home

Rosen Comes To Praise Obama, But Buries Him On Civil Liberties

By Big Tent Democrat

I think a credible argument that Barack Obama is slightly better than Hillary Clinton on civil liberties from as legislative perspective can be made. But the most important thing a President does to protect civil liberties is to appoint good Supreme Court justices committed to recognizing and acting on the Supreme Court's role as a bulwark for civil liberties. Scott Lemieux thinks that Jeffrey Rosen makes a compelling case for Obama. I think he raised the biggest red flag imaginable. Taking aside the questionable claims Rosen makes regarding Obama's role on reforming the Patriot Act, where Rosen really buries Obama is here:

Mr. Obama . . . is not a knee-jerk believer in the old-fashioned liberal view that courts should unilaterally impose civil liberties protections on unwilling majorities. His formative experiences have involved arguing for civil liberties in the legislatures rather than courts, and winning over skeptics on both sides of the political spectrum, as he won over the police and prosecutors in Chicago.

(Emphasis supplied.) More...

Jeffrey Rosen has a longstanding record of opposing the judicial role of guaranteeing civil liberties. He has frequently defended the Bush Administration's egregious violations of the civil liberties of Americans. Scott Lemieux makes a mistake in touting Jeffrey Rosen generally and this column in particular as proof of Barack Obama's commitment to civil liberties. It actually raises extremely troubling questions.

< Bush Moves to Deport Legal Resident Acquitted in Terror Case | Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Heck of compliment from Mr Rosen (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:00:06 AM EST
    if he was selling Obama to the right wing.  A civil Libertarian?  What next National Sales Tax(Fair Tax Act) but then he is surrounded by the right kind of advisors to become a Libertarian.

    So Now We're Being Told (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by BDB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:06:02 AM EST
    That Obama is not only likely to appoint Republicans to key cabinet posts, he's also unlikely to ensure liberal appointments to the courts?  

    If this is true, could someone explain to me why I, as a feminist, should vote for Obama and his sexist dog whistles?  This kind of kills the "women have no choice but to vote for Obama because of Roe" argument.

    If this isn't true, but is only political BS to try to move Obama even more to the center for the GE, could someone explain to me  1) the electoral strategy whereby a democrat tries to win by being more like the Republican, except for all that experience and war hero stuff, than the Republican and does so in a year when people hate Republicans?  and 2) why that strategy, even if it is somehow successful, will be good for liberal and progressive ideals and values?

    You shouldn't. (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by sancho on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:23:15 PM EST
    The Supreme Court is the first and best place for Obama to sell Demcorats out. He'll get hugh props for being a "uniter" and giving Roberts a more "principled" vote. Selling out on the SC will be worth a lot to him in terms of "personal" political capital.

    Parent
    The problem is is that (none / 0) (#99)
    by BrandingIron on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 05:15:06 PM EST
    Obama has not been good for progressive ideals and values.  He is far from progressive, even though he's managed to turn the "progressive" blogs into shills for his campaign.

    Parent
    Unfortunately for the Laws are Laws (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:14:25 AM EST
    arguments they can change too.  Remember no Congress can tie the hands of a future Congress.  But my biggest worry on this argument Legislature vs Courts (and I hope Obama is not what Rosen paints him to be) is that if the courts had not been there in the 50's where would Civil Rights be?


    One of the tenants of our constitution ... (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:37:20 PM EST
    is that individual rights trump almost anything ... even (often especially )the will of the majority.

    And if you don't agree with that you don't agree with one of the chief operative principles of our country.

    Parent

    Psst: tenets (none / 0) (#77)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:19:12 PM EST
    even though it does seem to many of us that too many on our current high court act like absentee landlords of our Constitution. :-)

    Parent
    Yes, tenets .... (none / 0) (#86)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:52:18 PM EST
    Of course, I'm such a moron this afternoon.  I think that's one of those karma typos, because I swear I've corrected others on that exact typo many times.

    In my defense, the rent is due today ... was probably on my mind.

    ;)

    Parent

    Of course (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:15:44 AM EST
    Your point is well taken.

    Parent
    The Supreme Court (none / 0) (#26)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:38:43 AM EST
    is a bellwether for the political mood of the country.  

    Replace Ginsburg and Stevens with Janice Rogers Brown and Brett Kavanaugh and you can kiss half of the last 30 years of civil rights decisions goodbye.

    Parent

    But if Rosen is right (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:42:53 AM EST
    We might not get the kind of Justices we need to offset the Alito and Roberts appointments,  As I said before I hope he is wrong.  

    Parent
    You are inferring (none / 0) (#39)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:53:33 AM EST
    a lot from a single sentence from Rosen.  

    Barack Obama is not a judge.  He is a law maker.  His job is to get laws passed.  We aren't nominating him to the Supreme Court.  And it is plain silly to assume that Rosen is arguing that Obama would appoint strict literalist judges and even more silly to actually believe that he would do that.

    Parent

    Your arguments are round about (none / 0) (#46)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:03:48 PM EST
    there is not much inferring to be done from this sentence "is not a knee-jerk believer in the old-fashioned liberal view that courts should unilaterally impose civil liberties protections on unwilling majorities" as to what Mr Rosen believes of Mr Obama and as far as to what Mr Obama will do or not, paraphrasing BTD let him state his position on this issue without ambiguity.

    Parent
    Let them both do it (none / 0) (#49)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:06:28 PM EST
    What has Clinton done to show that she is a strong supporter of civil rights and that we would have no worries about the justices she appointed?

