Taking a Constitutional?

Taking a Constitutional?

Taking a Constitutional?

The latest chatter in cyberspace.
Aug. 16 2005 4:06 PM

Taking a Constitutional?

Bloggers discuss the extension of the Iraqi Constitution deadline; they also ponder Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' opinions about Michael Jackson and delight in a list of the movies Roger Ebert hates most.

Taking a constitutional?: Minutes before the agreed-upon deadline, the Iraqi parliament gave politicians a week's extension to hammer out the details of the constitution.

Bloggers are torn about this turn of events. Conservative Publius Pundit believes that the glass is half-full: "I think that it is a good thing that the committe members will be able to reflect on and refine the hard work that they've done over the past few weeks, and over the past few days especially. They certainly need to bridge a large disconnect between their own ideologies and the wishes of the Iraqi people." BuzzMachine's moderate Jeff Jarvis agrees: "On the Iraqi constitution, a week's delay is seen as a defeat. But, of course, we should compare that with our own heritage: 16 months to negotiate articles of confederation that were a disaster; 13 years from the Declaration of Independence before we ended up with a constitution and a government. And we had an advantage: We weren't murdering each other."

Advertisement

Naysayers also abound. Left-leaning You Will Anyway points out, "[T]he December elections are dependent upon acceptance. If there's no new constitution, how can there be elections for the country's first new government? I think they'd be back to square one: voting a new parliament to attempt to hash out a new constitution." Some continue to be skeptical of the constitution's basic premises. "[I]t seems a move towards a constitution based in shari'a stands a good chance of threatening rights women already had under Iraqi secular law, like divorce and the right to marry without the consent of their families, and possibly access to education in conservative households," writes anti-Bush Argentla.

InstaPundit's libertarian Glenn Reynolds has a more measured take: "It's probably neither good news or bad, but just part of the ongoing haggling, which as I've mentioned before is likely to be self-limiting once the Sunnis realize they've gotten as much as they can."

Read more about the Iraqi Constitution.

Roberts v. Jackson: Sure the thousands of pages of documents released by the White House give insight into Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' views on abortion and school prayer. But some bloggers are tickled by this Dana Milbank piece in the Washington Post in which Milbank discovered that Roberts disapproved of attempts made by Michael Jackson's PR firm to get presidential endorsement. In 1984, Roberts wrote, "Frankly, I find the obsequious attitude of some members of the White House staff toward Mr. Jackson's attendants, and the fawning posture they would have the president of the United States adopt, more than a little embarrassing."

Conservatives are sure that Roberts' stance on Jackson underscores his superiority. "[A]nyone who had the foresight to warn politicians off of Michael Jackson at the height of his popularity and the will to convince them of his foresight probably will easily make mincemeat of the puny and superficial attacks offered thus far to his confirmation," writes Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters. Fellow right-wingers commend Roberts. "Hmmmm...Could common sense be making it's way back into the High Court? No wonder the libs are getting fidgety," statesHopperbach.

Advertisement

Most liberals are ignoring this scoop. But Shelf Space's Princess Sparkle Pony notes Roberts' use of terms like "vox clamans in terris," and "eleemosynary." The language blogger claims, "So now we have something concrete with which to mock Judge Roberts: He likes to use big words and pointless Latin when perfectly simple alternatives exist. Satirists take note!"

Read more about Roberts and Jackson.

Two thumbs down: Bloggers are gushing over critic Roger Ebert's list of most-hated movies. (Here's a characteristic sentiment from his review of Last Rites: "Many films are bad. Only a few declare themselves the work of people deficient in taste, judgment, reason, tact, morality and common sense. Was there no one connected with this project who read the screenplay, considered the story, evaluated the proposed film and vomited?")

Many bloggers can't get enough. "Ebert is simply splendid at bashing bad movies. Sometimes he even bashes good ones, but it's okay because he is soooo good at it. You laugh anyway, even if it's your favorite movie of all time he's panning, or at least, I do," writesserotonin rain's Jim, who's from Pottstown, Pa. A lot of bloggers have at least one quibble though: "Inasmuch as I have been spared the chore of watching most of the films noted, it's hard to argue with his choices. However, even though it has been overrated generally, isn't it a bit harsh to include The Usual Suspects on this list?" asksHouston's Clear Thinkers' Tom Kirkendall, an attorney.

Read more about Ebert's most hated movies.

Got a question, comment, or suggestion? E-mail todaysblogs@slate.com.