Chief Justice Rehnquist Dies at 80 730
After 33 years at the bench, Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist has passed away at the age of 80 due to thyroid cancer. This comes after the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor from the court over the summer. Rehnquist's passing gives President Bush the opportunity to replace the second justice of his term, this time perhaps to assume the highest role in the judicial system.
Rest in peace my friend (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Rest in peace my friend (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed. Be thee liberal, conservative, or somewhere in between, this justice performed his duties to the best of his ability, to the very, very end. That shows a certain passion, a certain true belief in what you're doing.
Regards,
John
Sincerity is an over-rated virtue (Score:4, Insightful)
Sincerity is a highly over-rated virtue. If he did a lousy job it doesn't matter very much if he was sincere in how he tried to carry out his duties.
Re:Rest in peace my friend (Score:5, Insightful)
Though like many Slashdotters I am a left-winger, I really appreciate how so many of our compatriots not only vote but also so clearly care about values and ethics. Renquist was one of America's great justices.
Slashdot Politics could be a powerful force if properly directed!
Keep up the great work,
-joshua
The modern political spectrum. (Score:5, Funny)
Liberals sit to the left. Conservatives sit to the right. Libertarians are the clowns swinging from the chandeliers. (Heard from a libertarian.)
Re:The modern political spectrum. (Score:3, Insightful)
Liberals sit to the right. Conservatives sit to the far right. Libertarians are the far right version of Anarchism.
Re:The modern political spectrum. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The modern political spectrum. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The modern political spectrum. (Score:3, Informative)
There's nothing 'far right' about it; in fact, many Libertarian viewpoints will get you thrashed by conservatives.
Libertarians get it from both conservatives and (neo)liberals. Libertarians are like the classical liberalism of Thomas Jefferson and the classical liberals don't look like what's typically called liberal today.
I hope Bush will nominate someone closer to the center than to the left (haha) or right.
FalconRe:The modern political spectrum. (Score:3, Informative)
Ah yes, you clearly understand libertarianism.. oh woops, Libertarians are anti-corporation and for proprietorships and partnerships instead.
The last Libertarian candidate for president even articulated this point in a slashdot interview.
By the way, workers have freedom too.. you could always just not work for a company
Re:The modern political spectrum. (Score:3, Insightful)
That's why I said "corporations or individual robber barons". It doesn't matter whether it's a massively powerful corporation, or one massively wealthy individual, wealth and thus power will tend to concentrate.
By the way, workers have freedom too.. you could always just not work for a company that doesn't pay you enough, unless you don't have enough skills/education
Re:The modern political spectrum. (Score:5, Insightful)
And there they will continue to swing until they realize that the unchecked concentration of private power can be as oppressive as that of government power, and leads inexorably to fascism as the former consumes the latter. Could it possibly be happening here?
Re:I am still waiting for the day that any (Score:3, Insightful)
You'll only need to wait as long as it takes you to wake up, Ogemaniac. I'm not talking about just your employer taking an interest in your off-duty activities (although that certainly does happen and you may be able to escape it if you have alternative employment options and there's no blacklisting going on). I'm talking about what happens when private interests become so powerful that government itself become
Re:Rest in peace my friend (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed and Disagreed.
Agreed with anything relating to Renquist.
Disagreed when it comes time to replace him.
Because the Supreme Court is more important than the President and Congress. It's pathetic and sad, but true, they are the last line of defense between the government and the Constitution.
Especially in recent times as the executive and legislative branches grab more and more money and power for themselves in the guise of representing the people - the Supreme Court seems to be the one branch actually interested in what the Constitution says other than figuring ways around it (even though I think that's going down the drain slowly too with that last property & profit decision in June).
It's harder to buy a judge - they don't need reelecting. There's only nine of them (easier to monitor them unlike Congress) and they don't try to do as much in secrecy as say, the White House.
Plus, except for death and voluntary retirement, most Supreme Judge's terms extend right past the president that nominates them. the congress that confirms them into infinity.
Their biases alone will not only determine crap like abortion, but whether highstake legisition like DMCA is constitutional. Multiply that by all the technologicial issues (stem cell, cloning, etcetera) and you can easily see the Supreme Court as the trump card of any movement - be it conservative, liberal, free software, open software, etcetera.
