama, State of the Union, Supreme Court | No comments
Home
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • Will We Ever Know the Truth About JFK?
    President and Mrs. Kennedy disembark in Dallas. In a little more than two months, it will be the 50th anniversary of the assassination of Jo...
  • In Pursuit of Peace in the Middle East
    "The Framework for Peace in the Middle East and the Framework for the Conclusion of a Peace Treaty Between Egypt and Israel were two ma...
  • A Ride in a Tank
    The Saturday Night Live parodies of presidential debates sometimes seem like they've been a part of presidential campaigns forever — ev...
  • Myth America
    I think the origin of the phrase "women's liberation" can be traced back 50 years, maybe more, but it may not have been widel...
  • Between a Rock and a Hard Place
    There were times — not many but a few — in my college days when I played some poker with my friends. I was never very good at it, especially...
  • The Day a Birmingham Church Was Bombed
    A couple of weeks ago, the nation paused to remember Dr. Martin Luther King's inspiring "I Have a Dream" speech that was giv...
  • George Wallace: No Middle Ground
    "There's some people who've gone over the state and said, 'Well, George Wallace has talked too strong about segregation....
  • The Shortest 'Papacy'
    It has not been unusual for America to have two presidents in a single calendar year. It has happened whenever an election has produced a ne...
  • The Right to Vote
    " Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridg...
  • Read My Lips
    Twenty–five years ago tonight, George H.W. Bush delivered his first presidential nomination acceptance speech. He had delivered two vice pre...

Categories

  • 14th Amendment (2)
  • 16th Street Baptist Church (1)
  • 1787 (1)
  • 1789 (1)
  • 1861 (2)
  • 1863 (1)
  • 1867 (1)
  • 1869 (1)
  • 1876 (1)
  • 1881 (1)
  • 1886 (1)
  • 1896 (2)
  • 1912 (3)
  • 1913 (2)
  • 1916 (1)
  • 1923 (1)
  • 1927 (1)
  • 1934 (1)
  • 1936 (1)
  • 1937 (3)
  • 1940 (1)
  • 1942 (1)
  • 1945 (3)
  • 1946 (1)
  • 1948 (2)
  • 1950 (1)
  • 1952 (1)
  • 1953 (1)
  • 1956 (3)
  • 1960 (1)
  • 1960s (3)
  • 1961 (6)
  • 1962 (2)
  • 1963 (6)
  • 1964 (5)
  • 1965 (1)
  • 1966 (2)
  • 1967 (3)
  • 1968 (11)
  • 1968 Democratic convention (2)
  • 1968 Republican convention (1)
  • 1969 (3)
  • 1970 (2)
  • 1971 (2)
  • 1972 (17)
  • 1973 (10)
  • 1974 (4)
  • 1976 (10)
  • 1977 (1)
  • 1978 (2)
  • 1980 (14)
  • 1981 (4)
  • 1982 (4)
  • 1983 (3)
  • 1984 (4)
  • 1986 (3)
  • 1987 (3)
  • 1988 (6)
  • 1988 Democratic convention (2)
  • 1988 Republican convention (1)
  • 1989 earthquake (1)
  • 1990 (1)
  • 1991 (4)
  • 1992 (8)
  • 1993 (3)
  • 1994 (5)
  • 1995 (3)
  • 1996 (7)
  • 1997 (2)
  • 1998 (4)
  • 1999 (1)
  • 2000 (3)
  • 2001 (1)
  • 2002 (1)
  • 2004 (2)
  • 2005 (3)
  • 2007 (1)
  • 2008 (13)
  • 2009 (1)
  • 2010 (10)
  • 2012 (57)
  • 2013 (1)
  • 2014 (1)
  • 20th Amendment (1)
  • 20th century (1)
  • 22nd Amendment (1)
  • 24-hour news (1)
  • 26th amendment (1)
  • 60 Minutes (1)
  • abortion (1)
  • absence (1)
  • Academy Awards (1)
  • acceptance speech (9)
  • accidents (1)
  • acquittal (3)
  • addiction (1)
  • Adlai Stevenson (1)
  • afterlife (1)
  • age (1)
  • age discrimination (2)
  • AIDS (1)
  • air travel (1)
  • airplane (1)
  • Al Neuharth (1)
  • Al Qaeda (1)
  • Alabama (4)
  • Alan Shepard (1)
  • Alaska (3)
  • alcoholism (1)
  • Alexander Butterfield (2)
  • alien (1)
  • alternate reality (1)
  • Amelia Earhart (2)
  • American exceptionalism (1)
  • American Experience (1)
  • American way (1)
  • amusement park (1)
  • Angela Corey (1)
  • Anita Hill (1)
  • Ann Coulter (1)
  • Ann Richards (2)
  • anniversaries (1)
