SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Judiciary -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: sandintoes who wrote (147)10/28/2005 2:13:12 AM
From: Peter Dierks  Respond to of 817
 
Lessons for the president's next nomination.

Friday, October 28, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

The withdrawal of Harriet Miers's nomination to the Supreme Court was going to happen sooner or later, so better that it happened yesterday, which is to say quickly and before any Senate hearings. The issue now is whether President Bush draws the proper lessons from this unhappy episode as he contemplates his next nominee.

To wit, in today's polarized judicial politics, it is unwise to nominate anyone but a seasoned and top-flight constitutionalist to run the Senate confirmation gantlet. Ms. Miers has many virtues, but it was simply unfair to send her--a non-combatant in the judicial wars--to the equivalent of the Russian front. All the more so when the White House had obviously done little preparation or vetting.

The result is that she found herself caught in a political crossfire, between conservatives suspicious of another stealth nominee (think David Souter) and liberals waiting to shoot her once she was wounded. Yes, some on the right pounced on Ms. Miers as if Mr. Bush had never nominated a single conservative judge as President. And a few were especially eager to get their 10 seconds of fame in the mainstream media (they'll now return to oblivion). But Ms. Miers failed in the end because she couldn't convince enough people that she really was the judicial conservative that Mr. Bush claimed.

The tipping point probably was this week's report of a 1993 speech in which Ms. Miers spoke approvingly of "self-determination" in resolving legal disputes about abortion. The view expressed in that speech seemed at odds with the White House's initial presentation of Ms. Miers as a pro-life evangelical Christian who--hint, hint--could be counted on to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

No matter what one's view of Roe, the speech fed the fears of those who worried that Ms. Miers's judicial views were not fully formed, and that her tenure on the Court would thus be an act of self-discovery a la Sandra Day O'Connor, the Republican appointee whose seat she was selected to fill.

Post-Miers, the political danger for Mr. Bush is that the episode shows he can be pushed around. This is already the chief Democratic talking point. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid immediately fingered "the radical right wing of the Republican Party" as responsible for the withdrawal. This is more than a bit rich, since it is Democratic threats of a filibuster that have caused Mr. Bush to look for nominees without too bold an intellectual pedigree. Mr. Reid is merely trying to deter Mr. Bush from making the kind of nomination that he knows would divide his own dominant liberal wing from Red State Democratic Senators.

Mr. Bush also shouldn't show much deference to Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, who yesterday moaned that the withdrawal was a "sad episode in the history of Washington." But Mr. Specter's warnings against nominating certain conservatives are one reason Mr. Bush picked Ms. Miers. And the Senator hardly contributed to the welcoming committee, appearing at one point with his liberal counterpart Pat Leahy (D., Vt.) to demand that Ms. Miers re-submit her Senate questionnaire. The lesson here is that Mr. Bush shouldn't take nominees off the table merely because certain Senators claim they might be hard to confirm.

The best way Mr. Bush can counter the "capitulation" charges is to show that he's not afraid of a political fight. He said yesterday that he will act quickly to name a new nominee, and we hope he'll select someone who can't be challenged on grounds of credentials--even if it means a Senate battle over judicial philosophy. There is a long list of candidates who, like John Roberts, fit that description. No one should get an automatic veto because he or she once said or wrote something potentially controversial on abortion or some other subject.

We also hope the President won't take anyone off the table because he--and we use that pronoun intentionally--doesn't meet a "diversity" test. Talent and experience trump ethnicity, and there are many supremely qualified jurists who happen to be white males, such as J. Harvie Wilkinson, Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, or Sam Alito. There are many highly credentialed women and minorities who are also worthy of re-consideration: Edith Jones, Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen, to just name a few. But well-known is better than stealthy.

The next nominee is not just about the Supreme Court but about fortifying Mr. Bush's political standing and bringing some forward momentum to his Presidency. Paradoxically, a judicial fight over philosophy is likely to help him. It will rally his core supporters, something he'll need if there are indictments in the Valerie Plame "leak" investigation. A debate would also educate the country about what is at stake in these Supreme Court nominations.

In choosing Ms. Miers, Mr. Bush tried to avoid such a debate, perhaps because he thought he had enough other fights on his hands. But the avoidance cost him much more than had he lost after a pitched battle on principle. The biggest lesson of the Miers nomination is that Mr. Bush can't avoid the battle for control of the Supreme Court that he promised Americans he would make in two elections.

opinionjournal.com



To: sandintoes who wrote (147)4/6/2006 9:40:45 AM
From: Peter Dierks  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 817
 
The Anti-Kelo
A heavy government hand isn't necessary for economic development.

BY STEVEN GREENHUT
Thursday, April 6, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

ANAHEIM, Calif.--While city officials have long micromanaged land-use decisions and appropriated private property for economic redevelopment, it was not until the Supreme Court's Kelo v. City of New London decision last summer that many Americans noticed the degree to which big government has set up shop on Main Street.