It comes down to them.
I would dare say in the longterm, the two upcoming new Justices (whoever they may be) will impact us more than any elected politician short of President ever will.
Re:Rest in peace my friend (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, the people are.
As much as I disliked his attitude... (Score:4, Insightful)
It is also worth considering that it takes a kind of courage that few on this planet possess to stay working when (quite probably) in terrible agony and (certainly) in full knowledge that his days were numbered.
I see little honor in the living dying for one's country. I see considerable honor in the dying living for theirs. The difference is important. The former is a waste, the latter is devotion.
While I have a hard time telling him to rest in peace, I do at least wish him no ill and pray that whatever lies beyond this life has mercy upon him and remember him not for his faults - we all have those - but for what good he brought into the world.
Re:As much as I disliked his attitude... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not saying Rehnquist did this, but it's not good to blindly praise someone who stood by their principles when their principles were bad.
Re:Rest in peace my friend (Score:3, Insightful)
He was scum (Score:4, Insightful)
You can look over his record and predict his votes by this formula: economic strong trumps weak (corp vs. individual), powerful trumps weak (govt vs whistleblower or random individual.) Remember: he voted that INNOCENCE WAS NOT A REASON TO OVERTURN A DEATH PENALTY CONVICTION. After all, rich white people are hardly ever in that situation, so it can't be very important.
Even CNN is falling for it. "States rights...except where state law threatens Republican election chances."
Gil made his bones in thuggish suppression of minority votes - naturally the shenannigans in Florida in 2000 so overwhelmed him with nostalgia that he could punt 20 years of his own precident to achieve an outcome.
It's just a shame it didn't happen 40 years earlier.
Self promotion (Score:4, Informative)
or even:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WilliamRehnquist [wikipedia.org]
But you're right - it depends on where you sit on the fence. I certainly don't feel like he was one of the greatest, not by far.
Re:He was scum (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Rest in peace my friend (Score:4, Informative)
Sure, however he had a very
Rehnquist was almost fanatical in his efforts to reject Separation Of Church And State as some sort of mistaken view by that know-nothing freak Thomas Jefferson. Well one thing that Rehnquist and I agree on is that the formost authority on the meaning of the First Amendment was James Madison. However Rehnquist was quite selectively blind to Madison's many declarations on the subject.
The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State -- James madison March 2, 1819
Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history -- James Madison circa 1820
Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together -- James Madison July 10, 1822
I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. -- James Madison March 2, 1819
Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States -- James Madison June 3, 1811
a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together.
We are teaching the world the great truth, that Governments do better without kings and nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson: the Religion flourishes in greater purity without, than with the aid of Government -- July 10, 1822
proved that it[religion] does not need the support of government and it will scarcely be contended that government has suffered by the exemption of religion from its cognizance, or its pecuniary aid. -- James Madison 1832
The settled opinion here is, that religion is essentially distinct from civil Government, and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurious to both; that there are causes in the human breast which ensure the perpetuity of religion without the aid of the law -- James Madison March 18, 1823
Rehnquist tried to claim that the only thing meant and prohibited by the Establishment Clause was an offical National Church. However Madison made it quite clear that is an absurd construction. Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Ho
I vote for Judge Judy (Score:5, Funny)
Armageddon is upon us! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Armageddon is upon us! (Score:2)
Re:Armageddon is upon us! (Score:2)
It seems that if you were out to produce political change by killing someone, a Supreme Court Justice, who can hold the position until they die or step down, would be vastly
Re:Armageddon is upon us! (Score:3, Interesting)
If the dems want to continue to have a voice in the future of this country they're going to have to get some leadership that can put out a coherent statement of what the party stands for and which has more charisma than
Re:Armageddon is upon us! (Score:3, Insightful)
I still don't get why Kerry just did not say it like it was: politics IS flip-flopping. The last thing you want is someone unable to evolve their view on things, compromise. Especially in the sort of complex decisions that end up in Senate and Congress.. Indecisiveness (indecision?) can be a bad thing, for sure, but it d
Re:All over the world? (Score:2, Funny)
And after the next one... (Score:2, Funny)
Let's get this over with (Score:4, Funny)
Oh yeah! (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously though. When can we get someone who wasn't in line to buy grandkids Pong when it first came out? I'm not concerned about the political leanings so much as I am about getting someone who doesn't think "The Internet" is a feature of premium adult diapers.
