by H. N. Burdett
In the dingiest of dead-end saloons at whatever hereafter destination the ghosts of J. Edgar Hoover and Senator Joe McCarthy have been assigned, those brothers under the skin in their perverted sense of patriotism are high-fiving and hoisting back a celebratory shot or two. In a precinct presumably far removed, another ghost, that of George Orwell, who foretold the nightmare of "Big Brother is watching you" -- constant surveillance destroying the fundamental right to privacy -- painfully cringes at his own prescience. On Mount Rushmore, the immortals so inscribed shudder in disbelief.
Barack Obama, who was elected little more than a year and a half ago as the most genuinely progressive President of the United States since Franklin D. Roosevelt, appears to be buckling to the hobgoblins of temptation hell-bent on seducing politicians into betraying their better angels and choosing the course of convenient pragmatism over inviolable principle.
The president's support among liberals was so securely locked and loaded that, though they groused and grumbled when he doubled down on Afghanistan rather than facilitating the process of bringing U.S. troops home from the longest, most hopeless war in our history, there was no stampeding to the exits, hardly even a noticeable breaking of ranks.
To anyone questioning just what national interests were served by committing another generation of American treasure to propping up and renting a reprehensible, wheeling and dealing puppet in Kabul, the response was smoke and mirrors rather than logic: U.S. abandonment of that ill-fated land would assure a triumphal return of the Taliban with the accompanying certainty of a bloody retaliatory reign of terror to punish collaborators, compounded by a resumption of unspeakable brutalization of women. All only too probable, but failing to answer the more relevant question: Will the Taliban not return whenever U.S. troops depart from Afghanistan, whether it is next month, next year, or in the next decade?
Meanwhile, one of the more ill-advised, ill-conceived and ill-managed armed conflicts in human annals slogs on ruthlessly, mindlessly and endlessly toward its 10th anniversary, with one of the world's wealthiest nations albeit deeply in debt but determined to sink even deeper seeking to stabilize one of the world's poorest nations with literally nothing left to lose.
At this untimely juncture in global absurdity, President Obama need search no further to come up with a title for the final volume in his combined biographical and political philosophy trilogy -- which began with Dreams of My Father and segued into The Audacity of Hope -- for nothing would be more fitting than The Arrogance of Power. Such is the impact on the progressive community of the administration's proposal that Congress provide the Federal Bureau of Investigation with clear authority to obtain records related to the context of e-mails and other Internet-based communications without first obtaining a warrant from a judge.
According to the administration, the request is mere housekeeping to clean up a sloppily written law. Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said: "The statute as written causes confusion and the potential for unnecessary litigation. The clarification will not allow the government to obtain or collect new categories of information, but it seeks to clarify what Congress intended when the statute was amended in 1993."
The administration is asking Congress to specifically include a provision in the 2011 intelligence authorization bill modifying the Electronic Communications Privacy Act
which prohibits companies that handle electronic communication from revealing customer information without a court warrant. These firms include Internet service providers and Web-based firms like Google.
The act provides exceptions for information relevant to national security investigations where speed can be essential. A "national security letter" may be issued by FBI agents requiring a firm to release records listing phone numbers called, although a warrant is still required to eavesdrop on the contents of calls.
Congress is being asked by the administration proposal to add an "electronic communications transactional records" category to classifications of information FBI agents can demand. E-mail addresses used in correspondence and Web pages visited would be included in such records. Elsewhere in the act, though not in that specific list, the FBI already has authority to obtain Internet records with a national security letter.
The Justice Department's Office of Legal Council said in a 2008 memorandum that the specific list of categories of information the FBI can demand is "exhaustive." But a footnote said "categories of information parallel to subscriber information and toll bill records for recording telephone services" are also covered.
Both e-mail addresses to which people send messages and the Web pages they visit, the FBI contends,are the functional equivalent of phone numbers they call.
The New York Times reported that Justice Department officials familiar with the matter, speaking anonymously because of the sensitivity of the issue, say most companies agree with that interpretation and have routinely released such records when they are requested.
One company, which officials declined to identify, has told the Justice Department
it feared a lawsuit for illegally turning over private information.
Despite the Obama administration's insistence that it is merely requesting a technical change, its proposal extends far beyond that. National security letters constituted the authority the Bush administration used after the September 11, 2001 attacks to demand that libraries turn over the names of books that people had checked out. The FBI used these letters literally hundreds of thousands of times to demand records of phone calls and other communications. The Pentagon used the letters to obtain records from banks and consumer credit agencies. Internal investigations uncovered widespread misuse of the authority and little oversight into how it was used.
During the 2008 national campaign, President Obama singled out these abuses as something he was running against and would change. "There is no reason we cannot fight terrorism while maintaining our civil liberties," according to one of his campaign position papers. "As president, Barack Obama would revisit the Patriot Act to ensure that there is real and robust oversight of tools like National Security Letters, sneak-and-peek searches and the use of the material witness provision."
The "real and robust oversight" promise of the Obama campaign remains conspicuously absent. In fact, the Obama administration succeeded in obtaining renewal of crucial provisions of the Patriot Act for another year without changing as much as a single word.
Just as the American public was led to believe the administration would be bringing our troops back from Southwest Asia a year and a half after Obama took the oath of office, rather than re-deployment and actual increases in the amount of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, it would be reasonable to expect that the president might be taking aggressive steps against clearly abused powers such as national security letters. Rather than taking action to end the latter abuses, just as the administration doubled down on troop commitment to Afghanistan, it now appears to be doubling down on prospective further civil rights violations by seeking changes to the law that would allow enormous numbers of new electronic communications to be examined without judicial oversight.
Senator Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vermont, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, says the Obama administration's proposal raises "serious privacy and civil rights concerns." Senator Leahy has that exactly right. Congress should not only respectfully decline the administration's outrageous proposal for more sneak-and-peek authority, it should be continually investigating privacy violations incurred through the issuance of national security letters which are a license to avoid the judicial system and snoop on anyone the F.B.I. may wish for any reason it may dream up. An administration committed to ending such abuses hardly needs to be widening the potential for them.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Saturday, July 24, 2010
THE CULTURE OF CORRUPTION
by H. N. Burdett
Early in my newspaper career, I witnessed the Speaker of the Maryland House of Delegates announce from the rostrum in the lower house chamber to some 140 colleagues that he was stepping down in the wake of a grand jury indictment. To my everlasting astonishment, Speaker A. Gordon Boone was given a standing ovation. Rather than accepting the news as a possibility that he might be serving jail time, the assemblage of lawmakers reacted as though Boone had hit a home run in the bottom of the ninth to win the World Series for the Baltimore Orioles.
That event remains among the more bizarre I can recall after years of covering statewide, county and city election campaigns and sessions of the state legislature, city and county councils, as well as the United States Congress.
Even had Boone been a beloved figure among his colleagues, a round of applause from elected members of the General Assembly, considering the circumstances under which he was leaving, would have been passing strange. But I cannot say that he was.
The only plausible explanation for the vote of confidence -- if that's what it was -- is that the House of Delegates was expressing the equivalent of a collective sigh of relief, thinking: There but for the grace of God. . .
That evening over dinner, I related my astonishment at what I'd witnessed to a reform-minded delegate who had regarded Boone as a member of the entrenched establishment, a burr in the saddle of progress. "Did you consider," he said, "that some of us were applauding as our way of saying goodbye and good riddance?"
Boone's apparent mistake was choosing to defend his legal clients -- savings and loan companies -- before a grand jury rather than in a courtroom.
He had earlier told friends and colleagues of his intention to voluntarily testify before the grand jury on behalf of his clients. He ignored the warnings of fellow lawyers to reconsider, that unnecessarily going before a grand jury is a high-risk proposition. And he paid the price for ignoring free legal advice when his indictment alleged that he had withheld information from the grand jury. Boone was subsequently convicted.
Until then, Maryland really did not have a reputation as a particularly corrupt state. It was not nearly in the same league with Louisiana and West Virginia, both of which a relative who happened to be working on an auditing project involving various state governments assured me had, at that time, left the remaining 48 states in their dust.
But the Old Line State seemed determined in succeeding years to catch up with the Bayou and Mountaineer states. The list of politicians convicted by a jury of their peers included: Governor Marvin Mandel, U.S. Senator Daniel Brewster, Rep. William O. Mills, Anne Arundel County Executive Joseph W. Alton, Jr., Baltimore County Executive Dale Anderson, Baltimore County State's Attorney Samuel Green, Jr., and Baltimore City Council President Walter S. Orlinsky.
Most of the humpty-dumpties who were pushed or fell off the wall followed the reeling in of the biggest fish of all, former Maryland governor and then U.S. Vice President Spiro T. Agnew. In an act of epochal audacity, Agnew continued to collect cash in white envelopes for favors rendered as Baltimore County Executive when he was a heartbeat away from the presidency.
Agnew spent the remainder of his life as the middle man in deals cut by Saudi King Faisal and living his dream as one of Frank Sinatra's fawning acolytes, but seething with bitter anti-Semitism, blaming Jews, rather than his own boundless greed, for his fall from grace. Clearly those "nattering nabobs of negativism" (a phrase dreamed up by his Jewish speechwriter, Bill Safire), against whom Agnew ranted as Richard Nixon's hatchet man, had the last word.
