Democrat obstructionism has claimed another well qualified Bush judicial nominee.

Henry W. Saad, one of President Bush's appeals court nominees blocked by Senate Democrats, withdrew his name from consideration, a presidential aide said yesterday.

Democrats have accused Saad, a Michigan appeals court judge, of being hostile to employment-discrimination claims and lawsuits by consumers.

"Judge Saad asked to have his nomination withdrawn, and we intend to honor that request," Bush spokeswoman Erin Healy said.

Saad's nomination to the Cincinnati-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit was submitted to the Senate in January 2003, and he was renominated last year. His nomination was one of 10 blocked by Democrats, who used the filibuster, which allows unlimited debate, to prevent a Senate vote.

He was not included in a bipartisan agreement by 14 senators last year to avert a Senate showdown over the use of filibusters to block judicial nominees. The agreement allowed three of the 10 nominees to go to a vote.

Saad was rated "well qualified" by a "substantial" majority of the American Bar Association's committee that rates judicial nominees. Under Senate rules, Saad's nomination cannot be withdrawn until Congress returns Monday from its recess.

Notice that – “well qualified”. The Democrats are after results they like, not a judiciary full of well qualified, impartial judges.

Posted by: Greg at 12:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 2 kb.

I just love this editorial from the Richmond Times Dispatch, a paper which I loved during my time in college in Virginia.

Stifling Dissent

In a recent speech on foreign soil, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said people who disagree with her are dangerous, irrational, slavery-loving, bigoted threats to the country.

Not in so many words, mind you. Ms. Ginsburg is far too nuanced for that. But she did say that she and her former colleague, Sandra Day O'Connor, had been the target of death threats (actually, a single menacing posting on an Internet chatroom) from the "irrational fringe" -- and that Republican Congressmen "fuel the irrational fringe" by opposing the growing practice of interpreting the Constitution in light of foreign law.

Many people have disputed the idea that Justices should base their rulings on cues from foreign countries rather than the American Constitution. Ms. Ginsburg noted that one of them was Roger Taney, in his infamous Dred Scott decision. (Because Taney was wrong about slavery, and he also believed that 2 + 2 = 4, we evidently must conclude that mathematical equation also is incorrect.) She pointed out that defenders of Apartheid in South Africa, where she gave her talk, resisted calls from abroad to end the segregation system. Oh, and Justice Antonin Scalia disagrees with her, too. Those people are all alike.

Ms. Ginsburg's thinly veiled attempt to establish guilt by association is a shopworn technique. It was exploited most famously by Joseph McCarthy to intimidate those who disagreed with him. Joseph Stalin also used guilt by association to send potential resisters of Soviet Communist tyranny to the gulag. Recently an Italian commission concluded that the Soviet Union was behind the attempt to assassinate Pope John Paul II.

We are not, of course, in any way suggesting that people who share Ms. Ginsburg's approach are McCarthyite Communist mass-murdering anti-Catholic plotters of papicide. We wouldn't stoop to that level.

Why does she?

Bravo!

If Justice Ginsburg feels that criticism of the Judiciary by members of the co-equal Legislative Branch of government and (even lmore unacceptable) We, the People, is unacceptable and a danger to her safety, I'm sure she can find some court case or law from North Korea, Iran, Cuba, or the People's Republic of China that she and her peers can use to trump both the clear language of the First Amendment that permits such speech and Article III, which gives Congress specific power to check the Judicial Branch.

And if she finds that she cannot get a majority behind her unAmerican goal of suppressing and delegitimizing criticism of the courts on the clearly specious grounds of an epidemic of violence and threats against judges, perhaps she can safeguard her own miserable hide by resigning. I'm sure the Justice Department already has a suitable slate of possible replacements to send over to the president for his consideration.

More At: Colossus of Rhodey

Posted by: Greg at 05:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 498 words, total size 3 kb.

The Democrat obstruction continues – time for the GOP to go nuclear.

On May 9, 2001, President Bush nominated U.S. District Judge Terrence W. Boyle of Edenton, N.C., to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. It took nearly four years for the Judiciary Committee to send his nomination to the Senate floor. It has languished there for more than a year with no prospect for Senate confirmation and no apparent interest by the Republican leadership.

Boyle has been on the federal bench for 22 years, and his only liability is that he is a conservative who spent a year on Sen. Jesse Helms's staff. While he is the Bush appellate court nominee who has been waiting for confirmation the longest, he is not alone. Ten other prospective appeals judges face Senate inaction, with the window of opportunity in the second Bush term already closing.

They seem unaffected by last year's avoidance of a constitutional crisis over the confirmation process and the approval of two Supreme Court justices.

Five years is enough time for deliberation – vote now on Terrence Boyle, an extraordinary jurist who is being obstructed merely as political payback.

And while you are at it, give these folks a vote as well.

-- Brett Kavanaugh, White House staff secretary. First named to the District of Columbia Circuit by Bush on July 25, 2003, Democrats blocked the routine retention of his nomination at the end of the last Congress and now demand a second hearing to delay any hopes for him. His liability is being a senior Bush aide and a former assistant to independent counsel Kenneth Starr
.
-- William Haynes, general counsel of the Defense Department. A former General Dynamics executive nominated to the 4th Circuit, he has been blocked by Democrats for his association with the Pentagon's enemy combatant policies as a protege of vice presidential chief of staff David Addington.

