To appoint Supreme Court justices.
The Court split 5-4 today to uphold the federal ban on "partial birth abortions." Here is a summary of the majority ruling and opinion. I look forward to reading the dissent. Oh, and guess which justices were in the minority...
Update: Hot Air:
Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion? This is like Darth Vader throwing the Emperor down the well at the end of [Star Wars: Return of the Jedi].
Update again: Justice Ginsburg, who wrote the dissent (no!) accuses the majority opinion justices of simple and archaic sexism. Apparently, defending an unborn child is relegating a woman to the status of "mother" (which is apparently horrible). Of course, once you are pregnant you are a mother, a concept Supreme Court justices like Ginsburg simply can never understand.
Update again again: Where do your favorites stand?
Hillary, Obama, Edwards - all support partial birth abortion.
McCain, Guiliani, Romney - all oppose partial birth abortion.
Just an FYI...
Showing posts with label scotus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label scotus. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Truth
So we lost. We aren't complaining (at least too loudly), we aren't claiming they cheated, and I doubt any recounts will make it to the Supreme Court.
So why did we lose? Unlike liberals, who when they are out of power decided that they needed to be more liberal to win, conservatives actually became, well, non-conservative.
What is the common thread in the Democrats that got elected or nearly elected? Webb in Virginia? Ford (almost) in Tennessee? Lieberman in Connecticut? It's that they are conservative Democrats (or recently independents). The Republicans rejected their conservativism and have paid the price. Wake up call? Yes - and hopefully we don't hit snooze in the run-up to 2008.
The Democrats have a historic opportunity here. You see, they ran John Kerry in 2004 with a simply campaign slogan - John Kerry is not George Bush. This slogan and policy failed miserably for a whole host of reasons - least of which is that John Kerry didn't stand for anything.
Two years later you see the Democrats doing the same thing. A "new direction." A "new plan." What plan? What direction? It wasn't until November 6th that I got emails from John Kerry and Howard Dean. Oh, yea - we support cheaper gas prices, socialized healthcare, and our favorite "new direction." What?
The Democrats have successfully taken over Congress with literally no policies or procedures they want to accomplish. Nancy Pelosi said that the Democrats are "ready to lead." Where?
Chuck Rangel wants to raise taxes. Jon Conyers wants to impeach Bush (do you think he'll read the legislation?) John Murtha wants to abandon Iraq. Is that the mandate the American people have given the Democrats?
Indeed, this election may have given the Democrats their strongest challenge in 12 years - to do something. It's clear that for nearly 12 years Nancy and Harry and John have been 100% devoted to opposition. Blaming those in power will no longer work for the Democrats - and they had better think fast. (I bet they wished they had let pass that "nuclear option," huh?)
Which leads us to the most important issue of our time - Iraq. Will the Democrats force us to leave? Will the House pull the purse strings until there is no choice? One would certainly hope not, or the most important thrust in the War on Terror will have been for naught. However, if the Democrats devote their livelihoods to impeachment, proving global warming, HillaryCare, and raising taxes I'm sure that their stay will be short.
Bill Whittle explains our commitment to Iraq here, and blows apart every common excuse for peaceniks to be peaceniks.
What should we remember?
Doves think the choice is between fighting or not fighting. Hawks think the choice is between fighting now or fighting later.
Will the Democrats pull a Murtha and run? Or will they be so preoccupied with their presumptive power that they will practice their full-court press against the administration. We'll have to wait and see, but we need not wait to know what is right and necessary.
AN ADDITIONAL TRUTH: Is it not a bit disconcerting that "from Paris to Pakistan" the world is celebrating the return of the Democrats? From dictators in the middle east to socialists in Europe, it seems that we have finally truly passed the global test.
So why did we lose? Unlike liberals, who when they are out of power decided that they needed to be more liberal to win, conservatives actually became, well, non-conservative.
What is the common thread in the Democrats that got elected or nearly elected? Webb in Virginia? Ford (almost) in Tennessee? Lieberman in Connecticut? It's that they are conservative Democrats (or recently independents). The Republicans rejected their conservativism and have paid the price. Wake up call? Yes - and hopefully we don't hit snooze in the run-up to 2008.
The Democrats have a historic opportunity here. You see, they ran John Kerry in 2004 with a simply campaign slogan - John Kerry is not George Bush. This slogan and policy failed miserably for a whole host of reasons - least of which is that John Kerry didn't stand for anything.
Two years later you see the Democrats doing the same thing. A "new direction." A "new plan." What plan? What direction? It wasn't until November 6th that I got emails from John Kerry and Howard Dean. Oh, yea - we support cheaper gas prices, socialized healthcare, and our favorite "new direction." What?
The Democrats have successfully taken over Congress with literally no policies or procedures they want to accomplish. Nancy Pelosi said that the Democrats are "ready to lead." Where?
Chuck Rangel wants to raise taxes. Jon Conyers wants to impeach Bush (do you think he'll read the legislation?) John Murtha wants to abandon Iraq. Is that the mandate the American people have given the Democrats?
Indeed, this election may have given the Democrats their strongest challenge in 12 years - to do something. It's clear that for nearly 12 years Nancy and Harry and John have been 100% devoted to opposition. Blaming those in power will no longer work for the Democrats - and they had better think fast. (I bet they wished they had let pass that "nuclear option," huh?)
Which leads us to the most important issue of our time - Iraq. Will the Democrats force us to leave? Will the House pull the purse strings until there is no choice? One would certainly hope not, or the most important thrust in the War on Terror will have been for naught. However, if the Democrats devote their livelihoods to impeachment, proving global warming, HillaryCare, and raising taxes I'm sure that their stay will be short.
Bill Whittle explains our commitment to Iraq here, and blows apart every common excuse for peaceniks to be peaceniks.
What should we remember?
Doves think the choice is between fighting or not fighting. Hawks think the choice is between fighting now or fighting later.
Will the Democrats pull a Murtha and run? Or will they be so preoccupied with their presumptive power that they will practice their full-court press against the administration. We'll have to wait and see, but we need not wait to know what is right and necessary.
AN ADDITIONAL TRUTH: Is it not a bit disconcerting that "from Paris to Pakistan" the world is celebrating the return of the Democrats? From dictators in the middle east to socialists in Europe, it seems that we have finally truly passed the global test.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Best Of The Web This Thursday
National Review Online had a great article on potential cases for the Supreme Court to hear during their next session. As I have discussed before, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold) is clearly unconstitutional, barely SCOTUS-approved after Sandra Day O'Connor's dice gave her the thumbs-up; the election-speech restrictions that made it harder to hear concerned citizens and easier for incumbent politicans was doomed from the day it was signed. Another potential case: can a school district tell parents they can't use education voucher money for private religious schools? Fuck no! Goddam hippies cannot fathom individuals being allowed the "right to define one’s own concept of existence" unless it has to do restrictions on abortion. wtf.
Also check out Cafe Hayek, where economists are pointing out some of the flaws of calls for increased gov't warning labels. I've been in California for only four days, but it's already apparent that the state believes citizens around me aren't too capable at making wise decisions. I'm sure it's hard for people to take a step back and realize that although problem may exist and a government body may be able to dole out a solution, the solution can be more disruptive than the problem.
For a good laugh, check out liberals confusion about House Minority Leader Pelosi and Crackhead Extraordinaire Rangel defending President Bush after ridiculous attacks from Hugo Chavez. From the eyes of many of the dKos Kidz, morally right is defined as "the opposite of whatever Bush says." True progressyves find no problem taking sides with a populist dictator running a country into the ground as long as he's critical of our President.
Addendum:
Friday's WSJ has an article about the sorry state of teacher's colleges. They may do a good job at concocting new diversity buzz-words, but the quality of university departments of education lags far behind other programs. As a letter to the editor a while back said, education is the only multi-billion dollar industry that conducts zero R&D. Unlike law, medicine, engineering, etc., there's not even an idea of what skill/knowledge sets make a good teacher. The article closes by suggesting we track student acheivement by teacher instruction; it's a step in the right diection.
Friday, June 30, 2006
Bush the War Criminal
It looks like the lefty blogosphere is going to have a great time with this one. The LA Times (most recently guilty of treason) ran an article today by Rosa Brooks claiming that, under the arguments presented by the Supreme Court in Hamdan, George Bush is a "war criminal." I know - it's tough to follow, but let's get going.
THE SUPREME Court on Thursday dealt the Bush administration a stinging rebuke, declaring in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld that military commissions for trying terrorist suspects violate both U.S. military law and the Geneva Convention.
It's hard to contest an article that starts out with such a fallacy. The Court actually found that military tribunals are not authorized in this case, claiming that such tribunals are incorrect to use to try terrorists such as those held in Guantanamo. In fact, US military law, as well as the Geneva Conventions, do not recognize plain-clothes terrorists as fighters under their protection. The Supreme Court actually overruled the President's authorization for tribunals and the Congress' will that the Supreme Court not hear such cases. This first paragraph could not be further from the truth.
Rosa goes on to claim:
Perhaps most troubling, [the adminstration's opinion that terrorists were not "prisoners of war"] allowed the administration to claim that detained terrorism suspects could be subjected to interrogation techniques that constitute torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment under international law, such as "waterboarding," placing prisoners in painful physical positions, sexual humiliation and extreme sleep deprivation.
Honestly, waterboarding and sleep deprivation don't really bother me as interrogation techniques on known terrorists. The fact that Rosa tosses in "sexual humiliation" without any proof or reference, means she is simply trying to make the interrogations sound worse than they are. No one ever seems to cite Christina Aguilera.
...the court's declaration that Common Article 3 applies to the war on terror is of enormous significance. Ultimately, it could pave the way for war crimes prosecutions of those responsible for abusing detainees.
Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions states that cruel treatment shall not be exercised on prisoners of war, and federal law says that anyone who violates section 3 is guilty of "war crimes" and can be imprisoned or executed.
So what Rosa is really saying is that if the Supreme Court upholds that the terrorists in Guantanamo are actually "prisoners of war," and if the interrogation techniques preformed on them could be considered "cruel," and if an explicit command directly from George Bush can be found that authorized that interrogation, then Bush is a war criminal. (Which also means that the Supreme Court ignored the Geneva Conventions in defining prisoners of war, but a federal court would have to use the aforementioned Conventions when abhorring torture.)
What she should be worried about, instead of trying to brand the commander in chief of war crimes, is that head-chopping terrorists in Guantanamo may be eligible to all the protections of US citizens in civilian courts, assuming the Congress does not act, and assuming that the Supreme Court doesn't choose to overrule them again.
THE SUPREME Court on Thursday dealt the Bush administration a stinging rebuke, declaring in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld that military commissions for trying terrorist suspects violate both U.S. military law and the Geneva Convention.
It's hard to contest an article that starts out with such a fallacy. The Court actually found that military tribunals are not authorized in this case, claiming that such tribunals are incorrect to use to try terrorists such as those held in Guantanamo. In fact, US military law, as well as the Geneva Conventions, do not recognize plain-clothes terrorists as fighters under their protection. The Supreme Court actually overruled the President's authorization for tribunals and the Congress' will that the Supreme Court not hear such cases. This first paragraph could not be further from the truth.
Rosa goes on to claim:
Perhaps most troubling, [the adminstration's opinion that terrorists were not "prisoners of war"] allowed the administration to claim that detained terrorism suspects could be subjected to interrogation techniques that constitute torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment under international law, such as "waterboarding," placing prisoners in painful physical positions, sexual humiliation and extreme sleep deprivation.
Honestly, waterboarding and sleep deprivation don't really bother me as interrogation techniques on known terrorists. The fact that Rosa tosses in "sexual humiliation" without any proof or reference, means she is simply trying to make the interrogations sound worse than they are. No one ever seems to cite Christina Aguilera.
...the court's declaration that Common Article 3 applies to the war on terror is of enormous significance. Ultimately, it could pave the way for war crimes prosecutions of those responsible for abusing detainees.
Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions states that cruel treatment shall not be exercised on prisoners of war, and federal law says that anyone who violates section 3 is guilty of "war crimes" and can be imprisoned or executed.
So what Rosa is really saying is that if the Supreme Court upholds that the terrorists in Guantanamo are actually "prisoners of war," and if the interrogation techniques preformed on them could be considered "cruel," and if an explicit command directly from George Bush can be found that authorized that interrogation, then Bush is a war criminal. (Which also means that the Supreme Court ignored the Geneva Conventions in defining prisoners of war, but a federal court would have to use the aforementioned Conventions when abhorring torture.)
What she should be worried about, instead of trying to brand the commander in chief of war crimes, is that head-chopping terrorists in Guantanamo may be eligible to all the protections of US citizens in civilian courts, assuming the Congress does not act, and assuming that the Supreme Court doesn't choose to overrule them again.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Dangerous
In a sweeping move today, the Supreme Court of the United States proved again that it is the most powerful entity on Earth, save for God himself.
In Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld it overruled in one single day the will of the United States Congress, the President of the United States, the Geneva Conventions, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Hamdan, a Taliban terrorist working for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan in 2001, now has the right to a trial by jury in the United States - just like a US citizen. Regardless of the fact that the President has the Constitutional authority to make war, in this case approved of by the congress; regardless of the Congress' ruling that detainees at Guantanamo bay are not prisoners of war and therefore their claims cannot be heard in US courts; regardless of the fact that the Geneva Conventions and the UCMJ does not recognize terrorists in plain clothes hiding among civilians as being eligible for their protection - the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hamdan anyway.
Now all of the prisoners in Guantanamo will receive the same rights and privileges as citizens of the United States. They will be tried by jury in the US, and their punishments will be leveled at them in civilian courts.
Not only does this ruling allow terrorists to operate with impunity on the battlefield, it actually guarantees that 1) the US will never detain terrorists in US territory again and 2) terrorists operating as civilians will be considered the same rights as uniform-wielding civilian-protecting enemy soldiers.
This is a dark day for the war on terror, and also lends an ironically humorous rebuttal to liberals' cries of "overreaching" executive power. It's the Supreme Court that we need to watch out for.
In Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld it overruled in one single day the will of the United States Congress, the President of the United States, the Geneva Conventions, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Hamdan, a Taliban terrorist working for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan in 2001, now has the right to a trial by jury in the United States - just like a US citizen. Regardless of the fact that the President has the Constitutional authority to make war, in this case approved of by the congress; regardless of the Congress' ruling that detainees at Guantanamo bay are not prisoners of war and therefore their claims cannot be heard in US courts; regardless of the fact that the Geneva Conventions and the UCMJ does not recognize terrorists in plain clothes hiding among civilians as being eligible for their protection - the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hamdan anyway.
Now all of the prisoners in Guantanamo will receive the same rights and privileges as citizens of the United States. They will be tried by jury in the US, and their punishments will be leveled at them in civilian courts.
Not only does this ruling allow terrorists to operate with impunity on the battlefield, it actually guarantees that 1) the US will never detain terrorists in US territory again and 2) terrorists operating as civilians will be considered the same rights as uniform-wielding civilian-protecting enemy soldiers.
This is a dark day for the war on terror, and also lends an ironically humorous rebuttal to liberals' cries of "overreaching" executive power. It's the Supreme Court that we need to watch out for.
Friday, April 21, 2006
Who says stupid doesn't pay?
Look at Russ! He tried to censure Bush for acting within his constitutional bounds (according to a Supreme Court case and the FISA court - that's all) and he gets about $100,000 more than he usually gets! Isn't that great - bring on the Bush-hating spenders...
Maybe if this was an anti-Bush blog someone would click on the Google ads...
Maybe if this was an anti-Bush blog someone would click on the Google ads...
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Wake up, Ruth
Arguments were made today in the Texas redistricting case in the Supreme Court. I seems that Ruth Bader Ginsburg has someone record the arguments:
The subject matter was extremely technical, and near the end of the argument Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dozed in her chair. Justices David Souter and Samuel Alito, who flank the 72-year-old, looked at her but did not give her a nudge.
Impressive.
The subject matter was extremely technical, and near the end of the argument Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dozed in her chair. Justices David Souter and Samuel Alito, who flank the 72-year-old, looked at her but did not give her a nudge.
Impressive.
Sunday, February 26, 2006
The Supreme Court and The Big One
I want to expand on our coverage of the Supreme Court's agreement to reconsider its ruling on state late-term abortion bans and the ramifications of South Dakota's legislative assault on Roe v. Wade.
It hasn't been covered nearly as well as Vice President Cheney's hunting accident, but I think most Americans would be interested to know that the Supreme Court of the US (hereafter SCOTUS) will very soon hear a real, live case about abortion. No more guessing and speculation about where justices stand; everything will be on the table.
Several states, including our neighbor to the west, have passed laws outlawing third-trimester, "intact dilation and extraction," "late term," or "partial birth" abortion. Those bans, including a federal ban passed by Congress in 2003, have been struck down by federal courts for not including a clause allowing abortions if the health of the mother depended upon it. It's hard to tell with the literature put out by advocacy groups on both sides, but it seems to me that all of these laws restricting abortions allowed the procedure in cases where the life of the mother was in danger but some have stopped short of allowing physicians to only show that the health of the mother is in danger. Legal reasoning for not including the clause varies from 'a health exception is assumed and doesn't need to be stated' to Congress's finding (after testimony from physicians) that late term abortions never need to be performed for health reasons.
Anyway, courts have struck down these laws because of their interpretation of the 1992 "undue burden" standard issued by the Supreme Court, written by Sandra Day O'Connor (recently replaced by Justice Samuel Alito).
As late as 2000, SCOTUS used this standard to strike down a Nebraska ban on late term abortions. Conservatives call these partial-birth abortions because the laws penalize physicians who terminate the life of a baby/fetus that is partially delivered (inducing delivery to kill the fetus is the safest way to prevent complications with the mother). After the Nebraska law was struck down in 2000, they enacted another ban, which the court has agreed to hear.
And as Radar noted, South Dakota just this past week enacted a law (by a nearly veto-proof majority) that penalizes physicians for performing any type of abortion except in those cases where the life of the mother is risked. By any standard the SCOTUS has used, this law is unconstitutional (much like the plaintiffs in Brown v. Board of Education proposed a clearly unconstitutional solution in 1952-3). It is a frontal assault on the core holding of Roe, and will be struck down by lower courts adhering to precedent until it reaches the highest court, where four of nine justices must agree to hear the case (which is sadly questionable itself).
....
If you're still with me...Commentators and pundits used to say the most powerful person in the U.S. was O'Connor because she was the swing vote on so many out-front issues. I don't know about "most powerful person in the country," but Anthony Kennedy is certainly the new court pendulum.
Kennedy joined O'Connor in upholding the central matter of Roe in 1992 when four justices (White, Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas) argued it was time to scrap it. Now there are presumably four justices who would want to strike down Roe (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito) and four who presumably want to strengthen Roe (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer).
The ninth justice, Kennedy, is the keystone. And though he has voted to strike down some restrictions, he's willing to go farther than O'Connor letting other restrictions stand. This specific case does not look good for the opponents of Nebraska's law because Justice Kennedy dissented in 2000 when five justices struck down the late-term ban. He described in graphic detail the gruesome method of abortion that was outlawed by citizens and then allowed through the court. In strong language, he said the court's failure to allow the citizens of the state any say in the matter undermines the court's position.
Read his dissent and it's hard to think he'll have completely changed his mind in a mere six years.
....
The bottom line: this will be a test of Chief Justice Roberts. Presuming a five-justice majority is willing to let Nebraska's law stand, the CJ gets to pick who writes the opinion of the majority...but it needs to have five signers to be the new standard. Will Roberts be able to get Kennedy to go along with a broader holding, written by Scalia for example, that paves the way to giving states wide latitude for making restrictions? If four justices agree to a broad approval for state restrictions but Kennedy writes his own opinion and only concurs on narrow grounds, then we once again have a fractured court and an unclear message to lower courts and state legislatures. Will the CJ keep Kennedy on board for a big decision?
The best thing that could happen is for the court to take the extra step and reason that state laws regarding abortion are preeminent, essentially striking down Roe. However, there is almost zero possibility that five justices can be found to take that extra step on this case. Never fear, though, South Dakota's ban is probably a short time (2-3 years?) away from reaching the Court. Even if the court strikes that down, there's nothing stopping states from continuing to challenge the ruling. Side note: it reminds me of local option sales tax votes, people who propose the sales taxes can just keep getting it on the ballot year after year until it wins.
....
As I have said before, I'm not ecstatic about overturning Roe V. Wade because I think all abortion should be banned everywhere. I haven't and never will contribute to or volunteer for groups whose main purpose is enacting restrictions on abortion. But if states decide to enact abortion bans, it's clear to me that's their prerogative and it's important they have that right--that's why Roe is unconstitutional. Guess what: if states decide to allow abortions, that's their right, too!
Good or bad, Roe has become the focal point of questions regarding constitutional interpretation. Striking down such a blatant overreach would do much to turn the corner on inventing penumbras, issuing decisions based on foreign laws, and generally making it up as you go. The sooner we get this mess over with, the sooner the battleground again returns to it's proper outlet: the legislature. It starts with Roe.
It hasn't been covered nearly as well as Vice President Cheney's hunting accident, but I think most Americans would be interested to know that the Supreme Court of the US (hereafter SCOTUS) will very soon hear a real, live case about abortion. No more guessing and speculation about where justices stand; everything will be on the table.
Several states, including our neighbor to the west, have passed laws outlawing third-trimester, "intact dilation and extraction," "late term," or "partial birth" abortion. Those bans, including a federal ban passed by Congress in 2003, have been struck down by federal courts for not including a clause allowing abortions if the health of the mother depended upon it. It's hard to tell with the literature put out by advocacy groups on both sides, but it seems to me that all of these laws restricting abortions allowed the procedure in cases where the life of the mother was in danger but some have stopped short of allowing physicians to only show that the health of the mother is in danger. Legal reasoning for not including the clause varies from 'a health exception is assumed and doesn't need to be stated' to Congress's finding (after testimony from physicians) that late term abortions never need to be performed for health reasons.
Anyway, courts have struck down these laws because of their interpretation of the 1992 "undue burden" standard issued by the Supreme Court, written by Sandra Day O'Connor (recently replaced by Justice Samuel Alito).
As late as 2000, SCOTUS used this standard to strike down a Nebraska ban on late term abortions. Conservatives call these partial-birth abortions because the laws penalize physicians who terminate the life of a baby/fetus that is partially delivered (inducing delivery to kill the fetus is the safest way to prevent complications with the mother). After the Nebraska law was struck down in 2000, they enacted another ban, which the court has agreed to hear.
And as Radar noted, South Dakota just this past week enacted a law (by a nearly veto-proof majority) that penalizes physicians for performing any type of abortion except in those cases where the life of the mother is risked. By any standard the SCOTUS has used, this law is unconstitutional (much like the plaintiffs in Brown v. Board of Education proposed a clearly unconstitutional solution in 1952-3). It is a frontal assault on the core holding of Roe, and will be struck down by lower courts adhering to precedent until it reaches the highest court, where four of nine justices must agree to hear the case (which is sadly questionable itself).
....
If you're still with me...Commentators and pundits used to say the most powerful person in the U.S. was O'Connor because she was the swing vote on so many out-front issues. I don't know about "most powerful person in the country," but Anthony Kennedy is certainly the new court pendulum.
Kennedy joined O'Connor in upholding the central matter of Roe in 1992 when four justices (White, Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas) argued it was time to scrap it. Now there are presumably four justices who would want to strike down Roe (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito) and four who presumably want to strengthen Roe (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer).
The ninth justice, Kennedy, is the keystone. And though he has voted to strike down some restrictions, he's willing to go farther than O'Connor letting other restrictions stand. This specific case does not look good for the opponents of Nebraska's law because Justice Kennedy dissented in 2000 when five justices struck down the late-term ban. He described in graphic detail the gruesome method of abortion that was outlawed by citizens and then allowed through the court. In strong language, he said the court's failure to allow the citizens of the state any say in the matter undermines the court's position.
Read his dissent and it's hard to think he'll have completely changed his mind in a mere six years.
....
The bottom line: this will be a test of Chief Justice Roberts. Presuming a five-justice majority is willing to let Nebraska's law stand, the CJ gets to pick who writes the opinion of the majority...but it needs to have five signers to be the new standard. Will Roberts be able to get Kennedy to go along with a broader holding, written by Scalia for example, that paves the way to giving states wide latitude for making restrictions? If four justices agree to a broad approval for state restrictions but Kennedy writes his own opinion and only concurs on narrow grounds, then we once again have a fractured court and an unclear message to lower courts and state legislatures. Will the CJ keep Kennedy on board for a big decision?
The best thing that could happen is for the court to take the extra step and reason that state laws regarding abortion are preeminent, essentially striking down Roe. However, there is almost zero possibility that five justices can be found to take that extra step on this case. Never fear, though, South Dakota's ban is probably a short time (2-3 years?) away from reaching the Court. Even if the court strikes that down, there's nothing stopping states from continuing to challenge the ruling. Side note: it reminds me of local option sales tax votes, people who propose the sales taxes can just keep getting it on the ballot year after year until it wins.
....
As I have said before, I'm not ecstatic about overturning Roe V. Wade because I think all abortion should be banned everywhere. I haven't and never will contribute to or volunteer for groups whose main purpose is enacting restrictions on abortion. But if states decide to enact abortion bans, it's clear to me that's their prerogative and it's important they have that right--that's why Roe is unconstitutional. Guess what: if states decide to allow abortions, that's their right, too!
Good or bad, Roe has become the focal point of questions regarding constitutional interpretation. Striking down such a blatant overreach would do much to turn the corner on inventing penumbras, issuing decisions based on foreign laws, and generally making it up as you go. The sooner we get this mess over with, the sooner the battleground again returns to it's proper outlet: the legislature. It starts with Roe.
Friday, February 24, 2006
The Young (Collegiate) Left
Michelle Malkin has an excellent website, and a great deal of contacts and information on a variety of subjects.
I was interested to read her post about students that questioned Supreme Court Justice Scalia the other day. It seems that these students had no outside understanding of anything at all - they were just repeating non-question liberal talking points at Scalia. Such things as "I hear Dick Cheney's not such a great shot." "You want to impose your view of natural law on me." "Quail err quail..." "Illegal war in Iraq." None of these things had anything to do with Scalia's speech - it just appeared that these students "knew" all of the "right" things to say but had no idea what they were talking about.
This idea that young liberals, especially in US colleges and universities, are completely clueless about the issues they are supposedly passionate about is becoming more and more prevalent. As I saw at my own campus, liberal-minded students sometimes have a difficult time separating themselves from talking points they watch on CNN and how to address an opportunity for an intelligent conversation with someone with opposing views.
In the past two weeks I had someone at school tell me that "hunting is always stupid" and that the "crazy pro-lifers" were at it again in South Dakota. This first comment I let slide, however the second I directly addressed and found that the individual had no idea 1)what the South Dakota legislature had decided, 2)how a lawsuit attacking the new law would work, 3)how the country's abortion laws stood before Roe vs. Wade, and 4)what it meant if Roe vs. Wade would be overturned. Upon explaining to her that if Roe was overturned all power to regulate and legislate abortion would fall again to the states the person replied, "Oh - I would be against that!" I decided there was little point in me asking why.
Some people are annoyed when others make comments like "Bush lied" and "we're in Iraq for oil" and "Bill Clinton was the greatest American President ever." I feel bad for these individuals - they obviously have a fairly weak grasp on reality and when confronted about their regurgitated declarations they are usually quick to fumble, counter-attack, or simply walk away.
I was interested to read her post about students that questioned Supreme Court Justice Scalia the other day. It seems that these students had no outside understanding of anything at all - they were just repeating non-question liberal talking points at Scalia. Such things as "I hear Dick Cheney's not such a great shot." "You want to impose your view of natural law on me." "Quail err quail..." "Illegal war in Iraq." None of these things had anything to do with Scalia's speech - it just appeared that these students "knew" all of the "right" things to say but had no idea what they were talking about.
This idea that young liberals, especially in US colleges and universities, are completely clueless about the issues they are supposedly passionate about is becoming more and more prevalent. As I saw at my own campus, liberal-minded students sometimes have a difficult time separating themselves from talking points they watch on CNN and how to address an opportunity for an intelligent conversation with someone with opposing views.
In the past two weeks I had someone at school tell me that "hunting is always stupid" and that the "crazy pro-lifers" were at it again in South Dakota. This first comment I let slide, however the second I directly addressed and found that the individual had no idea 1)what the South Dakota legislature had decided, 2)how a lawsuit attacking the new law would work, 3)how the country's abortion laws stood before Roe vs. Wade, and 4)what it meant if Roe vs. Wade would be overturned. Upon explaining to her that if Roe was overturned all power to regulate and legislate abortion would fall again to the states the person replied, "Oh - I would be against that!" I decided there was little point in me asking why.
Some people are annoyed when others make comments like "Bush lied" and "we're in Iraq for oil" and "Bill Clinton was the greatest American President ever." I feel bad for these individuals - they obviously have a fairly weak grasp on reality and when confronted about their regurgitated declarations they are usually quick to fumble, counter-attack, or simply walk away.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Here it comes
Today lawmakers in South Dakota voted to ban all abortions within the state except when the life of the mother is in danger. All this bill needs is a likely signature from South Dakota's governor and it is scheduled for a one-way trip to the Supreme Court in the next few years. Interesting - to say the least.
Friday, January 27, 2006
Who's worse than Hillary as a senator?
Cindy Sheehan.
In a letter from Cindy' mailing list to Diane Feinstein:
Fillibuster Alito or I’ll Challenge Your Senate Seat.
Caracas, Venezuela - Gold star mother Cindy Sheehan has decided to run against California Senator Diane Feinstein if Feinstein does not filibuster the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel Alito.
If you want to reach Cindy, she's hanging out with the tyrannical communist dictator of Venezuela - Hugo Chavez.
No, really - she's in Venezuela. Wow.
Also: I think that you spell "filibuster" with only one "l."
In a letter from Cindy' mailing list to Diane Feinstein:
Fillibuster Alito or I’ll Challenge Your Senate Seat.
Caracas, Venezuela - Gold star mother Cindy Sheehan has decided to run against California Senator Diane Feinstein if Feinstein does not filibuster the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel Alito.
If you want to reach Cindy, she's hanging out with the tyrannical communist dictator of Venezuela - Hugo Chavez.
No, really - she's in Venezuela. Wow.
Also: I think that you spell "filibuster" with only one "l."
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Their Next Great Idea
Sometimes I feel guilty for baiting liberals into arguments, like a track athlete entering the Special Olympics or a law school student at a middle school spelling bee. Even though fewer and fewer of them are being elected (some just get pity votes?), it's important to make sure people know the stakes when deciding how to fill their ballot.
A powerful House Democrat just released his cure for lobbying reform: totally unprecedented (and wholly unconstitutional) federal involvement in all political activity.
Lobbyists exist because legislators have much power to divy up goodies. Millions of people are employed in private companies receiving government contracts. Thousands of federal programs to address every problem under the sun generally consist of awarding grants to community groups and businesses. Even when it isn't through earmarks, legislators have wide authority to help their friends get money. Lobbyists know how to get goodies from legislators for their clients; right now it's by funneling campaign contributions into campaign accounts so lawmakers have to do less time-consuming and humiliating fundraising. Sometimes they treat lawmakers to luxury accomodations they wouldn't otherwise be able to afford. High profile cases of bribery have raised the issue and assured a few public reforms.
Conservatives generally understand that it's the government's hand in everything from retirement savings to shower faucet design that affords elected officials the opportunity to distribute spoils. They understand that lobbyists will find some way to help out politicians under any system. They know that you get rid of flies by scooping out the manure.
But Democrats assume that we can regulate our way out of this (and every) problem. Congressman David Obey, ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, and Barney Frank, who along with the senile Klansman was voted by Hill staffers to be the most intelligent Democrat in Congress (hmmm), propose that all House elections be funded exclusively by the federal government. Liberals say that by taking away the ability of lobbyists to direct campaign donations to candidates, Congressmen will no longer play favorites. And they say it with a straight face.
In the highly recommended, Pulitzer Prize-winning Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed!, a parody character of Ted Kennedy creates a program to help needy children by taxing children running lemonade stands to buy dustpans for needy kids. Dustpans have nothing to do with the problem and no hope of improving the plight of needy children. At first, the argument seems like a straw man, trying to reject liberals' philosophy by attacking the weakest contention. Under further consideration, the analogy is quite apt.
These powerful, experienced, "esteemed" liberals propose a program that will give between $750,000 and $1.5m to each race, with the amount determined by the district's median family income. Candidates in a race would receive an amount of the race's funds proportional to the party's showing in the previous race (the incumbent will always receive more than half the funding by definition). The program would be mandatory for all candidates. No outside groups would be allowed to make campaign-related speech. Billboards, flyers, door-knocking, etc. would be entirely prohibited, except for the official candidates. No candidates could spend a dime of their own money. National parties could contribute up to 5% of the candidate's allowed expenditures in services like phone banks and posting flyers (a detailed plan is available by subscription to Roll Call). Judging by their plan, more regulation is obviously the answer. And unlike the GOP plan of total transparency, this reform will forever cure Congress from corruption...
Although nobody would expect the highest democrat on one of the most powerful committees to have a knowledge of 'the blueprint of our government,' revoking the rights of citizens to influence the political debate just may run into trouble with, like, you know, the Constitution. The burdensome restrictions that McCain-Feingold imposed barely passed the Supreme Court (5-4 decision, O'Connor wrote the opinion) and even that may be soon overturned. Removing a citizen group's ability to run ads for/against candidates who support/oppose their goals just happens to be antithetical to democracy and decidedly unconstitutional. But that's not a concern for true liberals.
In conclusion, democrats are currently, at this very moment, claiming that any infringement on our God-given right to have private phone conversations with foreign al-Qaeda operatives is "shredding the Constitution." However, totally prohibiting citizens from influencing an election through sponsored messages or cash donations is simply "good governance."
It's more than amazing that this garbage would find supporters among high school students, much less elected officials (in his defense, Obey is from Wisconsin). Mr. Ranking Member, you represent all that is wrong with the liberal wing of the democratic party. I think I would rather have a Republican Majority Leader snorting coke from a podium on the House floor, covered on live television, than let a dolt like you near the reigns of Congress. For assuring your party's permanent minority status, I thank you.
A powerful House Democrat just released his cure for lobbying reform: totally unprecedented (and wholly unconstitutional) federal involvement in all political activity.
Lobbyists exist because legislators have much power to divy up goodies. Millions of people are employed in private companies receiving government contracts. Thousands of federal programs to address every problem under the sun generally consist of awarding grants to community groups and businesses. Even when it isn't through earmarks, legislators have wide authority to help their friends get money. Lobbyists know how to get goodies from legislators for their clients; right now it's by funneling campaign contributions into campaign accounts so lawmakers have to do less time-consuming and humiliating fundraising. Sometimes they treat lawmakers to luxury accomodations they wouldn't otherwise be able to afford. High profile cases of bribery have raised the issue and assured a few public reforms.
Conservatives generally understand that it's the government's hand in everything from retirement savings to shower faucet design that affords elected officials the opportunity to distribute spoils. They understand that lobbyists will find some way to help out politicians under any system. They know that you get rid of flies by scooping out the manure.
But Democrats assume that we can regulate our way out of this (and every) problem. Congressman David Obey, ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, and Barney Frank, who along with the senile Klansman was voted by Hill staffers to be the most intelligent Democrat in Congress (hmmm), propose that all House elections be funded exclusively by the federal government. Liberals say that by taking away the ability of lobbyists to direct campaign donations to candidates, Congressmen will no longer play favorites. And they say it with a straight face.
In the highly recommended, Pulitzer Prize-winning Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed!, a parody character of Ted Kennedy creates a program to help needy children by taxing children running lemonade stands to buy dustpans for needy kids. Dustpans have nothing to do with the problem and no hope of improving the plight of needy children. At first, the argument seems like a straw man, trying to reject liberals' philosophy by attacking the weakest contention. Under further consideration, the analogy is quite apt.
These powerful, experienced, "esteemed" liberals propose a program that will give between $750,000 and $1.5m to each race, with the amount determined by the district's median family income. Candidates in a race would receive an amount of the race's funds proportional to the party's showing in the previous race (the incumbent will always receive more than half the funding by definition). The program would be mandatory for all candidates. No outside groups would be allowed to make campaign-related speech. Billboards, flyers, door-knocking, etc. would be entirely prohibited, except for the official candidates. No candidates could spend a dime of their own money. National parties could contribute up to 5% of the candidate's allowed expenditures in services like phone banks and posting flyers (a detailed plan is available by subscription to Roll Call). Judging by their plan, more regulation is obviously the answer. And unlike the GOP plan of total transparency, this reform will forever cure Congress from corruption...
Although nobody would expect the highest democrat on one of the most powerful committees to have a knowledge of 'the blueprint of our government,' revoking the rights of citizens to influence the political debate just may run into trouble with, like, you know, the Constitution. The burdensome restrictions that McCain-Feingold imposed barely passed the Supreme Court (5-4 decision, O'Connor wrote the opinion) and even that may be soon overturned. Removing a citizen group's ability to run ads for/against candidates who support/oppose their goals just happens to be antithetical to democracy and decidedly unconstitutional. But that's not a concern for true liberals.
In conclusion, democrats are currently, at this very moment, claiming that any infringement on our God-given right to have private phone conversations with foreign al-Qaeda operatives is "shredding the Constitution." However, totally prohibiting citizens from influencing an election through sponsored messages or cash donations is simply "good governance."
It's more than amazing that this garbage would find supporters among high school students, much less elected officials (in his defense, Obey is from Wisconsin). Mr. Ranking Member, you represent all that is wrong with the liberal wing of the democratic party. I think I would rather have a Republican Majority Leader snorting coke from a podium on the House floor, covered on live television, than let a dolt like you near the reigns of Congress. For assuring your party's permanent minority status, I thank you.
Hi George!
My token lefty websites are hilarious tonight. Check out this post from the Democratic Underground:
The point is that I don’t feel safe anymore to freely speak my mind. There is no reason that I should feel this way, other than the facts that a) I am a liberal Democrat, b) I oppose this administration’s policies, and c) at any given moment, the NSA might be listening.
So he's a navy officer, and he feels like he can't speak his mind because the NSA might be listening!
Are you kidding me? Did you ever go to college? Do you have a Master's Degree?
Let me tell you the most politically hostile environment in the country - the higher education system. I have to make an active attempt to interrupt and correct my colleagues, professors, and undergraduate students that regularly talk of George Bush as an "idiot," the Supreme Court as "in danger," and conservatives as racist morons.
I feel concerned to express my opinion every day and in every class because my colleagues and professors literally think I am an idiotic fundamentalist racist Christian who thinks all gay people should be killed on sight. We have a liberal Navy officer thinking that the government cares what he says? I work in a field that employs individuals so radically left that they are unemployable in the public sector!
Liberals - cut out the paranoid lines. They're a joke, and they ignore the obvious and simple regular hostility towards conservatives. In 2008 if Democratic election offices are broken into and conservatives' houses defaced I'll believe liberal paranoia. Until then, I'll occasionally keep my politics out of the classroom so that I can graduate.
The point is that I don’t feel safe anymore to freely speak my mind. There is no reason that I should feel this way, other than the facts that a) I am a liberal Democrat, b) I oppose this administration’s policies, and c) at any given moment, the NSA might be listening.
So he's a navy officer, and he feels like he can't speak his mind because the NSA might be listening!
Are you kidding me? Did you ever go to college? Do you have a Master's Degree?
Let me tell you the most politically hostile environment in the country - the higher education system. I have to make an active attempt to interrupt and correct my colleagues, professors, and undergraduate students that regularly talk of George Bush as an "idiot," the Supreme Court as "in danger," and conservatives as racist morons.
I feel concerned to express my opinion every day and in every class because my colleagues and professors literally think I am an idiotic fundamentalist racist Christian who thinks all gay people should be killed on sight. We have a liberal Navy officer thinking that the government cares what he says? I work in a field that employs individuals so radically left that they are unemployable in the public sector!
Liberals - cut out the paranoid lines. They're a joke, and they ignore the obvious and simple regular hostility towards conservatives. In 2008 if Democratic election offices are broken into and conservatives' houses defaced I'll believe liberal paranoia. Until then, I'll occasionally keep my politics out of the classroom so that I can graduate.
Saturday, January 21, 2006
The Wrath of Kelo
A group of activists are working to use the Kelo Supreme Court decision to seize Justice Souter's home in New Hampshire for the "Lost Liberty Hotel."
This really has two angles to it. First, it's tough for Supreme Court Justices to be personally retaliated against for decisions they make on the bench. The Justices shouldn't feel targeted for the way they vote.
However, the other angle to this is that this Supreme Court ruling is one of the most disturbing ones it has ever made, and cities are now using the decision to evict small businesses and homeowners to built malls and chain stores in their place.
It might be good for the Justice to see just how ridiculous Kelo is...
This really has two angles to it. First, it's tough for Supreme Court Justices to be personally retaliated against for decisions they make on the bench. The Justices shouldn't feel targeted for the way they vote.
However, the other angle to this is that this Supreme Court ruling is one of the most disturbing ones it has ever made, and cities are now using the decision to evict small businesses and homeowners to built malls and chain stores in their place.
It might be good for the Justice to see just how ridiculous Kelo is...
Friday, January 20, 2006
Is Alito fit for the Third Circuit Court?
Ted Kennedy opened his (frequently used) pie-hole to announce that he would vote no to the nomination Samuel Alito because he is "not committed to equal justice under law".
Democrats on the Committee have called him unethical and dangerous; insinuated he was a closet racist and sexist; and frequently claimed that he often acts as the "crushing hand of fate" to unprivileged plaintiffs.
The question is, if Sam Alito is not confirmed to the Supreme Court, should the nutjobs who level these charges be content with him keeping his seat on the Third Circuit Court? It seems to me if he is really so bad, the only real option is for Kennedy to lead the push to have him impeached.
Or maybe Kennedy doesn't mean what he says.
Democrats on the Committee have called him unethical and dangerous; insinuated he was a closet racist and sexist; and frequently claimed that he often acts as the "crushing hand of fate" to unprivileged plaintiffs.
The question is, if Sam Alito is not confirmed to the Supreme Court, should the nutjobs who level these charges be content with him keeping his seat on the Third Circuit Court? It seems to me if he is really so bad, the only real option is for Kennedy to lead the push to have him impeached.
Or maybe Kennedy doesn't mean what he says.
Monday, January 16, 2006
More Non-Issues About Alito Recusal
Senator Russ Feingold is certainly a crackpot by any definition, but typically he's at least principled. Now he's asked Judge Alito if he will recuse himself on the Supreme Court from cases appealed from the third circuit because his fellow judges testified on his behalf during his confirmation hearings.
Feingold is right that this has never been done before; the unprecedented reason so many of his colleagues appeared before the committee is....to refute the totally unmerited criticism of Judge Alito! They recognize that the sleazy methods of Senate democrats have a serious chance of affecting public opinion, and justifiably want to set the record straight.
Senators should be analyzing Judge Alito's holdings in cases. They should carefully examine his/her capabilities. A history of unimpeachable ethics is necessary for the highest court on the land.
The problem for liberals is, Judge Alito met and surpassed every standard in the eyes of his colleagues, his aides, the American Bar Association, former employers, and anyone else who has actually met him.
Liberals' plans to sink the nomination relied on a version of history that simply didn't occur. But they wouldn't let the truth get in the way. And Alito's colleagues enthusiastically agreed to unprecedented measures to fight an unprecedented smear campaign.
