While the recent increase of attention to the ongoing carnage in Syria is a welcome change from the Obama administration’s collective state of denial over the past ten months, signals remain mixed, and our policy is unclear if not non-existent. This week alone, for example, we got the welcome news that the Pentagon is preparing military options on Syria for the President, but at the same time White House press secretary announced those options will not be exercised. The waters have been further muddied by the President’s insistence that there is no parity between the situation in Libya last year and what we face now in Syria. In Libya, the threat to civilians and opportunity to topple a vicious dictator were sufficient cause for Mr. Obama to engage the U.S. military, even without a pressing national security interest at stake. While it can be argued that once the U.S. engaged in Libya it might have been preferable to lead from the front to secure weapons stockpiles and guard against al Qaida encroachment, the fact remains that the world is a better place with Colonel Qaddafi gone, as Mr. Obama routinely reminds us. Meanwhile, as many as ten times the civilians killed in Libya before NATO’s intervention have died in Syria over the last year. Bashir Assad is no less cruel and repressive a tyrant than Muammar Qaddafi. The threat of Syria’s unknown stockpiles of WMD falling into bad hands demands our urgent attention. And, above all, the United States has a clear strategic interest in toppling this vital ally of Iran. But Syria is somehow different, and not worthy of the same sort of military assistance we offered to the Libyan rebels. Rather than taking decisive action in the form of military aid through our purported ally Turkey (perhaps in August when the President issued a statement calling for Assad’s ouster on his way out of town for vacation), the U.S. has remained on the diplomatic equivalent of a hamster wheel. From the ill-advised resumption of “normal” relations with Syria last January through the pathetic failure of the Security Council resolution this weekend, our efforts to resolve the situation have been futile wastes of time and energy as the slaughter in Syria goes on to the tune of 100 people a day. In dealing with Libya and Syria, consistency need not be the hobgoblin of little minds but can rather be the hallmark of a consistent and coordinated foreign policy. There are equivalencies to be drawn between the two crises, and once these are recognized we should take equivalent action. It is not a decision to be taken lightly, but we would not be alone and the cause is just. We have the unified support of our European and Arab allies. We have moral and strategic interests at stake. Rather than whining about the shocking moral turpitude of the United Nations, the President of the United States needs to remember his responsibilities as the leader of the free world–and lead.
Read this article:
Is Syria Really “Different?”
While most of us have been caught up in the brouhaha of electoral politics, liberal activists have been working indefatigably to pack the courts – the unelected branch of government – with radical statists. We might have turned over a number of congressional seats in 2010, but Obama has successfully turned over many conservative seats in our federal court system. Since taking office, Obama has appointed 125 people to federal judgeships , including 25 to appellate courts, and 2 to the Supreme Court. After three years, Obama’s mark on the federal courts is beginning to become quite potent. The Fourth Circuit appellate court used to be filled with a majority of strict constructionist judges. Now, following Obama’s appointment of five new radicals, the court has totally shifted. This once conservative court ruled in favor of the administration in upholding the constitutionality of Obamacare last year. Obama’s indelible stain on the judicial system will reverberate for years to come. While Republicans have successfully blocked some of Obama’s most extreme nominees, they have voted to confirm the vast majority of them. Many Republicans have insisted for years that anyone who is “qualified” to serve as a judge deserves to be confirmed, irrespective of their judicial philosophy or ideology. This school of thought suggests that as long as the nominee has the requisite resume and is clean of ethical violations, he/she should sail through the nomination process. That is the grim consequence of elections, they contend. Last week, in an interview with an Egyptian television station , Ruth Bader Ginsburg showed why ideology matters and why perverted judicial philosophy should indeed be a disqualifying factor for a judgeship. She told the audience –one that lives under tyranny – that the U.S. Constitution should not serve as a role model for a modern draft: “I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary… It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution – Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?” At the time of her nomination to the Supreme Court, Ginsburg had a stellar resume and excellent ratings from the American Bar Association. With that criteria in mind, every Republican except for three; Don Nickles, Bob Smith, and Jesse Helms, voted to confirm Ginsburg, a woman who has nothing but contempt for the very document that she is charged with upholding. Make no mistake about it; someone who believes that our constitution is outdated; someone who regards our constitution as a living and breathing document; someone who views the constitution of a violent third world country with higher reverence than the U.S. Constitution is indeed disqualified from serving on any court. No matter what happens in November, Obama will have another year to pack the courts. At present, there are 86 vacancies on district and appellate courts , 39 of which already have pending nominees before the Senate. We must work harder to ensure that not a single person with contempt for our Constitution is confirmed by the Senate. Republicans must understand that disrespect for the Constitution is an automatic disqualification for a judicial nominee. Perhaps, Justice Ginsburg had it right when she asserted at the end of that TV interview, “if the people don’t care, the best constitution in the world won’t make any difference.” If we continue to blithely confirm nominees who share Ginsburg’s judicial philosophy, our Constitution – which is the best in the world – certainly won’t make any difference. Cross-posted from The Madison Project
More here:
Justice Ginsburg and the Need to Oppose Radical Judicial Nominees
While most of us have been caught up in the brouhaha of electoral politics, liberal activists have been working indefatigably to pack the courts – the unelected branch of government – with radical statists. We might have turned over a number of congressional seats in 2010, but Obama has successfully turned over many conservative seats in our federal court system. Since taking office, Obama has appointed 125 people to federal judgeships , including 25 to appellate courts, and 2 to the Supreme Court. After three years, Obama’s mark on the federal courts is beginning to become quite potent. The Fourth Circuit appellate court used to be filled with a majority of strict constructionist judges. Now, following Obama’s appointment of five new radicals, the court has totally shifted. This once conservative court ruled in favor of the administration in upholding the constitutionality of Obamacare last year. Obama’s indelible stain on the judicial system will reverberate for years to come. While Republicans have successfully blocked some of Obama’s most extreme nominees, they have voted to confirm the vast majority of them. Many Republicans have insisted for years that anyone who is “qualified” to serve as a judge deserves to be confirmed, irrespective of their judicial philosophy or ideology. This school of thought suggests that as long as the nominee has the requisite resume and is clean of ethical violations, he/she should sail through the nomination process. That is the grim consequence of elections, they contend. Last week, in an interview with an Egyptian television station , Ruth Bader Ginsburg showed why ideology matters and why perverted judicial philosophy should indeed be a disqualifying factor for a judgeship. She told the audience –one that lives under tyranny – that the U.S. Constitution should not serve as a role model for a modern draft: “I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary… It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution – Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?” At the time of her nomination to the Supreme Court, Ginsburg had a stellar resume and excellent ratings from the American Bar Association. With that criteria in mind, every Republican except for three; Don Nickles, Bob Smith, and Jesse Helms, voted to confirm Ginsburg, a woman who has nothing but contempt for the very document that she is charged with upholding. Make no mistake about it; someone who believes that our constitution is outdated; someone who regards our constitution as a living and breathing document; someone who views the constitution of a violent third world country with higher reverence than the U.S. Constitution is indeed disqualified from serving on any court. No matter what happens in November, Obama will have another year to pack the courts. At present, there are 86 vacancies on district and appellate courts , 39 of which already have pending nominees before the Senate. We must work harder to ensure that not a single person with contempt for our Constitution is confirmed by the Senate. Republicans must understand that disrespect for the Constitution is an automatic disqualification for a judicial nominee. Perhaps, Justice Ginsburg had it right when she asserted at the end of that TV interview, “if the people don’t care, the best constitution in the world won’t make any difference.” If we continue to blithely confirm nominees who share Ginsburg’s judicial philosophy, our Constitution – which is the best in the world – certainly won’t make any difference. Cross-posted from The Madison Project
Go here to read the rest:
Justice Ginsburg and the Need to Oppose Radical Judicial Nominees