  • anniversary (33)
  • anonymity (1)
  • Anousheh Ansari (1)
  • Anthony Shadid (1)
  • Anthony Weiner (2)
  • Anwar Sadat (1)
  • AP style (1)
  • apartheid (1)
  • Apollo 11 (1)
  • Apollo 13 (1)
  • Apollo 17 (1)
  • approval ratings (10)
  • April (1)
  • Argentina (1)
  • Ari Fleischer (1)
  • Arizona (4)
  • Arkansas (31)
  • Arkansas Arts Center (1)
  • Arkansas Democrat (1)
  • Arkansas Gazette (5)
  • Arkansas Post (1)
  • armed forces (1)
  • armistice (1)
  • Arthur Bremer (1)
  • Artur Davis (1)
  • Aruba (1)
  • assassination (3)
  • assassination attempt (2)
  • Associated Press (2)
  • astronaut (2)
  • Atlanta (1)
  • Atlantic City (1)
  • atomic bomb (1)
  • Auschwitz (2)
  • authorship (1)
  • auto crash (1)
  • aviation (1)
  • ballot (1)
  • Baltimore Sun (1)
  • Barbara Boxer (1)
  • Barry Switzer (1)
  • baseball (1)
  • Baskin-Robbins (1)
  • Batman (2)
  • Battle of France (1)
  • battleground states (1)
  • Bay of Pigs (1)
  • BBC (2)
  • beatification (1)
  • behavior (1)
  • Benedict XVI (4)
  • Benghazi (4)
  • Berlin (2)
  • Berlin Wall (2)
  • Betty Ford (3)
  • Bible (1)
  • bicycle trip (1)
  • Biden (7)
  • Big Tex (1)
  • Bill Clinton (27)
  • Bill Fulbright (1)
  • Bill Halter (1)
  • Bill Maher (1)
  • Bill Murray (1)
  • Bill of Rights (1)
  • Billy the Kid (1)
  • birthday (12)
  • birthdays (1)
  • black voters (1)
  • blame (1)
  • Blanche Lincoln (2)
  • blockade (1)
  • blog (1)
  • blogger (1)
  • blogs (1)
  • bluffing (1)
  • Bob Dole (6)
  • Bob Herbert (8)
  • Bob McDonnell (1)
  • Bob Meriwether (1)
  • Bob Newhart (1)
  • bombing (5)
  • book (1)
  • Boston Globe (1)
  • Boston Marathon (3)
  • Boynton v. Virginia (1)
  • bra burning (1)
  • Brady Johnson (1)
  • Branch Davidians (1)
  • break-in (1)
  • breast cancer (2)
  • broadcasting (3)
  • broccoli (1)
  • brokered convention (1)
  • Brown v. Board of Education (1)
  • budget (1)
  • budget compromise (1)
  • budget cuts (1)
  • budgets (1)
  • Burst of Joy (1)
  • Busch beer (1)
  • Bush (20)
  • busing (1)
  • Busted (1)
  • C word (1)
  • Cabinet (1)
  • cable TV (1)
  • California (6)
  • Camp David (1)
  • campaign (6)
  • campaign announcement (1)
  • cancer (4)
  • capitalism (2)
  • Cardiff Giant (1)
  • Carr Van Anda (1)
  • cartoon (1)
  • Casablanca (1)
  • Casey Anthony (2)
  • Catholic church (3)
  • Catholicism (1)
  • caucuses (2)
  • CBS (2)
  • cell phones (1)
  • Census (1)
  • centennial (4)
  • Central Park (1)
  • centrism (1)
  • Challenger (1)
  • Challenger disaster (2)
  • change (1)
  • Charles Blow (1)
  • Charles Colson (1)
  • Charles de Gaulle (1)
  • Charles Duell (1)
  • Charles Percy (1)
  • Charlie Brown (1)
  • Charlie Cook (2)
  • Cher (1)
  • Chicago (3)
  • Chicago Tribune (1)
  • Chicken Little (1)
  • childhood (1)
  • childhood friend (11)
  • Chile (1)
  • China (3)
  • China Syndrome (1)
  • Chris Christie (1)
  • Chris Matthews (1)
  • Christian Science Monitor (1)
  • Christianity (1)
  • Christine O'Donnell (1)
  • Christmas (4)
  • Christmas Eve (1)
  • cigarette labels (1)
  • cigarettes (2)
  • cigars (1)
  • citizen journalism (1)
  • civil rights (6)
  • Civil War (6)
  • civilian courts (1)
  • Clarence Thomas (1)
  • classic rock (1)
  • classmate (1)
  • Clayton Williams (1)
  • Clement Moore (1)
  • Clint Eastwood (1)
  • Clinton (6)
  • closure (1)
  • CNN (7)
  • CNN.com (1)
  • CNNMoney.com (1)
  • Coca-Cola (1)
  • cold case (1)
  • Cold War (3)
  • Colin Powell (1)
  • Colorado (3)
  • Columbia Journalism Review (1)
  • Columbine (1)
  • column (3)
  • commencement (1)
  • Commentary (1)
  • commercial (1)
  • Commodore 64 (1)
  • common cause (1)
  • community activism (1)
  • community college (1)
  • compromise (1)
  • computer football (2)
