Yeah Specter was just bizarre, casting that vote after what he said. That was one of the things I had a really hard time grasping when the bill was passed.
Specter is a living refutation of the idea that moderation is a good thing. He always seems to be the guy who ends up doing the dirty work. (James Baker and George H. W. Bush are two more -- not ideoklogues, but totally cold-blooded and ruthless).
I ♥ Dahlia Lithwick. This is a brilliant rebuttal of why people should just shut up about judicial activism (as opposed to individual wrong decisions, which they may continue to complain about) as well as one of the many reasons Congress should be ashamed of itself.
James Baker and George H. W. Bush are two more -- not ideoklogues, but totally cold-blooded and ruthless
I sort of like GHWB and Baker for roughly that reason.
The other thing that bugs the crap out of me about this is that in the case of detainees, this cynical proceduralism is going to delay intolerably any sort of justice. A couple of years of paper-shuffling might not seem like so long in DC, but in a naval brig?
I have such a crush on Dalia Lithwick. She's superawesomebest.
Though not enough of a crush to avoid typoing her name, unfortunately.
If you like GHWB, you like Oliver North. GHWB was a major player in Iran Contra, and jimmied the investigation so that he came off scot-free. Walsh's frustration drips from the page of his report.
There's really nothing too reptilian for him or for Baker, though they are prudent. All the scuzzy things Dubya has been successful at warm his dad's heart.
Indeed, the Bushes are sleazy in ways that the Kennedys could only dream of being.
You know, seriously. Let's forget this political activism, write meaningful and convincing things about the issues, get people to vote bullshit, and just form a gang to drive down/up/over to Washington and physically beat people to a fucking pulp when they pull this shit. You know? I'm sure it's covered by the 2nd amendment, and even if it's not, fuck it. Specter and most of the Republican party just really need a good ass-kicking. Bring your own blunt weapons and steel-toed boots. Apo and Chopper can hold people down, and the rest of us can administer the beating.
Aw, man. THe holding down part is boring. I like doing the beatings!
10:A sign of progress! But too soon, too soon. I think. I don't quite know why I believe this, but I think the left will be ready for violent activism only after the right initiates it. It is a dialectical thing, based on instinct and intuition more than analysis, but I think that the moment that the right demonstrates its desperation in thuggery is the moment when the left has its greatest potential. The right must be driven to rage, which will enlighten and liberate the left.
I suspect this is old and trite to revolutionary theorists. And I still say give it thirty days of mainstream work. The closer Dems get to actually taking the Congress, IMO the more likely Repubs are to do crazy stuff. I would honestly like to see the Repubs take fifty new seats in November. Those guys would never take their oaths. I hope.
Even Ruy Teixeira couldn't this time say:"Well, maybe my polling methodology needs tweaking."
Bob is waiting for the clarifying moment.
13:Not quite waiting. I post comments like:"Bush must be tried in the Hague for War Crimes." Scot Horton, with the assumption of trials for the WH, over at Balkin's extended War Crimes to Yoo and Addington. Perhaps Repubs in Congress? Scott Horton was not so subtly asking for European help. I cannot speak for him, but my rhetoric is directed at the left for the consumption of the right.
Can I point out a hypocrisy?
Why is it okay for us to badmouth the courts as activist when they "clean up" a law that is clearly unconstitutional but we disagree; and it's okay to give permission to the court to "clean up" a law that is clearly unconstitutional because we pass it knowing it is unconstitutional?
I'd also like to point out that pointing out hypocrisies among politicos is the hobgoblin of small minds.
Rich - I think the point was that it's not okay to badmouth the court as activist for cleaning up any laws, whether or not we disagree. Badmouth the decision (if you disagree), not the activism.
Ok, I finally read the post instead of just b's comment. Scott Lemieux has been on this recently, with discussion of Mark Graber's book on Dred Scott:Dred Scott as a Weapon
"In addition, the fact that antebellum slavery policy is used to attack the ineptitude of the court and romanticize the ability of legislatures to reach stable compromises demonstrates the extent to which these claims rest on feeble tautologies." ...SL
I, too, heart DL, but the last sentence quoted is totally a swing-and-a-miss. It should read, "And if [members of Congress] do not take their own obligations seriously, then they should be voted out of office."
I know that's not all centrist and Slate-y and Washington Post-ish, but that is the conclusion that follows from the premises.
The concluding paragraph of the published piece
"Should the Supreme Court bail out Congress for the unconstitutional provisions of the new detainee legislation? Once again, it has no choice. But the real question is whether the public should bail it out. We can always choose not to."
is a dribbler down the line, easily fielded for an out. Dribblers are a hazard when your co-author is a law professor, but DL usually does better, and her editor should have applied a judicious blue pencil.