I’m hoping Republicans will soon wake up, stop fighting among themselves, and realize that Mitt Romney has the best chance of becoming the nation’s next Ronald Reagan. Everybody remembers Reagan for his single-mindedness in cutting federal spending and taking the government out of the central position in everyone’s life. What they forget is that it was Reagan’s temperament that made all this possible. Think back to Reagan’s famous rejoinder to Jimmy Carter in their first and only debate, “There you go again!” What was the significance of that? Carter had just finish a long, beady-eyed recitation about national health insurance, which, he said, promised “not inpatient care but outpatient care” with “an emphasis on hospital cost containment,” and how Candidate Reagan, of course, was opposed to all this because he had opposed Medicare in 1964. Reagan stood shaking his head and laughing the whole time and when it finally came his turn, he sighed , “There you go again.” The audience laughed and why not? Carter’s expressionless, robot-like recitation typified his whole presidency. He was obsessed with details. Reagan’s genial response was that when he opposed Medicare in 1964 it was because he favored another piece of congressional legislation that relied less on government. But in a single moment, Reagan had also revealed Carter as a narrow-minded pedant while he was an affable, good-natured leader capable of keeping things in perspective. Voters liked what they saw and that ended Carter’s Presidency. Mitt Romney has a very similar temperament. In fact he had a “There-you-go-again” moment in the last debate when Rick Santorum launched into his inevitable fulmination about how Romney will never be able to debate President Obama on Obamacare because of Romneycare. Romney gave his usual rejoinder but then added, “It’s nothing to get angry about.” That’s the kind of perspective a President needs. Santorum, you must admit, is a pretty disagreeable individual. He spends the opening portion of every debate congratulating himself on having been at the center of everything good that’s happened in Washington for the last twenty years. Then halfway through he will turn on whoever happens to be the frontrunner and launch an eye-gouging attack, talking out of the side of his mouth and casting sidelong glances all the while to see how far he can bait his chosen target. There is an air of bitterness and grievance about Santorum that is hard to take. President Obama has a similar air of grievance and issue obsession that will make him equally vulnerable in debate. If there’s one candidate who can throw this into relief over the course of a campaign the way Reagan did with Carter, it’s Romney. Let’s face it, he’s an attractive guy. A natural leader, he’s been very successful and has a lovely and courageous (and only) wife, plus a big photogenic family. All this is bound to start growing on people. The New York Times ran some pictures of him with his wife and young family back at Harvard Business School and there was a definite Kennedyesque feel about them. People are going to start responding to him on a personal basis. Now of course there’s the Mormon thing and you can count on the Democrats to flail away at that. An early Politico report said Obama planned to characterize Romney as “weird,” with Mormonism as the implicit centerpiece. I doubt this is going to work. Americans are willing to try new things. That’s how we got Obama in the first place. Romney will be intriguing precisely because he represents another frontier — the first non-Protestant the Republicans have ever nominated for President. The Mormons were indeed a violent and divisive sect in the 19th century but since giving up polygamy in 1890 they have become just another fundamentalist group looking for a place in American history. It’s the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, remember, that gave us that stirring arrangement of “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” (the one we sang in high school). Mormons now lead exemplary moral, often highly prosperous lives. They are very big in the Boy Scouts. In my old neighborhood in Brooklyn, Mormon missionaries had started several Boy Scout troops in African-American neighborhoods and even adopted one young man after his original family fell apart. Romney definitely has that straight-arrow feeling about him, but even that may work as people realize it is still possible to lead moral lives in America. His most formative experience, however, has been as a CEO, where he apparently learned his executive style. Except for a few square-offs with Rick Perry, Romney’s demeanor during the debates has been collegial and inclusive. That’s why he shows that deer-in-the-headlights look when the others first started attacking him. “Why are you going after me?” he seems to say. “Aren’t we supposed to be going after President Obama?” He’s learned to fight back, which is good, but there is still a definite modesty about him. Watch him when he’s giving a speech and the crowd starts chanting “Mitt! Mitt! Mitt!” He falls back into an ingenuous smile and seems to say, “Is this really happening? Do they like me this much? ” All the other Republican candidates are the exact opposite. Santorum has a very narrow mind. He’d make a terrible leader, locking into doctrinaire stands and picking fights. He’s a Senator, not a President. Ron Paul is the same only at a different order of magnitude. Paul enjoys being outside the tent pissing in, if you don’t mind the expression. I doubt he could find twelve people in the whole country with whom he could agree enough to form a cabinet. Like so many libertarians, he takes pride in how much he can offend people. As President, he’s sit in the Oval Office disagreeing with everyone in Washington, as he’s done for the past 30 years. Newt is the same thing over again — the perpetual insider posing as a victim