  • computers (1)
  • concealed weapons (1)
  • Confederate History Month (1)
  • confirmation hearing (1)
  • Congress (16)
  • congressional power (1)
  • Connecticut (1)
  • conservatives (1)
  • conspiracy theories (2)
  • Constitution (6)
  • Constitution Day (1)
  • consumerism (1)
  • convention (8)
  • Conway (7)
  • Corazon Aquino (1)
  • corruption (1)
  • crash (1)
  • credit rating (1)
  • Creepy Crawlers (1)
  • crime (3)
  • crises (2)
  • cruise missiles (1)
  • crying in the snow (1)
  • Crystal Ball (1)
  • Cuba (2)
  • Cuban missile crisis (1)
  • Custer's Last Stand (1)
  • D.B. Cooper (1)
  • Dad (2)
  • Daily Kos (1)
  • Dale Bumpers (1)
  • Dallas (14)
  • Dallas Morning News (2)
  • Dallas Times Herald (1)
  • Dan Quayle (7)
  • Dan Rather (1)
  • Dana Mize (1)
  • Daniel Inouye (3)
  • Daniel Schorr (2)
  • David Brooks (1)
  • David Frost (1)
  • David Gergen (1)
  • David Johnson (1)
  • David Koresh (1)
  • David Letterman (1)
  • David Pryor (2)
  • David Shribman (1)
  • death (17)
  • deaths (1)
  • debate (5)
  • debt ceiling (8)
  • dedication (1)
  • deficit (1)
  • deficit debate (1)
  • Delaware (1)
  • delegates (1)
  • Democrat (2)
  • Democrats (55)
  • demonstrations (1)
  • dentist (1)
  • depression (1)
  • desegregation (1)
  • Detroit (1)
  • developmental writing (1)
  • Devil's Den (1)
  • Digital Journal (1)
  • diplomacy (1)
  • disappearance (1)
  • Disneyland (1)
  • Dispatch News Service (1)
  • divided government (1)
  • Doctors Trial (1)
  • Dodi Fayed (1)
  • Dog n Suds (1)
  • domino theory (2)
  • Donald A. Redelmeier (1)
  • Donald Luskin (1)
  • Donald Trump (1)
  • Doobie Brothers (1)
  • Doonesbury (1)
  • Dorothea Lange (1)
  • Dorothy Kilgallen (1)
  • double-dip recession (1)
  • Doug Wilder (1)
  • Douglas Schoen (1)
  • Dr. Frank Ryan (1)
  • driving (2)
  • drugs (1)
  • Dukakis (3)
  • e-mail correspondence (1)
  • Eagles (1)
  • Earl Spencer (1)
  • earthquake (2)
  • east coast (1)
  • East Room (1)
  • Easter (1)
  • eastern Europe (1)
  • Ecclesiastes (1)
  • economics (1)
  • economy (27)
  • Ed Muskie (2)
  • Ed Rollins (1)
  • editorial (1)
  • Edward R. Murrow (2)
  • Egypt (5)
  • Eisenhower (10)
  • Eleanor Clift (1)
  • Eleanor Opitz (1)
  • election (4)
  • elections (2)
  • Electoral College (2)
  • elementary school (1)
  • Eli Whitney (1)
  • Elizabeth Colbert Busch (1)
  • Elizabeth Edwards (3)
  • Elizabeth Scalia (1)
  • Elton John (1)
  • Emily Dickinson (1)
  • endorsement (2)
  • enemies list (3)
  • energy (1)
  • England (2)
  • English (2)
  • entrepreneurship (1)
  • Environmental Working Group (1)
  • eras (1)
  • Erin Brockovich (1)
  • ESPN (1)
  • Estes Kefauver (1)
  • Etch A Sketch (1)
  • Eugene Robinson (2)
  • eugenics (1)
  • Europe (1)
  • executions (1)
  • executive order (1)
  • experience (1)
  • explosion (1)
  • Facebook (4)
  • faith (4)
  • faithless electors (1)
  • far right (1)
  • farewell address (1)
  • fatality (1)
  • fatty foods (1)
  • Fawn Hall (1)
  • FBI (2)
  • FDA (1)
  • FDR (10)
  • federal response (1)
  • Feingold (1)
  • FEMA (1)
  • Ferdinand Marcos (1)
  • Ferraro (2)
  • film footage (1)
  • financial reform (1)
  • fire (2)
  • First Amendment (3)
  • first lady (2)
  • flight (1)
  • Flight 93 (1)
  • Florida (6)
  • food (1)
  • Food Network (1)
  • foreign policy (1)
  • Fort Sumter (2)
  • Fourth Amendment (1)
  • Fourth of July (2)
  • Fox News (2)
  • France (1)
  • Francis Church (1)
  • Frank White (1)
  • Frasier (3)
  • Free Man in Paris (1)
  • free press (2)
  • Freedom 7 (1)
  • freedom of speech (2)
  • freedom of the press (4)
  • Freedom Riders (1)
  • French Revolution (1)
  • friend (2)
  • Friendship 7 (1)
  • Froma Harrop (1)
  • frontrunner (1)
  • funeral (2)
