A singularly bad idea

Word at this hour is that the NAACP and various high-profile personages are calling for a federal prosecution of George Zimmerman for violating the civil rights of Trayvon Martin. This is a singularly bad idea and it ought to be dropped before it has a chance to grow legs.

When the practice of trying bad guys federally for civil rights violations became established in the 1960s, it was because the police and judicial systems of southern states were infected root and branch with racial bias and corruption, so that there was no chance of winning convictions in state courts. The Zimmerman case is in no way comparable to the state non-prosecutions of the killers of the three civil rights workers in Mississippi in 1964, or the frustrated prosecution of Byron De La Beckwith for killing Medgar Evers.

While the Zimmerman case produced a morally unsatisfying result, the trial cannot be said to have been fundamentally unfair. The problem was not with the conduct of the trial; the problem was with state laws in Florida that are fundamentally wrongheaded.

A federal civil rights prosecution of Zimmerman, while it might be technically allowable, would be seen as as gross overreach by federal authorities. It would diminish respect for the principle upon which such prosecutions were founded, and it would dissipate moral capital that can better be used in other fights.

History repeating itself?

I've been wondering: Will the Supreme Court's recent voting rights decision be seen as this era's equivalent of the Hayes-Tilden compromise of 1877--a signal to bitter-end racists that it's okay to begin rolling back the gains in racial equality of the last few decades?

It certainly begins to look that way, as Texas and other Southern states rush to enact new obstacles to the ballot. That the bitter-enders remain unreconstructed has been evident in the virulence of the most extreme opposition to Barack Obama over the length of his presidency. There's principled opposition, and then there's fearmongering and simple hatred.

It will be important to watch these developments over the months and years ahead, to see where the high court's decision leads us.

Mini-review: "August: Osage County"

Pam and I went tonight to see the South Bend Civic Theatre's production of Tracy Letts' "August: Osage County." Fine performance of an awesome play. Mary Toll was particularly impressive as Violet, matriarch of the Weston family. Glad I saw this outstanding piece of drama.

A too-perfect metaphor for Washington's mortal combat

There was a fascinating story out of Duluth a few days ago about two bald eagles that fell to earth while fighting.  An expert quoted in the story said each bird apparently had its talons so firmly embedded in the other's flesh that they could not disengage in time to avoid crashing into the ground.

The story struck me as an all-too-perfect metaphor for the current state of things between the executive and legislative branches of our national government. We seem to have reached the point where the fight is more important than anything else, including, perhaps, the survival and functioning of the government itself.

A few items of evidence:

• The New York Times last Saturday published a story on delays in the confirmation process for Obama administration nominees to cabinet positions, judgeships and other policymaking positions in the government. "Nominees at all levels of Washington’s bureaucracy — 117 of them in all, including cabinet secretaries, judges and members of obscure oversight boards — are facing delays," reporter Jeremy Peters wrote. "Just last week, the Senate confirmed David Medine, the president’s choice to lead the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. The time between his nomination and confirmation was 510 days. Every Republican voted no."
• When Treasury Secretary Jack Lew requested the resignation of the head of the IRS this week, the head that rolled was that of the acting commissioner of the tax agency. Steven Miller had been acting commissioner since November, when the last confirmed commissioner, a George W. Bush appointee, finished his five-year term. And when Obama named a replacement for Miller, it was a new acting commissioner, who is to serve until the end of the calendar year. Presumably then the president will nominate a real commissioner, who whom the Senate will have to approve, perhaps on the 12th of Never. 
• On Thursday, Sri Srinivasan, an Obama nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, won the unanimous endorsement of the Senate Judiciary Committee. If he wins confirmation by the full Senate, Srinivasan will be the first person confirmed to that important judicial panel since 2006. Four of the court's 11 positions are vacant. Another Obama nominee withdrew after waiting two years for a Senate vote on her nomination.
• The average time for Senate confirmation votes on Obama judicial nominees is now 116 days, three times longer than was the case for George W. Bush.

Obviously, the blame for this state of affairs is not evenly distributed. But equally obvious is that the government cannot possibly be operating at maximal efficiency if large numbers of policymaking positions remain vacant for months, even years. But for the GOP, that probably is the idea. Not only does it frustrate the Obama agenda, but it assures that the party's mantra of big, inefficient federal government will remain true.

Meantime, for the American people, the ground looms ever larger as the executive eagle and the legislative one grapple, each trying to destroy the other.

Singer changes, song stays the same

I was at a meeting last evening and did not get to watch the president's State of the Union Address. I did get home just in time to catch Sen. Marco Rubio's Republican response. And as he began with his litany of what government can't do, I found myself thinking that the GOP may change the complexion or the accent of its speakers, but the message always stays the same. And that's not a compliment.

All the news--before it happens

I was on my way to catch the train this morning and heard on the local NPR station an invitation to engage in a "real-time chat" during the president's State of the Union address tonight.

Whatever happened to listen, then think, then react?

A giant exercise in missing the point

Rob Manker's column today on Page 2 of the Chicago Tribune ("Aside from anti-obese bigotry, no reason POTUS can't be XXL") reads to me like a giant exercise in missing the point. He writes off the recent public discussion of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's weight as mere bigotry against a fat person. He even quotes an expert, Gary Foster, director of the Center for Obesity Research and Education at Temple University, in support of his case: "If you're looking at someone as a presidential candidate, of all the things to worry about, you're going to worry about their body weight? What about their ability to govern? What about their ability to balance a budget?"

But the concern over Christie's weight is not frivolous and bigoted. It's about the man's health, and whether he can be depended upon to live through a presidential term. It was in that context that the issue was raised by an Arizona doctor and former White House physician.

Christie's weight is no less legitimate an issue than would be an elderly candidate's age.