American Morning
Avlon: 'Wingnut' divides America
Editor’s note: John P. Avlon is the author of Independent Nation: How Centrists Can Change American Politics and writes a weekly column for The Daily Beast. Previously, he served as Chief Speechwriter for New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and was a columnist and associate editor for The New York Sun.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/05/29/yoest.maloney.2.cnn.art.jpg caption="Rep. Carolyn Maloney (L) and Charmaine Yoest (R)."]
This week, Supreme Court battles and new spending promises are pre-occupying Washington, and giving us the Wingnuts of the Week.
Supreme Court nominations have become the Wingnut Olympics. Right-wing attacks were readied weeks ago against whomever President Obama named to the court. Left-wing hyper-partisans have done the same thing to Republican appointees in the past.
They try to demonize a nominee before they have their day in court – or in front of Congress, as the case may be. The idea of actually judging a judge fairly or suspending judgment until all the facts are in seems to be unheard of in DC these days. It’s a reflexive ideological attack, regardless of facts.
But of all the prefabricated attack-dog talking points circulated, one set rose to Wingnut of the Week status. Charmaine Yoest, President of Americans United For Life, released a statement saying that Judge Sonia Sotomayor "Will perpetuate the role of the Supreme Court as 'National Abortion Control Board'... [her] judicial philosophy undermines common ground. She is a radical pick that divides America."
There are legitimate ways to question and criticize a Supreme Court nominee – by quoting past statements and studying past opinions. But Yoest’s comments were ugly on a whole different level, treating Judge Sotomayor as a threat to the republic. That’s an absurd demonization and dehumanization.
Yoest is claiming that Judge Sotomayor divides Americans, but Yoest is the one trying to divide us. The fact is we don’t even know Judge Sotomayor’s position on abortion – she backed up the Bush administration’s right to deny federal funds to abortion rights organizations in one decision. Some liberal groups are expressing concern that she might not be liberal enough for their liking on this issue – but all that seems to be an inconvenient truth. And calling the Supreme Court the “National Abortion Control Board” – well that’s about as single-issue wingnut as you get. I’m pretty sure that’s not how Chief Justice John Roberts views his day job. Wingnuts use fear as a recruiting tool. For them, all’s fair in love, war and Supreme Court nomination battles.
Activist judges
From Carol Costello and Ronni Berke
Politicians talk a lot about "judicial activism," but what does it really mean? The answer could be: whatever you want it to mean. The "activist judge" term is used so often and is so politically loaded some suggest you turn off the TV as soon as you hear it.
For Professor Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law expert at George Washington University, "this type of name calling is perfectly juvenile, it's simply saying that nobody could possibly disagree with my interpretation of the Constitution."
But those who use the phrase argue "activist judges" are dangerous – because they "legislate from the bench." Many Republicans have expressed concerns that a too-liberal court will pick and choose which laws it doesn't like and find a way to change their meaning or throw them out.
If that's the case, then how to explain the court under Chief Justices William Rehnquist and John Roberts. Both are conservative. And under their leadership, experts say the high court overturned about 65 state or federal laws. That's more than were overturned in the previous liberal-led court.
So is that bad? Good? Both?
"The curious thing is that yesterday's judicial activists are often today's judicial heroes," Turley adds.
In 1954, many accused "activist judges" of wrongly overturning state laws in Brown v. Board of Education – on the grounds school segregation violated the U.S. Constitution. Today, those judges aren't considered "evil activist judges," but wise men.
Some say the problem with the term "judicial activist" today is that it has evolved into something that has nothing to do with actively, impartially interpreting the law.
"Conservatives at the moment want to make sure that their views prevail on abortion, affirmative action, and religion in the public square question," says National Public Radio's Nina Totenberg.
"So when they talk about a judicial activist what they mean is somebody who agrees with them. When liberals talk about a judicial activist, what they mean is somebody who agrees with them. I don't think that in reality this term has any meaning other than rhetoric," Totenberg says.
In other words, those who say they don't want "activist judges" really do, if they support their beliefs. And, Turley says the term has become so politically charged, it affects who a president nominates.
"We have a system that largely relies on chance, because politically you don't want to appoint someone who could be accused of being a judicial activist," he says. "The tendency is to appoint someone whose never said or done anything particularly interesting in their career."
What's on Tap – Friday, May 29, 2009
Happy Friday everyone.
A developing story out of North Korea – The North has reportedly test-fired another short range missile off its east coast. That's the sixth one this week. And this morning Defense Secretary Robert Gates is revealing whether more U.S. troops are headed to the region. We are live from the Pentagon with a report.
There are new questions about President Obama's Supreme Court nominee. Pro-choice and pro-life groups are demanding to know where Sonia Sotomayor stands on abortion rights. The White House says the president never asked her. We'll explore whether the future of Roe v. Wade could hang in the balance.
And General Motors – on the brink of bankruptcy. Despite getting more than 19-billion of your tax dollars. So what does it all mean for you, Detroit, and the nation? We'll get some insights from somebody who knows.
How can I keep my toddler safe in the pool?
Dr. Gupta answers viewer questions every Thursday on CNN's "American Morning."
From Thespena in Crown Point, Indiana:
“My son is 3 this year and has outgrown the kiddie pool but I’m nervous about letting him swim in deeper water. I’ve heard toddlers can drown in water only a few inches deep. Is that true?”
Answer:
Hi Thespena,
Thanks for asking this question. As a parent of three small children, I completely understand and share your apprehension. You want to do everything you can to keep your son safe, but at the same time to give him as many beautiful life experiences as possible, swimming being a great one (especially as we’re heading into summer).
You’re correct about the drowning hazards for toddlers. In fact, just one inch of water is enough for a toddler to drown in, according to Safe Kids USA Part of the reason is because their little bodies are top-heavy, so they have a harder time maintaining their balance and getting back up when they fall. Every year, more than 800 kids in the United States under age 14 die as a result of unintentional drowning. For your 3-year-old, his risk rate is double that of any other age group; children 4 and under actually have the single highest drowning death rate according to the National Safety Council.
But that doesn’t mean you have to keep your child out of the pool altogether. The number one thing you can do is to keep a close watch on what’s happening when your child is in the pool. Try to stay no more than an arms-length away. Unlike the way we see drownings depicted in the movies, there’s usually no prolonged flailing of arms and crying out – sadly, it’s usually very quick and quiet, so you can’t just rely on being in earshot. You have to keep your eyes on your son at all times.
Also, don’t rely on floats or any other swimming aid to keep your child safe because those are not meant to replace your own supervision and can give parents a false sense of security. When you feel he’s ready, you should start taking your son to swimming lessons. It’s a great source of exercise and fun for kids, and the sooner he becomes comfortable and skilled in the water, the safer he’ll be as he grows older.
Gay soldier appeals to Obama
Some of the demonstrators President Obama heard while in Los Angeles yesterday were demanding he make good on a campaign promise to repeal the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. You met the gay soldier who's leading the movement for change on "American Morning," and as CNN's Ted Rowlands tells us, he was there trying to get some face-time with the president.
General Mandarin?
Longtime consumer advocate and former presidential candidate Ralph Nader tells CNN the potential GM bankruptcy could put the car maker on the fast track to China. GM is already vying to become the number auto builder in the communist nation. Now GM has plans to expand its operations in China with hopes of importing cars back into the US.
About this Show
Welcome to the American Morning blog where you can get daily news updates from American Morning's reporters and producers. Join us for "the most news in the morning," weekdays from 6-9 a.m. ET, only on CNN.
On Twitter
