Lately there seems to be a furor over which political side "hates" the other political side. A few blogs and a few opinion pieces have sparked a debate over who really hates ... what constitutes hate ... who started "hate" ... etc.
I'm not sure what the purpose of all the rhetoric is.
I love 'em all.
Monday, September 26, 2005
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
On the Roberts Appointment - "Pawlentyitis"
When President Bush nominated John Roberts to fill the O'Connor vacancy on the Supreme Court, I figured that it was a reasonable appointment and nothing I've seen since has really changed my mind. I'd prefer a less conservative justice but that's not going to happen given the outcome of the Presidential election ... and "to the victor goes the spoils." ( origins of cliche here )
I'm a bit less comfortable, however, with the decision to have Judge Roberts become the next Chief Justice.
There's a rational reason and an emotional reason.
The rational one: there's so little evidence of judicial temperament and experience. I was okay with that when Roberts was going to be one of nine Justices. But now he's going to be the Chief Justice if he's confirmed.
Judge Roberts has been an appellate judge only since 2003. Given that the appointment has life-time tenure (unless Judge Roberts were to resign or become debilitated), I'd sure prefer to have someone with more and lengthier experience than two years as a judge.
The emotional reason? It goes back to our current Governor, Tim Pawlenty. I guess I have what I'd term "Pawlentyitis" which is medically defined as "uneasy distrust of good-looking, affable and articulate conservatives." When Gov. Pawlenty was elected, I have to confess I wasn't immediately worried and only slightly concerned. He'd served in the legislature, seemed to be a pragmatic and realistic conservative but also open to compromise and working things out.
One hitch: he signed the "no new taxes pledge" that our local chapter of the Taxavoiders League foisted on a number of Republican politicians. Of course, these were politicians who were all heady over several years of budget surpluses and the ability to rebate taxes, reduce tax rates, etc. I figured that Pawlenty would realize that the pledge he'd signed just wouldn't work given the changes in the economy and the need for Minnesota to continue to be a leader in education, social services, etc. I figured he'd be pragmatic that his duties as a Governor would override his self-imposed fealty to a small group of rich Republicans. I was wrong.
When the economy turned south, Pawlenty stuck firm to his promise. That began the first of several years of budget shortfalls, accounting tricks and insufficient funding within state agencies and for local units of government as well as schools. (Pawlenty finally awoke from his slumber and this year proposed and implemented a tax increase on smokers ... which he still refers to as a "fee.")
So I look at Judge Roberts. He's good-looking, affable and articulate - just like Pawlenty. I just wonder what kind of "pledge" he might have signed and what pact(s) he's made that we either don't know about or don't think will be an issue.
Yep, it's Pawlentyitis.
I'm a bit less comfortable, however, with the decision to have Judge Roberts become the next Chief Justice.
There's a rational reason and an emotional reason.
The rational one: there's so little evidence of judicial temperament and experience. I was okay with that when Roberts was going to be one of nine Justices. But now he's going to be the Chief Justice if he's confirmed.
Judge Roberts has been an appellate judge only since 2003. Given that the appointment has life-time tenure (unless Judge Roberts were to resign or become debilitated), I'd sure prefer to have someone with more and lengthier experience than two years as a judge.
The emotional reason? It goes back to our current Governor, Tim Pawlenty. I guess I have what I'd term "Pawlentyitis" which is medically defined as "uneasy distrust of good-looking, affable and articulate conservatives." When Gov. Pawlenty was elected, I have to confess I wasn't immediately worried and only slightly concerned. He'd served in the legislature, seemed to be a pragmatic and realistic conservative but also open to compromise and working things out.
One hitch: he signed the "no new taxes pledge" that our local chapter of the Taxavoiders League foisted on a number of Republican politicians. Of course, these were politicians who were all heady over several years of budget surpluses and the ability to rebate taxes, reduce tax rates, etc. I figured that Pawlenty would realize that the pledge he'd signed just wouldn't work given the changes in the economy and the need for Minnesota to continue to be a leader in education, social services, etc. I figured he'd be pragmatic that his duties as a Governor would override his self-imposed fealty to a small group of rich Republicans. I was wrong.
When the economy turned south, Pawlenty stuck firm to his promise. That began the first of several years of budget shortfalls, accounting tricks and insufficient funding within state agencies and for local units of government as well as schools. (Pawlenty finally awoke from his slumber and this year proposed and implemented a tax increase on smokers ... which he still refers to as a "fee.")
So I look at Judge Roberts. He's good-looking, affable and articulate - just like Pawlenty. I just wonder what kind of "pledge" he might have signed and what pact(s) he's made that we either don't know about or don't think will be an issue.
Yep, it's Pawlentyitis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)