The Crumbling Supreme Court Facade

Stories with headlines like the one that appeared today-- "Pieces Fall From Supreme Court Facade" --operate like a Rorschach ink blot test. Depending on where one sits in the political spectrum, the news is either a metaphor suggesting that the very foundations of justice will be threatened if Judge Samuel Alito is confirmed as the next associate justice or, alternatively, a Pat Robertsonesque indication of divine warning that failure to confirm Alito will result in fire and brimestone raining down upon the Senate chamber.

The facade holding that the Supreme Court is a nonpolitical branch of government has crumbled badly in recent decades. As more politicians and people perceive the Court to be just another political branch, the political will for imposing majoritarian mandates on that countermajoritarian body become stronger. The justices can reassure the majoritarian branches that their decisions do not rest on mere personal preference by articulating a judicial philosophy based on neutral principles. The senators should do their part by focusing on the merits of the interpretation philosophy of the judge rather than merely the policy outcome of the philosophy. As for other fanciful wishes, I'd like a grand piano to appear in my foyer in time for Christmas.

Expanding the Audience Base

I was traveling through Ohio and West Virginia this past Wednesday afternoon and took a moment to tune into talk radio, specifically WKKX (AM 1600). I later learned that three WKKX talk radio hosts accused Congressman Bob Ney (R-OH) in July of threatening them with retribution after they called attention to his involvement with Jack Abramoff, the Washington lobbyist who was indicted on five counts of wire fraud by a federal grand jury on August 11.

The host (I didn't catch his name and no one is answering the phone at the station) and a caller were slamming Rep. Jean Schmidt for her infamous remarks recently spoken on the House floor in reference to Democratic Congressman John Murtha, namely that "cowards cut and run, Marines never do." (The Ohioan she quoted has disputed the comments she attributed to him.) The caller went on to remark how nasty the Republicans had become with the name-calling and that the voters were bound to throw the bums out whenever the first opportunity arose. I figured it was time for some balance.

So I called the station number... and the station manager asked nothing more than my first name before putting me on the air. What about the Democrats and their continual use of the word "extremist" in reference to Republicans, I asked. As an example, I pointed out that the then-Democratic governor of Pennsylvania had signed into law abortion restrictions drafted by the legislature elected by the people of Pennsylvania. But Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel Alito has been called an "extremist" for upholding the spousal notification provision within that Pennsylvania law... were Pennsylvanians extremists? Ted Kennedy recited the word "extremist" as if it were a mantra.

The host agreed that Kennedy was often out of bounds, noting that he didn't understand how Kennedy could dare show his face after the Chappaquiddick incident. He was not coming from the hard left, he assured me. "I'm against extremists on both ends of the political spectrum," he said, using the very word I had just condemned.

DCYRs lend a hand (or feet) to those in need

One rap against Republicans is that they supposedly do not care for the poor, the homeless, or minorities. On Saturday, the D.C. Young Republicans sought to dispel this myth by participating in National Community Service Day, an idea proposed by the Young Republican National Federation. Young Republicans across the country participated in their local communities.

DCYRs met at 8 a.m. in 35-degree weather near the national mall (click on picture above for larger view), and consumed bagels and orange juice in preparation for the Fannie Mae Walk-a-Thon for the Homeless. After enduring some cheesy techno music (okay, it was fun in a comical way) and insanely cheesy event t-shirts given to event participants, walkers began the 1 1/2 hour tour that squirreled through part of downtown D.C. and around the Tidal Basin.

One member of our group questioned whether events such as the Walk-a-thon really did anything to help the homeless. One thing the event accomplished is increased donations to groups that will help those in need (the $25 registration fee counted as a donation). But there is so much that we could and should do directly. As the crowd approached the finish line, a person with a cup was rattling it in the pursuit of donations. No one saw him.

Later in the day, other D.C. Young Republicans joined with D.C. City Year to repair, paint, and clean Shadd Elementary School, located in "far east" D.C., on East Capitol Street just short of the Maryland border. With due respect to architects working with small budgets, the school looks more like a prison than an educational institution. It is difficult to see how a child could find an existence in or around the school inspiring.

Some volunteers cleaned out clutter and debris from the interior, while others set to work on the playground in back of the school. Participants painted a large, colorful map of the United States as well as a map of the District divided into wards (which were later numbered). Most adults probably cannot identify which ward is which, so it was a great idea for children to play on a map of the wards every day.

Although the focus of the "activist division" of the DCYR is and must be on electing Republicans, the road to changing minds may include assistance to communities.

