All That “Activism”

A fantastic article this morning by Dahlia Lithwick on those "activist" judges. Here’s the lede:

When it comes to gay marriage, California is a hotbed of activism. Their activist Legislature has twice passed bills that would legalize gay marriage, and their activist governor has twice vetoed those bills. That same activist Legislature also enacted a ban on same-sex marriage in 1977, and its activist citizenry passed a statewide ballot initiative in 2000 doing the same thing. While polls show that Californians are increasingly supportive of gay marriage, other activist citizens have been collecting what now amounts to 1.1 million signatures to amend their constitution in November to say that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." But then today the state’s activist Supreme Court got in on the activist action, finding in a 4-3 decision that the California ban on same-sex marriage violates the "fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship." That makes everybody an activist in California, just by virtue of the fact that they are acting. (Let it be noted that it’s particularly activist of the state Legislature and its citizens to be banning and legalizing gay marriage all at the same time.)

The notion that courts have to do nothing in the American system – other than transcribe legislation – is a very strange and unconservative notion. Yes, they should exercise prudence and restraint. But they are there for something. And if they are not there to protect tiny minorities from majority oppression, what the hell are they there for?

Dahlia’s kicker:

My own vote today is with the governor, who’s smart enough to realize both that activism is an empty label, and that when your citizens and/or their Legislature are racing around banning and legalizing the same thing at the same time, the will of the people is not necessarily the last word on what’s constitutional. Moreover, he seems to understand the difference between judicial activism and judicial action, and the fact that the latter is not something for which a court needs to apologize.

The Psychodrama Abates

Isn’t it awesome that we haven’t had to think about the Clintons for a day or so? The relief. Meanwhile, 538 reports that Obama is poised to clinch the pledged delegate majority on Tuesday even if Michigan and Florida are seated. And for those still in detox from Clinton meth, here’s a bunch of self-centered, self-critical, anonymous emails from Hillaryland. My favorite:

"There was not any plan in place from beginning to end on how to win the nomination. It was, ‘Win Iowa.’ There was not the experience level, and, frankly, the management ability, to create a whole plan to get to the magical delegate number. That to me is the number one thing. It’s starting from that point that every subsequent decision resulted. The decision to spend x amount in Iowa versus be prepared for February 5 and beyond. Or how much money to spend in South Carolina–where it was highly unlikely we were going to win–versus the decision not to fund certain other states. … It was not as simple as, ‘Oh, that’s a caucus state, we’re not going to play there.’ That suggests a more serious thought process. It suggests a meeting where we went through all that."

It really does sound like the Bush administration in Iraq. But this is the clincher: for the "experience" candidate,

There was not the experience level, and, frankly, the management ability, to create a whole plan.

She so deserved to lose.

Remembrances Of Time To Come

Yuval Levin on McCain’s 2013 speech:

…the speech, and the accompanying ad released today, was organized around a description of how the country will look in 2013, after McCain’s first term. This puts him in the odd position of talking in the past tense about the future, which both causes his promises to sound more arrogant (if not naïve) than they have to and robs him of the forward looking rhetoric a speech like this could lean on (that of, for instance, Barack Obama). The ad, with its prominent "2013" theme, makes this problem particularly evident. It is frankly reminiscent of this recent spoof of Obama. Why not speak about these goals as things you want to achieve, and tell us why the agenda as a whole suits the needs of the moment? Surely those needs, as McCain understands them, would make for a more coherent narrative than remembrances of days to come.

Debates Without Gotchas

Contra Noam, Rick Hertzberg thinks the McCain Obama unmoderated debates are a great idea:

Obama’s biggest advantage, even bigger than all that no-strings Internet money, is that the policies he advocates are far more appealing than McCain’s. A face-to-face, man-to-man debate, unsullied by preening moderators determined to prove their toughness and boost ratings, would almost have to focus on policy.

It’s true that Obama has been just O.K. in most of the Democratic debates, especially compared with his performance in set speeches. But that probably reflects (a) the lack of serious ideological and policy differences on the Democratic side and (b) Obama’s relative reluctance to go for broke in intraparty debates, which tend to focus on marginalia and in which one candidate’s “victory” sometimes comes at the expense of his or her party’s ultimate prospects. By contrast, the legitimate differences between Obama and McCain are vast. Their debates will be zero-sum games. Obama will no longer have any reason to hold back. On every issue, he has a case to make. McCain doesn’t. Plus, he’ll be somewhat hobbled by having to defend policies he doesn’t really believe in (such as extending Bush’s tax cuts for the superrich), doesn’t really care or know much about (such as his announced proposals for health care), or hasn’t had to defend against serious opposing arguments (such as Iraq).