One person might hope that my return to Contratimes would be ushered in with a bang, while another expects little more than a whimper. Alas, I am not one to know. Even if I did know, there is no assurance that what is to me a bang would not be to others a mere trite and tedious ho-hum. Hoping that my efforts here are not, in truth, a dud, I light the fuse, hold my ears, and let things go off as they may.The news in America over the past two weeks, during my hiatus, has been filled with terrorism, Karl Rove/Plamegate, and the nomination of a conservative to the United States Supreme Court. I tried to ignore much of the noise around these things, but I failed most of the time. That which piqued my curiosity mostly was the Supreme Court hub-bub. It is that to which I will now turn.
***
On Sunday's Meet The Press (July 24), Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) shared the following thoughts concerning Supreme Court nominee John Roberts (please, don't spray your coffee all over the screen as you read his remarks). Durbin sits on the senate judiciary committee and is the Democratic minority whip. In the interest of brevity, I am only including a small portion of his remarks. You should read the whole interview yourself [emphasis added]: "...I believe that John Roberts, despite his great resume and all of the positive things that can be said about him, still has the burden of proving something. He needs to prove that he is worthy of a lifetime appointment to the highest court of the land, the court that really stands as the last refuge for the rights and freedoms of the American people and that he will serve there most likely, if approved, 20 or 30 years. So we need to know things about him that two years on the bench in the District of Columbia don't tell us, whether that's through documentation or his answers to questions. What I said to him the other day, 'If you will be honest and forthcoming, you're going to find a warm reception from our side of the aisle, even if we disagree with you on any given issue.'
"... I have an obligation as a member of the Senate, representing not only Illinois, but speaking for those in the nation who are following this, to ask critical questions about where he stands on mainstream values in America. It's not enough to say all of those things, legally skilled, honest and a good temperament. I need to know if his views fall within the mainstream on critical issues, issues like workers' rights and women's rights and civil rights and the protection of the environment. ... It's a question about the values and principles that guided Roe vs. Wade. What Justice Blackmun was trying to achieve in that decision was to recognize the right of privacy, a right of exclusion so that there are parts of our lives, our personal and family lives, the government can't intrude upon. And in this situation, I think we have a right to know where John Roberts stands when it comes to fundamental issues of privacy and personal freedom. ...
"I would like to hear from him as to whether or not he has at least thought through or struggled with this decision on the future of reproductive rights in this country. I'd like to hear from him that even if he might disagree on a variance of Roe vs. Wade, that when it comes down to the basics, when it comes down to right of privacy, he will acknowledge that is part of our right and our legacy as Americans and that he would acknowledge, as well, that this is an issue of personal freedom ...
"...The American people expect us, I think in this process, to find out what is really driving the thoughts and the heart of the individual who's seeking this nomination. If I didn't do that, we'd be putting someone on the court without an understanding as to whether they would be independent, whether they'd be balanced and have an open mind. This is the last refuge for America's freedoms and rights and I think we have a special obligation to understand what goes into the value judgments of those seeking this bench."
"... I have an obligation as a member of the Senate, representing not only Illinois, but speaking for those in the nation who are following this, to ask critical questions about where he stands on mainstream values in America. It's not enough to say all of those things, legally skilled, honest and a good temperament. I need to know if his views fall within the mainstream on critical issues, issues like workers' rights and women's rights and civil rights and the protection of the environment. ... It's a question about the values and principles that guided Roe vs. Wade. What Justice Blackmun was trying to achieve in that decision was to recognize the right of privacy, a right of exclusion so that there are parts of our lives, our personal and family lives, the government can't intrude upon. And in this situation, I think we have a right to know where John Roberts stands when it comes to fundamental issues of privacy and personal freedom. ...
"I would like to hear from him as to whether or not he has at least thought through or struggled with this decision on the future of reproductive rights in this country. I'd like to hear from him that even if he might disagree on a variance of Roe vs. Wade, that when it comes down to the basics, when it comes down to right of privacy, he will acknowledge that is part of our right and our legacy as Americans and that he would acknowledge, as well, that this is an issue of personal freedom ...
"...The American people expect us, I think in this process, to find out what is really driving the thoughts and the heart of the individual who's seeking this nomination. If I didn't do that, we'd be putting someone on the court without an understanding as to whether they would be independent, whether they'd be balanced and have an open mind. This is the last refuge for America's freedoms and rights and I think we have a special obligation to understand what goes into the value judgments of those seeking this bench."
Unknown to Durbin, apparently, is that astute readers immediately see not only a theme to his remarks, but also his blindness, his eyes having been poked out by his own wayward logic. For Durbin takes the high road about the right to privacy – how such privacy is hallowed in the sacrosanct parameters of "Justice Blackmun's" Roe v. Wade – and then immediately denounces privacy in the heart of a man nominated to the Supreme Court. Durbin must "find out what is really driving the thoughts and the heart of the individual who's seeking this nomination." In other words, in order to protect Americans' right to privacy, Durbin wants to make public the private thoughts of a Supreme Court candidate. Moreover, Durbin insists that Roberts must "prove that he is worthy" by showing whether his heart – his personal, privately held belief-system – is up to Democratic Party standards: He must prove that his personal privacy conforms to public, "mainstream" opinion on certain matters.
