Politics

by hilzoy

There’s a fascinating new idea abroad in some parts of the right-wing blogosphere: that Friday’s story about the torture and death of two Afghan prisoners in US custody is just an attempt on the part of the New York Times to divert attention from Newsweek‘s retraction of its story on flushing Qur’ans down toilets. Some cites:

Instapundit: “READER JAMES MCCORMICK EMAILS:

Does the latest NYT articles on deaths-in-custody in Afghanistan smack of diversion to take the heat off Newsweek? Set a fire somewhere else so Newsweek never has to acknowledge any responsibility for its acts. Newsweek can return the favour during the next NYT scandal. The MSM guild is all about authority without responsibility. Can’t have that change …

And it’s not just the NYT, as I’ve seen other examples of this phenomenon in quite a few outlets. As Martin Peretz noted, they’re circling the wagons.”

John Podhoretz at The Corner: “The New York Times continues the bizarre act of carrying Newsweek’s water in the wake of the false Koran-desecration story (which I write about this morning here). The paper’s lead story is a lurid account of the vicious treatment of two Afghan prisoners by U.S. soldiers — events that occurred in December 2002 and for which seven servicemen have been properly punished. Let me repeat that: December 2002. That’s two and a half years ago. Every detail published by the Times comes from a report done by the U.S. military, which did the investigating and the punishing. The publication of this piece this week is an effort not to get at the truth, not to praise the military establishment for rooting out the evil being done, but to make the point that the United States is engaged in despicable conduct as it fights the war on terror. In the name of covering the behinds of media colleagues, all is fair in hate and war.”

See also Hugh Hewitt, the inimitable Wretchard, and, of course, LGF.

This is just crazy.

Read more

by Charles

Last January, I became convinced that Dino Rossi should contest the governor’s race and call for a revote.  This Monday, the trial begins and Republicans will make their case that the 2004 election for governor should be canceled and that a revote be conducted.  Most of the evidence will focus on lapses by King County election officials.  While other counties also made mistakes, they pale before massive numbers of mistakes in King County.  If anything, there are now many more and many larger errors by King County, in the form of illegal provisional ballots included in the vote tally, felon votes and discrepancies between the numbers of ballots and numbers of voters.  While the N-word (negligence) has been used liberally and rightfully so in this mess, I had seen no evidence of the F-word (fraud).  Until two days ago.  In the Seattle Times:

Read more

by hilzoy

Sebastian has been making an interesting argument about the history of blocking judicial nominees over in the ‘Out of Bounds’ thread, and what he said prompted me to do some more digging on the various ways in which, traditionally, judicial appointees could be blocked. A good short history by the Congressional Research Service is here (pdf). Some of the means included:

Read more

by hilzoy

Today, in the debate over the nuclear option, Rick Santorum said this:

“We shouldn’t go mucking around in this institution and changing the way we’ve done things, particularly when it comes to the balance of powers between the three branches of government, and the independence of one of those branches, the judiciary. We must tread very carefully before we go radically changing the way we do business here that has served this country well, and we have radically changed the way we do business here. Some are suggesting that we are trying to change the law, that we’re trying to break the rules. Remarkable. Remarkable hubris. I mean, imagine, the rule has been in place for 214 years that this is the way we confirm judges. Broken by the other side two years ago, and the audacity of some members to stand up and say, how dare you break this rule. It’s the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942,saying, “I’m in Paris. How dare you invade me. How dare you bomb my city? It’s mine.” This is no more the rule of the Senate than it was the rule of the Senate before not to filibuster. It was an understanding and agreement, and it has been abused.” (Transcript mine, from the CSPAN video linked at Crooks and Liars.)

Four points. First, this is completely and totally out of bounds. And I don’t mean this in some PC, “ooh he said the H-word” sort of way. I mean: no one who had a shred of honor, or who in any way appreciated the horror of Nazi Germany, would dare to make this comparison without thinking for a very, very long time about whether it was fully warranted, and whether there was no other way to make his point. In this case, there were many other ways. Santorum could, for instance, have compared the Democrats to a child who takes her sister’s toys and then says, no, you can’t take them, they’re mine. He could have said any number of things and made the same point. But he said this. It’s dishonorable and shameful. And yes, I feel the same way when Democrats do this.