of the Washington elites. He would launch his administration with all the grandeur of Napoleon invading Russia but overlook some critical detail that would leave him in full retreat by the following winter. Probably he would decide that history dictates we put a colony on the moon and then spend the rest of his administration arguing about it with Congress. Now I know what people are going to say: “But that’s exactly what we want. Romney would just go down and get along with everyone in Washington and nothing would change. We need someone who’s going to shake things up from top to bottom.” But that’s not how Reagan did it. He didn’t pick fights. He did a few photo-ops with Tip O’Neill, the only Democrat with any authority. Reagan won with an agenda and a first-class temperament. I have no doubt Romney can do the same. Critics will argue Romney doesn ‘ t have Reagan ‘ s ideological commitment, but experience in the private sector brings you to the same place. Anyone who can do simple math knows this country is headed off a cliff and anyone who ‘ s tried to operate a business knows government regulation is strangling free enterprise. Mitt has the same Reaganesque ambitions as the other candidates. What he doesn ‘ t share is their sense of bitterness and exclusion. Much of this comes, no doubt, from his fortunate background. He did go to Cranbrook, the premier prep school of the Detroit area and started at Stanford. But there’s a great deal of Midwestern modesty in him as well, reminiscent of Dwight Eisenhower. Historians have pointed out that all the generals under Eisenhower in the European theater harbored huge egos. There was the imperial Lord Mountbatten, the flamboyant General Patton and the GI’s favorite, Omar Bradley. Had Eisenhower been another swashbuckler, the whole staff might have disintegrated into a boiling cauldron of competition. But as a modest Midwestern farm boy, he was able to hold the whole thing together. He didn’t make a bad President, either. Romney has the same qualities. Whereas Newt would make a great General Douglas MacArthur, ready to challenge everyone else’s authority, Romney obviously prefers to organize without putting himself out front. He lets others have their say. His one great weakness is that he doesn’t yet seem to have the common touch. He still looks uncomfortable in crowds and can’t seem to relate to people who don’t share his background. Maybe the trip from Cranbrook to Cranford NJ isn’t that easy. But I’d be surprised if he doesn’t get better during the campaign. As Jimmy Carter would ultimately discover, this election will not be decided by who can memorize the longest list of talking points. It’s going to be won by the candidate who voters feel most comfortable having in their living rooms. Obama passed the test in 2008. He was young and fresh and seemed to have a level head while McCain appeared old and tired. It was a fairly easy choice. But the President won’t have those advantages this time around. After four years of mismanaging the economy, he won’t be able to talk hope and change. His only option will be to go negative, portraying Romney as a rich boy who doesn’t care about anyone who doesn’t have money. That may work for a while but at some point people are going to want to hear something positive.
From the Middle East Media Research Institute, excerpts from an interview that aired Monday on Al-Hayat TV with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: I met with the head of the elections commission. I think that the first step has gone well, and that elections have been held for the lower house that everyone has considered to be free and fair. So that’s one milestone, and the next will be the drafting of a constitution. I can’t speak about what the Egyptian experience should be, because I’m operating under a rather old constitution. The United States, in comparison to Egypt, is a very new nation, and yet we have the oldest written constitution still in force in the world. Let me say first that a constitution, as important as it is, will mean nothing unless the people are yearning for liberty and freedom. If the people don’t care, then the best constitution in the world won’t make any difference. So the spirit of liberty has to be in the population, and then the constitution – first, it should safeguard basic fundamental human rights, like our First Amendment, the right to speak freely, and to publish freely, without the government as a censor. You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone one since the end of World War II. I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary… It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution – Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world? Ginsburg, of course, gets one of nine votes on the functional meaning of the US Constitution. That she thinks the age of the constitution she’s charged with interpreting make it deficient relative to newer constitutions is kind of shocking, particularly in the context of her praise for the rights enshrined in the First Amendment — rights that, in practice, are protected far less robustly in South Africa or Canada or Europe than they are in the US. On the other hand, given her style of interpretation, it’s kind of not shocking at all. (Hat-tip: Weasel Zippers )
Read the original here:
Justice Ginsburg to Egypt: Don’t Look to the US Constitution as a Model
