Asymmetrical Information

Gephardt is suffering from the politician's special variety of penis envy. He's been a legislator all his career, and has been running for President since at least 1988. Plainly, once he's installed himself in the Oval Office, he wants it all -- and no steenking Supreme Court is going to stand in his way!

Remember, friends: some constituency elected this man. There's a group of about 600,000 Americans whose registered voters consider Gephardt to be the best of the choices presented to them for a United States Congressman. Could we locate that district and put a big fence around it, please?

Hey, give the man some credit! He at least seems to have figured out that adding new justices is not the way to resolve differences with the Supreme Court.

Hugh,

Are you referring to FDR?

I don't think Mr. Gephardt misunderstands the constitution. I think he was pandering to a group he thinks is not smart enough to know (or care) that what he said was not possible.

Apparently the headline writer didn't appreciate the Gephardt remark either, because he didn't mention it. It makes you wonder what he thinks the rest of the government is for (not that I don't ask myself sometimes).

Incidentally, Gephardt's district is in the southern part of St. Louis.

I agree with David. Constitutional protections and all are nice, as long as they come up with the right (liberal) answer.

While I agree that what Gephardt said was out of line, I would like to point out that the Supreme Court did NOT say affirmative action was unconstitutional, just the particular form practiced at Michigan's undergarduate admissions office. I personally am in favor of economic affirmative action, as opposed to racial or ethnic.

Francis,

Gephardt's district extends from the central region of the city of St. Louis southward and slightly west. Most of the population in that region is concentrated in the left-leaning "South City" region.

Aside: The district just to the north of this one routinely elects William "Lacy" Clay - graduated last in his class from law school and was later disbarred in the state of Missouri...just before becoming a member of the federal house of reps. Clay's district is the smallest in the state, and the most heavily African-American - gerrymandering at its finest. During redistricting a couple years ago, a local politician urinated in a trashcan so that she would not have to yield the floor during discussion of proposals that would have rendered these districts more equitable, but reduced the degree of racial division in Clay's district. Can't have our districts reflect reality now, can we?

Anyway...Gephardt could serve as a case study in the problems caused by allowing politicians to draw their own district lines - Dick has his so carefully wrapped up that the state Republican party doesn't even bother anymore - in 2002, the Republican candidate raised $55,000 to Gephardt's 1.6 million...less than 10% of which was actually spent by Gephardt on campaigning (numbers from memory, but accurate to within about 5% I think).

His 2000 campaign manager is still engaged in a lawsuit from his opponent in that race alleging that she and others had followed him around with a camera for about 2 hours attempting to provoke a physical response. When none was forthcoming, they initiated one.

To be fair - Gephardt doesn't REALLY have any desire to overthrow the separation of powers. he's just too stupid to realize the implication of his words (trust me, I've met him...talk to him for about 2 minutes and look in his eyes it really hits you that nobody's home). Although it will be interesting to contrast the media response to this with their reaction when Ashcroft remarked that people ought to "watch what they say."

Sorry to sidetrack the discussion, but your comment and this entry hit on two of my biggest pet peeves - gerrymandering and Dick Gephardt. Plus, I think he's got a decent shot at the nomination next year - I might as well start the smearing now.

Is Gephardt the one with the one whose hair is a color not often found in nature?

I don't know about his hair, but isn't there a clause somewhere (Article II, Section 1?) that a president has to have eyebrows? If not, there oughtta be. And there have to be two--no Brezhnevs.

I think ceding sole interpretation of the Constitution to the Courts is a mistake. The three branches of governmet are co-equal, and all three branches need to protect their privileges to maintain the balance.

I believe that the Constitution is a living document, but not in the sense that judges should choose their own temperaments over the clear language of the document. Instead, the document itself allows for change and amendment, and places that power squarely in the hands of the legislature. If Mr. Gephardt wants to change the Constitution, his current seat in the Congress is the place to do it, rather than promising executive orders to over-rule it, or trying to read the tea leaves to choose the `right kind' of justice.

Why waste time trying to debate penumbras, when you can make crystal clear statements? Pass a privacy amendment, or an abortion amendment, or and equal rights amendment.

Or is the difficult give-and-take, and hard balancing of interests, that has been the weakness and strength of government by the people just too difficult compared to the enlightened fiats of mandarins?

David Walser wrote:

"I think he was pandering to a group he thinks is not smart enough to know (or care) that what he said was not possible."

Well, that pretty much describes 90% of the membership of the Democratic Party.

Maybe separation of powers is obsolete, at least in its present form. For instance, something mainly concerning the Executive Branch should be decided by that branch. I'm thinking of presidential elections, which should of course never be left to "judicial meddling". If a Supreme Court should ever find itself in the position of making a ruling that directly affects who becomes President, shouldn't the sitting President be able to countermand any "wrong" ruling? Especially if the dispute arose in a state whose governor was the brother of one of the candidates. And when some of the justices on the Supreme Court had been appointed by the father of one of the candidates. Clearly, then, Clinton should have been allowed to designate the winner of the 2000 election by executive order.

It's long past time to lay this ridiculous canard to rest. The Supremes didn't decide who was going to be president. They only decided when it would happen, sparing the nation further weeks of indecision.

No matter how many times they've counted the vote in Florida, Gore has never won.

"I'm thinking of presidential elections, which should of course never be left to "judicial meddling"."

Except when state courts stacked in favor of the Democrats are doing it, in which case it is A-OK.

"Clearly, then, Clinton should have been allowed to designate the winner of the 2000 election by executive order."

*snicker*

They're so cute when they're being earnest and pathetic, aren't they?

Forward this one to Alterman--his sore loser act is getting stale and could use some sprucing up.

Any leftist who cries about the rule of law being subverted by the Court in 2000 needs to hear only these words:

2002 New Jersey Senate Race.

I personally am in favor of economic affirmative action

Otherwise known as "financial aid"? That's fine. It's when poor equals "black," regardless.

I don't think `economic affirmative action' is the same as `financial aid'.

`Financial Aid' could assist students to pay for an education at an institution where they were accepted in an admissions process that was unaware of their financial status.

`Economic Affirmative Action' sounds more like changing the admissions process to improve a students chances of acceptance into an institution based upon low income.

This probably avoids most of the race/color/creed problems, but admits students who the admissions process, right or wrong, has determined are less likely to succeed at the institution. This is not always doing the student a favor.

"If we doubt that, just look at (Supreme Court Justice) Clarence Thomas," he [Al Sharpton] said. "Clarence Thomas is my color, but he's not my kind."

Strange. I thought race was the big issue here. Glancing back at the first paragraph of the article, it certainly seems that way:

"[...] a factor race can play [...]"

But evidently that isn't the issue. Perhaps what Sharpton is trying to say is that he's not really in favor of affirmative action in the right wing sense we understand it. I thought this had something to do with racial representation, but Sharpton has enlightened me sufficiently now to see that it isn't about race, it's not even about blacks, it's about "getting the right blacks."I suppose the issue is ... equality of political representation? And the point of democracy is ... ?

"If we doubt that, just look at (Supreme Court Justice) Clarence Thomas," he [Al Sharpton] said. "Clarence Thomas is my color, but he's not my kind."

Strange. I thought race was the big issue here. Glancing back at the first paragraph of the article, it certainly seems that way:

"[...] a factor race can play [...]"

But evidently that isn't the issue. Perhaps what Sharpton is trying to say is that he's not really in favor of affirmative action in the right wing sense we understand it. I thought this had something to do with racial representation, but Sharpton has enlightened me sufficiently now to see that it isn't about race, it's not even about blacks, it's about "getting the right blacks."I suppose the issue is ... equality of political representation? And the point of democracy is ... ?

Francis, my parents live in Gephardt's district. Ya got yer whitebread Germans in South St. Louis and your utter rednecks in Jefferson County, to the south. Plus of course your yuppies moving into JeffCo, and complaining about all those "horrible" rednecks.

Last time I was in those parts, most of the inhabitants could not be described as "left leaning", but they were blue collar. This excludes the yuppies, of course.

Bill Clay's son now has his father's seat, if I remember rightly.

The sad thing is that the Liberal media will soon ignore Gephardt's indulgence in stupidity. His political career would be far more damaged if he were a Republican. What would happen, for instance, if Tom DeLay said the same thing? We would never hear the end of it.

