SOME GUIDANCE FOR JOHN ROBERTS in answering the all-important Star Trek question.
Archive for 2005
July 20, 2005
TOM MAGUIRE: “Hello, Media Matters! Did you notice that the NY Times pulled the rug out from under you yesterday? I didn’t think so.”
RAND SIMBERG HAS SAD THOUGHTS on another Apollo anniversary: Read the whole thing, which also has some useful thoughts on the future.
ANN COULTER says that John Roberts isn’t conservative enough. (Drudge story here.).
Beldar disagrees.
I’M READING RON BAILEY’S Liberation Biology: The Scientific And Moral Case For The Biotech Revolution,
Human liberation from our biological constraints began when the first human sharpened a stick and used it to kill an animal for food. Further liberation from biological constraints followed with fire the wheel, domesticating animals, agriculture, metallurgy, city-building, textiles, information storage by means of writing, the internal combustion engine, electric power generation, antibiotics, vaccines, transplants, and contraception. In a sense, the goal toward which humanity has been striving for millennia has been to liberate ourselves, by extending our capacities, from more and more of our ancestors’ biological constraints. . . .
If we are allowed to use biotech to help future generations become healthier, smarter, and perhaps even happier, have we “imposed” our wills on them as bioconservatives warn? Will we have deprived them of the ability to flourish as full human beings? To answer yes to these questions is to adopt Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s view of humanity as a race of happy savages, sadly degraded by civilization. Previous generations have, of course, “imposed” all sorts of technologies and institutions on us. Thank goodness they did, because by any reasonable measure we are far freer, richer, better off than our ancestors.
Indeed we are. And Bailey’s book is important enough to attract nasty ad hominem review spam from the Jeremy Rifkin crowd!
STEM-CELL UPDATE:
Dr. Verlinsky, a 62-year-old Russian émigré whose passion is embryo research, might seem the last person Senate Majority leader Bill Frist would invite to Washington as President Bush’s stem-cell policy faces a challenge in Congress. But the Tennessee Republican did just that, and Dr. Verlinsky was at the Capitol building yesterday, briefing a room full of Republican staffers.
The reason is that Dr. Verlinsky’s busy laboratory claimed to have developed another technique that now is emerging as a dark-horse in the stem-cell debate. By fusing existing stem cells with ordinary cells, Dr. Verlinsky says his team has been making new supplies of stem cells without human embryos.
I hope this is right, but let’s not get ahead of the science.
THIS WEEK’S STORYBLOGGING CARNIVAL is up.
EARLIER, I MENTIONED BUSH’S SMIRKING during the Roberts introduction. Reader Avner Bezdboroko says I was wrong about why:
Last night on Ted Koppel he showed a side view of the introduction. The Roberts’ children were misbehaving some, sort of like Giuliani’s son during Rudy’s innauguration. This was in the Presidents peripheral vision and was why he was smirking. The kids had to be taken off the stage by their mom.
I stand corrected.
UPDATE: Here’s the picture, with the comment that “The kid will definitely be seeing this again at his wedding reception.” Heh.
I’LL BE ON MICHAEL GRAHAM’S SHOW in a few minutes, talking about the Roberts nomination. You can listen online here.
“STUNNED AND CAUTIOUS:” Ed Morrissey rounds up editorial reaction to John Roberts’ nomination.
UPDATE: Here’s Howard Kurtz’s take on the reaction: “The morning analyses, if you read between the lines, seem to say: shrewd choice.”
HOWARD KURTZ reports on proposed shield legislation for journalists. It sounds bad to me:
Pence said the bill would cover online reporters for newsgathering organizations but not millions of individual bloggers.
I don’t see any justification for that distinction. I am at best lukewarm on the idea of shield laws like this, but if we have them, they should be based on the activity of journalism, not where your paycheck comes from, a notion that is increasingly obsolete. As I noted in a piece on the Vanessa Leggett case:
At any rate, a more relevant standard than “professional journalist” (though also not a First Amendment doctrine) would seem to be found in 42 U.S. Code section 2000aa, which forbids law enforcement agents from seizing “work product materials” or “other documents” possessed by a person “reasonably believed to have a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, broadcast or other similar form of public communication.”
It seems as if a similar model could apply here — though it’s not at all clear to me that it’s a good idea to create such a privilege to begin with. But to the extent that we do, it should be based on expression, not on possession of a guild card.
