My husband, Ted, has plowed straight through Jeffrey Toobin’s new book, The Nine, in the past few days — even waking up before dawn several mornings to read it. He is so impressed with Toobin’s reporting, writing and insight into the inner workings of the current Supreme Court, I asked him to write a review for mullentown. If any of you have read it, please post your own views. And because I ALWAYS do what my husband tells me, I’m going to start reading it tonight. Seriously, I am. — Holly

****************
The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court, by Jeffrey Toobin, Doubleday, 2007.

Jeffrey Toobin covers legal affairs for the New Yorker, a magazine known for terrible titles for its articles yet fascinating reading when you take heart and jump in. In the case of Toobin’s book, the title and the text are equally engaging.

Toobin uses his journalistic skill to reveal the recent history of the Supreme Court. His portraits of the nine justices are certainly judgmental and open to political argument, but by a focus on individual jurists he captures the essence of these few people who are the final word on those matters most important to Americans: abortion, liberty, local government, rights of the accused, and so on.

The Court had until the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist in 2005 and the retirement of Sandra Day O’Connor in 2006 enjoyed 13 years of stability. That stability was based on a truly swing court by the political philosophies of the members. Four justices–William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas made up a predictably conservative wing with Kennedy an occasional gadfly, swinging to the left. The liberal wing–John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer balanced this out. This left O’Connor as the continuous decider-in-the-middle.

And Toobin reserves his highest accolades for O’Connor. He documents how the woman from way out west in Phoenix delighted in persuading one side or the other, and how she often controlled the court. Toobin says her greatest talent was understanding deeply how most Americans viewed the issues before the court and used this to make court decisions politically palatable. Toobin puts it simply: O’Connor has become the most powerful woman in American history.

Of Rehnquist, Toobin portrays the late chief as a well-liked conciliator fixed on the flow of work in the court, fair in distribution of opinion writing to the members, and willing to accept liberal stare decisis (legal precedent) even on stormy issues like Roe v. Wade on abortion. Rehnquist was a frustration to the conservative political movement focused on the appointments of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush to reverse Roe, expand executive power, end racial preferences, speed executions, and welcome religion into the American sphere. Rehnquist was content to be the conductor of the symphony but not to write one.

Toobin is particularly tough on Anonin Scalia. He paints Scalia as a brilliant but obnoxious juror who dominates Court questioning of contending counsel. Scalia also enjoys berating his colleagues on the Court in written opinions and once called some “idiots” in a speech to an outside group. Scalia’s impractical but insistent campaign for “originalism,” or strict interpretation of the Constitution was nonsensical to his mates. And worst of all to conservatives, he helped drive O’Connor and Kennedy to more liberal positions.

Anthony Kennedy makes his mark by his love of flowery language in opinions and international travel. Kennedy traveled frequently through the world meeting with governments and foreign jurists. He brought these thoughts back to the Court and applied international influences in his opinions and votes. As such he became a frequent swing voter to the liberal side.

John Paul Stevens, now senior on the court, is portrayed as a statesman who stabilized the Court. Though appointed by President Gerald Ford as a conservative, he long ago drifted to the liberal side on most issues.

David Souter was also the appointment of a conservative president, George H.W. Bush. Once a great hope for the conservative agenda, Souter’s simplistic and isolated life in New Hampshire led him to eschew politics and vote liberal on many issues. Souter demonstrates how Supreme Court members often move to the opposite side of the political spectrum after appointment.

Clarence Thomas cannot dispel the anger of his contentious appointment in 1991 when Anita Hill accused him of sexual harassment. Though he used continuous affirmative action to move up to the court, he believes it now to be patronizing and displays an 18th-century judicial philosophy by being the most consistently conservative member of the Court.

One myth Toobin breaks is the common perception among Court watchers that Thomas and Scalia are joined at the hip. Thomas deeply resents that description.

Bill Clinton appointee Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a reliable liberal and dedicated to feminist leanings. Her presence on the court had an influence on Sandra Day O’Connor’s liberalism in feminine manners but Ginsburg is identified as a weak member of the court who has limited influence, like Thomas, on opinions.

Stephen Breyer, also appointed by Clinton, is a brilliant if often elite and patrician member of the Court. He’s a wine expert and is even known on occasion to break into a British-like accent in his speech. Breyer can be relied on to influence opinions and writes his own in reliably clear and thoughtful ways. Not known generally was his close friendship on the court with Sandra Day O’Connor and his influence in moving her to the left. Conversely, O’Connor was a very close friend of Scalia’s but Scalia had the opposite impact on Breyer.

After the death of Rehnquist and the resignation of O’Connor, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, Jr. have been appointed. Roberts is a star. Good looking, well-spoken, a fair and thoughtful colleague as Chief, and deeply knowledgeable of the law and Court traditions, Roberts is now in charge of the “Roberts Court.” When asked in his confirmation hearings about his writings about how Roe v. Wade should be reversed, he responded he wrote that as counsel and not as personal opinion. In a clever finesse on abortion questions, he refused to tell the Senate committee where he would stand should the decision be revisited.

Samuel Alito, Jr. is clearly a down the line conservative. Hence the new court arithmetic is 5-4 for the conservatives, with Kennedy often reliably a sixth conservative vote.

Where the Roberts Court will now go is subject to political interpretation. Will Roberts lead the Court to the long-predicted conservative agenda centered mainly on abortion? He, by background of the Court’s members, appears to have the votes.

Toobin reserves energy to point out the Court’s involvement in politics, despite its members’ constant work to present themselves as neutral political beings. He calls the politics of the Court a continuous element- -ably demonstrated in Bush v. Gore, the case that settled the disputed presidential election of 2000. And he really puts that decision under the microscope.

He writes: “The struggle following the election of 2000 to 36 days, and the Court was directly involved for 21 of them. Yet over this brief period, the justices displayed all of their worst traits–among them vanity, overconfidence, impatience, arrogance, and simple political partisanship. These three weeks taint an otherwise largely admirable legacy. The justices did almost everything wrong. They embarrassed themselves and the Supreme Court.”

Toobin’s final conclusions: The court will always be political as long as human beings serve as justices. Don’t rely on political appearances before membership on the Court to hold up politically. And, to quote Toobin, “… one factor only will determine the future of the Supreme Court: the outcomes of presidential elections.”

OK, all you Mullentown regulars and vagrants who only happen to squat here every few days, tell me — again, and with your best descriptive power — why not Hillary Clinton for president?

It isn’t a loaded or rhetorical question. I want a good answer. I wrote here a couple of weeks back that I was about an inch away from supporting Clinton. I’m getting closer.

Well sure, who wouldn’t love to see Al Gore jump in? But as of today, candidates have three weeks in which to register for the New Hampshire primary. I just can’t see Gore doing this. And I’m thinking the more that people float around and sign petitions to convince him he should run, well, the more ridiculous and divided Democrats look at a pivotal point in their taking back this country and helping to mold its precarious future.

Clinton has a plan to offer a “baby bond” to help finance a college education for every child born in the U.S. She’s back on the health care for all proposal, though she’s backed off from her original, doomed blueprint from 1993-94. I’m sensing hope in this woman’s campaign, and she has chutzpah. We’ve had so little of both for so many years.

And did I mention Clinton has money? A lot of liberals sniff at the notion that she’s awash in campaign money — as if that quality on its own is some kind of moral flaw. But just what does it take to win right now in this country, darlings?

Money. More money than God. Mitt Romney has it, and don’t think that he or Rudy won’t use up every cent of what they’ve raised in trying to beat Clinton if she gets the nomination. The more cash she stockpiles the better.

And finally, I’d be disingenuous if not straight-out remiss, by not claiming it’s way past time we had a female president. The fact that she’s eminently qualified, bright, articulate, ambitious and can throw it right back at the stodgy white male power structure that fuels this country is a terrific bonus. I’ll tell you what: I saw so much sexism — subtle and not even at all subtle sexism — in my stepdaughter’s run for Salt Lake City mayor that I’ve become all about supporting women in politics. Call it my new religion. Women, more women in politics. Everywhere, more women please.

I’d almost say after the negativity I saw directed at Jenny Wilson from the public, the media and her opponents’ camps that gender alone is reason enough to support Hillary. But then you would all paint me as shallow.

This isn’t just any woman. This is Hillary Clinton. Find me any other Democrat parading on the campaign runway right now who can match her for experience and real-world politik. Betcha can’t.

Let me know, bloggers. I only have one caveat: You cannot respond to my challenge by writing “I like Hillary, too. But she’s unelectable.” That won’t fly here. Tell me why she isn’t, and then defend it. Or, you can always look at the world a bit optimistically, and tell us why she SHOULD be elected president, and how you’ll help see that it happens.

The phones are open, friends. Ready, get set, POST!

Check it
out:

Don’t get me wrong. It’s lousy that someone did this. But what I like is that the photographer landed right there, right then.

And that our Web master at City Weekly, Bill Frost, picked up on the subtle grammar challenge at hand.

Life in the City.

Our regular poster, twowheelfish, has goaded me out of my silence. Way to go, twowheel! Since you’re an avid fisherman, you know I have to take the bait.

But mostly, I’ll toss this post off to you faithful visitors to mullentown. What can we liberals, who see nothing particularly wrong with moving toward national health insurance (you know, that gol-durned socialized medicine) in the first place, do about this piece of plywood who occupies the White House for 15 more months?

I know the answer to that question: We gotta be patient and wait for our turn. I guess I was simply offering a rhetorical scream in the wilderness.

And what about the Democrats, who now control both houses of Congress? Where is their power — their will, really — to muster up necessary votes to override George W. Bush’s veto of SCHIP (state children’s health insurance plan) reauthorization?

I’m absolutely floored, totally undone, by this man’s complete lack of courage, compassion and lack of political will when it counts. One reckless decision of his seems to bleed right into another, day after day after day. One longtime conservative and very active Republican in Salt Lake City who has given piles of money to his party mentioned the other day that he sees Bush as absolutely having destroyed the Republican Party, especially since the election last November.

Even Bush’s once-blindly loyal followers here in Utah are losing faith.

What does it take to find even the slightest serving of compassion in this country anymore?

(I’m drawn to this thought because I’m back to the Jean Smith biography, FDR. I let Ted borrow it and he read the 900-page monster in about two weeks. Now there was a president who knew compassion. The fact that he could blend it with political instincts and timing made all the difference at a moment when this country was seriously deteriorating.)

Where do Americans go from here? Will we ever get an insurance plan that addresses the needs of the population? If we can’t even extend coverage to children and increase their benefits when necessary, I don’t know where we as a society can go from here.

Canada, maybe? I don’t think they’ll have us!

Hmm. Not to get too caught up in this growing “Al Gore in 2008″cyclone here on mullentown, but none other than Christopher Hitchens is making a thoughtful pitch for His Globalness as a serious Democratic presidential candidate here.

For all the reasons I wrote yesterday that Gore shouldn’t or won’t run, Hitchens suggests he should. Hitchens also predicts Gore will win the Nobel Peace Prize next month in Oslo. (Can’t wait to hear the right-wing retort to that if it happens: What does trumpeting a warning about global warming have to with peace for hell’s sake?)

Anyway, it’s a good read. It’ll get your brain cells scurrying around, if nothing else.

Well, a few people took the plunge and started posting last Friday about their early hopes for 2008 prez.

Some of my favorite California bloggers (Chardonnay, Debi to name a couple) are gunning for Gore. I must say, I love that man.

I can’t see him running, though. People will try to enlist him, but he won’t do it.

Why would he? He’s got more influence and power over pressing world issues now than he ever had as veep, as a presidential candidate in 2000 and even as president-elect in 2008. At last, he can say what he means and mean what he says. With the wild success of An Inconvenient Truth, he now has sway in the film world. And that’s just as an artist-producer. He’s a sure bet now; can easily raise money for more documentaries, write books, be a gadfly on the talk show circuit.

It puts me in a mind of Jimmy Carter (who I always liked and valued as a president), who finally has achieved international hero status as a peacemaker, human rights watchdog, humanitarian and author (though his Revolutionary War novel wasn’t very good). Once the guy is free from the bounds of the presidency and the pressures of campaigning and putzing around with Congress and special iterests, he’s everywhere. His freedom to speak the truth is boundless.

I’m liking that in Bill Clinton these days, too. Did you see him last week on The Daily Show promoting his new book? He said sleep deprivation may have more to do with the actions (or inactions) of our do-nothing Congress than anything else. Wow. Just wacky enough to make some sense.

I see Al Gore in the same role in the future: A brilliant and chunky elder statesman; a political truth teller. Sure, I’d love to see him as prez. But why would he do something so foolish?

… take only photos. Isn’t that how the old admonition goes when traveling?

Well, no worries there! No sweat at all for the Mullen-Wilson dyad. We got all the way to Pa’ia, Maui and realized Ted had forgotten to insert the battery in his camera! We found a Costco just outside the Kahului Airport, but since the store is obviously on Hang-Loose Hawaii Time, its operating hours were from 11 a.m. to 8 p.m. When we finally found the store open, we saw plenty of digital cameras on display, but no accessories. And no one to help us find a battery.

I saw a lot of t-shirts, too, that said “RELAX. THIS AIN’T THE MAINLAND.” Well, they got that right. So we did. Relax, I mean. We never bought a battery. And this is the long way of explaining why you’ll not see any photos on this blog of Maui’s North Shore or points between, beyond and next door.

I’m not complaining. We had eight luxurious days in a sweet little sugar cane plantation cottage, fully restored with wood floors, original wainscoting, big porch, squeaky ceiling fans. I felt like a female antagonist in a Hemingway novel (only a lot nicer to my husband than Pappy’s fictional harpies).

I’d been to Maui several years ago, but spent the entire three weeks on the isolated Hana (east) side of the island. This time was more about beaches, my first turn at snorkeling (amazing) and hiking deep into Halakalea’s crater–which was absolutely stunning. I only wish we had done it at sunrise. Next time.

As for the lack of photos, Ted kept telling me at least we would always have memories. Well, true enough. A friend who fancied himself a Buddhist — though I think he was more creepy New Age than anything — once told me that photos are for people who live in the past. I can see that to a point. I’m fine, at least, without a permanent image of how I looked in a swimsuit after a week of glutenous eating and drinking.

Meanwhile, and completely off-topic, go here to see that my little blog is ranked 19th among the 20 most-read political blogs in Utah. I was shocked. I’ve floated a good bit in the past few months as I’ve gotten busier and more involved with my full-time job at City Weekly. But then, I’m ranked below the Salt Lake Tribune’s political blog, which hardly stays very timely. And I’m also below the dreadfully bland Utah State Senate Site. So I ought to get my ass in gear, eh? I could maybe go up a couple of notches.

I’ve actually taken a lot of passes on political commentary on the Salt Lake City mayor’s race, given my stepmother relationship to Jenny Wilson. One day back to reality on the mainland, and several people have already asked me if I’ll start writing about the final election between Ralph Becker and Dave Buhler. I’m not inclined to get involved in it. For one thing, anything critical I might write would only be construed as sour grapes. And it would only harm whatever credibility I might have at CW. I’ve learned that much from the primary.

For another reason, the race promises to be a snore fest. Some have said the city is ready for a dull race/dull mayor given the eight years we’ve suffered under our current psychopath. I can’t think of my hometown in any way as dull though–so I hope we get a little huff ‘n puff in this election cycle.

But hey, this doesn’t mean you can’t all post away to your heart’s content about the mayor’s race, the 2008 presidential election, or any other political thought you are generating. I’m a millimeter away from supporting Hillary, BTW. I’ve got a whole blog entry planned for that as soon as I get my thoughts well in order. So think and write away. Besides, your participation might help keep mullentown.com in the VIB (very important blogs) listings. I’d hate to fade into total obscurity, and I’d like to get my ranking above that awful Senate Site.

Ted and I are flying out to Maui in about 30 minutes. Nothing like Hawaiian sun and long, sandy beaches to recover from a hard loss.

Not so hard, really. Jenny Wilson, my fabulous stepdaughter, waged a great campaign for Salt Lake City mayor. That’s all I’ll say here. This Wilson family is spectacular. We wanted Jenny to win. She didn’t. We support her fully and watched a very mature and graceful woman concede last night to Dave Buhler and Ralph Becker.

She has a Salt Lake County Council seat to return to, two adorable little boys and a fine husband. And a strong political future, I’ve no doubt.

I’m so very proud of her.

As to Maui, I’m not taking a laptop. I debated about even taking a phone. Just books, a few pairs of shorts, my bicycle gear and the man I love.

See you back here, I hope, on Sept. 21.

Aloha.

We got word about an hour ago that our dear friend and political and professional mentor, J.D. Williams, died last night at his home in Holladay, Utah. He had been fighting cancer for more than a year.

J.D.’s lovely wife and lifelong love, Bea, called Ted to deliver the news. J.D. was 81 and died peacefully with family nearby.

It’s the end of an era, for sure.

I took an introductory political science class from J.D. (everyone called John Daniel Williams by his initials) in 1979. P.S. 110 was held in a huge classroom, with desks arranged row upon row of semi-circles. He had a seating chart, but knew our names in less than a week.

I’m having trouble writing this. Ted and I knew J.D.’s life was coming to a close, we had spoken to him just a few weeks ago. But knowing what is coming never makes the end any easier.

J.D. inspired thousands of college students at the University of Utah (and Stanford and Harvard, too) to plant their feet in democracy. His was a roll up your sleeves approach to living in this great country. He taught practical politics with an emphasis on ethics. He once said of his former student, Karl Rove, that Karl got the politics education right, but he had missed out on the ethics.

On the personal side, J.D. and Bea took Ted and I to dinner on the eve of our wedding three years ago. It was a lovely June evening in Millcreek Canyon and we dined at Log Haven. They kept telling us what a treat it was seeing the two of us together. J.D.’s blue eyes sparkled. He loved sweets; especially rich desserts. That night we four shared creme brulee and dense chocolate cake.

In days to come people will be eulogizing J.D. in much more refined ways than I can. I’ve lost a committed teacher and friend. The country has lost a true patriot. This nearly one-party state has lost a liberal firebrand who helped keep it honest.

I’m deeply saddened by this loss but grateful beyond words for the time I had with this man. I love J.D. Williams.

OK. OK. I’ve been swamped. Been ignoring this blog again. And some of the most loyal posters on this blog have spoken. They want to discuss the mess surrounding Larry Craig, the U.S. Republican senator from our neighbor to the north and the growing sex scandal enveloping him.

I can’t say I’m surprised. The Idaho Statesman has been chasing down a story about Craig and his long-rumored latent homosexuality for nearly a year. The story has been referred to often in the past couple of days, but in case you missed it, go here. I think the Statesman story nails the issue (so to speak), and it’s a good example of how news outlets frequently have the germ of a story for a long time before an event like Craig’s attempt at a public restroom tryst with a Minneapolis undercover cop breaks and allows them to publish. The Statesman got the goods; good on them. Sometimes the gods of breaking news just smile down on your newspaper and grant you an opportunity to finally tell the full story. So it was with Craig, and news that pretty much proves the gay orientation he has been denying for so long — even as late as yesterday.

So. The man is 62, an ultra-conservative in an ultra-conservative state who has built a Senate career largely on morals crusading. Never seen this plot line before, have we? I’m not sure what I could add. That the Craig scandal is deeply creepy? That, as Mitt Romney, whom Craig was working for in Idaho, says, it’s “disappointing?”

Hmm. I’d say it’s more than disappointing. “Disappointing” is when you’re 12-year-old breaks the neighbor’s window with an errant baseball and lies to you about it. “Disappointing” is when your husband forgets your wedding anniversary.

What is it then? Honestly, it’s crushingly sad. I could get all high and mighty the way so many Repubs did (including our own Utah congressional delegation) when Bill Clinton got caught “not having sex with that woman.” Most mortals who slip up now and again would admit to a bit of glee when a man like Craig gets snared in his own trap of humiliating hypocrisy.

The deeply sad part is the shame Craig must have lived with for god knows how many years. It’s almost a full-time job, I’d imagine, running on a “family values” platform every six years, and headlining conferences with speeches against the “gay agenda.” I can only imagine the self-hatred it must require to try to bring home the bacon from D.C. for your home state while simultaneously making quick side trips to public bathrooms, looking for a blow job from some anonymous male.

One gay activist quoted in a news story earlier this week talked about the way closeted people like Craig live in steady denial about their homosexuality by claiming they only have occasional “urges” for gay sex. Ergo, they aren’t gay, couldn’t possibly be gay, and why would anyone think for a minute they might be gay? An “urge” is just something that happens. You can’t control them.

So I have to think of the old saw: If it acts like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be … a GAY man by the name of Sen. Larry Craig.

Man, if we could simply be true to ourselves, knowing that society would accept us for who and what we are. Sorry if I sound like a Care Bear or Mr. Rogers. But really. Think of the pain and suffering living his truth might have saved Craig’s wife, his family and everyone else caught in his fallout. But mostly himself.

What do you all think?