Sabato misses the point

Mount Olympus?

There was quite a fuss over President Obama’s remark in the State of the Union that the Supreme Court opened the floodgates to special interest in its Citizens United opinion.

The President’s comments in full: “With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.”

There is something to be said about the President’s own inaccuracies, but many have already done so and I won’t be redundant.

I’m writing to address the response by Dr. Larry Sabato. Professor Sabato, as I hope to have the privledge of calling him next semester, responded to the President’s quote, Justice Samuel Alito’s response and the response of the media by writing for Politico.com.

In part he wrote that,

“Mr. Obama’s blunt attack on the Court’s ruling, with the members sitting in front of him, was no doubt stunning and unsettling to some, and it contradicted his frequent calls for bipartisanship and civility.

…

“At the same time, President Obama had every right to denounce a decision that is fundamentally at odds with his beliefs.

…

“Still, I believe the members of the Court are entirely too sheltered by lifetime tenure as well as often-obsequious deference to them during their public appearances. Comfortably ensconced on the constitutional equivalent of Mount Olympus, they can seem oblivious to the real-world consequences of their rulings. It is good for them to be challenged in public by the President and others.

…

“No one wants a brawl, but it is good for the Court to be reminded that it is not a hermetically sealed institution—and it’s good for the President to be reminded that how he says something is often as important as what he says.”

Professor Sabato has written before on his opinion that the Court is far too sheltered from the rest of American political development. He has argued against lifetime tenure, insteading pushing for non-renewable terms.

I think, however, the President’s comments and the response of many to the Court’s ruling exemplifies the very need for lifetime tenure and entirely insulated from “politics.”

Think for a moment if members of the Supreme Court did not have lifetime tenure. Would they have been more or less likely to issue a ruling many members of the current political party in power openly disagree with? Surely, less is the obvious answer. On the other hand, if Republicans were in power would they have been more or less likely to issue the ruling from two weeks ago? Obviously, more.

But because our Judges are appointed for a lifetime and need not to worry about being removed merely because of an opinion, they can issue opinions they deem as proper interpretations of the law.

Much can be said about campaign finance laws that restrict the voice of many, merely because they have more money, but that’s not the point at hand here. It is to say that because judges are relatively unaffected by partisan tides or the ebb and flow of political opinion, they can make decisions that perhaps in the long run are more beneficial to the Union as a whole.

Professor Sabato argues for non-renewable terms in his book “A More Prefect Constitution.” The problem with non-renewable terms is that Judges would still then be forced to worry about what to do once they leave the Supreme Court. A Judge who knows that in 10 years he will need to find another job, in my opinion, is more likely to curry favors or partisanship in his or her opinions.

The Supreme Court is an institution with a valuable role in American political development. The necessity for judicial review of both the Executive and the Legislative branch requires that the Court be immune to the factors that influence those branches and thus be immune to any influence those branches may attempt to exercise.

I think, Professor Sabato, fails to see this argument because he thinks “politics is a good thing” and indeed it is. But for American political development to operate as it was intended to and to ensure the Executive doesn’t ignore the Legislature and to ensure that neither the Executive nor the Legislature ignore the Constitution, an independent Judiciary is absolutely necessary.

Too Much Political Correctness

The threat of a terrorist attack against the United States was renewed this Holiday Season when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab almost blew up NWA Flight 253 as it approached Detroit.

In his remarks to the American people, which by the way came three days after the attempted terrorist attack and in the middle of the afternoon on a Monday which most Americans were working, President Obama condemned the attacks and called it a “serious reminder of the dangers we face.”

He failed to address, however, the real problem: radical, religious extremism, specifically, radical, Islamic extremism.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was a radical, Islamic extremist and that extremism alone remains the greatest to the United States of America. President Obama, and others, have failed to address that point.

Political correctness is causing problems, especially when it comes to airport screening. Mark Steyn accurately addressed this by saying “you can congratulate yourself on how impeccably multi-cultural and non-discriminatory you are, but people are going to die because of it. Fourteen people died at Fort Hood because of political correctness.”

More people could have died on NWA Flight 253 and more people could die in the future because we’re to afraid to admit that radical Muslims are the ones trying to blow up our buildings and airplanes.

It’s difficult to say this without coming across as discriminatory, but that’s the honest truth of it.

Clear Information: The Problem with Iran

“Alarming” revelations this weekend about Iran’s peaceful uranium enrichment program show that it may not be so peaceful after all. CNN picked up on the story this morning, citing a Western diplomat, but the UK’s Times Online had the story yesterday.

Confidential intelligence documents obtained by The Times show that Iran is working on testing a key final component of a nuclear bomb.

The notes, from Iran’s most sensitive military nuclear project, describe a four-year plan to test a neutron initiator, the component of a nuclear bomb that triggers an explosion. Foreign intelligence agencies date them to early 2007, four years after Iran was thought to have suspended its weapons programme.

