The fact that Souter decided — like Warren, Brennan, Blackmun, Stevens, O’Connor and Kennedy — that he would prefer to be a Philosopher King rather than a judge once he got on the court doesn’t mean you never can tell with any of these guys. It means you have to find judges who wake up every morning: (1) thinking about the right answers to legal questions; and (2) chortling about how much his latest opinion will tick off the left.

Uh-oh, Ann Coulter again, continuing to press (make) her case that John Roberts is a cautiously chosen U.S. Supreme Court nominee who can’t be trusted to be another Scalia or Thomas.  “READ MY LIPS: NO NEW LIBERALS” is her column title, again setting the mark for wit and perspicacity in the political-commentary arena.  In this column she shows how good Souter looked to conservatives based on his record as New Hampshire’s attorney general — tough on abortion, soft on lowering the state flag on Good Friday.

At one point, she writes,  again with wicked, well-aimed wit, “the only people more opposed to abortion than Souter were still in vitro.”  As for lowering the flag to commemorate Christ’s death, he said at the time that it

“no more establishes a religious position on the part of the state or promotes a religion than the lowering of the flag for the death of Hubert Humphrey promotes the cause of the Democratic Party in New Hampshire.”

He also “openly proclaimed his support for the ‘original intent’ in interpreting the Constitution.”  Then came his philosopher king turnaround, which Coulter deplores, needless to say.  She wants a different kind of justice, one who aggressively pursues constitutional interpretation over making things right as he sees fit.  She even gives up the pro-life issue:

 I don’t give a rat’s behind whether the guy is pro-life, whether his wife is pro-life, whether he used to be pro-life, whether he will become pro-life, etc. That tells us how he would vote as a state legislator. He isn’t being nominated for state legislator.

Let us remember that last sentence.  It’s very important and in typical Ann Coulter fashion encapsulates the essence of the question, if I may go redundant for effect.  Just this once, OK?

This by former OP trustee Barbara S. Ebner appeared recently in both local papers.  It is a good response to new leadership ideas in the Village board:

Please allow me to affirm that I am a true believer in the Council Manager form of government. It has stood us in good stead for 50 years and has moved Oak Park far ahead of its neighbors who retain the use of the aldermanic form. It has allowed us to become the diverse, welcoming, prize-winning village we are, while our neighbors to the south suffer from scandals, intrigue and party politics.

In that regard, several disturbing recommendations were made at the village board’s study session last Monday night. They were made by new trustees, and I would like to believe they were made from innocence, not as an attempt to change the government form. To my knowledge, we have had no referendum on changing our form of government. You were elected to serve under this form.

I will only address two of the issues that I see as challenging governance under our current Village Manager form. There are others, and I hope they will also be addressed.

First, a recommendation was made to discuss the forming of a Personnel Commission, although no specifics were given. Since commissions are formed to make recommendations to the board, such a commission has no function. One of the basic tenets of the Council Manager form of government specifically places all hiring and firing of staff in the hands of the professional manager. The single employee of the board, the Village Manager, is the only person such a commission would be responsible for. Unless, the board was to require a search for a new Village Manager, such a commission would have no tasks.

Second, a recommendation to give responsibility for a specific geographic area to each member of the board was made. Although the Council Manager form of government allows for such divisions, there is no place for such a system in Oak Park. We are a tiny, land-locked community. We have made diversity our single most important goal. Our geography is probably our least diverse aspect.

Trustees are elected to serve all of Oak Park. Their major function is to set policy, and approve a budget which reflects these policy decisions. Directing individual activities to a specific geographic area of the village can only mean making these individuals spokespersons for individual areas. In other places they call them aldermen.

It immediately puts trustees at odds with one another. Arguments over how many pot holes were tilled, streets repaved, etc. in a given area would only be the beginning. This is not the goal of our form of government. It can only make meetings longer, make it necessary to have more meetings and provide more acrimony, not less. This is exactly the situation that takes away time and energy from your ability to govern under the Council Manager form of government.

Allow me to quote from a document from the international Council Manager’s Association (ICMA org for those interested). “The council is the legislative body; its members are the community’s decision makers. Power is centralized in the elected council, which approves the budget and determines the tax rate, for example. The council also focuses on the community’s goals, major projects, and such long-term considerations as community growth, land use development, capital improvement plans, capital financing and strategic planning. The council hires a professional manager to carry out the administrative responsibilities and supervises the manager’s performance.”

First, do your job! Then allow the Village Manager to do his.

“They do not have a commission to solve society’s problems, as they see them, but simply to decide cases before them according to the rule of law,” [Supreme Court nominee Roberts] wrote to the [senate judiciary] committee, which will begin considering Roberts’ nomination on Sept. 6.

Say wha’?  The men and women in black don’t come with answers?  Subversive!

See Wednesday Journal for my column on New leadership village board commentary.