The Dish

Marty Lederman assesses what the O’Connor vacancy means for various rulings. There are more detailed ramifications for specific cases and issues examined here. The Rehnquist question, of course, remains hanging in the air. I’d bookmark these blogs, if I were you.

His statement was a good one, I thought. And this passage was worth noting:

As well, I will continue to consult, as will my advisers, with members of the United States Senate. The nation deserves, and I will select, a Supreme Court Justice that Americans can be proud of. The nation also deserves a dignified process of confirmation in the United States Senate, characterized by fair treatment, a fair hearing and a fair vote. I will choose a nominee in a timely manner so that the hearing and the vote can be completed before the new Supreme Court term begins.

This is a critical moment for the president, a moment when he can reach back to a political center he has recently eschewed during a war in which a bitter and divisive internal fight should be avoided, if at all possible. I’m hoping for a reasonable and not overly ideological choice. What I’m expecting is another matter.

VIRUS UPDATE: Got new data this week about my virus. You may recall that I went back on meds because my viral load, after three years of stability at around 20,000 copies per mililiter of my blood, went to 60,000 and then 140,000. After ten days of medication, it came down to 1,500. By now, it should be zero. The drugs are amazing and I barely notice them at all any more the side effects are so minor. I guess I should add that these not atypical results show that although basic scientific research must be funded by government, the “evil” pharmaceutical companies are, in fact, among the most beneficent organizations in the history of mankind and their research in the last couple of decades will one day be recognized as the revolution it truly is. Yes, they’re motivated by profits. Duh. That’s the genius of capitalism – to harness human improvement to the always-reliable yoke of human greed. Long may those companies prosper. I owe them literally my life.

Molly Ivins proves why the left still doesn’t get it:

Since my name is Molly Ivins and I speak for myself, I’ll tell you exactly why I opposed invading Iraq: because I thought it would be bad for this country, our country, my country. I opposed the invasion out of patriotism, and that is the reason I continue to oppose it today–I think it is bad for us. I think we have created more terrorists than we faced to start with and that our good name has been sullied all over the world. I think we have alienated our allies and have killed more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein ever did.

My italics. Look, Ivins is perfectly within her rights to have opposed the war and to maintain her opposition. I don’t doubt her patriotism for a second in this. But the last phrase is so jarring, so flagrantly, empirically wrong, so lacking in any understanding of the reality of Saddam’s decades of war and butchery that it beggars belief. She has to run a correction.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “Symbols like the ones the Supreme Court haggled about give the impression that Christianity and the government are somehow in cahoots with each other. That’s a dangerous impression, and a false one. It’s a small step from the idea that the government endorses Christianity to an idea that is much worse: that Christianity endorses the government. Christians are the big losers in that transaction. Western Europe is filled with Christian symbols — Christian Democrats are a leading political party in several countries — but almost entirely devoid of Christians. Christianity does not thrive when political parties take its name and capitol lawns showcase its precepts. On the contrary, it thrives when it stays as far from those things as possible.
The government thrives, too. Religious conservatives and secular liberals should be able to agree on this much: teaching good morals is not a job for the Texas legislature or the Kentucky courts — or any legislature or court. Making just laws is hard enough, and our government isn’t so good at that. Teaching virtue is incomparably harder. Personally, I’d rather they stuck to the laws.” – William J. Stuntz, in TCS. I feel like cheering from the rafters. I’ve long believed that the most committed Christians are secularists as well. They know that government-engineered faith is fatal to real religion; and that faith that needs government is a pale image of what it should be. All this panic about the “naked public square” is a sign of fear among evangelicals, not faith.

TELLING THE TRUTH: Chris Crain tackles those stuck in the past and unreality on HIV prevention among gay men.

John Cole takes names on blaming the media for a bungled war.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “I happen to be a freelance writer who covers HR issues for a number of trade publications. I’ve been researching lately this very issue of immigration and same-sex marriage, as well as the issue of whether or not gay and lesbian employees are now requesting that they be transferred to Canada or whether recruiters are getting requests from gay and lesbians to find them jobs in Canada. One recruiter responded by telling me this:

“Certainly companies here are worried about losing skilled workers to countries with more reasonable laws regarding same-sex marriages. Many have lobbied for laws recognizing these unions and have fought any legislation that would outlaw them. About half of the Fortune 500 now extend benefits to same-sex partners. Even Wal-Mart – a notoriously conservative company headquartered in the heart of the Bible belt – has loosened its definition of immediate family members so that it could include same-sex partners and they added sexual orientation to its non-discrimination policy. If employers do start losing skilled candidates to Canada, they are likely to become even more vocal in their support of legal recognition of same sex marriages.”

