From the WSJ Opinion Archives
To
the Bitter End
The liberal Washington
Post has endorsed John Roberts's confirmation as chief justice. Even the
far-left Star
Tribune of Minneapolis has done so. But not the New York Times, which in
an editorial yesterday futilely urged the Senate to vote Roberts's nomination
down on the ground that he is, as the headline put it, "Too Much of a Mystery":
The unknowns about Mr. Roberts's views remain troubling, especially since he is being nominated not merely to the Supreme Court, but to be chief justice. That position is too important to entrust to an enigma, which is what Mr. Roberts remains. . . .
If the test were legal skill alone, Mr. Roberts would certainly pass. But the Senate and the American people have a right to know whether he would use his abilities to defend core rights and liberties, or to narrow them. . . .
Over days of testimony, he dodged and weaved around many . . . critical legal issues. On abortion, church-state separation, gay rights and the right of illegal immigrants' children to attend public school--all currently recognized by the court--he asks to be accepted on faith. That just isn't good enough. . . .
If he is confirmed, we think there is a chance Mr. Roberts could be a superb chief justice. But it is a risk. We might be reluctant to roll the dice even for a nomination for associate justice, but for a nomination for a chief justice--particularly one who could serve 30 or more years--the stakes are simply too high. Senators should vote against Mr. Roberts not because they know he does not have the qualities to be an excellent chief justice, but because he has not met the very heavy burden of proving that he does.
Avast! Yet the paper sounded rather a different tune in a July 25, 1993, editorial endorsing the confirmation of Ruth Bader Ginsburg:
While members of the Senate Judiciary Committee droned through Ruth Bader Ginsburg's hearings last week, the nominee could have been forgiven for thinking, Don't scoff, hang on a little longer and you're in. Endure she did, showing not only knowledge, but also the patience and courtesy befitting a justice of the highest court.
No thanks to the committee, the hearings displayed the workings of a focused legal mind. She dwarfed not only her questioners but all the recent nominees to the Supreme Court she will soon join. Fortunately the senators realize this much: She deserves speedy confirmation.
Judge Ginsburg--teacher, women's advocate and for 13 years a member of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington--outclassed those entrusted to advise and consent on her nomination to replace retired Justice Byron White. Fittingly, most of the senators admitted they were not in her league, although the chairman, Joseph Biden, and other preening members insisted on their own shows, largely in the form of erratic questions. . . .
While the politicians repeatedly pressed for bottom lines on particular issues like the death penalty and gay rights, Ms. Ginsburg asked to be judged as a judge, not as an advocate. Senators who could not be educated yielded anyway--to the reality that Judge Ginsburg enjoys overwhelming Senate support.
Change "Ginsburg" to "Roberts," "she" to "he," "the chairman" to "Delaware's premier windbag," and so on, and this could very easily be an editorial about last week's hearings. So what's the difference? Could it have anything to do with the fact that Ginsburg was nominated by a Democrat and Roberts by a Republican?
True, Ginsburg wasn't up for chief justice, a position whose importance the Times exaggerates, perhaps out of Earl Warren nostalgia. (In a 1986 editorial opposing William Rehnquist, the Times rhapsodized that the chiefdom is "the noblest position in American law.") But does anyone really believe that a nominee for associate justice should "be judged as a judge, not as an advocate," while a would-be chief should be required to reveal his rulings in advance?
We suspect not, but we'll get a chance to find out before long. President Bush will soon nominate someone to replace Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, and presumably the new nominee will follow the Ginsburg-Roberts precedent and refuse to take positions on prospective cases. If the Times endorses that nominee on the ground that he isn't going to be chief, the paper will be able to claim it is taking a consistent position, if an odd one. Otherwise, it will not be unfair to wonder if the New York Times' editorialists are anything more than partisan bitter-enders.
This
Looks Like a Job for Super-Duperman!
During the Roberts hearings last week, Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter
asked the future chief justice an especially silly question about Roe v.
Wade. Let's go to the transcript:
Specter: When you and I talked informally, I asked you if you had any thought as to how many opportunities there were in the intervening 32 years for Roe to be overruled, and you said you didn't really know.
And you cited a number. I said, Would it surprise you to know that there have been 38 occasions where Roe has been taken up, not with a specific issue raised, but all with an opportunity for Roe to be overruled?
One of them was Rust v. Sullivan, where you participated in the writing of the brief and, although the case did not squarely raise the overruling of Roe, it involved the issue of whether Planned Parenthood, even if it's funded with federal money, could counsel on abortion.