-- Michael Wallace, a Jackson, Miss. lawyer. He was named to the 5th Circuit six weeks ago to fill the vacancy left by the resignation of Judge Charles Pickering. A former aide to Sen. Trent Lott, Wallace faces the same opposition from the Left that filibustered Pickering until he reached the bench on a Bush recess appointment.

There is not a single extraordinary circumstance among these nominees – just politics-as-usual by the Democrats. Use that majority or loose it, Senators.

Posted by: Greg at 12:16 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 403 words, total size 3 kb.

A very long time ago, most folks learned that if you regularly take money from someone, they can pretty well set any condition upon its continued receipt. For most of us, that lesson came in the form of parents punishing us by not paying us our allowance.

College and university administrators, along with law professors, are so far removed from the real world that they had forgotten this lesson that most folks learn by the time they are about seven-years old. The Supreme Court had to slap them upside the head with a unanimous 2x4 to re-teach that lesson.

The Supreme Court, in a case stemming from the military's policy toward gays, unanimously upheld today a federal law forcing colleges and universities to permit military recruiting on campus over their objections.

The universities, specifically law schools, had argued that making them host military recruiters on campus or lose federal funding was a form of "compelled speech" that made it appear that they were endorsing the government's exclusion of gays in the military, thus violating their rights of free speech and expression under the First Amendment.

What these over-educated idiots failed to recognize was that nobody was compelling these schools to do anything. All they had to do was get off the federal teat, and the requirement would disappear (presumably -- but more on that later). No, they wanted that cash and the right to cut the strings that went along with it. In that, they remind me of an old episode of the Andy Griffith Show, in which Opie argued he should get his allowance without doing any chores, since an allowance is money kids are "allowed" to have.

After all, nobody requires these schools to take federal grants for research, Pell grants, guaranteed student loan money, or other federal government cash that flows into their coffers. All they need to do is spend the endowment money to provide financial aid, and get private grants for research projects, and they would be free of the requirement to allow military recruiters on campus. No cash, no chores.

Chief Justice Roberts, writing for a unanimous court, swept their arguments aside.

The law, called the Solomon Amendment, "neither limits what law schools may say nor requires them to say anything," Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the court. "Law schools remain free under the statute to express whatever views they may have on the military's congressionally mandated employment policy. . . .

"Nothing about recruiting suggests that law schools agree with any speech by recruiters and nothing in the Solomon Amendment restricts what the law schools may say about the military's policies," Roberts wrote.

The law regulates conduct, not speech, the court said. And unlike flag-burning, which is protected under prior decisions, the hosting of recruiters is not "expressive" conduct that sends out a message as a form of protest.

More to the point, their argument was bound to fail for the same reason that a school that claimed that ending seregation was compelled speech and a violation of freedom of association (and implicitly, freedom from association) would be bound to fail. In fact, these arguments parallel the arguments of segregationists quite nicely. Heck, upholding their position would have undone Title IX and the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that ended segregation in higher education.

And having brought such a frivolous argument forward, they got a decision that goes well-beyond what they complained about.

The U.S. Supreme Court sharply rebuked America's far-left law professors today, ruling unanimously (that's 8-0, Justice Sam Alito having joined the court too late to participate) that Congress was within its authority to withhold federal funding from law schools that discriminate against military recruiters. In the case, Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, the court actually went further (citations omitted):

The Constitution grants Congress the power to "provide for the common Defence," "o raise and support Armies," and "o provide and maintain a Navy." Congress' power in this area "is broad and sweeping," and there is no dispute in this case that it includes the authority to require campus access for military recruiters. . . .

This case does not require us to determine when a condition placed on university funding goes beyond the "reasonable" choice offered in Grove City and becomes an unconstitutional condition. It is clear that a funding condition cannot be unconstitutional if it could be constitutionally imposed directly. Because the First Amendment would not prevent Congress from directly imposing the Solomon Amendment's access requirement, the statute does not place an unconstitutional condition on the receipt of federal funds.

That is, Congress could force colleges and universities, even if they receive no federal funding, to treat military recruiters equally. It's very impressive that Chief Justice John Roberts, Rumsfeld's author, was able to command unanimous support for such a sweeping decision.

In other words, Congress is within its power to require each and every college and university to allow recruiters on campus REGARDLESS OF THEIR TAKING FEDERAL MONEY. Not only did they roll snake-eyes in this crap shoot, the dice burst into flames and exploded when they came to rest on the table.

UPDATE: This gem from Chief Justice Roberts' opinion is pointed out by the proprieter of Okie on the Lam in LA

"Â…Nothing about recruiting suggests that law schools agree with any speech by recruiters, and nothing in the Solomon Amendment restricts what the law schools may say about the militaryÂ’s policies. We have held that high school students can appreciate the difference between speech a school sponsors and speech the school permits because legally required to do so, pursuant to an equal access policyÂ… Â…Surely students have not lost that ability by the time they get to law school."

Ouch!

MORE AT: Colossus of Rhodey, Blogs for Bush, GOPBloggers, Powerline, Michelle Malkin, Independent Conservative, Stop The ACLU, Iowa Voice, Publius Rendevous, Ace of Spades, Red State Rant, Yankee Sailor, Sister Toldjah, Random Thoughts Of Yet Another Military Member, Amy Proctor, Flopping Aces, Protein Wisdom, Left Wing = Hate, Small Town Veteran

OPEN TRACKBACKING: Conservative Cat, Mark My Words, Don Surber, Basil's Blog, Jo's Cafe, Third World Country

Posted by: Greg at 01:56 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1040 words, total size 9 kb.

