Phyllis Schlafly is a heroine of mine.  She was a conservative when it was hard–when there were NO major national organizations in the country who offered strong opposition to cultural liberalism.  Despite the absence of the internet, talk radio, and the media and organizational monopoly held by the left, she was able to organize an effective opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment.  I’m still amazed how they were able to pull it off.

Hence I am very disappointed that she has today published an article that is frankly, a caricature of the rich Republican.  I am very sorry to raise this issue.  It was raised over at Hotair and generated alot of conflict.  But I believe this problem is one that needs to be addressed if we are to build a winning national coalition in favor of fiscal restraint, nay, fiscal sanity.

She laments, as have many wealthy conservatives, that American is becoming a “two-class society… those who pay for the services provided by government and the freeloaders. The percentage of Americans who will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009 has risen to 47 percent.”

I am among the “freeloaders” she is referring to.  I decided to become a “freeloader” when I left a job paying 4x more to accept a position in academia, and when I made the lazy choice with my wife to have four small children.  These decisions have been such that I pay no net federal income taxes, and receive more via the EITC.  Should I be ashamed of myself?

I’m having a hard time feeling ashamed.  I pay, inter alia, thousands of dollars per year in sales taxes, real estate taxes, fees, etc., etc., etc,

But, it is said, we “freeloaders” pay nothing into the FEDERAL government.  Now we pay thousands in payroll taxes to the federal government.  But, say those poor benighted millionaires, the freeloaders are simply “fund[ing] their own Social Security and Medicare benefits.”  Really?  I thought, and believe, that the whole SS and Medicare system was a fraud–that I am not self-funding anything–simply paying taxes for which I receive a non-negotiable and worthless “IOU” in return.  And I thought, and still believe, that the alleged individual “account” is a political fraud–there is no bank account reserved for me–there is nothing–and that maybe there’ll be something called “social security” decades from now, but it’s unlikely to pay me much of anything.

In addition, I pay indirectly a whole lot of other taxes to the federal government.  Yes–I pay them indirectly, as I am convinced, as I thought all Republicans were, that, for example, a tax on one man’s dividend check is a tax on another man’s paycheck (as Calvin Coolidge said).

Plus, well, I spend an awful lot of time trying to raise my children so they can grow up to be good citizens and even to fight our nation’s wars.

Now why is it that the federal income tax has become so skewed?  Why is it that some pay such a greater percentage of this tax?  First, Reagan (and Bush Jr., to a lesser extent), reduced the income tax across the board, thus lowering the income tax rate effectively to 0 for so many Americans.  Second, the top “half” of Americans saw their pre-tax income soar in the past several decades, while the pre-tax income of the poor and middle class has remained largely stagnant.

So to all the Hedge-fund managers out there, to all the power couples out there, to all those successful entrepreneurs out there–I say congratulations, you got rich.  By luck and by pluck you have won the race of life, as you understand it.  Congratulations again.  Your higher taxes are as much a result and sign of your fabulous success.

Keep your wealth, you are taxed enough already.  In fact, taxation rates approaching 50% approach confiscatory levels, and I oppose increased taxation today for that reason alone.   Moreover, I agree that higher taxes on the wealthy have a more serious impact–that you gotta allow the rich to get richer if only so that the whole society gets richer.

But will you permit me to add the following:

1. That even we “freeloaders,” directly or indirectly, are taxed enough already, as is our whole country?

2. That given the high unemployment rates of the young and the poor, that the most pressing need is to reduce or remove the taxes directly imposed on labor–the payroll taxes–rather than ensuring that some guy who made $2M last year is able to keep $1.4M rather than a paltry $1.3M of it–boo-freakin’-hoo.

3. That perhaps, just perhaps, there is something worthwhile in spending one’s energies in raising children and education, even if it means a laughable little five-figure annual salary for my family.

Can we get back to fighting socialism?

God willing, Barack Obama will be replaced with a President who recognizes the individual mandate, a key component of Obamacare.  It will be not the right, but the duty of the new President to exercise his constitutional powers to effectively nullify the “individual mandate.”

The President, like all state and federal officials, pursuant to Article VI, takes an oath under the Constitution to uphold the Constitution, and, pursuant to Article II takes a specific oath, constitutionally prescribed for his office alone, to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”  Moreover, he is specifically obliged to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed. 

Faced with a law that he believes to be unconstitutional, what is the President to do?  Simply acquiesce in whatever the courts might say, and enforce a law that he knows to be unconstitutional?  Our current judicial-centric understanding is not how the Founders saw things.  Even if the courts endorsed a congressional law, if the President believes to be unconstitutional, he will have a duty to treat the law as void in the exercise of his powers. 

Jefferson believed as much, and pardoned anyone convicted under the Alien and Sedition Act:

“You [Mrs. Abigail Adams] seem to think it devolved on the judges to decide on the validity of the sedition law. But nothing in the Constitution has given them a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. Both magistracies are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them. The judges, believing the law constitutional, had a right to pass a sentence of fine and imprisonment; because that power was placed in their hands by the Constitution. But the Executive, believing the law to be unconstitutional, was bound to remit the execution of it; because that power has been confided to him by the Constitution.”