Re:Oh yeah! (Score:3, Insightful)
I think as part of their duty to be informed on the issues that these people know what the internet is. Hell, they probably even use E-MAIL.
Not all old people are intrinsically tech-unsavvy. In particular, I dont think that SC justices can afford to be unsavvy; Their posistion is so important that it demands savvy as part of the job. And I DO think these people take their job seriously.
Re:Oh yeah! (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if the next guy were 25, you'd still have a 1-in-50 chance of getting someone that has a clue how to run Windows Update, and then you'd be stuck with him for 60 years.
I'd rather have someone who knew the ins and outs of what huge corporations are allowed to do than someone who knows FORTRAN, and that kind of stuff usually takes a few decades to lear
Re:Oh yeah! (Score:3, Insightful)
I was just having a conversation with a friend about technology when this news came out. I was asking him whether technology was really making our lives better, or whether it was making them different. While I'd like to have someone on the court who understands how to boot a machine (or better yet, what mkinitrd does), in some ways I wonder whether that would really be better. After all, we owe our whole existence a
Re:Oh yeah! (Score:2)
Re:Oh yeah! (Score:3, Insightful)
When you have someone with the relevant years of legal experience. There's no second-guessing these appointments, once made they are made. The only real way to verify their qualifications is to review their cases. Obviously you need first a law degree (long education), then you will usually be doing menial jobs for a while before you even begin to gather cases worth reviewing. With one exception in the
Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
Supreme Court justices tend to retire only for severe health reasons that prevent them from carrying out their duties. Praying for that is disgusting.
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:3, Interesting)
What reason is there to like him?
I'm speaking as a Christian here. Is this guy any different from a subversive hellbent on libeling the term "Christian"?
There is no anti-Christian rhetoric here except yours. If Mr. Robertson gets off the air, he will do a great service for Christianity. The religion is not about killing some people and condemning the rest. It's about loving your enemies.
Obvious issues... (Score:5, Interesting)
Just hope this won't immediatly swing the issues of legal abortion and religious coersion too far to the right when all is said and done. Right wing judges aren't insane, but they are at least as activist on their core issues.
Ryan Fenton
Re:Obvious issues... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Obvious issues... (Score:5, Informative)
"In 1797 our government concluded a "Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, or Barbary," now known simply as the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 of the treaty contains these words:
As the Government of the United States...is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity of Musselmen--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
This document was endorsed by Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and President John Adams. It was then sent to the Senate for ratification; the vote was unanimous. It is worth pointing out that although this was the 339th time a recorded vote had been required by the Senate, it was only the third unanimous vote in the Senate's history"
Re:Obvious issues... (Score:3, Interesting)
The Very Very Sexy Fourteenth Amendment
By: American Dissent Radio
©2005, Chris Cronin
Quoted from their July 10th show. (mp3 [americandissentradio.com])
They have a podcast [americandissentradio.com] and one I enjoy listening to.
Well, the floor of the Senate is about to heat up with sex, sex, sex. Homosexual sex, pornography, abortion after casual
look closer (Score:3, Insightful)
But when they want Terri Schaivo kept alive, they lament that the judges can't find a way to do it. They even pass specific laws to have judges look again, even after the judges (who do know their jobs) say there is nothing they can do.
This whole thing is a canard so the Repubs can undermine judges in preparating for the time when all these illegal deeds (locking people up without trial, DeLay's myria
Dear Ghod, no.... (Score:5, Informative)
Here we go again with this old debate....
Yes, the founders of the United States believed in God -- but this makes them Deists, not necessarily Christians. The Declaration of Independence [archives.gov] does indeed speak of "Nature's God", and refer to mankind being "endowed by their Creator" -- but makes no mention of Christianity.
Furthermore, NOWHERE in the Constitution [archives.gov] do the words "God" or "Christ" appear — a point oft considered conspicuous by omission in favor of "We The People". Rather, specific references are made to separate church and state, requiring within the constituion proper "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States", and in the Bill of Rights [archives.gov] opening with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".
Add in the evidence of the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli as ratified by Congress and as published with little stir in the Press (albeit not as drafted at the treaty table!) which declared "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." , leads one to believe the Founders were doing their utmost to drag the United States away from the sectarian bloodshed that had divided Europe -- and particularly England -- for centuries.
Jefferson is the source of the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" that the religious right so detest; a man who removed all references to the miracles from his personal transcription of the Gospels; and who felt that his authorship of the Stature of Virginia for Religious Freedom [worldpolicy.org] one of the accomplishments most worthy for noting in his epitaph. Living in Charlottesville and having recently visited Monticello, I feel obliged to assure you that the persistent ground vibrations you can feel standing in front of his tombstone is not the rumble of a passing truck, but Mister Jefferson spinning in his grave from Bush's Presidency. =)
As for your assertion on abortion, while your position is better founded, I suggest you read the actual Roe v. Wade ruling all the way through; your assertion about the rights of the states in the 10th Amendment falls aside explicitly to the later "Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"... although the court might reasonably revisit such a question, given the strained reasoning used. This makes the abortion war yet another twisted legacy of the debate over our former "peculiar institution."
As to your prime assertion on the legal import of the intent of the founding fathers, I suggest you read Lessig's "Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace"... plus a good more of the biographies of those colorful, contestous, and amazingly human founders of ours. Leaving aside Lessig's points on unaddressed assumptions, suggesting they ever had a single unified intent is a slander to their memories and to what they achieved in their struggle to unify in common cause.
Re:Obvious issues... (Score:5, Insightful)
What are you talking about? Neither of the words "god" or "creator" occur even once in the US Constitution. [house.gov] Meanwhile, in the Declaration of Independence [indiana.edu] the actual terms that occur are "Nature's God" and "Creator" - neither of which says a ringy-ding-ding about a Christian God. Certainly there is NO mention of Christ, Messiah, Yahweh, Prophet, Bodhisattva, Kalima, or any other specific diety or divine office.
Furthermore, there is no indication whatsoever, and plenty of indication to the contrary, in those documents that religion - any religion - should even be acknowledged by the state.
This is where Scalia and his claims of being a "strict constructionist" fall apart. For the most part his words and deeds match, but once religion comes into the picture he's just waving his hands and hoping nobody examines his justifications too closely, because when you do, you see just how far he has to reach to bring his god into the arena.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Obvious issues... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Obvious issues... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sigh. Since Rehnquist was a conservative, replacing him with another conservative won't change the balance of the Court.
"Activist" judges create law by their decisions. OTOH, most judges want to try the case in front of them, or even better, to have the parties settle. That i
Pat Robertson prophecy confirmed (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Pat Robertson prophecy confirmed (Score:2)
In particular he called for the 3 predicted vacancies to come from the liberal judge pool.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
20 years from now, GWB's acts will still echo (Score:2)
And I somehow doubt he will appoint a moderate this time.
Say the words: (Score:2, Funny)
Now, go change your soggy trousers.
Well fuck. (Score:3, Insightful)
Though I was not a big fan of Rhenquist -- many of his positions on the Court, his work in the Nixon administration, his fashion sense -- he surely will be better than whoever we get next.
Re:Well fuck. (Score:5, Insightful)
Carter seems to have been the only president in the last century that hasn't appointed anyone to the Supreme Court.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No cross-posting from the Democratic Undergroun (Score:3, Insightful)
I predict... (Score:3, Funny)
Possibly More then 2 (Score:3, Interesting)
It should be noted that it is possible he will get more then just the two nominations. John Paul Stevens is 85, and could possibly retire or die before the end of GWB's term. The youngest justice at present is Clarence Thomas at 57. So anything can happen in two years.
A scary thought (Score:3, Informative)
Possible replacements include Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales
Based on his past memos, that would be one of the scariest things for human rights as a whole.
Re:A scary thought (Score:3, Insightful)
A Rehnquist Story (Score:5, Interesting)
Nowadays, Washington is dominated by a self-righteous Us-And-Them mentality that makes such friendships impossible. The Supreme Court is sort of resistant to this, but is still pretty bad. And we're all suffering for it.
Re:A Rehnquist Story (Score:3, Insightful)
> "made law". Silly me...
Supreme Court judgements also have the weight of law, and they tend to narrow the abstract laws passed by the legislature, into concrete interpretations.
Re:A Rehnquist Story (Score:3, Insightful)
A shame. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A shame. (Score:3, Funny)
-- The Police
RIP (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:RIP (Score:3, Informative)
Of the 108 Supreme Court Justices, 48 died in office, of whom eight were Chief Justice. Source: Oyez.org [oyez.org].
NY Times Obituary (Score:3, Informative)
Registration required as usual, but this seems of high enough quality to make it worthwhile.
Farewell good sir. (Score:5, Insightful)
Before anyone gets too carried away about abortion litmus tests, remember this.
US Constitution Article VI
LK
Re:Farewell good sir. (Score:3, Informative)
Either way, if it's acceptable for one side to demand a litmus test, then it's perfectly reasonable that the other side will as well.
LK
Re:slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:YRO? (Score:3, Funny)
Things like.. oh.. say.. the DMCA.
Re:YRO? (Score:5, Informative)
Did Grokster matter to you? Guess who decided that? It rhymes with "Mupreme Mort". The people who comprise that court have a very important influence on your rights, even online. Child Online Protection Act, Grokster, inevitable decisions on the Patriot Act and the DMCA, to name a few. So, yes, his death is important to your rights online. Sorry for the condescending rant. Well, not really.
Re:YRO? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you stupid. The court has more power than the president. They are the only institution that can VETO both the president and congress. They are a staple of humainty.
Back when the court was something, they are the ones who told the police they must read rights to people. Back then, the courts said that people could not be taken by government for no reason. That government could not look at your reading list and label you as a terrorist because you read Carol Marx. Do you know how many Joe McCarthy's there are in government, and how the courts have stopped them?
Times are changing.
Why did Rehnquist not retire? Why did he stay when he was sick? Was he this sick? Why did Vincent Foster kill himself in a public park?
Re:YRO? (Score:3, Insightful)
My guess is that the reason he didn't retire was that he knew he was going to die, and he didn't want the President and Senate fighting over his position while he was still alive.
Re:YRO? (Score:4, Insightful)
If he was alive, he would have had power.
Imagine the following exchange.
Rehnquist : Mr President, I am ready to retire, but I want a replacement who is not too whack.
President:: No!
Rehnquist: Okay, I'll stay in office. Maybe I will live longer than the 4 years you were elected for. Maybe a democrat will win, and replace me with someone who you could never fathom. Or you could compromise.
President: No! Now where is my cake. I was promised cake. With sprinkles.
What sick person would cling to a job? The only reason is the job was so important that if he left, everything would get fucked up. What is going on? Think about it?
If you had cancer, would you tell your boss at Microsoft- "Well, I got bone cancer and the doc gives me 6 months to live, but GOD DAMN IT, I WANT LONGHORN DONE RIGHT!!".
What was Rehnquist sticking around for? What is easier? To die like he did. Or to die at home, in comfort? What was he so worried about?
Re:YRO? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:YRO? (Score:5, Insightful)
And when it comes to individual rights, the Democrats are now the conservatives.
Basically, everything is fucked up and inverted.
Is Carol Marx, Karl Marx's wife? (Score:4, Funny)
More power? How do you figure that? (Score:3, Informative)
If Congress passes some law tomorrow that the court wanted to strike down, they could do absolutley nothing about it until a case is brought before them.
So how does a body with no control over the armed forces, and no direct way to influence laws under debate have "more power" than the President?
By des
Re:More power? How do you figure that? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, they ruled that gays should have the same rights as everyone else, without having to pretend to be straight in order to get them. (if you think gay marriage is a "special right", imagine yourself living as a straight person in a society where only gay marriages were allowed. Would you consider your wanting to marry someone of the opposite sex a "special right"?)
Not only that, but the court told businesses, no matter what religion of the leadership,
they must pay money to gays to support the "spouse". That is even if the business is private, and the owners are christian and want to give christian values to the world, to make the place better.
Not only that, the courts previously ruled that businesses aren't allowed to discriminate against minorities in hiring, even if the business is private, and the owners are KKK members and want to give KKK values to the world, to make the place better.
Some people even look upon this as a good thing.
Re:More power? How do you figure that? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd want the right to marry a white/christian woman, but I wouldn't be stupid enough to pretend that it was the "same" right as my neighbour Bob's right to marry a black/muslim woman.
This would be pretty blatant racial and religious discrimination. Don't you see that what you are suggesting is sexual discrimination? The right to "marry the opposit
Re:More power? How do you figure that? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sixty years ago, you would have said: "Everyone can marry an individual of the same race. In other words, this is not a civil rights issue as we all have the same right. It's an attempt to alter our culture."
It was bullshit then, and it's bullshit now.
Re:YRO? (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the Supreme Court decisions are powerless without the executive and legislative branches' active will to adhere to them.
So let me say it loud and clear: THE SUPREME COURT CANNOT ENFORCE ITS OWN RULINGS.
They are only as powerful as the rest of government allow them to be. Recent precedents within the last fifty years give the court
Two sides to every story... (Score:5, Insightful)
Since blasting McCarthy is so popular, how about another side to the story http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/2003/13 .html [aim.org]
OK, that's... interesting.
For those that don't have time to RTFA, here's a time-saving summary:
Re:McCarthy was right (Score:3, Informative)
in a troubling comment that largely escaped critical media scrutiny or even notice, Secretary of State Colin Powell declared on Black Entertainment Television that U.S. policy toward Chilean Marxist President Salvador Allende in the 1970s was "not a part of American history that we're proud of." Powell appears not to know that in toppling Allende the Chilean military saved Chile from suffering the same fate as South Vietnam
Re:YRO? (Score:3, Funny)
Let's cut Slashdot a little slack. For once they reported news within 14 days of it breaking. We should pat them on the back!
Re:YRO? (Score:5, Informative)
When someone does that, I start asking them a lot of questions about the Bible -- not what's in it, but when it was written, when the gospels were written, what sources the writers used, and so on. I have yet to meet someone who uses the Bible as an authority and a "that proves it all" source that has any clue about how it was put together and that the process that brought it into its present form is not at all what they think. Most people who quote the Bible to me are fundies, many of whom hate the Roman Catholic Church, and they get REALLY pissed when I can give them enough history to show them it was that very same church that is responsible for what was put in and left out of the Bible.
I know they're stuck in a mindset and won't change, but after bringing it up with me, they usually go away frustrated. I can only hope that they've heard enough that they start to think, instead of quote what they've been told.
Re:Long time justice (Score:2, Informative)
And actually since Rehnquist was already conservative, Bush's nomination probably won't have a tremendous impact from how Rehnquist had sided on most issues.
Re:Long time justice (Score:2)
Strange, since I'm radical left, just not the radical left of the so-called Democratic party.
Re:those of us who aren't... (Score:4, Insightful)
>that we will be feeling the sting of his tax cuts for many,
>many/ years to come
You mean the tax cuts that immediately followed a long-term upward trend in unemployment that turned into a steady downward trend in unemployment? You mean the tax cuts that immediately predated an upward trend in tax revenues as well as a steady increase in both the number and size of dividend payments by US corporations? Tax cuts after which followed increased entrepreneurial ventures, an increase in the number of IPOs, as well as a return to a bullish stock market?
Oh, woe be us!
Criticize Bush's spending if you will, but the tax cuts have been a boon to our economy.
Re:he knew the danger (Score:5, Insightful)
Open your eyes for just a moment and realize something. Democrats are not your friends. Republicans are not your friends. Each party will seek to expand the government to suit their own interests (which is why it's so great that massive expansion in either direction isn't too easy).
Re:One more time. (Score:4, Insightful)
Depends on exactly what point you call the "height of Watergate" but Nixon's approval rating was down in the 20's at its nadir, Bush is still in the 40's though it will be interesting to see what Katrina does to him. I suspect now that most of the people are evacuated and fed the outrage about New Orleans will blow over.
Wouldn't be surprised if the Republican spin machine manages to turn it in to a story of the Bush administration stepping in to save the day and blame everything that went wrong on the Democratic mayor of New Orleans and the Democratic governor of Louisiana. I assure you Rove and Co. were thinking about the political implications of this disaster from the get go.
I also wager sometimes this session or next Congress will pass a bill giving the executive branch and DOD sweeping new powers to intervene domestically and overturn Posse Comitatus facilitating future imposition of martial law. The catch phrase will be "Remember New Orleans" as they sell our freedom down the river again just like they did with the Patriot Act.
Re:One more time. (Score:4, Insightful)
Disasters are state and local responsibilities by law and policy. The Federal government is only supposed to provide support at the call of governor's and mayors.
A. They will blame the governor of Louisiana and the mayor of New Orleans for not marshalling city buses and providing transportation for the poor and infirm. Its a bit unfair because even if they had done this I doubt they could have gotten very many more people out in the short time available. You just can't force people to evacuate a big city in this short time, but providing public transportation for those who want to leave seems like a local failure. Of course once you put them on buses where would they go.
B. They will point out the National Guard is under the control of the Governor so any failure in deploying it is the Governor's fault. This is true though it glosses over the Bush administration had 1/4 to 1/3 of the Guard manpower and 1/2 its equipment in Iraq. The Federal government is by law precluded from putting troops in to states and cities, thanks to the fact the Federal Army ran out of control after the Civil War and was reined in my the Posse Comitatus act in 1878. It is most of the time a good restraint and prevents martial law and dictatorship. In this case it caused problems though.
C. There will be finderpointing as to whose fault it was the levees broke. Maybe it was inevitable they were going to break under this stress, though I wager these localized failures were due to bad maintenance. More importantly there should have been helicopters surveying them the second the weather cleared and sending resource to plug leaks before they washed out leading to the massive failures. Its sad no one had a plan to survey and do emergency repairs on these levees, a stitch(or sandbag) in time might have prevented this though we may never know unless someone was watching how and why the levees actually failed.
Some things I want to come out in the investigation:
- Who stopped the Red Cross from entering New Orleans because it was "to dangerous". Was it FEMA, state or local. For whatever reason, the Red Cross is the one who insured people get food and water and it couldn't get in to New Orleans because someone stopped them.
- The President of Jefferson Parish in New Orleans accused FEMA on "Meet the Press" this morning of intentionally cutting the communication lines they local and state people were using, they had to patch the lines and post armed guards.
- How much did the levees degrade because the Army Corps of Engineers had its funding cut for them and had its personell and money redirected to rebuild Iraq versus how much was due to cuts from local levee districts.
At this point I'd really like to know did FEMA:
- Do everything possible but it was just to hard
- Do a mediocre and inadequate job
- Did FEMA make things worse and actually obstruct the recovery
I'm more than a little suspicious the Bush administration let things go bad on purpose, they just let it go to far and it backlashed on them. They were probably planning to have the President come in on his white horse followed an hour later by the Army moving in to save the day which is more or less what happened its was just to late.
Re:One more time. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How Important is a Chief Justice? (Score:5, Interesting)
But one interesting thing about the CJ position is that he gets to decide who writes the opinions. The WSJ cited several examples of where Rehnquist unexpectedly did an about face and voted for stuff everyone was expecting him to vote against. The tinfoil-hat theory is that he did this because he knew he was going to lose (like 7-2 votes) but he wanted to "limit the damage." So he would side with the winners, then elect himself to write the majority opinion. He would make a legitimate assent, the theory goes, but he would carefully limit it. One of the examples was the Miranda case. Everyone expected him to vote against it, but he didn't. Instead, he wrote the opinion and basically just said "Miranda stands as is," when many of the majority justices actually wanted to expand it.
So if the WSJ's depiction is accurate, the CJ is pretty important. He can't make policy, but he can guide it. I'm sure there are also lots of procedural advantages that are mostly invisible to outsiders, like maybe he gets to decide who talks first in deliberations or something.