Wassamatta U. — Or, Guns Up U.?

Kent R. Hance was a Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives from West Texas (1979-1985). After his congressional service, Hance switched to the Republican Party. As a conservative (Blue Dog) Democrat, Hance represented the 19th Congressional District, which then stretched from Midland and Odessa to Lubbock. Hance's finest moment came in the election of 1978 when his Republican opponent was George W. Bush of Midland; during a TV debate prior to the election, Hance alluded to his Connecticut-born opponent's affectation as a Texan: "George was out campaigning for the rural vote. He stopped at a gas station and asked directions to so-and-so's ranch. He was told to take the farm-to-market road to a particular turn-off. After a mile down that lane, Bush was told to 'turn left once he passed the cattle guard.' Hance imitated George W. Bush on live TV: 'What color uniform will the guard be wearing?' " (A cattle guard, in Texas parlance, is an obstacle used to prevent livestock, such as sheep or cattle, from passing along a road which penetrates the fencing surrounding an enclosed piece of land. The guard, implanted in the road, is a transverse grid of metal bars or tubes so that the gaps between the tubes are wide enough for animals' legs to fall through, but sufficiently narrow not to impede a wheeled vehicle.) Hance defeated The Dubster handily; it was the only election George W. Bush ever lost. With the news of the hiring of Gonzo, The Dubster probably shouted "Gotacha!" Kent Hance returned to his alma mater as Chancellor of the Texas Tech University System in 2006 and hired a "cattle guard" to teach political science in 2009. If this is (fair & balanced) Texas nonsense, so be it.

[Vannevar Bush Hyperlink — Bracketed Numbers — Directory]
[1] Ken Herman Introduces Himself As An Austin Fishwrap Editorial Columnist
[2] Ken Herman Grills Texas Tech Chancellor Kent Hance About Hiring Gonzo

[x Austin Fishwrap]
[1]—Back To Directory
Finally, My Two Cents' Worth (Hey, That's Not For Throwing)
By Ken Herman

Just short of 34 years into my journalism career I find myself being paid good money to have and share opinions. This is similar to getting paid to have a nose.

As the newest member of the American-Statesman's editorial board (been here a week now), I hope to use our pages to inform, delight, annoy and otherwise engage our readers. From contact I've had with readers over the years, it seems that I already had been doing that on the news pages.

I'm always glad to hear from the readers. Nice to know you're out there. Even nicer to know that you can be civil while calling me to task for errors of judgment or fact.

Many of us newspaper geezers fully understand the new world and new challenge in which we are involved. This needs to be a conversation, not a lecture. We have to get that right or about 15 years from now the phrase "I used to be in newspapers" will sound like "I used to be in vaudeville."

We also must find new ways of doing some things we have done the same old way for many years. In the past few years, I've enjoyed dabbling in video, using a small, cheap camera (which would have cost $20,000 if it existed 15 years ago) to let people see what I see on assignment.

We will continue the video experiment here. We gave it a road test with what I call a "videotorial" on the morning after the legislative session ended. Let's see how that format lends itself to the art of editorializing.

And let me take a quarter-inch of your time to express gratitude to lawmakers and others who played along when I, unannounced, stuck the camera in their faces during the session. After viewing some of my early efforts, former Speaker Pete Laney predicted somebody would punch my lights out before session's end.

Never happened. Too bad. Would have made great video.

Here's the short bio: Brooklyn, New York native. Finished high school and earned college degree in South Florida. Entered journalism in 1975 at the Lufkin Daily News in East Texas. Wrote for The Associated Press in Dallas, Harlingen and Austin, 1977-1988. Arrived in Austin (with AP) in 1979. Became Austin Bureau Chief for The Houston Post in 1988. Joined the Statesman when the Post folded (an early adopter of what's become quite a trend) in 1995.

Did a six-month stint as Cox Newspapers White House correspondent in 2001. Did a longer stint in that job from June 2004-January 2009.

I classify my politics as recovering reactionary, largely because I don't really know what that means. Many around me classify my politics as cranky. Some say that's because of my fear that I am a member of the worst generation. We warmed the planet, cooled the economy and now are in danger of becoming the first American generation to leave our kids with lives more challenged than ours have been.

On the plus side, we did come up with HDTV. It's amazing (especially for hockey), but I'm not sure it outweighs the negatives.

Until somebody here at the paper disables my login (sounds like something your doctor says will cause some "discomfort"), I hope to weigh in on weighty topics du jour ("The coming end of days: Should you pay your cable bill?") and life in Austin.

And depending on my mood and the bosses' tolerance, we might delve into some notions I have spouted over the years during the boring periods between the outbreak of news.

Here's the short version of some: Public libraries should be closed immediately. We gave up on Prohibition too quickly. For statistical purity, the home team should bat in the bottom of the ninth even if it is ahead. A safety should be called a touchback, and vice versa.

There's more. And now that I've got a very public place in which to bloviate about this stuff, I can't wait to see whether I have the courage to do so. Ω
________________________________________________________
[2]—Back To Directory
Mistakes Were Made — But Not This Time, Hance Says
By Ken Herman

Here's how I opened my chat with Texas Tech Chancellor Kent Hance about the hiring of ex-A.G. Alberto Gonzales to teach political science at Guns Up U.:

"I wanted your comment on the announcement that Tech also has hired Sarah Palin, Mark Sanford and Jack the Ripper."

Hance didn't hang up, so we talked about the reaction to the controversial hire.

"I've had nine e-mails that were opposed to it. Three of them were Texas Tech grads. One of them has never given any money. One gave $20 in '76 and the big contributor gave $130 in '87," Hance said.

The chancellor remains convinced he's bringing a good man with a good deal of good experience to campus as a visiting professor and recruiter of Hispanic students.

"Who is upset about it? They are all left," said Hance, an ex-congressman who made a political career on the right. "I can tell you this: If Bill Clinton agreed to teach a course at Tech, I would take him."

In Lubbock that would be the more controversial hire.

Hance is a different kind of chancellor who was a different kind of politician. He's a teller of improbable tales, including his swear-its-true story about his Dimmitt High School basketball team playing in an L-shaped gym in Jal, NM.

Some think Hance could have become a Democratic governor had he not switched to the GOP and run headlong into the money of Clayton Williams ("Putting the goober back into gubernatorial") in the 1990 GOP primary.

The historical hypothetic goes like this. If Hance had remained a Democrat, maybe Ann Richards (who barely beat Williams in 1990) never would have been governor. Another version says if Williams had not bought the 1990 nomination, Hance might have defeated Richards.

And then maybe Richards never would have been governor. And then maybe George W. Bush never would have been governor. And then maybe Bush never would have been president.

And then maybe we wouldn't have invaded Iraq. And then maybe worldwide peace and prosperity would have prevailed. And then maybe you wouldn't be fishing around in the toilet for your 401(k).

So maybe it's all Hance's fault.

Maybe not. But if bringing Gonzales to Tech turns out to be a mistake, that will be Hance's fault.

No way it's a mistake, he insists.

"For students to be able to interact with someone who has been in a presidential cabinet is a huge plus. This is an exchange of ideas," he said. "That's what we do at a university. The few I've heard from on Al Gonzales, they don't want someone that disagrees with them.

"It's called freedom of speech. The far left does not like, in fact they hate, people that disagree with them, and they want to shut them up. And I think you have some of the same problems on the extreme right."

Back in January, I had lunch with Gonzales, Bush's attorney general who resigned amid controversy in 2007, in McLean, VA.

Despite expressing confidence in his record and all that Bush had done, Gonzales seemed sad though determined to look forward, not back.

Mistakes, he said, were made, declining to checklist them.

"If people expect that officials at this level, dealing with the kind of issues we deal with, aren't going to make mistakes, they are living in la-la land," he told me. "I mean, you make mistakes and you learn from those mistakes.

"I think there is so much misinformation out there. Not just about me, but about the Bush administration and what we were about. It's important for our side of the story to be told. If it's not told by us, no one is going to tell it," he said.

I saw him in Midland on January 20 after he flew in from Washington with Bush, who had words of advice for him as they left the plane.

"He kissed me on the forehead and he said, 'Just stay strong,' " Gonzales told me.

Here's some more advice for Gonzales: We all can learn from our mistakes. You should try to teach from yours.

