SharksWithLasers -- Seth Cooper

2008-03-05T17:44:00.000-08:00

UPDATE - NEW WEB SITE

This blog remains inactive. I might be back again here someday. In the meantime, I will occasionally post content on my home page:

www.sethcooper.com

P.S. My Comcast e-mail no longer exists. My home page provides contact info.

(Fairfax County, VA)

2006-03-02T23:51:00.000-08:00

ADDENDUM.

FYI, after a modest blogging hiatus, in late fall I began to blog occasionally at Guns and Butter. My focus has primarily been on national or international issues, frequently with a legal aspect or perspective. I will continue my occasional blogging at GnB until further notice.

2005-08-14T13:05:00.000-07:00

BLOG’S END...
Having returned from a last walk down to the lovely Green Lake for a last cup of coffee, I think it fitting to write my last post on Sharks With Lasers.

New developments in my personal and professional life (alluded to here) warrant my decision to conclude blogging efforts at this location. For over a year-and-a-half I’ve been practicing in the art of blogging, focusing primarily upon political issues and legal issues. For the most part, I’ve considered myself a poliblogger. Though my musings on law frequently creep in, I never considered myself a lawblogger. I generally wanted to avoid over-specialization and preferred not to rattle off endless legal pinpoint citations.

For approximately the next month I am going to take a complete blogging hiatus (with the exception of occasional commenting at other blogs). After that time, I anticipate making a semi-return to the blogosphere at a new location: http://sethcooper.blogspot.com/. Future blogging will encompass a much narrower range of topics, as I’ll generally be discussing things other than the mainstay stuff of Sharks With Lasers; namely, law and state and domestic U.S. politics. Nonetheless, there are still plenty of issues out there. I anticipate I’ll more closely be tracking issues on the international level—particularly relating to the global war on terror.

Thanks once again to those who have stopped by—especially those out there on the blogosphere who have given me so much to think about and keep me entertained.

(North Seattle--Green Lake, WA)

2005-08-12T16:10:00.000-07:00

NARAL NOSEDIVES, PULLS PLUG ON OWN AWFUL AD. The blatantly false and egregious ad attempting to assassinate Judge John Roberts' good character has been pulled by NARAL. The outcry was so universal, that NARAL soon found itself surrounded by legions of harsh critics and with nobody to stand with them and their false smears.

Michael Barone suggests that the blogosphere was likely a key factor in the almost immediate demise of the bogus ad:

In the days before the blogosphere, and before Republicans got organized to defend their presidents' judicial nominees, the NARAL ad might well have gone unchallenged. The mainstream media and the left would have monopolized the dialogue, and the tendency of the MSM to distort it in the left's favor is evident even today from Powerline's posting on corrections in the New York Times. But those days are gone.

Just how long gone those days are will become evident as the confirmation hearings go forward. The looney left wants a Borking. But they can only do that with a media monopoly carrying water for them. They have no such thing to lean back on anymore.

(North Seattle--Green Lake, WA)

2005-08-12T15:48:00.000-07:00

MOVIE-GOING A MADDENING EXPERIENCE? Yesterday, Michael Medved opened his radio program with a monologue about what Americans find most distatestful about going to see movies today. He cited some surveys, including one in Entertainment Weekly. I don't remember the numbers, but as he listed the top responses I painfully identified with what many had to say.

One of Michael's frequent points is that the attack on traditional values that is seen in movies--or, conversely, the values embodied in many movies today--keep many people away from theaters. I think he has a point. But even movies with demented ideas about right and wrong and how people should conduct themselves will draw big numbers if there is some sort of interesting story, good humor, a decent plot, interesting dialogue--i.e. talent--somehow involved in the production. Yet that doesn't seem to happen often. Most movies suck. Period. In light of the prices, the sheer lack of quality is what helps to keep me away.

But the surveys showed that most Americans pointed to rude and disrespectful people in the audience: people answering to cell phones, eating loudly, talking or making wise-cracks during the film. Granted, when you have nothing better to do, it can be fun to do the MST3K thing and go make fun of a horrible film. But some guys like to do that ALL THE TIME. Don't do that!

Personally, I get fed up by the pre-movie commercials and by the endless parade of movie previews that audiences are subjected to. Almost never do I see a preview that I enjoy, or which otherwise inclines me to see a movie. In fact, I'm usually embarrassed for the moviemakers after watching the previews.

When all these factors combine--sticky theater floor, noisy cell-phone-answering audience, adults bringing small children to "R" rated movies, extremely annoying commercials, totally inane previews, and a bad feature film with no redeeming ANYTHING to it--there are few moments when I am any LESS happy and content.

I guess it's good I'm not a movie critic.

(North Seattle--Green Lake, WA)

2005-08-11T18:29:00.000-07:00

SOWELL SPOTLIGHTS LINCOLN'S EMPANCIPATION PROCLAMATION. In his column for today, Dr. Thomas Sowell gives a glowing, positive review of Prof. Allen C. Guelzo's recent book, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. Guelzo was co-winner of the Lincoln Prize for that book, now in paperback. It was the second time he has received that distinguished award. Indeed, Guelzo's book was perhaps my favorite book from all of 2004.

Frequently I hear misguided complaints or criticisms of President Lincoln focusing on how he dealt with the slavery issue. This firstly strikes me as odd because his actions DID finally end slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation put slavery into permanent decline and Lincoln helped begin the push for the 13th Amendment (though he did not live to see its enactment). A twisted sort of absolutism carries weight in some leftwing critics of Lincoln, whereas silly Confederacy-sypmathizing criticisms of him sometimes emanate from quarters within the right. But Guelzo provides the important backdrop and context of the Emancipation Proclamation, showing the difficult dynamics Lincoln faced from popular, political, legal and military quarters. As Sowell notes:

Once you understand the constraints of that world, and how little room for maneuver Lincoln had, you realize what courage and brilliance it took for him to free the slaves.

Sowell is one of those intellectuals of today's age who has a valuable and decidedly uncharateristic ability to recognize the operation and effects of constraints and trade-offs in the real world. So its no surprise to me that he would praise Lincoln in this light.

In his review, Sowell focuses particularly upon Lincoln's concern that an Emancipation Proclamation that reached too broadly would be struck down by the Supreme Court--then under the leadership of Chief Justice Roger Taney. It was Taney who authored the dreaded and disingenuous Dred Scott opinion from a few years earlier, which helped bring on the war itself. Lincoln's apprehension in this regard is entirely responsible.

Not to mention the fact that Lincoln still had to take steps to make sure his Administration continued, so that the war would continue to be prosecuted. Were Lincoln to lose the border states or the White House, a peace Democrat could easily have been elected and the war would have ended. The United States would co-exist with a slaveholding Confederate States of America.

Lincoln was a marvelous statesman, Guelzo is an outstanding historian, and Sowell is a top rate writer and scholar. It's a combination suited for good reading and contemplation.

(North Seattle--Green Lake, WA)

2005-08-10T14:31:00.000-07:00

WASHINGTON STATE FOR JUDGE ROBERTS. Over at Sound Politics, Matt Rosenberg highlights the new “WA For Judge Roberts.Com” website and campaign, co-chaired by Attorney General Rob McKenna and former Senator Slade Gorton. I say again: confirm Judge Roberts.

As I indicate in one of the comments to Rosenberg’s post, I am delighted by the willingness or our excellent Attorney General and of Sen. Gorton to give Judge Roberts their important respective endorsements. (I previously blogged about AG McKenna’s comments about Judge Roberts’ confirmation.) Likewise, I have signed the petition and made my little contribution to the cause.

(North Seattle--Green Lake, WA)

2005-08-10T00:01:00.000-07:00

SAVE OUR STATE’S JUDICIAL ELECTIONS! Justice Richard Sanders of the Washington State Supreme Court has a truly important op-ed in Tuesday’s Seattle Times—urging Washingtonians to preserve the current judicial election system—including judicial elections. (HT: Sound Politics.) Not only is the current system of no campaign limits with full disclosure at issue, so is the very right of citizens to elect their judges!

The power of the people to elect their judges is an essential, precious right of the people of the state. We must NOT surrender it. They system we have works and there is no sufficient reason to abolish it.

I particularly like this little insight from Justice Sanders:

…perhaps those who are pushing these "reforms" think that subjective "ratings" by groups they control or mightily influence will maximize their influence on the electorate. After all, didn't this recent effort get started exactly because the elites were frustrated that the people weren't taking their advice?

Elites always claim there is a crisis when the people don’t do what they would like them to. Funny how that works, isn’t it?

The people of this state were the ones that RATIFIED our state constitution and the people should hold on to their right to elect judges to interpret that constitution.

(North Seattle--Green Lake, WA)

2005-08-09T22:38:00.000-07:00

THE DEPLORABLE AND DECEPTIVE ANTI-ROBERTS ADS WILL BACKFIRE ON NARAL AND HURT THEM. A post from Powerline yesterday first brought my attention to the blatantly false and outrageous TV ad recently drummed up by NARAL, attacking Judge John Roberts. The ad is built upon falsehoods and is dirty with a capital "D." Wednesday's Opinion Journal has a column by Manuel Miranda, providing further background on the ad.

NARAL's lying about Judge Roberts and trying to pin an awful incident of fringe anti-abortion violence on him isn't winning NARAL any admirers. (In fact, Judge Roberts once wrote a memo while in DOJ recommending against a pardon for a violent anti-abortion criminal.) I don't even know where Judge Roberts would come down on constitutional issues pertaining to abortion, but in the final analysis, it is precisely the kinds of ads like NARAL's that makes the careful undecideds angry. Not to mention Judge Roberts' supporters. And for VERY GOOD reason. Dispicable, NARAL.

(North Seattle--Green Lake, WA)

2005-08-07T21:06:00.000-07:00

BARONE BLOG BEGINS. The insightful Michael Barone of U.S. News & World Report has started a blog. (HT: Hugh Hewitt.) It is assured a place on this humble blogger's blogroll and will be a frequent visit for me. Barone has an worthwhile post from a few days about about the difficult job that is the American Presidency, offering some important perspective when considering the work and responsibility that President George W. Bush in leading the world's superpower.

