And The Problem Is?

This puzzling article about Supreme Court Justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor appeared in this morning's edition of the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/us/politics/29puerto.html?_r=1&hpw

Basically what it seems to be saying is that her job, as a young attorney, with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, somehow renders her less than qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice.  The gist of the argument seems to be:

1. Sonia Sotomayor represented indigent immigrants as part of her job.

2. She did her job well.

3. Therefore, she might presently be biased in favor of the people she used to represent as part of her old job.

The absurdity is not only in this argument, but that NYT reports it as though it's a legitimate conflict of interest.  All I can tell you (and this is from personal experience) is that we represent clients.  In order to do our job effectively, we have to empathize with our clients.  We are their advocates.  By this logic, all lawyers who have ever represented anyone in any capacity cannot serve on the Supreme Court, because we all have represented clients whose positions might be different from those of the parties we might judge.  The President will have to confine his search to first year law school students.  

Supreme Court Justice: Not a bad entry level job. 

Guantanamo Inmates To Alaska

I don't profess to be an expert on the subject of the Guantanamo inmates, however, I would like to make a couple of observations:

1. Guantanamo bay is unsettlingly close to south Florida--I don't know anything about this prison's security procedures, but it would seem to me that if an inmate was smart enough to escape, it might not take much more to get ahold of a small boat and get across the straights.  I know that those who raise the NIMBY problem are professedly concerned about having terrorists in their backyard, but I would counter that Cuba is our backyard.  A nice, remote location in the interior might be better.

2. Alaska is far away from most Americans, sparsely populated and very cold--Even if a prisoner could escape a supermax in Alaska, they would be very far away from our centers of population, and, depending on where it is in Alaska, might have to cover some very punishing terrain.  

Yes, the more I think about it, the more attractive a supermax in Alaska becomes forthe housing of Guantanamo inmates.  Of course, the Alaskans might not want them in their backyard, but that's fewer people being "inconvenienced" than anywhere else in the country.  Also, it's yet another opportunity for them to get federal funding.  Admittedly, this would also be a politically expedient solution for Obama, as Alaska has few electoral votes, and the Republicans will probably get them anyway (though I consider this, at most, an incidental dividend).

It seems like a winner all around.

P.S. I'm not, by this post, necessarily advocating that we indefinitley hold people without charging them.  That is, of course, a separate issue that I have to give more thought. 

Jon Huntsman--Ambassador to China

As many of you probably already know, President Obama announced this morning his appointment of Utah Governor Jon Huntsman as ambassador to Utah. You can find out more about that appointment here:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/16/utah-governor-to-become-ambassador-to-china/?hp

This is precisely the type of bipartisanship that the President promised us--and with this appointment, he is delivering (at least as much as he can insofar as the GOP is willing to co-operate. The appointment is of key importance for two reasons:

1. This is no mere symbolic gesture. China is the number two world power and arguably our greatest foreign policy challenge. Whoever serves in this post will have an enormous influence in shaping world affairs, and the U.S. role in them. Obama did not pick Huntsman just for the sake of picking a Republican. He doesn't have that luxury.

2. Huntsman has outstanding conservative credentials. He's the second-term governor of the most Republican state in the country. He was re-elected with the support of 77% of Utah voters. He is a strong fiscal conservative who has cut taxes substantially. Although he claims to favor making healthcare more widely available and affordable, he advocates doing so using free-market mechanisms such as tax cuts. You can learn more about Jon Huntsman's policies here:
http://www.utah.gov/governor/priorities/health_system_reform.html


Obama's choice of Huntsman demonstrates a continued strong desire on his part to work with Republicans. It also represents a willingness to look beyond his own party when filling important jobs He is a substantive pick for a substantive post, but he's no liberal masquerading as a conservative. His existence in the GOP, and his willingness to do it, should be consolation to Republicans wondering what has become of their party. If the GOP is to have a future, Huntsman represents the way forward. Of course, if Huntsman is confirmed it takes him out of the running in 2012, but I suspect that we will be seeing more of him in future election cycles. Whether we will also be seeing more of the Republican party, on the other hand, remains to be seen.

Cheney "Extremely Disappointed" at RHG Announcement

May 15, 2009

New York (AP)-An indignant former Vice President Dick Cheney offered biting criticism to Theresa and Ephraim Gerstein on their announcement that they were expecting their first child, earlier today. The child, who is currently being referred to by only its expected initials "RHG" is to be born in early December of 2009. In an early morning interview with David Brooks, Cheney called the announcement "precipitous, dangerous and irresponsible." "There is no doubt in my mind," Cheney went on to say, "that by disseminating such sensitive information so widely and at such an early date, Ephraim and Theresa have further endangered national security. They have clearly made America less safe and have given a big helping hand to the terrorists." When Brooks asked Cheney to clarify his concerns, Cheney replied "Oh come on, David! Do you really expect me to be able to anticipate every nefarious possibility? God only knows what these terrorists will do, and that's precisely why Americans need to vigilantly protect sensitive information. Frankly, as commissioned officers, they should know better. Their behavior was clearly dangerous and disloyal."

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs declined to issue an official comment. "Look," said Gibbs, "Dick Cheney has a lot of opinions on a lot of subjects. You name it, he has an opinion on it. If we had to comment every time that constipated old blowhard mouthed off, we'd never have time for the important news; and that really would be a threat to national security."

Support for the Gersteins came from an unexpected quarter, however: Archbishop Timmothy Dolan of New York. "The Archdiocese, and I personally, offer these dear friends only the warmest support and our heartfelt prayers as they enter this exciting new chapter of their lives," said Dolan. "I was personally wondering when they would have a kid. The news made my day. It's enchanting." When asked about Cheney's comments Dolan replied: "I don't profess to be an expert on foreign affairs, but it seems to me that now is the time to be patting both Gersteins--Theresa especially--on the back; not second guessing their decisions. The main thing is that they chose life; and that's a beautiful choice."