And don't use this as a forum for telling "our side of the story."

Any effort to burnish the tarnished legacy would be torture. Ω

[Ken Herman is the latest addition to the Opinion page of the Austin Fishwrap.]

Copyright © 2009 The Austin American-Statesman

Get the Google Reader at no cost from Google. Click on this link to go on a tour of the Google Reader. If you read a lot of blogs, load Reader with your regular sites, then check them all on one page. The Reader's share function lets you publicize your favorite posts.

Copyright © 2009 Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves

Checklist: Will Judge Sonia Be Asked Any Of These Questions?

Today's NY Fishwrap supplied a panel of 7 interrogators to ask the questions they would press upon Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Even Gonzo, the featherweight of the panel, asked sensible questions. Perhaps Mrs. Gonzo wrote them beforehand. Thank goodness Gonzo didn't turn to John Yoo or David Addington. If this is a (fair & balanced) list of confirmation hearing queries, so be it.

[x NY Fishwrap]
Questions For Judge Sotomayor
By Kathleen M. Sullivan, Michael Chertoff, Stephen L. Carter, Alberto Gonzales, Ann Althouse, Ronald Dworkin, and James McGregor Burns

Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, is scheduled to appear today at a confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Op-Ed editors asked seven legal experts to pose the questions they would like to hear the nominee answer.

Kathleen M. Sullivan, a professor of law at Stanford, asked:

1. Advocacy of “states’ rights” has long been considered a hallmark of conservative judicial philosophy. Recently, however, we have seen the advent of what might be called “blue states’ rights,” as progressive states seek to provide greater consumer, environmental and antidiscrimination protection than the federal government, while business seeks to strike down such measures as pre-empted by federal law.

What is your view of the role of federalism in our constitutional system? And how has that view affected your rulings in the cases that have come before you concerning whether federal laws pre-empt state laws or causes of action?

2. The Supreme Court has issued four major decisions since 9/11 invalidating the president’s and Congress’s efforts to detain and try “enemy combatants” according to procedures that depart from traditions of military justice and the rule of law. And yet since 9/11, not a single enemy combatant has been tried to judgment by military tribunal or released over executive branch objection. How will history view the Supreme Court’s decisions in this area — as a success for the principles they announced or a failure for the results they achieved? What is your view of the role of the court in ensuring the separation of powers? Has that view varied in times of national emergency?
—
Michael Chertoff, a secretary of homeland security under George W. Bush, asked:

1. If confirmed, you will be the only member of the Supreme Court who was a federal trial judge. You know that the factual findings of a trial judge or jury are based on a carefully assembled body of evidence. In your opinion, to what degree is an appeals judge confined by that evidential record in reaching decisions? When, if ever, is it appropriate for an appellate judge to rely upon other, extrinsic sources — like social science studies, polls or academic writings — in deciding a case?

2. When a court interprets an international treaty or deals with an international dispute, it is not uncommon to consider international law. More controversial is the practice of some judges to look to foreign law for assistance in interpreting provisions of purely American law, like the Constitution. Putting aside English law that existed at the time the Constitution was framed, what use, if any, should be made of foreign law in interpreting the Constitution?

3. From time to time a judge confronts a situation where a fair reading of the law points to a decision that conflicts with the judge’s personal views or sympathies. Please give three examples of judgments you rendered based on interpretation of the law, even though the outcomes were at odds with your individual views or sympathies.
—
Stephen L. Carter, a professor of law at Yale and the author of the forthcoming "Jericho’s Fall," asked:

1. Many of the questions you will be asked during the hearing will be designed to elicit your view on cases likely to come before you on the court. Over the years, nominees have handled these questions in different ways. No member of the current court responded to these questions in any detail. Is predicting the votes of potential justices a proper role for either the president or the Senate? If not, what are the factors you believe should be taken into account?

2. Even though you cannot give us your view on cases likely to come before you if you are confirmed, we nevertheless need to understand your view of the Supreme Court as an institution. Could you please tell us which justice, excluding current members of the court, you most admire, and why?

