Letters to the Editor
notre druide
Published Letters: 106 Editor's Choice: 5
-
The Boundless Hypocrisy of the GOP
[Read the article: Hutchison digs herself out -- or in a little deeper]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When I saw Kay's original comment I almost fell out of my chair. To recap the inherent absurdities already noted, and add one of my own:
(1) Clinton's perjury was in a civil case and concerned private sexual conduct; this was not only a criminal investigation, but one directly involving matters of national security and something very close to treason (not to mention gross abuses of civil rights for purposes of political retaliation).
(2) Clinton's perjury was discovered at the outer fringes of a highly partisan special prosecution that, after spending many years and many millions, never turned up any criminal wrongdoing by Clinton (or his wife) in the connection with the subjects it was initiated to investigate. The perjury here went to the heart of the very matter under scrutiny, i.e., whether White House officials violated the foreign intelligence act for purposes of political retaliation.
(3) The lawsuit in which Clinton's testimony occurred involved a kind of tort (sexual harassment) that, I think it's safe to say, wouldn't even exist if the Shrubbites had been in power for the last 50 years. As I recall, at least one of the prominent accusers -- Mr. Hanky (Henry Hyde) -- were credibly linked to similar misconduct themselves.
Kay's new attempt to distinguish the two cases is not only factually absurd, but legally wrong. A jury can't convict anyone of perjury unless it believes they made a false statement *wilfully.* If they forgot, or were confused, the requisite "mens rea" is lacking, and the defendant is not guilty. Her distinction therefore depends on the supposition that the (prospective) defendants are in fact innocent of perjury. If Fitzgerald doesn't think he can persuade a jury (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the defendants are guilty, then he shouldn't, and presumably won't, ask for perjury indictments.
In other words, she's a tool -- in more senses than one.
-
Time to Call the Nuclear Bluff
[Read the article: There's no stopping Alito now]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When the Republicans first floated the nuclear option, it was a serious threat. They were sitting on top of the world, and they probably felt they'd be there forever. Now Bush's policies are unravelling all over the place and Republicans are embroiled in the biggest, most venal scandal since Teapot Dome. The Republicans would be crazy to eliminate the filibuster now, because they may need it themselves after the November elections. Many of them are very stupid, but few of them are that stupid. I'm watching to see if they even make a serious *threat* of going nuclear. I suspect more than a few of them wouldn't mind seeing Alito defeated just to send a message to Bush that even a Republican Congress won't just stand there while he shreds the Constitution.
-
In Fact ...
[Read the article: There's no stopping Alito now]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]To game this out a little further, any Republicans up for election this year would probably *love* to see a successful filibuster of Alito because it gives them a big drum to beat to stir up their Christianazi base when they go on the hustings this fall. That's what makes me wonder if Mrs. Alito has any thespian experience. I can just hear the Republican candidates strumming the heartstrings of their witless constituents by reminding them how Teddy the Hutt "made that nice lady cry."
-
Agree About Roe
[Read the article: There's no stopping Alito now]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's probably too late to persuade any Republicans to vote against the nomination, but I agree with beth m that Roe is the wrong issue. The killer issue is the radical view of presidential power that Alito shares with the Bush gang. In this view, the president is beyond the reach of Congress so long as he is exercising his "war powers." Bush claims to be waging a "war on terror" that by its very nature is likely to last for decades. His claim of limitless "war powers" is therefore right out of Orwell -- perpetual war as a justification for dictatorship.
Nobody in their right mind, Republican or Democrat, can favor the prospect of a president who claims the unilateral power to ignore the will of the other two branches while running roughshod over the Bill of Rights. For this reason, while I don't expect any Republicans to actually vote against Alito, I do think some of them might be happy to let a filibuster succeed. That way they can send a signal of protest to Bush and still use Alito's defeat to beat up the Democrats at election time.
-
Why Roe Will Not Be Overruled
[Read the article: There's no stopping Alito now]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Rich Greenwood illustrates beth m's point about Roe being the wrong issue. Millions of otherwise compassionate and progressive people have supported Republican candidates because of this one controversy. If not for this issue, there could be no Republican party as presently configured, i.e., an unholy alliance between religious fundamentalists and plutocrats. By the same token, if Roe were ever flatly overruled, all these one-issue Republicans would repudiate the party in droves as they realize how little else they have in common with its ruling corporate elite, which has destroyed their jobs and their pensions, lowered their standard of living, deprived them of decent health care, and gutted their schools.
In other words, the Republican party needs Roe v. Wade, and has no intention of appointing judges who will actually overrule it. What they will do is gradually permit greater incremental limitations on women's rights to choose. Perhaps eventually that right will become so burdened that it will cease to exist, as a practical matter, in some states. But as long as they can get away with it, the Republicans will keep holding out the carrot of "overruling Roe" to keep folks like Rich in their camp.
-
The 18-minute Gap, Revisited
[Read the article: What happened to the Padilla interrogation videos?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]> "'I don't know what happened to it,' Pentagon attorney James Schmidli said during a recent court hearing."
If Rose Mary Woods were still alive, I'd suggest they give her a call.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Mary_Woods