Read more

by hilzoy

Tomorrow morning, the Senate is scheduled to begin the debate that could lead to the Republicans invoking the ‘nuclear option’. I think that invoking the nuclear option would be a terrible mistake. I do not say this because of my views on the filibuster itself. I have tried to step back from current controversies and consider the filibuster dispassionately, and when I do, I find that I am much more strongly in favor of it in the case of judicial nominations than in other cases, both because, while legislation can generally be undone, judicial appointments are for life, and because what’s at issue in judicial appointments is the constitution of a separate branch of government. For this reason, I would oppose removing the possibility of filibustering judicial nominations in any case.

For me, the biggest problem with the nuclear option is not that it would prevent Senators from filibustering judicial nominations, but that it would require breaking the Senate’s own rules. And this is not just a problem for liberals. Here’s what Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute has to say about it:

The Senate is on the verge of meltdown over the nuclear option, an unprecedented step that would shatter 200 years of precedent over rules changes and open up a Pandora’s box of problems in the years ahead. The shaky bipartisanship that holds the Senate together–in a way that is virtually absent in the House–could be erased. Major policy problems could be caught up in the conflict. The Senate itself would never be the same.

Let us put aside for now the puerile arguments over whether judicial filibusters are unprecedented: They clearly, flatly, are not. Instead, let’s look at the means used to achieve the goal of altering Senate procedures to block filibusters on judicial nominations.

Without getting into the parliamentary minutiae–the options are dizzying, including whether points of order are “nested”–one reality is clear. To get to a point where the Senate decides by majority that judicial filibusters are dilatory and/or unconstitutional, the Senate will have to do something it has never done before.

Richard Beth of the Congressional Research Service, in a detailed report on the options for changing Senate procedures, refers to it with typical understatement as “an extraordinary proceeding at variance with established procedure.”

To make this happen, the Senate will have to get around the clear rules and precedents, set and regularly reaffirmed over 200 years, that allow debate on questions of constitutional interpretation–debate which itself can be filibustered. It will have to do this in a peremptory fashion, ignoring or overruling the Parliamentarian. And it will establish, beyond question, a new precedent. Namely, that whatever the Senate rules say–regardless of the view held since the Senate’s beginnings that it is a continuing body with continuing rules and precedents–they can be ignored or reversed at any given moment on the whim of the current majority.

There have been times in the past when Senate leaders and presidents have been frustrated by inaction in the Senate and have contemplated action like this. Each time, the leaders and presidents drew back from the precipice. They knew that the short-term gain of breaking minority obstruction would come at the price of enormous long-term damage–turning a deliberative process into something akin to government by the Queen of Hearts in “Alice in Wonderland.”

Rule XXII is clear about extended debate and cloture requirements, both for changing Senate rules (two-thirds required) and any other action by the Senate, nominations or legislation (60 Senators required). Ignored in this argument has been Senate Rule XXXI, which makes clear that there is neither guarantee nor expectation that nominations made by the president get an up-or-down vote, or indeed any action at all.

It reads: “Nominations neither confirmed nor rejected during the session at which they are made shall not be acted upon at any succeeding session without being again made to the Senate by the President; and if the Senate shall adjourn or take a recess for more than thirty days, all nominations pending and not finally acted upon at the time of taking such adjournment or recess shall be returned by the Secretary to the President, and shall not again be considered unless they shall again be made to the Senate by the President.”

By invoking their self-described nuclear option without changing the rules, a Senate majority will effectively erase them. A new precedent will be in order–one making it easy and tempting to erase future filibusters on executive nominations and bills. Make no mistake about that.

I agree with Ornstein completely. This is serious business. So let me try to address some of the procedural issues involved.

