Call him “Justice Alito” now.

Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. became the nation's 110th Supreme Court justice on Tuesday, confirmed with the most partisan victory in modern history after a fierce battle over the future direction of the high court.

The Senate voted 58-42 to confirm Alito _ a former federal appellate judge, U.S. attorney, and conservative lawyer for the Reagan administration from New Jersey _ as the replacement for retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a moderate swing vote on the court.

All but one of the Senate's majority Republicans voted for his confirmation, while all but four of the Democrats voted against Alito.

That is the smallest number of senators in the president's opposing party to support a Supreme Court justice in modern history. Chief Justice John Roberts got 22 Democratic votes last year, and Justice Clarence Thomas _ who was confirmed in 1991 on a 52-48 vote _ got 11 Democratic votes.

Alito watched the final vote from the White House's Roosevelt Room with his family. He was to be sworn in by Roberts at the Supreme Court in a private ceremony later in the day, in plenty of time for him to appear with President Bush at the State of the Union speech Tuesday evening.

Alito will be ceremonially sworn in a second time at a White House East Room appearance on Wednesday.

That makes two superb justices confirmed in the last few months – let’s hope we get another couple before Dubya leaves office on January 20, 2009.

Posted by: Greg at 10:22 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 256 words, total size 2 kb.

That is the message of today's Las Vegas Review Journal. It pointedly castigates Senator Harry Reid.

Taking his marching orders from the hyperliberal Ted Kennedy wing of his party, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid will apparently vote this week with Democrats who hope to filibuster the U.S. Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel Alito.

At least three of the Senate's 44 Democrats have announced they'll vote to elevate Judge Alito. One or two others appear to be leaning that way. Meanwhile, 53 of the Senate's 55 Republicans have signalled their intention to confirm the judge.

In other words, Judge Alito has more than enough support in the Senate to become the newest justice on the nation's highest court -- if he's actually given an up-or-down vote.

But Sen. Kennedy and his Massachusetts partner, Sen. John Kerry, are trying to drum up support among fellow left-wingers to prevent that from happening. They would need at least 41 senators to join in the charade. "It's an uphill climb at the current time," Sen. Kennedy said Friday, "but it's achievable."

Is it? Even Sen. Reid conceded late last week that, "Everyone knows there are not enough votes to support a filibuster."

That's because months of dirt-digging and days of circuslike hearings have turned up no compelling reason why minority Senate Democrats should deny President Bush his choice to fill the seat of retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

So why doesn't Sen. Reid take the filibuster threat off the table? Why go forward with what is obviously a counterproductive political exercise? Is the whole charade simply an attempt to curry favor with the liberal interest groups that help the party mainline cash?

If Sen. Reid votes to support a filibuster against Judge Alito, he threatens to further alienate himself from Nevada's more moderate voters. Does the name Tom Daschle ring a bell, senator?

It's worth noting that Sen. Reid likely wouldn't lend his name to these tactics were he up for re-election this year, instead of 2010.

In other words, this is politics and not principle leading to the attempt to stop a highly-qualified mainstream jurist from serving on the Supreme Court.

Rhe paper has this to say to Senator Bill Frist.

Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., has announced his intention to quash the filibuster move in a Monday vote. But if Teddy & Co. somehow conjure up the votes necessary to block a vote on Alito, Sen. Frist shouldn't hesitate to:

-- Force Democratic obstructionists to conduct an actual filibuster and hold up Senate business for weeks while they drone on reading from the Communist Manifesto.

-- Employ the so-called "nuclear option" that was in play when Democrats kept blocking votes on Bush appellate court nominees.

Anything less would be a complete capitulation.

Agreed -- and we must not capitulate to an obstructionist minority. Personally, I prefer forcing a real, honest-to-God filibuster. Let the people see exactly what the Democrats are up to with their baseless attacks on a good man. Show precisely the lengths to which they will go to get their own way, even when it clashes with the will and desires of the American people -- their own constituents.

Even Senator Barack Obama sees the filibuster as pointless and wrong.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., predicted today that an effort to try to block a final vote on Alito would fail on Monday. That would clear the way for Senate approval Tuesday of the federal appeals court judge picked to succeed the retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Democrats fear he would shift the court rightward on abortion rights, affirmative action, the death penalty and other issues.