    Parent
    I think her record (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:19:08 PM EST
    is pretty solid and Jeffrey Rosen, among others, does not question that she is a "liberal kneejerk" on her view that the Courts should be the bulark for protecting civil liberties.

    But play this game if you like, I leave you to your devices.  Your performance in this thread has been quite distasteful to me.

    Parent

    I find it distateful (1.00 / 1) (#60)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:21:13 PM EST
    that you can't simply argue in good faith but must resort to insults whenever someone disagrees with you.

    There is no need for that.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:31:43 PM EST
    You have not argued in good faith in this thread.

    You have avoided the point of the post consistently.

    I have not insulted you once. Unless pointing out what you admit, your lack of knowledge about Jeffrey Rosen's views on the subject, is considered insulting.

    Not where I come from.

    Parent

    Obama's Record (none / 0) (#102)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 06:45:35 PM EST
    On Civil Liberties is pretty good, I mean he is the one who pushed to restore Habeas Corpus, etc. Additionally, I would think that the rather unprecedented decision of the Abu Gharib defense attorneys to come out for Obama, should be a reasonable indicator. Finally, and this might just be for me: I have a very hard time trusting someone of Civil Liberties when they only took the moral highgournd on torture once it became clear that it was politically untenable to do otherwise (Mccain did the same thing, but do to the pressures of his base moved in the opposite direction).

    Parent
    Sort of the point here (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:43:19 AM EST
    The President has a lot to say about that.

    Unless you think Roberts and Alito reflected the "mood of the country."

    Your attitude is beyond strange to me.


    Parent

    Let's feel the Joementum (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by scribe on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:59:22 PM EST
    go read my new diary:  "Obamamania = Joementum?"

    I was going to post it as a comment here, but it ran long.

    Tell what you think.

    Scribe, (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by sancho on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:31:25 PM EST
    Obama is always giving me Joementum!  Thanks for the analysis.  

    Parent
    Added a link to my own latest take (none / 0) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:27:17 PM EST
    on the issue.

    Parent
    Time-Out Everyone (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by plf1953 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:31:36 PM EST
    Perhaps I'm off base here and just feeling a little out of it on this as I'm arriving late to the party.

    But this post is about a specific position or philosophy Obama may or may not hold regarding the courts and their role as being the bulwark of protecting civil liberties.

    This is, no doubt, an important issue for Democrats and Obama's position on this is one of the most critical positions he can or could take as a Democratic primary challenger.

    But in reading through all the comments, one thing is crystal clear, at least to me:  we have no idea what Obama believes about this.

    Or at most, we THINK (and hope) he may be what we want him to be (BTD?), but many of his actions and words seem to contradict this hoped for progressive substance.

    How can it be that we are 2/3 of the way through the primary and we still don't know where this guy's heart is at on this so fundamental of Democratic principles?

    THIS is the elephant in the room.

    We know exactly what Hillary thinks and what she will do as president.  BUT WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT WHAT OBAMA WILL DO and are spending all this time parsing what another self-interested observer (Rosen) is saying about Obama on this issue.

    This guy cannot be allowed to become the party's nominee until we and he have put flesh on his unity pony bones.

    read the article (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:43:10 PM EST
    I just read the Rosen article.  I don't see anything in it that makes Hillary more attractive than Obama on civil liberties.  In fact, there is the opposite.  It says that he has, as a legislator, been more consistently in favor of protecting them than she has and gives us two examples: flag burning law and the Patriot Act.  And, it is exactly for her actions on the Patriot Act that I believe Obama is superior to HRC, and so do many supporters of Obama.  Of course, the Iraq war vote is a primary consideration for some.  But, the IWR and the Patriot Act vote and the Iran vote all seem to be a piece of the same Clinton cloth: to put aside good judgment and considerations or right and wrong, and instead, to cater to what seems likely to be politically favorable at the time, though it have harmful or disastrous consequences down the road.

    And, if Obama were to appoint a Rep such as Earl Warren to the Supreme Court, that would not be a disaster.  But, I suppose that there are not many such Rep left.

    Next time (none / 0) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:00:42 PM EST
    read my post and comment on it.

    You did not. you ignored my post.
    Next time, I will delete your comment as off topic.

    Parent

    Obama on Roberts (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 07:05:23 PM EST
    [I]n those difficult cases, [the few that get to the SC, the "5%" but actually far fewer, and those which are not obviously resolved by a reasonable construction of constitution or statute] the critical ingredient [in Obama's view] is supplied by what is in the judge's heart. . .

    The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts' record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak. . .

    I hope that this reticence on my part proves unjustified and that Judge Roberts will show himself to not only be an outstanding legal thinker but also someone who upholds the Court's historic role as a check on the majoritarian impulses of the executive branch and the legislative branch. I hope that he will recognize who the weak are and who the strong are in our society. I hope that his jurisprudence is one that stands up to the bullies of all ideological stripes.

    *

    It seems to me that, in order to sustain your thesis that Obama doesn't believe the Court should use its power to limit the tyranny of the majority, you have to 1) disregard what he himself has said; and 2) appeal to evidence you haven't provided anyone, other than a single line from a Rosen editorial, who likewise provides no evidence.

    Parent

    Clearly you are unfamiliar with (none / 0) (#107)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 07:33:52 PM EST
    the WaPo story on this issue.

    See if you can find it.

    Parent

    That quote from Obama might mean more (none / 0) (#109)
    by tree on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 07:41:32 PM EST
    ..if not for this from Jen's linked article below:

    It was the fall of 2005, and the celebrated young senator -- still new to Capitol Hill but aware of his prospects for higher office -- was thinking about voting to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice. Talking with his aides, the Illinois Democrat expressed admiration for Roberts's intellect. Besides, Obama said, if he were president he wouldn't want his judicial nominees opposed simply on ideological grounds.