Take Garden Grove, an aging working-class city of gaudy strip malls and tract houses 34 miles south of Los Angeles. In 2002, officials planned to bulldoze a large, decent neighborhood to make way for a theme park, issuing bond debt to finance subsidies to help its developer. The project failed amid community protest; so the local government moved on, this time attempting to turn city-owned land over to a group of Indians who would work with a Las Vegas developer to build a casino.

Economic redevelopment is a serious, complex issue, but it isn't always done this way; and Anaheim, just north of Garden Grove, is proving it. Although the community faces similar problems, its city council, led by Republican Mayor Curt Pringle, is taking a more freedom-friendly approach to revitalization: protecting property rights, deregulating land uses, promoting competition, loosening business restrictions and lowering taxes.

Anaheim's old downtown was obliterated in the 1970s through past uses of eminent domain and urban renewal. Now, the city (population: 328,000) wants to build a new downtown, and the target location is called the Platinum Triangle, an area of one-story warehouses near Angel Stadium. In the typical world of redevelopment, officials would choose a plan and a developer, offer subsidies and exclusive development rights, and exert pressure on existing property owners to leave the area. Instead, Anaheim created a land-value premium by creating an overlay zone that allowed almost any imaginable use of property. Because current owners could now sell to a wider range of buyers, the Platinum Triangle is booming, with billions in private investment, millions of square feet of office, restaurant and retail space, and more than a dozen new high-rises in the works.

The area is developing quickly, without controversy and without a single piece of property taken by eminent domain. Early signs point to an enormous success. "Too often, I hear my colleagues in local government . . . say that Kelo-type eminent domain and redevelopment policies are their only tools to revitalize cities," Mr. Pringle recently said. "I have a simple message . . . Visit the Platinum Triangle."

The previous planning commission and city council were harsh on small businesses seeking variances; the new council (which took office in December 2002) began overturning one commission decision after another, with the goal of giving local residents and businesses as much leeway as possible.

The council waived fees for homeowners undertaking renovations, on the grounds that the city would gain in the long run by the increase in property taxes. Anaheim also waived fees for business start-ups for three months; some 2,000 new businesses formed in 2005, an increase of one-third from the previous year. It also passed a tax amnesty and eliminated business taxes altogether for home-based businesses. Most cities don't like to allow churches to build new worship centers, because tax-exempt churches typically locate in commercial and industrial areas, taking properties off the tax rolls. Anaheim has eliminated most hurdles for approving new churches. Its housing plan also avoids "inclusionary zoning"--an increasingly popular approach to mandate that builders set aside certain amounts of "affordable" housing.

"Mayor Pringle is a god in our world," says Kristine Thalman, CEO of the Building Industry Association of Orange County. "He gets it. He understands the regulatory issues and some of the impediments to development."

Anaheim's experiment happened almost by accident. Mr. Pringle had always been a free-market guy, and headed to the California State Assembly when he was 29. He still brags about "the largest business tax cut in California history" ($1 billion), passed while he was speaker. He ran for mayor in 2002 at the encouragement of other local leaders, but not, he says, with a specific policy goal in mind. "I didn't run thinking of these ideas. After winning, I realized this is the smallest council of the largest city in the state. I could change things . . . Local government is mostly devoid of exciting new ideas."

At the urging of then-Councilman Tom Tait, a Republican with libertarian leanings, he began to look at the command-and-control nature of local planning. He found a surprising ally in Councilman Richard Chavez, a liberal Democrat who agreed that the old rule-bound system was holding back opportunities for the city's emerging Latino community.

Mr. Chavez said he didn't know what to expect from Messrs. Pringle and Tait, but that both helped him early on in protecting the interests of some local businesses that were facing unfair treatment from the city. "Curt created a sense of trust," he says. That trust led to "incredible growth, incredible energy for the city and a success at providing housing at every level . . . . I get very little negativity, even from those on the left side of the aisle." Hermetic partisan politics drop away, evidently, in the face of verifiable success.

In many ways, the Kelo case incited a national property-rights mutiny, with hundreds of localities passing laws that limit the scope of the eminent domain power. Anaheim's circumstance is instructive in a different sense: By decentralizing bureaucracies and loosening cosseted government regulation, it has confirmed the vitality and audacity of private enterprise. The city has made itself a laboratory for free-market thought.

No doubt, most cities will plod along like Garden Grove, embracing typical big-government redevelopment policies. But success also attracts curiosity, other cities are learning from Anaheim. Many are in Orange County; but the story is spreading. Mayor Pringle says his ideas are being employed in the mayoral race up north in San Jose. He was most proud, he said, when Mayor Doug Davert, of nearby Tustin, recently vowed to "Pringle-ize" his community.

Mr. Greenhut, senior editorial writer and columnist for the Orange County Register, is the author of "Abuse of Power: How the Government Misuses Eminent Domain" (Seven Locks, 2004).

opinionjournal.com