Quit Feeding Porky!

Crises can have one of two effects on a populace and it’s leadership. Either people panic and lose their heads along with their better judgment or they pull together and accomplish feats previously thought impossible. Americans can take pride in the fact that they usually react in the latter manner. When times get tough we the people tend to summon an inner strength and resolve that propels us to rise to the occasion and answer the call. That this has been the case from our founding until now is an incontrovertible truth.

In almost every regard the American people have answered the call once again in light of the nation’s most recent crises-----Hurricane Katrina and her aftermath. The devastation along the gulf coast has been total and millions have been displaced from their homes, left with nothing but the clothes on their back. These millions have needed a helping hand from the their fellow Americans and the American people have offered it. Volunteers from all over the country are assisting in the recovery and rebuilding efforts and donations are flowing in from all over the nation. $5 million alone was raised in the Monday night telethon sponsored by the National Football League. Americans will do all they can to help in any way they can and we will not stop until the region is rebuilt and every displaced American is back in their homes.

Out of character however has been the reaction from some of our political leaders in this unfortunate ordeal. Instead of buckling down and adding a clear-headed approach many on capitol hill are acting hysterically, running around like chickens with their heads severed off. Take Minority Leader Harry Reid for example, who has proposed price controls on energy to curb price "gouging" in the market. With all due respect Mr. Minority Leader, no price "gouging" is occurring. Exorbitant energy prices are a result of the damage to refinery facilities in the gulf and a surge in world energy demand that the market is still adjusting to. Contrary to your instincts sir those evil energy companies are not colluding together to stick it to the American people at an advantageous moment to them.

The hysteria is not exclusive to Democrats either, many Republicans on the hill are beginning to panic as well. A handful of Republican senators have indicated a desire to raise certain taxes in order to cover the costs of Katrina relief, namely the capitol gains tax, currently at 15%. Possibly as much as price controls, hiking taxes would prove disastrous. The federal government will bring in $262 billion more in revenues for fiscal year ‘05 than in the previous year, entirely a result of the Bush tax-cuts which have grown the economy, created more jobs and subsequently more taxpayers. Raising taxes would reverse all of this and eventually result in the decline of federal revenues. Hiking taxes on capitol gains would also, as OpinionJournal has explained in some detail, scare investors at a time when the national economy is tenuously dependent on clear-headed leadership from Washington.

To cover the unanticipated costs of Katrina relief Republicans in Washington should act like Republicans for a change and cut federal spending, an idea completely foreign to most of them these days. A good place to start would be eliminating the type of pork that so riddled the transportation and energy bills. Republicans have allowed Porky the money-eating pig to feast at the federal trough for far too long, and as a result little Porky has grown into a large and odious boar. The free lunch has to stop. It’s time the federal government went on a diet and stopped feeding big ol' Porky.

Hat Tip: OpinionJournal, George Will

To Fight or Not to Fight?

Democratic Minority Leader Harry Reid has signaled his intention to vote against the Roberts’ nomination to be Chief Justice of the United States. What was illuminating about his comments on the Senate floor was not his declared intent to vote "nay", rather his comments following that, which were basically an acknowledgment that Judge Roberts’ confirmation is inevitable and he will not be orchestrating a Democratic filibuster or even encourage his caucus to vote against Judge Roberts. Such an approach is a result of the rock and a hard place he and Senate Democrats find themselves at this juncture. All but the most liberal and partisan have no choice but to admit that, in the words of David Broder, Judge Roberts is "so obviously– ridiculously– well-equipped to lead the government’s third branch" that widespread Democratic opposition is unjustifiable. Yet on the other hand there is the common demand from those far-left interest groups that Senate Democrats fight tooth-and-nail against the judge’s confirmation. Such a tug-of-war is likely to leave us with many more Harry Reid-type positions; acknowledgment that Judge Roberts is supremely qualified and certain to be confirmed but resigned to casting a symbolic but futile vote against him solely to appease the fringe elements of the base.

Why Democrats feel handcuffed in this way is another matter. It is no secret that the real battle over the Supreme Court will be over the president’s next nomination to fill the vacant seat of retiring justice Sandra Day O’Connor. With this in mind why are Democrats spending so much capitol on the current vacancy knowing full well that it is all for naught? They are going to need all the capitol they can get for the upcoming nomination, and then some. So knee-jerk has Democratic opposition to the president’s judicial nominations become that the public now expects Democrats to blindly oppose any nominee regardless of who they might be. A majority of "nay" votes against Judge Roberts only confirms this perception as reality. Further, it diminishes any credibility Democrats presumably would have had when rising in opposition to the next nominee, the one who will truly change the direction of the Court. The fable of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" comes to mind.

Far be it from me to give advice to the Democrats, but if they want to be in a strong position to stop the president’s second nominee they should rise in support of his current one. Lending overwhelming, bipartisan support to the Roberts nomination will give the Democrats what will be requisite for waging successful opposition down the road-----the illusion of reasonableness and credibility. They don’t have it now and they certainly won’t have it should a majority of the caucus capitulate to the base and vote against John Roberts’ nomination to be the next Chief Justice.

UPDATE (12:45 P.M. 9/21/05): Wise move senator, wise move.

UPDATE (12:53 P.M. 9/21/05): The price of disobeying your master:

When John Roberts becomes Chief Justice and votes to erode or overturn longstanding Supreme Court precedents protecting fundamental civil rights, women's rights, privacy, religious liberty, reproductive rights and environmental safeguards, Senator Leahy's support for Roberts will make him complicit in those rulings, and in the retreat from our constitutional rights and liberties.

--People for the American Way Chairman Ralph Neas

With all due respect Mr. Neas, get a grip.

In Memoriam

In loving memory of all who lost their lives on September 11, 2001. May we never forget the lessons learned that day.

Nomination Politics

John Hinderaker of Powerline has authored an interesting piece in The Daily Standard. He is right about the fact that Democrats were rendered impotent by the president’s nomination of Judge Roberts to replace outgoing justice Sandra Day O’Connor and he is right that now that Judge Robert’s nomination has been elevated from associate to chief justice the Democrats will bring out the guns over the president’s next nominee to replace Justice O’Connor.

Where Mr. Hinderaker errs is in his summation that the nomination of Judge Roberts to chief justice as opposed to associate will be politically deleterious to the president and the nomination process. It won’t.

In Mr. Hinderaker’s esteemed judgment, the politically expedient thing to do would have been to leave things as they were. By nominating Roberts to replace Justice O’Connor the president had artfully insured that Justice O’Connor would be replaced by a nominee who could tilt the court to the right while remaining impervious to liberal attacks. This much is true, for Judge Robert’s brilliant legal intellect, impressive resume, and pragmatic conservatism have made it nearly impossible for the left to demonize him in the same manner they did past nominees to the Supreme Court.

The flaw in this logic however is the assumption that Democrats would have shrugged in defeat and simply said, "Well, you got us" once Judge Roberts was confirmed. Unable to thwart the Robert’s nomination there is no doubt that Democrats would have then centered all their pent-up energy on the next vacancy that they were unable to expend on the previous one. The fact that the president would be then nominating one judicial conservative to replace another for chief justice would not matter, for the Democrats would argue that since the Court’s ideological composition was not maintained in the previous vacancy it must be reinstated with the current one. A fight/debate over the Court’s direction was and is inevitable, the only difference now is that fight will be over O’Connor’s seat as opposed to Rehnquist’s.

Further, the conventional wisdom that the president’s reduced political standing will diminish his ability to win this fight is also wrong. A substantial majority of senators represent conservative-leaning states that cast their electoral votes for the president in last year’s election. One of the main concerns of rank-and-file conservatives is the direction of the federal judiciary, and the judiciary is one of the few issues which motivates conservatives to turnout in droves on election day. Red state senators will vote to confirm judicial conservatives not because of the president’s political capitol or standing, but because doing so is in the best interests of their own political standing back home. Failing to send judicial conservatives to the bench will simply give rank-and-file conservatives already disenchanted with Washington Republicans one more excuse to stay home on election day and make Democrats representing Republican states even more vulnerable than they may already be. Political self-preservation, not the president’s political clout, will carry the day.

The Next Chief Justice

President Bush’s reallocation of the nomination of Judge John Roberts to be chief justice instead of associate justice is, to say the least, a solid move. With the late chief justice’s health declining over the past year and the pending retirement of Justice O’Connor the writing on the wall has been up the entire summer; the president would have two nominations to make. If the president is to nominate a strong, credentialed constitutionalist, such as Judge J. Michael Luttig, along with Judge Roberts than Judge Roberts is the logical choice to become the 17th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. His low-key, humble demeanor, leadership skills, legal brilliance, and personal gravity are traits tailor made for the center seat on the Supreme Court, and are all traits held by Judge Robert’s former boss and, almost assuredly, his predecessor.

It has been a rough year for the president, and adding his signature to the pork-laden energy and transportation bills have not been the highlights of his presidency. However as brilliant as Judge Robert’s legal mind and intellect is so to is the president’s selection of Judge Roberts to be chief justice. Assuming the president nominates another constitutionalist to fill Justice O’Connor’s seat, something he can be trusted to do, the Roberts Court should introduce a new, golden age of constitutional jurisprudence. A development constitutionalists such as myself have been waiting for a long time.

ADDED NOTE (9/5/05 12:23 P.M.): The chatter from some of the enlightened punditry in Washington that the president should now nominate a "hurricane pick" to fill the other vacancy on the Court highlights just how disconnected from reality so many in Washington and the establishment really are. Do these pundits honestly think that the thousands of refugees and survivors in the gulf states, having lost homes, property, and even friends and family are going to, in the midst of all this, care one bit right now about a Supreme Court nomination, or even pay a second thought to it? They have more pressing issues confronting them and to think that a Supreme Court nominee has any relevance to any of those issues is an act in the theater of the absurd.

In Memoriam: Chief Justice William Rehnquist

The death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist last night is a significant loss for the Supreme Court, the federal judiciary, and the nation. Chief Justice Rehnquist was an outstanding jurist who respected the written law above all else and applied it consistently and fairly. The Court’s quality would be much improved if there were nine Rehnquists on the bench, and his leadership of the Court and stewardship of the laws of the United States will be greatly missed.