SCOTUS, Bears & Water Guns: What a Summer is All About!

It's been very hot around here in the northeast, though much of the country is suffering from the same high temperatures. I guess the rapture index has climbed a notch or two. I'm thinking of a tall, sweatin' glass of Long Island Ice Tea , sitting under an umbrella at a quiet, white beach, while the blue-green waters of the soft surf cooling my feet. Ah, that's life. On a related story, as life goes, I'm hitting the pavement these days lining trying to line up projects of gainful employment, so I can maintain my lifestyle, which includes having a few hours a week to dream about the finer points in life! I should be a political consultant getting the big bucks and well-deserved vacations in order to recharge my batteries and clear my head.

By now, you must have heard that Bush has found a new prince for SCOTUS. The introduction was short and sweet. How lucky we are to have someone on the Supreme Court of the United States who loves his family and his dog! Oh, and his name is John G. Roberts--a very nice waspy name if you asked me. Why would the Democrats want more information on this guy? He seems smart, polite, and well groomed! [I mean, com'on, he's not a Borg, or is it, Bork?] Anyway, the game being played is hide & seek. "OK, let's see what you're holding behind your back, Johnny," the Dems are saying. "We can't show you the paper trail while he worked for pappa Bush (1989-1993), because it'll spoil the surprise we're preparing for you," the White House shouts back. "Did we tell you that Roberts collects art, gives to charity, supports the troops, loves apple pie and his mother," they add. Well, folks, now you have it. What more could you ask for? [it's a rhetorical question, not a real one, so stop asking]

Since I'm feeling a bit generous today, I'm going to give some free advice to the Democrats. If they find it useful, they can support this site by making a nice contribution (I mean monetary, though comments are also welcome). First, I'd advise them not to come out against Roberts, not right away. They should coordinate their questioning efforts in the Senate Judiciary Committee to reveal as much as possible about him. Then, if he's coy, or if the senators don't get direct, clear answers, they should pick one, or, maximum two issues to oppose him. Yet, there is little doubt in my mind that, unless Roberts has a skeleton in his closet, he'll be confirmed.

Let's not forget that the American people don't like "obstructionists," so the Dems must be careful how to play this. Also, Bush will get another 1 or 2 SCOTUS appointments. I'm certain that Renquist will definitely leave the court before the Dems take over (hopefully) any Congressional chamber in January 2007. I understand the frustrations of many on our side, who want to come out swinging hard against Bush's nominee, but we have to be smart. In the "normative sense" things would be different; today, we must deal in pragmatics. Like General Washington, we have to pick our battles wisely when our numbers are smaller.

Elections have consequences. We knew this, just as we knew that Bush would pick a very conservative person for the high court.We know that "reasonable" or "mainstream" Repubs are an endangered species and definitely in no position of influence or with the guts to stand up to the highjacking of their party (and their traditional conservative ideology). The way to really change this bad situation is to change the power relation in D.C. starting with the mid-term elections next year. By being reasonable (read: smart) today they will be in better shape to fight tomorrow. And, gosh, do we have so many battles ahead.

If the Dems make significant gains next year, I think Bush will try to nominate an even more conservative judge when Renquist leaves. Such move, if successful will solidify the extreme right tilt of SCOTUS for many years. If unsuccessful, the Republicans will have an issue to keep their base on alert and motivated for the next elections. Likewise, the Dems can use the Roberts' nomination to mobilize their troops in 2006. Just a few percentages higher of voter turnout can have a huge impact in a traditionally low voter participation in a midterm election.

And, keep hanging Rovergate around the president's neck. Stop asking Bush to fire his trusted advisor. The damage to our national security is done already. They should now pay the price, long and hard. Let special counsel Fitzgerald do his job. He's said something about "crimes committed," and "the plot against Wilson." This gets juicier by the day. Anyway, the terrible failures of this administration are many, and it has started to show in the public's attitude. So, keep making the case for change. I like Rep. (D-IL) Jan Schakowsky's recent article where she argues that the Dems shouldn't be timid, "Americans like tough, even when they don't entirely agree with the substance. Voters like tough; voters don't like tentative." But, being tough is one thing. Hunting bears with waterguns is another. In addition to your resolve, you have to show purpose. Eliminating the static and forming a clear, concise message (something of a novel approach for the Dems) would be very helpful too!

Cheers! Aaaah, that felt good!