Another Anonymous Commenter Goes Astray
I received a request to publish a comment that was nothing more than a rejection of my summation and commentary on the address made to the ABA by Supreme Court Associate Justice Kennedy. The anonymous comment was:
Well, the commenter must not have listened to the video of the address. Justice Kennedy raised issues that, while not directly addressing Mr. Bush, raised issues with the way the Bush administration was implementing foreign policy without regard to the principles of justice that are the bedrock of our society and are embedded in the US Constitution. While the anonymous commenter is correct, I do have a bias for constitutional principles and the rule of law, I cannot fathom how he/she arrived at the conclusion that such a bias was "downright stupid."
In my post I quoted the AP/Justice source article as quoting Justice Kennedy in the following manner:
It seems clear to me that the failure that Kennedy speaks to is not the foreign policy set by congress because congress does not set foreign policy. Congress may influence foreign policy, and may change the policy by pulling on the purse strings, it is not empowered to actually set it. Foreign policy is set by the executive branch under the leadership of the President, Vice President, Secretary of State and, in the case of the Middle East, Secretary of Defense (an unusual approach).
US foreign policy is also not set by the judicial branch. Since the Supreme Court does not set foreign policy, and since congress does not set foreign policy, one can only arrive at the logical conclusion that Justice Kennedy was taking a swipe--albeit an intellectual swipe--at the way the Bush administration is conducting our foreign policy. Since Kennedy's words specifically address the issue of employing principles of law, justice and democratic ideals as embodied by the US Constitution--and he made a big deal of doing so by re-stressing these points in his concluding remarks of the address--we must also logically conclude that he was pointing to the fact that the Bush administration has acted outside of the law, outside of the Constitution and outside of the foundations of our first principles.
To the anonymous commenter, I can only suggest you follow the link to the video, go to the ABA web site for an official transcript, or read the AP and Justice news reporting accounts for a more objective analysis... But from where I stand, Kennedy was taking a poke at the way Bush and his gang of thugs were not making the case for American values, American-style democracy and abandoning the principles of our Constitution in matters of foreign policy.
I would also suggest that Anonymous either put his/her name out there so we can address him/her more directly. Those of us that blog take a lot of time to read a ton of e-mail, news reports, other blogs, and push out a certain amount of blogging material as time permits. We bloggers want people to comment, respond and react to what we write. But we don't want folks to fly by, send a flaming message, and then run away. Flaming, as the intent of any ad hominem attack, is not an appreciated form of commenting. I would rather have had the commenter take me to task by identifying the words of Justice Kennedy that supported the idea that I had somehow misread, misdirected or improperly arrived at conclusions regarding Kennedy's address. But I read three reports on the address, two of which I cited in my post, watched/listened to the video of the Kennedy address, and then posted my article on my blog. As I reviewed my comments before writing this post, I asked myself--I challenged myself--questions about my own biases. While I will admit that Kennedy's words do not specifically identify Bush and the executive branch, it does--as most articulate speeches do--lead the audience to certain conclusions. Logically, Kennedy's words have to lead us to the failures of the Bush administration's approach to foreign policy. And, as Kennedy said, the jury is still out, the rule of law is not being followed, and the rest of the world remains unconvinced.
That is not at all what Kennedy said. If you bothered to read the words and not what you think they mean you would see his call is for showing an example inside this country. That is a government issue. Not an administration issue. Your take is biased and downright stupid.
Well, the commenter must not have listened to the video of the address. Justice Kennedy raised issues that, while not directly addressing Mr. Bush, raised issues with the way the Bush administration was implementing foreign policy without regard to the principles of justice that are the bedrock of our society and are embedded in the US Constitution. While the anonymous commenter is correct, I do have a bias for constitutional principles and the rule of law, I cannot fathom how he/she arrived at the conclusion that such a bias was "downright stupid."
In my post I quoted the AP/Justice source article as quoting Justice Kennedy in the following manner:
US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy said that the US is failing to adequately spread the positive aspects of the "Western idea of democracy,"...
It seems clear to me that the failure that Kennedy speaks to is not the foreign policy set by congress because congress does not set foreign policy. Congress may influence foreign policy, and may change the policy by pulling on the purse strings, it is not empowered to actually set it. Foreign policy is set by the executive branch under the leadership of the President, Vice President, Secretary of State and, in the case of the Middle East, Secretary of Defense (an unusual approach).
US foreign policy is also not set by the judicial branch. Since the Supreme Court does not set foreign policy, and since congress does not set foreign policy, one can only arrive at the logical conclusion that Justice Kennedy was taking a swipe--albeit an intellectual swipe--at the way the Bush administration is conducting our foreign policy. Since Kennedy's words specifically address the issue of employing principles of law, justice and democratic ideals as embodied by the US Constitution--and he made a big deal of doing so by re-stressing these points in his concluding remarks of the address--we must also logically conclude that he was pointing to the fact that the Bush administration has acted outside of the law, outside of the Constitution and outside of the foundations of our first principles.
To the anonymous commenter, I can only suggest you follow the link to the video, go to the ABA web site for an official transcript, or read the AP and Justice news reporting accounts for a more objective analysis... But from where I stand, Kennedy was taking a poke at the way Bush and his gang of thugs were not making the case for American values, American-style democracy and abandoning the principles of our Constitution in matters of foreign policy.
I would also suggest that Anonymous either put his/her name out there so we can address him/her more directly. Those of us that blog take a lot of time to read a ton of e-mail, news reports, other blogs, and push out a certain amount of blogging material as time permits. We bloggers want people to comment, respond and react to what we write. But we don't want folks to fly by, send a flaming message, and then run away. Flaming, as the intent of any ad hominem attack, is not an appreciated form of commenting. I would rather have had the commenter take me to task by identifying the words of Justice Kennedy that supported the idea that I had somehow misread, misdirected or improperly arrived at conclusions regarding Kennedy's address. But I read three reports on the address, two of which I cited in my post, watched/listened to the video of the Kennedy address, and then posted my article on my blog. As I reviewed my comments before writing this post, I asked myself--I challenged myself--questions about my own biases. While I will admit that Kennedy's words do not specifically identify Bush and the executive branch, it does--as most articulate speeches do--lead the audience to certain conclusions. Logically, Kennedy's words have to lead us to the failures of the Bush administration's approach to foreign policy. And, as Kennedy said, the jury is still out, the rule of law is not being followed, and the rest of the world remains unconvinced.
posted by Jim Downey at 11:13 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home