Armageddon Time

Nick Gillespie | November 1, 2005

In the matter of the Alito nomination:

"This one is going to be Armageddon," said Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Republican and former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, acknowledged that the fight will be tough, but predicted confirmation before the end of the year. "In 1990, a Democrat-controlled Senate unanimously confirmed Judge Alito as a circuit judge," Mr. Frist said in a statement dispatched 27 minutes before President Bush announced his selection. "I hope that my colleagues will give his nomination a fair opportunity this time as well."

"It is sad that the president felt he had to pick a nominee likely to divide America instead of choosing a nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor, who would unify us. [Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)] said. "This controversial nominee, who would make the court less diverse and far more conservative, will get very careful scrutiny from the Senate and from the American people."

Whole thing here. Well, here's hoping the ideological catfight will be both entertainin' and edifyin'.

Comments

|11.1.05 @ 8:23AM|#

Armageddon on the Senate floor? We should be so lucky. Especially the part where the Bible talks about the birds of the air gorging themselves on the flesh of the fallen.

MP|11.1.05 @ 8:33AM|#

Hey Chucky, why don't you take the roll call to Ginsburg's 96-3 confirmation vote and shove it sideways up your ass.

|11.1.05 @ 8:35AM|#

Let's put aside abortion and ask the questions that really matter:

Has he ever smoked pot?

Has he ever hired an illegal immigrant?

|11.1.05 @ 8:36AM|#

crimethink:

You beat me to it. I'm imagining Ragnorock (sp?). It would be cool to have giant wolves, serpents, flying hammers, and heroes dying on each other's swords on Capital Hill.

|11.1.05 @ 8:40AM|#

"It is sad that the president felt he had to pick a nominee likely to divide America instead of choosing a nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor, who would unify us."

I wonder what nominee that would be? Sorry, Chuck, but I don't think such a person exists. When you've boiled all political philosophy down to yes/no answers on a few hot-button issues, you'll disappointed half the people all the time.

I hope this confirmation battle gets all sorts of ugly, with personal attacks, physical attacks, dueling(one can hope),the works. It would certainly liven up C-SPAN.

MP|11.1.05 @ 8:47AM|#

"It all gets pretty crazy, bedlam all around Anarchy, chaos rule the street, it's a Ragnarok party town!"

- GWAR

|11.1.05 @ 8:52AM|#

Keep it coming with the Clash references (alternate spellings notwithstanding).

|11.1.05 @ 9:03AM|#

I'm imagining Ragnorock (sp?).

OK, who's going to play the part of Baulder, Loki, Thor, and the Midgaurd Serpent?

Hey! How can the Fimbulvetr happen with all this global warming? ;)

|11.1.05 @ 9:19AM|#

You guys are thinking cooler thoughts than I. For some reason, I went staight to:

"Are you gettin' it? Really gettin' it? Armageddon it..."

|11.1.05 @ 9:19AM|#

MNG-

Everybody knows that the Last Day will be when the platinum dragon battles the five-headed dragon of many colors. Gee, didn't you ever read Dragonlance?

|11.1.05 @ 9:22AM|#

What's the big deal? He's only going to be evaluated on the basis of his opinions about Roe, Raich, Kelo, the Second Amendment and maybe immigration. Supreme Court nominations (like pretty much everything else in politics) have boiled down to which hot-button issues can be compressed into 30 second sound bites and piped over the idiot box at 120 decibels. The upcoming contentious confirmation process is just smoke and mirrors to distract you from what your elected officials are really doing.

|11.1.05 @ 9:25AM|#

AS one who admires Chuck Shumer (not as much as his former intern), I am looking forward to this fight. If we (Dems) win, we win, if we lose we win.
If we don't fight it, we lose.
Disallowing the government to interfere with the Doctor Patient relationship with regard to legitimate medical procedures* (I would include abortion and marijuana for glaucoma) is an important principle, and I would prefer it to be protected by the courts. But politically, I think the vast majority would prefer less government intrusion into that relationship, and it is a fight that will end up marginalizing the Christian Right, which cannot happen soon enough.

*I am trying to couch things in libertarian language, but it is not really what I believe. I think the government should regulate medical care, but not regulate morality. The govt's interest is in regulating medical care in any way that using cost/benefit calculations increases healthy outcomes.

|11.1.05 @ 9:30AM|#

I'm sorry, did someone say they admire Chuck Schumer? That's a hell of a way to lead off a post.

|11.1.05 @ 9:31AM|#

The govt's interest is in regulating medical care in any way that using cost/benefit calculations increases healthy outcomes.

That'll happen.

I need a roll eyes smiley.

|11.1.05 @ 9:37AM|#

He's only going to be evaluated on the basis of his opinions about Roe, Raich, Kelo, the Second Amendment and maybe immigration

You're absolutely right, except the parts about Raich, Kelo, the Second Amendment and maybe immigration. There is only one issue that matters to anyone in the Divided States of Abortion!

|11.1.05 @ 9:39AM|#

I think the government should regulate medical care, but not regulate morality.

The government already does regulate medical care, and that's why it's so damn expensive and bureaucratic. Any further regulation will certainly be in the form of dictating to the rest of us what we can eat, and mandatory gym memberships for those of us whose BMI is over the level approved by the government, because these measures are certain to increase healthy outcomes.

|11.1.05 @ 9:43AM|#

Independent Worm-

I have proposed before, only half-joking, that we should have a fourth branch of government. Call it the Obstetric Branch, and give that branch sole authority over abortion and nothing else.

How many people should we elect to this branch? Well, let's tally up the number of people standing in front of clinics with signs on any given day and multiply by two.

|11.1.05 @ 9:51AM|#

Just when I thought Hatch was going to have the stupid quote of the day locked up, out comes Chavez.

"President Hugo Chavez cautioned Venezuelan parents to protect their children from Halloween with a spooky warning that the US tradition is rooted in "terrorism."

"What they have implanted here, which is really a 'gringo' custom, is terrorism," Chavez said, quoted in the local press. "They disguise children as witches and wizards, that is contrary to our culture."'

Why do trick or treaters hate our freedom? Or at least Venezuela's freedom?

|11.1.05 @ 9:54AM|#

Jason,
I thought someone would like that.

jf, overwhelmingly, that is what happens with government regulation. There are of course examples of abuse and fraud, but for the most part, especially excluding the present administration, progress is consistently being made on making that more the case. [with that said, I think there is a proper rethinking of how to use market incentives in government regulations]

I agree that healthcare is a mess in this country, but the the government regulations that we do have (also a mess) are a symptom -- an attempt to bandage over the perverse incentives that private health insurance combined with employer-based healthcare creates. We can look to other countries for examples of cheaper healthcare with better results, and we can do it universally.

|11.1.05 @ 9:55AM|#

Oh, instead of elections, I think membership in the Obstetric Branch should be decided by gladiator contests.

gaius marius should be freaking out right now. Just remember, I'm (mostly) joking.

|11.1.05 @ 9:59AM|#

We can look to other countries for examples of cheaper healthcare with better results, and we can do it universally.

Every time I see the words "universal" and "healthcare" in the same sentence, my heart skips a beat.

|11.1.05 @ 10:35AM|#

This'll be Armageddon like meth is an Epidemic. What is it about D.C. that has the effect of exponentiating the magnitude of every social or political change in the country? Delusions of self-grandeur?

|11.1.05 @ 10:36AM|#

Is "theCoach" the new nom de plume for the Democrat hack formerly known as joe?

|11.1.05 @ 11:32AM|#

gustav,
Nope. Joe is pretty consistently more informed than I am. I am a pretty firmly in the Democrat's camp, but would prefer a more honest Republican party.
On a libertarian poll Tyler Cowen posted a while back, I scored much more consistently libertarian than Tyler said he did, but I find the philosophy of libertarianism confused.
For example, on a visceral level nothing upsets me more than talk of a flag burning ammendment, but upon reflection, I think there are much more important priorities - healthcare, economic policies based on economics, not fantasy (Republican Supply Side, etc.), education, etc.
You asked.

|11.1.05 @ 11:34AM|#

Hot digitty! My favorite topic: Armageddon! That's what it's all boiling down to. Those jerks in the year 1000 AD were nuts to think they'd have an Armageddon. Nope it's ours, ours, ours, all ours.

Just onre quick question. I'll be done making hard cider soon and I'll have 18 gallons of carboy space available. What should I store in them, besides water, that will be of use or value in the upcoming Great Crisis? I can always store water in my primary and bottling bucket.

|11.1.05 @ 11:37AM|#

I come to Hit and Run via Matthew Yglesias who I pretty consistently agree with, and who I believe is friendly with some contributors here.

