an unanticipated consequence of
Jack M. Balkin
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Bernard Harcourt harcourt at uchicago.edu
Scott Horton shorto at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman marty.lederman at comcast.net
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at princeton.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
Bush Creates Common Ground Between Liberals and Conservatives
Lest anyone think that only liberals are appalled at the claims and actions of the Bush Administration, consider this passage from a recent New Yorker article (July 3, 2006) by Jane Mayer detailing the dark activities of David Addington, Cheney's Chief of Staff:
Bruce Fein, a Republican legal activist, who voted for Bush in both Presidential elections, and who served as associate deputy attorney general in the Reagan Justice Department, said that Addington and other Presidential legal advisors had "staked out powers that are a universe beyond any other Administration. This President has made claims that are really quite alarming. He said there are no restraints on his ability, as he sees it, to collect intelligence, to open mail, to commit torture, and to use electronic surveillance....It's got the sense of Louis XIV: "I am the State." Richard Epstein, a prominent libertarian law professor at the University of Chicago, said, "The President doesn't have the power of a king, or even that of state governors. He's subject to the laws of Congress! The Administration's lawyers are nuts on this issue." He warned of an impending "constitutional crisis," because "their talk of the inherent power of the Presidency seems to be saying the courts can't stop them, and neither can Congress."
In an interview last week, William F. Buckley, the intellectual leader of American conservatism, made the following tart comments:
I think Mr. Bush faces a singular problem best defined, I think, as an absence of effective conservative ideology--with the result that he ended up being very extravagant in domestic spending, extremely tolerant of excesses by Congress, and in respect of foreign policy, incapable of bringing together such forces as apparently were necessary to conclude the Iraq challenge....
There will be no legacy for Mr. Bush....I think his legacy is indecipherable.
Several publications put out by the American Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute, two respected conservative think tanks, characterize Bush Administration economic policies in terms of gross "corporate welfare." Republican Peter Peterson's book, Running on Empty, is a frightening description of our huge deficit, and its future implications, brought on by the mindless Bush Administration policy of cutting taxes for the rich. Peterson was quoted in Nation: "I'm rather offended that fat cats like me are getting tax cuts which over the longer term will only serve to increase taxes on my own children and grandchildren at a time when our entitlement programs are underfunded."
In the period leading up to the 2004 election, a number of conservatives expressed opposition to various Bush Administration policies, but most tempered their criticism. The few isolated voices then is now a chorus headed toward a crescendo. Beside oil companies and defense contractors, the one constituency that appears to remain firmly behind Bush are religious conservatives (see stem cell veto).
When liberals criticize the Bush Administration they are often dismissed by conservatives as unbalanced Bush-haters. That doesn't cut it anymore. In an extraordinary feat, the extremism of the Bush Administration appears to be creating common ground for the left and the right. Posted
by Brian Tamanaha [link]
I can't get excited by these conservatives now complaining about George W. They surely knew back in 2000 that George W was being propped up in his candidacy and qualified only as Republican royalty. They probably thought that he could be managed despite (or because of) his majoring in cheerleading (and minoring in history) at Yale. George W has best been described as a Texas fence post turtle. He needed on the job training more than perhaps any President since Harding. And how has he performed? Take a look at the video of George W's response to David Gregory's question at yesterday's press conference with Tony Blair. (Boy, would I love to be able to read Tony's mind as he attentively listened to George W's rambling nonresponsive response. He was probably thinking of the lucrative offer to join Murdoch's media empire, as the Brits no longer have one.)
while i also don't necessarily get excited by conservatives beginning to realize what a disaster bush is, considering that we do have our share of conservatives who post comments on line, i would be interested in seeing a straightforward opinion from some of them, simply on the issue of how they feel about bush, his policies both domestic and foreign, and if they feel he has been good or bad for the country. one caveat... i'm not interested in seeing a post devoted to liberal bashing, just a post simply devoted to whether or not you truly think the president is doing a good job.
There are a few purposes of writting to You. I am very interested in Your blog balkin.blogspot.com address. I want to ask You to concede Your balkin.blogspot.com blog address. ''Why do I ask Your balkin.blogspot.com address?'' - because I am going to build one site(about cars) on Your blog's address. This site will be quite popular with about 10, 000 unique visitors from USA per day (I know, because I found one niche in the Internet and in order to make use of it I very need balkin.blogspot.com address). What benefit will You get after You concede me Your balkin.blogspot.com address? - in my new site I would insert an advertisement of Your site(whatever You want) plus in a new site on Your old address I could write something like this: ''The old site moved to your-new-address.com. The new site is about cars''. Therefore You will get about 100-200 new unique visitors to Your site per day from Yours advertisement at new site plus You don't lose Your old visitors. So, I plead You, concede balkin.blogspot.com address to me(just address, not the blog) to make absolute use of it.In addition, for conceded Your blog address You will get domain name ending with .com, .net , .org, .info, .biz for free for Your new blog address(for example www.Your-site-address.com). For more information send me an e-mail to email@example.com .
Waiting for Your answer (please answer me, suggest Your rules, just say ''NO'', if You are not interested, but closely think, because I win but You win too).