Centerfield

Absolutely agree about the Schiavo mess... in fact, I will be voting against all who voted for that bill, pretty much unconditionally. Anyone that supported it has no business being involved in the Federal government.

As for democrats, I'm not sure a single event can really be worse than the general anti-Republican strategy they've taken... ie, they support the other side of an issue, no matter how insane it may be.

The Schiavo thing was pathetic. I don't think that the Democrats did anything quite so bad, but the attempted filibuster of Alito (called for by John Kerry while in Europe) was pretty low.

The Conyers faux impeachment hearings get at least an honorable mention.

And I think on either side of the aisle there's at least a few critters (like Conyers) that can be held up as "low points" without any additional commentary.

I don't think the Alito thing was nearly as bad as Schiavo. I think the Democrats are well-justified in trying to stop judicial nominations that pack the Court in a conservative direction--regardless of the qualifications or character of the nominee (and I don't doubt that Alito is a fine man of impeccable qualifications). Unfortunately, we have all bought into the notion that discussion of judge's ideology is verboten, so the only way to stop these nominations (or attempt to stop) is to engage in filibustering. There was no justification whatsoever for what the GOP did re Schiavo; it was simply more pandering to the fundamentalists.

Marc, if the Democrats would simply stand on the claim that they're voting against the nominee because of their approach to judicial interpretation, that would be fine. But they don't. As they did with Bork and Thomas, they try to mask their opposition to the nominee's ideology behind a smear of personal attacks claiming that a lack of qualifications, rather than a disagreement over approach.

Not that they did this all that much with Alito or Roberts, but some of them did. A few Democrats were quite upfront and said these were fine men whom they just disagreed with. But most of the hearings were designed to try to dig up some dirt.

IMO, the way Democrats demagogued away from from any substantive discussion of Social Security reform was their most disapointing episode..

From obscuring/denying the illusory nature of the SS trust fund to denying that there's any reason to worry and suggesting there's little penalty in delay,the political tack the democrats chose left me (probably a 90% lifetime democratic voter) with no choice but to conclusively decide that the Democrats simply lack fundamental fiscal seriousness.

In no way is that a comment on the quality of the GOP's approach, so I'd be grateful to be spared any "but the GOP was just as full of it" rejoinders. The GOP is at least willing to acknowledge that a serious problem looms. So regardless of whether one likes their suggested approaches for reform, they're still a full step ahead of the panglossian Democrats..

If asked to describe the most disappointing thing in the GOP, it's really not an episode or an incident. It's the unabated pandering to social conservatives from stem to stern, which suggests to me that every single viable GOP pol with national aspirations is far too afraid of alienating this voter block to speak seriously
to them, even to cajole them lightly to tlook to their better nature and christ's love when it comes to issues like say gay marriage.

It troubles me when politicans are so afraid of this group that they'll continually re_in_force (spambusters, bee-atch)the conceit that only social conservatives have deeply held moral values, and preacxh to the choir that they are the main bedrock of the nation protecting America from the immoral barbarians at the gate. Not enough pols are willing to say to SOCONS that open and honest dialogue between deeeply religious social conservatives and others with strong moral beliefs.

Here I'd like to issue a mirror caveat for my GOP critique:I'm not suggesting that the approach of liberals to social issues is necessarily superior or that democratic hopefuls are more willing to say unpopular things to their core believers...so relax your CPD reflexes.

Pat,

I'm not suggesting that the Dems should engage in character assassination as they did with Bork. In fact, I agree with you--debates on judicial nominees should be about judicial philosophy and, yes, social philosophy to the extent that it impinges on their rulings. But, if you try to do that, the retort is that you are playing politics and that you should only look to their qualifications. I think ideology and philosophy is a qualification. And the idea that the Court should try to balance philosophies (ie, not to have too many liberals or too many conservatives)seems to me a perfectly reasonable justification for voting against a nominee (but not necessarily for voting for someone), but people don't consider that valid. So you have this subterranean effort to undermine nominess with ad hominem attacks.

Same as it ever was. A perpetual low point of partisan politicians being what they are.

I would like to know why supreme court judges/nominees cannot be considered adult enough to set aside personal beliefs/philosophies/idealogies and doing what their job description says they're supposed to do: interpret the constitution as it is written. Or is everyone too afraid that some bias just might creep in? God forbid a judge should actually show NO bias!!