And in that brief you again raised the question about Roe being wrongly decided. And then I pointed out to you that there had been some 38 cases where the court had taken up Roe.
And I'm a very seldom user of charts but, on this one, I have prepared a chart because it speaks--a little too heavy to lift--but it speaks louder than just--thank you, Senator--38 cases where Roe has been taken up.
And I don't want to coin any phrases on superprecedents--we'll leave that to the Supreme Court--but would you think that Roe might be a super-duper precedent in light of--
[laughter]
--in light of 38 occasions to overrule it?
Back in July, Specter put forward the notion of a "superprecedent" in a New York Times op-ed. Blogger and lawyer Bill Dyer pointed out that the source of this idea seemed to have been the Pennsylvania senator's own imagination, and a super-duper imagination it is, to judge by his performance at the hearings.
But in truth, the idea that Roe is a more powerful precedent by virtue of having been upheld so many times is perfectly wrongheaded. If Roe were actually settled law, the Supreme Court could let it rest. That the court instead has reconsidered it at a pace of once a year (by Specter's count) shows the shakiness of the constitutional foundation on which it is built.
Doe
v. Bolton
"Deer on Birth Control Still Getting Pregnant"--headline, Associated
Press, Sept. 18
Brazile
vs. Nuts
On Friday we
noted that New Orleans evacuees had responded enthusiastically to President
Bush's Thursday speech in which he promised to rebuild that city and to use
free-market approaches to help ameliorate poverty. The president won over at
least one partisan Democrat, too. This is Donna Brazile, who grew up in New
Orleans, in Saturday's Washington Post:
On Thursday night President Bush spoke to the nation from my city. I am not a Republican. I did not vote for George W. Bush--in fact, I worked pretty hard against him in 2000 and 2004. But on Thursday night, after watching him speak from the heart, I could not have been prouder of the president and the plan he outlined to empower those who lost everything and to rebuild the Gulf Coast. . . .
The president has set a national goal and defined a national purpose. This is something I believe with all my heart: When we are united, nothing can stop us. We will not waver, we will not tire, and we will not stop until the streets are clean, every last brick has been replaced and every last family has its home back.
Bush talked about how we bury our family and friends. We grieve and mourn. We march to a solemn song and then we rejoice and step out and form the second line. That line is now open to every American to join us in rebuilding a great region of this country. New Orleans will rise again. My hometown is down but not out, and with the help of every American, it will be back on its feet, bigger and brighter than ever.
Mr. President, I am ready for duty. I am ready to stir those old pots again. Let's roll up our sleeves and get to work.
Contrast this with Angry Left idol Cindy Sheehan, who, as we also noted Friday, is calling for U.S. withdrawal from "occupied New Orleans." Sheehan engages in the usual left-wing cant about caring for the poor, but as the Yale Daily News notes, reporting on a Sheehan appearance in New Haven, Conn., Sheehan's enthusiasts are whiter than vanilla snow:
Cornell Lewis, a preacher and activist who spoke at the rally, said the lack of racial diversity at the rally represents a shortcoming of the anti-war movement.
"All I see is white people," he said. "If the anti-war movement wants to grow stronger, it needs people of color."
It is only through a series of historical accidents that black Americans find themselves aligned politically with haters like Cindy Sheehan. Could this change? Here's a straw in the wind from the Rasmussen polling firm:
Fifty-seven percent (57%) of black voters support the federal reconstruction spending while just 17% are opposed. Among white voters, 49% favor the spending and 29% are opposed. This is the first Bush Administration proposal hat [sic] has attracted more support from black Americans than from white Americans.
As we argued Friday on "Hannity & Colmes" (video here), there is an enormous political opportunity in the New Orleans aftermath: If President Bush can convince a substantial number of black Americans that the Republican Party is not their enemy, he can thereby solidify the GOP's governing majority and, more importantly, help bring blacks into the American political mainstream. An end to the Democratic Party's monopoly on the black vote would also weaken the Sheehanoid Angry Left as a political force--fatally, one hopes.
Dissent
Is Patriotic
See if you can guess who said this:
[President] Bush, in his dealing with what was left behind by . . . the devastating Hurricane Katrina, which revealed to the entire world the great helplessness in dealing with the destruction caused by this hurricane, because of the tremendous attrition of the American army's resources in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This hurricane has once again brought to mind the manifestations of racial discrimination among the American people, and has exposed the fragility of the foundations upon which it is structured. The acts of assault and killings have spread, as well as robbery and looting, and what is still to come will be even more terrible.