1 Alito's just a little too busy defending himself in the 3rd Circuit, still trying to weasel out of his Judicial Misconduct Complaint

Posted by: JimBD at Wed Mar 8 16:37:09 2006 (GoE0N)

2 Wrong, Jim. He was not seated when the case was heard.

Now feel free to get back on your knees for the loon in PA, now that you are done wasting bandwidth here.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Mar 8 17:43:48 2006 (EqS+g)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Would someone tell this arrogant woman that President Bush won the elections of 2000 and 2004 – and that there is no constitutional basis for his blocking the nomination of a judge out of a fit of pique.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California announced Wednesday she will block the nomination of an Idaho judge to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals because she contends the seat should go to someone from California.

Feinstein, a Democrat, made the announcement during 6th District Judge Randy Smith's nomination hearing before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington.

Smith was picked by President Bush in December to replace Judge Stephen Trott, who moved to Idaho from California after his appointment to the court in 1988. Trott declared senior status in December 2004, meaning he will take a much lighter caseload. Since then, Idaho has not had an active judge on the court.

Feinstein and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said the seat should go to a California judge because tradition holds that judgeships remain in the same state. They have been protesting since last March after they learned the seat was promised to Idaho.

"To allow a judge's personal choice of where to live to change the allocation of future Court of Appeals sets a dangerous precedent," Feinstein told the Judiciary Committee. "As this nomination ignores the judicial needs of the 9th Circuit and the state of California, I must oppose it, and I intend to place a hold upon this nomination."

In other words, Dianne Feinstein believes that Idaho is not entitled to any judges on the 9th Circuit – California is just too important. It is time to go nuclear on this nomination, as it is the clearest case of obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism.

Oh, and by the way – no more nominees from California. Fill every California judgeship with out-of-staters. After all, payback is a bitch -- and so is Senator Feinstein.

MORE AT Sensible Mom, Idaho Times, Idaho Examiner, Confirm Them

Posted by: Greg at 03:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 340 words, total size 2 kb.

Must every situation turn into a lawsuit – and must the claims be so expansive?

A woman filed a lawsuit Wednesday alleging a Chicago steakhouse was negligent when it served her a salad in which an olive still contained a pit.
Michelle Brass filed the suit in Cook County Circuit Court against Gibsons LLC and Mykonos Import-Export Inc.

Brass was eating a salad at Gibsons on April 10, 2004, when she bit into an olive, striking her tooth on the it, causing herself pain and injuries, the suit claims. The menu showed the salad contained pitted olives, the suit claims. Due to her biting into the pit, Brass claims she had to pay for medical care and miss work.

The suit alleges Gibsons placed a defective and unsafe product in the salad, allowed the pit to be served inside the salad, and failed to properly inspect the product prior to serving. Mykonos was accused of importing a defective and unsafe product. The suit seeks an unspecified amount in damages.

Let’s see here – surely there is (or was in the past) a better way of dealing with such injuries. Business owners would pay legitimate bills for legitimate injuries, and either absorb the cost or submit it to insurance. I’m willing to bet that some such offer was made by Gibsons, if only for the benefit of PR. I don’t doubt that Mykonos would have done the same.

But “importing a defective and unsafe product”? I think that everyone recognizes that, every now and then, an olive pit is going to be missed in the pitting process and make it into the can or jar. That isn’t a defect – and pits in olives hardly make olives “unsafe”.

Sounds to me like Ms. Brass and her lawyer are out to make a quick buck out of what is really nothing more than an accident. And if the restaurant and he manufacturer were reckless or negligent in their conduct, couldnÂ’t the same be said of Ms. Brass, who obviously failed to exercise reasonable care in her consumption of the salad?

Posted by: Greg at 02:59 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 356 words, total size 2 kb.

Let's be honest -- Justice Antonin Scalia is never boring and never one to hold back on his opinion.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice
Antonin Scalia fondly remembers carrying a rifle around New York City as a boy and says outdoorsmen should attack the idea that guns are only used for crimes.

An avid outdoorsmen who's hunted with Vice President Dick Cheney, Scalia spoke Saturday at the National Wild Turkey Federation's annual convention.

"The attitude of people associating guns with nothing but crime, that is what has to be changed," Scalia told the audience of about 2,000.

"I grew up at a time when people were not afraid of people with firearms," said Scalia, noting that as a youth in New York City he was part of a rifle team at the military school he attended.

"I used to travel on the subway from Queens to Manhattan with a rifle," he said. "Could you imagine doing that today in New York City?"

Scalia was criticized in 2004 for hunting ducks with Cheney while the Supreme Court was considering a case involving Cheney's energy task force. This month, a lawyer hunting with Cheney in Texas was wounded when he stepped in the way as Cheney fired at a bird.

The nonprofit turkey federation is dedicated to conserving wild turkeys and preserving hunting traditions.

Shoot one for me, Nino!

Posted by: Greg at 10:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 1 kb.

Doctors are refusing to participate in the execution of a prisoner following a federal judgeÂ’s absurd ruling that we have to show more consideration and compassion for a convicted murderer than he did for the teenager he raped and killed.

California indefinitely postponed the execution of a convicted murderer Tuesday in a dispute over lethal injection and the role of doctors in assisting it.

The execution of Michael Morales, 46, was delayed when two anesthesiologists who were scheduled to assist backed out at the last minute, citing ethical concerns after a court ordered them to intervene if Morales awoke during the procedure.

