I am disturbed, but not surprised by some of the comments made by Barrack Obama as regards the role of a Justice of the Supreme Court and thereby, what we will get in the replacement for Justice David Souter, who is retiring, next month. Those comments give us a frightening view of what we have in store from anyone Obama might nominate.
There are many, including the Washington Post… hardly a bastion of liberal thought… who have counseled Obama to look for judicial restraint:
Alas, the once-dominant species of liberal proponents of judicial restraint has relatively few surviving members. Obama should find them – why not Jose Cabranes, the excellent judge whom President Clinton appointed to the 2nd Circuit? – and help
That’s what Ben Smith is reporting, yesterday morning:
Andrea Mitchell reported this evening that Obama is considering Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, something that’s been buzzed about as a possibility for a few days.
I haven’t been able to confirm it, and neither Obama nor Clinton camps would comment, though NBC apparently has confirmation that she went to Chicago today.
One interesting item: Clinton aides are not knocking the report down, which they might.
Since Ben wrote that, apparently, there are confirmations are coming from a number of sources, including the Washington Post:
There’s increasing chatter in political circles that the Obama camp is not overly happy with the usual suspects for secretary of state these days and that the field might be expanding
From the Washington Post:
Transition advisers to President-elect Barack Obama have compiled a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that could be swiftly undone to reverse White House policies on climate change, stem cell research, reproductive rights and other issues, according to congressional Democrats, campaign aides and experts working with the transition team.
All of you that were taken completely off-guard by this news, please raise your right hands. Now smack yourself on the back of the head.
Any turmoil and angst over this should have been addressed months ago. If you voted for Obama, and you were oblivious to the fact this was coming: yeah, that’s why Obama was elected. You weren’t paying attention.
But let’s be candid. Executive …
The following was copied from www.whatiam.net. It was forwarded to me in an email (thanks, Brent!), and was the content of an ad (presumably full-page) that was taken out in the Washington Post on October 24, 2004 by George J. Esseff Sr. This is just as meaningful now as it was almost 4 years ago.
You’re a Republican???
In today’s America, ask a growing number of high school and college students; their teachers and professors; the self-anointed media elite and/or hard working men and women of all ethnicities, the question, “What is a Republican?”, and you’ll be told “… a rich, greedy, egotistical individual, motivated only by money and the desire to accumulate more and more of it, at the expense of the environment …
Not that anyone should be shocked, but definitely frustrated, but today’s Washington Post provides some insight to the plans of Congress with regard to converting more and more land over to federal
protection control. You know what’s scary? If this had been the approach Congress took when Thomas Jefferson was president, we’d still be all stuck on the east coast, the western 1/3 of the country would be part of Mexico, and everything from Ohio to the Rockies would still be under Indian control (well, maybe not) and undeveloped. Oh, and we’d still be using outhouses.
The thinking is, Congress may set aside as many as 2 million additional acres in this year.
Wilderness areas, which have the strictest level of federal protection, account for