Why spin this CAP membership thing unless he’s afraid of something coming out that might be damaging? Also, Jeff Greenfield just said on CNN that he’s not aware of any association between Alito and the anti-minority and anti-women stance of the CAP. He’s saying that this is simply guilt by association.

I’m not buying that argument, though. Here’s an extreme example: if a candidate has once been a member of the KKK, would you be worried about their views on race? Wouldn’t you want them to address it?

OK, so CAP wasn’t the KKK, obviously, but the group has had a controversial history. Whether it started out as a social club, or focused on a particular issue (ROTC on campus during the Vietnam War), the group’s focus moved sharply toward being anti-minority and anti-coeducation at Princeton. You can read more from a Princeton alum about her recollections of the organization.

Even if he belonged, I probably wouldn’t care much, but the fact that he touted this membership to get a job with the Reagan administration bothers me. It’s probably important to mention that moralist bomb-thrower Dinesh D’Souza joined the organization and ran their magazine even though he wasn’t a Princeton alum (wtf? is that normal?)… D’Souza worked with the Reagan White House at or around that time (having trouble tracking down exact dates). So, it was probably placed there to ingratiate him with whoever was hiring him or to leverage some connection. In fact, contemporaries of Alito at Princeton claim that many students joined for the networking, not the ideology (Google Cached copy).

This CAP thing bugs me because I don’t generally like people that claim to believe something simply for personal gain. The question is whether there’s a different standard for someone getting a job in a politically driven organization. I don’t think so, but I’m curious about what all of you think.

The bottom line on a lot of this stuff is that this guy seems more transparent than most about tweaking his resume to appeal to his potential employer. If you’re going to say anything to get a job, well, what does that say about you? That, combined with some of his odd judgements, well… I’d probably vote against him. So far I’d agree with what Sen. Feinstein just said on CNN: not her ideal candidate, but not filibuster fodder either. We’ll see if the examination of his CAP membership or his views on executive authority push him over that line…

It’s a common phrase these days: “Activist Judges.” What does it mean? Conservative activists and President Bush have defined it, at least in part, as judges that make law, as opposed to interpreting it. Sounds good so far, but to get to the heart of it, we should examine the definition of “make law.” How do judges make law? Prof. Paul Gewirtz and Chad Golder of Yale Law defined it in the Times as striking down a law passed by Congress. That would fit the definition of “legislating from the bench” pretty well.

Their research finds an interesting conclusion. Here are the percentage of times since 1994 that a particular justice invalidated a Congressional act of the 64 provisions that have made it in front of them.

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%

They conclude:

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.

Of course, the definition is perhaps a bit narrow. The hyper-libertarian/conservative/federalist Volokhians would be more concerned about the court stepping into matters better left to the state. It might be interesting to see a tally of the times each justice voted to invalidate a state or local provision rather than just acts of Congress. I suspect the results will be less stark.

In the end, I guess, Atrios gets the definition right:

Judicial Activism usually means nothing more than “Judgifying I don’t like.” In other words, it means nothing.

Definitely.

(Times article found via Atrios)

Harriet Miers has apparently set up a blog.

(via Atrios)

I’m tired of abortion activists. On both sides of the aisle (sorry Heidi). ConfirmThem.com (the PAC/527/whatever set up to pimp Bush’s choices for the Supreme Court) wrote the following today:

We’ve got a lot to learn about SCOTUS nominee Harriet Miers. To hear the White House tell us, “With her distinguished career and extensive community involvement, Ms. Miers would bring a wealth of personal experience and diversity to the Supreme Court.”

Diversity. Sure she does. In fact, she gives money to Republicans *and* Democrats.

Mr. President, you’ve got some explaining to do. And please remember - we’ve been defending you these five years because of this moment.

Oh for criminey’s sake. Abortion (legal or illegal) is like 50th on the list of terrible problems facing the country right now. For anyone to chose to criticize or defend the entire presidency on any one single potential act is asinine. In this particular case, defending him from his other stupidity so he might choose a Supreme Court nominee you’ll get warm fuzzies about is stupid. Seriously. I mean, do you know anything about how they’re going to rule on any issue? How the hell could you? They don’t answer any questions worth a damn in the confirmation hearings. More importantly, are you thinking about the other rulings in which a “conservative” or “liberal” tendency will manifest itself? Or do you just pay attention to the scare flyers that people send you when they want money??

I have no doubt that abortion is important. I understand the religious debates, the moral issues (for and against), and the feminist issues. I maybe don’t feel them burning deep in my being, not being a woman or a particularly religious person, but I consider that an asset, not a hinderance. In the great scheme of things, we’re in much more trouble with the unsexy issues: deficits, education, foreign policy, and most importantly, petty corruption and basic competence.

To defend a president like this one on all of his other failings, including simple things like planning beyond 6 months from now (see post-Iraq War, Katrina/FEMA, and energy policy) because he might be able to nominate your ideal Supreme Court candidate is negligent. Ridiculous. Then, to turn around and complain about the decision he made… what the heck did you expect? Has he done ANYTHING right or principled?

I’ve written before that this presidency will be marked by it’s reliance on polling and domestic political focus. Not a focus on domestic policy or issues, but a focus on maintaining political dominance over Democrats. In other words, they’re not wielding power to advance some ideological agenda, they’re wielding power to continue wielding it.

The job of winning the next election has become the primary focus of the Administration and Congressional leadership. Look at everything with that as your decoder ring and suddenly EVERTHING the administration has done, every incomprehensible act (which may vary if you’re an R or a D) becomes abundantly clear. Everything, from budget deficits and spiraling spending, Medicare drug benefits, gay marriage, whatever.

Figure it out… they’re playing us and we keep paying them to do it. Both parties do it, but this Administration and leadership has taken it to a new level because there is NOTHING they won’t do because of ideology or because it’s simply, you know, wrong.

(ConfirmThem.com quote via The Volokh Conspiracy)