I'm not sure how to react to Judge John Roberts' answer to a question about respecting precedent.

"Precedent plays an important role in promoting the stability of the legal system," Roberts wrote. "A sound judicial philosophy should reflect recognition of the fact that the judge operates within a system of rules developed over the years by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath."

I've gone back-and-forth over this one.

On the one hand, the judge is perfectly corrct. Precedent is important, and should not be overturned lightly or because of mere political considerations. To the degree that a precedent has become embedded, it is better to limit the precedent or distinguish cases from it rather than overturn it. After all, stare decisis is important,.

On the other hand, a rigid adherance to stare decisis is not desirable. After all, even though today's judges follow in the footsteps of their predecessors, that does not mean that they must be bound by them. Brown v. Board of Education required teh overturning of a number of decisions dating back some six decades. Should the precedent value of Plessy v. Ferguson have been blindly respected, despite the fact that its holding flew in the face of the clear meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution? Should ANY precedent be held so sacred that preserving it must outweigh getting the decision right?

It is my profound hope and earnest belief that Judge Roberts, in giving this written response, intended to communicate that he would respect precedent with his eyes wide open. Bu if I am wrong, and the statement is meant to communicate that he would uphold a wrong decision for the sake of stability, his confirmation risks continuing the damage done to American constitutional jurisprudence by Kennedy and O'Connor in the Webster case.

I think this would be a fruitful area for conservative senators to look at.

Posted by: Greg at 04:28 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 333 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, we have a report from a non-partisan group that analyzed the 2004 elections, looking for cases of voter intimidation and disenfranchisement.

They found some.

Would you care to guess which party was responsible for more?

I'll give you a hint -- think "jackass".

he American Center for Voting Rights Legislative Fund today released the most comprehensive and authoritative review of the facts surrounding allegations of vote fraud, intimidation and suppression made during the 2004 presidential election.

The ACVR Legislative Fund report, "Vote Fraud, Intimidation & Suppression In The 2004 Presidential Election," finds that while Democrats routinely accuse Republicans of voter intimidation and suppression, neither party has a clean record on the issue. The report finds that paid Democrat operatives were far more involved in voter intimidation and suppression activities than were their Republican counterparts during the 2004 presidential election. Examples include paid Democrat operatives charged with slashing tires on GOP get-out-the-vote vans in Milwaukee and an Ohio court order stopping Democrat operatives from calling voters telling them the wrong date for the election and faulty polling place information.

The report further finds that thousands of Americans were disenfranchised by illegal votes cast and a coordinated effort by members of certain "nonpartisan" organizations to rig the election system through voter registration fraud in more than a dozen states. Examples include a law enforcement task force finding "clear evidence of fraud in the Nov. 2 election in Milwaukee," including hundreds of felon and double voters and thousands more ballots cast than voters recorded as having voted in the city and multiple indictments and convictions of ACORN workers for voter registration fraud in several states.

Actually, I would have to argue that the article mischaracterizes the report. While I may have missed something in the main body of the report, I was unable to find a single instance in which the ACVR was able to confirm any GOP intimidation or suppression of voters. On the other hand, the organization was able to find multiple instances of Democrat misconduct. As far as vote fraud is concerned, the group found most of it connected with "third-party" groups that were not directly affiliated with either party, though groups that were repeatedly mentioned included ACORN and MoveOn.org.

I guess we can all draw our conclusion about which party seeks to undermine the American electoral system -- and like I said, think "jackass".

ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY from Blogs for Bush and Patrick Ruffini.

Posted by: Greg at 03:18 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 411 words, total size 3 kb.

The American jurisdiction of the Antiochian Othodox Church (what used to be known as the Syrian Orthodox Church) has left the National Council of Churches over its continued leftward theological and political drift.

Dearborn, Michigan. July 28, 2005.This afternoon the Archdiocesan Convention of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America voted overwhelmingly to leave the National Council of Churches USA. The Archdiocese is holding its annual convention this week in Dearborn, Michigan.

The action was not a temporary “suspension” of membership, but a formal withdrawal from the NCC. The clergy unanimously approved the withdrawal, followed by a unanimous vote of the lay delegates supporting the move. An announcement of the final vote was met with thunderous applause by the Convention.

Reasons given for the withdrawal include the general liberalism of the NCC, whose General Secretary, Bob Edgar, withdrew his signature from a statement defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.

This may be the beginnig of a trend among Orthodox groups, who are increasingly unhappy with the drift from (small o) orthodoxy by the NCC and its member denominations.