    And then Rouse, his chief of staff, spoke up. This was no Harvard moot-court exercise, he said. If Obama voted for Roberts, Rouse told him, people would remind him of that every time the Supreme Court issued another conservative ruling, something that could cripple a future presidential run. Obama took it in. And when the roll was called, he voted no.

    Given that he was considering voting for Roberts until his aide pointed out that such a vote might be detrimental to a future presidential bid, I doubt that you can take Obama's professed reason's for voting against Roberts at face value. The vote seems more like another case of "What's good for me?"

    Parent

    supply the evidence (none / 0) (#104)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 06:50:28 PM EST
    OK,

    "Mr. Obama . . . is not a knee-jerk believer in the old-fashioned liberal view that courts should unilaterally impose civil liberties protections on unwilling majorities."  

    This is what concerns you, BTD.  Would you or Rosen supply the evidence for this conclusion?

    Parent

    So you disagree with Rosen?Hallelujah!! (none / 0) (#108)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 07:34:24 PM EST
    That is what I want to hear.

    Parent
    Jeffrey Rosen believes... (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:17:13 PM EST
    Evidence is where?

    All I see is unsupported opinion from him, and pushing his own agenda with a few cherry-picked examples that lend themselves to his position.

    On the other hand there's these people:

    Lawyers for Gitmo detainees endorse Obama

    More than 80 volunteer lawyers for Guantanamo Bay detainees today endorsed Illinois Senator Barack Obama's presidential bid.

    The attorneys said in a joint statement that they believed Obama was the best choice to roll back the Bush-Cheney administration's detention policies in the war on terrorism and thereby to "restore the rule of law, demonstrate our commitment to human rights, and repair our reputation in the world community." The attorneys are representing the detainees in habeas corpus lawsuits, which are efforts to get individual hearings before federal judges in order to challenge the basis for their indefinite imprisonment without trial.

    The attorneys praised Obama for being a leader in an unsuccessful fight in the fall of 2006 to block Congress from enacting a law stripping courts of jurisdiction to hear Guantanamo detainee lawsuits. The constitutionality of that law, which was part of the Military Commissions Act, is now being challenged before the Supreme Court in one of the most closely-watched cases this term.

    "When we were walking the halls of the Capitol trying to win over enough Senators to beat back the Administration's bill, Senator Obama made his key staffers and even his offices available to help us," they wrote. "Senator Obama worked with us to count the votes, and he personally lobbied colleagues who worried about the political ramifications of voting to preserve habeas corpus for the men held at Guantanamo. He has understood that our strength as a nation stems from our commitment to our core values, and that we are strong enough to protect both our security and those values. Senator Obama demonstrated real leadership then and since, continuing to raise Guantanamo and habeas corpus in his speeches and in the debates."

    They pointedly did not endorse Clinton, and while naming no names, criticized those who had been (unlike Obama) "all talk and no action" on the issue.

    Good for you (none / 0) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:26:58 PM EST
    You strongly DISAGREE with Rosen. That's what I wanted to hear from Obama supporters.

    Parent
    Yes, strongly (none / 0) (#90)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:38:30 PM EST
    I can't imagine what he thinks he's accomplishing with that op-ed. But what's scary is much of the reaction to it - little clue from many commenters that there are even axes being ground here.

    Parent
    Hooray!!! (none / 0) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:55:19 PM EST
    Now that is what Obama supporters need to say
    !

    You give me hope.

    Parent

    And to be clear - (none / 0) (#94)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:34:31 PM EST
    I wasn't referring to commenters here but on several other sites, particularly Digg, where I'd just been checking out reaction to the article.

    Parent
    Except on the point (none / 0) (#91)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:44:12 PM EST
    that Obama WOULD be better on civil liberties. He would be better than Sen Clinton. Just not for the reasons Rosen wants to make it about.

    Parent
    Let's see here. Sen. Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 06:07:41 PM EST
    experiences have involved arguing for civil liberties in the legislatures rather than courts, and winning over skeptics on both sides of the political spectrum, as he won over the police and prosecutors in Chicago.

    On the other side:

     Hillary Clinton joined 13 other Democrats in supporting a Republican motion to cut off debate on amendments to the Patriot Act.

    Also:

    Mr. Obama made his name in the Illinois Legislature by championing historic civil liberties reforms

    Whereas:

    Mrs. Clinton, by contrast, has embraced some of the instrumental tacking of Bill Clinton, whose presidency disappointed liberal and conservative civil libertarians on issue after issue.

    Now, considering those things, should we really believe that Sen. Obama will somehow abandon the liberties he fought for? Should we just blindly accept that Sen. Clinton will support liberties that she has compromised on?

    To take that one sentence and make a determination that Sen. Obama would not appoint SCOTUS Justices committed to liberties is simply not sound rhetoric.

    Tell it to Jeffrey Rosen (none / 0) (#103)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 06:45:43 PM EST
    Rosen gives Obama way too much credit (none / 0) (#110)
    by tree on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:32:24 PM EST
     for the Illinois videotaping legislation.Here's Rosen's paragraph:

    Mr. Obama made his name in the Illinois Legislature by championing historic civil liberties reforms, like the mandatory recording of all interrogations and confessions in capital cases. Although prosecutors, the police, the Democratic governor and even some death penalty advocates were initially opposed to the bill, Mr. Obama won them over.

