Think Progress

Goldberg’s Double Standard

Jonah Goldberg of the National Review’s the Corner went after Cindy Sheehan, stating that, “She’s rallied the Nazis to her cause (obviously unintentionally, but it’s interesting how her message resonates in such quarters nonetheless).” And his so-called apology for the statement still likened her rhetoric to that of white supremacists.

In the same post, Jonah brings up (and defends) the Minuteman Project, a group that even President Bush labeled as vigilantes. The efforts of the Minuteman Project drew “major interest on White supremacist Web sites and in their chat rooms. An Aryan Nation site [linked] directly to the Minuteman Project home page with the words: “A call for action on part of ALL ARYAN SOLDIERS.” Jonah scolds Sheehan for using “rhetoric [that] is appealing to a wide range of groups who practice similar rhetoric” and yet claims the Minutemen “have been working hard to weed out the nuts and goons rhetorically and practically.”

He’s talking about the same Minutemen Project that absolutely used rhetoric laced with venom — claiming the nation is being “devoured and plundered by the menace of tens of millions of invading illegal aliens” and predicting “political, economic and social mayhem.”

Now that he’s received some critical email, Goldberg doesn’t want to talk about the issue anymore. This morning he announced that he’s “not going to spend the day discussing this whole thing any more.”

Good call.

Warning Shots Fired at Fitzgerald?

It wasn’t too long ago that Ken Mehlman, former political director at the White House under Rove, was heaping praises on Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald during “Meet the Press”:

I have tremendous confidence in Pat Fitzgerald. He’s a career prosecutor. He’s a tough prosecutor. That’s why he was put in charge of this case, because people want to get to the bottom of it. And that’s why it is so outrageous that these partisan smears would occur this past week. The question is this: Do the people that are smearing Karl Rove not have confidence in Mr. Fitzgerald? Do they not think, in fact, he’s going to get to the bottom of it? Or would they rather, than getting to the facts, try to make political gain?

Host Tim Russert then asked Mehlman the obvious questions: “If, in fact, he indicts White House officials, will you accept that indictment and not fight it?…Will you pledge today, because you have tremendous confidence in him, that you will not criticize his decision?” Despite the urgings of Russert (and Center for American Progress CEO John Podesta), Mehlman would not take that step.

Bob Dole’s attack today on Patrick Fitzgerald may quite possibly be the first warning shots of a coming right-wing campaign to undermine Fitzgerald. Is someone in the White House getting nervous?

Lowlights from Justice Sunday: Part Deux »

Wary that John Roberts might not be sufficiently fanatical, religious far right leaders have been backing away from President Bush’s Supreme Court nominee. In an e-mail message to supporters, event organizer Tony Perkins wrote “Trust but verify.” Perkins also made it clear that Justice Sunday Part Deux “will be no pep rally for [Roberts’] confirmation.” Instead, Perkins stated the goal of the event was “to educate evangelical Christians about the U.S. Supreme Court and get them talking to friends and elected officials about what they want from their justices.” But rather than educating, the overheated rhetoric embarrassed anyone who respects the independent judiciary and the system of checks and balances. Here are some highlights:

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League: Donohue “suggested a constitutional amendment to say that ‘unless a judicial vote is unanimous, you cannot overturn a law created by Congress.’ The court is trying to ‘take the hearts and souls of our culture.’” He also laid out his plans for domination: “Catholics and other Christians together, we are going to move to the front of the bus and take command of the wheel.”

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay: After denouncing America’s judicial system as “judicial supremacy, judicial autocracy,” DeLay blasted recent Supreme Court rulings: “Rights are invented out of whole cloth. Longstanding traditions are found to be unconstitutional. Moral values that have defined the progress of human civilization for millennia are cast aside in favor of those espoused by a handful of unelected, lifetime-appointed judges.” He continued on to state that “All wisdom does not reside in nine persons in black robes. The Constitution is clear on the point that the power to make laws is vested on Congress.” He continued, “This fact, understood by every high school civics student, has been forgotten in recent decades by too many members of the American judiciary, including, most notably, the United States Supreme Court itself,’ he said.” More »« Less

Getting it Right on Reagan and Civil Rights

In endorsing extension of the Voting Rights Act, the President has taken a strong step advocated by civil rights activists. The only ones who could be disappointed by the President’s actions are not those truly concerned about the right to vote but rather those who, for whatever reason, were simply spoiling for a fight that never materialized.

