"The Architect," has apparently turned author. Americans learned of Karl Rove's newest career on January 28, 2009. During an interview with Fox News Broadcaster, Bill O'Reilly, the long-time Advisor to former President, George W. Bush, presented his novel manuscript to an expectant audience. Most tuned in to hear whether he would honor a Congressional subpoena. Few expected a reinterpretation of the epic fable, Moby Dick. Yet, there it was, a drama delivered.
The Courts and Congress have come to believe there is reason for fear. Enemies are everywhere. Those who wish to do us harm are in our homes. They talk to us on our telephones. Some sashay in through our computers. "Evil doers" are ubiquitous in the United States. Our open society places the public at risk. We, the people, must defend ourselves. Thus, the Supreme Court and Congress have given the government and us the means. The highest judicial body in the nation has made it possible for the common man to protect himself with a pistol; Legislators provided the President ethereal firearms. Indeed, individuals and the Commander-In-Chief were bequeathed more than either had asked for. In 2008, we have entered the Summer of Separation. In the United States we say, "Farewell to privacy. Hello to arms."
The video speaks volumes. The presentation is fun; yet, not funny. Indeed, as you say Mister Bush, this is a serious matter. Today we have a White House that cannot be trusted too keep their word, or in fact, they can be. After an extensive investigation, years of probing, the courts convicted I. [Scooter] Lewis Libby of a crime against the State. It was determined that this Former White House Aide is guilty of one count of obstruction justice, two counts of perjury, and one count of making false statements to Federal investigators. Libby lied to a Grand Jury and to the Federal Bureau of Investigation examiners.
It is official Brown versus Board of Education has been reversed. Providing equal education opportunities to all children, regardless of race, color, or creed is no longer a priority. The 1954 Court decision that invalidated the principle of “separate but equal” was overturned on June 28, 2007. This day will live in infamy. In another of the many recent 5 to 4 split decisions, the neoconservative Supreme Court canceled the promise made to students of color.
Belated Prologue . . .
I realize in retrospect I ranted and raged in haste. I was less reflective than I might have been. I did not consider how my words might be received. Thus, I neglected to state a significant point. Accepted political postures now supplant dictionary definitions. Back in the day, a conservative was one that conserved. They did not waste money or energy; nor did they treat life with little care. Natural resources were of great values to conservatives. Conservatives retained worthy traditions. Conservatives were cautious.
Currently, when we speak of conservatism, we equate the term with theories such as "trickle down economics." We think of those that allow for trillions of dollars in debt. Conservatives believe fighting terrorism in a protracted war that cost billions of dollars each week is best. It is conservatives that flippantly send our troops to battle; thus, endangering their lives. William H. Rehnquist was considered Chief among conservatives.
I admittedly apologize for my own reactivity. Earlier in the week, I began writing a missive on Judge John G. Roberts.; the topic was to be, “comparable worth.” I was inflamed by his positions on women. However, I was distracted; life took precedence, other issues entered my consciousness, and I delayed in completing my composition.
My head and heart were filled with disdain for the candidate during those days and therefore; I reacted to a report in a less than thoughtful manner. Instead of continuing my missive on Roberts and women, I wrote of Roberts, the voice of Reagan. Upon reflection, I realize my words were more reactive than reflective. My original mission influenced my feelings. In retrospect, I acknowledge a need to be true; I need to write of what really concerns me and why, and I need to voice my apology for my previous posture.
I will start with my regret and realization and then turn to what is accurate, the deplorable reality of John G. Roberts and his record. I will write of Roberts and women, Roberts and the Bush administration, Roberts and the law, Roberts the environment, and Roberts on “us,” we the people.
Weeks ago, it was thought, John G. Roberts Jr. did not wield much power while serving as a White House lawyer in the Reagan administration. His official title was special assistant to the attorney general, William French Smith. Surely, all his work was done on behalf of his superiors. He, as a subordinate had little authority. However, since early, this week, when the Reagan Library released some 5,400 pages of Roberts wrings, we discover that the earlier notion was in error. John G. Roberts Jr. was actually quite an influential force. Roberts served as a judge, not merely a legal advisor while working with the Reagan administration.
Roberts adjudicated who could see President Ronald Reagan. He decided when the President was available, where he would appear, and under what circumstances. Roberts mission was to protect the President from his friends. Roberts worked to ensure that the actor-President would not promote commercial ventures. Roberts' role was to save the President from himself. There was an accepted fear the Commander-and-Chief word harm himself if he spoke spontaneously; who knew what his words might cause.
Senate Democrats are demanding access to more of John G. Roberts’ writings. Before they approve the Supreme Court nominee, they wish to know who is this man. However, information is inaccessible. The Whitehouse refuses to supply it. Filibuster is the form that the administration is adopting. The Whitehouse states it has accommodated requests for papers; they have saturated Senate offices with 15,000 pages of text. These folios document Roberts’ service during the early Reagan years. Some say, shifting through these sheets of paper is as reading tealeaves; there is much roughage and little of it advances a message.
Senator Patrick Leahy wonders; is the Whitehouse, “flooding us with stacks of really unimportant materials in order to divert attention from those that the matter most.” One never knows; however, we can surmise.
The documents that were delivered are old. They date back to 1980 -1981. In these years, Roberts served as a special assistant to Attorney General, William French Smith. In this position, his power was limited. His personal and moral views were, rarely, if ever visible. Roberts worked for the Attorney General. The views he expressed were not his own, they were those of his superior. Therefore, pages from these years reveal little of the man.
The documents from more recent years, those that the Whitehouse states are “secret,” are thought to be of greater importance. Senators believe the latter pages will divulge more about the man. The administration argues, these documents do not necessarily offer Roberts’ personal views. Some in the beltway say this stance is the “crown jewel of attorney client privilege.”
I recall the 1992 Presidential elections, vividly. Beginning in 1991 with the primaries, continuing into the campaign, and later, even after the votes were counted, the press and public expressed great concern. They stated it openly, frequently, and loudly. There was apprehension. The potential First Lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton was considered an activist, well educated, intelligent, and a professional woman.
The accepted image of a First Lady differed from the public impression of Mrs. Clinton. Former First Lady’s were thought to be demure; they appeared to sit silently by their husband’s side. They were content be courteous. They needed nothing more. Many doubts were expressed about Hillary. It was believed that she would not be well suited for the position of First Lady. Numerous persons predicted Mrs. Clinton would serve as a second president; they were certain she would. For years, the clamor continued. Remember the health care commission.
• Please read this recent release, Confirmation Path May Run Through Florida. Jeb Bush spokesman Jacob DiPietre told the Los Angeles Times, "Judge Roberts was one of several experts who came to Florida to share their ideas. The governor appreciated his willingness to serve and valued his counsel." The now President appreciated his service as well.
Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O’Connor offers her resignation on this Friday, July 1, 2005. This was not as expected, though she has spoken of the possibility for many years. It was thought that Chief Justice William Rehnquist might tender his letter of leave, for his health is failing and has been for quite some time. However, Rehnquist was not the news on this day. Instead, the notable swing-vote jurist announced her departure. Now, the dance begins. The directive for this dance is “domination,” Supreme domination.
The announcement of O’Connor’s departure is not as a Rehnquist resignation might have been. The deliverance differs. Rehnquist leave will not prompt the rumba and rumblings that O’Connor has. Rehnquist is a Bush backer. If Justice Rehnquist submitted his intention to depart, Bush would not be jumping for joy; the Chief Justice departure will not be a source of exuberance. For replacing the Chief will not alter the basic structure of the current court. Nor, will it afford Bush greater power. O’Connor, on the other hand, holds a pivotal position. She did not consistently side with Bush; therefore, replacing her will be a pleasure. This possibility may provide Bush and his brigade with greater hegemony, and thus we have the hoorays and hullabaloo.
George W. Bush and the neoconservatives have been preparing for the rhythmic rendition that the O’Connor resignation affords. They are ready to reap their “just” rewards. The President and his alliance have gathered forces and established power. They think that they have the necessary support and will be able to place an extremist and activist in the Supreme Court. Another conservative in a divided Court would swing the pendulum further to the right. It would magnify their malevolence; amplify their ability to manipulate, and this would be wonderful.
Bush, Rove [the “Architect”], the Cabinet, ultra-conservatives, and other cronies have encroached thus far, without the full command of the courts. History has been on their side. However, the idea of securing the Supreme Court would ensure that ascendancy is complete.