Or... Why Obama's scold is good, but not for the reason you think
Obama yesterday released his Remarks on the confirmation of Judge John Roberts, which has promoted a flurry of responses.
I was caught by this diary up on the recommended list by wu ming, who articulated an argument that Obama's scold was a defensive posture because grassroots was annoying the beltway Democrats.
I think wu ming is wrong. I understand the point, and perhaps it is a good example of positive reinforcing thinking. But it's not clear to me that wu ming understood what Obama was saying, or perhaps they were only interested in saying what the dKos sphere wanted to be said. I don't know.
Consider the
diary promoted to the front page by Armando which includes a poll question if Obama was too harsh on special interest groups. By a plurality, 38% to 30%, the answer "No, special interest groups are ruining our country" won out to a "Yes, he should be remember who supported him early on", otherwise known as the "Obama should kiss our ass" answer. And this is an incredibly partisan community.
It shows that special interest groups are not much liked in America. Even members of those groups still don't like them... well when you define them as anyone other than us, especially. :-)
Obama's remarks are incredibly telling. He goes through an analysis of what he finds right with Roberts, and then what he finds wrong. I think he puts together a concise rebuttal to the theory of Originalism, pointing out that it is a smokescreen placed upon an unreasonable position to make it sound legitimate when he says this...
In those 5 percent of hard cases, the constitutional text will not be directly on point. The language of the statute will not be perfectly clear. Legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision. In those circumstances, your decisions about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions or whether the commerce clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce, whether a person who is disabled has the right to be accommodated so they can work alongside those who are nondisabled -- in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart.
However, I particularly liked this...
The bottom line is this: I will be voting against John Roberts' nomination. I do so with considerable reticence. I hope that I am wrong. I hope that this reticence on my part proves unjustified and that Judge Roberts will show himself to not only be an outstanding legal thinker but also someone who upholds the Court's historic role as a check on the majoritarian impulses of the executive branch and the legislative branch. I hope that he will recognize who the weak are and who the strong are in our society. I hope that his jurisprudence is one that stands up to the bullies of all ideological stripes.
He says he is voting against, and after explaining why, he then goes on to say that he really hopes he is wrong. He is acknowledging that his vote matters little, for the confirmation will occur, but that he is doing so anyway because in his heart he feels that he must vote this way. You cannot claim, Obama stands for nothing, can you?
Is this posturing? Maybe. I think rather he is defining himself before his opponents may.
Then we get to the controversial part, according to the liberal blogosphere...
I was deeply disturbed by some statements that were made by largely Democratic advocacy groups when ranking member Senator Leahy announced that he would support Judge Roberts. Although the scales have tipped in a different direction for me, I am deeply admiring of the work and the thought that Senator Leahy has put into making his decision. The knee-jerk unbending and what I consider to be unfair attacks on Senator Leahy's motives were unjustified. Unfortunately, both parties have fallen victim to this kind of pressure.
He's deeply disturbed. He's not taking people to task for this, he's not calling names. He's using a passive voice to scold. It's my grandmother again... not yelling at me, but scolding by showing deep disappointment that I'm not better than I was.
Obama goes on...
I believe every Senator on the other side of the aisle, if they were honest, would acknowledge that the same unyielding, unbending, dogmatic approach to judicial confirmation has in large part been responsible for the kind of poisonous atmosphere that exists in this Chamber regarding judicial nominations. It is tempting, then, for us on this side of the aisle to go tit for tat.
He's acknowleding the ridiculousness of the Republicans. That they have engaged in slander and all sorts of other smears. But he questions the wisdom of applying tit for tat. He suggests a high road.
But what I would like to see is for all of us to recognize as we move forward to the next nominee that in fact the issues that are confronted by the Supreme Court are difficult issues. That is why they get up to the Supreme Court. The issues facing the Court are rarely black and white, and all advocacy groups who have a legitimate and profound interest in the decisions that are made by the Court should try to make certain that their advocacy reflects that complexity. These groups on the right and left should not resort to the sort of broad-brush dogmatic attacks that have hampered the process in the past and constrained each and every Senator in this Chamber from making sure that they are voting on the basis of their conscience.
He has distanced himself, and perhaps the party, from the special interests. That's a positive, for the party has been much too beholden to them in the past. But he does so in a way which is not demeaning. He acknowledges their feelings their concerns... He simply says that the way they behaved, the language used, is non-conducive to a civilized discussion.
Obama truly believes in the United States of America that he spoke about at the Convention. That is what he is advocating for. But he is also acknowleding that there are differences of opinion, and he details those, along with what it is he believes in.
He's good...
However, what the partisan interest groups must do next...
Is to ignore him.
That's the balancing game... A Party which distances itself, and groups which recognize it for what it is.