In 1981, John Roberts wrote the above statement to close out the draft of an op-ed responding to publicly published criticisms from then-president of the National Urban League Vernon Jordan. Roberts’ eagerness to dabble in politics is interesting, especially considering the present administration’s attempts to paint him as simply an advocate of a client. What is more interesting, however, are his attempts at revisionist history.

When California governor Ronald Reagan kicked off his bid for the presidency the year before, “he began his campaign with a controversial appearance in Philadelphia, Miss., where three civil rights workers had been brutally killed. It was at that sore spot on the racial map that Reagan revived talk about states’ rights and curbing the power of the federal government. To many it sounded like code for announcing himself as the candidate for white segregationists.” That same year, Reagan publicly opposed the landmark Voting Rights Act, calling it “humiliating to the South.”

Roberts certainly was no champion of civil rights either. In his time with the Reagan administration, “he wrote vigorous defenses of the administration’s version of a voting rights bill, opposed by Congress, that would have narrowed the reach of the 1965 Voting Rights Act [and] he wrote a memo arguing that it was constitutionally acceptable for Congress to strip the Supreme Court of its ability to hear broad classes of civil rights cases.”

What Reagan did by signing an extension of the Voting Rights Act pales in comparison to how much the President and his administration did to undermine the very same legislation.

The Guy Who Makes DeLay Look Good

When asked why he selected ethically challenged House Majority Leader Tom DeLay to speak at Justice Sunday Part 2, event organizer James Dobson responded that DeLay was “a natural fit.” Another invited speaker is Charles Colson — better known for his history as one of President Nixon’s “hatchet men” who went to jail for his involvement in the Watergate scandal. Is Colson a good judge of character? You be the judge:

Colson on Karl Rove: “I happen to know Karl Rove quite well and I find him to be a very decent man; no touch of arrogance. So, I think he’s being badly abused in this process and those of us who were inside the bunkers of the White House during the Nixon years, know exactly what it’s like to go through that kind of fire.” [CNN, 7/14/05]

Colson on Sen. Edward Kennedy: “[In] the hours after the May 15, 1972, assassination attempt against Alabama Gov. George Wallace, then a Democratic presidential candidate, Nixon counsel Charles Colson is heard on tape urging Felt to aggressively pursue theories that the gunman may have been tied to Nixon nemesis Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) or the anti-war movement.” [Chicago Tribune, 6/2/05]

Colson on “Deep Throat” Mark Felt: “I don’t think it was a noble act at all I’ve worked for the last 30 years preaching the gospel of Christ in prisons all across America. Today there are 2.1 million people in prison, and the one single characteristic I’ve discovered is, every one of them has not had moral training. They’re like feral children. They come up off the streets. And if they get the message that somebody can break the law in a noble purpose, and can justify it, that’s a terrible thing. [CNN, 6/5/05]

Is Roberts Reluctant to Overturn Precedent? »

In a recent New Yorker profile, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) takes heart in the responses that Supreme Court nominee John Roberts gave when asked about overturning Court precedent:

Roberts, in Reid’s view, left no doubt that he would be very reluctant to overturn precedents. To do so, Roberts had said, the Court would first have to consider a series of objective criteria, two of which stood out: whether a precedent fostered stability in the nation; and the extent to which society had come to rely on an earlier ruling, even a dubious one.

Unfortunately, Roberts’ responses are now being heralded as an indication of where he stands on Roe v Wade, the landmark Supreme Court case that ensured a woman’s right to privacy. However, according to conservatives, Roe v Wade actually meets the two criteria that jumped out at Reid: More »« Less

Roberts and the Activist Solicitor General »

The Bush administration has been reluctant to release John Roberts’ work from his time as deputy solicitor general. John Roberts’ role in redefining the position of the solicitor general — which actually dates back to his work in the Reagan administration — may be why.

Since 1870, when Congress passed legislation officially creating the solicitor general’s position, it has been widely accepted that the solicitor general has but one client: the U.S. government. Historically, the office has always been respected for its nonpartisanship: “For example, no modern presidents were more partisan — or more politically opposite — than Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. Yet former Harvard Law School Dean Erwin Griswold served as solicitor general for both these presidents.”

“It was not until the Reagan presidency that the office was first truly politicized.” More »« Less