Read more

Yglesias, on "bankruptcy":

Every time the President gives a speech claiming the system is heading for bankruptcy, I’d like to see news services report, "Speaking today in Canton, Ohio, the President repeated his misleading claim that Social Security is headed for bankruptcy. In fact, even after Social Security’s trust fund is exhausted (projected by the Social Security administration to happen in 2041, and by the Congressional Budget Office to happen in 2052) tax revenues will suffice to pay seventy percent of scheduled benefits."

Let’s put an end to this canard of the "do nothing" troupe, which has been peddled by folks who should know better for long enough.  Bush is absolutely right to say that Social Security is headed toward "bankruptcy"; it’s Yglesias who’s misusing the term.  Bankruptcy is not defined by the total absence of income or assets, as Yglesias (and others) implicitly assume when they make this argument.  Folks who go bankrupt always have some income or assets — and, sometimes, they have substantial income and assets.  The whole point of bankruptcy, after all, is to keep people from being ruined by their debts and to let them keep a couple things (their house, maybe their car) so they don’t end up destitute or on the streets.

Rather, folks go bankrupt because their debts exceed their income or assets, and there is no way for them to repay those debts in light of their current income or assets.  That pretty much describes a system that’s taking in "revenues [that only] suffice to pay seventy percent of" its liabilities.  In ordinary parlance, such a system is (or soon will be) "bankrupt."*  (Ahem.)

But, buck up Young Yglesias.  You’re ahead on points in the "Roosevelt is a traitor" v. "Bush is a traitor" debate.

UPDATE:  It looks like Jane Galt is thinking along the same lines (and she’s correct that "insolvent" is the better term, tho’ "bankrupt" is fine for informal purposes).  Great minds? 

Read more

by Charles

A few weeks ago, Michael Fumento asked why HIV is so prevalent in Africa, and it got me to thinking about our approach there.  No small part of the problem is the quality of information that comes to us, but there are also more steps that can be taken.  While the ABC approach is a sensible one for dampening the spread of AIDS in Africa, it seems like a few more letters should be added to the alphabet soup.  Here are mine:

• Diagnosis.  How can we solve the problem if we don’t know the scope?  As this article attests, estimates of those infected with HIV have been wildly overinflated.  Estimates are based more on computer science than medical science.
• Eradicate infected needles and body piercings.
• The ABC approach should stay in effect.  Abstinence is a foolproof way to prevent sexually transmitted HIV.  If folks cannot abstain, then the next best route is to be faithful.  If that cannot be done, then men should strap on condoms.  Another "C" should be added:  ‘Cides (that would be microbicides).
• If condoms are refused, then the next best thing is to eschew recipient anal intercourse, which is by far the most efficient way to get sexually infected with HIV.
• Try freedom.  Africa remains a dark continent in terms of political rights and civil liberties.  Out of forty-seven countries on the continent, only eight are free.  There is a direct correlation.  The most prosperous countries–which also happen to have the best medical care–happen to be the freest.
• Other avenues and alternatives.  Malaria and tuberculosis cause many more deaths.  Also, as this Economist article describes, there is a now a proven path for developing new drugs specifically for the third world.  The practical effect will be more net lives saved.

The acronym, DEABCETA, is long, unwieldy and does not roll off the tongue, but it strikes me as a better plan.  For those whose first response to eschew is "gesundheit", stop right here.  For the rest…

Read more

By Edward

In yet another demonstration of the environmental stewardship he championed on Earth Day, Bush today moved to open up to developers nearly 60 million acres of US forest that had been protected–34.3 million acres of pristine woodland in Alaska and Western states is due to be open to road building, logging and other commercial ventures, and they’re looking at ways to do the same to another 24.2 million acres.

Perhaps most disgusting about the change in rules is how the Administration that insists a 51% majority gives it a mandate and political capital to spend once again dismisses the concerns of multitudes of people who actually took action to voice opposition to their plans. From the Forest Service’s Summary of Public Comments and the Department’s Responses:

Volume of Public Comments and Support for the 2001 Roadless Rule: Many respondents discussed the volume of public comment received over the past 5 years in support of the 2001 roadless rule and that the proposed rule goes against the wishes of the American public.