  • Gabrielle Giffords (3)
  • Gallup (10)
  • game (1)
  • Gandhi (2)
  • Gannett (1)
  • Garret Hobart (1)
  • gas prices (6)
  • Gazeta de Buenos Ayres (1)
  • Gene McCarthy (2)
  • general election (1)
  • generic Republican (1)
  • Gennifer Flowers (1)
  • George Carlin (2)
  • George Custer (1)
  • George H.W. Bush (15)
  • George Marshall (1)
  • George Orwell (1)
  • George Pickett (1)
  • George Romney (1)
  • George Santayana (1)
  • George Wallace (6)
  • George Washington (1)
  • George Zimmerman (2)
  • Georgia (2)
  • Gerald Ford (17)
  • Gettysburg (2)
  • Gianni Versace (1)
  • Gingrich (1)
  • goat roast (1)
  • gold (1)
  • Golden Gate Bridge (1)
  • Goldwater (1)
  • Good Friday (1)
  • good old days syndrome (1)
  • Gore (4)
  • government (1)
  • governor (3)
  • governor's race (2)
  • governor's races (1)
  • governors (1)
  • graduate school (1)
  • grandmother (2)
  • Grant (1)
  • Grant Ujifusa (1)
  • gravitas (1)
  • Great Britain (1)
  • Great Depression (1)
  • Great Society (1)
  • Gregory XII (1)
  • Groundhog Day (1)
  • Guantanamo (1)
  • Gulf of Mexico (6)
  • Gulf oil spill (9)
  • gun control (2)
  • guns (3)
  • H.H. Holmes (1)
  • H.R. Haldeman (7)
  • hate crimes (1)
  • hate speech (1)
  • Hawaii (1)
  • headline (1)
  • health care (8)
  • Health.com (1)
  • hearings (1)
  • heart attack (1)
  • heart surgery (1)
  • heat (3)
  • heat wave (1)
  • Heath Shuler (1)
  • Heinrich Himmler (1)
  • Helen Gahagan Douglas (1)
  • Helen Thomas (1)
  • Henry David Thoreau (1)
  • Henry Livingston (1)
  • Henry Wallace (1)
  • Herald Sun (1)
  • Herb Kohl (1)
  • Herbert Hoover (1)
  • Herman Cain (2)
  • Herman Talmadge (1)
  • heroism (1)
  • high school (1)
  • hijacking (1)
  • Hillary (2)
  • Hindenburg disaster (1)
  • Hiroshima (2)
  • historic firsts (1)
  • history (178)
  • Hitler Youth (1)
  • hoax (1)
  • holidays (1)
  • Holocaust (2)
  • homecoming (1)
  • homicide (1)
  • honesty in politics (1)
  • hooding (1)
  • Hosni Mubarak (1)
  • hostages (1)
  • Hour of Lead (1)
  • House (13)
  • Houston (2)
  • Howard Kurtz (1)
  • Hubert Humphrey (3)
  • human experimentation (1)
  • humidity (1)
  • humorous headlines (1)
  • Hurricane Irene (1)
  • Hurricane Katrina (3)
  • I Have a Dream (1)
  • Ian Fleming (1)
  • ice (2)
  • ich bin ein Berliner (1)
  • icy road (1)
  • Idaho (2)
  • illegal (1)
  • Illinois (1)
  • immigrant (1)
  • immigration (1)
  • implosion (1)
  • inaugural address (1)
  • inauguration (2)
  • independents (2)
  • Indiana (1)
  • Indians (1)
  • indictments (1)
  • Inherit the Wind (1)
  • International Holocaust Remembrance Day (1)
  • internet (4)
  • interview (2)
  • interviews (2)
  • investigation (1)
  • Iowa (2)
  • Iowa caucus (2)
  • Iran-Contra hearings (1)
  • Iraq (2)
  • Iraq War (1)
  • IRS (1)
  • Israel (2)
  • Italy (1)
  • Jack Germond (2)
  • Jack Ruby (1)
  • Jackie Kennedy (1)
  • James Bond (1)
  • James Cagney (1)
  • James Garfield (1)
  • James Longstreet (1)
  • James McCord (2)
  • James Sherman (1)
  • Japan (3)
  • Jared Loughner (2)
  • Jari Askins (1)
  • Jaws (1)
  • Jay Cost (1)
  • Jeb Magruder (2)
  • Jefferson (1)
  • Jennifer Levin (1)
  • Jerald terHorst (1)
  • Jersey Shore attacks (1)
  • Jerusalem Post (1)
  • Jesus Christ Superstar (1)
  • JFK (15)
  • JFK assassination (6)
  • Jim Guy Tucker (1)
  • Jim Leavelle (1)
  • Jim Mattox (1)
  • Jimmy Carter (24)
  • Jindal (1)
  • job creation (2)
  • job gains (2)
  • joblessness (10)
  • jobs (7)
  • jobs report (2)
  • Joe Manchin (1)
  • Joe McCarthy (1)
  • John Adams (1)
  • John Anderson (1)
  • John Bell Hood (1)
  • John Boehner (4)
  • John Buford (1)
  • John Dean (9)
  • John Demjanjuk (1)
  • John Edwards (3)
  • John Ehrlichman (5)
  • John Glenn (1)
