Month: May 2009

It is very distressing news that the New York Times Company, which has owned the Boston Globe since 1993,  is threatening to close down the 137 year old paper, one of the better newspapers in the nation, which has won numerous awards and Pulitzer Prizes.  The losses at the Globe have been monumental in the present recession which has mightily hurt the newspaper industry, already forcing the shutdown of the Rocky Mountain News in Denver, and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. 

It is certainly understandable that one cannot expect any corporation to continue to lose money and yet fail to shut down or cut back on losing propositions.  Having said that, it seems to me that it would be a crime to have the Boston Globe terminated,  particularly by a company which is seen as the gold or platinum level of journalism.  After all, the New York Times, along with the Washington Post, are regarded as the very best of newspaper journalism for many years, as indeed the "newspapers of record".  Boston is too significant a city in its impact on our culture and politics to leave them without a paper long regarded as one of our very best daily newspapers.

So I am hopeful that somehow we will see the Globe continue to play a major role in American journalism.

Former Congressman Jack Kemp of Buffalo, New York, who also was the Vice Presidential running mate of Senator Bob Dole in 1996 and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under President Bush,  passed away over the weekend, still a vital, active figure until a few months ago.

While I did not agree with his viewpoint on taxation, which had a great effect on Reaganomics in the 1980s,  I came to respect the fact that here was a conservative who believed in making the GOP a "big tent",  including trying to draw minorities into the party.  He worked very hard to broaden the base of the Republican party and to humanize its image.  He was in his own fashion the "Happy Warrior" of the GOP, very warm and friendly with all who he met, and his death at the fairly early age of 73, still looking very young until recently,  when he contracted cancer, is a major loss to a party which needs desperately to follow his lead and make the Republicans a party that the young, suburban, women, and minorities could find appealing for the future.

Until the Republicans really reform their party to become one of emphasizing the kinds of ideas  and appeals that Jack Kemp spent years cultivating,  they will not be a major opposition to the rejuvenated Democratic party under Barack Obama.

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been making statements in the past few days justifying the use of torture and her knowledge of this as legal, because President Bush would not do something illegal and would always keep all agreements under international law.

She said, when questioned by students informally at Stanford University, that if the President authorized anything, then it was legal, and that she was just doing her job to transmit presidential authority on to others in her positions as National Security Adviser and later Secretary of State.

This sounds too close to what President Nixon told David Frost in the famous interviews on television a few years after he resigned the Presidency, when the former President said, that if the President authorized something or ordered something to be done, then it was legal.

It made it sound under Nixon, and now again under Bush, that the mentality is that the Presidency has no limits and that the Presidency could be seen as almost like an absolute monarchy.

Needless to say, that is an unacceptable view of the Presidential office and MUST be repudiated by all who believe in American democracy and Presidential accountability for their actions in office, whether Nixon, Bush or any other President, past or future!

President Obama interrupted the briefing of Press Secretary Robert Gibbs with the news media yesterday to state his view of what a Supreme Court Justice’s view of the Constitution should be.

He said that individual should understand that justice is not just about "some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book" but "also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives."  

That is EXACTLY what we need on the Supreme Court, but Republicans are ready to go on the attack and demand a nominee who goes by the Justice Antonin Scalia "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution, which states that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the thoughts of 1787, rather than considering modernist ideas and adaptation after 220 years of changing times.

This will be a grand fight, with the President, fortunately, having the advantage with 59 Democrats now and one more to come soon with the future seating of Al Franken. All Obama will need is a majority of the Senate, technically,  but it is assured that conservatives will address the social issues of abortion, gay rights, gun rights, religious rights and the death penalty as they challenge whoever the President chooses as his nominee for the high court, and there will be moderate Democrats who might be wooed to join the GOP camp and oppose the choice.  The summer will be a contentious time and the goal of the GOP is to block progress on other programs and initiatives of the President during this court battle, and they also hope it will restore the flagging image and strength of the Republican party, bringing them back to real influence as the opposition party.

This battle brings back memories of a century ago, when the Progressives argued for a change in the conservative, literal interpretation of the law.  The battle between progressives and conservatives then mirrors the struggle still going on today between liberals and conservatives.  In a way, it is the struggle between Hamilton and Jefferson renewed yet again!  And it affects the next generation and more, so it is a challenge that must be won!

It has only been a Hundred Days, and already President Obama now has a new issue to deal with:  the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice to replace retiring Justice David Souter.  This is a pleasant problem, however, and will have a longer range effect on history than anything else the President does in his time in office, as a judicial nominee can expect to serve 20-30 years, and therefore have a major impact on constitutional law and interpretation.

Speculation has it that it is likely that a woman, and possibly a person of Hispanic or African American ancestry, will be the priority for the judicial nominee.  Certainly, with only one woman on the Court  (Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg), and with her recent cancer treatment making it likely that she will leave earlier rather than later,  it would make sense to insure that at least one woman would be definite for the Court membership.

There are several well qualified women circuit court judges, and even some of minority status, and it reflects the wealth of talent that is available to diversify the Supreme Court for the future.  Of course, the hope is that Obama’s nominee will not turn out to be a surprise in judicial interpretation, as has happened so often to Republican Presidential choices,  including Justice Souter, who turned out to be much more liberal than President George H W Bush expected he would be.

The new Justice should hopefully be at least a moderate liberal as Justice Souter has been, but there is also another consideration.  Since all of the present members of the Court were circuit court judges before they came to the Supreme Court, it might be wise to find someone with more diverse experience, including electoral office, which none of the present Justices have had.  Such Justices as Hugo Black  (Senator),  Earl Warren  (Governor),  William Howard Taft  (President),  and Charles Evans Hughes  (Governor and Presidential candidate)  all played major roles on the Court, and it could be argued that their political experiences were a major plus.

So if we consider this factor, then an excellent choice would be Governor Jennnifer Granholm of Michigan who also was Attorney General of the state.  Also, Secretary of State and former Senator Hillary Clinton of New York  would be a mind blowing choice!  :)    Also coming to mind,  if it was decided to add a white male  (which seems unlikely),  would be former President Bill Clinton, who at age 63 is still young enough and certainly bright enough to serve on the Court for many years.  Another possibility would be Deval Patrick, the African American governor of Massachusetts.

In any case, this should be an interesting summer on the subject of the Supreme Court, and remember, there is still the possibility that Justice Ginsberg will retire due to reasons of health.  So again,  it is obvious that Presidential elections DO have long range consequences!