I don't think `economic affirmative action' is the same as `financial aid'.

True. It's similar in some respects, I suppose, but you've illustrated the difference well.

The sad thing is that the Liberal media will soon ignore Gephardt's indulgence in stupidity.

This ain't your father's media circuit, Dave. ;-)

It's my guess the blogosphere won't let go of it; technologically progressive journalists, print and television (particularly Fox News), will keep it in memory, up in the air like a beachball.

Gephardt's always wearing the wrong suit - too conservative to Democratic faithful, too liberal in a general election - so I'm not sure how this would affect his chances for nomination or election. If anything, I'd say that it will become a minor Bidenesque moment and earn him guffaws wherever he goes.

Gephardt's comments lead into the interesting question of just who is to enforce the terms of the Constitution.

Now the Constitution itself doesn't spell that out. Centuries ago the Supreme Court took on that role, mainly because it needed to be done and there didn't seem to be any good reason why they couldn't. But there's also no reason why the Supreme Court should be the only branch of the government that considers questions of constitutionality.

There was a time when Presidents considered it their duty to veto bills that they themselves considered unconstitutional. Unfortunately, our current President is uninterested in taking on that responsibility... he signed a Campaign Finance Reform bill that he knew was blatantly unconstitutional and decided to let the Supreme Court do the dirty work of striking it down.

However, the President could theoretically go a lot farther, if he were so inclined. The Constitution says that "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof... shall be the supreme Law of the Land". Now the executive branch exists to enforce laws, but if a bill is not "made in Pursuance" of the Constitution, even if it was signed by a President or repassed with a 2/3 majority", then it is not a law and the President is under no obligation to enforce it.

And it is just as legitimate for a President to use his own judgement in determining the Constitutionality of any existing law when carrying out his duties as it is for the Supreme Court to do so when deciding cases. I don't know of any case where a President has refused to enforce an unconstitutional law (certainly not in the past century!), but that course does appear to remain open. What would happen afterwards is another good question, of course.

There was a case during Andrew Jackson's presidency where an Indian tribe sued the Federal Government before the Supreme Court for treaty violations and the court ruled in their favor.

If I remember correctly, Jackson's response was something like "If the court wants to make the laws, let it try to enforce them too." He ignored their ruling and did nothing.

Of course this was long before the courts declared that they were the real authors of the Constitution.

Pat

Question about the SCOFLA in Bush v Gore

Weren't four of the justices in the Supreme Court of Florida selected by a commission that was headed by one of the attorneys for the Gore campaign?

BTW - since the two justices appointed by the first President Bush split their votes, it wouldn't matter to the outcome if they had recused themselves as some have implied.

The same way pro-life types continue to promote abortion alternatives, legal challenges, and pass laws that last about 10 mnutes under legal challenege? Cry me a river.....

Of course they wouldn't pass a legal challenge to you Jason, because you see little babies as nothing but a little criminals whose crime is on of inconvience, and not worthy of due process before they get executed.

Whatever the merits of the relevant issues, pretending the left has a monopoly on disrespect for SC decisions is a bit silly.

Hey, the USSC just struck down the Texas sodomy law. Anyone want to call Dick Gephardt and tell him he doesn't have to hold a hysterical press conference demanding that GWB refrain from obliterating the decision with an executive order?

"Any leftist who cries about the rule of law being subverted by the Court in 2000 needs to hear only these words:

2002 New Jersey Senate Race."

as a joisy resident, my favorite bit from that obscenity was how the court based it's decision on some invented constitutional need for competition in an election; a standard they conveniently forgot about when looking at the democratic primary when the torch ran [url=http://www.state.nj.us/lps/elections/elec2002/2002p_us_state_cand_once_all_list.pdf]unopposed[/url].

hmmm, sorry about that. how do i code urls here?

Has anyone thought they might be misinterpreting the statement?

Could Gephardt have been promising that, had something been struck down, he would issue an executive order revising the struck down process in a way that makes it permissible per the court ruling? Or is that not possible because it wouldn't paint the evil librul Gephardt in the worst light?

Comments are Closed.