A Friend Stopped By | 06/26/2008 12:50 pm

Congress and the Supreme Court Are on My Last Nerve, by Monica Crowley

By Monica Crowley

Editor’s Note: Monica Crowley, Ph.D., is a panelist on The McLaughlin Group, the host of the nationally syndicated radio program "The Monica Crowley Show" and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

I’m back in Washington and taking one of my fortifying walks around town. They are preparing for next week’s Fourth of July spectacular: the grass is being cut, steps to the monuments are being swept, vendors are setting up temporary shop, getting ready to dole out five-dollar bottles of water and six-dollar Popsicles. Viva America!

During my walk from the Capitol Building to the Supreme Court, I realized these two institutions are on my last nerve.

... but I'm one of the three people left in America who still support President Bush. The other two are his mother and one of the twins.

Congress, for many things, among them this week: its 300-billion- dollar-mortgage-bailout monstrosity (led by a guy as pure as the driven snow on the mortgage crisis, Senator Chris Dodd) and for Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s admission that the Democratic caucus is pushing to reinstate the deceptively named "Fairness Doctrine," which, if implemented in the way they seek, would literally silence conservative talk radio.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court isn’t exactly living up to its reputation as a reservoir of unparalleled wisdom. Two weeks ago, it handed down a 5-4 decision to grant U.S. constitutional rights and privileges to the foreign terrorist suspects held at Guantanamo Bay. Today we hear that in another 5-4 decision, the Robes held that the death penalty will not apply to child rapists. Just to be clear: that would be those demons who rape a child.

Who would have thought that the Executive Branch would be the sane one? (Well, I did, but I’m one of the three people left in America who still support President Bush. The other two are his mother and one of the twins.)

Wild-eyed stupidity has gripped this town (or at least more than usual). And we’re paying for this self-destructive nonsense, so who are the fools?

As I sat down outside the Supreme Court, I took my iPod out of my ears and turned off the old-school Run-DMC. And then it dawned on me.
When the first President Bush ordered the military to remove General Manuel Noriega from his semi-fortress, our Psychological Operations unit came up with the idea of blasting Noriega’s premises with heavy metal and hard rock music. Out came Led Zeppelin and Motley Crue, and then, with his hands up in desperate surrender because he just couldn’t take it anymore, out came Noriega.

I’m sure those gigantic speakers are sitting in a government warehouse somewhere. Let’s get them and set them up outside the Congress and Supreme Court. A little Run-DMC at top decibels, and Nancy Pelosi will be sprinting from the Capitol, trampling Ruth Bader Ginsburg, herself fleeing from the Court.

Now THAT would be a great July 4th.

44 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

yep

By Frank Peterson on 06/27/2008 8:45 am

“to grant U.S. constitutional rights and privileges to the foreign terrorist suspects”. Excuse me, but the right of habeas corpus is not an exclusively “U.S. constitutional right.” It has been an accepted right in many countries, particularly the U.K., for many centuries. And, as noted above, it is also a component of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It’s time the U.S. got with the program and started behaving like a civilized country in the 21st century.

By Emma Pathey on 06/27/2008 1:29 am

e-mail alert

Thank you, Monica. It’s nice to know that there are still a few women out there who have a viewpoint other than spewing hatred and venom towards Bush, so much so that they cannot see past the end of their holier-than-thou, higher-than-mighty, uber liberal noses. The war was not caused by Bush - it was caused by terrorists that sought out asylum in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan. I, for one, appreciate the young men who have given their time and, in some cases their lives, for our freedom. My prayers go out to those who have lost loves ones in the war, but we do not have a draft in this country and their love ones made a choice. They knew the risk and chose that risk in the name of freedom - and I love and pray for them for this selflessness. The high gas prices (and resulting economic climate) are not the fault of Bush, but are the result of a loophole - the same one that caused the Enron collapse - which allows energy traders to get very greedy at the expense of all of us. The price of energy is being controlled by those speculators. Close the loophole and energy prices will go down and the economy will improve. (By the way, this was enacted in 2000, before Bush took office). All Pelosi & Co. has done is spawn rampant negativity in this country, and since “we” have become a nation of “make me feel warm and fuzzy” zombies, it has taken off like Arizona/California wildfires. Stop asking “what is our government going to do to make me feel good?” and ask yourself what you can do to make things better. God, what have me become?

By Renee Broussard on 06/27/2008 12:14 pm

e-mail alert

Nice theory, Renee

It has long since been established that al-Qaeda was not in Iraq, until we invaded and opened the borders. The invasion also increased instability and uncertainty in the middle-east, driving up oil prices in the process. What decreased was Iraqi oil production, which is still below pre-war levels, also increasing oil prices.

The collapse of the sub-prime mortgage market, which was inevitable without adequate regulation, dragged down the larger credit industry, which resulted in the devaluation of the dollar, which greatly jacked up the price of oil.

Bush’s opposition to higher mileage requirements for the auto industry and his changing the incentive program from prompting high-mileage vehicles to high-priced gas guzzlers were two more ways he made the current situation worse.

Enron collapsed because executives were lying about the financial state of the company in order to artificially raise stock prices. If the loophole you referred to was signed into law in 2000, then it was written and passed by a Republican Congress.

I will agree that speculators are doing more harm than good, and the loophole needs to be closed, but how much they are affecting oil prices has yet to be determined. Collateral damage from his ethanol policies is still under assessment as well.

Pelosi & Co. did not start the anti-war sentiment, that started at the grass-root level. By people they represent. By people feeling buyers remorse for a trillion-dollar side-trip in the war on terror, while letting Afghanistan and Pakistan slip away.

And do you really want to bring up the Arizona/California wildfires to defend an anti-environment president like Bush?

By Zera Lee on 06/29/2008 10:07 pm

e-mail alert

“Who would have thought that the Executive Branch would be the sane one? (Well, I did, but I’m one of the three people left in America who still support President Bush. The other two are his mother and one of the twins.)” Ha! Thanks for the laugh. At least you’re honest.

By I Love Money And Money Loves Me on 06/27/2008 5:03 pm

e-mail alert

You rewrite history like a Republican. Noriega was not in a fortress but the embassy of the Vatican went our Psy Ops started with the rock’n’roll. He give it up as much as to save the priests and realizing that the U.S. has no pride and no honor and would never allow him to take santcuary anywhere in the world. I am no fan of Noriega, but I remember this history. I have mixed feelings about the decision on the death penalty. On one hand, if we do have one, I cannot think of a better reason than to execute child rapists, especially when the victim is under 10 years old. Still, I hate to see this government with that much power. The decisions on Gitmo and the Second Amendment are very good ones. God Bless the Bill of Rights. It is so sacred.

By RoseMerry Hoffman on 06/28/2008 7:58 am

e-mail alert

Well put - Being “Fair” would DOOM - conservative HATE radio. ‘“Fairness Doctrine,” which, if implemented in the way they seek, would literally silence conservative talk radio.”

By Ken Jarvis on 06/28/2008 1:26 pm

e-mail alert

Ken—Would you like the same restrictions that would be imposed by the “Fairness Doctrine” to be applied to the internet? I didn’t think so.

By eleanor roche on 06/28/2008 2:07 pm

Agreed, ‘Eleanor—Thre are too many restrictin s on too many things as there is—the Government, or whatever need to keep their hands off the internet..

By Frank Peterson on 06/28/2008 8:57 pm

I remember years ago when here in NJ there was a brutal rape and double murder of two elderly women, in thier 80’s, living together near Atlantic City. Only a firearm would have protected them against this much younger, stronger assailant. That’s why they call them the great equalizers. Estimates are that firearms are used defensively over 2 million times a year. After Katrina, friends of ours with law enforcement, found a group of elderly black men had barricaded their street and were standing guard with shotguns and pistols to protect themselves and their families from the marauding gangs. If the gangs had guns, would it be fair for the senior citizens to have baseball bats? Of course we know that millions had been killed by war and violence before guns ever existed. I also think Pres. Bush will be vindicated by history. Bono said that he had to proclaim the tremendous US successes in Africa as Pres. Bush seemed unwilling to accept the credit. Joe Klein, avid liberal, said this week that he was “wrong about Iraq.’ Since Democrats took over Congress, gas price have almost doubled, 46% in this year alone.

By Bella Mia on 06/28/2008 5:58 pm

e-mail alert

Not to argue on this, but do you really believe that two eighty-something women would have had a firearm ready to defend themselves from an attack even if they owned one? And been fast and strong enough to use one? Or would they have only been adding to the arsonal of their attacker?

By Sandbee (FB) 54 on 06/29/2008 6:58 am

e-mail alert

Hi Monica, The Dodd-Shelby housing bill allows banks to renegotiate their most troubled home loans, after writing down 15% of the loan’s value, in exchange for a federal guarantee on the adjusted balance of those loans. If the borrowers default after renegotiation, the government would cover any losses the mortgage lenders incur. The “300-billion- dollar-mortgage-bailout monstrosity,” as you call it, must be weighed against the cost of financial institutions foreclosing upon properties that are now owing more than their current market value and reselling them at current market value. Adding these properties to those currently on the market would likely further depress real property values and extend the time necessary to stabilize the real estate market. There is no mandate for financial institutions to participate in the program, and the 15% mandatory write-down is approximately the amount necessary to foreclose and resell property; therefore, the only benefit to the institution is a guarantee by the government for subsequent foreclosure on the same property. My point is that taxpayers would likely pay a higher price for the failure of financial institutions caused by depletion of loan portfolios than the current bill under consideration. I will not dignify your comment about the Supreme Court having “handed down a 5-4 decision to grant U.S. constitutional rights and privileges to the foreign terrorist suspects held at Guantanamo Bay” as a negative, other than to point out to you that these are suspects, not convicts, and are entitled to the same constitutional rights you are. If you are willing to be held indefinitely without constitutional rights, I respect your opinion, but not to the extent I would change the constition to diminish my right to a speedy trial.

By K O on 06/29/2008 1:24 pm

e-mail alert

Ann Coulter’s better looking half.

By Es Right on 07/03/2008 12:29 am

e-mail alert

Many Americans who view the 2nd Amendment as some sacred act are so back ward in their thinking it isn’t funny. At the time of writing the Constitution, the US did not have as many established police departments. Many families depend on the fire arm for food, particularly during winter. The gun was an essential tool in the home. Absence of a gun meant life or death for many families. Thankfully we have advanced to the stage where we can purchase meat when we want at the local store. For those who cherish the right to own a gun , I understand why. However do not try and tell me that the circumstances that led to the 2nd Amendment being enshrined in the Constitution are the same today as they were then.

By Es Right on 07/03/2008 12:41 am