**I'd like reader comments on this point:** sometime in the future there will be a Democratic White House and Republican Senate. I'm honestly not sure if I think Republicans should take the high road and determine confirmation on a Supreme Court nominee's merit (as they did with Ginsburg and Breyer) or follow the liberal's example by simply refusing to consider any candidates.
I can see both sides; maybe we just need to permanently end liberal judicial activism with a symbolic overturn of Roe before 2008 (although Republicans will again win the White House).
Feingold is right that this has never been done before; the unprecedented reason so many of his colleagues appeared before the committee is....to refute the totally unmerited criticism of Judge Alito! They recognize that the sleazy methods of Senate democrats have a serious chance of affecting public opinion, and justifiably want to set the record straight.
Senators should be analyzing Judge Alito's holdings in cases. They should carefully examine his/her capabilities. A history of unimpeachable ethics is necessary for the highest court on the land.
The problem for liberals is, Judge Alito met and surpassed every standard in the eyes of his colleagues, his aides, the American Bar Association, former employers, and anyone else who has actually met him.
Liberals' plans to sink the nomination relied on a version of history that simply didn't occur. But they wouldn't let the truth get in the way. And Alito's colleagues enthusiastically agreed to unprecedented measures to fight an unprecedented smear campaign.
**I'd like reader comments on this point:** sometime in the future there will be a Democratic White House and Republican Senate. I'm honestly not sure if I think Republicans should take the high road and determine confirmation on a Supreme Court nominee's merit (as they did with Ginsburg and Breyer) or follow the liberal's example by simply refusing to consider any candidates.
I can see both sides; maybe we just need to permanently end liberal judicial activism with a symbolic overturn of Roe before 2008 (although Republicans will again win the White House).
Friday, January 13, 2006
Did I mention the Economist?
The Brainbox and the Blowhards.
..aka Alito and the Senators.
TED KENNEDY is deeply troubled by the ethics of the Supreme Court nominee. Between 2001 and 2006, Samuel Alito, who is currently an appeals court judge, accepted $7,684,423 in “donations” from special interests who perhaps wanted the law tweaked in their favour. That included $28,000 from defence contractors, $42,200 from drug firms and a whopping $745,373 from lawyers and law firms.
No, wait. Those are Senator Kennedy's conflicts of interest.
...
So one would expect senators to ask him tough questions. Instead, most chose to make speeches. On the second day of hearings, ten out of the first 12 senators spoke for longer than the nominee.
Patrick Leahy of Vermont waxed thespian on the subject of strip-searching young girls, a practice of which he said Mr Alito was too tolerant. In one burst, he rolled the words “strip-search” around his mouth four times and “ten-year-old girl” five times.
...
Even a cursory look at his record shows that the sound-bite charges against Judge Alito—that he doesn't think machineguns should be regulated, that he never sides with blacks alleging discrimination—are simply untrue. His record on the bench is one of cautious rulings and scrupulous deference to precedent.
...
There is little evidence voters buy the idea that Mr Alito is an extremist. And on the basis of the hearings so far they are right.
...but don't listen to what Senate Democrats will say on Jannuary 20. They'll claim that they can't vote for such an "extreme judge." What they really mean is that the interests that fund their campaigns don't want them to.
..aka Alito and the Senators.
TED KENNEDY is deeply troubled by the ethics of the Supreme Court nominee. Between 2001 and 2006, Samuel Alito, who is currently an appeals court judge, accepted $7,684,423 in “donations” from special interests who perhaps wanted the law tweaked in their favour. That included $28,000 from defence contractors, $42,200 from drug firms and a whopping $745,373 from lawyers and law firms.
No, wait. Those are Senator Kennedy's conflicts of interest.
...
So one would expect senators to ask him tough questions. Instead, most chose to make speeches. On the second day of hearings, ten out of the first 12 senators spoke for longer than the nominee.
Patrick Leahy of Vermont waxed thespian on the subject of strip-searching young girls, a practice of which he said Mr Alito was too tolerant. In one burst, he rolled the words “strip-search” around his mouth four times and “ten-year-old girl” five times.
...
Even a cursory look at his record shows that the sound-bite charges against Judge Alito—that he doesn't think machineguns should be regulated, that he never sides with blacks alleging discrimination—are simply untrue. His record on the bench is one of cautious rulings and scrupulous deference to precedent.
...
There is little evidence voters buy the idea that Mr Alito is an extremist. And on the basis of the hearings so far they are right.
...but don't listen to what Senate Democrats will say on Jannuary 20. They'll claim that they can't vote for such an "extreme judge." What they really mean is that the interests that fund their campaigns don't want them to.
Democrats Don't Let Truth Obstruct Alito Criticism
I'm writing to you, Burton, and others who are finally realizing the true extent of democrat’s moral depravity.
Samuel Alito was nominated to the Supreme Court on October 31. The hearings are going on this week before the Senate Judiciary Committee, with direct questions to the nominee and testimony from dozens of witnesses.
It’s very important to get a sense of a nominee’s reasoning capacity and their judicial temperance. Although it hasn’t ever been a custom before this summer, democratic senators have even worked hard to get Judge Alito to analyze Supreme Court holdings currently being debated before the Supreme Court. This is more than a little disturbing and sets a bad precedent for future nominations, but can be forgiven because liberals generally have the reasoning ability of primitive animals.
The saddest development of the hearings has to the Democrat’s focus on two highly irrelevant topics to the nomination; apparently the only justification is to smear the character of a decent and honorable man. Countless objective authorities have publicly stated these arguments have no merit, but they are mentioned over and over again by the unprincipled swine on the left side of the aisle. I hope transcripts from this week are given to Social Studies classes in the future as an example of how corrupted our political bodies had become.
Ted Kennedy in principal is the guilty culprit, but almost all of the democrats have perpetuated a myth that Alito is not credible on the basis of two irrelevant events:
1) He didn't recuse himself in a case involving Vanguard, a financial services company through which he held stock.
Here are the facts: Judge Alito owned mutual funds through Vanguard. Mutual funds, because owners have no say over the allocation of stock ownership, are especially important for judges and elected officials to not have conflicts of interest when making decisions that will affect individual companies. Judge Alito owned mutual funds managed by Vanguard, but (I guess liberals really don't understand finance at all) **had no stake in Vanguard itself.** It can't be any more clear.
A widow sued Vanguard to get ahold of her late husband's assets, even though he owed money to creditors. Whichever side eventually won--the creditors or the widow--Vanguard the company would not be affected. Courts were simply deciding which side Vanguard should give the assets to.
Because there was no stake for Vanguard and further because Alito had no actual stake in Vanguard, the computer system that checks for conflicts of interest did not signal that Alito should not participate. Alito didn't think he was required to recuse himself. Legal ethicists agree.
Judge Alito was part of a unanimous ruling against the widow: indeed, if a person dies, their estate is used to pay their debts before inheritance is distributed to heirs. This wasn't a controversial ruling.
But the widow's lawyer saw a possible appeal: research showed that Judge Alito owned mutual funds managed by Vanguard, the same company through which the deceased husband had invested. They appealed the ruling, and, although ethicists are very clear that Judge Alito did not have to, he acted with extreme caution and agreed to a new hearing and recused himself. Again, the court unanimously ruled against the widow. There was no, zero, benefit for Vanguard and no, absolutely zero, way that it could have benefited Judge Alito. According to any standard: federal law, the American Bar Association Model Code for Judges, ....(Grasley text)..., Judge Alito was overly cautious and had no reason to recuse himself form this case.
I want to be clear: this isn't a straw man argument by me. I'm not picking the weakest argument or fabricating what democrats are saying. Senator Kennedy spent a large portion of his questioning time on **this exact case.** Ina letter to the Washington Post before the first hearings on Monday, Senator Kennedy states that Judge Alito has a "credibility problem," and offered this case as proof. You can't make this crap up. Ted "the Swimmer/Waitress Sandwich" Kennedy has no business lecturing others on ethics in the first place, much less on totally fabricated charges. It should shame anyone who votes.
2) Involvement in Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP).
CAP was founded to protest the move from an all-male school to to a coeducational institution. It later protested affirmative action policies and other changes.
Samuel Alito was involved in the ROTC program at Princeton as an undergraduate. During the Vietnam War, the university kicked the group off campus to indicate their disapproval of our country's involvement in Vitenam.
Alito graduated and moved on. At some point, he paid dues to join CAP. It may have been after an Army general and Princeton alumnus called on other alums to put pressure on the university administration to reinstate ROTC. Nobody actually knows; the events happened 30 years ago and there is no record that Mr. Alito contributed to the group at all. In a 1985 job application to the Reagan White House, this organization was listed alongside the Federalist Society as groups in which Mr. Alito was involved; the biggest potential criticism is that Mr. Alito was fluffing his resume (like a deadbeat out-of-houser lisitng a great fraternity).
It turns out that the CAP magazine, which Sam Alito never paid for and probably never received, printed letters to the editor saying that Princton should not give admission advantages to women and minorities. The stupifying conclusion from Senator Kennedy was to read letters to the editor printed in the CAP magazine to Juge Alito and imply they represented his views. Kennedy then quarreled with Judiciary Committee Chairman Secter about immediately going into a priate session to ask for a subpeona for all CAP records.
It turns out that a subpeona was never needed, the CAP founder gladly provided everything Kennedy wanted. Furthermore, a reporter formt he Washington Post had looked through all the records before the hearings even began and knew what the Judiciary Committee aides would find:
SPECTER: The committee staff, accompanied by representatives of Senator Kennedy, went through the Rusher files yesterday, finishing up their work, I'm advised, at about 2 a.m. this morning, and provided me with a memorandum that the committee staff reviewed more than four boxes of documents from the personal files of William Rusher concerning CAP.
Judge Alito's name never appeared in any document. His name was not mentioned in any of the letters to or from the founder, William Rusher. His name was not mentioned in any of the letters to or from CAP's long-term executive director, T. Harding Jones. His name does not appear anywhere in the dozens of letters to CAP or from CAP.
The files contain canceled checks for subscriptions to CAP's magazine, Prospect, but none from Judge Alito.
The files contain dozens of articles, including investigative exposes written at the height of the organization's prominence, but Samuel Alito's name is nowhere to be found in any of them.
The Rusher files contain lists of the board of directors, the advisory board and the contributors to both CAP and Prospect magazine. But none of the lists contains Samuel Alito's name.
The files contain minutes and attendance records from CAP meetings in 1983 and 1984, just before Samuel Alito listed the organization on his job application, but Samuel Alito did not attend any of those meetings, at least according to those records. He's not even mentioned in the minutes.
The files contain dozens of issues of CAP's magazines, but nones of the articles was written by, quoted or mentioned Samuel Alito.
SPECTER: CAP founder William Rusher said, quote, "I have no recollection of Samuel Alito at all. He certainly was not very heavily involved in CAP, if at all."
As it turns out, not only was Sam Alito not involved in CAP, he wasn't even involved in any sort of exclusive organizations that CAP was founded to protect (ROTC was a cursory priority for the group). And there is absolutely no evidence at all to suggest that he opposes equal rights (equal rights are not special rights). Kennedy is simply smearing him with a 'guilt by association' argument that is highly ironic, **because Kennedy was in a fucking eating club.** And don't forget, Senator Kennedy has real, actual, ethical lapses; where you need several degrees of separation to smear Judge Alito, Kennedy himself killed a young woman and perpetuated rel sexual harrassment. It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.
If you weren’t sure before, this proves ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ that degenerates like Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, Pat Leahy and activist groups (like the NY Times op-ed page) have no rightful place in our political system. This smear on Judge Alito borders on insanity. Nobody could logically justify this criticism.
Aides who have worked for Judge Alito, of all political stripes, have resoundingly praised his integrity and character. Judges who sit beside him call him 'possibly the best in the country'. The liberal American Bar Association gave him their highest marks for integrity and judicial temperance. It is simply remarkable that senators could use these slurs against him, much less use these flimsiest condemnations as a justification for voting against him.
Think about it...is there any witness that Judiciary Committee Democrats will call to oppose the nomination that actually worked or knows with Judge Alito (or John Roberts for that matter)? Absolutely not! I would think that you would find the most prestigious and most accomplished scholars/judges possible when you call witnesses to oppose a nominee for the Supreme Court.
It should say something to our readers that the only witnesses they could find to oppose the Alito nomination also write letters to newspapers equating eating steak with the Holocaust (UPDATE: Leahy pulled the witness after a press shitstorm about his nut-job bona fides). In contrast the majority of witnesses that Judiciary Committee Republicans call will be Democrats, because there is no shortage of people from the opposing party willing to advocate for the confirmation of such an excellent jurist.
There are reasons to oppose this nominee. If you hold that Supreme Court justices should decide cases with the outcomes that you would favor, Kennedy, Schumer and Leahy should vote 'no' on Alito. But it is highly unethical for them to use such blatant falsehoods as their reasoning. Liberals are truly scum.
UPDATE by radar:
Slowpitch forgot the most important problem with Judge Alito. Judge Alito agreed with the strip search of a 10 year old girl! A 10 year old girl! Can you believe it! This 10 year old girl will be scarred for life! Did I mention it was a 10 year old girl?!
Actually, the warrant in the drug search case included a stipulation to allow the orders that were in the police affidavit. The police wanted to search all the people on the premises, and that stipulation was in the affidavit. The 10 year old girl was searched by a female officer in the presence of her mother, who was also searched. The officers were of course sued, with their lawyer arguing that the search was illegal, even though the affidavit requiring the searches of persons was included in the warrant.
It's really a non-issue, but the Democrats on the committee tried to say 10 year old girl and strip-search as many times as possible hoping that someone who has had their head in the sand for a week would click past C-SPAN, catch a glimpse, and think it's true.
Samuel Alito was nominated to the Supreme Court on October 31. The hearings are going on this week before the Senate Judiciary Committee, with direct questions to the nominee and testimony from dozens of witnesses.
It’s very important to get a sense of a nominee’s reasoning capacity and their judicial temperance. Although it hasn’t ever been a custom before this summer, democratic senators have even worked hard to get Judge Alito to analyze Supreme Court holdings currently being debated before the Supreme Court. This is more than a little disturbing and sets a bad precedent for future nominations, but can be forgiven because liberals generally have the reasoning ability of primitive animals.
The saddest development of the hearings has to the Democrat’s focus on two highly irrelevant topics to the nomination; apparently the only justification is to smear the character of a decent and honorable man. Countless objective authorities have publicly stated these arguments have no merit, but they are mentioned over and over again by the unprincipled swine on the left side of the aisle. I hope transcripts from this week are given to Social Studies classes in the future as an example of how corrupted our political bodies had become.
Ted Kennedy in principal is the guilty culprit, but almost all of the democrats have perpetuated a myth that Alito is not credible on the basis of two irrelevant events:
1) He didn't recuse himself in a case involving Vanguard, a financial services company through which he held stock.
Here are the facts: Judge Alito owned mutual funds through Vanguard. Mutual funds, because owners have no say over the allocation of stock ownership, are especially important for judges and elected officials to not have conflicts of interest when making decisions that will affect individual companies. Judge Alito owned mutual funds managed by Vanguard, but (I guess liberals really don't understand finance at all) **had no stake in Vanguard itself.** It can't be any more clear.
A widow sued Vanguard to get ahold of her late husband's assets, even though he owed money to creditors. Whichever side eventually won--the creditors or the widow--Vanguard the company would not be affected. Courts were simply deciding which side Vanguard should give the assets to.
Because there was no stake for Vanguard and further because Alito had no actual stake in Vanguard, the computer system that checks for conflicts of interest did not signal that Alito should not participate. Alito didn't think he was required to recuse himself. Legal ethicists agree.
Judge Alito was part of a unanimous ruling against the widow: indeed, if a person dies, their estate is used to pay their debts before inheritance is distributed to heirs. This wasn't a controversial ruling.
But the widow's lawyer saw a possible appeal: research showed that Judge Alito owned mutual funds managed by Vanguard, the same company through which the deceased husband had invested. They appealed the ruling, and, although ethicists are very clear that Judge Alito did not have to, he acted with extreme caution and agreed to a new hearing and recused himself. Again, the court unanimously ruled against the widow. There was no, zero, benefit for Vanguard and no, absolutely zero, way that it could have benefited Judge Alito. According to any standard: federal law, the American Bar Association Model Code for Judges, ....(Grasley text)..., Judge Alito was overly cautious and had no reason to recuse himself form this case.
I want to be clear: this isn't a straw man argument by me. I'm not picking the weakest argument or fabricating what democrats are saying. Senator Kennedy spent a large portion of his questioning time on **this exact case.** Ina letter to the Washington Post before the first hearings on Monday, Senator Kennedy states that Judge Alito has a "credibility problem," and offered this case as proof. You can't make this crap up. Ted "the Swimmer/Waitress Sandwich" Kennedy has no business lecturing others on ethics in the first place, much less on totally fabricated charges. It should shame anyone who votes.
2) Involvement in Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP).
CAP was founded to protest the move from an all-male school to to a coeducational institution. It later protested affirmative action policies and other changes.
Samuel Alito was involved in the ROTC program at Princeton as an undergraduate. During the Vietnam War, the university kicked the group off campus to indicate their disapproval of our country's involvement in Vitenam.
Alito graduated and moved on. At some point, he paid dues to join CAP. It may have been after an Army general and Princeton alumnus called on other alums to put pressure on the university administration to reinstate ROTC. Nobody actually knows; the events happened 30 years ago and there is no record that Mr. Alito contributed to the group at all. In a 1985 job application to the Reagan White House, this organization was listed alongside the Federalist Society as groups in which Mr. Alito was involved; the biggest potential criticism is that Mr. Alito was fluffing his resume (like a deadbeat out-of-houser lisitng a great fraternity).
It turns out that the CAP magazine, which Sam Alito never paid for and probably never received, printed letters to the editor saying that Princton should not give admission advantages to women and minorities. The stupifying conclusion from Senator Kennedy was to read letters to the editor printed in the CAP magazine to Juge Alito and imply they represented his views. Kennedy then quarreled with Judiciary Committee Chairman Secter about immediately going into a priate session to ask for a subpeona for all CAP records.
It turns out that a subpeona was never needed, the CAP founder gladly provided everything Kennedy wanted. Furthermore, a reporter formt he Washington Post had looked through all the records before the hearings even began and knew what the Judiciary Committee aides would find:
SPECTER: The committee staff, accompanied by representatives of Senator Kennedy, went through the Rusher files yesterday, finishing up their work, I'm advised, at about 2 a.m. this morning, and provided me with a memorandum that the committee staff reviewed more than four boxes of documents from the personal files of William Rusher concerning CAP.
Judge Alito's name never appeared in any document. His name was not mentioned in any of the letters to or from the founder, William Rusher. His name was not mentioned in any of the letters to or from CAP's long-term executive director, T. Harding Jones. His name does not appear anywhere in the dozens of letters to CAP or from CAP.
The files contain canceled checks for subscriptions to CAP's magazine, Prospect, but none from Judge Alito.
The files contain dozens of articles, including investigative exposes written at the height of the organization's prominence, but Samuel Alito's name is nowhere to be found in any of them.
The Rusher files contain lists of the board of directors, the advisory board and the contributors to both CAP and Prospect magazine. But none of the lists contains Samuel Alito's name.
The files contain minutes and attendance records from CAP meetings in 1983 and 1984, just before Samuel Alito listed the organization on his job application, but Samuel Alito did not attend any of those meetings, at least according to those records. He's not even mentioned in the minutes.
The files contain dozens of issues of CAP's magazines, but nones of the articles was written by, quoted or mentioned Samuel Alito.
SPECTER: CAP founder William Rusher said, quote, "I have no recollection of Samuel Alito at all. He certainly was not very heavily involved in CAP, if at all."
As it turns out, not only was Sam Alito not involved in CAP, he wasn't even involved in any sort of exclusive organizations that CAP was founded to protect (ROTC was a cursory priority for the group). And there is absolutely no evidence at all to suggest that he opposes equal rights (equal rights are not special rights). Kennedy is simply smearing him with a 'guilt by association' argument that is highly ironic, **because Kennedy was in a fucking eating club.** And don't forget, Senator Kennedy has real, actual, ethical lapses; where you need several degrees of separation to smear Judge Alito, Kennedy himself killed a young woman and perpetuated rel sexual harrassment. It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.
If you weren’t sure before, this proves ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ that degenerates like Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, Pat Leahy and activist groups (like the NY Times op-ed page) have no rightful place in our political system. This smear on Judge Alito borders on insanity. Nobody could logically justify this criticism.
Aides who have worked for Judge Alito, of all political stripes, have resoundingly praised his integrity and character. Judges who sit beside him call him 'possibly the best in the country'. The liberal American Bar Association gave him their highest marks for integrity and judicial temperance. It is simply remarkable that senators could use these slurs against him, much less use these flimsiest condemnations as a justification for voting against him.
Think about it...is there any witness that Judiciary Committee Democrats will call to oppose the nomination that actually worked or knows with Judge Alito (or John Roberts for that matter)? Absolutely not! I would think that you would find the most prestigious and most accomplished scholars/judges possible when you call witnesses to oppose a nominee for the Supreme Court.
It should say something to our readers that the only witnesses they could find to oppose the Alito nomination also write letters to newspapers equating eating steak with the Holocaust (UPDATE: Leahy pulled the witness after a press shitstorm about his nut-job bona fides). In contrast the majority of witnesses that Judiciary Committee Republicans call will be Democrats, because there is no shortage of people from the opposing party willing to advocate for the confirmation of such an excellent jurist.
There are reasons to oppose this nominee. If you hold that Supreme Court justices should decide cases with the outcomes that you would favor, Kennedy, Schumer and Leahy should vote 'no' on Alito. But it is highly unethical for them to use such blatant falsehoods as their reasoning. Liberals are truly scum.
UPDATE by radar:
Slowpitch forgot the most important problem with Judge Alito. Judge Alito agreed with the strip search of a 10 year old girl! A 10 year old girl! Can you believe it! This 10 year old girl will be scarred for life! Did I mention it was a 10 year old girl?!
Actually, the warrant in the drug search case included a stipulation to allow the orders that were in the police affidavit. The police wanted to search all the people on the premises, and that stipulation was in the affidavit. The 10 year old girl was searched by a female officer in the presence of her mother, who was also searched. The officers were of course sued, with their lawyer arguing that the search was illegal, even though the affidavit requiring the searches of persons was included in the warrant.
It's really a non-issue, but the Democrats on the committee tried to say 10 year old girl and strip-search as many times as possible hoping that someone who has had their head in the sand for a week would click past C-SPAN, catch a glimpse, and think it's true.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
In other news...
Alito's wife left the confirmation hearing in tears today. How much is one person supposed to take when three or four of the committee's Democratic Senators' entire premise is to brand her husband as a racist? Is this what these hearings have come to? It's like 10 hours a day of trying to make an individual looks as bad as possible for absolutely no benefit whatsoever. There were hardly any questions today; just attempts to vilify the newest Supreme Court justice.
Alito vs. the Democrats
I think we all know who's winning. Let's get a quick roundup, though:
Alito thinks that looking to foreign law to interpret the Constitution is "inappropriate." Since the Supreme Court has already stooped that low, this is an excellent development.
Senator Hatch reports to Powerline about the Democrats' attempts to paint Alito as a racist: "It's all bush league stuff. If we did it, we'd be nailed by the media."
However, the winner of the biggest loser award goes to none other than Joseph Biden, who contradicted himself royally in a number of ways during these hearings. As reported in the Daily Princetonian, Biden claimed in the hearings that he didn't like Princeton and didn't want his own children to go to Ivy League schools. However, in a speech he gave at Princeton in 2004 he said both that he liked Princeton, wished that he had gone there, and told his children to apply there:
Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), who grilled Samuel Alito '72 about his CAP membership, also said that he "wasn't a big Princeton fan."
"I didn't even like Princeton," he said, to laughter from the gallery. "I mean, I really didn't like Princeton. I was an Irish Catholic kid who thought it had not changed like you concluded it had," referring to Alito's earlier statement that Princeton had changed its traditional ways before he enrolled.
But Biden had nothing but praise for the University in a 2004 speech at the Wilson School. "It's an honor to be here," he told the audience. "It would have been an even greater honor to have come here."
Biden also said yesterday: "One of my real dilemmas is I have two kids who went to Ivy League schools. I'm not sure my Grandfather Finnegan will ever forgive me for allowing that to happen."
But in his speech at Princeton, he said, "I have three children who have mercifully all finally completed undergraduate and graduate school. And I tried to get all three of them to apply here."
Joe Biden is either a liar or an idiot.
Or both...
Alito thinks that looking to foreign law to interpret the Constitution is "inappropriate." Since the Supreme Court has already stooped that low, this is an excellent development.
Senator Hatch reports to Powerline about the Democrats' attempts to paint Alito as a racist: "It's all bush league stuff. If we did it, we'd be nailed by the media."
However, the winner of the biggest loser award goes to none other than Joseph Biden, who contradicted himself royally in a number of ways during these hearings. As reported in the Daily Princetonian, Biden claimed in the hearings that he didn't like Princeton and didn't want his own children to go to Ivy League schools. However, in a speech he gave at Princeton in 2004 he said both that he liked Princeton, wished that he had gone there, and told his children to apply there:
Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), who grilled Samuel Alito '72 about his CAP membership, also said that he "wasn't a big Princeton fan."
"I didn't even like Princeton," he said, to laughter from the gallery. "I mean, I really didn't like Princeton. I was an Irish Catholic kid who thought it had not changed like you concluded it had," referring to Alito's earlier statement that Princeton had changed its traditional ways before he enrolled.
But Biden had nothing but praise for the University in a 2004 speech at the Wilson School. "It's an honor to be here," he told the audience. "It would have been an even greater honor to have come here."
Biden also said yesterday: "One of my real dilemmas is I have two kids who went to Ivy League schools. I'm not sure my Grandfather Finnegan will ever forgive me for allowing that to happen."
But in his speech at Princeton, he said, "I have three children who have mercifully all finally completed undergraduate and graduate school. And I tried to get all three of them to apply here."
Joe Biden is either a liar or an idiot.
Or both...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