"We need to recognize, because Judge Alito will be confirmed, that, if we're going to oppose a nominee that we've got to persuade the American people that, in fact, their values are at stake," Obama said.

"There is an over-reliance on the part of Democrats for procedural maneuvers," he told ABC's "This Week."

* * *

Obama cast Alito as a judge "who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values."

* * *

"There's one way to guarantee that the judges who are appointed to the Supreme Court are judges that reflect our values. And that's to win elections," Obama said.

I agree with the sentiments, Senator, but would like to note that the problem is that your values do not reflect those of the American people. Those sentiments are best reflected in the values of the Bush administration, the GOP, and Judge Samuel Alito.

So Democrats, show some guts, and some integrity.

Vote.

And accept the results.

If you respect the American people.

Posted by: Greg at 07:54 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 786 words, total size 5 kb.

Sorry, Ann, but such comments are inappropriate. And I say that as someone who hopes Justice Stevens leaves the bench sooner rather than later.

Conservative commentator Ann Coulter, speaking at a traditionally black college, joked that Justice John Paul Stevens should be poisoned.

Coulter had told the Philander Smith College audience Thursday that more conservative justices were needed on the Supreme Court to change the current law on abortion. Stevens is one of the court's most liberal members.

"We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee," Coulter said. "That's just a joke, for you in the media."

What you said is every bit as unacceptable as the comment by one liberal pundit that she hoped Clarence ThomasÂ’ wife would feed him an unhealthy diet so he would have a stroke and die young like so many other black men.

I would like to pointedly suggest that you apologize – and really mean it.

Posted by: Greg at 02:35 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.

After all, he is the only Klansman in the Senate, and he is 100% con-fed Democrat. Judge Alito deserves better than confirmation with Robert Byrd's vote.

Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, whose confirmation seems certain in the Republican-run Senate, padded his modest Democratic support Thursday with endorsements by Sens. Robert Byrd and Tim Johnson.

Alito already was assured the votes of at least 51 of the 55 Republicans in the 100-member chamber - enough to be put over the top - when West Virginia's Byrd and Johnson of South Dakota joined Nebraska's Ben Nelson in saying they'll vote yes.

I wish would issue a public statement requesting that Senator Byrd vote against him -- as a matter of principle, as a demonstration of his opposition to racism and bigotry in all its forms.

After all, Byrd used to head an organization that expressed contempt for Catholics, immigrants, and those of non-Anglo-Saxo heritage. Alito qualifies on two counts, and his father fit all three.

(h/t: Blogs for Bush)

MORE AT: The Political Teen, Captain's Quarters

Posted by: Greg at 02:13 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 192 words, total size 1 kb.

Bill Frist is taking a preliminary step.

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, M.D., (R-Tenn.) on Thursday filed a cloture petition to close the debate on Judge Samuel AlitoÂ’s nomination to be the next associate justice to the Supreme Court of the United States.

The cloture motion agreed to in the Senate sets forth a cloture vote for 4:30 p.m. EST, on Monday. If cloture is invoked, then the Senate will proceed to a final vote on Judge AlitoÂ’s nomination at 11:00 a.m. EST, Tuesday.

Sen. Frist made the following statement regarding the voting schedule in the Senate:

“Next Tuesday, a bipartisan majority of Senators will vote to confirm Judge Alito as Justice Alito.

“After a thorough, fair, and robust debate on the Senate floor it is now time for Senators to go on record and vote up or down on this outstanding nomination.”

Why file for cloture? Because of threats by certain dishonorable Democrats.

Massachusetts Sens. John Kerry and Edward Kennedy, along with a small number of other Senate Democrats, have threatened a filibuster to block the vote for Judge Samuel Alito's confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court, FOX News has learned.

"Judge Alito has consistently made it harder for Americans to have their day in court. He routinely defers to the power of the government, no matter how extreme. And he doesnÂ’t believe women have a right to privacy thatÂ’s protected by the Constitution," Kerry said in a statement.

"The president has every right to nominate Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. ItÂ’s our right and our responsibility to oppose him vigorously and to fight against this radical upending of the Supreme Court," he added before announcing he would return to Washington early on Friday from Davos, Switzerland, where a Senate delegation was attending the World Economic Forum.

If they try it, crush them completely. The American people have had enough of their antics.

Posted by: Greg at 01:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 322 words, total size 2 kb.

I cannot believe that the Supreme Court is going to consider this case.

The Supreme Court agreed yesterday to decide when death row inmates may challenge lethal injection as a method of capital punishment, in a surprise decision issued after the justices dramatically stopped the execution of a Florida prisoner who was already strapped to a gurney preparing to die.

Clarence E. Hill, 48, convicted of murdering a Pensacola police officer in 1982, had refused a final meal and needles had punctured his arm when the Supreme Court stayed his execution. The court said it would hear his claim that he should have an opportunity to argue that his civil rights would be violated because the chemicals used to execute him would cause excessive pain.

Excuse me, but the entire process is about KILLING someone. I frankly don’t care if it hurts – their crimes are of such magnitude that they are being put down like the mouth-frothing rabid dogs that they are. If they suffer, so be it – it is merited pain and suffering.

No, this is just one more attempt to prevent the just punishment of the worst among us.

Posted by: Greg at 01:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 1 kb.

This must not stand! If you thought the Kelo decision was obscene, wait until you read this.

And it is happening literally just down the road from me -- I pass the property on a daily basis during the last leg of my drive home from work.

Man awarded $1 for 105 acres Port condemned

For years, Seabrook residents have said building the Bayport container facility north of town would hurt property values.

They might be surprised at how much one man got for his tract of land - $1 for 105 acres.

Pasadena land owner Glenn Seureau, II, thinks he was robbed of his by the Port of Houston Authority. He plans to continue an uphill battle with the Port until he is paid fair market value for the land.

One civil court judge, on the other hand, seems to think $1 is compensation enough for Seureau's land, located just north of Seabrook.

Seureau fought for nearly three years to protect his property, in his family for more than 150 years, from the Port's power of eminent domain, only to lose his case in May of last year in the court of Harris County Civil Court Judge Lynn Bradshaw-Hull.

The judge ruled that having paid Seureau $1, the Port now owns the fee simple title to the property. Seureau was also ordered to give back the Port's previous payment of more than $1.9 million at 5.75 percent interest and pay the Port's court costs at the same interest rate.

Seureau has appealed the ruling, and he and his attorneys are currently in negotiations with the Port.

Port officials declined to comment on the case, but confirmed that they are working with Seureau to reach an agreement.

The conflict began in September 2002, when a special commission held a hearing regarding the Port's request to condemn Seureau's land. Seureau did not attend the hearing, and the commission ordered the Port to pay him approximately $1.9 million for the property.

The Port deposited the funds into the registry of the court, taking constructive possession of the land, but Seureau refused to take the money or relinquish the title to the property.

"I didn't think (the Port) had the right to take the property," he said, adding that the Port's need for the land seems to be based on private rather than public interests.

The Port plans to build a portion of the Houston Cruise Terminal on the property.

Seureau also believes $1.9 million is less than the market value for the land, which he had planned to develop with multi-family residences.

He was later advised by an attorney that he did not have the right to contest eminent domain and withdrew the $1.9 million to pay for further appeals regarding the market value of his land.

The Port brought Seureau to Bradshaw-Hull's court on May 16, 2005 to obtain the fee simple title that Seureau had withheld until that point.

On May 17, the judge excluded the testimony of both Seureau and his only expert witness, Louis Smith, saying that neither man could provide evidence that was relevant or reliable regarding the market value of Seureau's land.

According to court documents, the judge's final ruling was based on a lack of evidence to support Seureau's argument.

Seureau also made a motion to exclude the testimony of one of the Port's expert witnesses, Matthew Deal. The court denied that motion.

Seureau, who lives in his 180-year-old family home next door to the recently condemned property, said that although he is not familiar with the judge's intentions, he sees Bradshaw-Hull's ruling as a "punishment" for trying to challenge the Port.

"I was forced to settle for less than market value," he said.

Bradshaw-Hull declined to comment on the case since it is on appeal.

So let's get this straight -- the judge allowed no testimony on the value of the land -- and then awarded an absurdly low value because there was no evidence in support of the land's value. Never mind that we know that the land was considered to be worth at least $1.9 million by the special commission. And she added insult to injury by ordering the victim of her obscene ruling to pay back all money he received with interest, plus legal fees to the publicly-owned Port -- which means he is paying the Port for the privilege of having his land stolen.

Notice, please, that this story is covered only by the local "tossed on the lawn" paper, not any of the major media like the Chronicle or the local television stations, despite teh outrageous nature of this ruling. They all made money hand over fist during the bond election a few years ago, as the Port spent tax money selling this expansion to the voters -- and it still runs propaganda ads about how great it is for the community. I guess they don't want to see that cash cow dry up.

Oh, and by the way, Judge Bradshaw-Hull (email here) is running for re-election on the GOP ballot.

But Bradshaw-Hull has competition from Linda Storey in the race for judge of Harris County Court at Law 3. Assuming she is qualified, I will likely give my endorsement her way.

Let us hope that this decision does not stand -- and that this judge is off the bench..

TRACKBACK TO: Stop the ACLU, Publius Rendevous, Caos Blog, Right Wing Nation, Adam's Blog, Uncooperative Blogger, Linkfest Haven, Bullwinkle Blog, TMH Bacon Bits, Stuck On Stupid, third world country, Point Five, Conservative Cat, Samantha Burns, imagine kitty, Wizbang, Basil's Blog, Blogs For Bush

Posted by: Greg at 03:05 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 956 words, total size 7 kb.

Excuse me, folks -- do the children do the grocery shopping in your house? If not, then you chose to buy them this stuff.

Advocacy groups and parents are suing the Nickelodeon TV network and cereal maker Kellogg Co. in an effort to stop junk food marketing to kids.

The plaintiffs are citing a recent report documenting the influence of marketing on what children eat. Ads aimed at kids are mostly for high-calorie, low-nutrition food and drinks, according to the government-chartered Institute of Medicine.

Wakefield, Mass., mother Sherri Carlson said she tries her best to get her three kids to eat healthy foods.

"But then they turn on Nickelodeon and see all those enticing junk-food ads," Carlson said. "Adding insult to injury, we enter the grocery store and see our beloved Nick characters plastered on all those junky snacks and cereals."

Carlson and another plaintiff, Andrew Leong of Brookline, Mass., spoke at a news conference organized by the Center for Science in the Public Interest and the Boston-based Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood.

They intend to sue Kellogg and Nickelodeon parent Viacom Inc. in state court in Massachusetts and served the required 30 days' notice on Wednesday.

"For over 30 years, public health advocates have urged companies to stop marketing junk food to children," said Susan Linn of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood. "Even as rates of childhood obesity have soared, neither Viacom nor Kellogg has listened."

And the companies are not required to listen. They are using legal methods to market legal products.

The problem is that the parents in this case either cannot or will not act in the role of parents. Instead, they buy what the kids demand and allow them to consume it in the quantities they want. Whatever happened to the days of parental authority? Whatever happened to kids being told “No”?

Dismiss the suit and fine the litigants and their lawyers for filing this frivolous suit.

Oh, and revoke their parental rights.

Posted by: Greg at 11:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 341 words, total size 2 kb.

Excuse me, folks -- do the children do the grocery shopping in your house? If not, then you chose to buy them this stuff.

Advocacy groups and parents are suing the Nickelodeon TV network and cereal maker Kellogg Co. in an effort to stop junk food marketing to kids.

The plaintiffs are citing a recent report documenting the influence of marketing on what children eat. Ads aimed at kids are mostly for high-calorie, low-nutrition food and drinks, according to the government-chartered Institute of Medicine.

Wakefield, Mass., mother Sherri Carlson said she tries her best to get her three kids to eat healthy foods.

"But then they turn on Nickelodeon and see all those enticing junk-food ads," Carlson said. "Adding insult to injury, we enter the grocery store and see our beloved Nick characters plastered on all those junky snacks and cereals."

Carlson and another plaintiff, Andrew Leong of Brookline, Mass., spoke at a news conference organized by the Center for Science in the Public Interest and the Boston-based Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood.

They intend to sue Kellogg and Nickelodeon parent Viacom Inc. in state court in Massachusetts and served the required 30 days' notice on Wednesday.

"For over 30 years, public health advocates have urged companies to stop marketing junk food to children," said Susan Linn of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood. "Even as rates of childhood obesity have soared, neither Viacom nor Kellogg has listened."