     He seems to give all the credit to Obama and his great persuasive skills, but that's not the real story. Anyone who followed the news in Illinois during that time is aware that the real impetus behind the law was a series of scandals involving false confessions that were repeatedly highlighted in the local papers.

    In Chicago, a series of high profile false confession cases, including the Ryan Harris case, and the Lori Roscetti case, spurred calls for a statewide bill to mandate taping of interrogations.697 These calls grew to a fever pitch after the Chicago Tribune published a series on false confessions in December 2001.698 In response to the Ryan Harris case, Cook County State's Attorney Richard Devine instituted a program in which his prosecutors obtained suspects' confessions on videotape.699 The flaws of taping only the final confession became evident, however, in December, 2001, when the first videotaped false confession surfaced in the murder case of Corethian Bell.700 After some fifty hours of interrogation, Chicago police officers got Bell to confess on videotape to the murder and sexual assault of his own mother.701 When DNA test results exonerated Bell and implicated another man who had a history of sexually assaulting women in Bell's neighborhood, Cook County prosecutors were forced to drop charges against Bell and agree to his release.702 The Bell case, the Roscetti case, the Ryan Harris case and several others finally led Cook County State's Attorney Devine to endorse a bill which would require all Illinois police officers to tape custodial interrogations of suspects in homicide cases.703 With the support of the Cook County State's Attorney, the bill passed the Illinois Senate by a vote of 58 to 0, and the Illinois House by a vote of 109 to 7.704 With such overwhelming legislative support, Governor Blagojevich, a former prosecutor, was hard pressed to veto the bill, even though he had opposed videotaping interrogations during his run for governor. Blagojevich had supported the taping only of confessions, fearing that a policy of taping interrogations would make it more difficult for police officers to obtain confessions from suspects.705 He acknowledged his change of heart when he signed the bill into law, citing the fact that he became persuaded that taping would "help us make sure that the evidence we have is more reliable and more accurate and give us a better chance of doing justice."

    LINK

    Parent

    And this: (none / 0) (#111)
    by tree on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:42:04 PM EST
    His formative experiences have involved arguing for civil liberties in the legislatures rather than courts, and winning over skeptics on both sides of the political spectrum, as he won over the police and prosecutors in Chicago.

    The procecutors, faced with numerous false confessions, had to realize that the videotaping of the interrogations was one of the only ways to inject some integrity and trust back into the prosecutorial system. I doubt they needed Obama to point that out to them, and apparently it was the Cook County State Attorney's endorsement that led to the near unanimous vote on the bill.

    Parent

    Snap! (none / 0) (#112)
    by tree on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:44:37 PM EST
    Only the bolded part was supposed to be blockquoted. Those were Rosen's words.

    My words are the second paragraph, not bolded.

    Parent

    This story highlights the extent of (none / 0) (#115)
    by halstoon on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:33:33 PM EST
    the opposition he faced on interrogations.

    The IL governor noted Obama's role:

     "I salute Senator Barack Obama, Rep. Monique Davis, the law enforcement community and the other hardworking legislators who negotiated tirelessly to craft a bill that will remove many doubts and suspicions surrounding our criminal justice system."

    His work got him a "Legislator of the Month" Award

    The bill, "was shepherded through the Illinois Statehouse two years ago [story in 2005] by then state Sen. Barack Obama (D)."

    Sure, there were a lot of high profile cases that led to the attention by Sen. Obama, but that doesn't change the fact that it was he who took up the cause in the face of immense opposition. Just b/c a topic is in the news doesn't mean it will pass unanimously; that only happens because people are brought together around a specific bill, and in this case it was Sen. Obama bringing everyone on board.

    Parent

    Hey BTD (none / 0) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:55:48 AM EST
    The supreme court matters to us all, but you are sort of a supreme court connoisseur.  There is still time to venture on over here and hold this Hillary sign with me ;)

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:02:18 AM EST
    This is the most troubling thing I have heard so far about Obama.

    Parent
    really? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Nasarius on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:08:49 AM EST
    To play devil's advocate for a moment, what evidence is Rosen working with in making that statement? If Obama does one thing well, it's being a Rorschach test that anyone can project their own beliefs onto.

    Parent
    Obama (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:12:47 AM EST
    has made ambiguous statements on this point.

    There is uncertainty there. That said, I had little concern about this issue, but if Rosen is sure Obama agrees with him, it worries me.

    I would like clarification.

    Parent

    This is why I don't support him .. (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:40:58 PM EST
    any ambiguous statement on civil liberties or civil rights should always been seen in the worst possible light.  

    Politicians are almost never more liberal on these issues than their public statements.

    Parent

    I'm confused (none / 0) (#3)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:02:11 AM EST
    What part of the liberal movement insists on relying solely on the courts as part of a civil liberties strategy, as opposed to pursuing any and all avenues for progress?

    What Rosen advances is the standard strawman argument by which liberals routinely use the courts to impose their views on society since they know they can't get democratic majorities to support those views.  In the real world, liberals are of course more than happy to fight battles in the legislature and attempt to win converts to their way of thinking.  So I don't see any insight here whatsoever.

    rehashing the (none / 0) (#6)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:03:40 AM EST
    Obama is a crypto-Conservative argument.  That's all this is.  

    Parent
    Jeffrey Rosen is doing that (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:04:50 AM EST
    Do you believe Rosen is wrong? I certainly do. But I would like some reassurance.

    Parent
    I believe that (none / 0) (#14)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:09:20 AM EST
    Rosen is simply saying that Obama prefers to use work with the legislature to get laws passed that protect civil rights rather than appealing to the courts to overturn laws he doesn't like.

