Paul Soglin: Waxing America

U.S. Supreme Court Engages in Activism: Ask Scalia

One of the phoniest, opportunistic ploys in recent years is the conservative assault on an independent judiciary calling for "judicial restraint" and attacking liberal or progressive justices as "judicial activists."

Rick Esenberg of the Federalist Society, takes this up in a paper used by Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce in the last judicial race, A Court Unbound? The Recent Jurisprudence of the Wisconsin Supreme Court:

Judges who seek to exercise restraint will tend to adopt techniques of construction that confine, rather than expand, their discretion...Judges practicing restraint will exhibit a sensitivity for the role of other branches of government....

Someone better get Esenberg's paper into the hands of the justices serving on the United States Supreme Court, starting with Anthony Scalia who Esenberg fondly quotes: "[a] text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means."

Scalia, Justice Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. are having a difficult time following their own admonitions when it comes time to the "Millionaire's Amendment" to the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act.

The issue is simple enough. Under the law individuals can contribute a maximum of $2,300 to a campaign. The candidate can spend as much as they like. If a wealthy candidate contributes over $350,000 of her own money, then the individual contributors of the opponent can go as high as $6,900.

Simple enough.

Now enter the reactionary justices on the Supreme Court. Hearing a case challenging the act, these conservative justices are wallowing in judicial activism.

Justices Assail 'Millionaires' Amendment'

"The campaign finance regimes we've approved up to now, the significant limitations, have had an anti-corruption rationale," Scalia said. "The only purpose of this is to level the playing field. And I am deeply suspicious of allowing elections to be conducted under a regime whereby Congress levels the playing field. That seems to be very dangerous."

and

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said he found it "a particular vice" of the amendment that it allows the opponent of a self-financing candidate to have greater ties and to receive more money from his political party. "It puts this statute in the position of preferring one kind of speech over another. And we simply do not do that," Kennedy said.

Obviously these justices are substituting their own judgment for that of the legislative body, the United States Congress.

I am waiting for the critics of Louis Butler and Shirley Abrahamson to assail Scalia and Roberts for this exercise in judicial activism.

You can hear the crickets chirping.

Russ Fights For the Constitution

As usual, our Senator, Russ Feingold, has it right on the FISA debate:

It's now up to the Senate to stand up for the rule of law and against the misinformation and fear tactics that the administration always rolls out on the surveillance issue. That means Democrats will have to finally stand up to the administration on national security issues.

... We can provide the government all the tools it needs to fight terrorism and protect the rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by the Constitution.

- Barry Orton

Russ Should Run

We've both been supporters of Russ Feingold as long as we've known him. That goes back to 1973 in Paul's case and the early 1980s in Barry's.  We've worked with him when he was a State Senator and supported his campaigns.  As Wisconsin's junior US Senator, Russ has done us proud on too many issues to list here.  He's been dead-on right from the beginning on the big ones: Iraq, the Patriot Act, our Constitutional civil liberties.

So should he run for president starting early next year?  Even when he's a long shot for lots of reasons?

We say yes.  Because the first president to follow two terms of George W. Bush absolutely must be a true leader. A leader in a world with very serious problems and a leader of principle.

Now, finally, years after Bush's post-9/11 agenda got an enthusiastic rubber-stamp from both parties in the U.S. Congress, a majority of Americans now realize the terrible consequences for our country and the world.

In short, the Americans of 2006 agree with the Feingold of 2002.  He doesn't have to launch a faux-heartfelt mea culpa, like so many other potential 2008 Democrats.  And he doesn't have to proclaim he would have voted against something, even though he wasn't elected at the time.  No, Russ was actually there.  And he always did the right thing, probably for no other reason than it was the right thing to do.  Like always.

His past judgments tell us that we can trust him the next time a new challenging, critical issue or crisis emerges.

And it doesn't hurt that Russ is a great campaigner, can do TV with the best of them, and has the huge advantage that he stands up for the rule of law.

Jimmy Carter had his "Georgia Mafia" working the country when he surprised us all by sweeping the 1976 primaries.  George W. Bush had a small army of Texans out there organizing every state when he beat John McCain and 8 others for the 2000 Republican nomination.

If he says the word, Russ can mobilize a campaign, with a large, dedicated group of Wisconsin friends, a few selected experienced political operatives, and a national base of informed and active Democrats (including the so-called "Netroots") who admire Feingold's principled positions.

If Russ says the word, we will devote enormous personal energy and time to fundraising and campaigning, as will hundreds, then thousands, of others.

Russ Feingold would be a great president.

We're proud to have known Russ for many years, and even prouder to have him represent us at this critical time for our Constitution and our democracy.

Please run, Russ.   We've got your back. 

Channeling Jessica McBride

I asked Wisconsin's Jessica McBride, of McBride's Media Matters to do a guest column. Here it is:

The MSM dominated by gay, one-legged Puerto Rican women who believe in peace, continues to pick on George Bush.  Just look at this article form the Buddhist controlled Los Angeles Times. (They ought to call it the Laos Angeles Times):

Bush, GOP Approval Ratings Find New Lows

You would think they had nothing better to do than provide a mouthpiece for Hollywood subversives when they could have gone with something more accurate like:

Bare Majority of Orange County Still Supports Bush

........................................................................................................................

Well, that's what you expect from people who don't own apartments.  Then look at this lead which was probably written by a lesbian from Sarah Lawrence with the assistance of a nun or two. East Coast Journalism programs really should not be part of the United States, or at least, people who read should not be allowed to vote.

WASHINGTON -- President Bush's approval ratings hit a series of new lows in an AP-Ipsos poll that also shows Republicans surrendering their advantage on national security -- grim election-year news for a party struggling to stay in power.

We all know that the AP was behind the Waukesha elections last week and Ipsos, well that stands for International Pro Socialist Organization of Steelworkers, and you don't need ME to tell you what THAT means.   Anyway the use of the word is grim is nothing more than a lie. In fact I can't even find it in my dictionary.
........................................................................................................................

Democratic leaders predicted they will seize control of one or both chambers of Congress in November. Republicans said they feared the worst unless the political landscape quickly changes.

Notice how they cleverly associate the word 'chamber' in a positive sentence with the word Democrat. The Chamber of Commerce is very Republican and the word belongs to us.  A subtle form of propaganda designed to make the uniformed reader think that Democrats are pro-business. 

........................................................................................................................

Just 36 percent of the public approves of Bush's job performance, his lowest-ever rating in AP-Ipsos polling. By contrast, the president's job approval rating was 47 percent among likely voters just before Election Day 2004 and a whopping 64 percent among registered voters in October 2002.

This is the kind of deception that really pisses me off (Did I say that?). They talk about voters who were registered in October 2002.  That is a totally meaningless number. Many of those people are dead or don't speak English or lived in New Orleans. More important, over half of them come from left wing cities like Los Angeles, New York, Madison, Portland and Waukesha, so they shouldn't be counted to begin with.

Also note the clever use of the number 36 percent at the beginning of the sentence and the association with 'approves.'  The nasty Spanish speaking editor could have just as easily said that 36% disapproved Bush's performance instead of 36% approve(s) his performance.  Probably a Sandinista friend of Jim Rowen.  You know his father wrote for the Washington Post?  And for a really long time.

Another thing.  If they didn't like that idea, they could have turned the numbers around so it read "63 percent of the public approves..."

........................................................................................................................

By comparison, Presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan had public approval in the mid 60s at this stage of their second terms in office, while Dwight Eisenhower was close to 60 percent, according to Gallup polls. Richard Nixon, who was increasingly tangled up in the Watergate scandal, was in the high 20s in early 1974.

This is another slimy trick used by CNN, the BBC, CIA, CBS, PBS, and Reuters.  See how they cleverly compared Bush to popular Presidents?  They just as easily could have compared him to unpopular Presidents like Grover Cleveland when it was revealed he was the father of an illegitimate child. 

And of course the Nixon analogy never holds up because he was a crook; that really stinks- a very, very unfair comparison.

........................................................................................................................

As bad as Bush's numbers may be, Congress' are worse.

This is reminiscent of some of the worst writing I see in some of my students, usually the ones from Madison West High School or relatives of Bill Christofferson.  Do you see what they did?  The news about Congress is worse than the Bush poll numbers and that is buried deep down in the story.  There are more members of Congress, some of them are even Democrats, and they mention it below the fold!

........................................................................................................................

Just 30 percent of the public approves of the GOP-led Congress' job performance, and Republicans seem to be shouldering the blame.

I have come to expect this since former editors from Pravda, Izvestia and the Daily Cardinal now staff the Style section of the LA Times. They blame the Republicans, not the Democrats.  Clearly Democrats share half the blame for the public's distain of Congress.

........................................................................................................................

"He's in over his head," said Diane Heller, 65, a Pleasant Valley, N.Y., real estate broker and independent voter.