  • John Lennon (2)
  • John McClellan (1)
  • John McIntyre (1)
  • John Mitchell (4)
  • John Paul I (1)
  • John Paul II (4)
  • John Paul Stevens (2)
  • John Pemberton (1)
  • John Roberts (1)
  • John Sirica (2)
  • John Tyler (1)
  • John Ward (2)
  • Johnny Carson (2)
  • joint session of Congress (1)
  • Jon Stewart (1)
  • Joni Mitchell (1)
  • Joplin (1)
  • Joran van der Sloot (1)
  • Joshua Chamberlain (1)
  • journalism (51)
  • Journalist Day (1)
  • Jules Witcover (4)
  • July 20 (1)
  • June 18 (1)
  • jury duty (1)
  • justice (2)
  • Justice Department (2)
  • Justice Jim Johnson (3)
  • KAL Flight 007 (1)
  • Kansas (1)
  • Kansas City (2)
  • Kate Middleton (2)
  • Kent State (1)
  • Kentucky (2)
  • keynote address (1)
  • Kim Phúc (1)
  • kiss (1)
  • Kissinger (1)
  • Korea (1)
  • Kristen Breitweiser (1)
  • Ku Klux Klan (2)
  • labels (1)
  • Labor Day (2)
  • Labor Department (1)
  • landslide (1)
  • language (1)
  • laptops (1)
  • Lara Logan (1)
  • Larry Sabato (3)
  • laughter (1)
  • law (2)
  • Lawrence McDonald (1)
  • LBJ (16)
  • leadership (5)
  • Lee Atwater (1)
  • Lee Harvey Oswald (2)
  • left at the altar (1)
  • legislation (1)
  • Lena Dunham (1)
  • Lend-Lease (1)
  • liberal (1)
  • liberals (1)
  • Libya (4)
  • life expectancy (1)
  • likely voters (2)
  • Lil Musial (1)
  • Lincoln (7)
  • Lincoln Memorial (1)
  • Lindbergh (2)
  • Liselotte Pulver (1)
  • literacy (1)
  • Little Bighorn (1)
  • Little Rock (2)
  • Little Round Top (1)
  • Liz Carpenter (1)
  • Lloyd Bentsen (2)
  • Log Cabin Democrat (1)
  • logic (1)
  • Long Island (1)
  • low expectations (1)
  • Lowell Weicker (1)
  • luck of the Irish (1)
  • Lucy (1)
  • M*A*S*H (1)
  • Madison (1)
  • Maine (1)
  • Manchester Boddy (1)
  • Manchester Union Leader (1)
  • Marathon (3)
  • March on Washington (1)
  • Margaret Sanger (1)
  • Margaret Thatcher (1)
  • marijuana (1)
  • Marissa Alexander (1)
  • Mark Sanford (2)
  • Mark Twain (1)
  • Martin Luther King (3)
  • Mary Fallin (1)
  • MASH (1)
  • Massachusetts (2)
  • master's degree (1)
  • Maureen Dowd (1)
  • McCain (3)
  • McGovern (10)
  • media (4)
  • medical experiments (1)
  • memorial service (2)
  • memories (2)
  • Menachem Begin (1)
  • mentor (1)
  • Miami (1)
  • Michael Barone (5)
  • Michael Gauldin (2)
  • Michele Bachmann (4)
  • Michigan (1)
  • Middle East (1)
  • midterms (29)
  • Migrant Mother (1)
  • Mike Culpepper (2)
  • Mike Wallace (1)
  • milestone (1)
  • military tribunals (1)
  • Minuteman hamburgers (1)
  • miracles (1)
  • Miss America (1)
  • missing person (1)
  • Missouri (1)
  • mistakes (1)
  • mistrial (1)
  • Mitch McConnell (1)
  • Mitt Romney (23)
  • MLK Day (1)
  • Moammar Gadhafi (1)
  • Mom (13)
  • Mondale (7)
  • Monica Lewinsky (2)
  • Monroe (1)
  • Montana (1)
  • Monty Python (1)
  • moon walk (1)
  • mosque (1)
  • mother (1)
  • Mother Teresa (1)
  • Mount St. Helens (1)
  • movie (3)
  • movie theater (2)
  • MSNBC (2)
  • murder (2)
  • music (2)
  • Muslim (1)
  • Muslims (1)
  • Mussolini (1)
  • my goddaughter (2)
  • My Lai (1)
  • My Man (1)
  • mystery (1)
  • myths (1)
  • N word (1)
  • NAACP (1)
  • Nagasaki (1)
  • Nancy Pelosi (2)
  • NASA (4)
  • Natalee Holloway (1)
  • Nate Silver (1)
  • national convention (2)
  • National Day of Prayer (1)
  • National Defense University (1)
  • National Guard (1)
  • National Institute for Civil Discourse (1)
  • National Park Service (1)
  • National Review (1)
  • Nazis (4)
  • NCAA Tournament (1)
  • neighbor (1)
  • Neil Armstrong (1)
  • Nelson Mandela (1)
  • Nelson Rockefeller (1)
  • Nevada (2)
  • New Christy Minstrels (1)
  • New Covenant (1)
  • New Hampshire (4)
  • New Mexico (2)
  • New Orleans (1)
  • New York (2)
  • New York Daily News (1)