The doctors were asked to participate after a federal judge ruled last week that California's usual method of lethal injection "creates an undue risk" of "excessive pain." In a ruling that applies only to the current case, U.S. District Judge Jeremy D. Fogel required that either a doctor sedate Morales immediately before he is executed, or that the state substitute one drug for the three typically used.

Fogel's order on the single-drug option "specifically required that the lethal injection be completed by someone licensed by the state of California to inject medication intravenously," San Quentin Prison Warden Steven Ornoski said in a statement. ". . . The state cannot proceed with the execution under the conditions set by the court."

A corrections spokesman said: "The big kicker was 'inside,' and what doctor is going to want to go inside the death chamber?"

And so I repeat my suggestion for a better execution protocol – a lethal injection of lead, 9mm at a time, to the base of the brain. And lest there be any question of finding someone willing to carry out the procedure, I’ll gladly volunteer if California will supply a round-trip airline ticket – and I’m even willing to fly coach.

MORE AT This Blog Is Full Of Crap

Posted by: Greg at 01:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 317 words, total size 2 kb.

Of all the asinine rulings!

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that California must change its lethal injection method for an execution next week, saying the current mix of drugs may constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel said he was concerned inmates are conscious and undergoing extreme pain during execution.

The usual lethal injection method involves giving a sedative, a paralyzing agent and then a heart-stopping drug. Fogel ordered the state to either have an expert present to ensure Michael Morales is unconscious from the sedative, or replace a three-drug mix with a lethal dose of barbiturate.

Morales is scheduled to be executed Feb. 21 for the rape and murder of a 17-year-old girl in San Joaquin County 25 years ago.

His attorneys alleged a mistake in the sedation process might mean he would appear unconscious, but internally would succumb to excruciating pain.

This savage beat, stabbed, and raped a 17-year-old girl, Terri Winchell, 25 years ago. That he is still breathing is unconscionable, and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment to his victims family and friends, as well as to the taxpayers of the state of California. I frankly don't give a rat's ass if he suffers a little bit as the state of California sends him to Hell.

But judge, you really want a better procedure? Fine -- I've got a suggestion.

Inject lead, 9mm at a time, to the base of the skull until the rabid mutt stops breathing.

Posted by: Greg at 06:15 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 254 words, total size 2 kb.

It may seem to be a truism, but the Constitution means what it says -- as understood at the time of its adoption. That is an argument that, sadly, has not been in vogue for some time among American liberals, who have come to believe that American courts constitute an ongoing Constitutional Convention that can simply change the Constitution without regard to precedent or the method of amendment outlined in the document itself.

Justice Antonin Scalia had a few choice words for those who hold to the latter view.

People who believe the Constitution would break if it didn't change with society are "idiots," U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says.

In a speech Monday sponsored by the conservative Federalist Society, Scalia defended his long-held belief in sticking to the plain text of the Constitution "as it was originally written and intended."

"Scalia does have a philosophy, it's called originalism," he said. "That's what prevents him from doing the things he would like to do," he told more than 100 politicians and lawyers from this U.S. island territory.

According to his judicial philosophy, he said, there can be no room for personal, political or religious beliefs.

Scalia criticized those who believe in what he called the "living Constitution."

"That's the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break."

"But you would have to be an idiot to believe that," Scalia said. "The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things."

Proponents of the living constitution want matters to be decided "not by the people, but by the justices of the Supreme Court."

"They are not looking for legal flexibility, they are looking for rigidity, whether it's the right to abortion or the right to homosexual activity, they want that right to be embedded from coast to coast and to be unchangeable," he said.

Boy, is the man ever right on this one. You have to be an idiot to believe that the institutions created by the Constitution have the power to redefine the meaning of the document itself. The notion of evolving standards means that the words of the Constitution mean nothing whatsoever -- or perhaps that the same words mean different things at different times. That notion is absurd.

And for anyone who disagrees, answer this simple question -- how many of you would be willing to take out a mortgage if the bank retained the right to change the terms and conditions at will and with no recourse on your part?

OPEN TRACKBACKING TO Adam's Blog, Conservative Cat, Stuck On Stupid, third world country, Don Surber, Bacon Bits, Jo's Cafe, Basil's Blog

Posted by: Greg at 05:31 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 479 words, total size 4 kb.

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.

Frankly, this Texas Republican is glad to see the Supreme Court take up the Texas redistricting case.

The Supreme Court today agreed to consider arguments by Democrats and minorities against a controversial Republican redistricting plan, spearheaded by Rep. Tom DeLay, that redrew congressional boundaries in Texas and helped the GOP gain House seats in last year's elections.

The high court consolidated four separate appeals in the matter, noted "probable jurisdiction" and allotted two hours for oral arguments in the case. The arguments are likely to be heard in April, and a decision could be rendered by the end of June.

n agreeing to hear arguments in the case, the Supreme Court will review a ruling by a three-judge panel that allowed the 2003 redrawing of the Texas congressional districts. The panel rejected challenges to the constitutionality of the new boundaries by plaintiffs who contended they illegally diminished minority voting rights and constituted unlawful partisan gerrymandering.

The redistricting was approved by the Justice Department over the objections of the department's own staff lawyers, The Washington Post reported earlier this month.

The time has come for the Supreme Court to take up, once and for all, the issue of political gerrymandering and the Voting Rights Act mandated racial gerrymandering that have plagued the country for many years. It is time to mandate that districts be compact and take into account the geographical and political boundaries that exist in a state to most effectively allow for representation of the people of the state. I believe that such a result will benefit the country as a whole.

