In reference to Andy's post about Kerry threatening a filibuster, our buddy Tucker posted a rant. I'm not going to belabor the main board with his screeds, but you can read them
here if you're so inclined.
I challenged him to produce some evidence, other than DNC talking points, of any tendency by Alito to "extend and/or increase the powers of the executive branch." The fact that Tucker is almost verbatim repeating the verbiage used by Kennedy, Biden, and Schumer on this issue is probably proof enough that he doesn't understand the topic. He replied with a typically juvenile rant, but he did provide some links on the topic. Predictably, the links are to sites (like New Republic) that are nothing more than the online outlets of the DNC's talking points.
All things being equal, I would probably have ignored this, but it does illustrate a fundamental difference between those who believe in preserving the republic in keeping with the original intent of the founders and those who would transform us into something closer to a participatory democracy which will inevitably lead to a Soviet-style socialist state. The former group is usually mislabeled as "conservative" whereas the latter group are accurately called "Democrats."
Here are Tucker's links:
Consortium NewsThe New RepublicCommon DreamsUniversity of Michigan Law SchoolIn fairness, the last link is simply the text of a speech Alito gave to the Federalist Society. Keep in mind that Democrats and the left view the Federalist Society as an extremist organization.
Here are some rebuttal links:
Confirm ThemCommittee for Justice (Certainly no right-wing source)
I'm not going to go into a long analysis of each side of this. I'm just going to summarize my views on the subject, backed, as always, with logic and facts.
What is this horrific principle of the "unitary executive?" First and foremost, it is the utterly radical concept that the chief executive officer (that being the President) is solely in charge of the executive branch of the government. Imagine that. Further, supporters (I'll refrain from using the religious semantics adopted by the left) of the unitary executive offer that the Constitution is less specific on the powers of the executive than it is on those of the legislative, therefore, they reason, the framers intended that the executive branch have broader latitude,
within the confines of the executive than the enumerated powers of the Congress. Recently, supporters of the unitary executive believe that the independent counsel law, enacted after Watergate, usurps the constitutionally granted powers of the executive. Apparently the Congress agreed in 1999 when it allowed the law to expire. These supporters also believe that recent decisions by the courts as well as certain legislation passed by Congress have tipped the balance of power in favor of the legislative branch.
In typically hyperbolic fashion, the Democrats have spun adherents of this principle as being in favor of expanding the power of the executive. Their functionaries, people like Tucker and Linda Brinson, have dutifully regurgitated this line with little or no understanding of what they are saying. The truth of the matter is that supporters of the principle seek to restore a balance intended by the framers which has been usurped over the last half century by an out-of-control judiciary and an irresponsible Congress.
But on to the meat of what Tucker, Linda, and the rest of the Democrats and leftists are really balled up about. It is the continual assertion of the unitary executive by the current dimwit occupying the White House. I strongly suspect that Bush understands the principle about as well as Tucker does, but even if he has a full understanding of it, it is simply the fact that this particular President, who they so viscerally hate, asserts it. The Congress has become so used to overstepping its authority without consequence, an executive who pushes back raises their ire. Of course, a reasonable argument could be made that were it a Democrat asserting the same separation of powers, Kennedy, Schumer, Kerry,
et al would be curiously silent. Even more telling would be the fact that the supporters of the unitary executive would also be silent.
One final note, support of the unitary executive is in keeping with Alito's alignment with constitutional originalists. Of course, there is utterly no indication that Alito's (or Scalia's or Thomas's) support of the unitary executive would form an overarching consideration for all of their judicial decisions. There is even less to suggest that any supporter of the unitary executive would support the Bush Administration in their claims of such. Indeed, the second rebuttal link I posted goes into that topic in some detail. In short, any "true conservative," whatever that means, would most certainly be in support of the unitary executive.
Tucker asked how we would feel if Al Gore had, should he become President, the powers allowed by supporters of the unitary executive. First and foremost it is a moot question since the chance of Al Gore becoming President is roughly the same as that of the sun going super nova in the next fifteen minutes. But the answer, hypothetical or not, would be that we would support such powers granted by the constitution to the duly elected chief executive. It is the Democrats and the left who seek to twist the structure of government to favor their own when in power. Those of us who are constitutional conservatives, as much as we might dislike whoever might currently inhabit the White House, support the powers vested in that person unreservedly.
