EDITORIALS / OPINION

Go straight to your favorite columnist

- Andrew Fois

Order in the Courts

- Gary Tischler

Who’s the Real John McCain?

RANTS A Free Day

by david roffman

October 2008

Recently, the District of Columbia celebrated its second annual Car Free Day. Over 1,500 cities around the world hold car free events, including many in the United States. The goals of “Car Free DC Day” are to encourage the use of sustainable modes of transportation and to raise environmental awareness about the impact of cars on the overall quality of life. Car Free DC Day is an opportunity to see how your neighborhood might look and work with a lot fewer cars.

So it got us to thinking, why can’t we expand on this idea. Once a year we can have a Politicians Free Day, wherein not one politician is allowed to go to work, speak, be seen or write anything. Think of the benefits. Newscasters will have to actually go out and create stories of merit, stories that mean something. We won’t have to listen to whining of the Obamas and McCains and Palins for a complete day. We won’t have to cringe looking at the likes of Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi.

While we’re at it, how about a CABLE NEWS free day. No Wolf Blitzer blitzing the airwaves from his “War Room,” or “Situation Room,” or “Room Where I Go When I’m Bad.” No more Lou Dobbs blabbering on about illegal aliens. God, we thought Sigourny Weaver took care of all that situation a long time ago. No more Hannity and Colmes for a day, Hannity being the idiot, Colmes being the patsy...no more Larry King Q&A (is he getting smaller every day, or is it just us?)

While we’re at it: How about a Mayor Fenty free day. No, he’s not coming to your neighborhood event today, sorry. No, he won’t be at your Friday night potluck dinner for seniors over 80, sorry. No, he won’t be at the latest crime scene tonight, sorry. No, he won’t be giving a news conference today, all day, sorry.

How about a Money Free Day? Instead, since we already have that, how about a Free Money Day.

Who’s the Real John McCain? - opinion

By gary tischler

October 2008

Watching the two debates between Senators Barack Obama and John McCain, I was reminded of an old Hollywood story about the legendary stars Kirk Douglas and the late John Wayne.

Wayne had apparently blasted Douglas at a party for playing a degenerate and immoral man like Vincent Van Gogh in “Lust for Life.” To which Douglas later said, “You know, the trouble with John Wayne is that he thinks he really IS John Wayne.”

These days, late in the campaign, after two debates, it looks like the trouble with John McCain is that he thinks he really IS John McCain.

You hear him constantly talk about being a maverick, about how in the Senate, he’s known as the Sheriff, apparently for rooting out corruption, boondogglers and high rollers and spenders, stepping up to the plate, going against his own party, reaching across the aisle with his mighty reach and finding, more often than not, Joe Lieberman. Increasingly he’s seeing himself as a populist, a man of the American people, in spite of his wealth, his lengthy stay in the exalted chambers of the U.S. Senate.

There’s something theatrical about all this, it’s as if he’s trying out a role of president-to-be, hero-senator, the kind that used to operate and wheel and deal in the Roman forum. Everything he’s done in the campaign has been based on the idea that his stature and status is a kind of entitlement, that his genuine heroism as a POW is a chit against criticism, that the presidency is his by right of service.

It’s obvious that the challenge posed by the youthful Barack Obama is almost a personal affront to him. In the first debate, he stood up like a Mount Rushmore figure, staring into the distance, looking at “the American people in the audience.”

In the first debate, he never once looked directly at Obama; it’s as if he was beneath consideration. In the second debate, in a town hall forum which is supposed to be his forte, he paced around the space like a lion in winter, all mannerisms and “my friends,” on a stormy stage. At one point, talking about a piece of legislation, he asked, “And you know who voted against it?” and turned to Obama. “THAT one,” he sputtered, igniting instant late night jokes and pundit punditry.

The man who promised a positive campaign is now pandering: how many references have there been to the Iranian president and his characterization of Israel as a “rotten corpse,” repeated by Governor Palin? Hello, Miami and Florida Jewish voters.

Honor and country above politics, duty and service have been McCain’s passwords, they’re his stock in trade that he’s now squandering at the political gambling table. Picking Sarah Palin was politics above country, because, even though we can shudder at the thought of President Palin, McCain apparently didn’t give it a second thought.

Palin acts as if she earned her new-found celebrity and status, instead of being picked out of thin air by McCain. The wonder is that even people as savvy as Geraldine Ferraro and Peggy Noonan are conned by her “Can I Call You Joe,” winking, by golly demeanor, instead of being appalled by her ignorance.

And now Palin is out on the hustings, displaying her true gifts of demagoguery, inciting crowds, members of which can be heard yelling “traitor” about Obama.

And now McCain, after the last campaign, lagging in the polls, is there too, in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, silent as speakers refer to “Barack Hussein Obama,” talking to “my fellow prisoners.” Lately, even McCain has stepped back, seeing the genie he’s unleashed and not liking it.

To use his own question about Barack Obama, who is John McCain anyway?

Maybe, the trouble with John McCain is that he thinks he’s John Wayne.

Order in the Courts - opinion

By Andrew Fois

October 2008

October 6th was the first day of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008-09 term; what lawyers call “the first Monday in October.”  The occasion is marked by the Red Mass held in St. Matthew’s Cathedral and regularly attended by the highest ranking officials in law and government.  To mark that day, President Bush spoke about his record of appointing judges and the similar thinking of Senator McCain. Federal judges, of course, have a tremendous impact on the lives of every American.  Judicial selection, therefore, is one of the most important responsibilities the new President, as well as the United States Senate, will face.

There is no place for partisan politics in the process by which candidates for federal judgeships are selected and confirmed. The Framers were concerned enough about the importance of judicial independence that they provided for life tenure, and guaranteed pay, to insulate federal judges from political intimidation. To guard against the temptations of making politically minded appointments, the Framers divided the responsibility for judicial selection between the President, who nominates candidates, and the Senate which provides “advice and consent” through its confirmation responsibilities.

The American people rightly expect their federal judges to be neutral legal arbiters, free from political pressures. Americans are entitled to judges who will apply the law fairly and impartially. Judges must not base their decisions on political considerations or pre-determined ideological preferences.

Judges should be selected according to their experience and knowledge of the law as well as their judicial temperament.  When they put on the black robes they must put aside their personal views and evenhandedly apply the law as it is. There is no place for making selection decisions based upon fixed views on specific legal issues through litmus tests or other screening methods.

For way too long, however, the judicial selection process has in fact been polluted with the most toxic of ideological politics. Both sides have been guilty of interjecting their partisan political goals into the evaluation of candidates for the federal bench. Hearings can sometimes revert to battles over long standing grudges. A minority on one side or the other will resort to the use of Senate rules to deny a nominee a vote on the floor. In an effort to get even for perceived slights from the past, each side will shamelessly support procedures that favor their desired out comes. I know; it happened to me.

We must also return to a respectful application of the framework provided by the constitution to make judicial selections.  The Framers established a process of shared responsibility between the president and the Senate.  Too often one or the other has tried to seize dominance of the process. We must return to a respect for the constitutional role of both branches.  The president should take the “advice and consent” responsibility of the Senate seriously, even before she makes her nominations.  For its part, the Senate should give the president’s selections the respect and deference which they deserve. 

We must put aside these partisan political factors and join together to identify and choose the very best legal minds that the nation has to offer. It is critically important that the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts not become hijacked to one legal philosophy.  Appointments to the Supreme Court should represent a balanced range of legal and judicial philosophy.

The next president should appoint judges to the lower federal courts, as well as to the United States Supreme Court, men and women of stature in the legal community; people who have proven that they have the temperament and other qualities essential to the role of a judge.  They will be people who will apply the law fairly and without bias or prejudice.

Appointees should also reflect the gender, racial and ethnic diversity representative of the American people. There are too many people on the bench who have come from the same sort of backgrounds and professional experience depriving the courts of the collective wisdom of a more diverse pool of candidates.

The next president should appoint men and women who are not only respected legal practitioners, scholars and experienced judges, but who also have had the kinds of life experiences that permit them to relate to, and have empathy with, the struggles and challenges faced by average Americans. He should limit his selections to those lawyers from the Ivory Towers but include those who look up to those towers from the ground.

Judicial candidates should understand that the law cannot remain mired in the theories and outcomes of more than 200 years ago in the 18th century. Of course, there is always a place in constitutional law to look for the intent of the Framers.  But the law today presents issues and situations that the Framers could not possibly have dreamt of.  The law has to be flexible enough to deal with these changed conditions.

These are the principles that a President Obama would apply when making his judicial nominations.  On the other hand, Senator McCain has made clear that he would follow the lead of George W. Bush and appoint people like Roberts and Alito to the Court.  The differences could not be more striking. 

A president’s appointees to the federal bench will remain long after he has left the White House.  The quality of the judges he selects, therefore, will be a major part of the legacy he leaves behind.

Return to the top