The Antiochians aren’t the only Orthodox jurisdiction that has acknowledged the NCC’s increasingly leftward tilt. At their own just-concluded conference in Toronto, the Orthodox Church in America also discussed the usefulness of the NCC but has not yet cut its ties. The statement that the OCA issued concerning its discussion of ecumenical relations was a collage of bureaucratic platitudes, mostly expressed in the passive voice, and no doubt indicative that the forces of the status quo were not giving up without a fight. When you read phrases such as “concerns ... were expressed” and “it was noted” and “requires careful consideration and discernment” then you can bet that someone’s digging in the heels.

I'd be interested to see what this eventually means for the ecumenical movement in the US, and whetehr there comes into being some new body that incorporates Catholic, Orthodox, and Evangelical churches.

Posted by: Greg at 11:46 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 336 words, total size 3 kb.

I know that verdicts are sometimes overturned by a judge on appeal -- but for the trial judge to set aside a guilty verdict rendered in his/her own courtroom is unusual.

It has just happened in Alaska, in a particularly interesting case.

A Ketchikan judge on Monday set aside guilty verdicts returned by a jury against the activist group Greenpeace and the captain of its boat for violating state environmental regulations during a 2004 visit to Alaska.

District Court Judge Kevin Miller provided little reason for his unusual order acquitting the Greenpeace defendants except that, in his judgment, the evidence did not support the guilty verdicts.

"The decision to remove these verdicts from the province of the jury is one that this court does not take lightly," Miller wrote.

Miller presided over the jury trial and was responding to a post-verdict request by the defense to consider a reversal of the convictions.

Assistant attorney general James Fayette, reached in New York while on vacation, said: "I've been a prosecutor in Anchorage for 12 years and I've never seen this. ... I've never heard of it happening."

Now I've heard of it happening before,but not often. Usually it is in a much more technical case than one of this sort, and involves much more complicated issues. It is also much more likely to happen in a civil case. But it seems to me that there isn't much to dispute here.

A Ketchikan jury found Greenpeace Inc. and Arctic Sunrise Capt. Arne Sorensen guilty in May of violating Alaska oil pollution prevention laws during a July 2004 trip the activist group made to Southeast Alaska to conduct an anti-logging campaign in the Tongass National Forest.

Under state law, a non-tank vessel larger than 400 gross tons must file an oil spill response plan application with the state, including a certificate of financial responsibility and an oil spill contingency plan.

The jury on May 9 convicted Greenpeace on two counts of operating a ship without oil spill contingency plans on July 12 and July 14, 2004. The jury found the organization not guilty of operating without a certificate of financial responsibility for cleaning potential spills.

The jury found Sorensen guilty of two counts of operating without contingency plans on both dates. He also was found guilty of not having the financial responsibility certificate on July 12 but not guilty of operating without the certificate on July 14.

William Beekman, the ship's agent, also was charged with operating without either document. The jury acquitted him of both charges.

Now hold on here. Either the documents in question were filed or they were not. Period. Either the vessel was operated without them or not. Sounds rather cut and dried. What would have been missing?

I think this matter needs to be appealed -- and the judge needs to be scrutinized.

Posted by: Greg at 10:41 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 479 words, total size 3 kb.

HeadlineL

Democrats vow not to take out anger on Roberts

Translation:

"We've talked about it and will if we can"

Why do I interpret the headline in that manner? Could it be because of this?

Judiciary Committee Democrats are seeking documents from Judge Roberts' time as deputy solicitor general, and Democratic aides said Mr. Bush has seen how united their party can be when they think the administration is stonewalling on information.

"There's little appetite in the Democratic caucus for further abuse of power by the president or stonewalling," said one aide, adding that the party will be even more insistent on information about a Supreme Court nominee than they were about Mr. Bolton.

Notice the partisan lies and spin. The president did not abuse any power. The administration was forthcoming with documents until the Democrats made it clear they were unconditionally opposed to Bolton and were on a fishing expedition for supporting evidence. The Democrats plan on further unprecedented requests to prevent the president from installing a highly qualified nominee to the Supreme Court who isn't a dyed-in-the-wool liberal.

More about duplicitous Dems -- who confuse their minority rantings with the will of the majority of the Senate -- in this article.

Posted by: Greg at 06:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 209 words, total size 1 kb.

Ralph Isenberg has vowed to starve himself to death if the government carries out its threat to deport his wife, a convicted prostitute who is in this country illegally.

Ralph Isenberg risked everything for her. His marriage of 30 years disintegrated. His best friend stopped talking to him. His adult son and daughter shunned him.

Now he says he's prepared to die for Yanhong Hu.

Mr. Isenberg, a member of Dallas' City Plan Commission, said he is planning to begin a hunger strike this week after trying everything to keep his new wife in the country.

Since they met about three years ago, he persuaded high-placed government and business leaders – including U.S. Reps. Pete Sessions and Eddie Bernice Johnson and the entire Dallas City Council – to write letters of support for her residency application.

But Monday, immigration officials said they would not allow Yanhong Hu, who now goes by Nicole Isenberg, to stay in the country past Aug. 15. The couple had sought a six-month extension after the birth of their daughter on July 1.

No. Hell no! Get her out of the country now. She has a history of immoral conduct and illegal activity, and therefore is ineligible to stay. And you are more than welcome to go with her, Ralph.

Paul Hunker III, chief counsel for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Dallas, said Mrs. Isenberg needs four waivers for immigration law violations before the State Department can approve her application for permanent residency.

"This is really one of the most egregious cases I've seen in my 12 years as a government attorney," he said.

Mr. Sessions had lobbied for a six-month delay in her departure, citing concern for the health of the baby.

Wealth or political influence cannot be a factor in the enforcement of immigration law, but the birth of a U.S. citizen is strongly taken into consideration, Mr. Hunker said.

"Originally, the Aug. 15 date was set with the birth of their child in mind, because of a request made by their attorney," Mr. Hunker said. "If we didn't care about the child, we would have picked [Mrs. Isenberg] up and deported her."

So you see, this August 15 date is the one that you people asked for, Mr. Issenberg. You cannot now claim it is an unreasonable requriement. And you met your wife as one of her johns at a bathouse/massage parlour/brothel(?), so I find your statements that her conviction on prostitution charges was all a mistake to be less than persuasive.

Money and connections are no basis for a waiver of our nation's laws.

And Issenberg's threatened suicide is reason enough to speed up the deportation.

Posted by: Greg at 03:07 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 459 words, total size 3 kb.

Presidnet Bush made a recess appointment of John Bolton as UN Ambassador, effectively bypassing the Senate logjam onterfering with his confirmation.

Democrats, of course, are furious.

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., called the appointment "a devious maneuver that evades the constitutional requirement of Senate consent and only further darkens the cloud over Mr. Bolton's credibility at the U.N."

Really, Senator? I mean, the recess appointment has been used by every president since George Washington, pursuant to Article II, Section 3 of the US Constitution, which reads as follows.

"The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."

And since you are concerned about "devious maneuvers that evade constitutional consent" and "darken the cloud" over the nominee's credibility, consider this.

In 1961, John F. Kennedy used the recess appointment to gain a seat on the federal bench for Thurgood Marshall, who six years later become the first black associate justice on the Supreme Court.

Was the president involved a bad man who was upsetting the constitutional order of things? Was his nominee therefore not a credible judge? Were those who vilified the nominee therefore justified in their continuing obstructionism and increasingly vile rhetoric? Did you condemn that president and his nominee during your initial Senate campaign back in 1962 for governing outside of the constitutional system? And if you did not, surely you are willing to speak out today to condemn the two individuals involved in this long-ago constitutional travesty which showed contempt for the Senate. right?

There is, of course, a way for the Senate Democrats to bring John Bolton's tenure as UN Ambassador to an end. Call his nomination to the floor. Demand a vote, on the record, on the nomination. And then, when a majority of Senators votes against the nomination, Bolton will be out on his ass. It's really a quite simple process.

Oh.

You mean you don't have the votes to reject the Bolton nomination?

You say that the Senate will approve the appointment, and Bolton will be able to serve until January 2009 instead of January 2007?

You say that the Senate WOULD consent, if only a minority of Senators would stand clear and allow the vote to take place?

Well then I have to ask -- who is really engaged in "a devious maneuver that evades the constitutional requirement of Senate consent"?

Posted by: Greg at 01:11 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 424 words, total size 3 kb.

Minutemen in Arizona discovered the body of a dead border jumper over the weekend.

Minutemen volunteer Fred Puckett said he was saddened by the discovery and blamed the death on the government's lack of enforcement along the U.S.-Mexico border.

"This poor woman had to die here because the government will not secure our borders," Puckett said. "All of the politicians are responsible for this."

Exactly right.

Posted by: Greg at 01:36 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 74 words, total size 1 kb.

Folks in the Second Ward area of Houston are complaining about day laborers -- most of whom are border jumping immigration criminals. They frighten off customers, according to local businessmen, and they worry local residents.

The response of pro-immigration crime activists?

Juan Alvarez, an activist working to organize the day laborers in that area, asked homeowners to be compassionate.

"I know it is a problem for most of you, but on the other side they are human beings, too," Alvarez said.

He maintained that a crackdown at the sites could force the laborers out of work and into crime.

Hold it -- they are already criminals. Their presence here is a crime. Why should we be tolerant and understanding of their crimes? And why should we give in to this blackmail -- "overlook and assist these crimes or they will commit worse crimes" as demanded by the pro-immigration crime activists?

Posted by: Greg at 01:33 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.