  • New York Post (2)
  • New York Sun (1)
  • New York Times (17)
  • New Yorker (1)
  • news (2)
  • newspaper (2)
  • newspaper war (1)
  • newspapers (5)
  • Nick Ut (1)
  • nicotine (1)
  • Night Stalker (1)
  • Nikki (1)
  • Nixon (52)
  • Nobel Prize (1)
  • nominating speech (1)
  • nomination (4)
  • nonviolence (1)
  • Norman (1)
  • North Carolina (2)
  • North Dakota (1)
  • Northeast (1)
  • Northwest Orient Airlines (1)
  • not guilty verdict (1)
  • NPR (3)
  • NTSB (1)
  • nuclear energy (1)
  • nuclear reactors (1)
  • nuclear weapons (1)
  • Obama (168)
  • obesity (1)
  • obituaries (3)
  • obituary (24)
  • Occupy Wall Street (1)
  • Ohio (4)
  • Oklahoma (3)
  • Oklahoma City (4)
  • old friends (1)
  • Oliver North (1)
  • Oliver Stone (1)
  • Olympe de Gouges (1)
  • Olympia Snowe (1)
  • One Two Three (1)
  • orbit (1)
  • Oregon (2)
  • Orteig Prize (1)
  • Osama bin Laden (4)
  • Our Sunday Visitor (1)
  • Oval Office speech (2)
  • P.T. Barnum (1)
  • Pacific Northwest (1)
  • Pacific Tsunami Warning Center (1)
  • Pakistan (1)
  • Palin (9)
  • papacy (2)
  • papal conclave (1)
  • paparazzi (1)
  • parachute (1)
  • pardon (2)
  • Paris (2)
  • parking meters (1)
  • party affiliation (1)
  • party unity (1)
  • Pat Buchanan (2)
  • Pat Caddell (1)
  • Patrick Caddell (1)
  • patriotism (1)
  • Patti Davis (1)
  • Paul Conrad (1)
  • Paul Krugman (1)
  • Paul Revere (1)
  • Paul Ryan (4)
  • Paula Deen (1)
  • pay for content (1)
  • PBS (1)
  • peace (2)
  • Peanuts (1)
  • Pearl Harbor (1)
  • Peggy Noonan (2)
  • Pennsylvania (1)
  • People Power (1)
  • performance (1)
  • Peru (1)
  • Peter Benchley (1)
  • Pew Research Center (1)
  • Philippines (1)
  • photograph (3)
  • photographer (1)
  • Phyllis (10)
  • picket (1)
  • Pittsburgh (1)
  • Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (1)
  • plane crash (1)
  • Planned Parenthood (1)
  • Plessy v. Ferguson (1)
  • poem (1)
  • polarization (1)
  • policy (1)
  • political commercial (1)
  • political correctness (1)
  • political phrases (1)
  • Politico (1)
  • politics (8)
  • Politics Daily (2)
  • polls (10)
  • pope (3)
  • Pope Francis (1)
  • Pope-elect Stephen (1)
  • popularity (1)
  • population (1)
  • poverty (1)
  • predictions (1)
  • prep school (1)
  • Prescott Daily Courier (1)
  • presidency (148)
  • presidential campaign (5)
  • presidential debates (3)
  • presidential decisions (1)
  • presidential election (13)
  • presidential elections (2)
  • presidential nomination (4)
  • presidential rankings (1)
  • presidential succession (1)
  • presidents (1)
  • Presidents Day (1)
  • press (2)
  • press conference (2)
  • press conferences (1)
  • primaries (8)
  • primary (2)
  • prime minister (1)
  • Prince Charles (2)
  • Prince William (2)
  • Princess Diana (3)
  • priorities (1)
  • prison (1)
  • prison camp guard (1)
  • Prison Fellowship (1)
  • proofreading (1)
  • proposed ban (1)
  • protest (2)
  • protest vote (1)
  • psychiatry (1)
  • pubic hair (1)
  • public service announcement (1)
  • Pulitzer Prize (2)
  • questions (1)
  • Quran burning (1)
  • race relations (1)
  • racism (2)
  • Randy (1)
  • Randy Sparks (1)
  • ransom money (1)
  • rape (1)
  • Rasmussen (1)
  • Ray Thornton (1)
  • Raymond Carver (1)
  • read my lips (1)
  • Reagan (38)
  • Reagan revolution (1)
  • Real Clear Science (1)
  • recession (2)
  • recovery (1)
  • Recovery Summer (1)
  • redistricting (1)
  • reflections (1)
  • registered voters (2)
  • religion (5)
  • repeal (1)
  • Republicans (54)
  • resignation (1)
  • retirement (1)
  • reunion (1)
  • Reuters (2)
  • revolution (2)
  • Rich Lowry (1)
  • Richard Ramirez (1)
  • Richardson (1)
  • Rick Perry (2)
  • Riverside Church (1)