Here is part of what Barone has to say about President Bush:

...I think he carries with him everywhere a crushing burden of responsibility, every bit as serious as those Lincoln and Roosevelt carried. This is a man who, as far as I can tell, had no ambition whatever to be president until his father was defeated for reelection in 1992, and then decided that God had put it in his way to be president, and is trying to do the job as well as he possibly can-knowing that no one can do it perfectly. Think hard about what it would be like to be George W. Bush: not a golden life, I think, but more of a nightmare.

President Bush certainly does have a great charge to keep. But as I have said before, I am so thankful that he is the man in the White House during these times. Clarity and moral courage our essential in standing up to terrorist enemies driven by a craven ideology opposed to freedom and democratic government. (By the way, Barone goes on to say a thing or two about President Clinton--and I probably agree with most of what he says there, too.)

(North Seattle--Green Lake, WA)

2005-08-06T11:13:00.000-07:00

NO RELIGOUS TESTS, RECONSIDERED? According to Manuel Miranda, some MSM reporters think little of Republicans supporting the confirmation of Judge John Roberts for the SCOTUS, since they're apparently taking their talking points from the Constitution. Gosh, if only more GOP-ers would get with the program they would see that we've evolved well past that ol' document. Geez, really.

Actually, Miranda has some interesting ruminations about the Article VI (No) Religious Test Clause in this latest installment of his "The Next Justice Column" at Opinion Journal. Recent times have witnessed an efforts by Senate Democrats to keep conservative Catholics off of the federal bench. Will the pattern hold true for Judge Roberts' confirmation? I certainly expect it from the leftwing attack-dog groups, but it will be interesting to see if any of the more sensible Senate Dems will wilt under the spotlight and back down from any attempt at holding Judge Roberts' personal beliefs against him.

(North Seattle--Green Lake, WA)

2005-08-05T20:34:00.000-07:00

SMART JOURNAL, STUPID SHOW. The latest issue of The New Atlantis is out, complete with more interesting articles about science, technology, ethics, and--the 1978 Star Wars Holiday Special? Yessir. It's mentioned in an article discussing Star Wars and Star Trek; "To Boldy Go: The End of Star Wars and Star Trek." Considered by many to be one of television's worst hours, the infamous SWHS manages to catch the attention of a sophisticated, intellectual publication like The New Atlantis.

The article aptly refers to the SWHS as:

...a truly atrocious two-hour holiday special. (It was so unbelievably wretched that it aired only once, and George Lucas is reported to have said that he wished he could “track down every copy of that program and smash it.” It was listed as the #1 item in last year’s book What Were They Thinking?: The 100 Dumbest Events in Television History.)

It had been long since I last thought about the SWHS, so the reference brought back the memories. Cringing memories. Embarrassing memories. Oh-the-humanity memories. As a freshman in college I purchased a bootlegged copy of SWHS through the internet. Being the Star Wars fanatico, I felt compelled to see the show for myself. It had a legendary, cult-following--a universally panned classic. And so I watched.

Truly, I say to one and all, the SWHS is horrible. As I recall, the movie opens up with a cockpit scene with Han Solo and Chewbacca. So far so good. It was remarkable that they actually got Harrison Ford to reprise his role for a network TV gig. Anyway, the space scenes were all grafted from the Star Wars film (now lamely titled Episode IV: A New Hope). So it was cheapo, but they still got the big shots in the show.

But not so fast. The scene then cuts to Chewie's home planet of Kashyyyk--which, incidentally, makes a long-awaited appearance in Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. It is on this planet that audiences are introduced to Chewie's family: wife Mala, child Lumpy, and grandpa Itchy. No joke. It really is that bad. Only it gets worse. The next fifteen minutes is nothing but Wookie talk! That and the costumes are costume-store quality and far inferior compared to Chewie himself.

Anyway, from there follows a stupid, and incredibly dull and boring story about Lumpy. Some tacky songs and visual effects are thrown in the mix. Zoinks. Mark Hamill looks totally weird as Luke Skywalker. It might've been just after his big car crash where his face went through a windshield, so I'm inclined to cut him slack for that. Carrie Fisher/Princess Leia also makes an appearance, as do the droids. The Darth Vader scene is completely taken from Star Wars film outtakes. Lame-o. Interestingly, there was also a cartoon segment that provide the introduction of Boba Fett. It just might be the best part of the show.

Just Google "Star Wars Holiday Special" and you will find all sorts of great information and stills from the show. So if you are a truly mad Star Wars fan, or simply someone who has a self-hating complex, the SWHS is something worth seeing once. But have your remote control handy, since your sanity might require frequent recourse to the remote control. God bless fast forward.

(North Seattle--Green Lake, WA)

2005-08-04T10:04:00.000-07:00

RADICAL ANIMAL LIBERATIONISTS' MISANTHROPIC MOVEMENT. Wesley J. Smith's "Liberation Theology" piece at NRO spotlights PETA's continued use of deplorable analogizing between worst human atrocities and the use of animals for food and human welfare. Smith goes on to discuss the radical animal liberationists' contradictory acknowledgement of human agency and embracing of moral equivalency between humans and non-human animals.

Interestingly, Smith also touches upon the radical animal liberationists' crass utilitarian view of evil. Utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham regarded natural rights as nonsense upon stilts. And so we should beware: the equating of wrongs or evil with mere physical pain is the hallmark of utilitarianism and leads to the undermining of RIGHTS as understood in the classic liberal tradition.

Everyone should support animal welfare. But the misguided views of radical animal liberationists' undermines human uniqueness (and hence, human rights), human responsibility, and moral clarity.

(Downtown Seattle, WA)

2005-08-04T01:05:00.000-07:00

24, SEASON 3, IN THE BOOKS. Ok, ok, so season 3 of the television program 24 ended a while back. But tonight I just got through the season's final two episodes on DVD. I even busted out some coffee with Bailey's for the last one. Anyway, something about having biological agents carried around by bioterrorists on the loose is a little unsettling to me--so now that its all resolved I can sleep a little easier. Yes, 24 had me completely sucked in. Its had the same effect on everyone else I've talked to. Considering how delightful it was watching an episode each night, I simply don't know how I'm going to be able to take watching the next season at a rate of one episode per week.

(North Seattle--Green Lake, WA)

2005-08-03T09:32:00.000-07:00

FRIST STICKS A FORK IN HIMSELF. With his newfound suport of government funding of human embryo destruction for embryonic stem cell research, Senate Majority Leader, Dr. Bill Frist has all but assured he will NOT become the next President of the United States. Sen. Frist is done. However, he still has a chance to save some face. Sen. Frist can ensure that federal funds will be allowed to go towards such research on ON THE CONDITION that there is a TOTAL BAN on human cloning—specifically, somatic cell nuclear transfer. Though taxpayer dollars would still be flung into the ethically dubious black hole of embryonic stem cell research, the consolation would be a prohibition on the most problematic practice of all: the deliberate destruction of human life for the sole purpose of scientific experimentation.

The best article I’ve seen on this whole matter so far is by Bill Kristol and Eric Cohen, in Weekly Standard. Titled “Frist’s Stem Cell Capitulation,” the article offers a candid assessment of the lay of the land on issues related to human cloning:

…for all the complaints of scientists that the American government is standing in the way of their pioneering efforts, the striking fact about the present situation is that there are virtually no legal prohibitions on many radical areas of biotechnology. There are no limits on human cloning, no limits on fetal farming, no limits on the creation of man-animal hybrids, and no limits on the creation of human embryos solely for research and destruction. It is in this rather permissive moral and legal climate that Frist seeks to remove one of the few public boundaries that still exist.

Kristol and Cohen offer a blistering but entirely on-target critique of Sen. Frist’s recent decision. There are many paragraphs worth quoting, including the following one that shows the problems of Sen. Frist’s approach to these matters:

...Frist did also call for banning the creation of embryos solely for research and for banning human cloning. This makes him more responsible than most embryo research advocates. But he did not make his support for funding research using the "spares" contingent on setting such limits. So the effect of Frist's remarks was to strengthen the hand of those no-limits senators who wish to advance the very kinds of research that Frist still says he believes should be out of bounds (at least for now).

On my lunch break, I’m going to write up a couple letters and fax them to my Senators and U.S. Representative—as well as Sen. Frist. Little good it might do, as I expect nothing more than the form e-mail response in a couple of weeks. But they need to know there are countless other things that would be better served by federal funding.

(Downtown Seattle, WA)

2005-08-02T08:36:00.000-07:00

RAFAEL ON ROIDS. Several news outlets, including The Seattle Times, have reports on the 10-game suspension of Baltimore Oriole First Baseman Rafael Palmeiro for violating Major League Baseball's drug policy. Palmeiro testified positive for steroids. This comes on the heels of his 3,000th career hit (which I witnessed and blogged about, here). It also follows his testimony before a Congressional Committee where he swore he had never, ever, EVER used steroids--"period."

This looks bad, and it IS bad. Palmeiro's likely use of steroids is disappointing in the EXTREME. It will be interesting to see how this will play out for the rest of his career and what it means for his Hall of Fame prospects.

Many people know Palmeiro from the viagara TV commercials he appeared in. In light of the recent revelations about his steroid use, there is irony here: Palmeiro used both a drug that causes erections and a drug that causes shrinkage.

(North Seattle--Green Lake, WA)

2005-08-01T18:47:00.000-07:00

KNOLL KNOWS NO DECENCY. Get this: Pennsylvania's Lt. Governor Katherine Baker Knoll shows up uninvited to a funeral for Staff Sgt. Joseph Goodrich--a brave solider who died fighting in Iraq. At the funeral, Lt. Gov. passes out her business card, engages in politicking, and criticizes the war in Iraq...

What?! Are you kidding me?! Did Knoll think her title of Lieutenant Governor somehow made her a member of the military and somehow exempt from all sense of decency??? This is an absolute outrage, and I am confident that the good people of Pennsylvania will give her an earful. She can consider that incident her own political career's funeral.

In the final matter, nothing can detract from the honor and sacrifice of brave men like Staff Sgt. Goodrich--not even the stupidest and cruelist shenanigans of the pettiest politicians like Knoll.

(North Seattle--Green Lake, WA)

2005-07-31T23:56:00.000-07:00

BACK AT THE BALLPARK, BUT A BAD RESULT. Today's sunshine provided the perfect backdrop for the Seattle Mariners home game against the Cleveland Indians. But despite all the hits the Mariner offense piled up, they simply couldn't overcome the 7 runs that starting pitcher Joel Pinero gave up in his 5 innings of work. Cleveland went on to win 9-7.

The team has undergone some house cleaning, as of late. Randy Wynn and Pat Borders are both out of the picture. The team is clearly out of contention and is rebuilding for the future.

This provided my first chance to see Yuniesky Betancourt and Wiki Gonzalez take the field for the Mariners. (Again, who is left to play in Tacoma these days?) Ditto for Dave Hansen--although I found it odd for a team to have a DH hitting in the bottom third of the order, as Hansen did. Unfortunately, their efforts on offense weren't enough this time around.

A big surprise was Ichiro's 0-6 performance at the plate. I hate to bring this up--particularly when he's such an outstanding hitter. But the fact that he didn't get a base hit in any of his six at-bats is so surprising that I can't help mentioning it.

Perhaps a bigger surprise was that the good fortune I had in seeing the Mariners win all three of the games I have attended this season has now come to an end.

(North Seattle--Green Lake, WA)

2005-07-31T23:28:00.000-07:00

JIMMY CARTER CALLS GITMO A DISGRACE. No Jimmy, YOU are a disgrace. (For Jimmy's delusions that Guantanamo Bay somehow causes terrorism, see the sad story here.)

Worst ex-President ever.

(North Seattle--Green Lake, WA)

2005-07-30T06:49:00.000-07:00

SEN. FRIST'S BACKING DOWN FROM "FRIST PRINCIPLES" ON EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS AND FEDERAL FUNDING. Sen. Frist's prospects for obtaining the Republican nomination for President in 2008 weren't great to begin with. But now they have taken a big hit in light of his recently-announced opposition to the President's policy on federal funding of embryonic stem cell harvesting and research. Hugh Hewitt has a recent post that includes discussion of this issue, with some pertinent links.

Sen. Frist has lost some credibility with those Americans who think human life should not be created for the purposes of its destruction and harvesting as research materials. Not all ends justify all means--and that is certainly the case here.

I support the President's current policy, whereby funding is allowed for research on existing embryonic stem cell lines, but federal funds cannot otherwise fund the creation of embryonic stem cells for destruction and harvesting. This would still allow federal funding of the very promising research in adult stem cells and likewise allow for private funding of embryonic stem cells. Further, I think an across-the-board ban on somatic cell nuclear transfer--i.e., human cloning--is very necessary. This is the general position advocated by Dr. Leon Kass, Chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics.

At Secondhand Smoke, Wesley J. Smith's recent post "Senator Frist Surrenders His Own 'Frist Principles'" gives some insight into this matter. Smith isn't surprised by Sen. Frist's move on this issue.

But Sen. Frist is still Sen. Frist and President Bush is still President Bush, so I expect a courageous veto from our nation's Executive. It's just too bad that the President has to exercise this power to fend off a short-sighted move by a Senate Majority Leader within his own party.

(Blue Ash, OH)

2005-07-29T20:19:00.000-07:00

JUDGE ROBERTS, WORK PRODUCT AND EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE: WHAT NOW, WHAT NEXT? Supreme Court nominee Judge John Roberts is a solid man and a thoughtful attorney. It comes as no surprise to me that the 75,000 pages of Roberts' work product from his Reagan Administration days that was just released by the White House reflect positively upon him, according to early reports. (I'll get back to that in a moment.) But, like the editors at the Wall Street Journal, and commentators such as Prof. Steven Calabresi and Manuel Miranda, I worry about how this turnover might erode executive power.

In their Opinion Journal editorial from yesterday, the WSJ editors note:

A President needs confidential advice from his White House lawyers as much as he needs it from his Justice Department. Advice from lawyers working in both offices is part of the deliberative process and is covered both by attorney-client privilege and the broader doctrine of executive privilege.

Of course, the Republicans never asked for similar kinds of work product to ascertain judicial nominees views or judicial philosophy. Consider this another unprecedented attack upon a President Bush judicial nominee. And, as the editorial notes, the Senate Democrats paid back the President by blasting him for refusing to turn over documents from when Judge Roberts served in the Solicitor General's office for his Administration.

Prof. Steven Calabresi's piece at Daily Standard, notes the problems arising from such work product surrenders. He suggests that it is now only fair for Sen. Charles Schumer to turn over all of HIS staff's internal memos about Judge Roberts and the selection of judicial nominees. Heh. We ALREADY know that Sen. Schumer thinks this whole thing is a WAR. His staff's memos would probably make for fun reading.

But the turnover of the 75,000 pages has happened. So now what? Manuel Miranda gets it exactly right in his latest "The Next Justice" column:

The key question now--more important than whatever Democrats find in the Roberts papers--is whether the White House Counsel's office has the stomach that a Supreme Court confirmation fight requires. Having drawn a line as to what privileged documents it will and will not surrender, the White House now must stick to it. It must not waver, tire, falter and fail later.

Given their response to the President's gesture, it appears the Democrats have no intention of playing fair. Regardless, the President has gone above and beyond what is expected of him in accomodating the Democrats, so now he must hold firm. The Democrats are NOT entitled to Judge Roberts' work product in the Solicitor General's office. They should NOT get it.

Fortunately, the President has a solid nominee slated for hearings sometime in September. And according to Miranda, the work product reflects very positively upon Judge Roberts. For one, there's this tidbit about the Roberts work product, from Miranda:

...my favorite is his response to the House Democrat who proposed that the White House and Congress hold a "conference on power-sharing" to iron out the duties of each branch. Said then-Mr. Roberts: "There already has, of course, been a 'Conference on Power Sharing. It took place in Philadelphia's Constitution Hall in 1787, and someone should tell [Congressman] Levitas about it and the 'report' it issued."

I like that one, too. It's a cogent and proper perspective for a prospective Supreme Court Justice.

(Blue Ash, OH)

2005-07-28T20:32:00.000-07:00

JUDGE ROBERTS & THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY--SO WHAT? Some folks have been making an issue of Judge John Roberts’ ties—if any—to the Federalist Society. One minute, I hear he was a member. The next minute I hear he never paid any dues. Another minute I hear he was listed in an old directory of members. To this, I say BIG DEAL.

Many opponents of Judge Roberts simply don’t like the Federalist Society. In fact, some on the Left see the Federalist Society in black helicopter conspiracy theory-like terms. So it wouldn’t surprise me that those same persons on the Left who have long decried the Federalist Society would want to tie Judge Roberts to the group.

The Federalist Society for Law & Public Policy Studies is a group of lawyers, legal scholars, law students and other persons who are interested in our legal order and who have a respect for the rule of law, federalism, the separation of powers, the role of the judiciary, and individual rights. It’s a big tent group, comprised of conservatives and libertarians of various stripes—most of whom are at least committed in some way to a view that the original understanding of the Constitution of the United States is important. Quite often, members within the Federalist Society disagree with one another in their viewpoints, with many prominent members holding to strongly divergent conclusions on numerous legal issues. The Federalist Society has student chapters at law schools and attorney chapters in many cities. They put on scholarly debates and panel discussions (which often include left-of-center speakers) on legal issues, publish articles and white papers, and even publish a law journal.

Which of the above-mentioned items are hauntingly scary and the stuff of spooky conspiracy theories? Zero. I all but have to keep from laughing when I hear the Federalist Society described as a guarded and secret cabal worthy of our fear and distrust.

If anything, being a participating member in the Federalist Society has been incredibly FUN. As someone who loves law, interesting legal discussions, listening to legal experts discuss issues, or talking over law with friends over drinnks, the Federalist Society is a cool thing to be a part of. True, one can meet other attorneys through the Federalist Society and do some networking—but just about every legal organization does that. To be sure, as a member I might like the idea of having a fellow member appointed to the Supreme Court. After all, it would bring additional credit to the Federalist Society. And membership might give some hint as to a nominee’s views about the law. But given the range of views represented in the group, membership can only give some general hints, at best.

So I expect to keep hearing mention of the Federalist Society come up throughout Judge Roberts’ confirmation process. Given the characters weighing in for the Senate Democrats’ and the looney Left interest-group leaders, it could come up a lot. After all, the Federalist Society has flourished because of the important contributions that its members have made to legal scholarship and public understanding of the law—and the Left doesn’t like that.

A good read on this subject is Nick Gillespie’s recent Reason article, “Making a Federalist Case: Does it matter whether John Roberts was a member of the Federalist Society?” It’s a well written, spot-on article.

(Blue Ash, OH)

2005-07-27T20:48:00.000-07:00

MILLENIUM BOMBER SENTENCED; BRAVO U.S. ATTORNEY McKAY'S OFFICE! Today, the Millenium Bomber, Ahmed Rassam was sentenced to 22 years in jail for his attempted bombing of LA International Airport in December of 1999. Some adept and fortuitous work by border patrol agents spotted the suspicious Rassam as he was entering the country, apprehending him. Undoubtedly, the wonderful work of those agents saved many American lives.

The Western District of Washington is served by a very solid U.S. Attorney in Mike McKay. His office is to be congratulated for their hard work in securing the successful prosecution and sentence of Rassam. In a press release (available through a link, here) U.S. Attorney McKay said the following:

We must not forget why Ressam came here in the first place: to spread death and destruction, to achieve his terrorist goals. Ahmed Ressam's fate is to spend most of his life in a U.S. prison having failed in his effort to kill innocent American men, women and children before September 11th.