    Judicial opinion can change.  Laws are laws.  

    Parent

    Huh? (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:39:48 AM EST
    I have never before heard this argument that judicial precedent changes with the wind, but laws are somehow immutable.  I'm just sitting here cracking up at this comment.

    Would we really give up Roe v. Wade if we could instead get a law guaranteeing the right to an abortion, a law we would have to fight to preserve every single legislative session from now until the end of time?  Um, no?

    Before making ludicrous arguments in an attempt to claim that whatever strategy Barack Obama favors surely must be the perfect one, perhaps you should consider the possibility that Obama does not actually believe that legislative accomplishments are more durable than judicial ones, and that the very comparison presents a false choice.

    Parent

    yeah, here we go again with the bull (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:23:32 PM EST
    about obama really meant this and that. i say again, the man has a good command of english. let him be upfront about these things.

    Parent
    Jeff Rosen (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:45:24 AM EST
    does not argue about durability but rather AGAINST the courts even having the role of bulwarks for civil liberties.

    I appreciate your comment here and agree with it but it seems to me all of you stray from the central point here.

    Parent

    I'm glad (none / 0) (#33)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:48:42 AM EST
    I can make you laugh.  

    We don't have a choice about Roe v Wade.  It will remain a decision until the court becomes Conservative enough to overturn.  Don't be shocked when that happens because the court always swings from Right to Left and back and forth.

    Want to know how to really protect abortion?  Pass a constitutional amendment.  That is as close to immutable as you can get.  

    Parent

    Interestingly (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:50:46 AM EST
    We can keep the Court from becoming that conservative if we insist our Dem candidates, who are likely to win in November, hold the line with their nominees.

    Your comment reveal something to me - I think I just got it - you are not much of a progressive on the Court.

    Roe is not important to you. The Court's role as a bulwark for civil liberties is not important to you.

    I am pretty thick. I just realized this.

    Parent

    I am glad you said that about Choice (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:59:57 AM EST
    because how that was phrased hit me right in the gut.

    I don't feel stuck with Roe v Wade.  I feel empowered and proud of it.  Choice should be a constitutional amendment.

    But, let's be serious here: the legislature passes laws, but it is the judges who confirm or deny their legality.

    You only need look at what is happening with the death penalty at the moment to realize this.  

    Parent

    And I think we will (none / 0) (#43)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:00:55 PM EST
    make sure to have suitable justices appointed to the Supreme Court and one of the MAIN reasons I would vote just about any Democrat this November.  

    Parent
    The question (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:14:19 PM EST
    is how much political capital a given Democrat will expend in order to push the envelope in terms of judicial nominees.  It is a judgment we must try to make as voters.

    Bill Clinton didn't stretch very far at all because he had to deal with a hostile Congress and had no political capital for a bruising confirmation fight.  Presumably we all agree that conditions are better now and we have the right to expect better.

    Parent

    Sure (none / 0) (#55)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:16:16 PM EST
    But determining who the better candidate on this issue is nothing but pure guesswork on our part.

    Parent
    Right (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:23:25 PM EST
    guesswork based on their history, past statement and present statements.

    Based on this logic, we can very easily guess what sorts of justices Clinton will fight for.  Pro Choice, pro democratic.

    Unfortunately, all we get from Obama is equivocations.  The question of appointment seems to be fluid, depending on which way the wind blows.  Just look at the compromises he has already made on healthcare when no one is even talking about bringing the bill to the house or senate yet.  His first response is to take the path of least resistance.  We do not need a people pleaser president.  We need a democratic fighter.  Do I think Obama will fight for liberal appointees?  The man will not even claim the liberal mantle.

    Roll of the dice, indeed.

    Parent

    Will not even claim the liberal mantle? (none / 0) (#62)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:27:37 PM EST
    When did Hillary claim the liberal mantle because I missed it.

    Obama has never equivocated on being pro-choice.  You simply wish to believe he does.  

    You think that Obama would appoint anti-democratic judges?  WTF?

    Parent

    Those who know him in Illinois (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:26:17 PM EST
    disagree -- as you know, Illinois' PP and NOW read his record there quite differently on abortion bills.

    Parent
    PP and NOW (none / 0) (#105)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 06:51:52 PM EST
    It might just be due to my experience with PP, but given the fact that they're a lot more focused of results (as opposed to symbolism) I frankly would trust them on this issue, I mean if you want to get right down to it Abortion legislation effects PP directly, NOW is changed either way.

    Parent
    I have no idea what your llast phrase (none / 0) (#114)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:12:48 AM EST
    means, that "NOW is changed either way." "Change" uber alles in your mind? But if I get your drift, it tells me that you have no idea what NOW has been and is about.

    Parent
    What Rosen Meant? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:11:46 AM EST
    Do you know anything about Jeffrey Rosen? You clearly do not.

    What Rosen WROTE is quoted in my piece. What you think he meant is absolutely wrong and anyone familiar with Jeffrey Rosen knows this.

    Parent

    ad hominem arguments aside (none / 0) (#22)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:19:19 AM EST
    Whatever Rosen thinks is largely immaterial to the point you are alluding to.  

    I don't know if Rosen is accurate in making the statement that Obama prefers legislation to judicial activism.  But assuming he is, I don't see how that is a bad thing. Unless you are making the argument that Obama would appoint a Clarence Thomas type judge I don't see the problem here.  As President his job would be to push for legislation.  Ostensibly he has no control over judicial opinions.  

