Best of the Web Today - July 6, 2005
By JAMES TARANTO
Leap for London
The International Olympic Committee has selected London as the site of the 2012 Olympics. The British capital beat out Madrid, Moscow, New York and Paris. Some New Yorkers, especially Mayor Michael Bloomberg, are disappointed, but not this columnist. We can live without the congestion and security hassles of a major world event.
The New York Daily News's Filip Bondy suggests that the president may be to credit--or to blame--for the Big Apple not getting the nod: "The bid's downfall could be more complicated, involving an international slap at George W. Bush's unilateral attitude toward the world."
So to protest Bush's "unilateral attitude," the IOC gives the Olympics to America's staunchest ally? That doesn't make sense. Anyway, we're delighted to see a friend of America get the bragging rights that go along with getting the games. Meanwhile, the French, the Spanish, the Russians and Mayor Bloomberg all lost. There's nothing here not to like.
What Would NYC Do Without Athletic Supporters?
"Supporters Rally for NYC Olympics Bid"--headline, Associated Press, July 5
Uh-Oh, the French Are Upset Again
"London Upsets Paris to Win 2012 Olympics"--headline, Associated Press, July 6
Greenhouse and the Roe Effect
Recently the social-science journal Society asked us to write an essay explaining our Roe effect hypothesis. Society isn't publicly available on the Web, but today we reprinted the article on this Web site. It prompted a response from Linda Greenhouse, the New York Times' Supreme Court correspondent:
Interesting, provocative analysis here, which leads me to make two points. One, I challenge the assertion that pro-choice women have more abortions. Studies over a long period show that Catholic women, for example, have abortions at the same rate as non-Catholic women. I think there has always been a disconnect between philosophy and behavior on this subject.
Second, there was plenty of abortion going on in the U.S. before Roe--it was just illegal, and often dangerous. If Roe had not been decided 32 years ago, certainly current technology, RU-486, etc., and the fact that the blue states were legalizing abortion would have provided an environment in which a good share of the millions of post-Roe abortions would still have occurred--a non-Roe post-Roe effect.
On the first point, Greenhouse seems to agree with a bumper sticker we saw on a Maryland interstate last month: "You can't be both Catholic & pro-abortion." This may be true as a doctrinal matter, but not as an empirical one. In most polls, Catholic opinion on abortion is roughly comparable to that of the population as a whole; a June 2004 ABC News survey, for instance, found that 55% of Catholics and 54% of all those polled said abortion should be "legal."
Greenhouse's second point seems right to us, but it is somewhat tangential. The Roe effect does not posit that there would have been no abortions absent Roe, or even that the number of abortions would have been appreciably smaller. Rather, as we wrote in Society, it "refers specifically to the nexus between the practice of abortion and the politics of abortion."
The political effect of Roe v. Wade was to transform abortion from a subject of ordinary democratic compromise into an all-or-nothing battle in which each political party felt compelled to take an extreme position. Abortion laws might well have been liberalized had the Supreme Court decided Roe differently--certainly this was the trend pre-Roe--but it's unlikely that it would have become a partisan national issue in the way it has. Thus without Roe the practice of abortion, even if it were as widespread as it has in fact been, would not have imperiled Democrats to anywhere near the extent that we argue it has.
Is the Deal Off?
Democrats are trying to keep alive the threat of filibustering President Bush's Supreme Court nominee. New York's other senator, Chuck Schumer, "said yesterday that Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are prepared to use judicial philosophy as justification for thwarting any of President Bush's nominees to replace Justice O'Connor," reports the New York Sun.
"The filibuster is on the table," Sen. Barbara Boxer of California tells the Associated Press. "It's been on the table for 200 years." And Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois "hinted Democrats will filibuster a Supreme Court nominee they find too conservative," according to the Daily Herald of suburban Chicago--though what Durbin actually said was, "I hope it doesn't happen. I think at the Supreme Court level, it would be troubling. I hope it doesn't come to it. But it may, depending on the nominee."
Of course, actually executing a filibuster will require the cooperation of at least three of the seven Democrats who are on record as agreeing not to do so except in "extraordinary circumstances," as Schumer acknowledges:
"The bottom line is that the agreement said 'extraordinary circumstances,' but it also said the extraordinary circumstances are at the discretion of each of the individual senators," said Mr. Schumer, who sits on the judiciary committee. "So you'd have to ask each of them, they signed it. But I've talked to some, and of course judicial philosophy could be within in the realm of extraordinary circumstances. For me, for sure, and I think for the people who signed the agreement, most of them."
The Washington Post talks to four of the compromising Democrats, all of whom seem to be keeping their options open:
"In my mind, extraordinary circumstances would include not only extraordinary personal behavior but also extraordinary ideological positions," said Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.). . . .