U.S. Attorney McKay's resolve in this matter comes in contrast to that of U.S. District Judge John Coughenor--who has served as Chief Judge of the Western District and presided over the case. Hugh Hewitt has some tough words for Judge Coughenor. In fact, Hewitt HAMMERS the Judge in a recent blog post. Judge Coughenor had used the sentencing as an opportunity to give voice to his opposition to military tribunals.

Needless to say, I do not share Judge Coughenor's sentiments. Judge Coughenor is likely sincere in his views, but I think his views are sincerely wrong. His view of the war against terrorism as something that can be treated as a law enforcement matter is wrongheaded and dangerous. Such a view cannot even be merely dismissed as pre-9/11, since our history and constitutional jurisprudence have long recognized that acts of war and transgressions of the rules of war do NOT fall within the domain of federal courts. Our experience also bears out the wisdom of this history and jurisprudence.

Judge Coughenor had previously delayed the sentencing of Rassam, in a move completely surprising to all. While I would have hoped that Rassam had received an even lengthier sentence, I am still pleased that this case is finally in the books, with a terrorist sent up the river for a long, long time.

Heartfelt thanks are once again in order to the Border Patrol agents and to the U.S. Attorney's office.

(Blue Ash, OH)

2005-07-26T07:56:00.000-07:00

ARKES EXPLAINS IT ALL. If you'd like some insight into President Bush's sense of strategy in naming Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court, Professor Hadley Arkes provides it in "Decoy Day," at NRO. Prof. Arkes describes his own recent advocacy of Judge Joy Clement, which helped to deflect attention from Judge Roberts. The left's leading voices and interest groups spent so much time and attention blasting other potential nominees, that the President took to himself the opportunity of properly introducing Judge Roberts to the American people. (Too slow, Teddy Kennedy.)

Prof. Arkes provides some analysis of what went into the President's decition on nominate Judge Roberts:

...the grounds for Bush’s choice were clear: He was inclined to go with one of the best lawyers that conservative jurisprudence could bring forth at this moment. Chuck Schumer and others were not even in Roberts’s league, and they would know that. The president could not know exactly what John Roberts would do with abortion, but he knew that Roberts knew the character of the administration that appointed him; he knew the circles from which Roberts had sprung; and he was willing to place his bets there for an appointment that could run for 25 to 30 years.

By the way, here's Prof. Arkes' own assessment of Judge Roberts:

The critical ingredient here was “quality of mind”: an evident good nature allied with a steady temper and a scholar’s knowledge of the Constitution and the laws. He was in command of himself, rightly aimed, with a sound judgment.

I love it when a plan comes together...

(Blue Ash, OH)

2005-07-25T11:58:00.000-07:00

JUDGE ROBERTS AS JUDGE. Shannen Coffin's article from today at NRO gives some insight into Supreme Court nominee Judge John Roberts, discussing three cases that have come before the Judge in his time on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Noting the futility of attempting to divine Judge Roberts' views or judicial philoosphy from briefs he had written while advocating for clients as an attorney, Coffin turns to Judge Roberts' judicial record and says the following:

From a review of just a handful of John Roberts’s written opinions, a picture emerges of a restrained jurist, highly respectful of the political branches of government, empathetic yet unwilling to allow sentiment to color his view of the letter of the law, and with a gentle but never inappropriate sense of humor.

Needless to say, Coffin gives Judge Roberts a strong endorsement and supports his confirmation.

(Blue Ash, OH)

2005-07-24T21:26:00.000-07:00

CINCY IS NICE FOR BASEBALL, BUT IT DOESN'T MATCH SEATTLE. Today I had the opportunity to see Cincinnati's Great American Ballpark. It was certainly an improvement over the old Riverfront Stadium. For one, the new park actually allows for a nice view of the river. Of course, the stadium still doesn't compare to Safeco Field in Seattle--or ot PacBell in San Francisco, for that matter. Safeco is simply the result of better construction. And increased cost. But humidity is never a problem in Seattle the way it is elsewhere. It was only tolerable to be in the shade today in Cincinnati.

In any event, it was a bit of a letdown after going to see my first National League baseball game in years, only to have Ken Griffey, Jr. NOT in the line-up for the Cincinnati Reds. On top of that, the only game that fit into my schedule was a matchup with the Milwaukee Brewers--a team I had seen several times before their switch out of the American League. In any event, Cincy won it 3-2, with a walk-off home run by Adam Dunn. Austin Kearns also homered for the Reds. The name of MIlwaukee's pitcher eludes me at the moment, but he pitched well, and it was a shame that his reliever blew his game.

(Blue Ash, OH)

2005-07-23T21:02:00.000-07:00

CALIFORNIA'S ATTORNEY GENERAL: A PATRON OF ANTI-AMERICAN ART? Michelle Malkin and Instapundit have posts about CA Democratic Attorney General Bill Lockyer's approval of an art exhibit trashing the USA and President Bush. Move America Forward has pictures of the pathetic pieces.

Artists certainly have a right to political expression. But audiences have the right to give their opinions about such expressions and government officials who provide implicit governmental endorsement to those expressions. Here, the anti-American art is typical of loonely leftism. It's both terrible and laughable, but hardly newsworthy by itself. Much worse is the Golden State's top attorney allowing its display at California's Department of Justice. Zoinks. What does this say about his sensibility moral clarity? I consider those traits crucial for a state AG.

(Blue Ash, OH)

2005-07-22T20:15:00.000-07:00

AG MCKENNA HOPES JUDGE ROBERTS WILL BE CONFIRMED. So it was revealed at today's "media availabilty" in downtown Seattle. I used the end of my casual Friday lunch break to sit in on a media event concerning the nomination and confirmation of Judge John Roberts for the U.S. Supreme Court.

This event, moderated by Washington State's excellent Attorney General Rob McKenna, included a distinguished cast: Ron Ward, President of the Washington State Bar Association, King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng, former U.S. Senator Slade Gorton (via telephone speaker), former Washington State Supreme Court Justice Faith Ireland and former U.S. Attorney Mike McKay. (Present in the audience that included myself and several reporters was a really annoying guy who was constantly digging into his bag of chips and crunching them quite loudly. The man was obilivious to several cold stares. Finally, someone spoke with him and asked him to leave.)

In any case, Senator Gorton and Prosecutor Maleng expressed enthusiasm for the President's selection of Judge Roberts. Mr. McKay also had very positive words for Judge Roberts, though he did not specifically call for his confirmation just yet. He recalled a case in which he worked with both then-Solicitor General Kenneth Starr and his deputy John Roberts. Mr. Ward and Justice Ireland said they were not taking a position on his confirmation at this time--stating they would reserve judgment until the Senate confirmation hearings. A former WSBA President who spoke (and whose name eludes me at the moment) likewise declined to take a position but said he was very encouraged by the selection of Judge Roberts. All the participants commended Judge Roberts for his distinguished credentials and career.

Sen. Gorton noted during the Q&A time that simple disagreement with a nominee on one or a few issues should not amount to an automatic NO vote on confirmation. In this vein, Sen. Gorton referred to the confirmations of Justices Ginsburg and Breyer. When asked by AG McKenna whether he had voted to confirm President Clinton's respective nominees to the Supreme Court, Sen. Gorton answered YES. AG McKenna also pointed to the strong endorsements that Judge Roberts received during his confirmation process to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals from prominent lawyers of BOTH political parties. Prosecutor Maleng noted the overwhelming vote of the Senate for Judge Roberts, just a couple of years ago.

There has been grumbling from both poles of the political spectrum concerning Judge Roberts' nomination. Manuel Miranda's "The Next Justice" column in today's Opinion Journal contains a good or a good discussion of why those complaints rign hollow and why Judge Roberts should be confirmed.

(North Seattle--Green Lake, WA)

2005-07-21T12:46:00.000-07:00

STEALING SIGNS? SO WHAT. IT'S BASEBALL. Sports stories in both of Seattle's big newspapers discuss yesterday's Mariner loss to the Toronto Blue Jays wherein some sign stealing apparently hurt Mariner pitcher Ryan Franklin. The articles raise the issue of whether it is cheating for a baserunner to decipher the signals being made between a pitcher and a catcher--and then relaying those deciphered signals to one's own batter. To me, its not cheating. It's simply part of the game.

Of course, it is not a good thing to be relaying stolen signs to a batter in an obvious manner. The trick is to relay the intercepted signs in a subtle manner that goes unnoticed by the other team.

But that's not the end of it. John Hicky's Seattle P-I article summarizes steps that can be taken by a team when they suspect their signals are being stolen:

One is to keep men from getting to second base too often. Two is, frankly, for a pitcher to hit the batter or threaten to, and let him know the reason why. The third, and easiest, is to change signs. Repeatedly.

It's not terribly uncommon to find little league or senior little league kids yelling out another team's signals. Obviuosly, those are embarrassing, bush league antics. If a team has a coach who is anything other than a cad, he will tell the kids on his team to knock it off. (Another annoying little leaguer antic is for a baserunner to clap loudly while on base loud to distract the pitcher.)

As with evident sign stealing, any of the foregoing would result in a good beaning by the pitcher were it to take place at higher levels of the game.

In the end, the team whose signs are stolen have to take responsibilty for making their signals too easy to intercept. Pat Borders acknowledges as much in Bob Finnigan's Seattle Times story:

"That sort of thing happens," Borders said of stealing signs. "If I can't figure out a way to prevent it, I'm not doing my job. For one thing, I set up just as late as I can so the other team has as short a time as possible to get location."

Actually, you have more options to evade signal stealing at lower levels. I was catching in a senior little league game once where the other team was stealing signals and bragging about it. Since beanballs are never called for at that low of a level, we had to make due. The pitcher on my team was a GIGANTIC 300+ lb. man-child, but he was primarily a junkballer. So I went out to the mound and told him to throw whatever he wanted whenever he wanted--and that I would catch it. I went back behind home plate and made gibberish signals for the rest of the game and our pitcher threw whatever type of pitch delighted him most. It wasn't easy to catch, but we made it work. The other team simply thought our new signals were too hard to read and just gave up on it.

