Preserve the Balance
Team Supreme Blog
Counting the Proverbial Chickens
This week's newspapers brought to mind an important lesson in politics and journalism: don't always trust headline writers. This Tuesday's Washington Post reports "Roberts Unlikely To Face Big Fight; Many Democrats See Battle as Futile." But then the next day the New York Times reported "Senate Democrats Increase Resistance to Roberts."
One needs to look no further than the Chicago Daily Tribune "Dewey Defeats Truman" headline to realize that the media is fallible. Which reminds me of another lesson in politics: momentum does not equal success.
As the folks supporting Roberts at ConfirmThem.com know, nothing is certain until the final Senate vote. They rightfully point out that at this point in Clarence Thomas's confirmation, his success seemed doubtless. "Thomas to Win High Court Seat, Senators Predict," wrote the New York Times at the time. "Democrats Admit Thomas Heading Toward Senate Confirmation," said the Associated Press. The Los Angeles Times reported, "Democrats Talk as if Court Seat for Thomas is Assured." With an eye to the past, even Roberts' hard-core supporters know he's not a shoo-in.
Perhaps it is because the more we learn about Roberts' record, the more troubling it becomes. And this is with tens of thousands of pages of documents left to analyze. We already know that Roberts is hostile to civil rights, women's rights, worker's rights, and other fundamental Constitutional protections. If I were on their side of the fence, I wouldn't count my proverbial chickens either — especially before the American people have a chance to get a full and complete picture of Roberts' record.
One needs to look no further than the Chicago Daily Tribune "Dewey Defeats Truman" headline to realize that the media is fallible. Which reminds me of another lesson in politics: momentum does not equal success.As the folks supporting Roberts at ConfirmThem.com know, nothing is certain until the final Senate vote. They rightfully point out that at this point in Clarence Thomas's confirmation, his success seemed doubtless. "Thomas to Win High Court Seat, Senators Predict," wrote the New York Times at the time. "Democrats Admit Thomas Heading Toward Senate Confirmation," said the Associated Press. The Los Angeles Times reported, "Democrats Talk as if Court Seat for Thomas is Assured." With an eye to the past, even Roberts' hard-core supporters know he's not a shoo-in.
Perhaps it is because the more we learn about Roberts' record, the more troubling it becomes. And this is with tens of thousands of pages of documents left to analyze. We already know that Roberts is hostile to civil rights, women's rights, worker's rights, and other fundamental Constitutional protections. If I were on their side of the fence, I wouldn't count my proverbial chickens either — especially before the American people have a chance to get a full and complete picture of Roberts' record.
"Just Us" Sunday...
Yesterday, a constellation of anti-gay stars gathered in Nashville for the second installment of what they called Justice Sunday. Of course, I think it should be called "Just Us Sunday" because it was about excluding everybody else from the Constitution that doesn't conform to their narrow views about our nation's most revered document.
The anti-gay rhetoric was spewing. One speaker suggested that the courts invented the right of homosexuality. One claimed that the courts are making up rights, including the right to privacy and "the idea that two guys can get married." More on these rants later.
However, the organizers and speakers — including Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Tony Perkins, Phyllis Schlafly and James Dobson — claimed that the rally wasn't a pro-John Roberts gathering. Instead, DeLay, in talking about the purpose of the rally, said "We're here to protect the court so it can keep protecting us."
Well, then Mr. DeLay... who is "us"? Is "us" gay men and lesbians who were branded as criminals before Lawrence v. Texas? Is "us" the gay men and lesbians who were denied access to the political process in Colorado before the Supreme Court struck down Amendment 2 in Romer v. Evans? Is "us" the universities that want to bar recruiters from campuses that are in violation of their own anti-discrimination policies prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation?
For the Delays and Schlaflys and other anti-gay all-stars, it was a gathering of "Just Us." A true "Just Us Sunday". And now we in the GLBT community have heard yet again that these folks think the Constitution covers only Just Them.
The anti-gay rhetoric was spewing. One speaker suggested that the courts invented the right of homosexuality. One claimed that the courts are making up rights, including the right to privacy and "the idea that two guys can get married." More on these rants later.
However, the organizers and speakers — including Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Tony Perkins, Phyllis Schlafly and James Dobson — claimed that the rally wasn't a pro-John Roberts gathering. Instead, DeLay, in talking about the purpose of the rally, said "We're here to protect the court so it can keep protecting us."
Well, then Mr. DeLay... who is "us"? Is "us" gay men and lesbians who were branded as criminals before Lawrence v. Texas? Is "us" the gay men and lesbians who were denied access to the political process in Colorado before the Supreme Court struck down Amendment 2 in Romer v. Evans? Is "us" the universities that want to bar recruiters from campuses that are in violation of their own anti-discrimination policies prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation?
For the Delays and Schlaflys and other anti-gay all-stars, it was a gathering of "Just Us." A true "Just Us Sunday". And now we in the GLBT community have heard yet again that these folks think the Constitution covers only Just Them.
Stand By Your Man
After the Los Angeles Times reported John Roberts' involvement in the case Romer v. Evans, you might have expected the anti-gay extremist crowd to go berserk. After all, to them, simple equality for GLBT people threatens the "future of western civilization."
But what we heard from the far-right leaders and organizations was restraint. The Family Research Council -- one of the largest and well-funded Washington organizations dedicated to keeping GLBT people second class citizens -- issued a statement urging caution in "jumping to [the] conclusion" that Roberts has any sympathies for the GLBT community.
What do they know about Roberts' views on GLBT equality that the rest of the country doesn't? Well Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council, gives us a bit of a hint. In his daily "Washington Update" e-mail the day after the LA Times story, he assured supporters that he "spent the good part of yesterday on the phone and in meetings to get the facts" on Roberts. It begs the questions: who was Tony Perkins talking to and what did they say to make him comfortable not taking Roberts to task?
What seems most likely is that Perkins and other right-wing leaders heard from the White House that Roberts is solidly in the anti-gay camp and they need not worry. We already know that anti-gay leader Jerry Falwell was consulted by the White House for his views on potential nominees, as reported in July 13th's New York Times.
With opponents of equality pulling this Tammy Wynette 'Stand By Your Man' routine, fair-minded Americans should be concerned. Given Roberts' scant paper trail on GLBT issues, right-wing reaction to the Romer news might help us fill in a few blanks.
But what we heard from the far-right leaders and organizations was restraint. The Family Research Council -- one of the largest and well-funded Washington organizations dedicated to keeping GLBT people second class citizens -- issued a statement urging caution in "jumping to [the] conclusion" that Roberts has any sympathies for the GLBT community.
What do they know about Roberts' views on GLBT equality that the rest of the country doesn't? Well Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council, gives us a bit of a hint. In his daily "Washington Update" e-mail the day after the LA Times story, he assured supporters that he "spent the good part of yesterday on the phone and in meetings to get the facts" on Roberts. It begs the questions: who was Tony Perkins talking to and what did they say to make him comfortable not taking Roberts to task?
What seems most likely is that Perkins and other right-wing leaders heard from the White House that Roberts is solidly in the anti-gay camp and they need not worry. We already know that anti-gay leader Jerry Falwell was consulted by the White House for his views on potential nominees, as reported in July 13th's New York Times.
With opponents of equality pulling this Tammy Wynette 'Stand By Your Man' routine, fair-minded Americans should be concerned. Given Roberts' scant paper trail on GLBT issues, right-wing reaction to the Romer news might help us fill in a few blanks.
.