In re Hagel

Politics engenders instinctive approbation and animosity.  It is therefore with visceral like or dislike that people view President Obama, and his compatriots such as Chuck Hagel, the new Secretary of Defense.  Those who hold great power in this country act with no less inherent response and with no more reason in their approval of personages or sound policy decisions.  To say that Hagel’s nomination in the Senate — an august body on which he once sat — for the position of Secretary of Defense would be filibustered would be to state the obvious.

It was, however, a surprise that there was an actual filibuster and not only a procedural threat of one.  Rand Paul made a brave move of breaking with the recent, but out-of-place tradition of merely threatening a possibility of a filibuster and therefore shutting down the whole nomination process.  He instead performed the requisite functions of a filibuster by talking on the Senate floor for twelve hours — about anything he wanted to talk about, although he actually showed up with facts.  Politically I am naturally antithetical to Paul, but he gains my approval for arriving on the floor to talk about policies we should all object to, such as the use of drones.  We may have high approval of our leaders while simultaneously disagreeing with blighted policies; while I highly approve of President Obama I fail to understand his international policy, especially in regard to drones.

The name of this article is based on the classic case In re Neagle (On behalf of Neagle); a not-very-exiting legal decision, but a great story involving a Federal Judge, chases on trains, and a murder.