Hypocrisy
I am willing to tolerate any number of views I find to be implausible or outlandish. Lord knows I hold enough of them myself to view others with weird ideas as closer to kin than outcasts. I'll listen politely to racists spouting hate-speech, bible-thumping creationists denying the only organizing theme of modern biology, modern anti-semites seriously discussing whether the Holocaust occurred, or even those who simply have an ideological axe to grind contrary to my own.
In some ways, people with widely divergent understandings of the world are part of what makes life entertaining and enlightening.
What I despise, though, are people who seem unable - or unwilling - to create a worldview and stick to it. Hypocrisy really chaps my hide. Don't abandon your position simply because it suits you. Have a principled reason for what you say and do, and I'll respect you, even if I disagree.
Case in point: Senator Russ Feingold (one of only a few politicians I approve of) is preparing to introduce a resolution in the Senate censuring President Bush for his recent wiretapping escapade. His argument seems to be a good one on its face. Basically, he is asserting that the President undertook actions he was not authorized to take by the current state of the law, even if we might have people agree later that such actions were prudent. To 'invent' law is a violation of the President's oath, and is a usurpation of the legislative power. If the President wanted that power, he should have asked Congress to give it to him (and they, of course, would have).
Seems like a good argument to me. There was no pressing urgent need for these wiretaps. Alright, maybe for the first one, but after that (when he knew that we would want to do it again), he could have gone to Congress to get them to grant him that power. He didn't, and that entails that he clawed some legislative functions away from the Congress in the process.
Senate Republicans are outraged at this. Bill Frist answered back to this charge with the comment that "attacking our commander in chief... doesn't make sense." Frist continues on to suggest that censuring our President would send the wrong message to the world (i.e., read: it would let the terrorists win).
So let me see if I have this straight, Mr. Frist... When a judge applies the common law in a way that interprets a statute differently from how you thought it should be interpreted, that's judicial activism. Those damned judges are "making law from the bench" and should be stripped of their authority. Wasn't it you who attended that conference on judicial activism and applauded when the speaker came perilously close to calling for the assassination of judges who went 'too far?' But if the President (who agrees with you on issues) creates law whole-cloth from thin air, in direct contravention of the 4th Amendment jurisprudence, it is wrong to criticize. Your "Federalist Society" peers who normally worship you as some kind of prophet should (but won't) be disenchanted with your wholesale lack of condemnation for "Presidential Activism." What possible principled line can we draw here?
Is it acceptable for one non-legislative branch of government to seize legislative power from the Congress or isn't it? If it is wrong, then we should condemn both the judges and the President. If it is not wrong, then you should apologize to the judiciary and keep up the unrelenting praise of a President who has presided over, and is the direct cause of, the greatest threat to Constitutional Democracy that America has ever seen.
Right. I despair of seeing a day when politics is run by people with principles instead of the Bill Frist's of the world who see it as a game to win or lose, and who make up the rules as they go along.
In some ways, people with widely divergent understandings of the world are part of what makes life entertaining and enlightening.
What I despise, though, are people who seem unable - or unwilling - to create a worldview and stick to it. Hypocrisy really chaps my hide. Don't abandon your position simply because it suits you. Have a principled reason for what you say and do, and I'll respect you, even if I disagree.
Case in point: Senator Russ Feingold (one of only a few politicians I approve of) is preparing to introduce a resolution in the Senate censuring President Bush for his recent wiretapping escapade. His argument seems to be a good one on its face. Basically, he is asserting that the President undertook actions he was not authorized to take by the current state of the law, even if we might have people agree later that such actions were prudent. To 'invent' law is a violation of the President's oath, and is a usurpation of the legislative power. If the President wanted that power, he should have asked Congress to give it to him (and they, of course, would have).
Seems like a good argument to me. There was no pressing urgent need for these wiretaps. Alright, maybe for the first one, but after that (when he knew that we would want to do it again), he could have gone to Congress to get them to grant him that power. He didn't, and that entails that he clawed some legislative functions away from the Congress in the process.
Senate Republicans are outraged at this. Bill Frist answered back to this charge with the comment that "attacking our commander in chief... doesn't make sense." Frist continues on to suggest that censuring our President would send the wrong message to the world (i.e., read: it would let the terrorists win).
So let me see if I have this straight, Mr. Frist... When a judge applies the common law in a way that interprets a statute differently from how you thought it should be interpreted, that's judicial activism. Those damned judges are "making law from the bench" and should be stripped of their authority. Wasn't it you who attended that conference on judicial activism and applauded when the speaker came perilously close to calling for the assassination of judges who went 'too far?' But if the President (who agrees with you on issues) creates law whole-cloth from thin air, in direct contravention of the 4th Amendment jurisprudence, it is wrong to criticize. Your "Federalist Society" peers who normally worship you as some kind of prophet should (but won't) be disenchanted with your wholesale lack of condemnation for "Presidential Activism." What possible principled line can we draw here?
Is it acceptable for one non-legislative branch of government to seize legislative power from the Congress or isn't it? If it is wrong, then we should condemn both the judges and the President. If it is not wrong, then you should apologize to the judiciary and keep up the unrelenting praise of a President who has presided over, and is the direct cause of, the greatest threat to Constitutional Democracy that America has ever seen.
Right. I despair of seeing a day when politics is run by people with principles instead of the Bill Frist's of the world who see it as a game to win or lose, and who make up the rules as they go along.
posted by The Academian | 9:05 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home