Sorry Now?What do the liberal and moderate lawyers who supported John Roberts' nomination say today?

Remarks from the Fray:

I am sick and tired of even stellar journalists continuing to use false political labels, seemingly without first evaluating them. It drives me insane to continually hear what is plainly authoritarian ideology labeled as "conservatism." Frankly, I find it sloppy journalism born of a fear to be branded as biased.

This is not simply a plea for "re-branding" in some goofy attempt to re-wire people's perceptions. It is a plea made not as a silly political strategy of the left or center; it is made because "conservative" is so profoundly inaccurate in both the political sense of the term and its common usage. Using the "conservative" label inaccurately is a blanket acceptance of the rhetoric and PR campaigns of politicians and public figures. Just because someone describes himself or herself a certain way doesn't make it so. When a Klan member says, "I'm not a racist; I'm just defending my heritage," do journalists then refer to the KKK as an organization of Southern Heritage Advocacy?

"Conservative" in its common use implies modesty, humility, caution, and upholding tradition. "Conservative" in its political definition asserts limited government interference, deference of the Federal government to local and state governments, deference to tradition, and reverence for individual rights and responsibility. So, when journalists can tell me what is conservative about ignoring decades of Court precedent, restricting the Constitutional right of individual free speech, restricting individual equity rights in the workplace, restricting the rights of women to control their bodies, and restricting the rights of local school boards to determine their own policies - when you can do that, I'll accept the "conservative" label. Until then, however, let's try for something approaching accuracy, like "authoritarian conservatism" or just plain old "authoritarianism" because contemporary "conservatism" plainly advocates that State or Corporate authority trumps the rights of the individual. There is absolutely nothing conservative in that philosophy, period. Perhaps "authoritarian" seems a bit too impolite or shrill, huh? Well, "racist" is impolite, too, but it's a much more accurate (and honest) description of the Klan than "Southern Heritage Advocate."

Just because some moderates and lefties have bought into this false label and may associate authoritarianism with conservatism, that doesn't mean the label is accurate, honest, or even useful. I beg journalists to abandon politeness in favor of accuracy and honesty. After all, isn't a deferential politeness by the mainstream media what got us into Iraq and sentenced us to eight years of authoritarian rule in the first place?

--dustino

(To reply, click here.)

The real miracle of the Phase 2 conservative movement (after Reagan and since Newt) is that the conservatives have been an amazing collection of raging assholes (DeLay, Malkin, Bush, Cheney, Krauthammer, Lott, Santorum, O'Reilly), attacking honest people often without supporting facts, insinuating dishonesty and criminality where none exists, and most importantly, playing McCarthyite "patriot" and "you're with us or against us" games with lives, reputations and careers.

Yet all the while they have been able to position people who stand up to their lies, greed and incivility as "shrill" or "obstructive" or "engaged in class warfare." And the media, out of fear or in direct complicity, have refused to note the hypocrisy of the methodology of attack-first-and-then-accuse-the-attackees-of-being-defensive.

So what Bazelon is pointing to here is the new go-along-to-get-along paradigm: people try to portray themselves as likeable and reasonable by going along with Republican initiatives, from the utterly foolish and criminal Iraq War, to the tax cuts that impoverish the majority of us for the benefit of a few, to the nomination of Federalist Society members, who have always been extremists, to the federal bench at all levels.

In going along to get along, [liberals] betray the principles that they told themselves and their friends (and students and readers) that they hold most important. There is no excuse for that.

Folks, this is war, War upon the middle class, and war upon democracy, and war upon American interests. And those that go along to get along, no matter their liberal credentials (Peter Beinart) to their centrist good sense (Colin Powell), to their solid intellectual credentials (the fools that endorsed Roberts). When you support your oppressor, the best that can be said for you is that you committed a crime while suffering battered wife syndrome.

And as the Roberts court will tell you sooner or later, being a victim does not excuse you from being held accountable for your crime, and certainly does not entitle you to a remedy.

--Certainly

(To reply, click here.)

The SCOTUS's job? To make the laws of the land bend to the realities of the Constitution. To make sure that the government doesn't overstep it's power in granting, or in taking away rights. Perhaps more people should remember that the courts job is not to create law, only to ensure that laws are Constitutional, and that they are applied in a Constitutional manner.

Yet, this article doesn't speak, at all, to the Constitutionality of Robert's decisions, but only whether they are "liberal" or "conservative" decisions. I think that the truth is that Roberts isn't especially conservative, but Roberts does try to apply the Constitution to law, rather than attempt to bend the Constitution through the law.

That, in fact, is where politics does come into the picture. Liberals aren't upset with Robert's conservative leanings, but with the Courts current failure to create law. Further, liberals are extremely concerned that the Court will throw out those previously Court created laws, and require such decisions as Roe V. Wade to live or die on the basis of their ability to pass as Constitutional amendments. Liberals aren't afraid of Roberts, in other words, they are terrified of our system working as intended.

--FaxMeBeer

(To reply, click here.)

(6/30)

• Dan Froomkin: What White House Staffers Make
• David Ignatius: Middle East Peace for Dummies
• Robert Novak: Scandal at the Pentagon
• Dana Milbank: Sorry We Asked, Sorry You Told