MY TECHCENTRALSTATION COLUMN IS UP: It’s an interview with J.D. Johannes of Faces from the Front, about his independent reporting in Iraq and the future of media.
MORE ANTI-CHAVEZ PROTESTS IN VENEZUELA: Gateway Pundit has a roundup, with photos.
HEY, IF THEY ASK ROBERTS THIS KIND OF QUESTION, people might actually tune in: “I’d like to know if Star Trek had an influence on John Roberts and, if so, what that influence was.”
And don’t forget Gilligan. The nominee would be well-advised to study carefully, 
UPDATE: But perhaps not, as reader Jerry Hurtubise suggests, quite this carefully.
July 19, 2005
I’LL BE ON THE SPECIAL-EXTENDED EDITION OF HUGH HEWITT’S SHOW in a few minutes. You can listen online here.
TOM MAGUIRE offers to help the New York Times’ editors refresh their recollection.
ABC SAYS IT’S JOHN ROBERTS from the D.C. Circuit.
UPDATE: Jonathan Adler has thoughts.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Sean Hackbarth says that Roberts’ confirmation hearings will likely turn on French Fries. Though most definitely not, in this case, “freedom fries.”
Here’s a profile of Roberts. And note that Joe Lieberman put him forward as a compromise candidate who would be easily confirmable:
Lieberman is one of the “Gang of 14,” seven Democrats and seven Republicans who in May broke a Senate deadlock by agreeing not to filibuster judicial nominees except in “extraordinary circumstances.” . . .
Lieberman offered reporters Wednesday three names he said could be considered without sparking a talk-athon. He would not say whether he brought them up to Rove.
He said federal appellate Judges Michael McConnell and John G. Roberts were “in the ballpark,” and that “people tell me” appeals court Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson is “very similar.”
This suggests that a filibuster is unlikely, and that Bush really has asked the “advice” of some Senators. As he should.
N.Z. Bear, meanwhile, has set up a John Roberts tracking page. And there’s a roundup, including links to opinions, here. More here, and here, too, from the Washington Post.
Now the real question is whether this is right — or whether Bush leaked a false name just to make the media look bad . . . .
MORE: Here’s a profile of Roberts by Jeffrey Rosen of The New Republic:
Top of his class at Harvard Law School and a former law clerk for Rehnquist, Roberts is one of the most impressive appellate lawyers around today. Liberal groups object to the fact that, in 1990, as a deputy solicitor general, Roberts signed a brief in a case involving abortion-financing that called, in a footnote, for Roe v. Wade to be overturned. But it would be absurd to Bork him for this: Overturning Roe was the Bush administration’s position at the time, and Roberts, as an advocate, also represented liberal positions, arguing in favor of affirmative action, against broad protections for property rights, and on behalf of prisoners’ rights. In little more than a year on the bench, he has won the respect of his liberal and conservative colleagues but has not had enough cases to develop a clear record on questions involving the Constitution in Exile.
(Probably because the “Constitution in Exile” is a myth.) But follow the link for more. Rosen’s conclusion: “All in all, an extremely able lawyer whose committed conservatism seems to be leavened by a judicious temperament.”
NARAL, on the other hand, doesn’t like him. Its main page already includes a form letter to Senators opposing him.
The Insta-Daughter’s take: “He looks pretty good for 50.”
STILL MORE: Just watched Bush’s intro, followed by the Leahy / Schumer response. Bush was smirking; he thinks he’s got it in the bag. (Video here.) More significantly, perhaps, Leahy and Schumer looked pretty flat; they seemed to be going through the motions (video here); I don’t think they believe they can stop him. That could change of course, but it’s certainly how it looks now.
Here’s Roberts’ profile from SCOTUSblog. And check out the SCOTUSblog Supreme Court Nomination Blog for much more.
And Austin Bay has thoughts: “Word is that Roberts is ‘well thought of’ in DC — meaning he has social aplomb. That counts. It may not count in NY Times editorials but it will count in Senate votes. What does this mean down the road? Bet on a Roberts confirmation.”
What do I think of him? Beats me. Just searched his hearing transcripts on the right to bear arms and found nothing. How is he on federalism and other limits on government power? Beats me again.
Nan Aron said she’d urge a filibuster of Roberts, but that was in the context of him being named to replace Rehnquist, if that matters.
Here’s the Kos Krowd’s reaction.