Those were embarrassing days for Marylanders, particularly when out-of-state colleagues, friends and relatives barraged them with jokes and wisecracks about the culture of corruption that was rampant in the state. I waged a short-lived campaign to have the U.S. Postal Service merge two neighboring southern Anne Arundel County communities, Deale and Shadyside, for the purpose of establishing a Shady Deale, Maryland, postmark. But the wagons of local pride circled to prevent such mischief, which I maintained would have saved tons of postal dollars and put those two sleepy villages on the map beyond the wildest expectations of their respective chambers of commerce. Some villages prefer not to be awakened from their slumber.
A stock defiant response to the endless insults suffered in the Free State back then was: Maryland has no more corrupt politicians than any other state, it's just that here we prosecute them. That rejoinder was somewhat disingenuous inasmuch as many if not most of the prosecutions were promulgated by federal rather than state grand juries.
Anne Arundel County Executive Joe Alton, who in 1974 pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court to charges of conspiracy to commit extortion, was among those who blamed their troubles on their conviction that "the rules changed."
Alton never really explained what rules had undergone transformation between the time he had taken the oath of office and his receiving a subpoena to answer federal corruption charges. Perhaps the "rule" was that prosecutors were supposed to look the other way when a politician was into the cookie jar up to his elbow. It was a sad time indeed.
The late Dick Levine, a legendary Baltimore Sun investigative reporter who was almost single-handedly responsible for a dramatic shakeup of the corruption-ridden Baltimore City Police Deparment, once told me: "I've never been in favor of capital punishment with one exception. I'm for beheading anyone who takes an oath to protect the public trust, then violates it." Levine capsulized what a great many Marylanders felt when the roofs came crashing down on so many duly elected public officials.
It would be a stretch to characterize onetime Maryland House Speaker A. Gordon Boone as a folk hero. But in New York's Harlem, Charlie Rangel, could without the slightest exaggeration make such a claim -- as could any member of Congress who had represented his district for 40 successive years.
Rep. Charles B. Rangel faces a U.S. House of Representatives ethics committee hearing, expected to begin in September -- only two months before voters go to the polls to determine whether he will serve his 21st term in Congress.
The 80-year-old congressman's flair for the poetic is a throwback to bygone days under the dome of the nation's capitol. His response to the announcement of his pending public trial reveals that his love of language remains very much intact: "I am pleased that, at long last, sunshine will pierce the cloud of serious allegations that have been raised against me in the media."
Counter charges of headline-hunting media are commonplace among politicians following court indictments or announcement of ethic probes. After all, someone has to be responsible for the mess in which they have waded hip deep and it certainly could not be these innocent-as-lambs-pure-as-the-driven-snow pols. Their plea harkens all the way back to the call for killing the messenger.
On the other hand, where there's smoke, there's often fire. In Rangel's case, for years there has been enough smoke to choke half the population of Harlem, and the time to separate the wheat from the chaff will be soon enough upon us.
Rangel reluctantly relinquished his chairmanship of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee in March, only days after the ethics panel decreed that in an unrelated case he had breached congressional gift rules by accepting trips in 2007 and 2008 to conferences in the Caribbean financed by corporate interests.
The ethics submcommittee has reportedly found evidence that the Harlem congressman misused his office to preserve a tax loophole worth half a billion dollars for a corporate executive who agreed to contribute $1 million to the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York; that he neither reported nor paid taxes on rental income from a beachfront villa he owns in the Dominican Republic, and that he wrongfully accepted four rent-stabilized apartments in Manhattan including one he used as a campaign office.
There is speculation that Rangel, at this late date in his political career, will resign his seat in Congress rather than submit himself to the humiliation of a public trial. But this is contradicted by his "sunshine will pierce the cloud" statement followed by his recent feisty comment that this is "not the time to be hanging up the gloves." Despite his advanced age, not many have questioned the pride or the courage of Charlie Rangel, who as a soldier during the Korean war nearly froze to death while U.S. forces were under attack by the Chinese.
As horrific and nauseating as the charges against Maryland politicians and Charlie Rangel have been, they pale in comparison to those leveled against Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich who is currently on trial. The litany of allegations against Blago curdle the blood, including:
Plotting to auction off then President-elect Obama's U.S. Senate seat for personal gain; signing a bill in exchange for a campaign contribution from the horse-racing industry; awarding a toll road contract in exchange for a campaign contribution; engaging in pay-to-play in making appointments and plotting to award a state job with the Illinois Finance Authority in exchange for campaign contributions; attempting to exchange state permits for cash.
It seems that federal prosecutors have thrown everything against the wall in the hope that one or more might stick.
Perhaps the most damaging evidence uncovered during the prosecution's case was a suggestion caught on tape to Blagojevich by his brother, a soft-spoken former army officer described as the polar opposite of the foul-mouthed, chip-on-the-shoulder governor.
Blago's sibling, confidant and co-defendant, is caught telling the governor: "If you can get Obama to get (U.S. Attorney Patrick) Fitzgerald to close the investigation on you, it completely provides you with total clarity."
Robert Blagojevich's advice to his brother is interpreted as quid pro quo for the governor naming the Obamas' longtime friend and inner circle adviser, Valerie Jarrett, to the president's former Senate seat. Robert has argued that his suggestion had nothing to do with Jarrett's possible appointment, but was meant "in the context of what politicians do." Interesting construction.
The governor has been treading boiling water staunchly and unsurprisingly proclaiming his innocence in his typical brash, in-your-face style that has characterized his public career and apparently has some cache in certain precincts within the City of Big Shoulders.
When the prosecution rested and before his defense commenced, the embattled Governor Blagojevich went before the television cameras to announce to Illinois and the world: "The government proved I never took a corrupt dollar. I never took a corrupt dime, not a corrupt nickel, not a corrupt penny."
Blago continued: "In the tapes the government played, they didn't prove. . .I did (anything) illegal. In fact, they proved I sought the advice of my lawyers and my advisors. They proved I was on the phone talking with them, brainstorming about ideas. Yes, they proved some of the ideas were stupid. But they also proved some of the ideas were good. The government, in their case, proved my innocence."
"I've learned a lot of lessons from this whole experience," he told the press. "And probably the biggest. . .is that I talk too much."
Whatever the outcome of Blago's trial, it would be beyond comprehension for anyone who has paid even the slightest attention to the proceedings or the governor's colorful career that he has "learned" any such lesson. He is first and foremost a shoot-from-the-lip politician, whose vocabulary might be severely limited absent four-letter invective.
When politicians are hauled into the dock to answer corruption charges, whether in Maryland, Illinois, New York or anywhere else, they instinctively and almost invariably go on the offensive by insinuating if not outright counter-charging that some hot-shot prosecutor is trumping up spurious charges to make a name for himself, perhaps as a springboard for political office. There have been instances when such allegations have been justified. But at least credit Blago with a little more imagination than that: his tactic of claiming that the prosecution has not only failed to prove its charges but has actually cleared his name is one calculated to resonate with a jury of his peers.
It will be ultimately up to that jury to determine whether the Illinois governor is guilty of anything more than having the foulest mouth in politics. Yet the United States v. Blagojevich, involving an elected official in a state that has had its share of paragons of political virtue and integrity is disquieting. Enough so that Abraham Lincoln, Adlai Stevenson and Senator Paul Douglas must be pinwheeling in their respective graves.
Early in my newspaper career, I witnessed the Speaker of the Maryland House of Delegates announce from the rostrum in the lower house chamber to some 140 colleagues that he was stepping down in the wake of a grand jury indictment. To my everlasting astonishment, Speaker A. Gordon Boone was given a standing ovation. Rather than accepting the news as a possibility that he might be serving jail time, the assemblage of lawmakers reacted as though Boone had hit a home run in the bottom of the ninth to win the World Series for the Baltimore Orioles.
That event remains among the more bizarre I can recall after years of covering statewide, county and city election campaigns and sessions of the state legislature, city and county councils, as well as the United States Congress.
Even had Boone been a beloved figure among his colleagues, a round of applause from elected members of the General Assembly, considering the circumstances under which he was leaving, would have been passing strange. But I cannot say that he was.
The only plausible explanation for the vote of confidence -- if that's what it was -- is that the House of Delegates was expressing the equivalent of a collective sigh of relief, thinking: There but for the grace of God. . .
That evening over dinner, I related my astonishment at what I'd witnessed to a reform-minded delegate who had regarded Boone as a member of the entrenched establishment, a burr in the saddle of progress. "Did you consider," he said, "that some of us were applauding as our way of saying goodbye and good riddance?"
Boone's apparent mistake was choosing to defend his legal clients -- savings and loan companies -- before a grand jury rather than in a courtroom.
He had earlier told friends and colleagues of his intention to voluntarily testify before the grand jury on behalf of his clients. He ignored the warnings of fellow lawyers to reconsider, that unnecessarily going before a grand jury is a high-risk proposition. And he paid the price for ignoring free legal advice when his indictment alleged that he had withheld information from the grand jury. Boone was subsequently convicted.
Until then, Maryland really did not have a reputation as a particularly corrupt state. It was not nearly in the same league with Louisiana and West Virginia, both of which a relative who happened to be working on an auditing project involving various state governments assured me had, at that time, left the remaining 48 states in their dust.
But the Old Line State seemed determined in succeeding years to catch up with the Bayou and Mountaineer states. The list of politicians convicted by a jury of their peers included: Governor Marvin Mandel, U.S. Senator Daniel Brewster, Rep. William O. Mills, Anne Arundel County Executive Joseph W. Alton, Jr., Baltimore County Executive Dale Anderson, Baltimore County State's Attorney Samuel Green, Jr., and Baltimore City Council President Walter S. Orlinsky.
Most of the humpty-dumpties who were pushed or fell off the wall followed the reeling in of the biggest fish of all, former Maryland governor and then U.S. Vice President Spiro T. Agnew. In an act of epochal audacity, Agnew continued to collect cash in white envelopes for favors rendered as Baltimore County Executive when he was a heartbeat away from the presidency.
Agnew spent the remainder of his life as the middle man in deals cut by Saudi King Faisal and living his dream as one of Frank Sinatra's fawning acolytes, but seething with bitter anti-Semitism, blaming Jews, rather than his own boundless greed, for his fall from grace. Clearly those "nattering nabobs of negativism" (a phrase dreamed up by his Jewish speechwriter, Bill Safire), against whom Agnew ranted as Richard Nixon's hatchet man, had the last word.
Those were embarrassing days for Marylanders, particularly when out-of-state colleagues, friends and relatives barraged them with jokes and wisecracks about the culture of corruption that was rampant in the state. I waged a short-lived campaign to have the U.S. Postal Service merge two neighboring southern Anne Arundel County communities, Deale and Shadyside, for the purpose of establishing a Shady Deale, Maryland, postmark. But the wagons of local pride circled to prevent such mischief, which I maintained would have saved tons of postal dollars and put those two sleepy villages on the map beyond the wildest expectations of their respective chambers of commerce. Some villages prefer not to be awakened from their slumber.
A stock defiant response to the endless insults suffered in the Free State back then was: Maryland has no more corrupt politicians than any other state, it's just that here we prosecute them. That rejoinder was somewhat disingenuous inasmuch as many if not most of the prosecutions were promulgated by federal rather than state grand juries.
Anne Arundel County Executive Joe Alton, who in 1974 pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court to charges of conspiracy to commit extortion, was among those who blamed their troubles on their conviction that "the rules changed."
Alton never really explained what rules had undergone transformation between the time he had taken the oath of office and his receiving a subpoena to answer federal corruption charges. Perhaps the "rule" was that prosecutors were supposed to look the other way when a politician was into the cookie jar up to his elbow. It was a sad time indeed.
The late Dick Levine, a legendary Baltimore Sun investigative reporter who was almost single-handedly responsible for a dramatic shakeup of the corruption-ridden Baltimore City Police Deparment, once told me: "I've never been in favor of capital punishment with one exception. I'm for beheading anyone who takes an oath to protect the public trust, then violates it." Levine capsulized what a great many Marylanders felt when the roofs came crashing down on so many duly elected public officials.
It would be a stretch to characterize onetime Maryland House Speaker A. Gordon Boone as a folk hero. But in New York's Harlem, Charlie Rangel, could without the slightest exaggeration make such a claim -- as could any member of Congress who had represented his district for 40 successive years.
Rep. Charles B. Rangel faces a U.S. House of Representatives ethics committee hearing, expected to begin in September -- only two months before voters go to the polls to determine whether he will serve his 21st term in Congress.
The 80-year-old congressman's flair for the poetic is a throwback to bygone days under the dome of the nation's capitol. His response to the announcement of his pending public trial reveals that his love of language remains very much intact: "I am pleased that, at long last, sunshine will pierce the cloud of serious allegations that have been raised against me in the media."
Counter charges of headline-hunting media are commonplace among politicians following court indictments or announcement of ethic probes. After all, someone has to be responsible for the mess in which they have waded hip deep and it certainly could not be these innocent-as-lambs-pure-as-the-driven-snow pols. Their plea harkens all the way back to the call for killing the messenger.
On the other hand, where there's smoke, there's often fire. In Rangel's case, for years there has been enough smoke to choke half the population of Harlem, and the time to separate the wheat from the chaff will be soon enough upon us.
Rangel reluctantly relinquished his chairmanship of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee in March, only days after the ethics panel decreed that in an unrelated case he had breached congressional gift rules by accepting trips in 2007 and 2008 to conferences in the Caribbean financed by corporate interests.
The ethics submcommittee has reportedly found evidence that the Harlem congressman misused his office to preserve a tax loophole worth half a billion dollars for a corporate executive who agreed to contribute $1 million to the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York; that he neither reported nor paid taxes on rental income from a beachfront villa he owns in the Dominican Republic, and that he wrongfully accepted four rent-stabilized apartments in Manhattan including one he used as a campaign office.
There is speculation that Rangel, at this late date in his political career, will resign his seat in Congress rather than submit himself to the humiliation of a public trial. But this is contradicted by his "sunshine will pierce the cloud" statement followed by his recent feisty comment that this is "not the time to be hanging up the gloves." Despite his advanced age, not many have questioned the pride or the courage of Charlie Rangel, who as a soldier during the Korean war nearly froze to death while U.S. forces were under attack by the Chinese.
As horrific and nauseating as the charges against Maryland politicians and Charlie Rangel have been, they pale in comparison to those leveled against Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich who is currently on trial. The litany of allegations against Blago curdle the blood, including:
Plotting to auction off then President-elect Obama's U.S. Senate seat for personal gain; signing a bill in exchange for a campaign contribution from the horse-racing industry; awarding a toll road contract in exchange for a campaign contribution; engaging in pay-to-play in making appointments and plotting to award a state job with the Illinois Finance Authority in exchange for campaign contributions; attempting to exchange state permits for cash.
It seems that federal prosecutors have thrown everything against the wall in the hope that one or more might stick.
Perhaps the most damaging evidence uncovered during the prosecution's case was a suggestion caught on tape to Blagojevich by his brother, a soft-spoken former army officer described as the polar opposite of the foul-mouthed, chip-on-the-shoulder governor.
Blago's sibling, confidant and co-defendant, is caught telling the governor: "If you can get Obama to get (U.S. Attorney Patrick) Fitzgerald to close the investigation on you, it completely provides you with total clarity."
Robert Blagojevich's advice to his brother is interpreted as quid pro quo for the governor naming the Obamas' longtime friend and inner circle adviser, Valerie Jarrett, to the president's former Senate seat. Robert has argued that his suggestion had nothing to do with Jarrett's possible appointment, but was meant "in the context of what politicians do." Interesting construction.
The governor has been treading boiling water staunchly and unsurprisingly proclaiming his innocence in his typical brash, in-your-face style that has characterized his public career and apparently has some cache in certain precincts within the City of Big Shoulders.
When the prosecution rested and before his defense commenced, the embattled Governor Blagojevich went before the television cameras to announce to Illinois and the world: "The government proved I never took a corrupt dollar. I never took a corrupt dime, not a corrupt nickel, not a corrupt penny."
Blago continued: "In the tapes the government played, they didn't prove. . .I did (anything) illegal. In fact, they proved I sought the advice of my lawyers and my advisors. They proved I was on the phone talking with them, brainstorming about ideas. Yes, they proved some of the ideas were stupid. But they also proved some of the ideas were good. The government, in their case, proved my innocence."
"I've learned a lot of lessons from this whole experience," he told the press. "And probably the biggest. . .is that I talk too much."
Whatever the outcome of Blago's trial, it would be beyond comprehension for anyone who has paid even the slightest attention to the proceedings or the governor's colorful career that he has "learned" any such lesson. He is first and foremost a shoot-from-the-lip politician, whose vocabulary might be severely limited absent four-letter invective.
When politicians are hauled into the dock to answer corruption charges, whether in Maryland, Illinois, New York or anywhere else, they instinctively and almost invariably go on the offensive by insinuating if not outright counter-charging that some hot-shot prosecutor is trumping up spurious charges to make a name for himself, perhaps as a springboard for political office. There have been instances when such allegations have been justified. But at least credit Blago with a little more imagination than that: his tactic of claiming that the prosecution has not only failed to prove its charges but has actually cleared his name is one calculated to resonate with a jury of his peers.
It will be ultimately up to that jury to determine whether the Illinois governor is guilty of anything more than having the foulest mouth in politics. Yet the United States v. Blagojevich, involving an elected official in a state that has had its share of paragons of political virtue and integrity is disquieting. Enough so that Abraham Lincoln, Adlai Stevenson and Senator Paul Douglas must be pinwheeling in their respective graves.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
THE U.S. IMMIGRATION QUANDARY
by H. N. Burdett
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Arizona Governor Jan Brewer are both deeply disturbed that immigration reform has been shoved to the back burner. But they are on opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to the kind of reform they have in mind.
Last April 23, Gov. Brewer signed the nation's toughest bill on illegal immigration. Its aim is to identify, prosecute and deport undocumented immigrants.
Mayor Bloomberg is forming a coalition of chief executives of major U.S. corporations and big city mayors advocating reform that includes citizenship for illegal immigrants now living in the United States.
Even before Brewer signed the Arizona bill that gives state and local police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally, President Obama expressed opposition to it.
The president said the law, scheduled to take affect next month, threatens "to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe."
Gov. Brewer calls the law "another tool for our state to use as we work to solve a crisis that we did not create and the federal government has refused to fix, the crisis caused by illegal immigration on Arizona's porous borders."
Opponents have called the law an open invitation to harassment and discrimination against Hispanics regardless of their citizenship status.
Los Angeles Cardinal Roger M. Mahony likened the inclusion in the law that grants law enforcement officers the authority to demand to see a suspected illegal immigrant's papers to "Nazism."
"Governor Brewer caved to the radical fringe," says a statement issued by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, which claimed the law would create "a spiral of pervasive fear, community dissent, increased crime, costly litigation, with nationwide repercussions."
Acknowledging the concern of critics, Brewer said she would work to ensure that Arizona police have proper training to carry out the statute.
She said the law "protects all of us, every Arizona citizen, and everyone here in our state lawfully. And it does so while ensuring that the Constitutional rights of all in Arizona remain solid, stable and steadfast."
"This legislation mirrors federal laws regarding immigration enforcement," the governor stressed. "Despite erroneous and misleading statements suggesting otherwise."
The Arizona law, which makes it a misdemeanor to willfully fail to complete or carry an alien registration document, Brewer said "is adopted verbatim from the same offense found in federal statute."
Provisions of the law, introduced by Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce, an outspoken advocate of immigration restrictions, include:
* Requiring police officers, "when practicable," to detain people they reasonably suspect are in the country without authorization and to verify their status with federal officials, unless doing so would hinder an investigation or emergency medical treatment.
* Making it a state crime -- a misdemeanor -- not to carry immigration documents.
* Allowing people to sue local government or agencies if they believe federal or state immigration law is not being enforced.
Michael Hethmon, general counsel of the Immigration Reform Law Institute who assisted in the drafting of the language of the Arizona law, says he has been contacted by lawmakers of four states who want to introduce similar legislation. He declined to identify the states on grounds of attorney/client privilege.
The National Conference of State Legislatures reports that in recent years there has been a substantial increase in state laws relating to immigration. In 2005, 300 bills were introduced in statehouses throughout the U.S. In the following year, that number nearly doubled. In 2007, more than 1,500 bills were introduced; in 2008, another 1,305. Last year, some 1,500 immigration measures were introduced, 222 were enacted and 131 resolutions relating to immigration approved.
Last December when Pearce's immigration bill was being debated in the Arizona legislature, the New York Times reported state and federal officials had testified that the drug war among Mexican cartels and their pushing to expand operations in the U.S. had led to a wave of kidnappings, shootings and home invasions in the state.
The article noted that the drug trade had long brought violence to Arizona, a hub from which illicit drugs and illegal immigrants are smuggled to the rest of the nation.
Phoenix police regularly receive reports involving border-related kidnappings or hostage-taking in a home, according to the Times. The Maricopa County Attorney's office said such cases rose from 48 in 2004 to 241 in 2008, and investigators believed many more go unreported.
The violence in Mexico -- where more than 6,000 people were killed in 2008 in drug-related violence, double the number of the previous year -- is "reaching into Arizona and that is what is really alarming local and state law enforcement," said Commander Dan Allen of the Arizona Department of Public Safey.
"We are finding home invasion and attacks involving people impersonating law enforcement officers," Allen told the state Senate Judiciary Committee. "They are very forceful and aggressive. They are heavily armed, and they threaten, assail, bind and sometimes kill victims."
Chief David Denlinger of the state's Department of Public Safety, said that while tactics like home invasion might not be new in the drug trade, "they are getting more prevalent." He added: "Border crimes are not just on the border."
Large quantities of cocaine, marijuana and other drugs smuggled in vehicles, sometimes on the backs of couriers and illegal immigants linked to drug organizations are regularly seized by police and federal agents in Arizona.
A vast majority of weapons used in Mexico's drug-related killings come from the U.S. and Arizona is a top exporter.
On July 7, the U.S. Department of Justice filed suit against the state of Arizona in federal court, challenging the law. The federal government will argue that federal law supersedes the state statute and that enforcing immigration law is a federal responsibility. The DOJ is requesting a preliminary injunction to delay enactment of the law, arguing that its operation will cause "irreparable harm."
The lawsuit is based on the preemption doctrine adopted by the Supreme Court under the Constitution's supremacy clause, stating that certain matters are of such federal character, as opposed to local or state, that only the federal government can act on them.
"I agree with the argument that the federal government's authority under the preemption clause will prevail over the Arizona state law," says Southwestern Law School professor Robert Pugsley. "Otherwise we could have 50 states writing immigration laws and it would result in the charge that the preemption clause was specifically created to prevent."
Kevin Johnson, Dean of the School of Law at the University of California, David, said it is "a clear situation where the federal government is having its power intruded upon by the state government."
But Hector Chichoni, partner at the national law firm Epstein Becker Green, says, "There is a good basis to believe the DOJ lawsuit may fail. The Arizona law does not necessarily preempt the Federal government, rather (it) sets the state and local governments as enforcers of what is already available, and on certain cases, mandatory under immigration law."
Unclear is whether state police have authority to enforce immigration law, says Muzzafar Chisti, director of the Migration Policy Institute's office at the New York University School of Law.
A few weeks after the law's passage, Arizona lawmakers modified the language dictating when a policeman could ask for papers from a suspected illegal immigrant. They added a stipulation that police could only do so if the person had already been pulled over for another offense, such as speeding. That action may have strengthened Arizona's case, Chisti contends.
Catherine Wilson, a political scientist at Villanova University, says the DOJ suit could have potentially damaging repercussions for the Arizona midterm election this year.
She noted that "three embattled Arizona Democratic representatives -- Reps. Harry Mitchell, Gabrielle Giffords and Ann Kirkpatrick -- (had) urged the President to reconsider the lawsuit given their vulnerable seats. Instead of suing the state, they argue that the Obama administration's efforts would be best spent on providing resources and security to the border."
Addressing both the Arizona law and the issue of immigration reform, President Obama said, "Government has a responsibility to enforce the law and secure our borders and set clear rules and priorities for future immigration. And under Secretary (Janet) Napolitano's leadership at the Department of Homeland Security, that's exactly what we're doing. We've strengthened security at borders, ports and airports, and we will continue to do so, because America's borders must be secure." (When Secretary Napolitano served as governor of Arizona before she was tapped for her position in Obama's cabinet, she vetoed legislation similar to the current law.)
Obama further noted: "Businesses have a responsibility to obey the law and not undermine American workers, especially when so many Americans are out of work. Many businesses work to comply with the law every day. But for those who don't -- those that ignore the law and exploit and abuse vulnerable workers and try to gain an unfair advantage over all businesses that do follow the law -- we will hold them accountable."
The president said that those who are in the United States illegally "have a responsibility to pay their back taxes and admit responsibility for breaking the law, pay a penalty, learn English, pass criminal background checks, and get right with the law -- or face removal -- before they can get in line to eventually earn their citizenship."
"Indeed, our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility in others," Obama emphasized. "And that includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threatened to undermine the basic notion of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe. . .
"In fact I've instructed members of my administration to closely monitor the situation and examine the civil rights and other implications of this legislation. But if we continue to fail to act at a federal level, we will continue to see misguided efforts opening up around the country."
In response to Obama's remarks, Gov. Brewer issued an executive order calling for the Arizona Peace Officers Standards and Training Board "to develop training and appropriately implement (the bill). Importantly, this training will include what does and what does not constitute reasonable suspicion that a person is not legally present in the United States."
"We must acknowledge the truth," the Arizona governor said. "People across America are watching Arizona, seeing how we implement this law, ready to jump on even the slightest misstep. Some of these people from outside our state have an interest in seeing us fail. They will wait for a single slip-up, one mistake and they will work day and night to create headlines and get face time they so desperately covet.
"We must react calmly. We must enforce the law evenly, and without regard to skin color. . .or social status. We must prove the alarmists and the cynics wrong."
According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll in June, 58 percent of all Americans support the new Arizona law -- including 79 percent of Republicans, 40 percent of Democrats and 61 percent of independents.
But far from reflecting a tidal wave of xenophobia overwhelming the country, the same poll showed 57 percent of Americans supported allowing illegal immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here legally if they pay a fine and meet other requirements. In addition to 66 percent of Demcorats and 49 percent of Republicans, a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants was supported by 56 percent of independents.
Meanwhile, among those who have joined Bloomberg's Partnership for a New American Economy seeking to reframe immmigration reform as the solution to repairing and stimulating the American economy, were the chief executive officers of Boeing, Disney, Hewlett-Packard and News Corp.
In 2006, Bloomberg proposed establishing a DNA or fingerprint database to track and verify all legal U.S. workers. At that time, he said all 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States should be given the opportunity for citizenship, claiming that deportation was not only impossible but it would devastate the economy. He added that lawmakers who want to deport all illegal immigrants are "living in a fantasy world."
Declaring that current U.S. immigration policy is "national suicide," Bloomberg said: "I can't think of any way to destroy this country quite as direct and impactful as our immigration policy. We educate the best and the brightest, and then we don't give them a green card."
The main goals of Bloomberg's new coalition are: secure the borders; develop an easy system for employers to verify work eligibility; hold companies accountable for breaking the laws and to improve the use of technology to prevent illegal immigration; more opportunities for immigrants to join the U.S. workforce, and a path to legal status for all undocumented immigrants."
Immigration is "our great strength as a nation, and it's also critical for continued economic growth," said Robert Iger, chairman and CEO of Walt Disney Co. "To remain competititve in the 21st century, we need effective immigration reform that invites people to contribute to our shared success by building their own American dream."
