|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 26, 2009 14:49:11 GMT -8
Fair and balanced. This little bit from the Wall Street Journal offers a view of Teddy not blinded by the tidal wave of praise that is currently rolling across the fruited plains.
The Cost of Doing 'Justice'
Ted Kennedy was sometimes willing to sacrifice procedural fairness--and even common decency.
By JAMES TARANTO
Last week it emerged that Ted Kennedy had undertaken a bit of end-of-life planning. As The Wall Street Journal noted in an editorial, Massachusetts' terminally ill senior senator had written to state lawmakers in Boston urging them to change state law so that upon Kennedy's death Gov. Deval Patrick, a fellow Democrat, would be able to appoint a successor immediately. Kennedy died last night of cancer, and unless the Massachusetts Legislature changes the law, his seat will remain vacant until a special election 145 to 160 days hence.
Kennedy's effort to ensure a quick succession are emblematic of why liberals loved him and conservatives found him maddening. As the Journal editorial pointed out, the special-election law is only five years old and was "orchestrated" by none other than Ted Kennedy:
John Kerry, the other Senator from the state, was running for President in 2004, and Mr. Kennedy wanted the law changed so the Republican Governor at the time, Mitt Romney, could not name Mr. Kerry's replacement. "Prodded by a personal appeal from Senator Edward M. Kennedy," reported the Boston Globe in 2004, "Democratic legislative leaders have agreed to take up a stalled bill creating a special election process to replace U.S. Senator John F. Kerry if he wins the presidency." Now that the state has a Democratic Governor, Mr. Kennedy wants to revert to gubernatorial appointments.
Kennedy's shamelessness in urging repeal of a law he himself pushed for was either appalling or admirable, depending on your point of view. To conservatives, it was a pure partisan power play: Kennedy favored whatever gave Democrats a tactical advantage, procedural fairness be damned. To liberals, however, it was an act of idealism: Kennedy had spent a career trying to advance "universal health care"--which to him and them is a matter of basic justice--and the Bay State vacancy could make the difference between ObamaCare's passing or failing. To our mind, the conservatives have the better of the argument, though we must concede that Kennedy's motives likely did have an ideological component as well as a partisan one.
It's also true, as Michael Barone has observed, that "all procedural arguments are insincere, including this one." One could argue that Kennedy's brazenly instrumentalist appeal to Beacon Hill has the virtue of honesty. But democracy depends on procedural fairness and the appearance of procedural fairness, even if all political players have ulterior motives whenever they promote such fairness. By this standard, Kennedy's effort to change the Massachusetts law without even a pretense of concern for fairness was objectionable, and that is true even if we are objecting insincerely.
Of all Kennedy's official acts, perhaps the one that most rankles conservatives and cheers liberals was his successful effort to prevent the confirmation of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court in 1987. Kennedy took to the Senate floor and declared:
Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back alley abortions, blacks would sit in segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of million of citizens.
This was a slanderous attack on a good man. But it was effective, both tactically and strategically. The Senate voted down Bork's nomination, and the justice confirmed in his stead, Anthony Kennedy (no relation), has tipped the balance in more than a few cases toward the side Sen. Kennedy favored.
By his own lights, Ted Kennedy was right to oppose Bork's confirmation. Whatever the legal merits, there is little doubt that Bork's jurisprudential approach would have yielded fewer decisions consistent with Kennedy's idea of justice. But even those who accept that concept of justice ought to regret Kennedy's demagoguery. Common decency ought to count for something too.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 26, 2009 15:58:13 GMT -8
Was listening to NPR on my way home from my volunteer job this morning. Someone said that Orrin Hatch claimed in his first campaign that he was running for the Senate in order to fight Teddy. Hatch wound up considering Teddy to be one of his best friends in the Senate.
There is no question that history will consider him flawed, but he died with the 3rd longest time served in the Senate, only behind Byrd and Thurman and he managed to broker a lot of bi-partisan deals on a lot of bills, including No Child Left Behind. And he made a lot of friends among the Republican Senators who knew him, unlike the right-wing detractors who are willing to attack anyone who disagrees with them in any ideological manner and who never met the man.
There simply is no civility left in D.C. It was there during Reagan's terms, when Tip O'Neil would head up to the White House to have a couple drinks with Ronnie and shoot the $#!+. Seems to me it when down the tubes with the election on '94, when a bunch of Republican ideologues were elected (something Joe Scarborough has stated was, and continues to be, a problem).
I'm sure the right will denigrate him up one side and down the other over the next several days, but he was a "Senator" in the finest meaning of the word. I truly believe the Republicans who are praising him are not just doing so because he died, but because he was a friend to many of them. Novak wrote that after he announced he had brain cancer, Teddy contacted him and offered to share his experience and who to talk to for medical advice with him.
For all his flaws, he was a pretty damn decent human being who was haunted by a cowardly act his entire life. But in the end, he made a difference for a lot of people.
=Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 26, 2009 17:42:59 GMT -8
Was listening to NPR on my way home from my volunteer job this morning. Someone said that Orrin Hatch claimed in his first campaign that he was running for the Senate in order to fight Teddy. Hatch wound up considering Teddy to be one of his best friends in the Senate. There is no question that history will consider him flawed, but he died with the 3rd longest time served in the Senate, only behind Byrd and Thurman and he managed to broker a lot of bi-partisan deals on a lot of bills, including No Child Left Behind. And he made a lot of friends among the Republican Senators who knew him, unlike the right-wing detractors who are willing to attack anyone who disagrees with them in any ideological manner and who never met the man. There simply is no civility left in D.C. It was there during Reagan's terms, when Tip O'Neil would head up to the White House to have a couple drinks with Ronnie and shoot the $#!+. Seems to me it when down the tubes with the election on '94, when a bunch of Republican ideologues were elected (something Joe Scarborough has stated was, and continues to be, a problem). I'm sure the right will denigrate him up one side and down the other over the next several days, but he was a "Senator" in the finest meaning of the word. I truly believe the Republicans who are praising him are not just doing so because he died, but because he was a friend to many of them. Novak wrote that after he announced he had brain cancer, Teddy contacted him and offered to share his experience and who to talk to for medical advice with him. For all his flaws, he was a pretty damn decent human being who was haunted by a cowardly act his entire life. But in the end, he made a difference for a lot of people. =Bob I have mixed feelings about the man myself. Since he was a dedicated collectivist, I cannot approve over all, but he certainly did make friends on both sides of the aisle. That is far superior to the nastiness and insufferable arrogance of a Barney Frank. The one thing that continues to bother me, however, is what he said about Bork. One may reasonably believe that Bork would not have been a good SCOTUS, but to trash him as T. Kennedy did was far over the line. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 26, 2009 17:47:38 GMT -8
Kennedy did stand up for what he believed in no matter how wrong it was in the eyes of main stream America. You have to admire a man who has the courage of his convictions. I will also say that he was able to work across party lines behind the scenes on many issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 27, 2009 15:46:34 GMT -8
Was listening to NPR on my way home from my volunteer job this morning. Someone said that Orrin Hatch claimed in his first campaign that he was running for the Senate in order to fight Teddy. Hatch wound up considering Teddy to be one of his best friends in the Senate. There is no question that history will consider him flawed, but he died with the 3rd longest time served in the Senate, only behind Byrd and Thurman and he managed to broker a lot of bi-partisan deals on a lot of bills, including No Child Left Behind. And he made a lot of friends among the Republican Senators who knew him, unlike the right-wing detractors who are willing to attack anyone who disagrees with them in any ideological manner and who never met the man. There simply is no civility left in D.C. It was there during Reagan's terms, when Tip O'Neil would head up to the White House to have a couple drinks with Ronnie and shoot the $#!+. Seems to me it when down the tubes with the election on '94, when a bunch of Republican ideologues were elected (something Joe Scarborough has stated was, and continues to be, a problem). I'm sure the right will denigrate him up one side and down the other over the next several days, but he was a "Senator" in the finest meaning of the word. I truly believe the Republicans who are praising him are not just doing so because he died, but because he was a friend to many of them. Novak wrote that after he announced he had brain cancer, Teddy contacted him and offered to share his experience and who to talk to for medical advice with him. For all his flaws, he was a pretty damn decent human being who was haunted by a cowardly act his entire life. But in the end, he made a difference for a lot of people. =Bob I have mixed feelings about the man myself. Since he was a dedicated collectivist, I cannot approve over all, but he certainly did make friends on both sides of the aisle. That is far superior to the nastiness and insufferable arrogance of a Barney Frank. The one thing that continues to bother me, however, is what he said about Bork. One may reasonably believe that Bork would not have been a good SCOTUS, but to trash him as T. Kennedy did was far over the line. AzWm Ya know, I really get tired of the right-wing whining about Bork. The guy walked into his confirmation hearing with a total attitude, something nobody should do during a job interview. On top of which, as Acting AG, he fired Archibald Cox on Nixon's orders. The point with that being with that background, going attidudinal on a Democratic controlled Senate wasn't very bright. Kennedy said this: "Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is -- and is often the only -- protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy... President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice."Tell us what you disagree with and why. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Aug 27, 2009 15:59:06 GMT -8
I have mixed feelings about the man myself. Since he was a dedicated collectivist, I cannot approve over all, but he certainly did make friends on both sides of the aisle. That is far superior to the nastiness and insufferable arrogance of a Barney Frank. The one thing that continues to bother me, however, is what he said about Bork. One may reasonably believe that Bork would not have been a good SCOTUS, but to trash him as T. Kennedy did was far over the line. AzWm Ya know, I really get tired of the right-wing whining about Bork. The guy walked into his confirmation hearing with a total attitude, something nobody should do during a job interview. On top of which, as Acting AG, he fired Archibald Cox on Nixon's orders. The point with that being with that background, going attidudinal on a Democratic controlled Senate wasn't very bright. Kennedy said this: "Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is -- and is often the only -- protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy... President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice."Tell us what you disagree with and why. =Bob The attack on Bork was typical Kennedy hyperblole. You should explain why you think that kind of inflammatory language was justified. I don't defend Bork, in fact I don't like Bork. I'm glad he was not confirmed. But the Kennedy BS was hyperbole, and you know it was. As for the soon to be sainted Teddy, check this out: www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33301I hope, when he arrives at the gates of hell, Mary Jo is waiting there to KICK HIS SORRY ASS. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 27, 2009 17:36:14 GMT -8
Ya know, I really get tired of the right-wing whining about Bork. The guy walked into his confirmation hearing with a total attitude, something nobody should do during a job interview. On top of which, as Acting AG, he fired Archibald Cox on Nixon's orders. The point with that being with that background, going attidudinal on a Democratic controlled Senate wasn't very bright. Kennedy said this: "Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is -- and is often the only -- protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy... President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice."Tell us what you disagree with and why. =Bob The attack on Bork was typical Kennedy hyperblole. You should explain why you think that kind of inflammatory language was justified. I don't defend Bork, in fact I don't like Bork. I'm glad he was not confirmed. But the Kennedy BS was hyperbole, and you know it was. As for the soon to be sainted Teddy, check this out: www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33301I hope, when he arrives at the gates of hell, Mary Jo is waiting there to KICK HIS SORRY ASS. . =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 27, 2009 21:11:37 GMT -8
In terms of what passes for intellectually robust responses, "Yawn" is decidedly unimpressive.
As for Bork, to suggest that he favored gestapo police tactics and racial segregation is worse than hyperbole. It is nothing less than vicious slander. It is, in a sense, not unlike a Chicago court case that took place several decades ago. In that case the DA waved a pair of children's panties stained with red paint in front of the jury in order to convict an innocent man (a black man, as I recall) of rape.
The Democrats, at least some of them, will say anything. . . anything . . . no matter how twisted the underlying logic or how obvious the absence of supporting facts to slander any conservative Supreme Court nominee. Sadly, in the case of Robert Bork, Ted Kennedy was not able to resist that temptation. (It is interesting to note that the LA Times this morning reached a similar conclusion in its editorial memorializing the late senator.)
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 28, 2009 10:23:20 GMT -8
I have mixed feelings about the man myself. Since he was a dedicated collectivist, I cannot approve over all, but he certainly did make friends on both sides of the aisle. That is far superior to the nastiness and insufferable arrogance of a Barney Frank. The one thing that continues to bother me, however, is what he said about Bork. One may reasonably believe that Bork would not have been a good SCOTUS, but to trash him as T. Kennedy did was far over the line. AzWm Ya know, I really get tired of the right-wing whining about Bork. The guy walked into his confirmation hearing with a total attitude, something nobody should do during a job interview. On top of which, as Acting AG, he fired Archibald Cox on Nixon's orders. The point with that being with that background, going attidudinal on a Democratic controlled Senate wasn't very bright. Kennedy said this: "Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is -- and is often the only -- protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy... President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice."Tell us what you disagree with and why. =Bob Tell me what Teddy based that compelety made up tirade upon. Even the stanch Teddy Honks now think that was one of the lowest blows he ever delivered. That tirade was completely uncalled for and false! |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Aug 28, 2009 13:24:57 GMT -8
Well, it sure is interesting to watch the apotheosis of Ted Kennedy by the libtards, and to contrast that with the kind, compassionate, humane treatment they gave Robert Novak who died just a few weeks before, of the same disease and at nearly the same age. The hypocrisy of the left is overwhelming. Here's just a sample. Be sure to scroll on down and read the comments from these "lovers of humanity": www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/23397 |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 28, 2009 14:46:22 GMT -8
Well, it sure is interesting to watch the apotheosis of Ted Kennedy by the libtards, and to contrast that with the kind, compassionate, humane treatment they gave Robert Novak who died just a few weeks before, of the same disease and at nearly the same age. The hypocrisy of the left is overwhelming. Here's just a sample. Be sure to scroll on down and read the comments from these "lovers of humanity": www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/23397Holy Smoke! Are these people real? |
|
