jonas_045

With this article I am beginning a new series for The Moving Planet Blog entitled "Why?" In political analysis, we most often look at the "what" and the "who" and the "how" and the "what are the implications of such-and-such" and the "what we can reasonably expect to happen from this event or series of them." In this series I attempt to examine the motivation of one political-actor/group-of-actors or another as they do one thing or another. Thus the title, "why?" I hope that you will find it to be of interest and use.

Leading up to the opening of the hearings on the nomination of Samuel Alito by George Bush for the open seat on the United States Supreme Court there have been a number of excellent analyses of how the seating of this man would be a disaster for American democracy, if not for the world. The best of these in my view are those by our own Editor/Publisher, Michael Carmichael, which recently graced this space. On the morning of the day the hearings began, Jan. 9, 2006, The New York Times published a brief and most excellent summary of the case against confirmation as its lead editorial.

From his writings, judicial opinions, and actions, what does Alito clearly stand for? Overturning Roe v. Wade, creating a virtually unchecked Executive Branch (as long as it is in the hands of a Republican), reducing the power of Congress under the Interstate Commerce clause, allowing the President to over-ride the Fourth Amendment to allow for criminal case actions without a warrant, not using the principle of "one person, one vote" in deciding re-districting cases, cutting back on civil rights, allowing certain types of discrimination against women, going easy on corporate polluters and so on and so forth. He also stands for saying one thing to the Congress and doing another when it comes to dealing with personal stock holdings and then having cases involving his holdings come before him, and also actually saying out loud that it's just fine to write certain things to strengthen one's job application even if one doesn't necessarily believe them.

And so, the question here is why, why did George Bush pick this man? In this case, the answer is simple: he perfectly represents George Bush's view of government and its functions: the creation of a virtual dictatorship, ignoring acts of Congress when the President doesn't like them, gradually eliminating the independent judiciary (added to the list of specifics above) and so on and so forth. This man embodies Georgitism, plain and simple. This man perfectly represents George Bush's notions of justice. This is why this man was chosen to be the next Supreme Court Justice.

It is becoming more apparent, it seems to me, that the Harriet Miers nomination was not some "mistake," but rather a purposeful bait-and-switch operation. The Georgite Brain Trust (which does not of course include George II) from the beginning really wanted Alito, their ideal Supreme Court Justice, someone who might even out-Scalia Scalia and Thomas, from the beginning. But they felt that they couldn't nominate him, as radically-Right as he is, right out of the box. Miers was the perfect foil for motivating their Christian Rightist base (some of whom may have been on the grand design from the beginning) to "put the pressure on." Then Bush could say to his so-called "moderate" Republicans "well see, if we want to stay in office, we will just have to go along with our base, don't you know. And that's why I picked him." But that, as noted above, is not why Bush picked him.

What might we learn from this analysis? That as the campaign against Alito goes along it must also be broadened to include Bush, the Georgites, and their whole agenda. That way, even if Alito is confirmed (and if he is, the lie will have been given that there is such an animal as a "moderate" Republican, because Sen. Frist will surely invoke the "nuclear Option" in case the Democrats try to filibuster, as some of them at least almost surely will and they could prevail only with Republican help), the campaign to expose Bush and the Georgites for what they really are will have been strengthened.

posted by Dr. J. @ 12:41 AM

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 Posted on http://planetmove.blogspot.com/ by Steven Jonas, MD, MPH

Dr. J's "Why?" No. 4: Further on Georgite Wiretapping

On Friday, Jan. 13, 2006, Michael Kinsley posted the following article on Slate: "Give Me Liberty or Let Me Think About It: What the wiretapping debate says about freedom." At the end of his column Mr. Kinsley wrote:

"Here, once again, the Bush administration helps to make the softies' case. They could have jumped through the required hoops and be wiretapping away about five minutes later. Or if they didn't like the way some court was interpreting the law, they could have gotten a law tailor-made from Congress just the way they liked. ('I'll take it medium rare, with cuffs but no pleats, and hold the right to a jury trial.') But that was too much trouble." So, he concludes, they just went ahead and did what they wanted to because complying with the law was just bothersome.

Mr. Kinsley provided an excellent analysis, as far as it went (and I do suggest looking up the article, at Slate). But there is a much more important issue beyond it. The Georgites know and knew that they could go to Congress to get the FISA law changed so that they could do what they claimed was necessary "to protect the national security." (Amending the Constitution to eliminate the 4th Amendment's requirement for a search warrant, which means that another branch of government beyond theirs needs be involved, would be a bit harder.) But they were, and are, after something else.

So the "Why?" here. That last sentence of Mr. Kinsley's is not the reason the Georgites did not go for legislation. They intentionally did not do so in their drive to achieve something much bigger, and much more threatening to the future of Constitutional Democracy in the United States. They did not go for legislation because they wanted to, and want to, establish, make it clear to all concerned, that the President can do whatever he wants to do, regardless of the law or the Constitution, if he says that he is "fighting terrorism," for a "country at war," under his Constitutional powers as Commander-in-Chief. Those "concerned" include: members of the Congress, of the Judiciary, and also members of the Administration itself who might be troubled about taking part in illegal, Constitution-busting activities, either for ethical reasons or for fear of possible future legal consequences should the political situation change.

This is some interpretation of the "Original Intent" that the Georgites claim (totally falsely; see Scalia on the God-ordained "Natural Law" he claims stand above the Constitution, discussed in my 1/19/06 column on The Political Junkies.net) they are so enamoured of. This, part of the well-planned strategy of the Georgites to seize dictatorial powers for this President, is the "Why?" in this case. This is where the battle must be joined, as Al Gore and certain Senators such as Kennedy and Leahy are now doing, for the United States is currently undergoing a coup d'etat in slow motion.

posted by Dr. J. @ 9:34 PM

Wednesday, February 01, 2006 Posted on http://planetmove.blogspot.com/ by Steven Jonas, MD, MPH

Dr. J.'s "Why?" No. 6: Why Should the Failed Cloture Vote be considered a Victory?

The failed filibuster cloture vote on the Alito nomination should be considered a victory for the following reasons. For the first time, a majority of the Democratic members of the US Senate have come to the conclusion that the most important issue facing the United States today is the protection and preservation of US Constitutional Democracy. They have realized that this is the most important issue dividing them and indeed even that part of the Democratic Party that has not yet faced this reality, from the Republican Religious Right and their President, who want to impose theocratic fascism on the nation. I believe that they have finally realized that many of Bush's actions have been unconstitutional and that Alito will be leading that part of the assault on US constitutional democracy that will emanate from the Supreme Court, now almost under full Georgite control. This group of Senators has realized that the time has come to begin challenging Bush and the Georgites in general on this fundamental issue. If in the long run, we win the battle, I believe that this vote, losing as it was, will be seen as the beginning of the counter-attack that will have led to that victory.

posted by Dr. J. @ 5:39 AM