3. There was a time when the majority and the dissenters on the court went out of their way to be respectful toward each other. Even in so divisive a case as Miranda v. Arizona in 1966, the dissenters, who thought the result simply terrible, seemed to write more in sorrow than in anger. Now some members have taken to sniping at each other regularly in their opinions, particularly in the footnotes. What do you think is the cause of this trend? If confirmed, what might you do to help stop it?
—
Alberto Gonzales, the United States attorney general from 2005 to 2007, asked:

1. Given your public remarks about the importance of judges showing compassion, do you believe there is a difference between doing justice and applying the law?

2. Some overseas critics have questioned the legality of United States government policies on the war on terrorism. Should America’s standing in the world, to the extent it may be affected by the outcome of a case, ever inform a judicial decision?

3. How important is emphasis on precedent in Supreme Court decision-making? Under what circumstances would you vote to overturn an earlier Supreme Court opinion? Would it be enough that you did not view the case to have been rightly decided? Does it matter how well known it is or how much public reliance there has been on the decision?
—
Ann Althouse, a professor of law at the University of Wisconsin, asked:

1. When you said you hoped that “a wise Latina” would make better judicial decisions, did you mean it as a pleasantry aimed at people who had invited you to speak about diversity or will you now defend the idea that decision-making on the Supreme Court is enhanced by an array of justices representing different backgrounds?

2. If a diverse array of justices is desirable, should we not be concerned that if you are confirmed, six out of the nine justices will be Roman Catholics, or is it somehow wrong to start paying attention to the extreme overrepresentation of Catholicism on the court at the moment when we have our first Hispanic nominee?
—
Ronald Dworkin, a professor of law at New York University, asked:

1. The last two nominees told the Judiciary Committee that they could decide difficult constitutional cases just by applying the law. Critics say this is silly: often the text and history of crucial constitutional clauses and the court’s past decisions aren’t decisive either way, so that judges can interpret those clauses only by asking which reading, in their opinion, is best. They must finally rely on their own political convictions in making that judgment. Do you agree with these critics?

2. You have been criticized for your vote in the New Haven firefighters case. The case raised the crucial question of whether a city or state can use race-sensitive policies, short of quotas, to reduce racial inequality and tension. Do you see any moral or constitutional objection, in principle, to such policies?
—
James MacGregor Burns, the author of "Packing the Court: The Rise of Judicial Power and the Coming Crisis of the Supreme Court," asked:

1. The Constitution is “not a static but rather a living document,” Barack Obama wrote in The Audacity of Hope, echoing Thomas Jefferson, “and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.” Do you agree? If so, how would you apply this idea to specific cases?

2. Do you believe that the Supreme Court has the constitutional authority to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional? Would you be in favor of a constitutional amendment establishing or rejecting once and for all the power of an unelected Supreme Court to veto acts of our elected Congress?

3. Throughout the court’s history, it has often lagged behind the times, as lifetime appointees adhered to outdated ideologies and attitudes. Would you be in favor of requiring justices to retire at the age of 70? Ω

[Kathleen M. Sullivan served as the eleventh dean of Stanford Law School (1999-2004) and the first woman dean of any school at Stanford. Michael Chertoff served as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals, as a federal prosecutor, and as assistant U.S. Attorney General. Chertoff succeeded Tom Ridge as United States Secretary of Homeland Security on February 15, 2005. Stephen L. Carter, after graduation from the Yale Law School, served as a law clerk for Judge Spottswood W. Robinson III of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and, subsequently, for US Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. Alberto Gonzales will join the faculty of the Department of Political Science at Texas Tech University for the Fall 2009 term. Ann Althouse maintains a blog on Blogger. Ronald Dworkin, after graduation from Harvard Law School, subsequently clerked for Judge Learned Hand of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Judge Hand would later call Dworkin the finest clerk he ever employed, and Dworkin would recall Judge Hand as an enormously influential mentor. James McGregor Burns received a Pulitzer Prize and National Book Award in 1971 for his Roosevelt: Soldier of Freedom 1940-1945.]

Copyright © 2009 The New York Times Company

Get the Google Reader at no cost from Google. Click on this link to go on a tour of the Google Reader. If you read a lot of blogs, load Reader with your regular sites, then check them all on one page. The Reader's share function lets you publicize your favorite posts.

Copyright © 2009 Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves