Taking one for the "team"...

Why the hell are the White House, the RNC, Republican Congressmen and conservative pundits backing Karl Rove up...can anyone answer that?

For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, go on to any...ANY...news source in the world and read about it.

The way Bush Administration is sticking up for Rove reminded me of this October 2004 photo and story from the campaign trail:

Karl Rove laid himself on the line for his boss, the president of the United States.

That is, he laid himself under the wheels of Air Force One on Monday. Reason: Unclear, but it seems to have been an inside joke between Rove and President George W. Bush.

Returning to the aircraft after Mr. Bush's foreign policy speech, the two men traded words. As Mr. Bush climbed the stairs, his top political adviser set his briefcase down in front of the tires and stretched out on the ground with his back to the wheels.

Rove stood back up moments later; a smiling Bush waved from the plane and they both got aboard.

"It was a humorous moment on the campaign trail," was all Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel would say about Rove's antic.

Wow. Put all that in the context of recent news [Bush/GOP lying down in front of "Truth Train" for Rove], and "antic" takes on a whole new meaning.

Mr. President, loyalty or no loyalty, fire this guy already...

Activist Judges and the Court

I realize I haven’t posted anything about the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Even though she is a conservative, I respect the hell out of her and her tenure on the Court. I’ve not always agreed with her decisions…Bush vs. Gore still pisses me off…but overall she has been a fine Jurist. Now let the mayhem begin!

Speaking of the Court, I read a great New York Times op-edtoday by Paul Gewirtz and Chad Golder in which they suggest an actual measure for what makes an "activist" judge:

We found that justices vary widely in their inclination to strike down Congressional laws. Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by President George H. W. Bush, was the most inclined, voting to invalidate 65.63 percent of those laws; Justice Stephen Breyer [again, my favorite Justice], appointed by President Bill Clinton, was the least, voting to invalidate 28.13 percent. The tally for all the justices appears below.

Thomas - 65.63%
Kennedy - 64.06%
Scalia - 56.25%
Rehnquist - 46.88%
O'Connor - 46.77%
Souter - 42.19%
Stevens - 39.34%
Ginsburg - 39.06%
Breyer - 28.13%

One conclusion our data suggests is that those justices often considered more "liberal" - Justices Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens - vote least frequently to overturn Congressional statutes, while those often labeled "conservative" vote more frequently to do so. At least by this measure (others are possible, of course), the latter group is the most activist.

President Bush has persistently praised Scalia and Thomas as archetypal judges (and has said they are his favorites). From that position, am I wrong to assume that what Bush and the conservatives are really looking for are judges that "legislate from the bench", overturning laws and overriding the will of Congress, and by extension, the American people. Am I?

The whole Republican/neo-con concept of "activist judges" is erroneous at best. I would also include nutty, intellectually lazy, and downright dishonest in the description. In reality, the neo-con fundamentalist “religious right” wants desperately to appoint "activist judges" who reshape laws according to their personal religious or conservative preferences. And on top of that, they don't want anyone else to point that out.

The next time you hear a Republican or neo-con rail about “activist judges,” shove this down their ass…excuse me…immorality orifice.