But let's consider the issues at hand in Texas. The Washington post presents them in a rather one-sided manner.

Before the redistricting, Texas's 32 House seats were evenly split at 16-16 between Republicans and Democrats. As a result of the new boundaries, Republicans picked up five seats in the November 2004 elections.

Democrats charged that the new districts broke up minority communities and merged them into largely conservative, white districts. Among the big losers was veteran Democratic congressman Martin Frost, whose district was eliminated.

Frost and other Texas Democrats charged that the redistricting disenfranchised as many as 3.6 million black and Hispanic voters in the state.

As a result of the 2000 census, Texas, the nation's second most populous state, was entitled to two additional House seats, bringing its total to 32. But the state legislature failed to agree on a new plan in 2001, triggering lawsuits in state and federal court. A three-judge federal panel ended up drawing what it called politically neutral district boundaries to govern the 2002 congressional elections. Those elections produced a delegation made up of 17 Democrats and 15 Republicans, but one of the Democrats later switched parties.

After gaining control over both houses of the Texas state legislature in 2002 elections, Republicans decided to revisit the redistricting issue in 2003 and eventually succeeded in drawing new boundaries.

In January 2004, a special panel of three federal judges rejected a Democratic challenge to the new map. The Democrats had argued that Texas could not "redistrict in mid-decade" after boundaries had already been drawn, that the GOP plan unconstitutionally discriminated on the basis of race, that it was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander and that it violated the Voting Rights Act.

The panel stressed that it was deciding "only the legality" of the redistricting plan, "not its wisdom."

Notice, the article does not mention that the 17-15 split in favor of the Democrats happened despite the fact that the GOP received nearly 60% of the votes. Nor does it mention that the court-drawn plan was based upon the 1990 political gerrymander by a shrinking Democrat majority in the Texas Legislature that disenfranchised Texas Republicans by packing them into districts in a manner illegal if done to racial groups. Lastly, there is no mention of the recommendation by the panel that drew the 2001 plan that the Texas legislature revisit and redraw the map at the earliest possible opportunity.

The plan in question produces results that closely reflect the voting patterns of Texans. Nobody has been disenfranchised by the plan -- in fact, there was a largerturnout of voters in the 2004 election than had been seen in years, in large part becausevoters suddenly had a reason to go to the polls, since their votes mattered for a change.

The Supreme Court should uphold the redistricting plan and strike down the "no retrogression" provision of the Voting Rights Act while setting a standard for redistricting that does away with the more strangelyy drawn districts that exist in texas and other states.

Posted by: Greg at 01:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 774 words, total size 5 kb.

While I am unapologetically Christian -- in fact, because I am unapologetically Christian -- I think that the Detroit News gets this one exactly right.

A Catholic man convicted of a minor drug charge says he faced a choice that the U.S. Constitution simply does not allow: Convert to another faith or go to jail. The disturbing allegations about a Pentecostal-based drug rehabilitation program in Flint should serve as a reminder to judges not to force offenders to attend programs run by faith-based groups that proselytize their captive audience.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan has filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Joseph Hanas, 23, who was punished for not completing a residential program at the Inner City Christian Outreach Center. A Genesee County Circuit judge had sentenced Hanas to a year in the center for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver. The charges could have been dismissed if he completed the program. Instead, after seven weeks, Hanas asked the court for placement in a secular program, but was denied. Judge Robert Ransom sentenced him to jail for three months and then to boot camp.

Hanas said Inner City staff called Catholicism witchcraft, took away his rosary and prayer book and required seven hours of daily Bible study. In an interview with a Free Press reporter, Dwight Richard Rottiers, the pastor at Inner City, acknowledged that Hanas was told he had to attend Inner City services and was not allowed to attend Catholic services.

No judge should force anyone to choose between exercising a constitutional right and jail.

This seems like a rather clear miscarriage of justice -- a sentence to forced religious indoctrination. I've read elsewhere that the judge knew nothing of the program at the time of the sentence, though he now says he would not sentence someone to the program if he were still hearing cases (he has retired).

The ACLU is exactly right on this one -- dismiss the conviction. It is the only right thing to do.

Posted by: Greg at 01:41 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 345 words, total size 2 kb.

A New York appelate court has overturned a lower court ruling that permitted homosexual marriage and ordered that gender specific terms in the state's marriage law be redefined in a manner contrary to legislative intent and their common meaning.

The appeals court judges said state laws regarding marriage "do not violate the due process and equal protection provisions of the New York State Constitution."

"The role of the courts is `to recognize rights that are supported by the constitution and history, but the power to create novel rights is reserved for the people through the democratic and legislative processes,"' the appeals court wrote, quoting a 2003 decision handed down by a Massachusetts state court.

Now such an argument is sure to upset liberals, who believe that law is whaqt the sours say it is and that a right is a right because liberals say it is.

Furthermore, the panel rejected the trial judge's fundamental re-writing of the state's marriage statute.

The court also criticized the way Ling-Cohan proceeded, saying, "we find it even more troubling that the court, upon determining the statute to be unconstitutional, proceeded to rewrite it and purportedly create a new constitutional right."

Judges don't make constitutional law -- the people do.

Not only that, but the court laid out a legitimate state purpose in recognizing only heterosexual marriage.

