Supreme Court Coverage - A Guide To Media Code Words (630 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: 1.5 on 11 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Quartermain (View user info) at 2005-07-20 12:08:55 EDT
This was written before President Bush picked John Roberts for the Supreme Court vacancy, but it'll still be useful to those of you playing along at home.
-Quartermain
Certain seasons or events have historically spawned their own lexicons which are unique to those events and used almost exclusively to describe them. Late in the college football season, some games have what are unfailingly called, "serious bowl implications." Likewise vice-presidential candidates must possess 'gravitas' and Super Bowls oddly acquire roman numerals. So too, does the Supreme Court nomination process require its own terminology, especially when the president is a Republican.
Over the next several weeks there are a number of ordinary words and phrases that will be used ad nauseam in reference to whomever President Bush submits to the senate for confirmation. They will however take on some unfamiliar connotations in the course of being repeated in endless web-postings, editorials and what passes for debate in the world's greatest deliberative body.
This process begins with identifying senators with whom liberals can reach a 'consensus.' Anyone they would deem an 'acceptable' Republican they can 'work with' is, of course, either a 'moderate' like Lincoln Chafee or a 'maverick' like John McCain. Anyone else is a 'partisan,' an 'extremist' or more simply put, unwilling to 'compromise.'
'Advice' or 'consultation' means that either the President submits a list of 'mainstream' candidates to Pat Leahy and Leahy picks one, or that Pat Leahy submits a 'mainstream' list to the President and he picks one.
'Mainstream' refers to a nominee who, in the event they have no nanny-gate issues, is to the political left of Barbara Boxer, whereas a 'radical' is someone who is to the political right of Barbara Boxer. Any nominee who has actually written an opinion that is 'out of the mainstream' will be referred to as 'flawed.'
'Out of the mainstream' also refers to those who are strict religious adherents, while those who have actually read, understood and follow the tenets of the U.S. Constitution are 'strict originalists' who would 'roll back rights.' Watch for these and other appellations coming soon to a cable news network near you.
As to the actual nominee there is much speculation, hope and deathly despair. Some say the best the Democrats can hope for would be the current Attorney General, while most conservatives believe that the word 'Gonzales' translates into English as 'Souter.'
As for the rest of the President's short list, we'll just wait and see, but the pick here is between the flawed Emilio Garza, the radical Edith Jones, or Michael Luttig, who is certainly out of the mainstream. Either way, the nominee is almost assuredly one who will be a strict originalist.
Even here the left has hope, in that Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter seems to share their disdain and misunderstanding of the Constitution. He said, ''If you followed original intent, the galleries in the United States Senate would still be segregated, with Caucasians on one side and African-Americans on the other side."
It seems Senator Specter has been too busy studying Scottish law to have read Article V of the U.S. Constitution, which gives the congress or the states the power to amend any part of that document; which was how the country ended slavery and gave women and minorities the right to vote. Liberals in general and five justices of the Supreme Court also seem to have ignored Article VI which reads in part:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land... The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.
It works this way: this nation was meant to be governed by the people through their representatives and not by the courts. The only influence the people have in the make-up of the courts is through presidential and senate elections. And they have increasingly spoken with a conservative voice in the past five years, thus hoping to ensure that voice is heard when judges are appointed.
And the President has not campaigned for their vote up and down for six years in order to let a senate minority put the kibosh on his dream of reconstituting the Supreme Court along more Constitution-friendly lines. A radical concept indeed.
www.intellectualconservative.com
User Reviews
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2005-07-23 18:56:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I believe most of the supreme court gives a rats ass about the constitution (DMCA anyone?) as well as 95% of congress. The ones that actually do care and try to follow it are labeled "maniacs" by both democrats and republicans.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2005-07-20 17:23:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
And the President has not campaigned for their vote up and down for six years in order to let a senate minority put the kibosh on his dream of reconstituting the Supreme Court along more Constitution-friendly lines. A radical concept indeed.
------------------
Looks like someone needs to be reading Article 10, again.
Submitted by Quartermain (user info) at 2005-07-20 16:48:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
**Oh look, cut-and-paste with no commentary added.**
This what happens when you skim for key-words and indulge knee-jerk responses, boys and girls, you end up looking even more foolish then normal. Let me extend my sincerest apologies that this was not the illiterate screed, poorly-done MS Paint picture, porn, or 'look at me, I'm cool because I got drunk' story that you have come to expect from Uber. Again, I wallow in sorrow for not having lived down to your expectations. Rest assured, it will happen again.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-07-20 15:27:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Oh look, cut-and-paste with no commentary added.
Submitted by Vulva (user info) at 2005-07-20 14:59:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
If it didn't tell you then you should back off, cause it will take doers to get those stuffs done in enough time. Otherwise the council will start to bring them all back to here...not there. You know what I am sayin man?
Submitted by c1ndy (user info) at 2005-07-20 13:17:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
goodness me a proper interesting post. how did that get here?
Submitted by GodLovesALittleLovin (user info) at 2005-07-20 13:10:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This will be perfect material for conversation over dinner tonight with my pet hamster Jimthin Balgoskas.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-20 12:49:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-07-20 12:21:50 (#)
Ranking: 1
all of a sudden Bush is the knight in shining armor come to save the constitution?
this twat doesn't dream about anything but abolishing abortion and illegalizing gay marriage
only naivete could allow one to believe that Bush doesn't want to get a conservative up there to push his agenda, not because a conservative would be better at upholding the constitution
+1 because you're not a cunt like say domenad or Jack
-----------------
WHAT ABOUT ME???
IM A CUNT TOO
Submitted by DonkeyOnTheEdge (user info) at 2005-07-20 12:29:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Welcome back, do have a seat and stay awhile.
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-07-20 12:21:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
all of a sudden Bush is the knight in shining armor come to save the constitution?
this twat doesn't dream about anything but abolishing abortion and illegalizing gay marriage
only naivete could allow one to believe that Bush doesn't want to get a conservative up there to push his agenda, not because a conservative would be better at upholding the constitution
+1 because you're not a cunt like say domenad or Jack
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2005-07-20 12:16:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You forgot to mention that the phrase "there should be no litmus test" translates directly to "the nominee should have a clearly demonstrably pro-choice stance."