The Dish

Here’s an email typical of one I get all the time:

I have been a big fan of your blog for some time now, but I do have one major problem reading it – the white lettering on purple background makes it really hard for me to look at the site for any extended period of time. This is not an aesthetic problem – I absolutely no sense of color coordination and would not presume to criticize from that perspective. What I mean is that I find your site physically hard to read due some weird light dynamics related to the color scheme. Further, when I switch to a new site, I have to take a break for a minute or two until my eyes reset – like post-looking at a bright light or the sun.

I take the point. I actually like the color scheme and hope to retain it in an upcoming redesign. But I know it can be hard for some to read. That’s why there’s a little button up top of the Dish, just under the words “Daily Dish”. It’s easily missed but it says: “Black & White.” Click on it and the colors reverse.

Dale Carpenter finishes his superb defense of equality in marriage on the Volokh blog. Click here and scroll down for more. Jon Rowe has further thoughts (and if you aren’t familiar with his blog, you should be). Meanwhile, don’t forget that the most readable, funny, honest and persuasive book on the subject published this year is Dan Savage’s “The Commitment.” You know Dan from the summer when he guest-blogged here. The book is a rare blend of comic genius, frank memoir, and piercing, deadly forensics.

Some tough talk from a future Democratic presidential contender.

CHENEY AND WMDS: It’s the vice-president who’s been most active in preventing any real investigation of the intelligence discussions before the war. Update from Mike Crowley:

[Harry] Reid also made it clear that he believes the delay in the Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation of prewar Iraq WMD–the underlying issue behind Tuesday’s closed session–is entirely attributable to Vice President Dick Cheney. “Nothing happens regarding intelligence gathering … unless it’s signed off on by the Vice President,” he said. “[Senate Intelligence chairman Pat] Roberts couldn’t do it”–i.e., Roberts couldn’t conduct a full investigation without Cheney’s approval. When I asked Reid whether he meant to state so flatly that Cheney was personally and directly stalling the Intelligence Committee’s work, he didn’t pause a beat. In fact he almost stood from his chair. “Yes. I say that without any qualification … Circle it.”

Many already have. Meanwhile, there’s more evidence that some pre-war WMD intelligence that might have undercut the administration was ignored or sidelined:

A high Qaeda official in American custody was identified as a likely fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained Al Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons, according to newly declassified portions of a Defense Intelligence Agency document

Worth emphasizing here: this is not necessarily evidence of deception. It fits into a pattern of insufficient skepticism in advance of the war. The consensus was so great and the risk so dangerous after 9/11 that debunking Saddam’s claims was not on the agenda as much as, in retrospect, it should have been. It sure wasn’t on mine; and I regret it. But then, I didn’t have access to all the classified data, and the Bush people did. It’s clear now at least that we could have done with a bit more “conservatism of doubt” in the run-up to the war.

The much-bally-hooed official document has been pushed back again, according to National Catholic Reporter’s John Allen. (I should point out that some have tried to argue that earlier alarms about the policy were based entirely on reporting in the New York Times. Not true. They reports came from conservative Catholic sources and John Allen, one of the most clued-in Vatican journalists, and were confirmed by extreme statements – subsequently largely walked back – by Archbishop O’Brien). Money quote from Allen:

The official, who is familiar with the content of the document, told NCR its central message is that “homosexuals are not welcome in the priesthood.” The official said it also sets out guidelines, however, such as the capacity for celibacy, avoidance of the “gay lifestyle,” and the absence of an “overwhelming, permanent” orientation, which could make application less absolute than some of the document’s hard-line language may suggest.

This official said that the key to understanding the document is grasping its genre.

“This is not a matter of sacramental theology,” he said. “It’s not saying that homosexuals are intrinsically unworthy of being priests. It’s a matter of prudential judgment, that this is not a good idea.”

I’m going to wait for the actual document before commenting further. But there are both ominous and not-so-ominous signals coming from the Vatican.

“It was very brave of MTV to start the show with a transvestite.” – Borat, Kazakhastan media celebrity, on Madonna’s amazing performance at the MTV Europe music awards. She’s peerless.

Ramesh Ponnuru and Stephen Bainbridge respond to Amy Sullivan’s worry that pro-life Catholic judges might be refused communion if they dOn’t vote to overturn Roe or be less than categorical in abortion cases. Amy responds again. Ramesh says there’s an obvious distinction between legislating a substantive issue, and making a legal judgment on constitutional law. I see his point. But if such a judgment effectively allows abortion to continue, isn’t the judge de facto informally “cooperating with evil” and thereby liable to Church sanction with respect to the sacraments? Bainbridge argues:

There are cases–albeit only in those limited class of cases in which a judge’s decision constitutes formal cooperation with evil–in which a Catholic jurist is religiously obligated to put his faith-based beliefs ahead of, say, his views of precedent. Conversely, however, it seems clear that judicial decisionmaking–even with respect to issues, like abortion, that raise very profound questions–under Church teaching does not per se constitute formal cooperation with evil.

That’s a revealing per se qualification. Then he goes on to say:

[W]here a Catholic judge believes his participation in a particular case would constitute formal cooperation with evil, the judge should recuse himself–as often happens. The possibility that a judge (or justice) might have to recuse himself in occasional cases, however, does not strike me as a legitimate reason to deny the judge a seat on the bench.

I agree with the latter point. But what we are seeing are the political consequences of the Catholic hierarchy’s slow collapse into fundamentalism. Once a Catholic is denied the moral capacity to separate her public duties from her private faith – or risk exclusion from the sacraments – then she is in an acute conflict between public duty and private conscience. Recusal may be her only option. But we now have five Catholics on the court. In Benedict’s church, on critical Constitutional questions, we might face five recusals in abortion cases, which would make any ruling largely meaningless. This is the consequence of the Vatican’s retreat from the Second Council’s acceptance of religious freedom and conscience, and Benedict’s deep qualms about a clear separation of church and state. The theocons want to reverse the Kennedy compromise. And in doing so, they may be forcing Catholics in public life to withdraw altogether or face the charge of a religious conflict of interest. In their zeal, the theocons are unwittingly breathing new life into anti-Catholic prejudice, and new force behind the exclusion of Catholics from public life in a pluralist democracy.

The veep’s office, with David Addington central to it, now has a long, long record of of creating awful problems for the president, the war and American democracy itself. Ryan Lizza gives a useful summary here (free subscription required).

The French elite fights with itself. A helpful analysis from Bronwen Maddox.

Amy Sullivan asks why the Vatican is not demanding absolute pro-life reasoning from Catholic Supreme Court Justices. If the rule is good for pols, why not judges?

I’m starting a recurring watch feature on Dick Cheney’s refusal to answer even the most basic questions about his conduct in office. We are now a week since his former chief of staff was indicted on five counts, with many, many questions related to his role in the affair. Still, radio silence from the veep. We are also reaching the end-game on his refusal to ban torture and abuse in military detention policies. And still: no comment. Here’s something from the NYT today on Cheney’s threatening to veto the McCain Amendment and leaning as hard as he can to kill it in the conferecne committe:

A spokeswoman for Mr. Cheney, Lea Anne McBride, said Thursday that Mr. Cheney frequently met with members of Congress to discuss legislative issues, but she declined to characterize his stand on Mr. McCain’s provision or the proposed motion to instruct House conferees.

She declined? Who on earth does Cheney think he is? And when will the press get aggressive in pursuing him until he starts acting like an accountable elected official and not some monarch. If readers catch more instances of Cheney’s preposterous refusal to be accountable to the people who elected him and who pay his salary, please let me know.