And the companies are not required to listen. They are using legal methods to market legal products.

The problem is that the parents in this case either cannot or will not act in the role of parents. Instead, they buy what the kids demand and allow them to consume it in the quantities they want. Whatever happened to the days of parental authority? Whatever happened to kids being told “No”?

Dismiss the suit and fine the litigants and their lawyers for filing this frivolous suit.

Oh, and revoke their parental rights.

Posted by: Greg at 11:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 353 words, total size 2 kb.

Not really, when you consider how many of the major liberal precedents of recent decades overturned long-standing precedents.

Part of the answer, of course, is that the left's commitment to stare decisis is selective. Many of the Supreme Court's iconic liberal decisions overruled prior case law. Brown v. Board of Education (1954), overturned Plessy v. Ferguson (1896); Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), which established the constitutional right to a free public defender in felony cases, overruled Betts v. Brady (1942); Mapp v. Ohio (1961), which applied the exclusionary rule to state court prosecutions, overruled Wolf v. Colorado (1949); and so on. Nor need we reach far back into history for such instances. Just two years ago, in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Court found a constitutional right to perform acts of homosexual sodomy, thereby overturning Bowers v. Hardwick, which itself was no historical relic, having been decided in 1986. Yet none of the liberals who now wax eloquent about stare decisis criticized Lawrence's violation of that principle.

It would be easy to ridicule liberalism's inconsistent attachment to stare decisis as opportunistic. Nor is it hard to find a straightforward political motive. In a narrow partisan sense, it makes sense for liberals to emphasize attachment to precedent when confirming conservative nominees, since the best they can expect from such nominees is a holding action. One day, when a Democratic president is appointing liberal justices, we'll no doubt see more emphasis on the "living Constitution."

Still, something deeper may be involved as well. When liberals talk about a "living Constitution," what they really mean is a leftward-marching Constitution. Liberals--especially those of an age to be senators--have spent most of their lives secure in the conviction that history was moving their way. History meant progress, and progress meant progressive politics. In judicial terms, that implied a one-way ratchet: "conservative" precedents can and should be overturned, while decisions that embody liberal principles are sacrosanct. To liberals, that probably seemed more like inevitability than inconsistency.

Over the last 25 years, however, the ground has shifted. History stopped moving inexorably to the left and began to reverse course. The conservative movement achieved electoral success under Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. It took a while longer for the conservative trend to reach the judiciary, but it's no coincidence that a number of conservative federal judges, including John Roberts and Sam Alito, got their start in Reagan's White House or Justice Department. Now, 20 later, they are eligible for elevation to the Supreme Court.

Now this may look like a call for activism on the part of judges. To the degree that it is, I condemn it. However, as I read HinderakerÂ’s commentary, it is more of an attack upon the theory that the Constitution is a living and evolving document. After all, such evolution provides for no stability whatsoever.

What we need is a steady course marked by a respect for the original principles which underlie the Constitution. As such, that may mean taking a liberal approach in one area, and a more conservative approach elsewhere. Indeed, a group of honest judges dedicated to the proposition that the Constitution means what it says as intended by its authors may require that some lofty liberal precedents be left undisturbed (such as Brown, which overruled the foul and false Plessy precedent) due to their unambiguous correctness, others (Roe and Lawrence chief among them) rightly deserve no less than a stake through the heart so that matters best left to legislative deliberation might be returned to their proper sphere.

What we ultimately need is not blind respect for precedent. We need respect for and fidelity to the Constitution itself.

TRACKBACK TO: Stop the ACLU, Publius Rendevous, Caos Blog, Right Wing Nation, Adam's Blog, Uncooperative Blogger, Linkfest Haven, Bullwinkle Blog, TMH Bacon Bits, Stuck On Stupid, third world country, Point Five, Conservative Cat, Samantha Burns, imagine kittyWizbang, Basil's Blog">.

Posted by: Greg at 02:00 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 659 words, total size 6 kb.

I see this as problematic – especially since the crime and the “punishment” are not closely related.

A man sentenced to church instead of jail attended services with a Jehovah's Witnesses congregation last weekend and says he'll be back for more.

Brett Haines told a judge Tuesday that he attended the service as part of his sentence for a disorderly conduct conviction. He was accused of using racial slurs and threatening a cab driver Nov. 26 in Newtown.

Hamilton County Municipal Judge William Mallory gave Haines a choice between 30 days in jail or attending services at a predominantly black church for six consecutive Sundays.

The judge said he hoped the experience would broaden Haines' cultural awareness and make him more tolerant of minorities.

I could see doing this if he had vandalized the church, but going to “black churches” in lieu of jail does not relate to the crime here.

Prosecutors say Haines, 36, was arrested after threatening cab driver David Wilson and Wilson's wife. They say the intoxicated Haines threatened to punch Wilson, used racial slurs and said he hated black people.

This does raise a First Amendment issue in my mind.

Posted by: Greg at 01:53 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 1 kb.

Did questions from Chief Justice John Roberts signal that he is more of a friend to political speech than his predecessor?

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. expressed doubts yesterday about legal restrictions on political ads by outside groups as the Supreme Court took up a new challenge to the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law.

Questioning Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, who was defending the law, Chief Justice Roberts raised a hypothetical case in which a group runs an issue ad every month. Does the ad, he asked, become illegal in the months before an election?

Mr. Clement responded that such a group could continue to run the ads if it used political action committee money to pay for them, or if it refrained from identifying a candidate by name.

But Justice Antonin Scalia said that would undercut the purpose of the ad, adding, "The point of an issue ad is to put pressure on an incumbent you want to vote your way."

At issue is a provision banning the use of corporate or union money for ads that identify federal candidates two months before a general election. The case involves a lawsuit by Wisconsin Right to Life, which was barred from broadcasting ads that mentioned Sen. Russell D. Feingold, Wisconsin Democrat, during his 2004 re-election campaign.

In the first challenge to how the law was working in practice, the group in 2004 sought an injunction barring the Federal Election Commission from enforcing the provision against it. But the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia denied the request. A month later, then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist declined the group's request to intervene.

Chief Justice Roberts suggested that the fact that the ad also mentioned the state's other senator -- Democrat Herb Kohl, who was not up for re-election that year -- buttressed the group's argument that the ad was meant to influence legislation, not the election.

Now, if the members of the High Court will only consider the meaning of the words "Congress shall make no law" at the beginning of the First Amendment, it may be that we will see some movement towards the sort of restrictions on political speech that the Founders would have accepted -- namely NONE.

Posted by: Greg at 11:22 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 378 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Agreed! What part of 'free speech' don't our idiotic politicians understand? Regardless of their beloved 'intent', it's wrong and illegal to regulate speech!

It's nice to see another conservative voice speaking of the First Amendment the same way most conservatives speak of the Second Amendment.



-Bart

Posted by: Bartleby at Wed Jan 18 02:49:27 2006 (lkCzp)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

So he gives a guy who raped a girl repeatedly over a four-year span before her 10th birthday only sixty days in jail so he can seek treatment when he gets out.

There was outrage Wednesday when a Vermont judge handed out a 60-day jail sentence to a man who raped a little girl many, many times over a four-year span starting when she was seven.

The judge said he no longer believes in punishment and is more concerned about rehabilitation.

Prosecutors argued that confessed child-rapist Mark Hulett, 34, of Williston deserved at least eight years behind bars for repeatedly raping a littler girl countless times starting when she was seven.

But Judge Edward Cashman disagreed explaining that he no longer believes that punishment works.

"The one message I want to get through is that anger doesn't solve anything. It just corrodes your soul," said Judge Edward Cashman speaking to a packed Burlington courtroom. Most of the on-lookers were related to a young girl who was repeatedly raped by Mark Hulett who was in court to be sentenced.

The sex abuse started when the girl was seven and ended when she was ten.

Prosecutors were seeking a sentence of eight to twenty years in prison, in part, as punishment.

"Punishment is a valid purpose," Chittenden Deputy Prosecutor Nicole Andreson argued to Judge Edward Cashman.

"The state recognizes that the court may not agree or subscribe to that method of sentencing but the state does. The state thinks that it is a very important factor for the court to consider," Andreson added.

But Judge Cashman explained that he is more concerned that Hulett receive sex offender treatment as rehabilitation. But under Department of Corrections classification, Hulett is considered a low-risk for re-offense so he does not qualify for in-prison treatment. So the judge sentenced him to just 60 days in prison and then Hulett must complete sex treatment when he gets out or face a possible life sentence.

I’ve got a better idea – make this child rapist serve the full 20 years in the general population. He’ll probably get treatment "sex offender treatment" there that will leave him disinclined to repeat his crimes, and he might just learn to empathize with his helpless victim and potential future victims.

Or perhaps Judge Cashman has a granddaughter who needs a roommate.

In any event, Judge Cashman needs to be removed from the bench by any means available.

Posted by: Greg at 11:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 417 words, total size 3 kb.

IÂ’d be embarrassed to bring a claim like this in court. Clearly some folks have no pride.

A consumer group is demanding that Frito-Lay put warning labels on chips with the fat substitute olestra or face a lawsuit by a Massachusetts woman who says she got stomach cramps and had to use the bathroom quickly after eating the snacks.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest said Wednesday that 30-year-old Lori Perlow of Braintree, Mass., would sue Frito-Lay under a consumer-friendly deceptive-advertising law in the Bay State.

Frito-Lay, a division of PepsiCo Inc., said warning labels are not needed for its Light lines of potato and corn chips.

"It's an extremely safe product, well-tested," said Frito-Lay spokeswoman Aurora Gonzalez. "If the law says we don't have to have (a label), we don't see the need for it either."

The Food and Drug Administration approved olestra, made by Cincinnati-based Procter & Gamble Co., in 1996 but required products with the fake fat to carry a label warning that they could cause cramps and diarrhea. The requirement was lifted in 2003 after the agency determined that any ill effects of olestra were mild and rare.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest has campaigned against olestra for many years and opposed the lifting of the warning label. Its director of litigation, Stephen Gardner, accused Frito-Lay of trying to hide the consequences of eating products with olestra despite more than 20,000 consumer complaints.

In a letter to the company Wednesday, Gardner said Perlow experienced cramps and gas for several hours after eating Ruffles Light cheddar potato chips. Perlow said she avoided eating Wow! chips because of olestra but didn't realize Ruffles Light chips also contained the fake fat.

So what we have here is the Center for Pseudo-Science Against the Public Interest using litigation to achieve a regulation that it could not obtain through legislation or other democratic means. HereÂ’s hoping the courts impose serious sanctions on the group, their litigant, and their lawyers.

Posted by: Greg at 10:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 339 words, total size 2 kb.

If the liberals have an ounce of integrity, this should stop any plans for a filibuster.

Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito received a unanimous well-qualified rating from the American Bar Association on Wednesday, giving his nomination momentum as the Senate prepares for confirmation hearings next week.

The rating came after a vote of an ABA committee and will be delivered to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will launch Alito's confirmation hearings on Monday. Alito will face almost an hour of questioning from each of the 18 senators on the committee.

The ABA rating _ the highest _ is the same that Alito received back in when President Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, nominated him to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

There was one recusal from the voting committee, the ABA said. The group will testify next week during Alito's confirmation hearing about how it arrived at the rating.

For more than 50 years, the ABA has evaluated the credentials of nominees for the federal bench, though the nation's largest lawyers' group has no official standing in the process. Supreme Court nominees get the most scrutiny.

Samuel Alito should become the next justice of the United States Supreme Court. Any attempted filibuster is now grounds for the nuclear option.

Posted by: Greg at 12:21 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 215 words, total size 1 kb.

If the liberals have an ounce of integrity, this should stop any plans for a filibuster.

Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito received a unanimous well-qualified rating from the American Bar Association on Wednesday, giving his nomination momentum as the Senate prepares for confirmation hearings next week.

The rating came after a vote of an ABA committee and will be delivered to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will launch Alito's confirmation hearings on Monday. Alito will face almost an hour of questioning from each of the 18 senators on the committee.

The ABA rating _ the highest _ is the same that Alito received back in when President Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, nominated him to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

There was one recusal from the voting committee, the ABA said. The group will testify next week during Alito's confirmation hearing about how it arrived at the rating.

For more than 50 years, the ABA has evaluated the credentials of nominees for the federal bench, though the nation's largest lawyers' group has no official standing in the process. Supreme Court nominees get the most scrutiny.

Samuel Alito should become the next justice of the United States Supreme Court. Any attempted filibuster is now grounds for the nuclear option.

Posted by: Greg at 12:21 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 220 words, total size 1 kb.