Sheesh!!!!!! If the voting public doesn't like a particular interpretation -- because that's how the constitution is currently written to read -- how about going for an actual constitutional amendment? If it's that important (unlike defining marriage), there will be an amendment. I mean, it's not like there haven't been amendments in the past!!

The whole SCOTUS debate/arguments/shenanigans just make me want to gag. And people wonder why we can't get good candidates or why so few people vote... They can't get past their gag reflex long enough to consider it.

*HUGE sigh*

Heather you said the following:

***...do what...they're supposed to do: interpret the constitution as it is written.

What if someone else said:
...do what...they're supposed to do: interpret the constitution as it is written.

Here's the thing: Give me a room full of 100 randomly chosen people from a larger group who have all declared that the meaning of some given clause in the constitution is crystal clear and manifestly obvious, and I'll guarantee you that not all 100 people will agree as to what that crystal clear and manifestly obvious meaning is. That's a problem, no?

Now depending on the clause chosen, you might come pretty close. You know, 90 out of 100 people who basically agree for the most part. Other clauses, not so much. Isn't THAT the real problem, that some parts are clearer than others? In cases where there's ample room for argument, then it is what it is.

I didn't even have to read past the first sentence. The Schiavo debacle was definitely the low point for the Republicans, when the leadership collectively buried the last of their principles from 1994.

Make sure you lay some of the Schiavo blame on Jeb and the Florida GOP that spent a couple of years beating on the issue before they ran out of ways to get in the way and some brilliant GOP tactician thouth it was worthy of a pre-Easter action.

I also agree that the Dems squashing of any intelligent debate on Social Security was low point.

Marc, you're right, but if they take that approach, they must apply it all the time, and accept the fact that the next time a Dem tries to appoint a Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the rules will be different than applied to her appointment. So far, few Democrats have been willing to do that. Most seem to prefer the character assassination. You're right, the public reaction initially would be as you described. If they really believe their right, though, then they should push forward with it anyway and CONVINCE the people to change their minds.

By resorting to the character assassination because they can't win the other argument, they're admitting that the people don't agree with them on this topic.

Actually, I consider the entire length of the 109th congress a "low point" for an opposition party seemingly incapable of developing a coherent political platform.

However, if I had to chose a single point, it would have to be the whole Katrina debacle, which the Democrats politicized to no end. I certainly didn't give the current adminstration high marks for its handling of Katrina, but unlike the Democrats, who chose to exploit this tragedy for political gain, I saw this as yet more evidence of how the federal government cannot be relied upon to solve our problems.

With all that this current administration has done wrong over the last six years, I find it baffling that THIS was the issue that sent Bush's poll numbers plummeting. Unfortunately, fearmongering and fingerpointing in the aftermath of major disasters are tactics that politicians use all too often to their advantage, and in this case, Democrats proved they were all too willing to resort to this kind of political gamemanship.

Republicans deserve to lose control of one of the two houses of congress come this November, and they have seeming done everything possible to assure such a fate.

But having said that, Democrats have not done anything to demonstrate that they deserve to win. They have no political platform or political vision. They've seemingly learned nothing during their 12 years out of power (aside from the 18 months that they controlled the Senate, during which time their single biggest accomplishment was to give the president a blank check to invade Iraq).

At least with the 1994 midterm elections, the Republicans offered the American people the "Contract with America." Contract with America (granted, they've since abandoned many of the core principles, but at least it was a vision, right?). And what has been the rallying cry of the Democrats who wish to be swept in power this November? Already their Culture of Corruption slogan is beginning to sound tired and hollow.

If the Democrats take control of either house of congress in November in will be IN SPITE of their policies, not BECAUSE of them.

Yet no doubt, if the Democrats manage to take control of both houses of congress by the slimmest of margins, they will proclaim they have a "mandate", much like Bush did with his 51%-48% "trouncing" of John Kerry in 2004.

As always, in nearly every state in the country, we have more than two candidates to choose from come November. Minority parties hoping to gain power always promise change and reform, but somehow, no matter how many times congress changes hands, the status quo remains.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

I think it's clear that the Schiavo mess was the lowest point of the GOP's tenure, with the nuclear option mess a close second. As far as the Dems, I agree that their total lack of laedership on the Social Security issue was probably their lowest point, with the Conyers' shadow hearings a close second.

I think nicrivera summed up very neatly why I can't bring myself to vote Democratic... or Republican. I take very seriously my right to vote -- if I don't vote I have no right to complaint or debate -- but, more and more, I find myself exercising the "write-in" option because I refuse to settle any more for the lesser-of-two-evils option.

Really, Rafique? While the "nuclear option" mess was ugly, with both sides guilty of some disgusting hyperbolic grandstanding and obstruction, I thought the "Gang of 14" compromise was one of the real high points of the season. Actual reaching out across the aisle to craft a sensible compromise, by Senators on both sides.

BK,

I remain unpersuaded that the written English language is such an inprecise instrument that we can't discern the plain meaning of an author with any consistantcy. If it is, then we really need to scrap it and come up with some new instrument.

But I really don't believe it is. Frankly, you seemed to have no problem what-so-ever discerning the meaning of Heathers post....and I'll bet pretty much everyone who read yours had no problem discerning it.

Now if we, who are just average Joe's as writers and readers can do that.... how is it that people who are used to writing with the precision of lawyers and scholars can't when it comes to the Constitution?

I'll grant that there may be a few areas that are a little nebulous in the language of the Constitution..... but I've seen way too many decisions where it was painfully obvious that the Justice simply didn't like what results a straight reading of the language of the Constitution would give him.... so he simply pretended it said something other then it did so he could get the results he wanted. I've seen them so torture the plain definition of words and construction of sentances to arrive at interpretations that even my kid in pre-school could tell you was just plain wrong.

Bottom line is that we've gotten lazy. Constitutional Ammendments are hard to do.... but their SUPPOSED to be hard.... changing our most basic and fundemental laws is a thing that should take considerable deliberation and consensus. But somewhere along the way some-one came up with the idea that when the process got too onerous they could just do an end run around it by pretending that the language of the Constitution could mean something other then what it said....and frankly the country has been sliding, slowly, into a cess-pit ever since.

Pat,

I agree with you. I think the conservatives have just as much right to object on ideology as the liberals. I think it would be more honest to do that than the pretense we have now that we are only looking for the "most qualified" person. Also, I think we should move away from lifetime appointments for the Supreme Court at least. Why should someone spend 50 years on the Court when the political context changes. (And, don't kid yourself, the Supreme Court is highly political and the poltical context is important.) Let them have 15 years on the Court--it would make the nomination less poisonous.

Marc,

I would definitely join you in calling for more honesty in what's really happening in those debates. Can't agree about shorter terms on the court, though, for a whole slew of reasons. One, I think it would just make the fights more frequent, not less vicious. Two, it would lead to more see-sawing of constitutional interpretation, which is not healthy for the court or the public. The court needs to be the least politicized body of our government. More rapid turnover would increase politicization, I think.

I remain unpersuaded that the written English language is such an inprecise instrument that we can't discern the plain meaning of an author with any consistency.

That's WAY overstating what I'm saying, Cengel. I agree that we can, by and large, discern the vast majority of the plain meaning of most statements.Yet it is manifestly obvious to me, on a daily basis, that there's enough imprecision to cause confusion. MY point is that the mileage varies. Some laws are clear, others far less so. That's why judges must interpret. I take it for granted that imprecision will exist. In general, my hope is that when judges do their jobs, they do so with the understanding that their leeway to interpret should be a function of the amount of inprecision in a law, not a function of their politics.

Our many laps on this topic suggest to me that generalizing causes much of our disagreement. I have no troubly cheerfully acknowledginh that some legal rulings ignore plain meaning and ought therefore not to have been made. I just don't see the same extensive pattern that you do, indicating a serious crisis. The republic seems to me to be enduring and evolving.

I agree that more turnover would be bad for the stability reasons Pat mentions. Political junkies like us tend to see the glacial speed of constitutional democracy as primarily a flaw, but frequent serious changes in the law would make it extremely hard for people to live their lives and plan long term, to say nothing of businesses. Big changes are hard to enact for very good reasons. I'm not just saying that to kiss Pat's bum, either. Stability is possibly the biggest of reasons why we are as prosperous as we are as a nation, why so many foreign investors invesrt in us, and why people outside our borders continue to flock here. Stability is a basis for opportunity.