MichaelFauntroy.com

Scalia and Alito Also Believe Courts Make Policy

Critics of recent U.S. Supreme Court-designee Sonia Sotomayor are apoplectic about video of comments she made regarding the law-making role of the Federal Court of Appeals.  She's right, of course, that courts at all levels make policy.

As I teach my students, the constitution is an organic document that changes with the times (hence, the various amendments). The notion that judges shouldn't make policy (or law) is laughable. They are in place to judge the legitimacy of a given policy. That, by extension, is policymaking (to end, or continue, the policy in question). The bottom line for me is the double-standard that some seem to have on this issue: If the judge rules in a way that runs counter to my philosophy, then he or she is an activist. If they rule in line with my beliefs, then he or she is "restrained" in their decision making.

Here is a piece that exposes this double-standard.

Sotomayor Has Been Challenging The Status Quo for Decades

Here is a very interesting story in the Los Angeles Times regarding an incident in which Sonia Sotomayor, then a law student, was confronted with the kind of ignorant stereotyping that is still in play today.  The article is a reminder of some of the persistent and prevailing assumptions that continue to exist in American society. She should be commended for standing up then and, hopefully, will continue to do so on the Supreme Court. 

Here's a piece from the ABA Journal that also discusses the matter.

Michael Steele's Many Problems

Michael Steele has been under a barrage of criticism from fellow Republicans since his ascendancy to the chairmanship of the Grand Old Party.  Along the way, he has embarrassed himself and his supporters with some of his rhetoric and for not seeming to show where he wants to take the Party.  But it’s not all his fault.  The GOP is in nearly as bad shape as the domestic automakers, so it’s probably accurate to believe that he was handed the keys to a beat up Ford Pinto, not a brand new Rolls Royce.  While he is the lightening rod, the GOPs problems can’t easily be fixed – by anyone.  Be that as it may, Steele’s stewardship of the Republican Party leaves much to be desired.

It’s not like he entered the job with a mandate for change.  He was the default winner of the chairmanship. One leading candidate was eliminated after the “Barack the Magic Negro” CD snafu.  Another had the temerity to seek the job despite membership in a racially exclusive country club – that’s not the resume line that suggests the GOP is really interested in having a “big tent.”  Steele’s win did not come with the momentum or wide range of enthusiastic support that one usually has entering this position, so his blunders and missteps have been magnified.

He got mocked at the White House Correspondents Dinner and has had a series of media blunders that have called into question his judgment and leadership.  He embarrassed himself by capitulating to Rush Limbaugh after showing some political bravery (and recognizing the facts) by stating that the bloviating talk show host was an incendiary force within the Party.  Conservatives seem to be the only ones who don’t understand that most people don’t want to support a party whose most important figure is a talk show host.  Steele’s honesty was followed by a hat-in-hand appearance on Limbaugh’s show.  That event, a month into Steele’s term, showed everyone that the chairman is neither feared nor respected by Limbaugh (and those of his ilk).

Steele will likely be among the fallguys after the 2010 elections which, at this early date, will look a lot like the 2006 and 2008 ones.  The rush to regionalize the GOP will be nearly complete by that time.  For the sake of a two-party democracy, let’s hope that moderates will find the strength they need to push back against a conservative onslaught that has nearly destroyed the GOP.

Michael K. Fauntroy is an assistant professor of public policy at George Mason University and author of the book Republicans and the Black Vote. He blogs at MichaelFauntroy.com.

Lindsey Graham is an Embarrassment.

I have removed Lindsey Graham from my list of honorable politicians.  His opposition to torture was well documented and seemed to be sincere.  This video is leading me to conclude that he is having a problem with consistency as it regards torture.

Michael Fauntroy on Tavis Smiley's PBS Show

Here is some video from my recent appearance on Tavis Smiley's PBS show on Thursday, May 14th.  I discussed Michael Steele's first 100 days as chairman of the Republican National Committee and the current condition of the Republican Party.

I "opened" for Maxwell.  He's a beast of a musician and I'm glad he's back.  Truth is, my wife has a serious crush on him; her eyebrow's lifted a bit when I told her he was on too.

John Edwards: A Gigantic Letdown

I believe that eradicating poverty and closing the gap between rich and poor is the most important thing our government can do.  A society with almost no poverty is one that has a healthcare system that works, an educational system that provides its customers with the tools they will need to compete in the global marketplace for jobs and good wages, and affordable housing, among other things.  I feel this in my core.  It's disgraceful to me that people in this country, the richest ever to exist in world history, has people living in reduced circumstances – whether its homelessness, mental illness, healthcare-related bankruptcy, etc.  As the gap between rich and poor grows, so does the likelihood of a societal uprising that will result in pain and suffering for all.  Don't get me wrong, I'm a capitalist and believe in making money.  I don't, however, want to continue our crooked version of capitalism that only enriches some at the expense of others. 

My concern about these issues led me to conclude that John Edwards' heart was in the right place.  I thought he had the ability to deal with poverty in a way that removed from Whites the notion that fighting poverty was a Black or Brown thing.  His “two America’s” was right down my alley.  I thought he had great promise.  I believed in what he was saying and didn't understand why Democratic voters weren't responding to his message with their votes and contributions.  I recoiled when he was referred to as a pretty boy because it obscured what he was talking about in the campaign.  The other major Democratic candidates were merely paying lipservice to ending poverty, rebuilding New Orleans, closing the gap between rich and poor, and generally doing the right thing for a change.  Hillary Clinton was busy trying to prove she could be as tough as any man and Barack Obama was focused on convincing Whites that he wasn't a scary Black man like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson.

And poor people continue to be ignored.

I guess my hope for John Edwards explains why I'm so pissed with him.  Elizabeth Edwards' recently published book appears to lay bare the incongruity that often exists between the private and public lives of politicians and others well-known people.  Maureen Dowd's column made my blood boil.  How could he?  His wife is dying of cancer.  He wants to be President of the United States?  How could he possibly believe no one would find out?  I always had the sneaking suspicion that she stood for more than he.  The recent revelations of his infidelity have removed my suspicion.

I feel like a fool.  He sang the policy songs I wanted to hear, while he was doing his best Newt Gingrich impersonation off the campaign trail.  I don’t want perfect public servants, but I do want ones that will act like they have some sense (I can’t believe he dogged out his wife like that!!).  I'm not a naive.  I understand men and women cheat all the time.  I get it.  Prominent married men get tail waved in their faces all the time.  Some respond accordingly; some don't.

He’s through as a public figure.  Hopefully, his policy stances can re-emerge, uninjured, in the form of another, more credible people.  The issues on which he based his presidential campaign are too important to ignore.

Chris Shays Got Two Bad Breaks Last November

At the end of his congressional career, Representative Chris Shays had the distinction of being the only Republican in the U.S. House of Representatives to represent a district in New England.  Shays, known as a moderate, was consistently outside of the Republican mainstream in an increasingly Democratic state, which made his re-election campaigns closely watched. He always won, usually by the skin of his teeth.  Until November 2008.  The Democratic wave carried Shays into an unwanted retirement.  That was bad enough.  Now this (as reported in The New York Times) --

In late November, Christopher Shays was still absorbing the shock of having lost his bid for re-election after 22 years in Congress when he made a troubling discovery: Tens of thousands of dollars had disappeared from his campaign treasury.

I guess you can file this one under "you just never know".