Law and Order Engages in Advocacy Television

Last night's episode of NBC's Law & Order (one of the very few shows I bother to watch) offers a textbook case of propaganda, in this case pro-immigration. And it doesn't pull any punches... it insinuates that a citizen group patrolling the United States border (akin to the "Minuteman" Protest earlier this year) is out to hunt immigrant smugglers. Read the synopsis from NBC's website:

MURDER OF SMUGGLING TRUCKER COULD BE LINKED TO BORDER PATROL GROUP -- When the owner of a big-rig trucking company is shot to death, Detectives Fontana and Green learn that the victim was hauling illegal aliens and suspect a member citizen's border patrol group -- but their only witness is an undocumented Hispanic woman who risks deportation if she testifies. Meanwhile, prosecutor McCoy is incensed when the witness is physically intimidated as he tries to turn one organization member against the other in court.

Early on in the show, we learn that about 30 illegal immigrants died horrible deaths while being hauled by the eventual murder victim and are led to believe that the trucker's negligence was the cause. At the end, we learn that the leader of the border patrol group twice sabotaged the refrigerator coolant in the truck in order to cause the deaths of the immigrants, which then successfully tricked another patrol group member into thinking that the trucker was at fault and needed to be "confronted" and persuaded at gunpoint to turn himself over to the authorities.

After being physically and emotionally intimidated by an ally of the patrol group leader, the star witness is deported following her testimony by the heartless conservative trial judge who follows the letter of the law.

The citizen patrol group members sometimes said quite reasonable things, which the Law & Order writers probably thought balanced the show, namely: The U.S. government should carry out its responsibility to fully enforce its laws and terrorists can too easily enter the country due to lax border enforcement. The problem is... the messengers are on trial for an unjustifiable murder! That colors the message a bit.

Finally, there appears on the Law & Order website a caption to the featured video: "Cold-blooded murder or Minutemen vigilantes on the U.S. border?" Not exactly a balanced question. And "vigilantes"? That's Bushspeak. Try this one on for size: "NBC: Pro-Immigration Propagandists or just out to stick it to patrol group supporter Governor Arnold?"

The Washington Post and Guns

In an editorial on November 8 ("Targeting D.C. GunLaws"), the Washington Post castigated Congressman Mark Souder for sponsoring an amendment to the District of Columbia appropriations bill that would defund the District law requiring gun owners, who believe in the fundamental right to defend their families with firearms in the home, to store their weapons unloaded and disassembled or bound with a trigger lock. The Post called for the Souder amendment to be thrown out in the conference committee this week so that "the city will be spared the nightmare that is sure to come from loaded and unlocked guns falling into the hands of children."

Even if the D.C. law somehow saved children's lives, the law applies to all gun owners regardless of whether a child lives in the home. I anxiously await the Post's proposal for mandatory locked covers on all swimming pools, which kill many times more children each year.

The Washington Post is undoubtedly relieved that, reportedly, the Souder amendment did not survive the conference committee. Meanwhile, San Francisco has voted to join the District in banning all handguns. The National Rifle Association has responded by filing a lawsuit. Fox News breathlessly proclaimed: "San Francisco voters this week passed what could become the nation's strictest gun ban when they outlawed not only the sale of guns in the city, but required almost everyone who is not a cop, security guard or member of the military to surrender their handguns to police by April 1." This gun ban sounds no more strict than that imposed on District of Columbia residents since 1976.

D.C. City Council to Snuff Out Additional Liberties

(This entry is the second in a series on the state of freedom in the District of Columbia.)

Several times in the past two weeks, I have been inconvenienced by other patrons smoking in bars located in the District of Columbia.

While enjoying a glass of wine with a friend at the sophisticated Le Bar, the bar located in the Sofitel Hotel, I suddenly noticed an irritation in my throat. I turned to my left and noticed that someone had lit a cigarette. Soon after I told my friend that I was allergic to smoke, the smokers disappeared, perhaps in deference to my situation (smoking is not permitted in the dining room across the hall). A few days later, a waiter at The Daily Grill led me to a nonsmoking table that I immediately decided was too close to the bar. The waiter was very accommodating.

I do not like cigarette smoke; in fact, many smokers themselves detest the smell. I don't like sometimes smelling like smoke after a night on the town. Depending on the brand of tobacco, smoke adversely affects me physically. And as for dating smokers, let's just say that ash is an acquired taste.

Acting to rescue me from these nefarious perils, the D.C. City Council's Health Committee last week approved legislation that would ban smoking in all District bars and restaurants within a year. A vote by the full Council on the bill, which is likely to pass, could occur next month. The bill contains an economic-hardship waiver for businesses that can show a "significant, negative impact," but pro-ban Councilman David Catania admits that the waiver would rarely be granted.

This bill and the "Smoke Free D.C." movement represent yet another unwarranted interference with capitalism and individual self-determination, which is already suffocating every day by an immense body of local and federal regulations. No one is forced to patronize any bar or restaurant, nor is anyone forced to work in these establishments. The anti-smoking law would forbid a bar to freely offer a particular atmosphere and convenience to patrons who prefer the liberty to engage in the consumption of a legal substance.