Response: Every comment received is considered for its substance and contribution to informed decisionmaking, whether it is one comment repeated by tens of thousands of people or a comment submitted by only one person. The public comment process is not intended to serve as a scientifically valid survey process to determine public opinion. The emphasis in reviewing public comment is on the content of the comment rather than on the number of times a comment was received. The comment analysis process is intended to identify unique substantive comments relative to the proposal to facilitate their consideration in the decisionmaking process. All comments are considered, including comments that support and that oppose the proposal. That people do not agree on how public lands should be managed is a historical, as well as modern dilemma faced by resource managers. However, public comment processes, while imperfect, do provide a vital avenue for engaging a wide array of the public in resource management processes and outcomes.

In other words one person who agreed with the heavily lumber-industry-sponsored administration is given as much consideration as untold numbers of Americans who disagreed with the administration.

Read more

by Edward

Back in his State of the Union address in 2002, President Bush implied that the US could not tolerate nuclear weapons in the hands of "axis of evil" nations like Korea, Iran, and Iraq. We could not wait for them to get them, we could not stand by as they developed them:

We’ll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side.  I will not wait on events, while dangers gather.  I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer.  The United States of America will not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons.

So where do we stand three years later?

Read more

by hilzoy

This judge-bashing stuff has gone too far. From the NY Daily News, via Atrios:

“Federal judges are a more serious threat to America than Al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 terrorists, the Rev. Pat Robertson claimed yesterday.

“Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that’s held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings,” Robertson said on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”

“I think we have controlled Al Qaeda,” the 700 Club host said, but warned of “erosion at home” and said judges were creating a “tyranny of oligarchy.”

Confronted by Stephanopoulos on his claims that an out-of-control liberal judiciary is the worst threat America has faced in 400 years – worse than Nazi Germany, Japan and the Civil War – Robertson didn’t back down.

“Yes, I really believe that,” he said. “I think they are destroying the fabric that holds our nation together.” “

And, a few weeks ago, from Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council:

“The court has become increasingly hostile to Christianity, and it poses a greater threat to representative government — more than anything, more than budget deficits, more than terrorist groups.”

Just to state the obvious: we haven’t controlled al Qaeda; judges are not more of a threat than al Qaeda is, and they are certainly not the greatest threat we have faced in our history. But there’s a larger point, which I’ve been wanting to make for some time, and may as well make now.

Read more

David Brooks says he has a scoop:

Last week, the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid, made an offer to head off a nuclear exchange over judicial nominations. Reid offered to allow votes on a few of the judges stuck in limbo if the Republicans would withdraw a few of the others.

But there was another part of the offer that hasn’t been publicized. I’ve been reliably informed that Reid also vowed to prevent a filibuster on the next Supreme Court nominee. Reid said that if liberals tried to filibuster President Bush’s pick, he’d come up with five or six Democratic votes to help Republicans close off debate. In other words, barring a scandal or some other exceptional circumstance, Reid would enable Bush’s nominee to get a vote and probably be confirmed.

We’ll assume that Brooks’ report is accurate (there’s no reason not to.  Brooks (and Kevin Drum, who pointed me to this story) argue that Frist should’ve taken the deal:

… Frist should have grabbed Reid’s offer. He should have done it, first, because while the air is thick with confident predictions about what will happen if the nuclear trigger is pulled, nobody really knows. There is a very good chance that as the battle escalates, passions will surge, the tattered fabric of professionalism will dissolve, and public revulsion for both parties will explode.

….

Second, Frist should have grabbed this offer because it’s time for senators to re-establish the principle that they, not the outside interest groups, run the Senate. Right now, most senators want to avoid a meltdown. It’s the outside interest groups that are goading them into the fight.

Of course the groups want a fight. The activists get up every morning hoping to change the judiciary, dreaming of total victory. Of course they’re willing to sacrifice everything else for that cause. But senators are supposed to know that serving the interest groups is not the same as serving the people: it is serving a passionate but unrepresentative minority of the people. At some point, leaders are supposed to stand up to maximalists, even the ones they mostly agree with.