MP|11.1.05 @ 11:54AM|#

Matthew Yglesias who I pretty consistently agree with

Sorry to hear that.

|11.1.05 @ 12:00PM|#

Sorry to hear that.

Why? These threads would be incredibly boring if they were an homogeneous circle-jerk.

|11.1.05 @ 12:00PM|#

the coach would this " of cheaper healthcare with better results, and we can do it universally." be the Uk, where as i understand it, it costs approaxmatley 8K a year and is a system which has been rejected by nigerians?

R C Dean|11.1.05 @ 12:08PM|#

"It is sad that the president felt he had to pick a nominee likely to divide America instead of choosing a nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor, who would unify us."

Actually, I think we just had a nominee in the mold of Sandra Day (female, political pragmatist, unlikely to ever produce opinions or lines of cases that give reliable guidance to future action), and the country was divided as hell.

gaius marius|11.1.05 @ 12:08PM|#

The upcoming contentious confirmation process is just smoke and mirrors to distract you from what your elected officials are really doing.

if it were just the legalist politicians at work, mr b, i'd agree. however, there's this matter of the populares v. the optimates that needs to be resolved.

gaius marius should be freaking out right now.

you can read all about it, mr thoreau. :)

|11.1.05 @ 12:13PM|#

Why? These threads would be incredibly boring if they were an homogeneous circle-jerk.

Yeah, but it's a lot easier on the cardio-vascular system. Reading the paternalistic, arrogant, statist, ramblings of both Leftists and conservatives either leaves me screaming at my computer screen (not a good sign), or with a massive anger-induced headache.

I don't like being angry. I like being happy. Besides, it's not as if political "debate" ever convinced anyone of anything.

|11.1.05 @ 12:20PM|#

I don't like being angry. I like being happy. Besides, it's not as if political "debate" ever convinced anyone of anything.


I enjoy getting all worked up over this stuff. It helps break the monotony of my day.

|11.1.05 @ 12:25PM|#

British Libertarian,
I am not well versed in the British system (I used to know a little more). It is currently undergoing considerable reform, no?

My understanding of the British system was that it was much, much, much cheaper than the US system. That resuts were roughly comparable, but that it was only slightly more preferred by people under it than in the US, and that it covered everybody.
I think there are probably better models than the British, but that more than likely it is preferrable to the US system. but this IS a thread about the Supreme Court pick, so...

Getting back to the topic, mostly this fight will be about abortion rights, the right to privacy being the foundation -- on that count I would think libertarians would be on Chuck Shumer's side, no?

Is the commerce clause stuff really worth it, in Alito's case? I think you are likely to get the worst case scenario in any case with Alito. He will side consistently with Corporate America in commerce clause stuff (assuming that he differs from the vanilla judges), but not on stuff like medical marijuana. Also, I think you are opening a pandoras box with a wholesale reversal of the commerce clause, which would pretty quickly result in a constitutional ammendment granting those rights (and more!) to congress.
The populace is a lot more populist economically than you might think.

gaius marius|11.1.05 @ 12:25PM|#

the thing about o'connor is that she, like kennedy, was a legalist -- one who put the primacy in her decision-making on the absolute need for order based on compromise under law.

that will not be alito's way. he, like scalia, thomas, stevens or ginsberg in outlook if not temperament, places primacy in manifesting the ideology that is such a dominant feature of his body of opinion. he is an optimate, and as such works against the law even if subtly.

the damage to the institution isn't in naming a conservative vs a liberal. it's in nominating an ideologue -- a quiet revolutionary -- in the stead of a legalist.

|11.1.05 @ 1:21PM|#

a little late in the game, but Teddy K would be the midgard serpent, Pelosi the Fenris Wolf, and the mischevious Alan Keyes is Loki.

|11.1.05 @ 1:26PM|#

"the thing about o'connor is that she, like kennedy, was a legalist -- one who put the primacy in her decision-making on the absolute need for order based on compromise under law."

