July 2009

Now that the hearing for Judge Sonia Sotomayor is over, what do we know about the kind of justice she would be? Not more than we knew before it. We know she’s an articulate, bright lawyer who knows the law as much as you’d expect someone who’s been an Appellate Court judge for the last decade. When Chief Justice John Roberts was confirmed, his hearing was only notable for the frequency of his use of the words stare decisis, citing the need for the court to rely on precedent. And Justice Samuel Alito’s rather fades from memory. After the contentious theatrics of several prior nominations, nominees are prepped to answer without giving away any information. For as long as the Congress is polarized along party lines the system may not be able to change. So why hold a hearing? Have we reached the point where they become a game? If so, why not devise some other system, one that avoids the waste of the Congress’ time, ours, and too the vapid comments from media commentators.

Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold, known for their effort at campaign finance reform are once more making a point about campaign finance. They have put a hold on President Obama’s nominee to the Federal Election Commission. Two other seats will come to be vacant and they want to know who will be on them since the nature of the FEC is at stake and they still believe in the need for election reform. The current FEC they say is “mired in enforcement gridlock.”
As a candidate Obama opted out of the public financing system which freed him to end up raising almost a billion dollars. But he did promise to overhaul election financing and the commission that is supposed to enforce campaign law. So far—and let’s cut him some slack—he has yet to address it. Cutting him slack, however, doesn’t mean this is not an important issue. Not only is it important to anyone who believes billion dollar campaigns are ultimately not in the public good, it is also one that fits into the reevaluation of the private and public spending the economic crisis is eliciting–for it would seem likely that public financing of political campaign would help us in the needed reordering of our priorities. Senators McCain and Feingold are right to make a point and continue their involvement. They also serve as reminders that we too mustn’t forget the issue.

Like many I search for solid information to better understand whether the economic stimulus is working. Warren Buffet thinks it is and also thinks we need another. Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman thinks that too. The Republicans in Congress, however, have decided it is not and no second stimulus is necessary. As I keep researching this, I read that it is the first time the Republicans are united against Obama, that they have been looking for an issue to show they are against his policies. Does being the party in opposition mean being against something? Just like, I say white, you say black and so forth. That’s a game, not a position. Being in opposition means offering another idea, another solution, another way to reach the goal or at the very least having a thoughtful reason as to why the issue in question would not be helpful. If the Republicans’ stance on the stimulus continues it will give many cause to think that the party is coming before the country. That’s doesn’t seem what the Founding Fathers intended when they institutionalized opposition. I still don’t have the answers I’d like about the economic stimulus, but I know that opposing an issue by being against it is not one.