"Society and government have a strong interest in fostering heterosexual marriage as the social institution that best forges a linkage between sex, procreation and child rearing,'' the 55- page majority opinion says. "It systematically regulates heterosexual behavior, brings order to the resulting procreation and ensures a stable family structure for the rearing, education and socialization of children.''

This is precisely what those of us who support traditional marriage have argued all along -- the recognition of heterosexual marriages only is based upon the experience of society over millenia and the biological connection to parenthood.

Posted by: Greg at 09:54 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 332 words, total size 2 kb.

We can al argue about the efficacy and necessity of the War on Drugs. Wherever one comes down on that issue, though, it is difficult to argue with the logical position taken here by a court reading the plain language of a statute.

The question before the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals, was whether a man named James Robbins was guilty of selling drugs within 1,000 feet of a school - which carries a longer sentence - when he was arrested in March 2002 on the corner of Eighth Avenue and 40th Street in Manhattan and charged with selling drugs to an undercover police officer.

The nearest school, Holy Cross, is on 43rd Street between Eighth and Ninth Avenues. How to measure? On foot, Mr. Robbins's lawyers argued, the school is more than 1,000 feet away from the site of the arrest, because the shortest route is blocked by buildings. But as the crow flies, the authorities said, it is less than 1,000 feet away.

Law enforcement officials calculated the straight-line distance using the Pythagorean theorem (a2 + b2 = c2) measuring the distance up Eighth Avenue (764 feet) as one side of a right triangle, and the distance to the church along 43rd Street (490 feet) as another, to find that the length of the hypotenuse was - 907.63 feet.

Lawyers for Mr. Robbins argued that the distance should be measured as a person would walk it because "crows do not sell drugs." But in a unanimous ruling, the seven-member Court of Appeals upheld his conviction and held that the distance in such cases should be measured as the crow flies.

"Plainly, guilt under the statute cannot depend on whether a particular building in a person's path to a school happens to be open to the public or locked at the time of a drug sale," Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye wrote in the opinion.

Mr. Robbins is currently serving a 6-to-12-year sentence.

It is rather sad that we have to adjudicate such matters as whether 1000 feet actually means 1000 feet as measured in a straight line. I wonder, though -- had Robbins prevailed, would the courts have made an even shorter distance for individuals who are so drunk or high that they cannot walk a straight line?

And I'm curious -- will the ACLU argue that imposing an enhanced penalty for drug sales within 1000 feet of Holy Cross School constitutes a violation of the Establishment Clause?

Posted by: Greg at 09:40 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 426 words, total size 3 kb.

I wrote about the Lucas Dawson case not long ago.

Fortunately, there is a happy ending to the story for Dawson and his family. Lucas was cleared of the charge of voluntary manslaughter by the judge.

Sadly, there is also bad news for Dawson and his family. Lucas has had to leave his home to move to a safer neighborhood because of threats against his life from the rabid beasts in human form who engaged in an unprovoked attack upon him because of his sexuality. Those criminals remain at large, and face no charges for their actions.

Lucas Dawson began carrying a knife after being attacked while kissing his male lover in a South Philadelphia Park four years ago.

Now, after a second assault by gay bashers - one of whom he killed in self-defense - Dawson's thinking about getting a gun.

The 21-year-old was cleared yesterday of charges in the fatal stabbing of a 17-year-old boy who was among a group that attacked him near his East Mount Airy home on Oct. 29.

There was great relief at the Dawson home yesterday after the decision by a Municipal Court judge, but now the concern is his safety.

Last night, Dawson packed to leave home for fear of retaliation.

"I mean, seven guys jumped me, and one guy died," he said. "There's still six other people that want to hurt me.

"I fear for my safety, and that's why I'm moving away," he added. "I won't carry a knife on me anymore, but I am considering getting a gun permit."

David Diggs, the boyfriend of Lucas' mother, Lisa, said Lucas was not safe in the neighborhood any longer.

Now I find this situation rather shocking. Why hasn’t Philadelphia District Attorney Lynne Abraham seen to it that the perpetrators of this real anti-gay hate crime are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and that their victim is allowed to live with dignity in his home. After all, this is the same Lynne Abraham who was willing to prosecute Christian demonstrators for nothing more than exercising their First Amendment right on a city street when it offended the radical homosexuals. Let’s contact her and ask why she won’t deal with violent felons who attempt to physically harm homosexuals with the same level of tenacity she shows towards Christians who merely speak a message homosexuals do not want to hear.

Posted by: Greg at 01:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 403 words, total size 3 kb.

I wrote about the Lucas Dawson case not long ago.

Fortunately, there is a happy ending to the story for Dawson and his family. Lucas was cleared of the charge of voluntary manslaughter by the judge.

Sadly, there is also bad news for Dawson and his family. Lucas has had to leave his home to move to a safer neighborhood because of threats against his life from the rabid beasts in human form who engaged in an unprovoked attack upon him because of his sexuality. Those criminals remain at large, and face no charges for their actions.

Lucas Dawson began carrying a knife after being attacked while kissing his male lover in a South Philadelphia Park four years ago.

Now, after a second assault by gay bashers - one of whom he killed in self-defense - Dawson's thinking about getting a gun.

The 21-year-old was cleared yesterday of charges in the fatal stabbing of a 17-year-old boy who was among a group that attacked him near his East Mount Airy home on Oct. 29.

There was great relief at the Dawson home yesterday after the decision by a Municipal Court judge, but now the concern is his safety.

Last night, Dawson packed to leave home for fear of retaliation.

"I mean, seven guys jumped me, and one guy died," he said. "There's still six other people that want to hurt me.