So, come January 2013, what must the President do?  Pardon anyone convicted for failing to pay the unconstitutional fine; announce a moratorium on any future prosecutions; and announce that he will pardon anyone against whom prosecutions might be initiated during his term of office.

In addition, the President must veto any appropriation for funds that he can, and issue an executive order declining to spend money on unconstitutional programs. 

Of  course, that might prompt a dispute with a liberal judiciary.  But that is a fight the President can win–and a fight that he is compelled to face under his DUTY to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.

What I am writing here may sound controversial–and I am prepared to defend these propositions against any challengers.   I think they are entirely consistent with the Founders’ Constitution–and with the reasoning of Marbury v. Madison.

Alas, whether because of global warming, the Iraq War, or something else that is George Bush’s fault, a once endangered species is now extinct, or virtually so.  At the very least, there are not breeding pairs left.

I am referring to the species “pro-life Democrat.”

This extinction is not the first to befall the Democratic Party.  As Abraham Lincoln explained 150 years ago, another species of Democrat, if it ever existed, was virtually extinct:

“Allow me to barely whisper my suspicion that there were no such things in Kansas as ‘free state Democrats’—that they were altogether mythical, good only to figure in newspapers and speeches in the free states. If there should prove to be one real living free state Democrat in Kansas, I suggest that it might be well to catch him, and stuff and preserve his skin, as an interesting specimen of that soon to be extinct variety of the genus, Democrat.”

http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/inside.asp?ID=16&subjectID=2

So this morning I read that there is an answer to the Tea Party.  The “Coffee Party,” or perhaps more precisely–the “Latte Party.”

http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/03/12/coffee.party.people/index.html?hpt=C1

Nothing against lattes.  But I strongly suspect that these folks are not sipping on the cheap Joe I’m enjoying right now.

What is most outrageous about these folks, who apparently think that we’re not “taxed enough already,” is their counterfeit moderation.  In contrast to the tea party, with hits “boiling hot anti-tax rhetoric,” the members of the Latte Party “calls for civility, objects to obstructionism and demands that politicians be held accountable to the people who put them in office.”

Oh these oh-so-concerned pacific latte sippers.  Here’s what passes for civility–as reported in the very same article:

One member stated ”that America had been lied to about Iraq, that our military uses torture, and when I heard John McCain sing ‘Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.’ “  Then she went back to sipping her latte, apparently, then took a break to wring her hands about all the anger….  “Why can’t we all just get along?”

If, in fact, our President “lied” or our military actually “tortured” prisoners, then outrage would be appropriate. 

Indeed, if, in fact, people are dropping like flies due to lack of health care, and the only solution is some new massive federal program, then outrage would be appropriate.

But if, indeed, our government’s reckless massive spending represent a grave threat to our national prosperity, and if, in fact, these liberal proposals would not improve health care but would greatly aggravate our national fiscal crisis, then outrage is appropriate.

Can we drop the phoney posture of “moderation.”?

And because, in fact, our government is

But can we drop the counterfeit moderation?

Scott Brown has some pretty famous precedessors.  Besides Ted Kennedy, and John Kennedy, that Senate office has been held by some very notable citizens.  Indeed, some of the great conservatives and Republicans have held that seat:

Daniel Webster–noble defender of Union and the rights of contract.

Charles Sumner–great Republican, the scourge of the “twin relics of barbarism”–slavery and polygamy (1856 Republican platform).

Henry Cabot Lodge–Republican Senate leader supporter of a strong and prudent foreign policy, fiscal restraint, and sound money.

You are in good company, Mr. Brown.  Aspire to live up to their example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Senators_from_Massachusetts

It is frequently remarked, by supporters and opponents of President Obama and his healthcare “reform” proposals, that his “presidency” hangs in the balance.  Obama himself has reportedly told reluctant House Democrats that a failure to support his proposals would “destroy my presidency”. http://reason.com/blog/2009/07/22/obama-youre-going-to-destroy-m

What is the “presidency”?  And how would it be “destroyed” by a failure to pass his proposals?  The President is the chief executive (chief law enforcement officer) of the United States, the Commander in Chief, the chief negotiator in foreign affairs, and has a number of supplemental powers.  He is not the legislator or policy-maker-in-chief.  And his “presidency” does not depend on any such policies.

In addition, the President has a number of duties, the first of which is “to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

So whether his presidency is a “success” or not depends not on passing legislation but on whether he performed well the executive, military, diplomatic, and appointment powers and duties assigned to him.  And the success of his presidency depends chiefly on whether he thereby preserves, protects, and defends our Constitution.

In this light, President Obama’s presidency has been at least a partial failure.  He appointed to the Supreme Court a woman who will not preserve, protect, and defend our Constitution, but who will ignore provisions unpopular with the leftist elite (e.g., Second and Tenth Amdendments), and will creatively read into the document a whole set of provisions that are nowhere there (right to abortion, right to homosexual marriage, etc.).

As citizens of the United States, we can help President Obama.  The passage of his healthcare proposals further threaten the success of his presidency.  The provisions are arguably unconstitutional, especially the criminal penalties visited upon persons refusing to buy “insurance.”

Let’s preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.  Let’s save the presidency of our President.  Let’s defeat this miserable bill.

I am an incurable optimist. 

Many folks have drawn parallels between 1994 and 2010, dreaming that the Republicans will pick up the 50 or so seats in the House and 7 or so seats in the Senate.   I think such a victory is indeed possible.

Perhaps we ought to dream bigger.

1894 was a much more momentous election.  Mismanagement by the Cleveland administration and the Panic of 1893 caused a massive turn to the GOP–with the Party recapturing the House by winning 130 seats in the House–”the largest midterm election victory in the entire history of the United States.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1894

Not only was the 1894 election win massive, but it was followed, unlike 1994, with a decisive victory by the GOP in the following presidential election.  So decisive was the victory in 1894-1896, that America entered a period of thirty years of economic growth, GOP dominance, with the Republicans successfully championing fiscal restraint, balanced budgets, and consumption (not income) taxes (mainly tariffs) as the way to pay for federal expenditures.  This was the era that gave us the third greatest Republican President in US history–Calvin Coolidge (after, of course, the Great Emancipators, Lincoln and Reagan).

Dare to dream, my friends.

For decades now, pro-life and pro-traditional marriage have been identified as the “extreme” element of the GOP, with countless Republican office-holders–and office-seekers–carefully distinguishing themselves a fiscal hawks but “moderate” on questions such as abortion (with “moderate” meaning favoring unlimited open season on the lives of the unborn).  These fiscal hawks have routinely derided pro-life Republicans as divisive, distracting the Party from its so-called core beliefs in limited government.

What seems so striking about such persons–when they hold prominent office–is how frequently their vaunted fiscal conservativism is, well, nothing of the sort.

Exhibit A: Senator Olympia Snowe, a very likeable, pretty, pleasant, intelligent lady from Maine.  In an op-ed in the NY Times, she recently lamented the loss of Arlen Specter (when did we ever have him??).  She quoted approvingly a remark by Ronald Reagan: “We should emphasize the things that unite us and make these the only ‘litmus test’ of what constitutes a Republican: our belief in restraining government spending, pro-growth policies, tax reduction, sound national defense, and maximum individual liberty.”

So by her own admission, the litmus test for a genuine Republican is a belief in “restraining government spending [and] tax reduction.”

By her endorsement of the Baucus bill, she has failed her own test (as have Specter and many other self-proclaimed “moderates”–in many respects).

Let us apply that litmust test vigorously in 2012, and support a GOP challenger to her in 2012.

Dear President Steele:

My wife and I frequently give small donations to a number of causes, including to Republican candidates whose principles are consistent with our own.  As a result, our names appear on dozens of mailing lists as potential donors.  We frequently receive copies of mass fundraising letters from various organizations, including the Republican National Committee (“RNC”).

Among the mailings we often receive include various “surveys.”  The surveys are presented in a manner that at least some of its intended recipients are expected to believe that Republican leaders actually review the results of these surveys and take them into consideration in formulating policy strategy.

Today, we received in the mail a letter bearing your signature asking for donations to the RNC.  Enclosed with the letter is a “membership statement,” and the envelope containing these documents is stamped “past due.”

These mailings are misleading, if not deceptive, and I ask that you refrain from such deceptive conduct in the future.

First, unless the results of the “surveys” you send are subject to serious consideration by yourself and other Party leaders, please refrain from suggesting that such consideration occurs.

Second, please refrain from suggesting that anything is “due,” whether past due or otherwise, to ANY recipient of your mailings, unless the recipient truly owes you anything.  Neither my wife nor I have agreed to be a member of the RNC, or in any way incurred any debt to the RNC.

While no doubt your deceptive statements fail to deceive the vast majority of recipients, the effort is insulting to us, and unjust to those who might actually believe that they have received a “past due” bill.

Mr Steele, we are currently in a battle for western civilization–and the success of that fight depends upon the success of the United States, which, I believe, depends upon the success of the Republican Party.  You, and we, have a major responsibility.  We sully our cause by deceptive tactics–especially deception practiced against our friends in this cause.

In short, please review your fundraising activities to ensure your fundraising activities are worthy of the great cause entrusted to the Party.

Yours very truly,

A Texas Republican

In the past few weeks, we’ve seen various commentators of the left and moderate left draw parallels between Obama’s health-care push and the situation of LBJ in 1965 or FDR in the early years of the New Deal.

Doris Kearns Goodwin (whom I like alot) has stated that now is Obama’s “Johnson Moment,” that now is the time “when the president has to take charge, to draw lines, to pressure, to threaten, to cajole, to exert every resource of leadership he has—to put pressure on wavering Democrats to make it clear that losing health care will be a huge blow not only to him but to all Democrats who were brought into office on the promise of big change, and particularly on health care.”  http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-07-20/doris-kearns-goodwin-on-obamas-johnson-moment/ 

And Robert Shrum dreams that the Democrats in 2010 will win electoral victories similar to 1934 and 1936–which marked the only time in our history when one party expanded their congressional majorities in a third and fourth straight election.   Push through health care, the economy will recover (and it did, kindof, between 1932 and 1936 (the depression got less bad)), and Americans will rally behind the President.  http://www.theweek.com/bullpen/column/99418/The_GOP_decline_starts_Phase_Two

What these liberals fail to recognize, is that the American of those decades is gone.  Americans have grown fickle in their loyalties, and have lost respect for the presidency and other institutions.  Obama will not enjoy stable, high popularity ratings, as did FDR, Eisenhauer, Kennedy, and LBJ (until 1966).  Why?  Because cultural and political liberalism was wildly successful in undermining popular patience, broad respect for the presidency, etc.

Congratulations, liberals.  You won.  You took down Nixon (in the end, for good reasons), you took down LBJ (for the wrong reasons), you radicalized the universities, you’ve raised a generation of Americans who think the Founders were all racists and that it was greed, and not freedom, that created America’s wealth, you’ve wrecked mainline Protestant and Catholic hierarchies, etc., etc., etc.

After all your success, don’t be surprised that when your “One” climbs to the top of this wobbly heap, that Americans will largely reflexively show respect for him and his policies, simply because he is President, especially when he is so lacking in political integrity, and his policies would be manifestly bad for the country.

So here I was thinking I had come up with a new term of endearment: “Debtocrats.”  Alas for me, the term is not new, apparently.  Not only are other internet commentators using it: http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/13/stupid-rnc-to-pass-resolution-rebranding-democrats-the-democrat-socialist-party/comment-page-2/

but the term goes back at least to the 1950s, when coined (for the first time?) by a one-term Republican Congressman from WV, Francis J. Love.

http://www.wvculture.org/history/government/eisenhowerwheeling02.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_J._Love

So in honor of Congressman Love, let us once again call them Debtocrats.

So tonight there is news that Obama, acting pursuant to some unknown legal authority (I truly mean unknown–at least to me), will issue an executive order granting certain governmental benefits to the same-sex “partners” of federal employees.

Unless this policy is radically unlike the policies adopted by corporate America, the policy would amount to subsidized sodomy, and arbitrarily discriminates against persons share a residence with someone else, and who have a deep friendship and love with such a person, but for whatever reason, do not think that friendship, that love, will somehow be more “deep” by engaging in sodomy, mutual masturbation, and the like.

I strongly suspect that the policy will (1) discriminate against relationships based on consanguinity or (2) relationships that do not involve an actual or presumptive homosexual relationship.  For example, some large corporations, in extending these “domestic partnership” benefits, require the applicant employee to sign a statement certifying the existence of a “romantic relationship.”  Close sisters, close friends will NOT be eligible to enjoy these benefits.  Why not?  Why is the homosexual character of the relationship such that it entitles the participants to a governmental benefit?

The policy discrminates, then, on the basis of an immutable characteristic, consanguinity, and on the basis of an arguably immutable characteristic, sexual orientation, and otherwise denies a benefit on an arbitrary basis.  And as such, it is unjust, and possibly unconstitutional.

So many commentators have suggested that Judge Sotomayor’s approach to abortion and its alleged (I’ll say) protection in our Constitution.

Many journalists with the mainstream media have repeated the claim that “[a]s appellate judge, Sotomayor hasn’t confronted core questions about abortion. http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/1076535.html

For a brief, whimsical moment, I allowed myself to dream that Judge Sotomayor might, in the back of her head, filled with (very selective) compassion, she might have some empathy for the unborn, or at least the right of the people of each state to Republican government, and actually not declare futuer pro-life legislation unconstitutional; that maybe, just maybe, she learned something at Cardinal Spellman High School about the least of Christ’s brethren.

The reliable Doug Kmiec has added fuel to the flames of wild optimism by insisting that her opinions show that she is not a “knee-jerk liberal on abortion issues.”  http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/05/27/doug-kmiec-on-a-court-packed-with-catholics/

One’s hopes in this regard might seem bolstered by the conclusions of such commentators as Tom Goldstein, whose apparently close reading of Judge Sotomayor’s opinions led him to conclude that her views on abortion (and the alleged right thereto) are unknown.

Tom Goldstein over at Scotusblog makes the following claim:

“Having comprehensively reviewed her opinions, my view is that the marginally related cases she has decided do not provide any genuine insight on how she would rule on questions related to a constitutional right to abortion, but they do show a level of balance that indicates that her decisionmaking is not driven by pro-choice or pro-life views. ”

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayor-and-abortion/

Alas, I read just one of those opinions–her opinion in Center for Reproductive Law & Policy v. Bush (2d. Cir. 2002)–and I submit that Mr. Goldstein has overlooked evidence fairly obvious that she is a friend of legalized abortion.

In sum, the opinion makes clear that she is favorable to the view that she openly calls “pro-choice” or for “reproductive rights,” and not favorable to the “anti-abortion” position.

In her opinion she repeatedly characterized the plaintiffs as advocates of “reproductive rights.”

More importantly, she uses the term “pro-choice” to describe the pro-legalized-abortion position, but does not extend the courtesy to those opposed to legalized abortion by calling them “pro-life.”  Here is a key holding from the case: “The Supreme Court has made clear that the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds.” 

Goldstein himself is aware of the importance of these characterizations.  His own account is the more nonpartisan approach of allowing both sides their respective labels (however questionable those labels are).  For, as noted above, he speaks of “pro-life” and “pro-choice” views.

She, like others in favor of legalized abortion, see the issue as one of “choice,” deny that the other side is motivated by a concern for “life,” but rather are just motivated by some hostitlity to abortion.

Doug Kmiec surely knows the significance of her terminology as well.

Moreover, it’s important to note that her comment on the Supreme Court’s precedent (that the government may favor the “anti-abortion” position) in no way indicates that she agrees with this decision.  She explains that “no intervening case” had called into question this precedent.  Mark my words, she would happily author a Supreme-Court opinion overturning the precedent.

So for those of you who are friends of abortion, you have nothing to fear.  Sotomayor is likewise a friend.

So we’ve been hearing alot about how conservatives have taken Judge Sotomayor’s 2001 remarks out of “context.”  Here’s some unabridged prior context.

Judge Sotomayor chose as her foil the remarks of Judge Miriam Cederbaum, Judge Sotomayor’s former colleague at the SDNY court, a Reagan appointee, and now a senior judge. 

Here are the comments with which Judge Sotomayor disagreed. 

The pendulum swings back and forth. The pioneers in the suffrage movement sought support in separate women’s organizations. Many women of my generation believed that separateness undermined equality, and we sought integration. I have never referred to myself, for example, as a woman lawyer or a woman judge because I have always believed that those were not categories. That is, people are undoubtedly men and women, but lawyers and judges do not have genders. This is a viewpoint that is now controversial, and is under attack by some feminist theorists who propound the idea that women think differently from men, and that there are gender-based intellectual differences that should be recognized in the work place.

Some of these voices are uncomfortably reminiscent of descriptions of the alleged “differences” between men and women that were used in times gone by to disqualify women from professions and preclude them from higher education. For example, in 1905, a former President of the United States wrote an article in the Ladies’ Home Journal opposing suffrage for women. In his article, President Cleveland wrote the following:

Thoughtful and right-minded men base their homage and consideration for woman upon an instinctive consciousness that her unmasculine qualities, whether called weaknesses, frailties, or what we will, are the sources of her characteristic and especial strength within the area of her legitimate endeavor. They know that if she is not gifted with the power of clear and logical reasoning she has a faculty of intuition which by a shorter route leads her to abstract moral truth; that if she deals mistakenly with practical problems it is because sympathy or sentiment clouds her perception of the relative value of the factors involved; that if she is unbusinesslike her trustfulness and charitableness stand in the way of cold-blooded calculation . . . .

Perhaps the next generation of women will not share my negative reaction to thoughts that sound surprisingly similar to those of President Cleveland.

Although undoubtedly we are all affected by our individual experiences and acculturation, our common legal education has ingrained in us the enormous importance in our democratic society of a tradition of independent and impartial judges. The preservation of this tradition depends on judicial integrity, which is the ability and willingness of upright judges to set aside, to the extent possible, their personal sympathies and prejudices in deciding legal disputes. This in turn requires of judges honest self-appraisal and the recognition and acceptance of one’s own fallibility. In some cases, this ideal may be more easily said than accomplished. But, after more than six years as a federal trial judge, I have not seen any basis for believing that gender plays a role one way or the other in any particular judge’s ability or willingness to exercise self-restraint.

I also believe that a good judge should recognize as to all litigants, but especially as to criminal defendants, that “[t]here but for the grace of God go I.” That is, that judges are members of the same species as all the human beings who appear before us. Whether we call it humility, humanity, or compassion, I have not observed differences in this quality among my colleagues that can fairly be explained by gender. The same can be said of wisdom and intellect.

I should add that we still have such a small sample of women on the federal bench that no anecdotal observation has any scientific validity. Moreover, my own recent experience is largely limited to glimpses of the judicial philosophy of my colleagues in their written opinions and in discussions at the lunch table. As you know, trial judges sit alone in separate courtrooms.  

Perhaps it is because of my own background that I find it difficult to accept the notion that as judges or lawyers, men and women have fundamentally different approaches. I grew up in a family in which it was assumed that girls could do anything that boys could do, especially in the intellectual sphere…..

Rather than spending too much time on personal reminiscences, let me sum up. When Florence Allen was appointed as a Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit [in], Attorney General Homer Cummings said: “‘Florence Allen was not appointed because she was a woman. All we did was to see that she was not rejected because she was a woman.’” I look forward to the time when women will comprise such a substantial and accepted part of the legal profession that the same can be said about all federal judges who happen to be women.

SOURCE: Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, Women on the Federal Bench, 73 B.U.L. Rev. 39, 43-44 (1993).

I decided today to dig a bit deeper into the context of Judge Sotomayor’s comments at the Sympoisium.  It was worse than I thought–I figured the context would make her comments seem less radical.  In truth, however, the context was her attempted refutation of the point made by some other participants in the symposium–viz., that judges should seek to overcome their prejudices in deciding cases.

She was emphatically rejecting the idea of overcoming one’s prejudices, a mere aspiration, and unrealistic, she said.

The next day of the symposium, Judge Paez of the Ninth Circuit–also a Clinton appointee emphatically insisted on the duty of neutrality:

“The topic for our panel discussion is different voices, different perspectives for 21st-century issues. That is a hard question to answer. I would like to think that I make a difference. As Judge Saucedo said, we are required to apply the law fairly [Judge Saucedo's comments are below]. I do not think that I ever have applied a different standard in judging a case involving a Latino defendant, a black defendant, an Asian defendant, a white defendant, or a multimillion dollar corporation. But, there is something about our own personal life experience that makes each of us different.

“I used to tell jurors when they entered the courtroom and took their oaths as jurors, ‘You walk into the courtroom with a lifetime of experiences, and we don’t ask you to suddenly forget all that experience, to ignore that experience.’ I asked them if they could judge fairly the case that they were about to hear. I explained, ‘As jurors, recognize that you might have some bias, or prejudice.  Recognize that it exists, and determine whether you can control it so that you can judge the case fairly. Because if you cannot – if you cannot set aside those prejudices, biases and passions – then you should not sit on the case.’

“The same principle applies to judges. We take an oath of office. At the federal level, it is a very interesting oath. It says, in part, that you promise or swear to do justice to both the poor and the rich. The first time I heard this oath, I was startled by its significance. I have my oath hanging on the wall in my office to remind me of my obligations. And so, although I am a Latino judge and there is no question about that – I am viewed as a Latino judge – as I judge cases, I try to judge them fairly. I try to remain faithful to my oath.

“I think we look at conflicts from our own life experiences. If you were to look at my life – at least my professional experience – and I’ll just start with that, I probably have a unique professional experience. If you looked at the federal judiciary and asked how many federal court of appeals judges are there that worked in legal services, as I did for nine years, I doubt that you would find many. I never worked for a law firm, a district attorney’s office, a U.S. Attorney’s Office, a State Attorney General’s office, or the Justice Department. I worked, instead, for legal services for the poor. That was my professional career. And working in that environment, representing individual clients as well as litigating larger cases, sometimes impacts the way one may look at issues or conflicts. You don’t shed that experience – you don’t leave it behind. But, when called upon to decide a case, judges have a distinct and clear obligation to apply the law fairly and justly to the parties in the case.”

Judge Valencio Saucedo, whose remarks Judge Paez had noted, made the following comments:

“Those are the experiences that I bring to the bench. I should tell you that the vast majority of the people who appear in my courtroom are Hispanic, and so I understand their particular experiences. That does not mean that I apply a different standard of justice, because that is wrong.”

He also suggested that even asking him the question of whether he would be impartial was offensive: 

“During the time that I was applying to be appointed to the bench, I was asked whether I would be able to sit in judgment of Hispanics. I said, ‘Without a doubt.’ I wonder if others who are not the same color as I am are asked the same question, whether they are able to sit in judgment of people who look like them. “

Our Republican Senators must ask her frankly the question: Does she disagree with Judge Saucedeo?  Does she disagree with Judge Paez?  Does she believe that judges should set aside their prejudices, or embrace them?

It has been frequently noted that as our national debt has grown to massive proportions over the past 40 years, and especially since the 1980s, that we have a fundamental gridlock, with Republicans able to pass occasional tax cuts, but never able to reduce (or even signficantly slow the growth) of federal spending, and Democrats (and sadly, many, if not most congressional Republicans) able to increase federal spending massively without the ability to raise sufficient taxation revenue to pay for the increased spending.

The political problem, it is said, is that tax cuts and spending increase are popular, tax increases and spending restraint are simply insufficiently popular.

The point of this blog is simply to point out that in American history, we have several examples of politically successful Presidents who advanced a populist agenda of spending restraint. 

Andrew Jackson: Actually USED his veto pen on several occasions.  In vetoing one particular “internal improvement,” he noted the constitutional problem that the particular spending was not for the “general welfare,” but only benefitted a particular state, but also the moral problem that such expenditures will ultimately require even higher taxes.  Rather, the people have a right to demand a ”prudent system of expenditure as will pay the debts of the Union and authorize the reduction of every tax to as low a point as the wise observance of the necessity to protect that portion of our manufactures and labor whose prosperity is essential to our national safety and independence will allow.”  http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=67036

William McKinley: His victory in the 1896 election inaugurated a period of Republican dominance that lasted until 1930.  His central platform was economic–anti-inflationary gold standard, balanced budgets (and yes), protective tariffs.  His candidacy focused on the “financial honor” of the United States.  He argued that the Republican Party “can be safely trusted to preserve both our credit and currency with honor, stability, and inviolability.  The American people hold the financial honor of our country as sacred as our flag, and can be relied upon to guard it with the same sleepless vigilance.”  http://projects.vassar.edu/1896/mckinleyaddress.html

Calvin Coolidge: Yes, our last vigorously fiscally-conservative President (Reagan was great in other respects).  Here’s a snippet from his inaugural address, after he won the 1924 election in a landslide.

“When we turn from what was rejected to inquire what was accepted, the policy that stands out with the greatest clearness is that of economy in public expenditure with reduction and reform of taxation. The principle involved in this effort is that of conservation. The resources of this country are almost beyond computation. No mind can comprehend them. But the cost of our combined governments is likewise almost beyond definition. Not only those who are now making their tax returns, but those who meet the enhanced cost of existence in their monthly bills, know by hard experience what this great burden is and what it does. No matter what others may want, these people want a drastic economy. They are opposed to waste. They know that extravagance lengthens the hours and diminishes the rewards of their labor. I favor the policy of economy, not because I wish to save money, but because I wish to save people. The men and women of this country who toil are the ones who bear the cost of the Government. Every dollar that we carelessly waste means that their life will be so much the more meager. Every dollar that we prudently save means that their life will be so much the more abundant. Economy is idealism in its most practical form.

“If extravagance were not reflected in taxation, and through taxation both directly and indirectly injuriously affecting the people, it would not be of so much consequence. The wisest and soundest method of solving our tax problem is through economy. Fortunately, of all the great nations this country is best in a position to adopt that simple remedy. We do not any longer need wartime revenues. The collection of any taxes which are not absolutely required, which do not beyond reasonable doubt contribute to the public welfare, is only a species of legalized larceny. Under this republic the rewards of industry belong to those who earn them. The only constitutional tax is the tax which ministers to public necessity. The property of the country belongs to the people of the country. Their title is absolute. They do not support any privileged class; they do not need to maintain great military forces; they ought not to be burdened with a great array of public employees. They are not required to make any contribution to Government expenditures except that which they voluntarily assess upon themselves through the action of their own representatives. Whenever taxes become burdensome a remedy can be applied by the people; but if they do not act for themselves, no one can be very successful in acting for them.”   http://www.conservativeusa.org/inaugural/coolidge.htm

Perhaps the American people have become so corrupt that the cause of fiscal restraint cannot be popular.  But a review of American history indicates that our democracy, per se, need not lead to the exponential growth of our national debt.

Both the conservative cause and the Republican Party had a lousy election.   But it’s not just a setback, we are told, but the beginning of the end, if not the end already.  We’ve lost young people, we’re not diverse enough, too extreme, etc., so we might as well pack up our silly conservative literature and go home.  Republicans, Time Magazine recently explained, are an “endangered species.”  http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20090518,00.html

Strangely enough, this marks, by my count, the fifth death of the Republican Party in the past fifty years.  Chesterton, in his survey of two-thousand years of Roman-Catholic history, noted the “five deaths of the faith,” but conservativism has had at least five such deaths in the last 50 years.

And thanks to the Time Magazine archive on-line, it’s fairly easy to document these deaths (or near-deaths).

1958: The Republicans got “clobbered at the polls,” suffered a “humiliating defeat” and was “losing its appeal to youth and becoming the party of the older voter.”  http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,894086,00.html

Two years later, Nixon fought Kennedy to a tie (leaving aside the contentious question of whether JFK won by fraud) and made a decent showing in Congress–winning 20 seats in the House.

1964: See this little gem from April 1964, entitled “What’s Wrong with Us?”–all about how the party has completely lost the Catholic and black vote.  Some Republican leaders explained that disaster gives resulted from the party being too “exclusive,” and its “appearance of being an organization of white Anglo-Saxon Protestants.”  http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,940999,00.html

Two years later, the GOP picked up 47 seats in the House, and two years later, the presidency (while tieing in the generic House ballot).

1974-76: The Democratic Party triumphed in back-to-back elections following Watergate, the Nixon pardon, stagflation, and the catastrophe of 1975 in Indonesia.  Many advocated even changing the name of the Republican Party, as Minnesota Republicans did, the “Independent Republican” Party, and state democrats charged deceptive advertising.  http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,913815,00.html

Of course, we know what happened four years later.

1982: Ah, but only two years later, the “Reagan Revolution” was over, so we were told, as Republicans lost nearly 30 seats in the House, and Reagan’s approval ratings sunk into the 30s (a la Bush, circa 2007).  And a poll taken in March 1983, showed that only 37% of the people wanted him to seek reelection, that 30% of Republican voters favoring Bush Sr. or Howard Baker as the nominee instead of Reagan, and showed Reagan losing 54%-27% against a generic Democrat.  http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,923353-2,00.html

1984 showed that perhaps Reagan wasn’t quite dead yet.

1992.  It was, once again, the “end of Reaganism.”  http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,977013,00.html

And was there a chance to come back?  Only if, according to Charles Krauthammer, Republicans and conservatives purged “extreme conservatives” like Pat Buchanan, much as 1950s liberals purged communists from their ranks.  http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,977488,00.html

On the other hand, the party was terribly divided–in tatters–including such dispirate groups as “moderates, conventional conservatives and a right wing fixated on ‘family values,’ notably abortion.”  Sound familiar?–there are conservatives (OK, we’ll hold our noses and tolerate you) and those utterly intolerable extreme, marginal, soon to-be-extinct social conservatives.  Indeed, at the RNC meeting in 1993, “[t]he loudest applause of the day came when Rich Bond, the G.O.P.’s retiring chairman, urged that the 1996 platform drop its strict antiabortion plank.”

