Saturday, September 03, 2005

The End Of The Rehnquist Court

The Chief Justice has finally succumbed to the cancer he had been fighting for so long. We should all take a moment to say a silent word of thanks for his many years of public service.

That's what we should do...that ain't what's gonna happen.

If Bush stays true to form I think we can expect the elevation of Scalia to Chief Justice, which will cause one hell of a bitch-storm from the left. It's weird. There has been so little movement in the makeup of the court for so long and now change is coming fast and furious. The political climate is so ugly in general these days that I can see nothing positive coming out of Washington for a few months.

Oh! for some real substantive political discourse in this country. The more I read the political blogs, from the right and the left, the more I am put in mind of the old Monty Python argument sketch. At one point an exasperated Michael Palin says "I don't want to argue about that!" as John Cleese insists on arguing about something completely uninteresting. In any event...I digress.

I would have to say that the Rehnquist era of the Supreme Court will probably be remembered as a lackluster affair. The Court didn't move with a purpose so much as drift along with the breeze. Of course the elevation of Rehnquist was supposed to be the end of the world, or so the left in the 1980's would have had us believe. Who would have thought that what would follow would have been so tame. Maybe we could all remember that as we gear up for the hyperbole of the Roberts hearings and the new Chief Justice confirmation battle.

Wouldn't that be better than engaging in the same old boring argument?

Yes. it is.



(No. It isn't.)

2 comments:

David Leftwich said...

"The more I read the political blogs, from the right and the left, the more I am put in mind of the old Monty Python argument sketch. At one point an exasperated Michael Palin says "I don't want to argue about that!" as John Cleese insists on arguing about something completely uninteresting. In any event...I digress."

And now for something completely different...oh, well, not really, you don't digress...it's a good point. For example, the level of discourse, left and right, regarding the aftermath of Katrina is infuriating and childish. It's like two children arguing over who pushed who into a candle as the house burns around them. Thank goodness for regular citizens who are out there helping out and donating money and supplies.

The Iconic Midwesterner said...

Its funny, I watched this thing on CSPAN over the weekend, a call-in show with Prof. Harvey Mansfield, and he made a statement that the difference between liberals and conservative is as follows:

Liberals believe that science (and therefore man) is more powerful than nature.

Conservatives believe that nature is more powerful than science (and therefore man.)

This strikes me as a little too facile to be completely true, but it does seem to hold up to a degree. So when people are complaining about the Katrina aftermath you might be just hearing the echo of this more basic (and nauseatingly long-standing) argument.

One side think that given enough money we have the power to (nearly) mitigate the negative effects of tropical storms. The other side thinks not. One side views the loss of life as the result of not using our power over nature through incompetence or neglect. The other side sees it as a tragedy that goes with the territory of being human on a planet where nature is far stronger than we are.

Like I said, it is a little facile, but it does break down some of the carping I see out there on both sides of the ideological divide.