Monday, October 1, 2012

First Monday in October: The Supreme Court or Arnold Schwarzenegger??

The Supreme Court’s Session begins on the first Monday in October. Thus, we should be writing about the new Supreme Court term.

However, Governor Schwarzenegger’s autobiography, Total Recall, came out today. Thus, we should be discussing the Governator.

The Supreme Court or Schwarzenegger? That is the question.

The Future of America

The Supreme Court

Sex, titillation, lascivious conduct

The Governor

Why not Sex and the Supremes?

That’s an oxymoron.

Diana Ross and the Supremes sounds good. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Supremes is abhorrent.

Let’s do both separately.

It’s easy to start with the Governor. Tell me when his 646 page book is in the Dollar Closeout Bin, and I might buy it. I also did not watch the 60 Minute Interview. No reason exists to feed his ego.

Total Recall is the inappropriate title of his book. Total recall is what the voters of California did to his incompetent predecessor Gray Davis. Total recall is what the voters of California should have done to Governor Schwarzenegger when he abandoned his principles and accelerated California’s ride into bankruptcy.

The media cares he screwed Maria Shriver, Brigitte Nielsen, Mildred Baena, and a host of others. He lived by Hollywood mores.

That’s nothing compared to screwing the 38 million people of California, and sullying what was left of the Republican image in California.

Chapter One of his book should be entitled “The Art of Leadership”

The first word in the chapter should be “Cojones.”  Golda Meir had them; Arnold doesn’t. Margaret Thatcher has them; Arnold doesn’t. Deloris Huerta has cojones. Arnold doesn’t. Angela Merkel has them. Not the Governor who kept checking which way the wind was blowing.

Perhaps all the steroids he ingested affected him.

Total recall? Selective Recall is more the case. Apparently nothing about his history of sexual harassment; nor a more inclusive discussion of his affairs. Perhaps they were all an affair to forget. His being an “expert in living in denial” provides the proper title for his book, “Living in Denial.”

Does he talk about Senate Majority Leader John Burton approaching him on the ballot measure to bond the state deficit as a one-time solution to the state’s deficit, presumably to resolve the problem once and forever. The issue was not the bond, but the companion measure for a hard cap on state spending, which the state voters would have passed at the point.

Senator Burton is reputed to have warned the Governor that the teacher’s unions would have defeated him for reelection. The non-Governator then substituted a leaky rainy day fund for the hard cap.

Does he recall how he caved after the nurses’ union picketed him?

Does he recall why he hired a Democratic apparatchik as his Chief of Staff?

Does he explain how he became a tax and spend liberal?

Does he explain how he would fly a private jet from LA to Sacramento round trip every day he met in Sacramento while pushing a carbon control bill through the Legislature?

The failed governor is apparently on a self-promotion tour to rehabilitate his image. He also founded the Schwarzenegger Institute for State and Global policy at the University of Southern California.

His ego won't let him fade quietly into the night.

And now to the Supreme Court. This is another critical year for the Court with the major cases pending before it. That’s the case every year.

Affirmative action  - yet again. Voting rights – yet again. Alien Torts Claims Act – yet again. The unlawful usurpation of power by the Obama EPA- yet again. Gay marriage – that’s new.

The difference this year is not the caseload, but the status of Chief Justice Roberts. Now that he has tasted the dark side by affirming ObamaCare, will he be seduced by it?

The fellow Justices are all politically savvy. The four stalwart conservatives have said their opinions of the Chief have not changed. They may say that publicly, but they will not forget.

The Justices have great respect for each other. They understand that each votes his or her own conscience pursuant to a core set of values. They may disagree judicially, but the respect is there.

Not this time. The Chief Justice, for reasons known only to him, ignored his oath to uphold the Constitution, while apparently caving to political pressure “to uphold the Court’s image.” If so, he failed. The Court’s unfavorable image has now hit a 25 year high while the favorability image continues to drop. He has turned the Court’s image into that of just another political agency. The Court should be above politics.

The Chief Justice, the otherwise brilliant Harvard grad, seems to have forgotten that our federal government is one of enumerated powers. His decision essentially points the way to a monolithic national government.

Which Chief Justice will judge this year? Is the answer blowing in the wind?

The Governator and the Chief: Not Two Profiles in Courage

No comments: