Thursday, May 13, 2010
The Kagan-Myers Effect
President Obama will leave a lasting legacy on the supreme court by appointing Solicitor General Elena Kagan to replace liberal justice John Paul Stevens. At this point it appears the Republicans will save their political capitol and reserve a filibuster for a different issue. Elena Kagan will likely be the junior justice and the third woman sitting on the current court.
At the same time, I can't help but notice the double-standards and hypocrisy which mark the judicial appointment process. Elena Kagan's situation is similar to that of Harriet Myers. Both women had never served as a federal judge before being appointed to the highest court in the land. The difference is that Harriet Myers had been appointed as George Bush's popularity was in free-fall. Democrats saw her as a chance to rebuke a weakened president. Conservatives abandoned her out of concern she would not be conservative enough. The inexperience of Harriet Myers was an easy way for the Bush white house to withdraw her nomination and instead appoint Samuel Alito, a committed conservative voice on the court. In spite of opposition from liberal Democrats, Alito was able to secure nomination because he appealed to the conservative faithful. Alito's judicial experience could have served as a smokescreen for the conservative republicans and handful of democrats who supported his appointment.
Now that Elena Kagan is lining up to join the highest court in the land, I am disappointed that she isn't receiving the Harriet Myers treatment over her lack of judicial experience. Again, I suspect that "judicial experience" is used as an excuse to weed out unpopular appointments. Senators harangue about "judicial temperament" and not pre-judging cases, yet the truth is far more sordid. The court is becoming more partisan, to the point where Anthony Kennedy is the court's only swing vote who can't be seen as a consistent liberal or conservative.
If President Obama wants a consistent liberal judge to take the place of John Paul Stevens, that's his perogative as the president. But for a guy who criticized Harriet Myers on the basis of her experience, is it a bit much to ask him to find somebody with judicial experience?
Saturday, May 01, 2010
The Arizona Rebellion
Illegal immigration is a federal crime, punishable by deportation. Yet the US government has been extremely lax in its enforcement, and millions of illegal immigrants live and work in the United States. So the state of Arizona is taking matters into its own hands. The nationwide outcry concerns Arizona's empowerment of its state police to check on a person's citizenship "where suspicion of illegal immigration exists."
The challenge facing authorities is how to determine "suspicion of illegal immigration" without indiscriminately picking on Mexican-Americans. Does merely "looking Mexican" constitute grounds for a search? If I were a Mexican-American, I would hope that I could live my life without being pestered for proof of citizenship by the police. Even being an illiterate in English may not be reasonable grounds for raising the police's suspicion. (After all, there are millions of English-speakers in America who are incoherent in their native tongue.) The issue of racial profiling has scared the feds away from enforcing the existing immigration laws, to the point where they are a mockery of the law. The only fair way to enforce the immigration laws is to check the citizenship of everybody who is pulled over by the police. Even if you're a pasty white guy named Bubba with an American flag tattooed around your bicep, you should have no problem showing some kind of proof of citizenship during your next traffic stop.
I don't expect the Arizona immigration law to last very long. Previous attempts by states to enforce immigration laws (such as using the state's National Guard to patrol the border) have been challenged on grounds that only the federal government has the power to enforce national immigration laws. Even with four solid conservative votes on the Supreme Court, it's likely that this separation of powers will doom any attempt to enforce Arizona's new immigration statute.
Perhaps Arizona, and indeed the US Congress, should consider some real measures for fighting illegal immigration. As fond as the Obama Administration has been of nationalizing private businesses (such as banks and auto companies,) maybe it should pass a new law authorizing the seizure of any business that employs illegal immigrants. It will certainly make employers shit their pants at the prospect of hiring somebody who can't provide legitimate proof of citizenship. And if immigrants who haven't gone through the naturalization process can't find work, what will motivate them to risk hopping the border in the first place?