An Asian intelligence source last week confirmed to The Times that his country also believed that weapons work was being carried out as recently as 2007 — specifically, work on a neutron initiator.

The technical document describes the use of a neutron source, uranium deuteride, which independent experts confirm has no possible civilian or military use other than in a nuclear weapon. Uranium deuteride is the material used in Pakistan’s bomb, from where Iran obtained its blueprint.

“Although Iran might claim that this work is for civil purposes, there is no civil application,” said David Albright, a physicist and president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, which has analysed hundreds of pages of documents related to the Iranian programme. “This is a very strong indicator of weapons work.”

This highlights the problem of President Obama’s international relations thought on dealing with Iran. The truth of the matter is we really do not know what we are getting from them and if it in any way resembles the truth. Clear information is very important when it comes to resolving conflicts short of war and what we’re getting from our discussions with Iran and other major powers on the nuclear issue is anything but clear.

Legitimate Democracies do not go to war with legitimate Democracies because of dispute-resolution mechanisms and clear information. Iran is not a legitimate Democracy, evidenced by the fraudulent elections this summer.

My lack of faith in engagement should not imply support for a get tough approach. There are no indications that worked either, evidenced by the failures of the Bush Administration to prevent Iran from getting to this stage in the development process.

The point is however to say that something, albeit I am not sure what, needs to be done if we are truly determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Thoughts on the President’s Strategy for Afghanistan

The President’s decision to send 30,000 new troops to Afghanistan is the right decision. Unfortunately, the attached conditions leave me disappointed. While I understand the political difficulty of the President’s decisions, I hoped for another outcome.

White House Photographer Pete Souza

President Obama in his address on “the Way Forward” in Afghanstian said he would commit 30,000 new troops to the war-torn country, but stipulated they will begin withdrawing in 18 months.

I recognize the tough political position President Obama is in. The left is already blasting him for creating a “surge” and the right, though more friendly than the left, is upset at the timetable.

His decision reflects the difficulty of bridging domestic politics and international relations. Throughout U.S. history, policymakers have faced this dilemma. Moreover, throughout the recorded history of international relations, policymakers have faced this dilemma. How does one reconcile the “national interest” with public opinion, the influence of democratic institutions like Congess and other political interests, i.e. the people who donate money and drive your policy?

President Obama was elected on a platform of change. Thus is his difficulty of continuing the war in Afghanistan much the way his predecessor did and thus is the reason for the timetable – to pacify his political pace. You can’t blame him, it is an obviously necessary move if he doesn’t want to ruin his party’s midterm elections in 2010 or his reelection campaign in 2012.

Having admitted that I understand his logic and reasoning for implementing a time table, I still have to share my distaste. I hoped that the President might put politics aside for the sake of victory.

It comes down to this question: do we have a vital interest in a peaceful and allied Afghanistan? I would answer yes and say furthermore, we have an interest in a peaceful and allied Middle East. That includes Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq and beyond. Because defeat in Afghanistan would allow the Taliban to operate functionally, Afghanistan is a country of vital interest to the security of the United States. Lest we not forget from where the terrorist attacks of September 11 were orchestrated.

The President disagrees, I believe and has done so by making evident his lack of desire to achieve total victory in Afghanistan. He has scaled back the war on terror, actually ended it, and this move further reiterates that point.

The President has developed an exit strategy not predicated on victory. He has done so for the two reasons I already mentioned: (a) domestic political influence and (b) failure to understand the vital importance of a peaceful and allied Afghanistan.

Tiger, Tiger, Tiger…

Tiger Woods released a statement Wednesday revealing little, but making apparent he has had an affair. The National Enquirer published an article last week claiming this, which Tiger initially denied. After his car accident, it became apparent there was a domestic problem and Tiger had to come clean.

I have let my family down and I regret those transgressions with all of my heart. I have not been true to my values and the behavior my family deserves. I am not without faults and I am far short of perfect. I am dealing with my behavior and personal failings behind closed doors with my family.

…

For all of those who have supported me over the years, I offer my profound apology.

This should come as no surprise – a celebrity being unfaithful to his/her spouse is nothing new. Tiger Woods has to be the last person the sports world would expect though.

Tiger Woods

For years Tiger has been the epitome of perfection. He has dominated his sport, his image has been spotless and his name recognition is 100 percent. He was the perfect athlete on and off the playing field. Everyone rooted for him and everyone loved his commercials. He was a role model for countless aspiring athletes across every sport.

Will any of this change? No one really knows yet. All I can say is that I’m extremely disappointed.

Tiger Woods is human and we must recognize that we can ask no more of him than we ask of the guy in the office or the guy down the street. He is allowed mistakes and deserves to be forgiven. Recognizing he is not super-human doesn’t make this any more difficult for sports fans.