  • robbery (1)
  • Robert Altman (1)
  • Robert Byrd (2)
  • Robert Chambers (1)
  • Robert E. Lee (2)
  • Robert Kennedy (2)
  • Robert Shrum (3)
  • Rockefeller Republicans (1)
  • roller coaster (1)
  • rolling blackouts (1)
  • Romney (4)
  • Rose Mary Woods (1)
  • Ross Perot (1)
  • rough sex (1)
  • Roy Reed (1)
  • royal family (1)
  • royal wedding (2)
  • rumor (1)
  • running mate (5)
  • Ruth Marcus (1)
  • sacrifice (1)
  • Saddam Hussein (1)
  • Sal Veder (1)
  • Sally Ride (3)
  • Sam Dash (1)
  • Sam Ervin (4)
  • same-sex marriage (1)
  • Samuel Johnson (1)
  • San Diego (1)
  • San Francisco (2)
  • Sandra Day O'Connor (1)
  • Santa Claus (1)
  • Santorum (1)
  • Sara Teasdale (1)
  • Sargent Shriver (2)
  • Saturday Night Live (2)
  • scandal (2)
  • scandals (1)
  • scapegoat (1)
  • school violence (3)
  • seatbelts (1)
  • second term (2)
  • secretary of state (1)
  • security (1)
  • segregation (1)
  • Senate (20)
  • Senate Watergate Committee (2)
  • sentencing (1)
  • Sentinel (1)
  • September 11 (4)
  • serial killer (2)
  • sesquicentennial (2)
  • Seward's Folly (1)
  • sex abuse scandal (1)
  • sexual assault (1)
  • Shannon Stone (1)
  • sharks (1)
  • shaving (1)
  • Shea Allen (1)
  • Shirley Sherrod (1)
  • shooting (7)
  • shootings (1)
  • Short Cuts (1)
  • sic semper tyrannis (1)
  • siege (1)
  • Siena College survey (1)
  • Sigmund Freud (1)
  • Silly Putty (1)
  • silver lining (1)
  • Six Flags Over Texas (2)
  • small business (1)
  • SmartMoney.com (1)
  • smoke-free (1)
  • smoking (4)
  • smoking gun (2)
  • social Darwinism (1)
  • socialism (1)
  • Society of Professional Journalists (1)
  • soft drinks (1)
  • Sonny Bono (1)
  • South (5)
  • South Africa (1)
  • South Carolina (3)
  • Soviet Union (2)
  • Soviets (2)
  • space (8)
  • space shuttle (2)
  • space travel (2)
  • special election (1)
  • speculation (1)
  • speech (8)
  • speeches (2)
  • Spirit of St. Louis (1)
  • Spiro Agnew (2)
  • sports (2)
  • St. Louis Post-Dispatch (1)
  • St. Patrick's Day (1)
  • staff (1)
  • stamp prices (1)
  • Stan Musial (1)
  • standoff (1)
  • State of the News Media (1)
  • State of the Union (2)
  • Steve Davidson (1)
  • Steve Kornacki (1)
  • Stewart Udall (1)
  • stigma (1)
  • Stockdale (2)
  • stocks (1)
  • Stonewall Jackson (1)
  • straw poll (2)
  • street (1)
  • Strom Thurmond (1)
  • Stuart Rothenberg (3)
  • study (2)
  • suicide (1)
  • summer (1)
  • Summer Olympics (1)
  • Super Bowl (2)
  • Super Pacs (1)
  • Super Tuesday (2)
  • Supreme Court (9)
  • surveillance (1)
  • Susan Estrich (2)
  • Syria (3)
  • T.S. Eliot (1)
  • Tammy (1)
  • tank ride (1)
  • tape gap (1)
  • tapes (1)
  • taping system (1)
  • Tar Baby (1)
  • taxes (2)
  • Tea Partiers (2)
  • teaching (3)
  • technology (1)
  • Ted Stevens (1)
  • Telegraph (1)
  • Tennessee (1)
  • term limits (1)
  • Terri Schiavo (1)
  • terrorism (10)
  • Terry Jones (1)
  • Texas (10)
  • Texas Stadium (1)
  • Texas State Fair (1)
  • text message (1)
  • Thanksgiving (2)
  • The Almanac of American Politics 1994 (1)
  • The American Interest (2)
  • The American Spectator (1)
  • The Blue Marble (1)
  • The Brethren (1)
  • The Daily Show (1)
  • The Guardian (1)
  • The Long Recall (1)
  • The Making of the President 1964 (1)
  • The Making of the President 1968 (2)
  • The New Review (1)
  • The Night Before Christmas (1)
  • The Oklahoman (1)
  • The Rothenberg Political Report (1)
  • The West Wing (1)
  • theft (1)
  • Theodore H. White (12)
  • Theodore Roosevelt (3)
  • There Will Come Soft Rains (1)
  • Thirteen Days (1)
  • Thomas Jefferson (2)
  • Thought Police (1)
  • threats (1)
  • TIME (3)
  • time travel (1)
  • Times Square car bomb (1)
  • Titanic (3)
  • Toad Suck Daze (1)