Everything is wrong with that quote. First, notice they did not provide a statement of support for Bush. Secondly, Heller is from New York and we don't count their votes anyway. Thirdly, Heller is clearly a part of the peace movement, given that she admits to be an independent voter. Lastly, I have it on good authority from Ralph Ovadal that real estate brokers in Pleasant Valley sell to gays, Catholics, and vegetarians, and even sometimes, people who are all three.

..........................................................................................................................

One of those advantages is a political map that is gerrymandered to put House incumbents in relatively safe districts, meaning Democrats have relatively few opportunities to pick up the 15 seats they need to gain control.

The most important element of the story is in the last paragraph. They wait until the end to acknowledge the power and importance of Tom DeLay's successful plan to make sure we keep control of Congress, even if we are the minority party.  It is just like these descendents of radicals and subversives like Tom Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and Peter Zenger to put the good news at the end.

So there.

(Anyone know where I can get a good gardener, cheap? And I found a great place to get my nails done.  Give me a call and I'll tell you their address.  They only take cash. If you are lucky, you may run into Jim Sensenbrenner there.)

____________________________________________________________________________________

(OFFICIAL WAXINGAMERICA LEGAL DISCLAIMER: THIS IS A FIRST AMENDMENT-PROTECTED PARODY.)

What Did Bush Know, and When Did he Know It?

It was an announcement that only Richard Nixon could love, and the Bush administration was further sent careening down the road to oblivion.

Libby: Bush Authorized Leaks About Iraq*

WASHINGTON  — Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide told prosecutors President Bush authorized the leak of sensitive intelligence information about Iraq, according to court papers filed by prosecutors in the CIA leak case.

There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby to disclose Valerie Plame's CIA identity.**

The only question remaining is:  Will the eventual Bush censure/impeachment be stalled by Republicans until after the 2006 elections or the 2008 elections.

Of course the Right is out shrilly proclaiming that the President has the right to declassify and release confidential intelligence information.  That begs the question as to why the information was not publicly released instead of leaked.  The answer is obvious; there are standards for releasing information pertaining to national security, and the protection of data collecting operations, and they don't want any 'stinkin' standards.'

If the standards were met in this instance, they would have to be applied to other decisions to release or not release classified information.  The existence and application of standards would prove to be embarrassing to this Administration, which only knows one standard: does it help or hinder Republican efforts to control the country and perpetrate more wars.

Update: 3:18 PM CDT.            from The New York Times***

The court filing provided the first indication that Mr. Bush, who has long assailed leaks of classified information as a national security threat, played a direct role in the disclosure of the intelligence report on Iraq and was also involved in the swirl of events leading up to the disclosure of the identity of an undercover C.I.A. officer...

...The leak was intended, the court papers suggested, as a rebuttal to the Op-Ed article published in The New York Times on July 6, by Joseph C. Wilson, IV, a former ambassador, who wrote that he had traveled to Africa in 2002 after Mr. Cheney had raised questions about possible nuclear purchases. Mr. Wilson wrote that he concluded it was "highly doubtful" that Iraq had sought to purchase nuclear fuel from Niger.

*Apologies dear reader, but I get a certain mount of perverse delight in pulling this headline from Fox News.

**Now we wait for the other shoe to drop.

***The other shoe is now dropping.

Feingold Ranks Last Among Presidential Hopefuls

I found this piece curious:

Feingold Ranks at the Bottom of One List of 2008 Hopefuls

Washington - Russ Feingold is the longest of long shots to win his party's presidential nomination in 2008, according to ABC's The Note, a daily digest and commentary compiled by the network's political unit.

In what it calls its "Invisible Primary Ratings" - a first stab at handicapping the '08 field - ABC ranked Feingold 11th out of 11 possible Democratic candidates, trailing, in order: Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Mark Warner, John Kerry, Tom Vilsack, Evan Bayh, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Wesley Clark and Tom Daschle.

The Note says its rankings are "inherently subjective" but guided by conversations with a broad variety of sources: Washington savants of both parties, real-life activists in real states, interest group chieftains and strategists for the candidates.

No quarrel from me so far.  Then comes this:

Feingold was ranked last or next to last in several: television skills; perceived electability in November '08; national security credentials; name ID; prospects for winning endorsements of other politicians...

Last or next to last in television skills? Come on. He was always great going back to that map on the palm of his hand but his Jon Stewart, The Daily Show appearance was outstanding.  Fine, let them keep thinking that.

Anyone ever see a candidate go from less than 3% in the pre-primary polls to a major general election win?

Hehe.

Censure Hearing on Friday. What Will Herb Do?

The Senate Judiciary Committee members are going to have an interesting session Friday. Those identified as moderates in both parties will determine the outcome.  While we know where Chairman Specter is coming from, the position of our Senator Herb Kohl is up in the air. This is a chance for the senior senator to lead and change the course of human events.

Senator Sets Hearing on Censure of Bush

By THE NEW YORK TIMES

Published: March 25, 2006

WASHINGTON, March 24 — The Senate Judiciary Committee has set a hearing for next Friday on the call by Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, to censure President Bush for his approval of a program to allow electronic eavesdropping without warrants.

Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is chairman of the panel, said he had decided to schedule the session after Mr. Feingold, in a television interview, pressed for hearings on the censure proposal...

...Mr. Specter said his intent was not to use the session as a political forum but to explore issues surrounding the proposed censure. He said he believed the proposal was baseless.

Now we know what Specter said when the issue first arouse: Arlen Specter Gaps Truth: Can Go Either Way on Bush-NSA, While NY Times Sputters

In the understatement of the century (yes, its only five years old) Specter told the Associated Press:

           There is no doubt that this is inappropriate.

Inappropriate? Inappropriate is belching at the dinner table or barfing on some foreign dignitary.  Inappropriate is the behavior of most teenagers at least three times a day

I am not worried about Specter.  He signaled last December that he would collapse on this one. He is a lost cause and will only do the right thing if they find the smoking gun in Bush's hand.

I am worried about Senator Herb Kohl.  He knows these issues, he knows that Bush usurped the law, and he will have to break the 'gentleman's agreement' on this one. He cannot remain part of the inner circle of the Senate and serve freedom at the same time this week.

Feingold: Doing the Right Thing - More Than Once A Winner

Today's story has a message for every politician:

Feingold's Censure Call Gives Him Boost

WASHINGTON Mar 26, 2006 (AP)— While only two Democrats in the Senate have embraced Sen. Russ Feingold's call for censuring President Bush, the idea is increasing his standing among many Democratic voters as he ponders a bid for the party's presidential nomination in 2008...

"I welcome their attempt to make a campaign issue of the question of whether there will be accountability for the president's breaking the law," he said. "They will remind people every minute that the president thumbed his nose at the law."

There was once a time when respected leaders were ahead of the public, not following them through the polls. Now we consider a leader respected if they can avoid indictment and stay out of jail.

Senator Feingold is ending this war, restoring dignity to our trampled Consitution, and inspiring other elected officals to lead, not follow the crowd.

Feingold Should Not Stand Alone; We Can Help

Senator Russ Feingold demonstrated his loyalty to the United States and his unflinching commitment to the integrity of government and the sanctity of our Constitution when he proposed censuring President Bush.

Repeatedly during his careeer, but especially since September 11, 2001, Feingold has been an effective voice in protecting our freedom and slowing down those who compromise the very liberties that makes us strong, productive, and industrious.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety.--Bejamin Franklin

There is something that the rest of us can do which is of significant political value and consequence.

Contact Senator Feingold's office and say "Job well done."

Politicans can use a boost in those instances where they do the right thing, follow their conscience and make a wise political decision, but find the road lonely.  It will reassure the Senator that he has our support, and it will assist him in gathering allies.

Contact Senator Feingold with an email at:  russ_feingold@feingold.senate.gov

or, even better, call or write one of his offices:

Green Bay
  1640 Main Street
  Green Bay, WI 54302-2639
  (920) 465-7508

La Crosse
  425 State St., Room 225
  La Crosse, WI 54601-3341
  (608) 782-5585

Middleton
  1600 Aspen Commons
  Middleton, WI 53562-4716
  (608) 828-1200
  TDD (608) 828-1215
  Fax (608) 828-1203

Milwaukee
  517 East Wisconsin Ave., Room 408
  Milwaukee, WI 53202-4504
  (414) 276-7282
  Fax (414) 276-7284

Wausau
  Firstar Plaza
  401 5th St., Room 410
  Wausau, WI 54403
  (715) 848-5660

Washington, DC
506 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-4904
(202) 224-5323
TDD (202) 224-1280
Fax (202) 224-2725

The Cheney/Fox News/Limbaugh fearmongers will be calling Feingold everything from "traitor" to  "anti-American" to "moonbat."  Many of the Democrats in office will be running for cover and unavailable for comment.

I'm proud to have known Russ for many years, and even prouder to have him represent me at this critical time for our Constitution.

Let Russ know that we've got his back.