There cannot be a more frightening abuse of power than Durbin's concealed contempt for personal privacy: He is looking for a party automaton to sit on the bench, whose private beliefs are in lockstep with Durbin's public beliefs. The earth shakes beneath our intellects when we hear Durbin suggest that he wants a justice who is "balanced" and has an "open mind." Why doth the earth shake? Because the only possible type of person who could be approved to the Supreme Court by Durbin is a person whose mind is utterly closed about Roe v. Wade. An open-minded person would be one who is open to the idea that perhaps Roe v. Wade is bad jurisprudence. But Durbin does not want that kind of person, no matter what fealty Durbin allegedly offers "open-mindedness." He wants a person who is not a "free"-thinker. He wants a machine.
In fact, when one listens to Durbin and others like him, there seems to be no need at all for a Supreme Court, particularly if the justices that are confirmed to that court merely decide judicial cases the way Durbin and his cohorts would decide such cases. Who needs justices like Roberts or Ginsberg or Souter, if each is only going to rubber-stamp public sentiments?
Can the reader imagine what sort of brouhaha would ensue if legislators, intent on protecting privacy-rights, nonetheless drafted legislation that legalized abortion hearings, where women had to come before a committee – sort of like the judiciary committee – and answer questions about their motives, about the purity of their hearts, all to determine if they "thought through or struggled with this decision"? The protestations would be historic! Opponents would insist that women have a sacred right to their inner thoughts, even if those thoughts offend life itself. But Durbin and his cadre insist that Judge Roberts does not have the right to his own inner thoughts; his own internal legal wranglings. His mind must be opened, forcibly. No. He must be forthcoming.
Durbin (and senators Kennedy and Schumer) sounds as if he wants to rip open the very womb in which Mr. Roberts' personal beliefs reside.
And you know what? John Roberts at this moment has no privacy, as Democratic activists, from feminist and pro-choice groups, the media, and elected officials, pore over every aspect of his life, all in an effort too divulge what is personal and private to him; to make public his very heart.
For shame!
Contratimes
©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes
[Photo: The image was taken with a Nikon FM2 on Fujichrome 100. Settings were 1/500th of a second at 5.6. Lens was a Nikkor 300mm f 4. Click on it for a larger view.)
There cannot be a more frightening abuse of power than Durbin's concealed contempt for personal privacy: He is looking for a party automaton to sit on the bench, whose private beliefs are in lockstep with Durbin's public beliefs. The earth shakes beneath our intellects when we hear Durbin suggest that he wants a justice who is "balanced" and has an "open mind." Why doth the earth shake? Because the only possible type of person who could be approved to the Supreme Court by Durbin is a person whose mind is utterly closed about Roe v. Wade. An open-minded person would be one who is open to the idea that perhaps Roe v. Wade is bad jurisprudence. But Durbin does not want that kind of person, no matter what fealty Durbin allegedly offers "open-mindedness." He wants a person who is not a "free"-thinker. He wants a machine.
In fact, when one listens to Durbin and others like him, there seems to be no need at all for a Supreme Court, particularly if the justices that are confirmed to that court merely decide judicial cases the way Durbin and his cohorts would decide such cases. Who needs justices like Roberts or Ginsberg or Souter, if each is only going to rubber-stamp public sentiments?
Can the reader imagine what sort of brouhaha would ensue if legislators, intent on protecting privacy-rights, nonetheless drafted legislation that legalized abortion hearings, where women had to come before a committee – sort of like the judiciary committee – and answer questions about their motives, about the purity of their hearts, all to determine if they "thought through or struggled with this decision"? The protestations would be historic! Opponents would insist that women have a sacred right to their inner thoughts, even if those thoughts offend life itself. But Durbin and his cadre insist that Judge Roberts does not have the right to his own inner thoughts; his own internal legal wranglings. His mind must be opened, forcibly. No. He must be forthcoming.
Durbin (and senators Kennedy and Schumer) sounds as if he wants to rip open the very womb in which Mr. Roberts' personal beliefs reside.
And you know what? John Roberts at this moment has no privacy, as Democratic activists, from feminist and pro-choice groups, the media, and elected officials, pore over every aspect of his life, all in an effort too divulge what is personal and private to him; to make public his very heart.
For shame!
Contratimes
©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes
[Photo: The image was taken with a Nikon FM2 on Fujichrome 100. Settings were 1/500th of a second at 5.6. Lens was a Nikkor 300mm f 4. Click on it for a larger view.)
No comments:
Post a Comment