Was it:
(a) Howard Dean
(b) Kanye West
(c) Nancy Reid and Harry Pelosi in a joint statement
(d) Cindy Sheehan
The correct answer, of course, is (e), none of the above. It was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al Qaeda's Iraq franchisee.
Preaching
to the Choir
"Many Churches Heed Bush's Call to Prayer"--headline, Associated Press,
Sept. 16
Trading
Hurricanes for Suicide Bombs
"Some New Orleans Schools to Open on West Bank"--headline, Associated
Press, Sept. 17
Lawyers
Would Be Even Worse
" 'Second Disaster' May Follow Katrina: Doctors"--headline, Reuters,
Sept. 18
Great Orators of the Democratic Party
- "One man with courage makes a majority."--Andrew
Jackson
- "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."--Franklin
D. Roosevelt
- "The buck stops here."--Harry
S. Truman
- "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for
your country."--John
F. Kennedy
- "If 12-year-old Boy Scouts can be prepared, Americans have a right to expect the same from their 59-year-old President of the United States."--John Kerry*
* The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way served in Vietnam.
Homelessness Rediscovery Watch
"If George W. Bush becomes president, the armies of the homeless, hundreds of thousands strong, will once again be used to illustrate the opposition's arguments about welfare, the economy, and taxation."--Mark Helprin, Oct. 31, 2000
"Homeless After a Fire, and Feeling Overlooked in Katrina's Shadow"--headline, New York Times, Sept. 19
"UPDATE: Homeless Pair Still Struggling"--headline, Washington Post, Sept. 18, 2005
Dam
Right!
"Beavers' Goals Begin With Stopping Bush"--headline, Oregonian, Sept. 17
Rauchen
Sie Danach?
"Schroeder, Merkel in German Vote Climax"--headline, Agence France-Presse,
Sept. 16
Not
on S. Korea, We Hope
"N. Korea to Drop Nuclear Program"--headline, Associated Press, Sept. 19
The
Best Argument for Same-Sex Marriage
"Bad Marriage May Be Bad for Both Men and Women"--headline, WebMD.com,
Sept. 16
Why We Rely on Reuters for Football Picks
"Temple Going to the Dogs"--headline, Reuters, Sept. 16
"Toledo Rockets Past Temple, 42-17"--headline, Temple Athletics press release, Sept. 17
Don't
Bother Me With Facts, I Surrender!
The New York Times today began charging for online access to its op-ed and other
columnists. Seems to us, though, that the Times Co. is missing out on a gold
mine by allowing free access to the Boston Globe's letters to the editor, which
are far more entertaining than Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd. Here's Aline Kaplan
of Sudbury, weighing in yesterday:
Conservative friends have been sending me long, detailed e-mails about the government's response to Hurricane Katrina. They are all designed to place the blame on New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin and Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco, while exonerating President Bush. These electronic messages have certainly been impressive and revealed previously unknown facts. After reading them, I acknowledge the timelines of what happened, when and who knew what, and when and who signed what and when. My friends are right that state and local government were the first lines of defense--and they failed. This represents a systemic failure of government at all levels.
While their details are valid and their points well made, these are merely the facts.
Today, Jeffrey J. Cymrot of Boston urges surrender:
Though valiant, the president's determination to restore a destroyed city and to rebuild a flood protection system ''stronger than it has ever been" contains within it an arrogance reminiscent of the pharaohs and the kings of antiquity. I consider it unfortunate that occupants of what has become an imperial presidency issue statements such as this, and the citizenry blithely accepts them as ordinary expressions of Pax Americana. I have begun to wonder where this hubris will end.
The gods are angry, and we must appease them!
(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to John Steele Gordon, Jack Archer, Richard Belzer, Rod Prudhomme, Tom Trebilcock, David Gail, Ruth Papazian, Ethel Fenig, Michael Segal, Bob Krumm, Tom Tomosky, C.E. Dobkin, Windsor Mann, John Liljegren, Gustavo Stickery, Charlie Gaylord, Mordecai Bobrowsky, Andrew Robinson, Abe Beyda, Daniel Foty, James Hogue, Thomas Downing and Thomas Dillon. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)
Today on OpinionJournal:
- Steve Moore: Welcome to the GOP's new New Deal.
- John Fund: German voters get a chance for reform but choose gridlock instead.
- Manuel Miranda: President Bush promised justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. His backers will hold him to it.
