Letters to the Editor
-
Death Comes for the Archbishop...
WT: That is my favorite by Cather. In fact, I could argue that it is one of her best. Others might not agree... but IMHO...
Also: A link to an interesting story about Harry Reid...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/washington/08reid.html?hp
One unforseen consequence of the GOP's obstreperousness may be that they drive our mainstream legislators further to the left. Now wouldn't that be ironic?
As we learned in the 60's, nothing is so radicalizing as having to push back against an oppressive abuse of power.
[Have to leave again! But will check in upon return...]
-
Supporting evidence, please?
It's certainly possible, but if past behavior of this congress is any guide, they have little or no "stomach" for a direct confrontation with the White House over this or pretty much any other matter. Rather than follow the course that kovie and DCLaw1 (among others) lay out, which requires a goal in mind (let's call it The Truth and Conformity With Law), there are indications that both committees are more interested in something else... let's call it a "deal." The Congress as an institution seems incapable of a sustained challenge to either the executive's authority or its lawlessness. So even if the committees pursue the matter to the full (that's still a big "if"), there is no sign -- yet -- that this Congress is prepared to do anything about it.
Are you referring to the current congress that has been in session for all of 6 months and has as of yet not meaningfully backed down a single time that I'm aware of on oversight (as opposed to Iraq or legislation)? Are you referring to the previous congresses going back to 1994, which were controlled by the GOP and thus beyond Dems' ability to direct? Are you referring to past Dem-controlled congresses that did stand up to previous GOP-led lawbreaking administrations, however insufficiently (e.g. Watergate, Iran-Contra), and whose oversight was to a large extent nullified by presidential pardon?
I'm not saying that THIS congress has been perfect, even on oversight, but you really need to back up this assertion with substantive evidence for it to be compelling. What I'm seeing is continuous hearings and investigations, now subpoenas, and the repeal of that Patriot Act provision that allowed the DoJ to appoint permanent USA's at its pleasure, and no serious (i.e. non-tactical) backing down as of yet.
Yes, congress has so far been rather feckless on Iraq and progressive legislation. But those are processes quite different from oversight, since they are determined by the willingness of the entire congress to support them, where Repubs and Blue Dogs can effectively block them. Whereas oversight is at the discretion of committees and their chairs, none of which having to do with this program or the USA scandal are controlled by Blue Dogs, let alone Repubs.
Sure, this congress may end up proving to have held back or done a bad job of oversight, but to declare that based on "past behavior", it will likely not do its job properly or fail in oversight is, I think, premature, unless you can back this up with hard evidence. But I don't see it. Perhaps I just don't want to see it, but even if so, you need to help me see the light on that one if you want to convince me that I'm wrong.
-
@ Karen M.
Score one for Glenn's indefatigable optimism. Yes, I do think the ice is slowly beginning to break. The pattern is very similar to that of Viet Nam. This time, though, I hope we can be more successful in the endgame.
-
Smoke
Mona said The idea that the population has not know for many, many decades that smoking causes cancer, heart disease etc. is preposterous
Not the entire population it seems. Didn't the CEOs of big tobacco swear to congress, under oath, that tobacco smoking was just fine? Perhaps I'm not remembering correctly.
-
can't stand standing?
Glenn:
"I think the Founders were wise to impose that requirement as a way of limiting judicial power. The fact that they don't have it in Europe is not, by itself, a particularly persuasive argument against it. If it were, it would mean we should repeal our First Amendment so that we can have all of those nice speech-limiting laws that Europe has (ones which -- as such laws tend to do -- are increasing in scope and number)."
I was indisposed at the time, but I'm glad someone (Mr. Greenwald, no less) mentioned this. It's certainly valid to separate normative from descriptive assessments of a given policy, etc., but if we're going to evaluate the merits of standing as compared to other countries, we can't leave out all the other relevant features of those countries in the process.
The United States is unique in many respects, not the least of which is its formal Constitution, and the sacrosanct Separation of Powers imposed by that Constitution. The "cases or controversies" clause of Article III is, like many of the other features of that article, vital to keeping the judicial branch from subsuming the others (as the various provisions of the other articles limit the powers of the executive and legislative branches). It is only against that backdrop, essential to our identity and character as a country, that one can completely answer whether standing requirements - or any other limitation on government power - have normative merit.
So I would concur with Glenn's example of the UK's lack of something like the First Amendment of the US Constitution, but also note that, specifically with regard to how well other countries appear to be doing without the judicial requirement of standing, we would have to ask what other features of their governmental structure might make the lack of such a limitation a good thing (or at least not a terrible thing).
I can say with very little doubt that if we were to abandon the requirement of standing in this country, the balance of power among the three branches of our government would tilt significantly toward the judicial, because literally any person could invoke the power of the courts to stop the efforts and activities of the other branches. This is to say nothing of the overwhelming effect removing the standing requirement would have on the sheer number of cases the courts would have to hear.
It is against that broader context that we must evaluate the normative merits of the Founders very intentionally limiting the power of the federal courts to cases or controversies between specific parties with concrete claims and defenses against one another.