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), one of the 14 who fashioned the agreement, said through a spokesman: "A nominee's political ideology is only relevant if it has been shown to cloud their interpretation of the law. . . . A pattern of irresponsible judgment, where decisions are based on ideology rather than the law, could potentially be 'extraordinary.' "
Sen. Ken Salazar (Colo.) rejected Republican assertions that he and other Democratic signers must accept a nominee as conservative as Janice Rogers Brown, now confirmed to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, because the agreement allowed her confirmation. "It didn't set a standard" for Supreme Court confirmations, Salazar said. "We would leave it up to each person to define what extraordinary circumstance means."
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), however, said judicial activism concerns him more than ideology. "Are they going to be an activist?" Nelson asked rhetorically in discussing what might cause him to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee. "Their political philosophy may not bother me at all if they're not going to be an activist."
A fifth compromising Democrat, Arkansas's Sen. Mark Pryor, is similarly vague in an interview with the Christian Science Monitor:
A test case of the agreement is whether a nominee as conservative as Janice Rogers Brown, confirmed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, could get past a filibuster threat for the Supreme Court. Senator Pryor says it's not clear. "Every nomination is different. . . . I would hope that Janice Rogers Brown would not ever be considered for the US Supreme Court. But I'd like to reserve judgment on that. I may be wrong about her. She may get on the D.C. circuit and be a wonderful surprise. I may change my mind on her over time. Let her have some time to develop there and show what sort of judge she may be," he said.
We couldn't find any comments from the remaining two compromising Democrats, Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Daniel Inouye of Hawaii.
Of course, talking about a filibuster is quite different from actually carrying one out. Each of the seven compromisers--as well as the five other Democrats we identified last month as disinclined to filibuster--will have to decide for himself if filibustering is worth the political price.
It's worth noting that the Democrats have not actually filibustered a single judicial nominee during this Congress, so the threat to do so may turn out to be an empty one. And if not, the Republicans can always fall back on the nuclear option, which they're entitled to do if the compromising Democrats violate the agreement.
Hey, Anything Can Happen
The Associated Press reports from Washington that Chief Justice William Rehnquist "could join O'Connor in retiring, setting the stage for a double nomination and Senate confirmation fight. Or he could remain on the job, overseeing the court through its first turnover since 1994. So far Rehnquist, who is 80, has given no hints."
Of course, Justice John Paul Stevens could join O'Connor in retiring, or he could remain on the job. So could any of the six other justices. What exactly is the news here?
Sanguine Journalism
Do we detect a trend here?
o "There is a risk that the White House will be completely sidetracked by a sustained and bloody judicial fight, and the nominee may not be confirmed."--Oxford Analytica/Forbes.com
o "A bloody, divisive fight in the Senate with a filibuster and the nuclear option may be unavoidable."--columnist Dale McFeatters
o "Both sides are preparing for a bloody political battle following Friday's resignation of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor."--Reuters
o "And so the country takes a brief breath before what promises to be a politically bloody summer with probably two Supreme Court seats up for grabs."--TheModerateVoice.com
o "Some conservatives are currently worried that Bush might actually opt to placate the opposition, out of a concern that a bloody Senate battle would stall the rest of his agenda."--Knight Ridder
o "Among the names mentioned in this mould are current appeal court justices Michael Luttig and Emilio Garza; but that sort of nomination would provoke a bloody fight with Democrats and left-wing pressure groups."--Times (London)
o "If the President pushes for a conservative, names already mentioned include Appeal Court justices Michael Luttig and Emilio Garza. But the appointment of either would likely lead to a bloody showdown with the Democrats and, in turn, to a filibuster."--Australian
o "Although the vast majority of his lower-court nominees have won Senate confirmation, Bush has consistently opted for bloody battles with Senate Democrats over his most controversial appointments. With the main event now upon him, will he change his approach? Both for the country and for him, it would be the right decision."--editorial, Newsday (Long Island, N.Y.)
o "The White House said Bush won't announce a nominee until at least July 8, after he returns from a trip to Europe, but the fight over that nominee is looking to be bloody."--Baltimore Sun
o "Editorial: Bloody Fight Need Not Occur"--headline, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
o "It would be nice to be able to hope that President Bush will actually try to pick a candidate who would be acceptably conservative, not extremist, and avoid a bloody, protracted, polarizing battle over this, including yet another fight over the 'nuclear option.' "--Gara LaMarche, HuffingtonPost.com
o "Does Bush want his legacy to be a justice of unassailable credentials and admirable intellect who carefully and honestly evaluates cases without a preconceived agenda? Or does he want to be remembered for stoking a bloody confrontation that allows the most ferocious political extremism on both ends of the spectrum to devour the nominee and any vestiges of good will in the capital?"--editorial, Fort Worth Star-Telegram
o "A bloody, no-win battle can be headed off if elected leaders resolve that there will be no litmus tests and no ideologues when it comes to this succession."--editorial, Indianapolis Star
o "Leon Panetta was the chief of staff in the Clinton White House, and he says, given the polarised nature of the American electorate at the moment, he hopes the nomination process won't be bloody."--Australian Broadcast Corp.