(Downtown Seattle, WA)

2005-07-19T18:20:00.000-07:00

CONFIRM JUDGE ROBERTS. The President has announced his nominee, noting his distinguished career and solid character. He called upon the Senate for a swift and civil confirmation process.

I applaud the President for his nomination and enthusiastically support the confirmation of Judge Roberts.

Prof. Orrin Kerr has glowing things to say about Judge Roberts, at Volokh Conspiracy. Likewise, Robert Alt has speaks highly of Judge Roberts at Bench Memos.

(North Seattle--Green Lake, WA)

2005-07-19T17:30:00.000-07:00

THE EARLY WORD: JUDGE JOHN ROBERTS. I just got home and turned on Hugh Hewitt's radio show to hear the latest. President Bush has picked the man he wants, knowing that the left would attack his nominee, regardless. The President's official address is soon to follow.

(North Seattle--Green Lake, WA)

2005-07-19T11:51:00.000-07:00

PRESIDENT BUSH TO ANNOUNCE SUPREME COURT NOMINEE TONIGHT. The AP has a report. (HT: Drudge.) The President will make a televised address at 6PM Pacific.

Interestingly, the AP report cites Chief Judge Edith "Joy" Clement of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (in the Fifth Circuit) as the likely nominee. Then, near the end, it lists several other names--one of which is Harvard Law Professor Mary Ann Glendon. I had not heard Prof. Glendon's name come up previously, but she is extremely sharp and would make an excellent Supreme Court Justice. She would certainly get my support.

In any event, the countdown to the naming of the nominee is now underway...

UPDATE - 12:28PM. I agree with Jonathan Adler's sentiments (at Bench Memos) concerning President Bush's decision to address the nation to announce his nominee:

The President's decision to announce his first Supreme Court nomination is a very wise move. One of the lesson's of past nomination battles is the importance of defining the nominee before the opposition. This is particularly important with Supreme Court nominations where less of the battle will get waged under the radar. Starting tonight, and on tomorrow morning's news programs, the video will be of the President commending his nominee...

(Downtown Seattle, WA)

2005-07-18T23:17:00.000-07:00

SUPREME COURT ROUNDUP #4.

1. As everyone now knows, the Chief is staying on for now. Yesssss... Firstly, Chief Justice Rehnquist has served honorably on the Supreme Court. But this development is also beneficial insofar as it concerns the dynamics of the confirmation process. Pepperdine Law Professor Douglas Kmiec put it well last Friday in an NRO article titled "Delay is Good":

...it lessens what was becoming all too apparent — that every factor in the nomination process was going to use multiple vacancies to politically horse-trade to the ultimate disadvantage of the integrity of the Court. With a single vacancy, it is now possible for president and Senate alike to assess the individual merits of an appointment, without succumbing to the powerful pressures of interest groups which would have sought to balance the "ticket," at the cost of merit.

2. The Wall Street Journal editors oppose the nomination of Souters, finding irony in the possible nomination of Judge Jones. Tuesday's editorial at Opinion Journal--"No More Souters"--makes the important point that nominees who take a seat on the Court without a clear and confident jurisprudence have historically followed the whims and trends of left-leaning elitist thinking. It goes without saying that the Journal editors' are calling for sound like the people with "deeply held beliefs" that Sen. Chuck Schumer & Co. constantly decry. The editorial notes that President George H.W. Bush almost nominated Judge Edith Jones of the Fifth Circuit instead of now-Justice David Souter. Heh. I have heard this many times before. It would be most intriguing if Judge Jones were to get the nod by President George W. Bush. In any case, the end of the editorial contains a prescient observation that should be kept in mind throught the entire nomination build-up and confirmation process:

Most Senate Democrats are likely to fight any conservative nominee, no matter how distinguished, because they recall that after defeating two of Nixon's nominees (Haynsworth and Carswell) they got Blackmun, and after stopping Judge Bork and Douglas Ginsburg, they got Justice Kennedy. Mr. Bush probably can't avoid a fight unless he abandons the voters who elected him.

3. There is even more talk about Judge Jones today at Confirm Them. This blog has become a frequent visit and I continue to recommend it.

4. Jordan Cunningham once again makes a persuasive case for Judge Emilio Garza. In the process, he sticks up for Attorney General Gonzales with some excellent points. The post is from Saturay at Democracy Market--which now occupies a spot on my blogroll.

(North Seattle--Green Lake, WA)

2005-07-18T21:41:00.000-07:00

REPUBLICAN RE-ALIGNMENT IN THE WORKS? LET'S HOPE SO. In Tuesday's Opinion Journal, Brendan Miniter has an interesting column discussing renewed Republican efforts to reach out to black voters. GOP Chairman Ken Melhman's recent address to an NAACP audience is but one instance. There are a number of important policy initiatives that Republicans have to offer--school choice, for starters. It is crucial that Republicans engage in such efforts.

Miniter's article becomes increasingly interesting as it goes along, continuing with a discussion of Republican efforts in Maryland, and culminating with a brief sketch of Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele. Lt. Gov. Steele is a prospective candidate for Senate from Maryland in 2006. That will be another interesting Senate race to watch.

(North Seattle--Green Lake, WA)

2005-07-16T00:39:00.000-07:00

WORDS OF A LEADER. Austrialian Prime Minister John Howard answers a reporter's question:

MAXINE McKEW: Prime Minister, if as you say you can't rule out that possibility that we could have potential bombers right here in Australia, what if today's announcement, this redeployment to Afghanistan and our continued presence in Iraq is all the provocation they need?

JOHN HOWARD: Maxine, these people are opposed to what we believe in and what we stand for, far more than what we do. If you imagine that you can buy immunity from fanatics by curling yourself in a ball, apologising for the world - to the world - for who you are and what you stand for and what you believe in, not only is that morally bankrupt, but it's also ineffective. Because fanatics despise a lot of things and the things they despise most is weakness and timidity. There has been plenty of evidence through history that fanatics attack weakness and retreating people even more savagely than they do defiant people.

(Hat Tip: Hugh Hewitt, via Instapundit, via Art Vandalay, via Tim Blair.)

(North Seattle--Green Lake, WA)

2005-07-15T23:49:00.000-07:00

A NIGHT AT THE BALLKPARK. Tonight I saw the Mariners lose to the Baltimore Orioles. The team is nowhere near contention, but they do have a solid right fielder in Ichiro, plus some solid guys at the corners--Adrian Beltre and Richie Sexson. Of course, Beltre hasn't put up the numbers I would like to see. Sexson blasted a clear and convincing homerun in tonight's game.

The evening's highlight was Rafael Palmeiro's 3000th career hit. Palmerio hit an RBI double, and time was called for his teammates to congratulate him at second. The Seattle crowd gave Palmeiro a warm standing ovation. It's not everyday that one sees a long-standing star reach a milestone like that. Palmeiro is now part of an exlcusive group of players who have hit 500 homers and collected 3,000 hits. Later in the game, Palmeiro came through with basehit 3001.

I am glad that I was able to see shortstop Mike Morse and the Aussie leftfielder Chris Snelling both play for the Mariners for the first time. Morse appears to have it together at the plate, after little more than 100 at-bats in the bigs. Snelling definitely has talent, putting up good numbers at Tacoma this year. Hopefully, he can stay healthy and make some good contributions.

Unfortunately, there just wasn't good enough hitting or good enough pitching. At least the D proved solid. But now that all these young guys are called up to the big team, just who is left at Tacoma? I had been planning on catching a game down there this season...

(North Seattle--Green Lake, WA)

2005-07-15T10:09:00.000-07:00

LOUD LEFTY BLOGS A LIABILITY FOR DEMOCRATS? Highly recommended reading for today is Dean Barnett's Daily Standard article, "The Electoral-Based Community: Why the rise of the left-wing blogosphere has been bad for the Democratic party." Barnett provides insight into the dynamics of the left-wing of the blogosphere and why it might likely not be as helpful to the Democratic Party as many of its leaders apparently think. Along the way, Barnett discusses the lefty bloggers support of Sen. Dick Durbin's comparison of our soldiers in Guantanamo to Nazis and Gulag guards--as well as the lefty bloggers anger when Sen. Durbin made his much-belated and forced semi-apology.

Also, Barnett points to a funny and clever post at Iowahawk that angered some on the left-wing of the blogosphere: "Stop Questioning My Patriotism"--by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi.

(Downtown Seattle, WA)

2005-07-14T13:17:00.000-07:00

SORTING HAT SAYS...

I'm a Ravenclaw!

I'll gladly stand by that verdict. And, thank goodness, I'm NOT Slytherin. HT: Hugh Hewitt.

(Downtown Seattle, WA.)

2005-07-13T22:48:00.000-07:00

ASHCROFT THE BAD COP TO BUSH THE GOOD COP? Jonah Goldberg's NRO article "Identity Justice" provides a take on the dynamics of former Attorney General John Ashcroft's role in the Bush Administration that I had not heard before. Depending on how one interprets Goldberg, I'm not certain it is true, etiher. Says Goldberg:

Bush's previous — and very loyal — AG, John Ashcroft, was attacked constantly and repeatedly in profoundly personal terms. And Bush never rose to defend Ashcroft. Indeed, the White House brilliantly used Ashcroft in a good-cop bad-cop routine for the entire first term. If I may mangle a metaphor beyond all recognition, Ashcroft was a Medusa's head which Bush could pull out of his bag to petrify the opposition. Or more accurately, to make the opposition go batty in its hysterical Ashcroft phobia.

Ok, I admit the Medusa metaphor makes me laugh. It also causes me to recall the way certain lefty law students at my old school used to go bonkers at the mere mention of Ashcroft's name. (Cue the background ice cream truck music as "Ashcroft" is repeated over and over in a low, echoing voice. Insanity soon sets in.) "John Ashcroft is out of control!" I remember one student saying.