Among coalition members is Rupert Murdoch, the Australia-born chairman and CEO of News Corp. "As an immigrant myself," he said, "I believe that the country can and must enact new immigration policies that fulfill our employment needs, provide a careful pathway to legal status for undocumented residents and end illegal immigration."
With the Arizona law bringing the issue back to center stage in the political arena, Congress may be unable to ignore the pressure to finally take action on immigration reform. President Obama says he would like to see a bill on his desk as early as this fall.
But in a Congressional midterm election year, most national lawmakers hardly can be eager to tackle such a contentious issue. Hispanics or Latinos today comprise from 25 percent to nearly 60 percent of nine of the 10 most populous cities in the United States, as well as 15 percent of the total U.S. population. The Census Bureau projects U.S. population to increase by another 130 million by mid-century, with immigration accounting for virtually all of this growth.
This is deeply disturbing to groups like the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), which, unlike Bloomberg and his coalition, contends that the country will be unable to sustain increased population pressures on U.S. resources, economy, employment, environment and infrastructure. FAIR is, among other things, seeking what it views as more realistic limitations on legal immigration, a moratorium on immigration until such a figure is reached, and opposes paths to citizenship for current undocumented immigrants.
Even the most committed progressives generally concede that the United States politically leans slightly to the right, so the poll revealing that 58 percent of Americans support the Arizona law is not surprising. Beyond surprising, downright startling in fact, is that in a country with a 9.5 percent unemployment rate, 57 percent of Americans favor a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.
Respect for immigrant workers is the only possible way to account for a conservative-leaning nation, reeling from recession and high unemployment, supporting amnesty for undocumented workers in virtually the same numbers that it backs the most restrictive immigration law in the country.
Whether documented or undocumented, Hispanic and Latino workers are pervasive throughout the nation. From our smallest rural villages to our largest cities, they are not hard to find. There is widespread disagreement over whether or not they are accepting employment that no one else wants, or taking jobs from those who really do want them. Rarely disputed, however, is the work ethic and skills Hispanics and Latinos bring to the workplace. It belies the old myth of the so-called lazy Mexican, taking a perpetual siesta in a sitting position against an adobe building, his sombrero and serape shielding him from the elements.
There's little doubt that the poll is testimony to the respect Hispanic and Latino immigrants have gained among Americans wearing either a blue or a white collar. What cannot and should not be respected, however, is the American companies, large and small, that encourage illegal immigration, their under-the-table payments driving down the wage scale for all American workers, to say nothing of avoiding the payment of taxes, health insurance, workmen's compensation and the dispensation of other employer benefits.
When it comes to the question of deportation, as a general rule I'd be much more supportive of shipping all of the sleazy, illegal entrepreneurs who lure immigrants across the borders with their off-the-books jobs to whatever sorry destinations that might welcome them. I'd be only too happy to fling those pathetic parasites to the wolves and keep any and all Hispanics and Latinos who have demonstrated respect for our laws, taken the time and trouble to learn our language, and brought to us a nostalgic reminder of the work ethic and skills that once were matters of national pride.
At the risk of seeming to want it both ways, I am cognizant of the fact that the United States is no longer a repository of infinite natural resources: the sinking water tables of our western states and our reliance on foreign oil are but two of the more chilling examples. This is a situation that ranges from serious to grave and is bound to intensify in the coming years. In deliberations to determine U.S. immigration policy, environmental, economic, labor force and resource projections must be taken into account.
As the son of immigrants who all too vividly recalls the honesty and industriousness of his own parents, as one who bore witness to how much they appreciated and loved their adopted land, how fervently they believed in and eventually lived the American dream, I cannot find it in myself to deny to any other hard-working, honest person the same opportunity to share in that dream of which I am a beneficiary.
As someone who has also witnessed firsthand the deleterious impact of unsustainable population growth in several developing countries, neither can I bring myself to support distributing green cards to anyone and everyone wanting them. Moreover, the path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants is troubling because if it is made too easy it is bound to encourage more and more people to enter the country illegally and dream of future amnesty. That is not policy, it is utter madness.
There really is more than one side to the issue that knee-jerk conservatives and knee-jerk liberals may simply refuse to see. But what's wrong with acting on those issues on which virtually everyone can agree? One that pops immediately into mind is securing our borders.
All too many Arizona residents live in fear. When the state's law enforcement authorities tell them the Mexican drug cartel wars have spilled over into Arizona, you'd best believe them. The state's top cops offered convincing evidence to the state's Senate Judiciary Committee last December
Securing our borders is a federal responsibility and I agree with Gov. Brewer that the federal government has done a terrible job of living up to it. President Obama is the first to own up to that.
How a former governor of Texas, a state sharing a significant border with Mexico, who was elected to two terms as President of the United States could allow immigration reform to slip between the cracks, is puzzling to say the least.
He did have a plan that included amnesty for illegal immigrants tied to their meeting specific conditions. But the energy and enthusiasm he put into immigration reform can be fairly questioned. Perhaps he was too busy invading Afghanistan and Iraq, so we wouldn't have to fight the terrorists at home.
Under Bush's very nose the drug traffickers were moving back and forth as though the borders do not exist. But conventient though it may be, it is disingenuous to place all of the blame on George W. Bush. There's more than enough to spread around. There are plenty of Democrats who have served in the White House and in Congress who just weren't paying attention. They are all guilty of, at very least, benign neglect.
Now is the time to get beyond the blame game and resolve to ensure the safety as well as the sustainability of Arizona and the rest of the United States by establishing and enforcing a firm and fair immigration policy. This can be done. And we shouldn't have to wait until after the November election to get it done. The safety and security of Americans shouldn't have to wait for politics to run its course.
The border fence frankly leaves me cold. First, because a poor Mexican with a family to feed is going to find his way over, around or under it. Secondly, it is horrifically expensive. And, finally, if it is to be the enduring symbol of U.S. immigration policy, we've got to do something about tearing down that Lady in the Harbor, the one who beckons to "your tired, your poor, your huddled masses gaining to breathe free."
That particular Lady has inspired many, many people beyond my parents. Generations of immigrants who went on to work hard and be rewarded with their share of the American dream. And don't anyone dare to tell me this is sentimental claptrap. I'm not one to make idle threats, but that Lady has inspired too many people whose names will never make the history books, but who were, in my book, great Americans, who built this country, believed in it, worked to make it better, and who have defended it with their lives. Too much blood has been spilled from Bunker Hill to Antietam to Anzio and Iwo Jima to defend her honor and all that she stands for. Anyone who wants to tear down that Lady in the Harbor and have a border fence stand as our new symbol is going to have to go through me. So bring it on, but I can guarantee you one thing: I won't be alone.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Arizona Governor Jan Brewer are both deeply disturbed that immigration reform has been shoved to the back burner. But they are on opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to the kind of reform they have in mind.
Last April 23, Gov. Brewer signed the nation's toughest bill on illegal immigration. Its aim is to identify, prosecute and deport undocumented immigrants.
Mayor Bloomberg is forming a coalition of chief executives of major U.S. corporations and big city mayors advocating reform that includes citizenship for illegal immigrants now living in the United States.
Even before Brewer signed the Arizona bill that gives state and local police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally, President Obama expressed opposition to it.
The president said the law, scheduled to take affect next month, threatens "to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe."
Gov. Brewer calls the law "another tool for our state to use as we work to solve a crisis that we did not create and the federal government has refused to fix, the crisis caused by illegal immigration on Arizona's porous borders."
Opponents have called the law an open invitation to harassment and discrimination against Hispanics regardless of their citizenship status.
Los Angeles Cardinal Roger M. Mahony likened the inclusion in the law that grants law enforcement officers the authority to demand to see a suspected illegal immigrant's papers to "Nazism."
"Governor Brewer caved to the radical fringe," says a statement issued by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, which claimed the law would create "a spiral of pervasive fear, community dissent, increased crime, costly litigation, with nationwide repercussions."
Acknowledging the concern of critics, Brewer said she would work to ensure that Arizona police have proper training to carry out the statute.
She said the law "protects all of us, every Arizona citizen, and everyone here in our state lawfully. And it does so while ensuring that the Constitutional rights of all in Arizona remain solid, stable and steadfast."
"This legislation mirrors federal laws regarding immigration enforcement," the governor stressed. "Despite erroneous and misleading statements suggesting otherwise."
The Arizona law, which makes it a misdemeanor to willfully fail to complete or carry an alien registration document, Brewer said "is adopted verbatim from the same offense found in federal statute."
Provisions of the law, introduced by Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce, an outspoken advocate of immigration restrictions, include:
* Requiring police officers, "when practicable," to detain people they reasonably suspect are in the country without authorization and to verify their status with federal officials, unless doing so would hinder an investigation or emergency medical treatment.
* Making it a state crime -- a misdemeanor -- not to carry immigration documents.
* Allowing people to sue local government or agencies if they believe federal or state immigration law is not being enforced.
Michael Hethmon, general counsel of the Immigration Reform Law Institute who assisted in the drafting of the language of the Arizona law, says he has been contacted by lawmakers of four states who want to introduce similar legislation. He declined to identify the states on grounds of attorney/client privilege.
The National Conference of State Legislatures reports that in recent years there has been a substantial increase in state laws relating to immigration. In 2005, 300 bills were introduced in statehouses throughout the U.S. In the following year, that number nearly doubled. In 2007, more than 1,500 bills were introduced; in 2008, another 1,305. Last year, some 1,500 immigration measures were introduced, 222 were enacted and 131 resolutions relating to immigration approved.
Last December when Pearce's immigration bill was being debated in the Arizona legislature, the New York Times reported state and federal officials had testified that the drug war among Mexican cartels and their pushing to expand operations in the U.S. had led to a wave of kidnappings, shootings and home invasions in the state.
The article noted that the drug trade had long brought violence to Arizona, a hub from which illicit drugs and illegal immigrants are smuggled to the rest of the nation.
Phoenix police regularly receive reports involving border-related kidnappings or hostage-taking in a home, according to the Times. The Maricopa County Attorney's office said such cases rose from 48 in 2004 to 241 in 2008, and investigators believed many more go unreported.
The violence in Mexico -- where more than 6,000 people were killed in 2008 in drug-related violence, double the number of the previous year -- is "reaching into Arizona and that is what is really alarming local and state law enforcement," said Commander Dan Allen of the Arizona Department of Public Safey.
"We are finding home invasion and attacks involving people impersonating law enforcement officers," Allen told the state Senate Judiciary Committee. "They are very forceful and aggressive. They are heavily armed, and they threaten, assail, bind and sometimes kill victims."
Chief David Denlinger of the state's Department of Public Safety, said that while tactics like home invasion might not be new in the drug trade, "they are getting more prevalent." He added: "Border crimes are not just on the border."
Large quantities of cocaine, marijuana and other drugs smuggled in vehicles, sometimes on the backs of couriers and illegal immigants linked to drug organizations are regularly seized by police and federal agents in Arizona.
A vast majority of weapons used in Mexico's drug-related killings come from the U.S. and Arizona is a top exporter.
On July 7, the U.S. Department of Justice filed suit against the state of Arizona in federal court, challenging the law. The federal government will argue that federal law supersedes the state statute and that enforcing immigration law is a federal responsibility. The DOJ is requesting a preliminary injunction to delay enactment of the law, arguing that its operation will cause "irreparable harm."
The lawsuit is based on the preemption doctrine adopted by the Supreme Court under the Constitution's supremacy clause, stating that certain matters are of such federal character, as opposed to local or state, that only the federal government can act on them.
"I agree with the argument that the federal government's authority under the preemption clause will prevail over the Arizona state law," says Southwestern Law School professor Robert Pugsley. "Otherwise we could have 50 states writing immigration laws and it would result in the charge that the preemption clause was specifically created to prevent."
Kevin Johnson, Dean of the School of Law at the University of California, David, said it is "a clear situation where the federal government is having its power intruded upon by the state government."
But Hector Chichoni, partner at the national law firm Epstein Becker Green, says, "There is a good basis to believe the DOJ lawsuit may fail. The Arizona law does not necessarily preempt the Federal government, rather (it) sets the state and local governments as enforcers of what is already available, and on certain cases, mandatory under immigration law."
Unclear is whether state police have authority to enforce immigration law, says Muzzafar Chisti, director of the Migration Policy Institute's office at the New York University School of Law.
A few weeks after the law's passage, Arizona lawmakers modified the language dictating when a policeman could ask for papers from a suspected illegal immigrant. They added a stipulation that police could only do so if the person had already been pulled over for another offense, such as speeding. That action may have strengthened Arizona's case, Chisti contends.
Catherine Wilson, a political scientist at Villanova University, says the DOJ suit could have potentially damaging repercussions for the Arizona midterm election this year.
She noted that "three embattled Arizona Democratic representatives -- Reps. Harry Mitchell, Gabrielle Giffords and Ann Kirkpatrick -- (had) urged the President to reconsider the lawsuit given their vulnerable seats. Instead of suing the state, they argue that the Obama administration's efforts would be best spent on providing resources and security to the border."
Addressing both the Arizona law and the issue of immigration reform, President Obama said, "Government has a responsibility to enforce the law and secure our borders and set clear rules and priorities for future immigration. And under Secretary (Janet) Napolitano's leadership at the Department of Homeland Security, that's exactly what we're doing. We've strengthened security at borders, ports and airports, and we will continue to do so, because America's borders must be secure." (When Secretary Napolitano served as governor of Arizona before she was tapped for her position in Obama's cabinet, she vetoed legislation similar to the current law.)
Obama further noted: "Businesses have a responsibility to obey the law and not undermine American workers, especially when so many Americans are out of work. Many businesses work to comply with the law every day. But for those who don't -- those that ignore the law and exploit and abuse vulnerable workers and try to gain an unfair advantage over all businesses that do follow the law -- we will hold them accountable."
The president said that those who are in the United States illegally "have a responsibility to pay their back taxes and admit responsibility for breaking the law, pay a penalty, learn English, pass criminal background checks, and get right with the law -- or face removal -- before they can get in line to eventually earn their citizenship."
"Indeed, our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility in others," Obama emphasized. "And that includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threatened to undermine the basic notion of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe. . .
"In fact I've instructed members of my administration to closely monitor the situation and examine the civil rights and other implications of this legislation. But if we continue to fail to act at a federal level, we will continue to see misguided efforts opening up around the country."
In response to Obama's remarks, Gov. Brewer issued an executive order calling for the Arizona Peace Officers Standards and Training Board "to develop training and appropriately implement (the bill). Importantly, this training will include what does and what does not constitute reasonable suspicion that a person is not legally present in the United States."
"We must acknowledge the truth," the Arizona governor said. "People across America are watching Arizona, seeing how we implement this law, ready to jump on even the slightest misstep. Some of these people from outside our state have an interest in seeing us fail. They will wait for a single slip-up, one mistake and they will work day and night to create headlines and get face time they so desperately covet.
"We must react calmly. We must enforce the law evenly, and without regard to skin color. . .or social status. We must prove the alarmists and the cynics wrong."
According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll in June, 58 percent of all Americans support the new Arizona law -- including 79 percent of Republicans, 40 percent of Democrats and 61 percent of independents.
But far from reflecting a tidal wave of xenophobia overwhelming the country, the same poll showed 57 percent of Americans supported allowing illegal immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here legally if they pay a fine and meet other requirements. In addition to 66 percent of Demcorats and 49 percent of Republicans, a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants was supported by 56 percent of independents.
Meanwhile, among those who have joined Bloomberg's Partnership for a New American Economy seeking to reframe immmigration reform as the solution to repairing and stimulating the American economy, were the chief executive officers of Boeing, Disney, Hewlett-Packard and News Corp.
In 2006, Bloomberg proposed establishing a DNA or fingerprint database to track and verify all legal U.S. workers. At that time, he said all 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States should be given the opportunity for citizenship, claiming that deportation was not only impossible but it would devastate the economy. He added that lawmakers who want to deport all illegal immigrants are "living in a fantasy world."
Declaring that current U.S. immigration policy is "national suicide," Bloomberg said: "I can't think of any way to destroy this country quite as direct and impactful as our immigration policy. We educate the best and the brightest, and then we don't give them a green card."
The main goals of Bloomberg's new coalition are: secure the borders; develop an easy system for employers to verify work eligibility; hold companies accountable for breaking the laws and to improve the use of technology to prevent illegal immigration; more opportunities for immigrants to join the U.S. workforce, and a path to legal status for all undocumented immigrants."
Immigration is "our great strength as a nation, and it's also critical for continued economic growth," said Robert Iger, chairman and CEO of Walt Disney Co. "To remain competititve in the 21st century, we need effective immigration reform that invites people to contribute to our shared success by building their own American dream."
Among coalition members is Rupert Murdoch, the Australia-born chairman and CEO of News Corp. "As an immigrant myself," he said, "I believe that the country can and must enact new immigration policies that fulfill our employment needs, provide a careful pathway to legal status for undocumented residents and end illegal immigration."
With the Arizona law bringing the issue back to center stage in the political arena, Congress may be unable to ignore the pressure to finally take action on immigration reform. President Obama says he would like to see a bill on his desk as early as this fall.
But in a Congressional midterm election year, most national lawmakers hardly can be eager to tackle such a contentious issue. Hispanics or Latinos today comprise from 25 percent to nearly 60 percent of nine of the 10 most populous cities in the United States, as well as 15 percent of the total U.S. population. The Census Bureau projects U.S. population to increase by another 130 million by mid-century, with immigration accounting for virtually all of this growth.
This is deeply disturbing to groups like the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), which, unlike Bloomberg and his coalition, contends that the country will be unable to sustain increased population pressures on U.S. resources, economy, employment, environment and infrastructure. FAIR is, among other things, seeking what it views as more realistic limitations on legal immigration, a moratorium on immigration until such a figure is reached, and opposes paths to citizenship for current undocumented immigrants.
Even the most committed progressives generally concede that the United States politically leans slightly to the right, so the poll revealing that 58 percent of Americans support the Arizona law is not surprising. Beyond surprising, downright startling in fact, is that in a country with a 9.5 percent unemployment rate, 57 percent of Americans favor a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.
Respect for immigrant workers is the only possible way to account for a conservative-leaning nation, reeling from recession and high unemployment, supporting amnesty for undocumented workers in virtually the same numbers that it backs the most restrictive immigration law in the country.
Whether documented or undocumented, Hispanic and Latino workers are pervasive throughout the nation. From our smallest rural villages to our largest cities, they are not hard to find. There is widespread disagreement over whether or not they are accepting employment that no one else wants, or taking jobs from those who really do want them. Rarely disputed, however, is the work ethic and skills Hispanics and Latinos bring to the workplace. It belies the old myth of the so-called lazy Mexican, taking a perpetual siesta in a sitting position against an adobe building, his sombrero and serape shielding him from the elements.
There's little doubt that the poll is testimony to the respect Hispanic and Latino immigrants have gained among Americans wearing either a blue or a white collar. What cannot and should not be respected, however, is the American companies, large and small, that encourage illegal immigration, their under-the-table payments driving down the wage scale for all American workers, to say nothing of avoiding the payment of taxes, health insurance, workmen's compensation and the dispensation of other employer benefits.
When it comes to the question of deportation, as a general rule I'd be much more supportive of shipping all of the sleazy, illegal entrepreneurs who lure immigrants across the borders with their off-the-books jobs to whatever sorry destinations that might welcome them. I'd be only too happy to fling those pathetic parasites to the wolves and keep any and all Hispanics and Latinos who have demonstrated respect for our laws, taken the time and trouble to learn our language, and brought to us a nostalgic reminder of the work ethic and skills that once were matters of national pride.
At the risk of seeming to want it both ways, I am cognizant of the fact that the United States is no longer a repository of infinite natural resources: the sinking water tables of our western states and our reliance on foreign oil are but two of the more chilling examples. This is a situation that ranges from serious to grave and is bound to intensify in the coming years. In deliberations to determine U.S. immigration policy, environmental, economic, labor force and resource projections must be taken into account.
As the son of immigrants who all too vividly recalls the honesty and industriousness of his own parents, as one who bore witness to how much they appreciated and loved their adopted land, how fervently they believed in and eventually lived the American dream, I cannot find it in myself to deny to any other hard-working, honest person the same opportunity to share in that dream of which I am a beneficiary.
As someone who has also witnessed firsthand the deleterious impact of unsustainable population growth in several developing countries, neither can I bring myself to support distributing green cards to anyone and everyone wanting them. Moreover, the path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants is troubling because if it is made too easy it is bound to encourage more and more people to enter the country illegally and dream of future amnesty. That is not policy, it is utter madness.
There really is more than one side to the issue that knee-jerk conservatives and knee-jerk liberals may simply refuse to see. But what's wrong with acting on those issues on which virtually everyone can agree? One that pops immediately into mind is securing our borders.
All too many Arizona residents live in fear. When the state's law enforcement authorities tell them the Mexican drug cartel wars have spilled over into Arizona, you'd best believe them. The state's top cops offered convincing evidence to the state's Senate Judiciary Committee last December
Securing our borders is a federal responsibility and I agree with Gov. Brewer that the federal government has done a terrible job of living up to it. President Obama is the first to own up to that.
How a former governor of Texas, a state sharing a significant border with Mexico, who was elected to two terms as President of the United States could allow immigration reform to slip between the cracks, is puzzling to say the least.
He did have a plan that included amnesty for illegal immigrants tied to their meeting specific conditions. But the energy and enthusiasm he put into immigration reform can be fairly questioned. Perhaps he was too busy invading Afghanistan and Iraq, so we wouldn't have to fight the terrorists at home.
Under Bush's very nose the drug traffickers were moving back and forth as though the borders do not exist. But conventient though it may be, it is disingenuous to place all of the blame on George W. Bush. There's more than enough to spread around. There are plenty of Democrats who have served in the White House and in Congress who just weren't paying attention. They are all guilty of, at very least, benign neglect.
Now is the time to get beyond the blame game and resolve to ensure the safety as well as the sustainability of Arizona and the rest of the United States by establishing and enforcing a firm and fair immigration policy. This can be done. And we shouldn't have to wait until after the November election to get it done. The safety and security of Americans shouldn't have to wait for politics to run its course.
The border fence frankly leaves me cold. First, because a poor Mexican with a family to feed is going to find his way over, around or under it. Secondly, it is horrifically expensive. And, finally, if it is to be the enduring symbol of U.S. immigration policy, we've got to do something about tearing down that Lady in the Harbor, the one who beckons to "your tired, your poor, your huddled masses gaining to breathe free."
That particular Lady has inspired many, many people beyond my parents. Generations of immigrants who went on to work hard and be rewarded with their share of the American dream. And don't anyone dare to tell me this is sentimental claptrap. I'm not one to make idle threats, but that Lady has inspired too many people whose names will never make the history books, but who were, in my book, great Americans, who built this country, believed in it, worked to make it better, and who have defended it with their lives. Too much blood has been spilled from Bunker Hill to Antietam to Anzio and Iwo Jima to defend her honor and all that she stands for. Anyone who wants to tear down that Lady in the Harbor and have a border fence stand as our new symbol is going to have to go through me. So bring it on, but I can guarantee you one thing: I won't be alone.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
LIBERTY AND ELENA, FOR ALL
<>by H. N. Burdett
Barring an unforeseen revelation of evidence against Elena Kagan that would cause Caligula or even Lady Gaga to blush, when the Supreme Court opens its fall session its composition will be a religious bigot's nightmare: six Catholics and three Jews.
When the Senate Judiciary Committee completed its interrogation of President Obama's intellectually dexterous nominee, there was no need to mop up any of her blood from the floor, only the sweat and a few tears of frustration left by her befuddled inquisitors.
Behind closed doors, committee members doubtless will grouse about their inability to distract Kagan from her meticulously crafted script: leave no paper trail, swear allegiance to judicial precedence, and refuse to answer any and all questions, including directions to the restrooms, on grounds that they might come up in a future case before the court.
It is a scenario written, produced and originally performed by none other than Chief Justice John Roberts, the self-styled "umpire" whose only concession to liberalism, it turns out, is in the strike zone he generously expands for those of the corporate class who appear before him.
In deflecting virtually every substantive query that might reveal even a microscopic hint of activism, Kagan demonstrated mental adroitness equivalent to the shot-blocking prowess of that seven-foot-six-inch National Basketball Association phenomenon, the late Manute Bol.
Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the committee, was reduced to mumbling his displeasure with her decision, as dean of the Harvard Law School, to briefly bar military recruiters from use of the school's counseling office. He said she was "punishing the military" for its "don't ask, don't tell" ban on gay men, lesbians and bisexuals serving in the armed forces. Such small potatoes would be insufficient for a decent salad. Sessions was obviously not up to the task of crossing swords with the likes of a determinedly defensive Kagan.
Better equipped for the task were a former prosecutor, Sen. Arlen Specter, the recently converted lame duck Democrat from Pennsylvania, and Sen. Tom Coburn, the doctrinaire conservative from Oklahoma who believes activists have no place on the nation's highest court unless, of course, their names are Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas.
Specter's moderate Congressional voting record has been the bane of his longtime Republican brethren, ultimately forcing him to switch parties in a doomed effort to salvage his longtime seat in the upper chamber. He will be mostly remembered, however, for the brutal zeal with which he went after Anita Hill, the law professor whose allegations 19 years ago of sexually inappropriate conduct threatened Justice Clarence Thomas's confirmation to the nation's highest court.
But when it came to Kagan, Specter simply had no evidence to pursue, not even an indiscreet memorandum or two, much less a smoking Saturday Night Special. Rather than the relentless bloodhound who barked and growled at Ms. Hill with the obsessive resolve of Javert in pursuit of Valjean, the aging senator appeared to be merely going through the motions for his last televised hurrah.
Though Coburn displayed more spunk and bite than most of his colleagues, the junior senator from the Sooner state was equally unsuccessful in even denting Kagan's impenetrable armor. To him and to all, she averred ad nauseam that she would leave her politics, if any, outside the courtroom door, that her decisions would be rendered in accordance with the law as it applies to the individual case rather than on the basis of ideology, philosophy or her daily horoscope.
In sum, Kagan told the panel what it wants to hear but never believes when it does hear it. Nothing is more exasperating for a Congressional committee than a witness who has a sound reason for refusing to answer its questions. And no reason could be more sound than a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States.
The closest the committee came to evoking forthright replies from Kagan were when questions were posed regarding her treatment of army recruiters when she was a Harvard dean, and having written back in 1995 that Supreme Court nominees should be more forthcoming in answering confirmation hearing questions.
Kagan was well prepared for both. Knowing full well that her answers would not placate conservatives on the committee, she claimed that she did comply with the wishes of the army recruiters and that, by the way, she has nothing but the highest esteem, admiration and respect for those wearing the uniform of our military services. Furthermore, she said she overstated her case about court nominees being more forthcoming and now feels "that was wrong" and "in particular, that it wouldn't be appropriate for me to talk about what I think about past cases. . .because those cases themselves might again come before the court."
She did not back down from discussing the controversial Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision by the Supreme Court earlier this year. In this case, she, as solicitor general, argued in defense of campaign finance rules, but the Court struck down legal limits on corporate spending to influence elections as violations of their First Amendment right. The case has been cited as the textbook example of conservative activism on the nation's highest court. Kagan refrained from so characterizing the decision, but did go so far as to say she felt her preparations on behalf of the Federal Election Commission constituted "extremely strong arguments."
