BWall's blog

Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court is roughly twelve hours old, and already would-be GOP leaders Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee have made much of a comment she made at Duke Law School where she supposedly claimed that the court of appeals is "where policy is made."  I'm all for honestly opposing bad selections to the Supreme Court, but I'm not sure that this comment - in full context, mind you - automatically makes Sotomayor a flawed nominee.  For reference, here is the full quote in context:

"All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with court of appeals experience.  Because it is - court of appeals is where policy is made.  And I know, I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that.  Because we don't make law, I know.  Okay, I know, I know, I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it, I know.  Having said that, the court of appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating, it is interpretation, it is application."  

The talking heads of Romney and Huckabee (in rare agreement, for once) spent this afternoon focusing on the first part of the quote while ignoring the second part, where Sotomayor emphasizes that the crucial aspect of decisions made at the court of appeals (and, I hope she realizes, other lower level courts as well), is the interpretation and application of statutory law and Supreme Court precedent.  There is nothing wrong or unconstitutional about this: as any first-year law student knows (although apparently Mr. Romney, who earned his JD from Harvard, has forgotten) appellate courts do have the power to interpret and apply the law to specific situations.

Sotomayor may still end up being a flawed nominee.  I am impressed that she recognized the Bush administration's authority to prefer anti-abortion measures, and I still need to do more research on the New Haven firefighter case.  If there are grounds to oppose Sotomayor, they should be based on her actual decisions, and not on a suspect phrase from a talk to law students that is not an actual reflection on her judicial philosophy.  Republican lawmakers have better things to do than to seek to make Sotomayor "an offender for a word."  I hope that their critique will be focused on actual issues, not on the distracting drivel that Romney and Huckabee tried to push today.

 I'm relatively new to this website, so feel free to disagree with what I'm saying.  However, particularly in the last week, I have noticed the level of constructive dialogue in the comments threads dropping rapidly as partisan anger increases.  Several posters seem intent on using nothing but ad hominem attacks instead of calmly and intelligently addressing their legitimate policy and philosophical differences.

It is not my role to police this forum, nor would I want to do so: I am just an observer and an infrequent commentator here.  However, I am grateful to have this forum as a place to read constructive ideas about the growth and development of conservative politics, and this forum is tainted when it becomes nothing but a pissing contest between who can repeat their mindless invective the most times.  This applies equally to posters on both sides of the political aisle.  

I have no authority here, and I would not be surprised to see the comments thread on this post filled with angry comments denouncing me for saying this.  That's cool.  All I am suggesting is that we focus on issues rather than personal attacks.  Hell, we're all anonymous on here anyway, and it's not like anyone is running for office, so we should feel free to discuss issues without being burdened by trying to tear down anyone personally.

 This is something I've been grappling with for a while.  Any suggestions or advice would be most welcome.

The Conservative Paradox (note: this is equally problematic for liberals as well; just flip the factors around and you have the same situation)

Conservatives believe in limited government: people work best when they are unconstrained, and government should be as small as possible to minimize restraints and allow people to live their lives as they so choose.  We endorse this behavior particularly in the marketplace, as we believe the free market allocates resources much more effectively than government oversight.  Even if some types of spending are irresponsible or even morally wrong, the free market punishes and rewards behavior better than the government does, so it should be left to act unfettered.

But...

A good majority of conservatives believe that the government should regulate moral behavior such as same-sex marriage, abortion, drug use, etc.  We believe that these practices are inherently wrong and threaten society at large, and that a responsible government eradicates these ills by outlawing them.  

So...

If I have stated these two goals correctly, they seem to contradict each other on their face: in one instance we want a small and non-intrusive government, and on the other we want a powerful and far-reaching government.  Why do we feel that people are perfectly capable of economic self-governance but need the government to make their moral decisions for them?  (The flip side is equally damning for liberals: why can you trust people to make their own moral decisions but don't trust them to know how to spend their money?)

Personally, I do have deep personal beliefs about the moral issues that the culture wars have been and are being fought over.  Having said that, though, I feel uncomfortable with granting the government the power to make these decisions.  I don't really want Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi deciding my moral convictions, and would rather that be a private decision informed by my church, my family, my own reading, etc.  

Any comments, thoughts, criticisms, etc. are welcome.

 In his weekly address, President Obama announced today that he has "begun scouring our budget line by line for programs that don't work so we can make room for those that do... it means reinstating the pay-as-you-go rule that we followed during the 1990s - so if we want to spend, we'll need to find somewhere else to cut."  He went on to add "Finally, in the coming weeks, I will be announcing the elimination of dozens of government programs shown to be wasteful or ineffective.  In this effort, there will be no sacred cows, and no pet projects.  All across America, families are making hard choices, and it's time their government did the same."

For a kid who grew up loving Kevin Kline's title character in Dave making room for a homeless shelter by cutting payments to non-performing contractors and an ad program to make people feel better about cars "they've already bought," this is music to my ears, and I would really love to see the Obama administration follow through on this. 

Any recommendations on where those cuts should be made?