But seriously, would a POTUS deliberately choose to make one of his most important cabinent members a reviled punching bag for his most vehement critics? Especially a cabinent member who is entrusted with the vital role of enforcing laws that keep the nation safe from terrorist threats during a War on Terror? I think that an unlikely course to take--if not a reckless one. It might be more plausible with hindsight, as the war has continued and a second term has been conferred upon the Administration by the American people. But I doubt the Administration would have deliberately encouraged the head of the DOJ charged with an important role in all-important war to take massive PR hits. Why give ardent and vocal leftists--who would rather pull the plug on the prosecution of the war--enhanced opportunities to take down high Administration officals, as well as the Administration itself?

Or perhaps Goldberg meant something a little more benign. What if the Administration, recognizing that Ashcroft didn't have a bubbly and warm public persona with little potential for changing that fact, simply chose to go with Ashcroft the way he was and let him become the locus of criticism by simply doing nothing? This is more plausible to me, but I still have a difficult time accepting that--for the very same reasons I listed above. It makes little sense to let a key cabinent member like an AG sink while the rest of the Administration swims.

Perhaps in the years and decades to come--once the autobiographies, biographies and histories of the Administration are written--we'll have greater insight into this. For now, I'm of the view that Ashcroft simply had PR difficulties, all the while faced with an important job to do and a resentful, largely anti-war left to deal with. No easy task.

(North Seattle--Green Lake, WA)

2005-07-12T10:17:00.000-07:00

GOODBYE TO BOONE. Former All-Star second baseman Brett Boone was traded by the Seattle Mariners to the Minnesota Twins. Reportedly, the deal is for cash and a player to be named later.

I wish Boone the best of luck. He was an exciting player to watch at second base and at the plate. Boone has struggled the past two seasons and put up numbers nowhere near what he had before, but I suspect a change of scenery could help him turn things around.

(Downtown Seattle, WA)

2005-07-11T23:16:00.000-07:00

SUPREME COURT ROUNDUP #3.

1. John Leo endorses Judge Edith Jones for the Supreme Court. In his latest column, he favorably quotes her statement in a Richmond Law Review article that calls legal elitists into account. But rather than discuss Judge Jones at length, Leo spends far more time discussing problems with the reigning judicial philosophy of interest groups who have minimal regard for majority rule.

Leo goes on to say:

Electoral and legislative majorities are said to be arbitrary and meaningless; the collective wisdom of ordinary voters allegedly cannot compare to that of judges. Some years ago, law Profs. Robert Nagel and Jack Nagel wrote that “if all political majorities are just arbitrary, the outcomes of democratic political processes lose their legitimacy and everything becomes fair game for the (supposedly) wiser deliberations of judges. That seems to be a conclusion with broad appeal, at least among law professors."

I agree with Leo and with Profs. Nagel and Nagel. (Prof. Robert Nagel, by the way, penned an outstanding book: The Implosion of American Federalism.)

2. George Will supports Judge Harvey Wilkinson III. Like Leo, he spends the preponderance of his column discussing judicial philosophy. I highly recommend Will’s column, as it contains some very important points about legal reasoning and what it means to expound upon a constitution.

Accoding to Will:

Constitutional law is rife with clashing certitudes generated by too-clever theories purporting to illuminate the one valid approach to construing the Constitution. These theories obscure uncertainties inherent in all legal reasoning, and especially in construing a written Constitution in light of precedents produced by applying it in political contexts, and to controversies, unforeseen by its framers.

While positive law draws upon principles, logic and reason, it is something enacted, interpreted, and applied by human beings in cases and controversies involving other human beings in complex and unique factual circumstances.

Will expands upon the earlier point:

Dismay about abuses of judicial discretion drives some conservatives into a misguided quest for a jurisprudential holy grail -- a theory of constitutional reasoning that will virtually expunge discretion from judging. This goal is chimeric.

Construing the Constitution should begin with what the document's pertinent language meant to those who wrote and ratified it. But construing can rarely end there. Historians continue to deepen our understanding of how varied and occasionally contradictory were the intentions of various framers and ratifiers. History always informs constitutional deliberations; it rarely is dispositive.

This is why even originalist jurists such as Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia occasionally find themselves on different sides in cases before the Supreme Court. Even when the original understanding of a constitutional provision or a statute is clear, the application in a given case requires judgment. It requires discretion.

Will also does a service by implicitly showing the absurdity of the claim (popular with many on the left) that originalist jurisprudence somehow strands us in the 18th century. That claim is baloney. Will is a propoenent of originalism. And originalism respects the fact that we have a written constitution. Our Founders drafted and ratified that written document for a reason. They didn’t trust the security of our liberty and common good to the whimsical views of the mob or powerful elites.

3. Hugh Hewitt comes to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' defense. His post from the other day is consistent with views I expressed earlier. Labelling his remarks as "center-right heresy," Hewitt makes a clear and important point:

...it is really absurd to suggest that AG Gonzales is not qualified to sit on SCOTUS, or that his nomination would be a "betrayal" of past promises.

That is something with which this center-right heretic strongly agrees.

3. Ken Masugi calls for Judge Janice Rogers Brown to be the newest Supreme. See his post at The Remedy. I've already indicated my enthusiasm for Judge Brown.

(North Seattle—Green Lake, WA)

2005-07-10T23:34:00.000-07:00

IMPORANT PRIVATE PROPERTY COALITION EMERGES. “Property Rights Are Civil Rights” is Monday’s “John Fund on the Trial” column, at Opinion Journal. Fund summarizes much of the valid criticisms leveled at the decision handed down by the 5-member majority of the U.S. Supreme Court that recently declared that mere economic development constitutes a public purpose that satisfies the 5th Amendment’s Takings Clause. He then discusses the interesting political dynamics of the opposition to the Kelo decision. As Fund notes, the supporters of stronger private property protections transcend any racial boundaries.

In his strong dissent from the majority in Kelo, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that it could hardly be denied that the majority’s ruling would hurt discrete and insular minorities—referring to the infamous footnote four in U.S. v. Carolene Products (1938). (Simply google “footnote four” if you want to learn more the most famous footnote in constitutional jurisprudence.) Justice Thomas's view in this regard is supported by such wide-ranging groups as NAACP and Institute for Justice.

Says Fund, legislation has passed the House of Representatives to prevent the use of federal funds for the exercise of eminent domain power for mere economic development. There was a compainion resolution expressing profound disagreement with the majority ruling in Kelo that passed by an even wider margin.

While my own cursory search of the Library of Congress site has not turned up a roll call vote on the former legislation, the roll call vote I've found for the latter resolution is interesting. Congressman Dave Reichert is to be congratulated by his important vote IN FAVOR of the resolution and for greater protection private property rights. However, Congressmen Norm Dicks, Jim McDermott and Jay Inslee all voted AGAINST the resolution and for such protections for private property rights.

A new political coalition for greater private property protections is emerging. Congressman Reichert is on board. Congresswoman Cathy McMorris is on board. Their votes send an important message and their actions will help protect private property in this country. So where are Congressmen Dicks, McDermott and Inslee?

Also, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas introduced a bill titled the “Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005." The bill reaffirms that the power of eminent domain shall only be exercised pursuant to a “public use”—and that “public use” does NOT include mere “economic development.” The bill, if enacted, would apply to the Federal Government and to State and local governments when exercising eminent domain power through the use of Federal funding.

I strongly support such legislation, and applaud the members of Congress--including Congressman Reichert--who have stepped up to the plate in upholding the Constitution and protecting private property.

(North Seattle--Green Lake, WA)

2005-07-10T22:36:00.000-07:00

REALITY CHECK ON ESC RESEARCH. "Stem Cell Tales of Hope and Hype" is the title of an excellent guest column that I recently came across at Townhall.com. The author is Minnesotan Jean Swenson, whom I have had the honor of meeting on a couple of occasions. Jean has worked both as a teacher and as a journalist, and is very adept and able when it comes to focusing upon the main issues in complex matters. I recommend her column to readers.

(North Seattle--Green Lake, WA)

2005-07-08T12:52:00.000-07:00

FANTASTIC FLOP? TRY BATMAN. Jonathan V. Last's latest, "Battle of the Stars" (Daily Standard) provides us with the best quote of the day. Last discussing the new movie Fantastic Four:

FANTASTIC FOUR is superficial and stupid, the type of movie which bludgeons your intellect, your id, and your patience.

Ouch. Last goes so far as to proclaim an early-90s B-movie version of FF superior to than the new Hollywood release. After this stinging review, I'll be glad to save my money and avoid the theater. The Thing looked rather ridiculous in the movie previews for this new movie, anyway. Of course, every now and again I consent to see a lousy movie on DVD rental. So I can keep this in mind for that. (I've still not seen Battlefield Earth!)

That all being said, I have almost nothing but good things to say about Batman Begins. It was a relatively dark take on the Caped Crusader, but edgy and interesting. We're talking about a comic book movie, as we all know, but this film works. The story and action came though, avoiding a high cheeseball ranking. Sometimes having high-powered stars in supporting roles can be distracting--but that wasn't the case with Michael Cain and Morgan Freeman. Mild spoiler warning: I didn't quite buy Katie Holmes as the prosecutor. She looked too young to be a prosecutor BEFORE Bruce Wayne took off on a seven-year, self-imposed exile. This latest incarnation of Batman didn't have the quirky sense of humor from the Keaton-Nicholson-Burton film from a dozen years ago. But it was entertaining in its own right, as a new interpretation of the Batman legend. I plan on buying it on DVD.

One good comic book movie a summer is all that I ask. I'm going to pass on FF, but BB delivered the goods.

(Downtown Seattle, WA)

2005-07-07T10:54:00.000-07:00

SUPRME COURT ROUNDUP #2.

1. Judge Garza would be a SUPERB nominee to the Supreme Court. Jordan Cunningham of Democracy Market has a couple good posts (with pertinent links) about Judge Emilio Garza of the Fifth Circuit. I agree with Cunningham that Judge Garza would make a great appointment. It is likely that he will understand and take the war on terrorism seriously from the bench--and that could be very crucial to the successful prosecution of this war in the time ahead. Attorney General Gonzales certainly has such a respect for the President's war powers, but unlike Judge Garza, he would likely have to recuse himself as a Justice in some important prospective cases concerning the war.