Kagan was so cool during the hearing that she might have been injected with some of Obama's cucumber juice, or whatever it is he uses to maintain his consummate unflappability. Her only display of emotion occurred when Senators Sessions, Jon Kyl, R-Arizona, and John Cornyn, R-Texas, attempted to twist her devotion to the late Justice Thurgood Marshall, for whom she clerked, into prima facie evidence that she is somehow an unrepentant,incurable, congenital liberal activist.
In a Washington Post oped article that appeared Tuesday, Stephanie J. Jones, a former executive director of the National Urban League Policy Institute, heroically addressed the aforementioned conservative triumvirate: "Far from being the out-of-mainstream caricature you seek to create, Thurgood Marshall deserves your unyielding gratitude and respect. Among other things, he saved this nation from a second civil war." Jones concluded: "He taught us all what it means to love our country enough to work to make it a little better, a little stronger and a little closer to what it's supposed to be. That's not activism, it's patriotism."
Kagan's most forthright response during the entire adversarial joust was to Sen. Kyle's insistence that Thurgood Marshall was a liberal activist. "I love Justice Marshall," she rejoined. "He did an enormous amount for me. But if you confirm me to this position, you'll get Justice Kagan, you won't get Justice Marshall. And that's an important thing."
As assuredly as the New York accent of this smart, tough, razor-sharp woman from the Bronx hiked the blood pressure of every racist anachronism watching or listening to the proceedings, it would be nice to think that many more Americans were charmed by the pixie sense of humor she blended with her cerebral acuity.
Asked by Sen. Specter how she felt about Supreme Court testimony being televised, she said, "It means I'd have to get my hair done more often." Prior to a question concerning the terrorist airliner bombing plot last Christmas, Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., asked where she was on that day. She replied, "You know, like all Jews, I was probably at a Chinese restaurant." Wit has been defined as the power to give intellectual pleasure and it is most probably the key to both Elena Kagan's popularity and respect among her colleagues.
The letters of endorsement for Kagan, mention of which Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, interspersed throughout her public testimony, included those of conservative legal icons Ted Olson and Ken Starr. To be sure, there will be Republicans on the committee who will vote against her confirmation and others who will oppose her on the floor of the Senate. She will be denounced as an inveterate obfuscator, that she is at core yet another liberal judicial activist. It comes with the territory.
There are others who indeed hope she will be just that. Liberals mourning the loss of the retiring Justice John Paul Stevens would like nothing more than to have him replaced by someone who shares his progressive convictions. Moreover, there is hope that Elena Kagan's incisive legal mind combined with her charm and wit will make the strongest possible favorable impression on Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the perennial swing vote on the Roberts court.
Barring an unforeseen revelation of evidence against Elena Kagan that would cause Caligula or even Lady Gaga to blush, when the Supreme Court opens its fall session its composition will be a religious bigot's nightmare: six Catholics and three Jews.
When the Senate Judiciary Committee completed its interrogation of President Obama's intellectually dexterous nominee, there was no need to mop up any of her blood from the floor, only the sweat and a few tears of frustration left by her befuddled inquisitors.
Behind closed doors, committee members doubtless will grouse about their inability to distract Kagan from her meticulously crafted script: leave no paper trail, swear allegiance to judicial precedence, and refuse to answer any and all questions, including directions to the restrooms, on grounds that they might come up in a future case before the court.
It is a scenario written, produced and originally performed by none other than Chief Justice John Roberts, the self-styled "umpire" whose only concession to liberalism, it turns out, is in the strike zone he generously expands for those of the corporate class who appear before him.
In deflecting virtually every substantive query that might reveal even a microscopic hint of activism, Kagan demonstrated mental adroitness equivalent to the shot-blocking prowess of that seven-foot-six-inch National Basketball Association phenomenon, the late Manute Bol.
Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the committee, was reduced to mumbling his displeasure with her decision, as dean of the Harvard Law School, to briefly bar military recruiters from use of the school's counseling office. He said she was "punishing the military" for its "don't ask, don't tell" ban on gay men, lesbians and bisexuals serving in the armed forces. Such small potatoes would be insufficient for a decent salad. Sessions was obviously not up to the task of crossing swords with the likes of a determinedly defensive Kagan.
Better equipped for the task were a former prosecutor, Sen. Arlen Specter, the recently converted lame duck Democrat from Pennsylvania, and Sen. Tom Coburn, the doctrinaire conservative from Oklahoma who believes activists have no place on the nation's highest court unless, of course, their names are Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas.
Specter's moderate Congressional voting record has been the bane of his longtime Republican brethren, ultimately forcing him to switch parties in a doomed effort to salvage his longtime seat in the upper chamber. He will be mostly remembered, however, for the brutal zeal with which he went after Anita Hill, the law professor whose allegations 19 years ago of sexually inappropriate conduct threatened Justice Clarence Thomas's confirmation to the nation's highest court.
But when it came to Kagan, Specter simply had no evidence to pursue, not even an indiscreet memorandum or two, much less a smoking Saturday Night Special. Rather than the relentless bloodhound who barked and growled at Ms. Hill with the obsessive resolve of Javert in pursuit of Valjean, the aging senator appeared to be merely going through the motions for his last televised hurrah.
Though Coburn displayed more spunk and bite than most of his colleagues, the junior senator from the Sooner state was equally unsuccessful in even denting Kagan's impenetrable armor. To him and to all, she averred ad nauseam that she would leave her politics, if any, outside the courtroom door, that her decisions would be rendered in accordance with the law as it applies to the individual case rather than on the basis of ideology, philosophy or her daily horoscope.
In sum, Kagan told the panel what it wants to hear but never believes when it does hear it. Nothing is more exasperating for a Congressional committee than a witness who has a sound reason for refusing to answer its questions. And no reason could be more sound than a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States.
The closest the committee came to evoking forthright replies from Kagan were when questions were posed regarding her treatment of army recruiters when she was a Harvard dean, and having written back in 1995 that Supreme Court nominees should be more forthcoming in answering confirmation hearing questions.
Kagan was well prepared for both. Knowing full well that her answers would not placate conservatives on the committee, she claimed that she did comply with the wishes of the army recruiters and that, by the way, she has nothing but the highest esteem, admiration and respect for those wearing the uniform of our military services. Furthermore, she said she overstated her case about court nominees being more forthcoming and now feels "that was wrong" and "in particular, that it wouldn't be appropriate for me to talk about what I think about past cases. . .because those cases themselves might again come before the court."
She did not back down from discussing the controversial Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision by the Supreme Court earlier this year. In this case, she, as solicitor general, argued in defense of campaign finance rules, but the Court struck down legal limits on corporate spending to influence elections as violations of their First Amendment right. The case has been cited as the textbook example of conservative activism on the nation's highest court. Kagan refrained from so characterizing the decision, but did go so far as to say she felt her preparations on behalf of the Federal Election Commission constituted "extremely strong arguments."
Kagan was so cool during the hearing that she might have been injected with some of Obama's cucumber juice, or whatever it is he uses to maintain his consummate unflappability. Her only display of emotion occurred when Senators Sessions, Jon Kyl, R-Arizona, and John Cornyn, R-Texas, attempted to twist her devotion to the late Justice Thurgood Marshall, for whom she clerked, into prima facie evidence that she is somehow an unrepentant,incurable, congenital liberal activist.
In a Washington Post oped article that appeared Tuesday, Stephanie J. Jones, a former executive director of the National Urban League Policy Institute, heroically addressed the aforementioned conservative triumvirate: "Far from being the out-of-mainstream caricature you seek to create, Thurgood Marshall deserves your unyielding gratitude and respect. Among other things, he saved this nation from a second civil war." Jones concluded: "He taught us all what it means to love our country enough to work to make it a little better, a little stronger and a little closer to what it's supposed to be. That's not activism, it's patriotism."
Kagan's most forthright response during the entire adversarial joust was to Sen. Kyle's insistence that Thurgood Marshall was a liberal activist. "I love Justice Marshall," she rejoined. "He did an enormous amount for me. But if you confirm me to this position, you'll get Justice Kagan, you won't get Justice Marshall. And that's an important thing."
As assuredly as the New York accent of this smart, tough, razor-sharp woman from the Bronx hiked the blood pressure of every racist anachronism watching or listening to the proceedings, it would be nice to think that many more Americans were charmed by the pixie sense of humor she blended with her cerebral acuity.
Asked by Sen. Specter how she felt about Supreme Court testimony being televised, she said, "It means I'd have to get my hair done more often." Prior to a question concerning the terrorist airliner bombing plot last Christmas, Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., asked where she was on that day. She replied, "You know, like all Jews, I was probably at a Chinese restaurant." Wit has been defined as the power to give intellectual pleasure and it is most probably the key to both Elena Kagan's popularity and respect among her colleagues.
The letters of endorsement for Kagan, mention of which Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, interspersed throughout her public testimony, included those of conservative legal icons Ted Olson and Ken Starr. To be sure, there will be Republicans on the committee who will vote against her confirmation and others who will oppose her on the floor of the Senate. She will be denounced as an inveterate obfuscator, that she is at core yet another liberal judicial activist. It comes with the territory.
There are others who indeed hope she will be just that. Liberals mourning the loss of the retiring Justice John Paul Stevens would like nothing more than to have him replaced by someone who shares his progressive convictions. Moreover, there is hope that Elena Kagan's incisive legal mind combined with her charm and wit will make the strongest possible favorable impression on Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the perennial swing vote on the Roberts court.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