I oppose the D.C. smoking ban on principle. Even if there are a multitude of benefits to nonsmokers such as myself, the marketplace should be the judge of whether smoking should occur in private places of accommodation-- so long as the dangers are open and obvious to consumers. Reasonable health code regulations are permissible in order to maintain the safety of food and beverages because the consumer is not well-equipped to know which businesses follow safe food handling procedures. However, the risks of second-hand smoke are well-known, and smokers are not hidden.

The principle of freedom alone justifies opposition to this ban, but it may be opposed on empirical cost-benefit grounds as well. Whenever government intervenes in the marketplace, even when it is justified, there are consequences, not all of them predictable or measurable. ATLAS, which is opposed to the smoking ban, notes:

The overwhelmingly negative results of a mandatory smoking ban in Minneapolis in the six months of imposition through September 2005, and notably during the period of seasonably pleasant spring and summer months, are [evident, considering the] closure of nearly 40 alcohol-licensedvenues with more than 50 additional venues facing imminent financial demise and closure, the loss of more than 2,000 service worker jobs, and local economic losses of over $1 million per month.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reminded the District this week that it cannot impose a "commuter tax" on residents of Virginia and Maryland who work in the District but take their tax dollars back to their home states. The District, with revenues already stymied by tax dollars flowing to neighboring jurisdictions, can ill afford to have bar patrons take their business across the border as well. But it is a definite possibility that D.C. businesses will suffer, as will D.C. tax revenues, should the smoking ban pass.

Anti-smoking advocates will no doubt muster evidence bolstering the argument that the smoking ban's economic effects are negligible-- or justified, given the benefits of smoking. One might say the same about D.C.'s mandatory car seatbelt-wearing law or any number of other "reasonable" restrictions on personal liberty. We have become comfortable in our cages. Anyone who wishes to consume alcoholic beverages at a private business has become accustomed to presenting bar employees, who have become agents of the government, with sufficient identification proving that one is old enough to drink-- because the government has determined that less maturity is required to elect our leaders than to make the decision to drink.

Individually, such restrictions appear innocuous, even greatly desirable. But the bigger picture is disturbing: the specter of seemingly benevolent, statist government intruding into every corner of human existence until freedom is choking on the fumes of government edicts. Liberty must not die a death of a thousand cuts based upon the "reasonable" cost-benefit analysis of individual laws. The threat to freedom is real. Resistance to this threat is the truly moral position.

Judge Alito for the U.S. Supreme Court

It turns out that the fingers-crossed technique works after all. President George Bush decided to appoint a perfectly-qualified conservative to SCOTUS. Way to go, George. Better late than never.

Meanwhile, the liberal Democrats in the Senate are spouting their tired, mindless drivel. Senator Edward Kennedy opined that Bush chose a nominee with "extreme" views. Such blather suggests that Kennedy hasn't had an original idea in quite some time, maybe not in his lifetime. As I explained in a previous post, the word "extremist" and its variations is the first refuge of demogogues.

A Democratic National Committee anti-Alito document breathlessly charges: "Alito Would Require Women to Notify Husbands Before Exercising Her Reproductive Rights." Lawyers would call this a libel; bloggers would call it a cheap shot. Imagine this: the Pennsylvania state legislature, elected by the good people of Pennsylvania, passed the law. Bob Casey, a Democratic governor, signed the legislation. What a bunch of extremists. Judge Alito, relying on Supreme Court precedent, decided that the Constitution does not forbid this legislation, whatever he may think of the merits of the policy. So he, too, is an extremist.

In 1789, the authors of the Constitution agreed on the existence of certain fundamental rights and recognized these rights in the first ten amendments to the Constitution: Congress shall not abridge free speech. Everyone has the right to religious exercise without interference from the government. No searches and seizures of one's person or home by the government shall take place without a warrant issued by a detached judge. A prompt trial by a jury of one's peers is guaranteed. A defendant has a right to counsel during criminal legal proceedings. A broad concensus clamored for the protection of these rights. The role of the judge is to apply these rights neutrally.

There is no concensus on the "right to reproductive freedom," it was a "mystery of human life" right concocted by the likes of Harriet Miers' favorite justice, Warren Burger. If those individuals who support restrictions on this right are "extremists" and therefore a tiny minority of the population, then why bother with recognizing the right in the first place? Abortion rights proponents should win easily over the extremists.

In 1973, the Supreme Court imposed abortion rights by fiat, and thereby deprived all citizens of an open and honest debate on the abortion issue. America could have reached a resolution on this issue a long time ago. Instead, Senators and interest groups now fight over who will be the justices who will make the decision. It is difficult to believe that anyone is persuaded by the Democrats' cheap "extremist" rhetoric.