YEAH, STILL MORE: Reader Edward Royce emails:
Hmmm.
“What do I think of him? Beats me. Just searched his hearing transcripts on the right to bear arms and found nothing. How is he on federalism and other limits on government power? Beats me again.”
Great. O’Connor with a penis.
I’m supposed to be happy about this?
7 of the 9 Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republicans. 3 of them are acceptable, which shows you how incompetent Republicans are at choosing judges.
Frankly this conservative is completely underwhelmed.Bush might think he’s got some sort of mojo going on, but if Roberts doesn’t turn out to be a solid conservative, and not another O’Connor, then the GOP is screwed.
I know a lot of conservatives who have been adding up the support given, and lack of results received from the GOP. I’ve been asking a lot of conservatives to name which issues or agendas the GOP has come through on for conservatives.
It’s a damn small list.
Sigh. F***ed by the GOP, yet again. I’m done. The GOP’s donation letters go into the trash and the next time I vote might be 2008 or maybe 2010. The GOP better not expect me to give a rat’s ass about them in 2006.
Hmm. I quoted this on Hugh Hewitt’s show, and Hugh suggested that these concerns are misplaced. In particular he noted some evidence in opinions that Roberts takes Commerce Clause issues seriously. But this certainly illustrates that Bush has a credibility problem with the base.
Matt Margolis, meanwhile, has a roundup of blog reactions.
And, finally, here’s Roger Simon’s take.
STANLEY FISH GETS DOUBLE-TEAMED by Ann Althouse and Jeff Goldstein. My thoughts on the underlying issue can be found here. Also here. And, in a way, here. Yes, I was pretty interested in this topic for a while.
FROM THE NEWSWEEK FLAG-IN-TOILET SCHOOL OF ART, we see that California Attorney General Bill Lockyer’s taste is rather poor. (Dan Weintraub’s SacBee blog now requires registration, but you can see the pictures here, too.)
First Lockyer was advocating prison rape, and now this. Does he have a political tin ear — or is he just a jerk? It’s hard to believe, though, that California couldn’t find someone better for the job.
THIS WEEK’S CARNIVAL OF TOMORROW is up!
UPDATE: Don’t miss the Cotillion Carousel, either.
STEPHEN CARTER FOR SUPREME COURT PICK? I knew him well at Yale, and he was one of my references when I was on the teaching market. I think he’d be easily confirmable, but if the Bush folks are thinking of him, then their thinking is considerably different than I had supposed. I would have expected somebody more like Joy Clement or Edith Jones.
CALEB CARR WRITES ON TERRORISTS AND THE SMELL OF FEAR:
What common elements can we establish among these societies at the given moments that they were victimized?
Of paramount interest is the fact that each nation had recently exhibited a weakening public determination to aggressively meet the rising challenge of Islamist terrorism. Consider the U.S. of 2001: The Clinton administration had left behind a record of essentially ignoring those few terrorism analysts who asserted that full-fledged military action against al Qaeda’s Afghan training bases, backed by the possibility of military strikes against other terrorist sponsor states, was the only truly effective method of preventing an eventual attack within U.S. borders. President Clinton himself, we now know, at times favored such decisive moves; but opposition from various members of his cabinet, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and finally (as well as most importantly) a general public that would not or could not confront the true extent of the Islamist problem generally, and al Qaeda specifically, forced him to confine his responses to occasional and counterproductive bombings — even as the death toll from al Qaeda attacks on U.S. interests abroad rose dramatically. Correctly sensing that the new president, George W. Bush, was treating the terrorist threat with a similar attitude of denial, al Qaeda’s Hamburg-based subsidiaries launched the 9/11 operation. . . .
In all of these examples, then, the “trigger” for terrorist action was not any newly adopted Western posture of force and defiance. Rather, it was a deepening of the targeted public’s wish to deal with terrorism through avoidance and accommodation, a mass descent into the psychological belief, so often disproved by history, that if we only leave vicious attackers alone, they will leave us alone. It is hardly surprising that by actively trying — or merely indicating that they wished — to bury their collective heads in the sand, the societies were led not to peace but to more violent attacks.
Indeed.
IT’S AMAZON.COM’S Tenth Anniversary — and to think that I once doubted they’d make it! Keep that in mind if I ever offer investment advice . . . .
BLOWING SMOKE, THE MOVIE: A Jim Treacher Production.