Finally, it’s time to rediscover the art of the backroom deal. … In this model, leaders of the two parties would get together – yes, often in secret – and make reasonable bargains. …

Drum, focusing on Brooks’ second point, adds:

I don’t often agree with Brooks these days, but I think he’s on target here. This is not a symmetrical situation — conservative activist groups are way farther off the deep end these days than liberal ones — but it’s still a good thought for both sides. Making every fight into a game of nuclear chicken isn’t the right way to run a country.

I agree with Brooks quite a bit more frequently than Drum, and I generally agree with Brooks here.  But I think Drum is deluding himself if he thinks that "conservative activist groups are way farther off the deep end these days than liberal ones"; both are pretty damn off.  What conservative activists have (and liberal activists lack) is a majority of sympathetic representatives in the current Congress.

A couple further thoughts, however:

First, the timing of this "leak" is suspicious — and undoubtably strategic.  The Democrats must recognize that they lost the momentum on the issue with they rejected Frist’s deal, and they’re trying to get it back. 

Second, it seems clear that Frist couldn’t take a "secret" deal on judges for the same reason that Reid wanted the deal to be "secret":  If knowledge of the deal remained secret,* it’d look like Frist was outmaneuvered by the Democrats (again). Frist’s base would blow up.  (Indeed, there have already been calls to dump Frist as majority leader.)

By making public Reid’s "secret" proposal, however, the groundwork might be laid for a real deal that ends this so-called "crisis."  A public deal that guarantees an up-or-down vote on Bush’s next Supreme Court nominee is a deal worth taking.  Frist should risk trusting Reid — not only because it could lead to progress on judges, but because that’s what statesmen do.  If Reid reneges, there will be plenty of time for revenge.   

UPDATE:  Don Singleton, commenting on Reid’s offer, seems to relish the possibility of a showdown on Judges.  I think he doesn’t realize how fundamentally risky such a showdown is for both sides.  You just cannot predict the electorate’s behavior on an issue like this, and the views of each party’s "hard core" are likely to be out of step with the views of the center.  Singleton shouldn’t be so sure that this debate will play out in (on this issue, "our"**) side’s favor.  (See the Schiavo mess, for starters.)

Again, this battle is really for the Supreme Court — not for ten judges.  A deal that gets an up or down vote on Bush’s Supreme Court nominee is a deal that’s worth taking.  If Reid can bring his side to the table on this deal even after it’s public, Frist should take it.  Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Read more

by hilzoy

From the Denver Post, via Bitch, Ph.D.:

“The protocol of six Catholic hospitals run by Centura calls for rape victims to undergo an ovulation test.

If they have not ovulated, said Centura corporate spokeswoman Dana Berry, doctors tell the victims about emergency contraception and write prescriptions for it if the patient asks.

If, however, the urine test suggests that a rape victim has ovulated, Berry continued, doctors at Centura’s Catholic hospitals are not to mention emergency contraception. That means the victim can end up pregnant by her rapist.”

Or, in short: if a rape victim doesn’t need emergency contraception, the hospitals’ doctors will tell her about it; but if there’s a significant chance that she might actually get pregnant as a result of her rape, and therefore does need it, they won’t say a word.

Read more

The day it became apparent that GWB would be our president for another four years, I made a pledge to give him the benefit of doubt for 100 days into his new term. Like it or not, he was the president. I’m quite sure there are folks who think I broke that pledge, that I’ve been overly critical of the President since that day, that I’ve not given him the benefit of doubt in his actions. To those folks all I can say is "Wait for it." By comparison, you’ll see how much I held back. The honeymoon was a chance for him to prove my misgivings unfounded. He has failed.

Day 100 of the second term of George W. Bush we find an administration resistant to learning from its mistakes, an administration with three central and tragic flaws. I’ll cover two today (the third is larger and requires more cites…I’m working on it):

1. An allergy to accountability
2. A priority of perception over reality

Read more