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,977683,00.html

And we know what happened next.

Stuff ebbs and flows, pendelums swing, but when liberals lose, the MSM never pronounce either liberalism or the Democratic Party to be “dead.”

Let’s work hard, and see what 2010 or 2012 will bring.

Both the conservative cause and the Republican Party had a lousy election.   But it’s not just a setback, we are told, but the beginning of the end, if not the end already.  We’ve lost young people, we’re not diverse enough, too extreme, etc., so we might as well pack up our silly conservative literature and go home.  Republicans, Time Magazine recently explained, are an “endangered species.”  http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20090518,00.html

Strangely enough, this marks, by my count, the fifth death of the Republican Party in the past fifty years.  Chesterton, in his survey of two-thousand years of Roman-Catholic history, noted the “five deaths of the faith,” but conservativism has had at least five such deaths in the last 50 years.

And thanks to the Time Magazine archive on-line, it’s fairly easy to document these deaths (or near-deaths).

1958: The Republicans got “clobbered at the polls,” suffered a “humiliating defeat” and was “losing its appeal to youth and becoming the party of the older voter.”  http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,894086,00.html

Two years later, Nixon fought Kennedy to a tie (leaving aside the contentious question of whether JFK won by fraud) and made a decent showing in Congress–winning 20 seats in the House.

1964: See this little gem from April 1964, entitled “What’s Wrong with Us?”–all about how the party has completely lost the Catholic and black vote.  Some Republican leaders explained that disaster gives resulted from the party being too “exclusive,” and its “appearance of being an organization of white Anglo-Saxon Protestants.”  http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,940999,00.html

Two years later, the GOP picked up 47 seats in the House, and two years later, the presidency (while tieing in the generic House ballot).

1974-76: The Democratic Party triumphed in back-to-back elections following Watergate, the Nixon pardon, stagflation, and the catastrophe of 1975 in Indonesia.  Many advocated even changing the name of the Republican Party, as Minnesota Republicans did, the “Independent Republican” Party, and state democrats charged deceptive advertising.  http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,913815,00.html

Of course, we know what happened four years later.

1982: Ah, but only two years later, the “Reagan Revolution” was over, so we were told, as Republicans lost nearly 30 seats in the House, and Reagan’s approval ratings sunk into the 30s (a la Bush, circa 2007).  And a poll taken in March 1983, showed that only 37% of the people wanted him to seek reelection, that 30% of Republican voters favoring Bush Sr. or Howard Baker as the nominee instead of Reagan, and showed Reagan losing 54%-27% against a generic Democrat.  http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,923353-2,00.html

1984 showed that perhaps Reagan wasn’t quite dead yet.

1992.  It was, once again, the “end of Reaganism.”  http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,977013,00.html

And was there a chance to come back?  Only if, according to Charles Krauthammer, Republicans and conservatives purged “extreme conservatives” like Pat Buchanan, much as 1950s liberals purged communists from their ranks.  http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,977488,00.html

On the other hand, the party was terribly divided–in tatters–including such dispirate groups as “moderates, conventional conservatives and a right wing fixated on ‘family values,’ notably abortion.”  Sound familiar?–there are conservatives (OK, we’ll hold our noses and tolerate you) and those utterly intolerable extreme, marginal, soon to-be-extinct social conservatives.  Indeed, at the RNC meeting in 1993, “[t]he loudest applause of the day came when Rich Bond, the G.O.P.’s retiring chairman, urged that the 1996 platform drop its strict antiabortion plank.”

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,977683,00.html

And we know what happened next.

Stuff ebbs and flows, pendelums swing, but when liberals lose, the MSM never pronounce either liberalism or the Democratic Party to be “dead.”

Let’s work hard, and see what 2010 or 2012 will bring.

So said Time Magazine in a sober August 1976 report, after Reagan lost the nomination after his selection of a moderate Pennsylvanian as a proposed running-mate, which supposed sell-out cost him conservative support but gained him no moderate support.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,918244-3,00.html

Anytime you hear that something (especially the party, the conservative cause, or a favorite candidate) is finished, it’s always good to consult history, especially Reagan’s history.  And the Time magazine archive is a great resource.

Well, Maine’s legislature and governor just adopted a redefinition of marriage.  The momentum, it will be suggested, is just toward the inevitable.  I mean, after all, as “Maine goes, so goes the nation,” as the saying used to go.

Vermont and Maine (today) became the only states to adopt this redefinition by democratic and constitutional means.  Is there an inevitable trend somewhere?

Curiously, Maine and Vermont were the only states to vote for Alf Landon in 1936. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1936

Suffice it to say, in identifying “inevitable” trends, I would still rather be with FDR than Landon in 1936.

But the polls suggest increasing approval for this new definiion, at least among young people.  True.  Still, I’ll be willing to consider the apparent inevitability of this new definition once traditional marriage actually starts losing some referenda.  And it looks like the voters in Maine (but not Vermont) will have a chance to make their voices heard.