    Parent

    What ad hominem? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:24:18 AM EST
    That you know nothing of Jeffrey Rosen? Now you are being beyond ridiculous. You clearly do not. It is not an insult to you that you do not.

    Just stop this nonsense Flyerhawk.

    And to say that what Rosen has been about is immaterial to what he meant here is also ridiculous.

    And finally this is simply unacceptable - Rosen is not saying that Obama thinks legislation is preferable to judicial activism. Rosen is saying that Obama AGREES WITH HIM that "judicial activism" is unacceptable.

    You have two choices here - Rosen is wrong about Obama. Or Obama agrees with Rosen's objection to the courts being the bulwark for protecting judicial activism.

    I think Rosen is wrong. What do you think?

    Parent

    I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:45:42 AM EST
    whether Rosen is wrong or not.  I don't have enough information to make that judgment.

    I do think that you are making assumptions based on your interpretation of Rosen's comments.

    Rosen's main point was that Obama believes in legislating civil liberties and has a track record to support that claim.  I see absolutely nothing wrong with that but you chose to infer that Rosen is claiming that Obama eschews judicial activism because he is in favor of legislation.  That is your inference and not supported by what Rosen says.

    The opinion piece is intended to contrast Hillary and Obama.  And rather than talk about that you wish to focus on a single sentence and expand its meaning to make an entirely different argument.

    Why not focus on this part of the piece...

    The real concern about Hillary Clinton's record on civil liberties is that her administration would look like that of her husband. Bill Clinton's presidency had many virtues, but a devotion to civil liberties was not one of them. After the Oklahoma City bombing, the Clinton administration proposed many of the expansions of police power that would end up in the Patriot Act. (They were opposed at the time by the same coalition of civil-libertarian liberals and libertarian conservatives that Mr. Obama has supported.) The Clinton administration's tough-on-crime policies also contributed to the rising prison population, and to the fact that the United States has a higher incarceration rate than any other country.

    Rosen doesn't seem to feel that Clinton is nearly as strong on civil liberties as Obama.  Yet you ignore than in order to make a tortured argument.

    Parent

    Truly funny (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:47:47 AM EST
    You do not like MY focus because it si not convenient to you. My focus is on the most important aspect of any Presidential candidate's civil liberties position - what they believe the role of the courts should be and what they want from their court nominees.

    I think you got it right on this though - "I don't have enough information to make that judgment."

    Obviously.

    Parent

    Is it really necessary (none / 0) (#41)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:59:41 AM EST
    to take a cheap shot at me because I admitted to not knowing something?  How does this further civil discourse?

    Parent
    I do not think it is a cheap shot (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:04:42 PM EST
    I know so little about so much that I have no qualms asking folks to inform me.

    I wrote this post because I think I know a lot about the Court AND Jeffrey Rosen.

    Parent

    I know (none / 0) (#50)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:09:44 PM EST
    quite a bit about the Supreme Court and its history.  I don't know what Jeffrey Rosen thinks in his heart of hearts.  I'm glad you do.  

    Parent
    In his heart of hearts? (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:16:13 PM EST
    Now you are just being a jerk.

    You actually seem to not know what he has written on the subject.

    Admit your ignorance and ask for knowledge. That is what I do when I do not know something.

    Parent

    You mock me (none / 0) (#57)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:17:59 PM EST
    for admitting I don't know Jeffrey Rosen's motivations and now you call me a jerk.  

    Not civil at all.

    Parent

    No i criticize you (none / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:34:57 PM EST
    for your sophistry and bad faith.

    Jeffrey Rosen's writings which you know nothing about, are quite clear on this point. You do not know this and continue to pontificate nonsensically in this thread.

    Parent

    I do not understand part of your comment (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:04:16 AM EST
    It is the standard progressive view that the courts are the bulwark for protecting civil liberties.

    Of course, Rosen calls that view "kneejerk" and says Obama does not share that view.

    But I can't say I get your point either. Are you saying you do not agree with that view?

    Parent

    Of course I agree (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:50:22 AM EST
    But it's a false choice.  We do not have to pursue change in the courts to the exclusion of change in the legislature.

    We aim to protect civil liberties via the courts because, as a general proposition, the courts tend to be a little ahead of the curve of public opinion.  But that hardly means liberals believe that change should be pursued EXCLUSIVELY through the courts.  The civil rights movement never ignored the legislatures.  The women's rights movement never ignored the legislatures.  The gay rights movement never ignored the legislatures.  The abortion rights movement never ignored the legislatures.  Who are these liberals who don't believe we should fight for change via the legislative branch - whenever and however we have a chance to change minds and to flip votes?

    Now, to the extent Rosen is suggesting that Obama believes the courts should have NO role in safeguarding civil liberties, and that it should be done in the legislature or nowhere, I see zero evidence except Rosen's own twisted and wishful thinking.  Obama was a legislator with little or no influence over the courts; of course he chose to pursue a legislative strategy!  Not because of some philosophical belief about the appropriate branch of government, but because the legislative branch was his bailiwick and the judicial branch was not.

    Parent

    Fair enough (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:52:09 AM EST
    But Rosen is a partisan against the courts being a bulwark for civil liberties period.

    The question here does Obama agree?

    Parent

    that was my point (none / 0) (#44)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:01:15 PM EST
    that I was trying to make.

    Parent
    The last graf? (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:03:05 PM EST
    You never said anything remotely like that.

    Parent
    Indvidual rights are protected ... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:45:25 PM EST
    in the Constitution.  If the legislative branch, or the will of the people through a vote, abridges these rights the courts are the only alternative.

    This is the way the Constitution protects us against the biggest danger in a democracy ... mob rule.

    Parent

    Well... (none / 0) (#5)
    by myed2x on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:03:32 AM EST
    While that does appear somewhat worrisome, it also fits in to his 'appealing across partisan lines' approach.  No better way to secure votes across the spectrum than appearing to be thoughtful as well as moderate.

    However, I could see how left-wing zealots may take offense. Not that you're a zealot, but I think you know what I mean.  Is he abandoning the base? Is there a parallel between a Republican shying away from the religious right, we know that angle has been worked regarding past Republican contenders this season?

    When it comes to viewing (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:06:40 AM EST
    the courts as a bulwark for protecting civil liberties, I proudly wear the mantle zealot.

    Your use of the phrase "Left wing zealot" requires some explication though. What is your view of the courts as bulwarks for protecting civil liberties and what do you think Obama's views are on that subject?


    Parent

    Historically speaking (none / 0) (#18)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:14:38 AM EST
    the courts have not been a terribly good bulwark against Civil Liberties.

    For every Brown vs Board of Ed there is a Korematsu v United States.  For every Loving v Virginia there is a Gobitas v Minersville.  

    The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has done more for civil rights than any supreme court opinion.

    Parent

    Certainly better than (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:16:20 AM EST
    Presidents and the Congress.

    Your argument is specious imo.

    Parent

    It's a roll of the dice (none / 0) (#23)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:20:48 AM EST
    Ultimately you don't know how the Supreme Court is going to rule.  You CAN know what a law says before it is passed.

    Parent
    That is absurd (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:25:13 AM EST
    You think Roberts and Alito are rolls of the dice on civil liberties?

    Absurd.

    Parent

    Of course not (none / 0) (#48)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:04:58 PM EST
    I don't even know how you inferred that.

    Bringing a case to the Supreme Court is a roll of the dice.  

    Right now we are a Justice Kennedy away from a court that would overturn Roe.  

    That is my point.  The Supreme Court can be fickle and with the recent appointments of Roberts and Alito it is clearly tacking rightward.

    Parent

    The Supreme Court is made up of the justices (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:14:50 PM EST
    appointed to it by Presidents.

    You seem to believe that is some random act.

    Parent

    Tell that (none / 0) (#59)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:20:36 PM EST
    to George HW Bush.  Betcha he was expecting something a little different than what he got with David Souter.

    Parent
    I doubt it (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:33:18 PM EST
    But that is hardly a rejoinder to the fact that the occasional surprise outwieghs the overwhelming number who behave just as one would expect.

    Another example of your sophistry.

    BTW, will Obama appoint a Souter in reverse? That is hardly comforting.

    Parent

    I prefer to use the terms ... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:53:58 PM EST
    "individual rights" or "rights of the individual" rather than "civil liberties," because I think this makes the Constitutional issue clearer.

    For it is truly the rights of individuals, against interests of the state, that the Constitution is protecting.

    And when stated that way, I think people understand that civil libertarians are protecting them, not groups they may disagree with.

    Also, when you look at as "the rights of the individual" the need for redress in the courts is obvious.

    Parent

    To explicate.... (none / 0) (#53)
    by myed2x on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:15:24 PM EST
    My usage of 'left-wing zealot' was rooted in the idea of comparing the right-wing religious faction with the extreme examples of civil rights activists.  And, how the two parties, more so the Repubs, have dealt with the 'abandoning the base' theory. Is OB in an effort to attain broad appeal abandoning the Democartic base in an effort to shore up a broader coalition?

    Now whether or not the comparison is justifiable is up for debate.

    I really wonder though whether OB is at heart a civil liberty advocate, while at the same time cognizant of the fact if he were to beat that drum he'd lose the middle?

    And, I agree with you re the courts as the bulwark.  Would OB swing right if he were elected?  I don't think so, I really get the feeling he is playing a well thought out gambit here, to have bi-partisan appeal while embracing democratic ideas but not beating the country over the head with them.

    Parent

    Extreme examples of civil rights activists? (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:17:30 PM EST
    Any examples?

    Parent
    hmmmm (none / 0) (#68)
    by myed2x on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:44:25 PM EST
    oh I don't know, if you go by the text book definition of civil rights : the nonpolitical rights of a citizen;

    you could say 'environmental terrorism' for example...but non-political rights is very subjective I suppose.

    Now keep in mind I am comparing the extremes of both parties and the linkage to the idea of the base being the extreme left and right for each party for this theory.  It's more of a thought experiment than anything.  The correlation happened to strike me as I read the article and your post.  Further, the idea of 'mainstream America' being turned off by what has historically been characterized in the media as 'the left wing loony', 'moonbat', 'treehugger' etc. Perhaps OB is trying to avoid being tarred and feathered with that definition by taking a more moderate approach even though he does embrace those ideologies to certain degree.  

    Parent

    Environmental terrorism? (none / 0) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:49:06 PM EST
    What is that exactly?

    Parent
    I think... (none / 0) (#72)
    by myed2x on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:56:04 PM EST
    You're selectively picking a minor part of the post rather than addressing the over-all idea of it, I think you know what I am referring to, if not, it's not really the point, it's almost as if you're debating the possible existence of an extreme left-wing (which for this example would be extreme examples of civil rights activists) rather than the substance of the post - that being a comparison of both a left and right politician shying away from the base of a party to appeal to a broader audience, despite the fact that they themselves may actually embrace that faction or some of its ideologies.

    Parent
    The more important question is ... (none / 0) (#74)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:02:00 PM EST
    if you felt your rights had been abridged by the state, where would you see redress other than the courts?

    Where?

    Parent

    I guess they would seek in a bi-partinsan (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:04:30 PM EST
    agreement in the Legislature : )

    Parent
    LOL! (none / 0) (#76)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:08:16 PM EST
    Laugh of the day ... for me at least.

    Thanks.

    Parent

    Kathy (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:07:23 AM EST
    Wait for the Open Thread. I will put one up shortly.

    I am deleting this comment as off topic.

    I assumed you would! (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:15:48 AM EST
    it was directed more to you than others.  But, back on topic...

    The language of this article gives me more pause than the content.  This is just more reframing of word meanings.  It's what's been done with "liberal" and "feminist" and any number of words that started out meaning positive things but have been twisted into negatives.  It's like saying, "I'm not a feminist, but I believe in reproductive rights and equality."  Okay...well...what is a feminist if not a person who believes in those two things?

    I, too, worry that in Obama's zeal to please, he'll not take stands on important issues.  Every time someone says they won't vote for Obama in the ge, choice and other democratic issues get thrown down their throats.  Am I the only one here who thinks a president Obama might toss in a conservative (even moderately conservative) judge or two in order to keep the republicans happy?

    Because let's be honest: that's what he means about "bringing folks together."  He wants both sides to be happy, and the only way to accomplish that is through compromise.  I could very easily imagine Obama putting an incredibly liberal judge in California or MA because that'll keep them happy, then turning around and putting an incredibly conservative judge in TX because that'll make THEM happy.  Who knows what he'd do with the supreme court.  He doesn't mind putting republicans on his cabinet.  Why not put someone on the Court who, say, doesn't support choice but supports civl rights?  Or is "for" flag burning (inasmuch as anyone can be) and for voter ID laws?

    Are these the kinds of compromises we are willing to make?  It's certainly not an argument for the fifty-state strategy.  Talk about status quo.

    Parent

    Interesting (none / 0) (#36)
    by lilburro on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:51:47 AM EST
    in your third paragraph.  I hadn't thought of that.  It's plausible.

    The pool from which a President appoints is often made up of his/her friends though, isn't it?  Who are Obama's gavel whacking friends?

    Parent

    from what I have gathered (none / 0) (#40)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:57:01 AM EST
    the lower appointments can be political favors doled out, or a need to make problems go away.  Right or wrong, that's how it works.  When you get to the higher courts, it's not so much about direct friendship as your advisors "knowing" people.  If you take a look at Obama's advisors, then that gives you some idea of who he might choose.  But, again, considering he is saying he will welcome republicans into his cabinet, and those people are going to be his advisors...which democratic values is he going to throw over the bridge on his way to unity?

    Parent
    yes... (none / 0) (#96)
    by jor on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:28:59 PM EST
    ... an anti-Iraq republican as secretary of defense. Oh the horror! the horror! PLEASE. stop the absurd speculative fear mongering. Leave that to republicans.

    Parent
    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#98)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 05:06:24 PM EST
    There are more issues for our military than Iraq.

    Where does Chuck Hagel stand on the issue of military spending in general?

    Where does he stand on the issue of private military contractors like Blackwater?

    Where does he stand on the issue of rooting out the massive contracting fraud that has taken place under the Bush Administration and punishing the offenders, who assuredly are all major Republican contributors?

    Parent

    Anyone remember that article that said (none / 0) (#85)
    by tigercourse on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:46:03 PM EST
    that Obama wanted to vote to confirm Roberts, but was told not to because it would be bad politics?

    Every day I feel worse about this guy.

    The Outsider's Insider (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by jen on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:49:40 PM EST
    After three decades in Washington, Pete Rouse is a voice of experience for Sen. Barack Obama.

    By Perry Bacon Jr.
    Washington Post

    Sen. Barack Obama had hired Pete Rouse for just such a moment.

    It was the fall of 2005, and the celebrated young senator -- still new to Capitol Hill but aware of his prospects for higher office -- was thinking about voting to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice. Talking with his aides, the Illinois Democrat expressed admiration for Roberts's intellect. Besides, Obama said, if he were president he wouldn't want his judicial nominees opposed simply on ideological grounds.

    And then Rouse, his chief of staff, spoke up. This was no Harvard moot-court exercise, he said. If Obama voted for Roberts, Rouse told him, people would remind him of that every time the Supreme Court issued another conservative ruling, something that could cripple a future presidential run. Obama took it in. And when the roll was called, he voted no....

    From the same article -- kind of goes against the "new, change" guy rhetoric...


    ..."Pete's very good at looking around the corners of decisions and playing out the implications of them," Obama said an interview when asked about that discussion. "He's been around long enough that he can recognize problems and pitfalls a lot quicker than others can."

    Pete Rouse is the Outsider's Insider, a fixer steeped in the ways of a Washington that Obama has been both eager to learn and quick to publicly condemn. The meticulous workaholic rose through three decades of unglamorous legislating to become arguably the most influential Democratic aide in the Senate when he worked for then-Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.)....



    Parent
    Wow, I guess (none / 0) (#100)
    by BrandingIron on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 05:32:44 PM EST
    that's what Obama means when he talks about having "good judgment", then, huh...make sure you have people who know how to make your correct decisions for you!

    Parent
    oddly enough, (none / 0) (#113)
    by cpinva on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:07:24 AM EST
    the primary function of the constitution, and most especially the bill of rights, was to protect minorities from "unwilling majorities". "unwilling majorities" generally can protect themselves, minorities can't. that obama truly espouses this position is scary as hell.