  • tolerance (1)
  • Tom Dewey (2)
  • Tom Eagleton (3)
  • Tom Petty (1)
  • Tommy Thompson (1)
  • Tonight Show (1)
  • tornado (2)
  • tragedy (1)
  • Trang Bang (1)
  • transatlantic flight (1)
  • transcripts (1)
  • transparency (1)
  • travel (1)
  • Trayvon Martin (1)
  • trial (2)
  • triangulation (1)
  • tributes (1)
  • Truman (6)
  • Truman Capote (1)
  • ts (1)
  • TSA (1)
  • tsunami (1)
  • Tucson (2)
  • TV (5)
  • TV reporter (1)
  • TWA Flight 800 (1)
  • tweeting (1)
  • twins (1)
  • tyrants (1)
  • U.S. (2)
  • U.S. News and World Report (1)
  • U.S. Postal Service (1)
  • unemployment (25)
  • unemployment benefits (4)
  • United Kingdom (1)
  • unity (1)
  • University of Arizona (1)
  • University of Arkansas (1)
  • University of North Texas (1)
  • unsinkable (1)
  • USA Today (3)
  • Valentina Tereshkova (1)
  • values (1)
  • Vermont (2)
  • vice presidency (5)
  • vice president (1)
  • vice presidential debate (3)
  • vice presidential nomination (3)
  • Vicksburg (1)
  • video (1)
  • Vietnam (14)
  • Vilonia (2)
  • Virginia (6)
  • Virginia Tech killings (1)
  • volcano (1)
  • voters (4)
  • voting machines (1)
  • voting rights (1)
  • WAAY (1)
  • Waco (1)
  • Walker Report (1)
  • Wall Street (2)
  • Wall Street Journal (2)
  • Walter Cronkite (1)
  • Walter Russell Mead (1)
  • Wannsee Conference (1)
  • war (5)
  • war on terrorism (3)
  • Warren Commission (1)
  • Warren Harding (2)
  • wars (1)
  • Washington (2)
  • Washington Examiner (1)
  • Washington Post (13)
  • watchdog (1)
  • water (1)
  • Watergate (16)
  • Watergate hearings (8)
  • weather (7)
  • West (1)
  • West Berlin (1)
  • West Virginia (3)
  • Westboro Baptist Church (1)
  • Westworld (1)
  • White House (2)
  • White Star Line (1)
  • Whitney Houston (1)
  • Wilbur Mills (1)
  • William Calley (1)
  • William Henry Harrison (1)
  • William Howard Taft (1)
  • William Manchester (1)
  • William Saxbe (1)
  • William Seward (1)
  • Willie Horton (1)
  • wimp factor (1)
  • Windham Hill (1)
  • Winston Churchill (1)
  • winter (2)
  • Winthrop Rockefeller (2)
  • Wisconsin (4)
  • withdrawal (1)
  • women (3)
  • women's liberation (1)
  • Woodrow Wilson (3)
  • Woodward and Bernstein (4)
  • World Series (1)
  • World Trade Center (1)
  • World War II (4)
  • writing (1)
  • written language (1)
  • Wyoming (1)
  • Yarnell's ice cream (1)
  • year in review (1)
  • youth vote (2)
  • Zapruder film (1)

Blog Archive

  • ▼  2013 (65)
    • ▼  September (8)
      • In Pursuit of Peace in the Middle East
      • The Day a Birmingham Church Was Bombed
      • Will We Ever Know the Truth About JFK?
      • George Wallace: No Middle Ground
      • A Ride in a Tank
      • Myth America
      • Between a Rock and a Hard Place
      • When the Cold War Got Hot
    • ►  August (9)
    • ►  July (15)
    • ►  June (10)
    • ►  May (7)
    • ►  April (5)
    • ►  March (6)
    • ►  February (2)
    • ►  January (3)
  • ►  2012 (100)
    • ►  December (3)
    • ►  November (4)
    • ►  October (8)
    • ►  September (6)
    • ►  August (10)
    • ►  July (11)
    • ►  June (12)
    • ►  May (10)
    • ►  April (11)
    • ►  March (11)
    • ►  February (10)
    • ►  January (4)
  • ►  2011 (172)
    • ►  December (8)
    • ►  November (7)
    • ►  October (8)
    • ►  September (11)
    • ►  August (20)
    • ►  July (20)
    • ►  June (16)
    • ►  May (12)
    • ►  April (19)
    • ►  March (20)
    • ►  February (15)
    • ►  January (16)
  • ►  2010 (163)
    • ►  December (15)
    • ►  November (13)
    • ►  October (11)
    • ►  September (10)
    • ►  August (21)
    • ►  July (14)
    • ►  June (14)
    • ►  May (19)
    • ►  April (28)
    • ►  March (18)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile