Sheridan: Con-Law

WHEW, IT'S OVER

An hour-and-a-half of left-right, left right, both going at it hammer and tong.

Now the partisan analysts are chiming in and I'm muting them out.

Several Con-law issues came up.

First was the question as what kind of justice would you appoint to a vacancy in the Supreme Court.

Both gave politically savvy answers that played to their far different constituencies.

Conservative Bush said "strict construction," no "personal-opinion" type judges. He's against slavery and the Dred Scott opinion. I was glad to hear him come down four-square against slavery in 2004. I needed to hear that. Probably didn't lose too many votes there. Dred Scott was his example of a personal opinion decision. Right, Justice Roger B. Taney, four or five other justices, plus all of the Psychotic South, and I'd hate to know how many in the North were all in favor.

Kerry said he liked Justice Potter Stewart's idea of a good Supreme Court decision as being one so written that the reader cannot tell whether the writer was male, female, white, black, this or that.

Sounded good but it isn't too hard to craft your writing to make sure where you're coming from isn't apparent. Just talk in terms of "the law says this" and "the law says that." Pretty soon the humanity of the writer is out of the picture. So I ain't buying that one.

The fact of the matter is that if we didn't care what judges personally thought it wouldn't make any difference who got appointed. We care terribly because that makes ALL the difference, regardless of all the bushwa about activist justices who shouldn't be legislating the way they do. Right. And pigs can fly.

That's the nature of the beast and conservatives do it as faithfully as less conservatives do; the only question is whether you think the issue merits change or not. Either way the justice votes his or her personal opinion and is being activist in upholding or killing legislation.

Activist and strict constructionist (code for states rights, slavery, and now the new so-called states rights or new federalism). Word games for political purposes is ALL that it is. It works, of course, otherwise it wouldn't be done, shameless label-hanging like this.

Abortion. Kerry danced around that question like the proverbial cat on a hot tin roof. But he honestly pointed out the problem with Bush's take: no way out for the sixteen year old forced to talk to an abusive father, and no way out for Americans abroad in the military, for example, who need abortion services.

Kerry to his credit upheld the constitutional right of a woman to make her own decision as to whether to bear or beget children, as opposed to the voters telling the government to stop her, thus making the decision for her.

Liberty, it's called, as in freedom.

Bush wants to promote liberty around the world, but not for American women. There he's in favor of the tyranny of the majority, asssuming no-abortion is the majority. The constitutional right to an abortion is hanging on by a thread: one vote. One change on the court and it may die. By a decision written in neutral language, of course, where you can't tell that the vote that killed the right was by a conservative man or woman. "The law sez blah-blah-blah...." Wait and see.

Bush used the sledge-hammer approach on that one, claiming you were either for abortion or against it, leaving no room for principled nuance. I didn't like that at all. But this is heavy-weight politics where you get no points for fine tuning.

Don't let anyone EVER tell you that this president isn't as sharp as a tack. He's as sharp as a boxful of the carpet variety and he pummeled Kerry at the end. If this was a boxing match they'd both have swollen faces and closed eyes.

Up to you who "won." They both won. Each appealed to his constituency, heartening it greatly, is my guess. Bloody but unbowed. Will go down as one of the great debates I'll bet.

What was your take?

BUSH-KERRY, ST. LOUIS

An hour into the second debate between these two and they're both cooking. I've never seen such a good presidential-level debate.

In Bush-Kerry, the format is great. Neither man is tied behind a podium. Both can walk around, look the questioner and audience in the eye, and their energy, vitality, and strong voice, gesture, and body language make each of them out to be intelligent, alert, on top of their material, and their game. Each lands rhetorical blows on each other, and each does not flinch, but comes right back with the next left jab, right hook, uppercut, always trying for the knock-out blow, the haymaker.

My friends who denigrate the president for his constrained debating style, based on previous debates, are shown to have underestimated this president. He's a formidable debater, with not a shadow on him And that's pretty remarkable, considering that Kerry shows every sign of being a hugely powerful adversary in the debating ring. Remarkably evenly matched.

Both campaigns have a right to feel proud of their man this time around. Let's hope it stays this way for the next half hour, and the next debate.

Terrifically engaging no matter whose side you're on.

Incidentally, for students who are married to their written notes when presenting a case, note well that there's no need to hang onto notes and look down into them when addressing your audience. Put down your notes, look at your audience, and tell 'em the story. Otherwise why bother? We can read our own notes. Put YOUR spin on your story. That's what every audience wants to hear. That's what Bush and Kerry are doing, telling it like it is, as each sees it, without notes. Dy-no-mite!