What Would Hollywood Do Without Insiders?
"In speculating about why moviegoing is down this summer insiders are starting to ask if there's a disconnect between the public and Hollywood over politics and social issues."--Hollywood Reporter, July 6
Zarqawi vs. Iraq
"The reputed leader of al-Qaida in Iraq said the Iraqi army is as great an enemy as the Americans and announced the formation of a new terror command to fight Iraq's biggest Shiite militia, in an audiotape found Wednesday on the Internet," the Associated Press reports from Baghdad:
The comments, purportedly from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, appeared aimed at discouraging armed Iraqi groups from entering talks with the Iraqi government. The tape challenged critics who maintain that fighting U.S. troops is legitimate, but who oppose attacks on Iraqi forces. . . .
"Some say that the resistance is divided into two groups--an honorable resistance that fights the nonbeliever-occupier and a dishonorable resistance that fights Iraqis," the speaker said. "We announce that the Iraqi army is an army of apostates and mercenaries that has allied itself with the Crusaders and came to destroy Islam and fight Muslims. We will fight it."
The speaker tacitly acknowledged pressure to abandon the struggle against the Americans and their Iraqi allies, saying he was "saddened and burdened" by people "advising me not to persist in fighting in Iraq."
He also said the Americans began speaking of negotiations to end the conflict after al-Qaida had "humiliated" U.S. forces on the battlefield.
But Iraq has nothing at all to do with the war on terror!
'Who Was I? Why Was I Here?'
Retired vice admiral James Stockdale, Ross Perot's running mate in 1992, died yesterday at 81, the Associated Press reports:
Stockdale gave a stumbling performance in the nationally televised vice-presidential debate against Dan Quayle and Al Gore and later said he didn't feel comfortable in the public eye.
"Who am I? Why am I here?" he asked rhetorically in his opening statement. Toward the end, he asked the moderator to repeat a question, saying, "I didn't have my hearing aid turned on."
But Stockdale was also a genuine war hero:
During the Vietnam War, Stockdale was a Navy fighter pilot based on the USS Oriskany and flew 201 missions before he was shot down on Sept. 9, 1965. He became the highest-ranking naval officer captured during the war, the Navy said.
Stockdale was taken to Hoa Lo Prison, known as the "Hanoi Hilton." His shoulders were wrenched from their sockets, his leg had been shattered by angry villagers and a torturer, and his back was broken. But he refused to capitulate.
Rather than allow himself to be used in a propaganda film, Stockdale smashed his face into a pulp with a mahogany stool.
"My only hope was to disfigure myself," Stockdale wrote in his 1984 autobiography "In Love and War." The ploy worked, but he spent the next two years in leg irons.
He might have been ill suited for politics, but here's someone who was unquestionably fit to command. May he rest in peace.
Once Upon a Time There Was a Memo . . .
"CBS News Explores Storytelling"--headline, Los Angeles Times, July 6
Another Argument Against Vegetarianism
"Study: Plants Storing Lethal Chemicals"--Associated Press, July 6
Bad Habits Can Be Broken
"Passersby Stop Stabbing on Street in NW"--headline, Washington Post, July 6
Good Riddance
"1,000 Sex Offenders Vanish in Arizona"--headline, Arizona Daily Star (Tucson), July 6
The Strange Story of 'Sandra O'Connor'
This gets curiouser and curiouser. On Friday we noted that the Associated Press had published a dispatch that began, "Sandra O'Connor, Baltimore County's state's attorney for more than three decades, has said she will retire." O'Connor actually is retiring as a Supreme Court justice, we noted, and pointed out several other apparent factual errors in the piece.
As we wrote yesterday, we heard from a lot of readers who told us that in fact the AP story was about the Baltimore County state's attorney, so we wrote that it appeared the wire service's only error was to refer to her by the name of the Supreme Court justice.
But what are we to make of this link, which various readers have now sent us? It appears to be a page from a Baltimore County site, and it identifies the Baltimore County state's attorney as "Sandra O'Connor." But there's a picture on the site, and the woman depicted looks nothing like O'Connor! (Compare here.) Has the Associated Press fallen for some sort of hoax? |