"I fear for my safety, and that's why I'm moving away," he added. "I won't carry a knife on me anymore, but I am considering getting a gun permit."

David Diggs, the boyfriend of Lucas' mother, Lisa, said Lucas was not safe in the neighborhood any longer.

Now I find this situation rather shocking. Why hasnÂ’t Philadelphia District Attorney Lynne Abraham seen to it that the perpetrators of this real anti-gay hate crime are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and that their victim is allowed to live with dignity in his home. After all, this is the same Lynne Abraham who was willing to prosecute Christian demonstrators for nothing more than exercising their First Amendment right on a city street when it offended the radical homosexuals. A_WEBMAIL@phila.gov">LetÂ’s contact her and ask why she wonÂ’t deal with violent felons who attempt to physically harm homosexuals with the same level of tenacity she shows towards Christians who merely speak a message homosexuals do not want to hear.

Posted by: Greg at 01:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 407 words, total size 3 kb.

IÂ’ve been troubled by the decision of Dallas County prosecutors to seek an indictment against Juan Robles, the driver of that bus that burst into flames during the Hurricane Rita evacuation. As tragic as the deaths on that bus were, to me they did not add up to criminal conduct by the driver.

It seems like a grand jury agrees.

A grand jury declined to indict the driver of the charter bus that burst into flames and killed 23 Bellaire nursing home residents as they fled Hurricane Rita, Dallas County prosecutors said Monday.

The Dallas County Sheriff's Department had referred 23 counts of negligent homicide against Juan Robles Gutierrez, one for each death, to the district attorney, who presented them to the grand jury.

"I was always convinced that a grand jury or jury would vindicate my client of any responsibility in this," said Robles' attorney, George Shaffer. "My client is not a crook. He isn't a criminal. He didn't cause these people to die."

Shaffer said he expected Robles to be released from federal custody in Houston as early as today if federal immigration authorities set bail. He has posted a separate $50,000 bond in connection with his role as a witness in a federal probe into the fatal explosion and fire.

At Robles' home in Monterrey, Mexico, the 37-year-old bus driver's three older brothers said they were happy, but not surprised, that their brother was not charged with wrongdoing.

"It is very good news. We will sleep peacefully tonight," said Carlos Robles, 44, the eldest. "We are very happy, and we always had faith in the United States (legal system) and that things would turn out all right."

IÂ’m hoping that prosecutors go after those who failed to maintain the bus and who let it operate in this unsafe condition. That was not Robles.

Unfortunately, Robles is going to be released from federal detention. You may wonder why I say “unfortunately”.

Robles has been detained for unlawfully entering the United States in January, one month before he went to work for Pharr-based Global Limo.

If Robles is to be released, he ought to be released on the south-side of the US/Mexico border, with clear instructions not to return without legal paperwork.

Posted by: Greg at 02:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 385 words, total size 2 kb.

Eugene Volokh offers a great analysis of the opinions written by Samuel Alito as a Judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

What do we see here in Judge Alito? Not an O'Connor, Scalia or Rehnquist; rather, a judge with his own mix of conservatism, libertarianism and egalitarianism, a cautious jurist who seems likely to move the court toward a slightly more claimant-friendly view of free speech and religious freedom--and a slightly more government-friendly view of the Establishment Clause.

In other words, he will be a justice whose jurisprudence on First Amendment issues would be very close to my own views -- and, I believe, much closer to that of the Founders. Be sure to read this important article.

Posted by: Greg at 08:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 134 words, total size 1 kb.

I wish I had come up with this.

Professor Lino A. Graglia of the University of Texas School of Law compared the modern Supreme Court to Iran's "grand council of ayatollahs," which has the power to veto legislation at will. The court had become like Plato's "philosopher kings," Professor Graglia said, but worse: "Philosopher lawyers."

Could someone provide me with a link to GragliaÂ’s entire speech?

Posted by: Greg at 11:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 74 words, total size 1 kb.

I mean, who in their right mind would have thought that Weddington would have supported any GOP nominee?

The attorney who won the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that established abortion rights says she will likely oppose Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court, but is still studying his writings and opinions before taking a formal position.

"At this point, I will assume I will eventually come out against him," Sarah Weddington said Wednesday after a speech at Ohio State University. "The question we have to ask is, would we want to live in an America he would envision?"

Alito voted for a Pennsylvania decision that would have required a married woman to consult with her husband before seeking an abortion — a ruling that retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor voted with the majority to strike down.

Abortion will be a key topic at Alito's confirmation hearings in January. Alito, 55, recently told senators in a private meeting that he had "great respect" for the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade but did not commit to upholding it.

I'm not sure what Judge Alito would do with Roe, as he has given mixed signals on the issue. But given that Weddington is one of the most extreme advocates of unrestricted, government-funded abortion on demand, wqhy would any person expect her to do other thna oppose any nominee to the right of Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

Posted by: Greg at 11:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 251 words, total size 2 kb.

Sounds like Chief Justice John Roberts is getting into the swing of things on the Court, with a bit of help from his new colleagues.

At the end of the first week of the Supreme Court's new term, the justices assembled to discuss the week's cases, and, following protocol, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. stated his own views first. Then, in keeping with the court's tradition for the justices-only conference, the new chief called on the others, one by one.

He did so in order of seniority, referring to his colleagues in the most formal terms. First, "Justice Stevens," followed by "Justice O'Connor" and then "Justice Scalia."

Justice Antonin Scalia interrupted. "I will always call you Chief," he said. "But to you, I'm Nino, and this is Sandra, and this is John."

This vignette, described by Justice Clarence Thomas at a judicial conference in Colorado Springs late last month, is deliciously revealing of a Supreme Court in the midst of a generational shift.

A classy move by Scalia – but also one that is a necessity for a younger man joining a select group as not merely an equal, but as the senior among them.

Enjoy the Linda Greenhouse piece this anecdote comes from – it tells us how Roberts is touched by this change, and how his coming has lightened the mood of the Court.

Posted by: Greg at 02:09 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 237 words, total size 1 kb.

Regardless of my beliefs about the moral acceptability of homosexual activity, I have great respect for most gay men and women I know – and a great respect for the inherent dignity of every person regardless of sexual orientation. That’s why I find the outcome of this attempted gay-bashing to be quite satisfying up to a point, and outrageous in an entirely different sense

Lucas Dawson had just returned from an audition for "American Idol," and planned to tell his friends all about his experience on Oct. 29.

But while walking to the bus stop to catch a ride downtown, around 10:30 that Saturday evening, Dawson ran into four teenagers less than one block from his East Mount Airy home.

"They started calling him 'faggot,' saying 'You're gay,' stuff like that," said David Dawson, Lucas' stepfather.

Lucas Dawson crossed the street, near Upsal and Musgrave, to avoid trouble, but he later told his family, the group threw a basketball at him, rushed him, and started pummeling him.

"One of them punched him in the mouth," David Dawson said. "They knocked him to the ground. They kicked him. They stomped him. They called him faggot."

Dawson, 21, of Upsal Street near Magnolia, managed to get to his feet, and he pulled out a small pocket knife. He waved it at the crowd a few times, David Dawson said, trying to push them back.

Then, he ran.

Gerald Knight, 17, allegedly followed and then reached out to grab Dawson, who still had the knife in his hand.

During the ensuing struggle, Dawson plunged the knife into Knight's chest.
Knight, of Hortter Street near Chew Avenue, died at Einstein Medical Center less than an hour later, police said.

Sounds like justice to me, an act of self-defense that should be applauded. But instead, Dawson is facing voluntary manslaughter charges in KnightÂ’s death. And since his family could not raise bail, Dawson has spent a week in jail for protecting himself from further assault. If convicted, the only real victim this incident could face 30 years in jail.

WhatÂ’s more, the other assailants have already made it clear that they intend to crry out further violence against their victim.

One of the other teens told him, "Now we're going to have to shoot you."

Lisa Dawson said that even if the charges are dropped, she fears for her son's safety.

"I don't feel like he can come back home," she said. "There are three people out there who already made a threat."

I cannot tell from the article, but it seems like the real criminals in this incident remain free and have no charges pending.

The sad reality is that this whole situation could have been avoided if the government still believed that law-abiding free men and women have the right to defend themselves in the face of a vicious assault. And true justice in this case would have been done if Luca Dawson had been carrying a sidearm of size to have put down all four rabid animals who assaulted him whether the cause was his sexuality, robbery, or just plain old evil.

Posted by: Greg at 01:49 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 550 words, total size 3 kb.

Unbelievable! Why give the Democrats an extra month to manufacture dirt?

The Republican-controlled Senate will begin hearings Jan. 9 on Judge Samuel Alito's appointment to the Supreme Court, spurning President Bush's call for a final confirmation vote by year's end.

"It's simply wasn't possible to accommodate the schedule that the White House wanted," said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He outlined a schedule that envisions five days of hearings, followed by a vote in committee on Jan. 17 and the full Senate on Jan. 20.

I guess we just can't have Congresscritters working during the holidays like normal folks.

Posted by: Greg at 01:56 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.

In one of the more disgusting displays of political opportunity, Senator Charles Schumer desecrated the dead body of Rosa Parks for political purposes as she lay in state in the US Capitol today.

This morning I went and visited Rosa Parks in the Capitol Rotunda to pay my respects.

Being in the presence of Ms. Parks was awe-inspiring. This was a woman who changed history with one thin dime. She paid her fare and took her rightful seat on the bus and America was never the same again.

Like Rosa Parks, Judge Alito will be able to change history by virtue of where he sits. The real question today is whether Judge Alito would use his seat on the bench, just as Rosa Parks used her seat on the bus, to change history for the better or whether he would use that seat to reverse much of what Rosa Parks and so many others fought so hard and for so long to put in place.

Judge Alito's visit to Rosa Parks this morning was appropriate. His record, as I'm sure Rosa Parks would agree, is much more important.

A preliminary review of his record raises real questions about Judge Alito's judicial philosophy and his commitment to civil rights, workers' rights, women's rights, the rights of average Americans which the courts have always looked out for.

All right, Senator -- let's have the specifics. What rights is he out to roll back? What is your evidence for this accusation? And if he is, as you seem to indicate, acting in a manner contrary to his oath to follow the Constitution, why have you not introduced articles of impeachemnt due to his failure to exercise "good behavior" on the circuit court?

Could it be that you know that Judge Alito is not ruling contrary to the Constitution, merely contary to the Democrat platform which has been rejected by the American people in the last two elections?

And why, Senator, when you talked about the need for uniting Americans instead of dividing them, did you pimp the corpse of a great American like Rosa Parks to cast doubts upon the character of a highly respected judge and sow division between Americans based upon race sex, class, and ideology?

Posted by: Greg at 03:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 385 words, total size 2 kb.