As part of my research I also got a tip about the P& G purchase of Gillette, and the attempt to move employees from Massachusetts to Ohio. Apparently the issue of some employees not wanting to move has come up because their marriages would not be recognized in Ohio. I haven’t confirmed it, but it does show that this is an emerging issue for companies that they will have to deal with.”

A reader corrects me:

I think you understate the fight over the O’Connor vacancy by calling it war. Rehnquist would have been war. This will be nothing short of total devastation.

Well, let’s not get too excitable, shall we? I mean, it’s not as if a gay couple got married or something.

Zogby polls the Bush pep-talk and sees little change in public opinion. Two in five even favor impeachment if it is proven that the president deliberately misled the country into war. How do Democrats beef up their national security credentials when their base is this angry at the Iraq war? It’s a tough political crevice to cling to. Greg Djerejian explains why he was underwhelmed by the speech as well. UPDATE: Brendan Nyhan asks some pertinent questions about the Zogby poll.

O’Connor quits. The war begins.

ON THE BRIGHT SIDE: A reader cautions against excessive pessimism over Iraq:

The still-forming Iraqi army remains, for the time being, behind the product of many years of terrorist camp training. Yet, we are seeing signs of success. The next stage, once the Iraqis pull even or ahead on the learning curve and acquire the depth of personnel that will allow sophisticated counter-terror, counter-intelligence operations, infiltration of enemy ranks becomes possible. Over time and with perhaps a bit of guidance from us and others on how to manage and use inside information most effectively, I believe there is a good, maybe excellent, chance that profound progress can be made. I am obviously an optimist, but not without cause. Recruiting is up in Iraq even if flat here. They do seem to want their own country and they do not seem happy with being terror bombed. They are not running, they are fighting back. This is healthy. Further, while it seems that most here in the US are alarmed at the number of foreign fighters coming to Iraq, there is something positive to be said about this development as well. The object in conventional war is to locate and destroy the enemy. Where once diffuse, those with sufficient levels of animosity such that they are motivated to make the trip to Iraq and fight are precisely those we need to locate and destroy. The process, as in any war, features setbacks as well as successes. Time will tell, but the signs are not all bad.

Fair points. I can also see the logic behind Kenneth Pollack’s practical proposals today. Accelerating reconstruction in areas of relative calm must obviously be a priority; and basic law and order would help as well.

A former physician for the president’s father weighs in:

Today, however, it seems as though our government and the military have slipped into Joseph Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness.” The widespread reports of torture and ill-treatment — frequently based on military and government documents — defy the claim that this abusive behavior is limited to a few noncommissioned officers at Abu Ghraib or isolated incidents at Guantanamo Bay. When it comes to torture, the military’s traditional leadership and discipline have been severely compromised up and down the chain of command. Why? I fear it is because the military has bowed to errant civilian leadership… America cannot continue down this road. Torture demonstrates weakness, not strength. It does not show understanding, power or magnanimity. It is not leadership. It is a reaction of government officials overwhelmed by fear who succumb to conduct unworthy of them and of the citizens of the United States.

How inspiring to read such clarity. How horrifying that it has come to this.

Another great obit from the Daily Telegraph, of one Patrick Pakenham. Money quote:

During his legal career, Pakenham became something of a legend, and, 25 years on, accounts of his exploits are still current. During his appearance before an irascible and unpopular judge in a drugs case, the evidence, a bag of cannabis, was produced. The judge, considering himself an expert on the subject, said to Pakenham, with whom he had clashed during the case: “Come on, hand the exhibit up to me quickly.” Then he proceeded to open the package. Inserting the contents in his mouth, he chewed it and announced: “Yes, yes of course that is cannabis. Where was the substance found, Mr Pakenham?” The reply came swiftly, if inaccurately: “In the defendant’s anus, my Lord.”
Pakenham’s final appearance in court has been variously recorded. As defence counsel in a complicated fraud case, he was due to address the court during the afternoon session, and had partaken of a particularly well-oiled lunch.
“Members of the jury,” he began, “it is my duty as defence counsel to explain the facts of this case on my client’s behalf; the Judge will guide you and advise you on the correct interpretation of the law and you will then consider your verdict. Unfortunately,” Pakenham went on, “for reasons which I won’t go into now, my grasp of the facts is not as it might be. The judge is nearing senility; his knowledge of the law is pathetically out of date, and will be of no use in assisting you to reach a verdict. While by the look of you, the possibility of you reaching a coherent verdict can be excluded.” He was led from the court.

And now he’s been led to the final one.

I’ll be on Fareed Zakaria’s PBS show this weekend discussing Tony Blair. And on July 4, I’m honored to be featured in NPR’s “This I Believe” series. My objects of faith? Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.