2. Chief Justice William Rehnquist could resign at any time. Confirm Them has the latest on this, also linking to a new Robert Novak column that provides some insight. Chief Justice Rehnquist has been a solid jurist and I am grateful for his service. A resigation for the Chief will almost certainly change the dynamics of the situation. I tend to suspect the President will not seek to elevate one of the current Justices of the Court to Chief, but will instead appoint someone new.

3. James Na endorses Judge J. Michael Luttig--another great prospective choice for the Court. Na, of Guns and Butter Blog--and of whom I'm sad to say will be leaving Seattle soon--argues for Judge Luttig. Fine by me. Judge Luttig, of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, is young, has an impressive resume and his dissent in the Hamdi case shows that he takes the war on terror seriously.

4. Judge Alex Kozinski would be a wonderful addition to the Court, but I don't think it will (or should) happen. Cunningham also posts about the possibility of nominating Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' Judge Alex Kozinski (following up on a post by Prof. David Bernsteain at Volokh Conspiracy). I concur with Cunningham. I've met Judge Kozinski and heard him speak. He is indeed very thoughtful and just hillarious. Judge Kozinski also possesses an extraordinarly sharp legal mind. If the President were to nominate Judge Kozinksi, I would strongly support his confirmation. Nonetheless, he just doesn't make it near the top of my list.

(Downtown Seattle, WA)

2005-07-07T10:02:00.000-07:00

TIME OUT. Time magazine has posted on its website something called "A Simplified Ideological Palette" describing the political orientation of the current members of the U.S. Supreme Court. The palette certainly is simple. (Simple as in stupid.)

Notice that Time describes the Court as comprised of "staunch conservative" (Chief Justice Rehnquist plus Justice Thomas and Scalia), with "moderate" liberals (Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter and Stevens) and one "moderate" conservative(Justice Kennedy) on the other side.

The palette gives a flavor of Time's political leanings in this matter: President Bush and the Republicans demand "staunch" judicial nominees (who probably have "deeply held beliefs") whereas Democrats and everyone else prefers "moderates."

Perhaps I should give Time credit. The palette seems to suggest that "staunch" liberals might, in theory, exist. What a concession!

I will not likely seek out Time's judicial confirmation coverage when I seek a fair and impartial news source on this matter.

(Downtown Seattle, WA)

2005-07-05T09:44:00.000-07:00

SUPREME COURT ROUNDUP. There's been countless articles, op-eds, and blog posts over the last few days suggesting who the next nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court should be and what we can all expect to have happen in the confirmation hearings. Since there's so much ELSE out there to read, I'll just make a few observations of my own.

1. The confirmation process and hearings to be ugly. (See Hugh Hewitt's Melody Townsell Gambit post.) No surprises here. Fortunately, New Media has a huge interest in this matter, and the composition of the federal judiciary has been a major issue of the last Presidential election and the last two Congressional elections--at least. The President should likely have a strong base of support for his nominee.

2. The confirmation process should should proceed swiftly and should NOT be delayed. This past weekend, Hewitt had a post discussing the possibility that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter will put the hearings on the slow track. This is a terrible idea and serves no purpose whatsoever except as to allow character assassins more time and put off other important legislative business while the confirmation process is ongoing.

3. Judge Janice Rogers Brown would be an EXCELLENT choice to succeed Justice O'Connor. Brendan Miniter gives Judge Brown an endorsement today in his most recent "The Western Front" Opinion Journal column. The folks at Powerline have also been carrying the banner for Judge Brown. I strongly agree with them both. A former counsel to Gov. Pete Wilson of California, a respected Justice on the California Supreme Court, and recently confirmed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Brown is one of my top choices.

4. Judge Michael McConnell would also be an OUTSTANDING nominee. Some folks have asked me who my nominee of choice is. I don't have a definitive opinion, but aside from Judge Brown, I am also a fan of Judge McConnell. He was a highly-respected legal academic who takes federalism seriously and is an authority on the First Amendment religion clauses. He would do serious credit to the Court and the constitution, if nomiated and confirmed. Out of all the nominees, I'm probably most familiar with his work, and I've met him twice in person. He is a very kind man and respect he commanded in the legal academy was so strong that the Senate Democrats were not able to maintain a filibuster for his confirmation to the 10th Circuit. At this point, I simply do not know enough about Judges Luttig, Roberts or Clement to say anything definitive--except as to say I have only heard good things about all three.

5. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales would be a good Justice, but for now he is a better fit at DOJ. As I stated in a recent post, AG Gonzales has what it takes to be on the SCOTUS. Perhaps he will be on the Court if another vacancy or two occurs. But he already occupies an important post and there are other qualified nominees that I would like to see get the first shot at the vacant seat.

(Downtown Seattle, WA)

2005-07-01T08:06:00.000-07:00

STEPPING DOWN: JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR. The first woman to serve on the U.S Supreme Court is retiring. I wish the Justice well in her retirement.

And now, a big showdown that we've all been anticipating will happen. This will be interesting...

UPDATE (8:45am). I just watched President Bush's short speech at the White House, thanking Justice O'Connor for her service. For her successor, he asked for a fair process, a fair hearing and a fair vote. Sounds fair. No nominee was named.

(North Seattle--Green Lake, WA)

2005-06-29T17:51:00.000-07:00

TAKING A STAND FOR AG GONZALES. If President Bush nominates U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for Chief Justice or Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, AG Gonzales has my full support.

AG Gonzales was confirmed to his current post because of his strong qualifications. Those same qualifications also render him fit for a place on the Supreme Court. If Gonzales was qualified to become AG, there is no reason why he is not qualified to sit on the nation’s high court. This past winter, I strongly endorsed this man for the post of AG. Most conservatives did as well, and they would do well to remember why.

The conservative opposition to AG Gonzales has surprised me. Such opposition to AG Gonzales is unwarranted and should stop. He is absolutely qualified and if nominated he should be supported. We know his story. He came from humble means, graduated from a top law school, had a successful law practice, served as a Justice on the Texas Supreme Court, served as White House Counsel and is now the Attorney General. There is no doubt in my mind that he is up to the task.

The knocks against AG Gonzales that I have come across fall short of disqualifying him from consideration. They’re simply not convincing to me. The two most frequent knocks are: 1) he ruled against a Texas parental consent law while on that state’s Supreme Court; and 2) he supported affirmative action in the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling on that issue, Grutter v. Bollinger (2003).

As to the former, proponents the no-litmus-test-on-abortion standard need to remember that standard. It cuts BOTH ways. (In any event, it should be kept in mind that then-Justice Gonzales was considering a STATE law under a STATE constitution, not a FEDERAL statute under the FEDERAL constitution. I would not take that one opinion as being decisive in this regard.) As to the latter, I’ve heard conflicting reports as to just whose will Gonzales was carrying out in supporting the Michigan law. Nonetheless, I still don’t think his view on that subject should eliminate him from serious consideration for the high court—particularly when looking at the larger picture and the most pressing issues facing the federal judiciary.

AG Gonzales has served as White House counsel to the President during the War on Terrorism. There remain serious concerns about judicial overreach and second-guessing of decisions that properly belong to the President. The Executive is vested with the power to make war, and federal court cases brought by opponents of the war concerning prisoner detentions are worrisome—particularly when we are still at risk and have soldiers still fighting in the field. If anyone knows the importance of executive prerogative, it would be AG Gonzales. He takes terrorism seriously. AG Gonzales understands the importance of detaining foreign terrorists at Guantanamo Bay and wouldn’t be one to cave into the Sen. Durbin-like hysterics of the Left when it comes to understanding the important military measures that are necessary to successfully wage war.

AG Gonzales has also been on hand to take note of the troubling practice of certain Supreme Court Justices to cite foreign court decisions in interpreting provisions of the U.S. Constitution. In his conduct as White House Counsel, he has demonstrated his unwillingness to swallow the elite, Left-wing professoriate’s gloss on international law. It would be a complete reversal for would-be Justice Gonzales to suddenly smuggle the opinions of foreign tribunals into American constitutional jurisprudence.

Whether President Bush will nominate AG Gonzales for the Supreme Court remains anyone’s guess. This is not to say that AG Gonzales is necessarily my number one choice if/when a vacancy occurs--particularly when we just got him into his current post. Another AG confirmation hearing would be a hassle--particularly if there are TWO Supreme Court vacancies. Nevertheless, AG Gonzales has what it takes to be on the Supreme Court and would deserve an up-or-down vote and confirmation if nominated. Should the President go with AG Gonzales, count me in as a supporter.

(North Seattle--Green Lake, WA)

2005-06-29T17:28:00.000-07:00

DESTRUCTION OF BERLIN COLD WAR MONUMENT. When socialists aren't distoring history, they sometimes resort to attempts to destroy it. For a recent, bothersome example of this, see Medienkritik's blog post.

(North Seattle--Green Lake, WA)

2005-06-28T18:33:00.000-07:00

PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS ON PROGRESS IN IRAQ. If you missed President Bush's address to the nation on Iraqi and the War against Terror, you can view it online at C-SPAN.

Hugh Hewitt provides a crucial statement from the President:

Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Hear the words of Osama Bin Laden: "This Third World War is raging" in Iraq. "The whole world is watching this war." He says it will end in "victory and glory or misery and humiliation."

The President's address comes in at approximately thirty minutes. He spoke before our valiant soldiers stationed at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina. The President outlined the outstanding work of our men and women in the military, who are defending our freedom and establishing a beachhead for freedom in the Middle East. He reiterated his resolve to see the job through in Iraq, and praised the troops for all the progress that they have made.

On that score, I highly recommend "The War is Over, and We Won," an American Enterprise Online article by Karl Zinsmeister. Fresh from his THIRD stint as an embedded reporter in Iraq, Zinsmeister gives an update on the progress being made:

What the establishment media covering Iraq have utterly failed to make clear today is this central reality: With the exception of periodic flare-ups in isolated corners, our struggle in Iraq as warfare is over. Egregious acts of terror will continue—in Iraq as in many other parts of the world. But there is now no chance whatever of the U.S. losing this critical guerilla war.