Oh, fer crapsake gaius. Don't you think that having a bunch of jurists who only care about compromise sort of undermines the legitimacy of stare decisis? Since cases are political and demographics are temporary, a judicial view divorced from an ideological perspective of the proper role of government can't mean much for the next case down the road. A decision is supposed to establish an ideological framework that allows for analysis of intent and the like - that is why stare decisis has merit at all. If every case is about seeking temporary compromise and nothing else, every case is more or less atomic. All you can say about previous cases is that 'the USSC decided thus and so on the grounds that that made everyone happy at the time'.

|11.1.05 @ 3:06PM|#

the thing about o'connor is that she, like kennedy, was a legalist -- one who put the primacy in her decision-making on the absolute need for order based on compromise under law.

You say that like it's a good thing. There are more examples than you can shake a stick at of rational people compromising with those who are wrong just to get them to shut up. This, it would seem, leads us in a worse off direction than sticking to one's guns.

gaius marius|11.1.05 @ 3:45PM|#

You say that like it's a good thing.

what's the alternative, mr mediageek? self-obsessed crusading to rewrite two hundred years of law built on experience in the name of One Holy Idea? you may find law based on experiences and compromises to be impure and even in some places wrong, but it's a hell of a lot less dangerous to the rule of law than what people like scalia represent.

Don't you think that having a bunch of jurists who only care about compromise sort of undermines the legitimacy of stare decisis?

i think, mr ligon, that those who find compromise -- compromise not only with each other in space but in time with existing precedent laid out by their forebears -- best guarantee stare decisis. sorry if my words did not imply compromise with precedent.

a judicial view divorced from an ideological perspective of the proper role of government can't mean much for the next case down the road.

i agree -- but the problem we face in this society is that few consider that there were ideas that came before their own, many of which have been tested and failed. this is why stare decisis is valuable -- through it, law is the product of thousands of actual trials and errors and not spontaneous intellectual noodlings.

|11.1.05 @ 3:57PM|#

Gaius, your hand wringing is not needed. If it moves us towards a society wherein individuals are no longer at the will of an increasingly merciless state, and especially if it moves us to a point where we have a government willing to respect the Bill of Rights and adhere to its Constitutional limits I fail to see how continuing to compromise with statists could possibly result in a more positive outcome.

How is adherence to the Bill of Rights spontaneous intellectual noodling?

MP|11.1.05 @ 5:24PM|#

gaius,

IMHO, the wholesale rollback of the federal state significantly outweighs your "rule of law" concerns. Maybe there are specific rollbacks that we could bicker about, but if I woke up tomorrow and heard "the Supreme Court unwound every decision for the last 75 years and said 'do over'", I would be thrilled.

nmg|11.1.05 @ 5:41PM|#

"The govt's interest is in regulating medical care in any way that using cost/benefit calculations increases healthy outcomes."

Then you don't believe in freedom.

nmg

|11.1.05 @ 5:46PM|#

gaius:

I am much more comfortable with your follow up comments about compromise. I think we differ on a couple of points still, though.

1) What you are calling a legalist, especially if you are calling O'Conner one, is not doing what you indicate they are doing. They are not compromising with precedent and each other (a concept that has some internal problems IMO). What they are doing is looking first not to change anything without much thought to what should be the case. I think it is not the act of compromise they value primarily, but a political calculation of preferred outcomes. Don't get me wrong, the ideologues have the same problem. The good news is that the ideologues have an ideology that informs their decisions. We can tell quite a bit about the court's view of the role of government from a decision written by Thomas. However, if you are the glorified 'swing vote', your decisions lack ... persistence.

2) Stare decisis is mostly an argument of convenience these days. FDR saw no need to appeal to it whatsoever when he stacked the court. He created new law out of whole cloth. Now, we are asked to treat post 'old man' court law as though it represents the accumulated wisdom of society over all of American history? To me, that binding, stabilizing ingredient you are looking for is legitimacy, and legitimacy is more complex than acceptance of precedent.

|11.1.05 @ 10:31PM|#

"that will not be alito's way. he, like scalia, thomas, stevens or ginsberg in outlook if not temperament, places primacy in manifesting the ideology that is such a dominant feature of his body of opinion. he is an optimate, and as such works against the law even if subtly."-gaius marius

Sorry gaius, it is the syle of jurists like O'Conner and Kennedy which have undermine the law. Not so much in what they have ruled, but in the fact that their rulings have no consistant basis or logic to them, and therefore as much recent SC jurisprudence has been the Scalia/Thomas and Breyer/Ginsburg wings shaping their arguments to win their votes, the law has no consistant basis or logic to it. Clear law inspires confidnece in the public for the legal system. Muddy, confused law inspires contempt.