How to Fill That Empty Seat on the U.S. Supreme Court

President Obama’s nominee to replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court bench is a solid, moderate choice. It’s also a canny political one.

When Merrick Garland was nominated to serve on the D.C. Court of Appeals 19 years ago, eminent conservative Republicans from Orrin Hatch and Chuck Grassley to the late Strom Thurmond praised him in the highest terms.

Obama could have picked a groundbreaking candidate such as Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who would have been the first black woman to serve on the highest court; or Garland’s colleague on the D.C. Circuit, judge Sri Srinivasan, a South Asian American. The President could have nominated an in-your-face liberal such as Elizabeth Warren.

The Tactical Use of Obscenity - David Loftus

[Note: this is part two of a commentary on a guerilla protest mounted by the Veterans for Peace on Friday. If you haven't read part 1, to there.]


I would imagine the vast majority of people who objected to the banner had seen the four-letter word reproduced on it before. Many of them have probably employed it in their own speech. Why did they object to it here?

The question isn’t whether such a word should be employed in public (after all, it appears often enough in movies, novels, and cable television series -- and I hear it daily on the street), but to what purpose is it being used? Most of the time, the word is used in public entertainment as an illumination of character and/or expression of heightened emotion.

The latter appears to be the point here: veterans wished to declare their extreme frustration over the carnage being done overseas in the name of the United States, and the relative inaction of the American people and a President who had promised in his 2008 election campaign to end it soon. The banner acknowledged its own shock value, and was pointedly hung before a restatement in stone of the American right to free speech.

I hear people complain about nudity in movies or in live theater, but I have seen full frontal nudity (male and female) effectively and appropriately used not only to shock but to express tenderness under fire from an authoritarian government. I find the use of obscenity in this context no less appropriate and effective.

As for addressing Mr. Obama as if he were a fellow citizen, there is nothing disrespectful about that. Presidents are elected out of private life, and they return to it. They are also public servants, just like local school board members or U.S. Senators, and I don’t believe there’s any harm or faux pas in addressing any such officeholders as Mr. or Ms. The Constitution makes it very clear that no special titles apply to holders of the Presidency other than “Mr. President.” He is not “the Honorable,” “Your Highness,” or “Lord” Obama. Certainly, far-right commentators and countless letters to the editor refer to the Chief Executive in far less correct and respectful terms, but I never hear of their fellow citizens correcting them on that point.

Next: U.S. pride and carnage

Is Obama the Worst President Ever? - Shaun Hautly

Read this piece carefully, because it’s not what you think.

While one could argue that Bush suffered more criticism and judgments, in the past four years we’ve seen the rise of Twitter, Facebook, and the instantly reactive Internet. This means that every move and mistake that Obama makes is captured, documented, shared, and spread within minutes. There’s no more “controlling the press” or hiding things. This is the transparency he wanted and got. Tenfold.

The oil spill: Already the worst environmental disaster of its kind in history and getting worse by the day. Obama has already gained media attention for using some profanity, making some pretty hefty “no rest until” promises, and had a fair share of media friendly face time with the victims. However, oil continues to spread. Obama continues to meet with NCAA champions, foreign countries, and novelty organizations for vanity’s sake. Sounds like he’s doing plenty of resting.

Healthcare: We heard the same “no rest” promises over a year ago, and I think there was a bit of rest in those nine months from idea to bill.

Unemployment: Continues to plague this country. My Honda still sucks, even with Cash for Clunkers. CEOs are still going on million dollar vacations with the government’s bailout money. Yet there’s Obama, smiling on TV.

Is he the first President to be so fickle on his promises, or are we the first society who demands real-time updates of the President’s whereabouts? And do we get our news objectively or from skewed sources that give more opinion than fact?