I had the chance to hear Zinsmeister speak at a World Affairs Council event last fall in Bellevue, WA. His talk highlighted the military operations and nation-building projects being carried out by American soldiers. His book, Dawn Dawn over Baghdad: How the U.S. Military Is Using Bullets and Ballots to Remake Iraq, has much to offer in this regard. It is a highly recommended read that will make one feel deeply thankful for the sacrifices that our soldiers are making to keep our nation safe.

There is a long road still ahead in Iraq, but we can be amazed and proud of what our fighting forces have accomplished over there.

(North Seattle--Green Lake, WA)

2005-06-28T12:07:00.000-07:00

SUPREME COURT WATCH. With a possible retirement (or two) from the Supreme Court, Confirm Them and NRO's Bench Memos are two blogs worthy of attention for the latest news, rumors and commentary. The current Supreme Court lineup has been there for a long, LONG time. I'm looking forward to a change, and hope to see two retirements.

(Downtown Seattle, WA)

2005-06-27T23:30:00.000-07:00

ROVE CALLS IT FOR WHAT IT IS: THE LEFT IS SOFT ON TERRORISM. Apparently, the MoveOn crowd has been demanding an apology from Karl Rove for his remarking that after 9-11 conservatives decided it time to take the war to the terrorists, while the left thought it time to submit petitions calling for restraint. Rove hasn't apologized, and he darn well shouldn't. He is exactly right and the American electorate knows this. That's why the left isn't in charge of our nation's security.

It was President Bush's committment to waging war against the terrorists--more than any other issue--that led me to vote for him in 2004. He has demonstrated his determination to protect the nation and to preside over a military that is taking the battle directly to the terrorists. (The alternative was the "global test"--which the American electorate rejected.)

In an NRO article from the other day ("Rove Was Right about MoveOn"), Byron York discusses the MoveOn leaders and the petitions they sent around just after the 9-11 attacks. York is quite familiar with those folks, having followed them around and interviewed countless individuals for his interesting book, The Vast Leftwing Conspiracy--which I strongly recommend.

Of course, York does give the following qualification:

Critics have suggested that at the very least, Rove's "liberals" charge was overbroad. That's a fair criticism. But as far as MoveOn is concerned, Rove's words were accurate and fair.

Then again, York only states that calling overbroad Rove's suggestion (that the left is comprised of softies on the war against terrorism) amounts to "a fair criticism." That criticism *might* be fair, since there are undoubtedly some folks on the left who want to see a robust war against terrorism to protect the nation. But given the big picture of how the left views the war and its causes, this "fair criticism" of Rove is still wrong.

David Limbaugh certainly thinks it wrong, as he spells out in his latest column, "Rove is Right." As Limbaugh points out, the Left is more preoccupied with attacking the administration's handling of the war than in seeing the war successfully waged.

Bloggers on the Left went to some lengths defending the supposed substance of the disgraceful Sen. Dick Durbin comments comparing our soldiers to Nazis, Gulag guards and Pol Pot. Seeing as their man Durbin is still their #2 guy in the Senate after all the al-Jazeera propaganda he provided to our nation's enemies, I'll go with the BROAD interpretation of Rove's remarks.

(North Seattle--Green Lake, WA)

2005-06-25T20:28:00.000-07:00

LOONEY LEFT-A-THON: DURBIN & CONYERS. Hat tip to Jayne Doodles for the recent David Harsanyi column in the Denver Post. The columnist brings up some very good points and got me thinking...

Just WHY haven't the Republicans turned up the heat on the Democratic party for the behavior of its fringe elements? We recently witnessed Sen. Durbin's horrible comparison of our soldiers at Guantanomo Bay to Nazi's and Pol Pot, followed by his steadfast refusal to apologize, followed by his forced, pathetic semi- or non-apology. Also, next to no one has zeroed in on the laughable and embarrassing make-believe impeachment hearing conducted by a handful of House Democrats in the capitol building basement. Rep. John Conyers presided. (HT: Powerline, for Dana Milbank's piece in The Washington Post.) As to this latter story, I'm also surprised to have seen so little mention of it on the blogosphere.

These screwball antics need to be brought into the spotlight and remain there for a good while. The wacky views of Sen. Durbin have caused him seemingly little trouble from within his own ranks. Even if there is no censure vote--which would have been entirely justified--demands should have been made for Sen. Durbin to step down as Senate Minority Whip. But the Democrats have done no such thing.

Contrast this with the blogswarm over Sen. Trent Lott. Sen. Lott made some stupid remarks at Sen. Strom Thurmond's b-day party that were unbecoming of a Republican in leadership. And so countless Republicans called for Sen. Lott to step down. I certainly wanted Sen. Lott to resign his leadership post. No such thing taking place with the Senate Democrats. Could it be that too many members of Sen. Durbin's caucus share his crazy views? Sadly, I now suspect so.

(North Seattle--Green Lake, WA)

2005-06-24T16:37:00.000-07:00

LANDMARK LAND GRAB CASE: THOUGHTS ON KELO. Yesterday I read through the U.S. Supreme Court opinions in Kelo v. City of New London (2005). This is the 5-4 decision giving WIDE discretion to federal, state and local governments to seize persons private property for “public purposes.”

It should be noted by all that this case mostly sets the floor for constitutional protection of property. States and local governments have the ability to put in place more exacting standards for state and local governments to meet if they wish to confiscate privately-held property. As Washington State’s Attorney General Rob McKenna commented in a recent press release:

The Washington Supreme Court has defined the "public benefit" limitation more narrowly than the definition used by the U.S. Supreme Court in the recently announced Kelo decision. Accordingly, the condemnation of private property for the type of development at issue in the Kelo case would likely be evaluated as a matter of state constitutional law under standards that are potentially more protective of private property rights than those used by the U.S. Supreme Court today.

Make no mistake: this decision has eroded serious safeguards to prevent government to take people’s land for legitimate public use. I do not agree with the majority in this decision. The “public purpose” standard that the majority adopts is simply too open-ended. Thanks to this decision, the passage of generalized, comprehensive “economic development” projects by state or local governments now pass Constitutional muster under the Fifth Amendment (as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment).

As Justice O’Connor noted in dissent, there is ALWAYS room for improvement of property. Nobody ever puts property to it’s highest and best use. Motel 6 can always be replaced by the Ritz-Carlton. Justice Thomas also penned a solo dissent, which delved more deeply into the history of the Takings Clause (the all-encompassing term for the Public Use and Just Compensation Clauses. As Justice Thomas put it, “Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not.”

Justice Thomas also put the Takings Clause in its proper context. The clause is contained within the original articles comprising the Bill of Rights. Hence, it is a negative power grant. It is designed to PROHIBIT government action, rather than EMPOWER it. By contrast, the majority treats the Takings Clause more like and enforcement clause, such as the Necessary and Proper Clause.

In his opinion for the majority, Justice Stevens justified such takings because of the evolving needs of society. But isn’t there a Bill of Rights in place to provide timeless guarantees of rights that might otherwise be eroded by the passions of people and government over the passing of time?

(Downtown Seattle, WA)

2005-06-22T17:30:00.000-07:00

FEDERAL PRE-EMPTION COMES TO NEW YORK STATE. The Federalism Project's AG Watch blog has a recent post discussing a recent lawsuit filed by the the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (USOCC) against NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. At issue are some banking laws and regulations. Under the National Banking Act and pursuant to Article VI, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the federal government has the full force of federal supremacy in this area. And the feds are making it clear in this instance, filing suit against AG Spitzer's office.

This is interesting. I periodically point to big articles discussion NY's well-known AG. The reason being is that he is not only a very visible public figure who wields much power, has been involved in many high-profile cases and has often been a vigorous prosecutor of his cases in the court of public opinion--but because many of the big cases he is involved with have nationwide ramifications.

I don't know the particulars of this lawsuit by the USOCC, having only skimmed the complaint. But, as the AG Watch folks have noted, the USOCC is onto something here. We have a federal constitution, a U.S. Congress, a federal judiciary and federal departments in the federal executive to deal with INTERstate matters. I think that is just as good of an idea when the Founding Fathers wrote and ratified the Constitution as it is today.

(Downtown Seattle, WA)

2005-06-22T09:49:00.000-07:00

COLSON DISCUSSING DEEP THROAT. Yesterday, Charles W. Colson had an interesting commentary ("Above the Law?: Further Thoughts About Deep Throat"), briefly analyzing the hero status of Deep Throat--and the larger issue of "ends justify the means" thinking. I have little to add here, save for the fact that Colson comes at all of this stuff from a unique vantage point.

(Downtown Seattle, WA)

2005-06-21T17:12:00.000-07:00

DURBIN DISGRACE SAGA CONTINUES. I listened to Senate Democratic Minority Whip Dick Durbin offer some sort of semi-apology for his earlier remarks, comparing our brave and honorable soldiers in Guantanamo Bay with Nazis, Gulag guards or Pol Pot's regime. But as Powerline notes, while Sen. Durbin did say he was sorry for causing hurt feelings and that his word choices were "very poor," he NEVER retracted his outrageous comparison that is the source of the controversy.

But does a forced semi-apology cut it when a leading U.S. Senator makes a Senate floor speech in which he hurls blatantly false and super-inflammatory charges at our nation's military? "Oops sorry" doesn't erase all the propaganda points he's given to terrorists who are bent on our destruction.

Hugh Hewitt has posted the transcript of an interview he conducted with a Second Lieutenant who is a Gitmo veteran. It is worth the read and causes me to once again appreciate the dedication and sacrifice of our fighting forces. They are defending our freedom--whatever else Sen. Durbin might say.

(Downtown Seattle, WA)

2005-06-21T13:10:00.000-07:00

HARSH WORDS FOR H.G. WELLS. John J. Miller discusses science-fiction writer H.G. Wells in "War of the Worldviews," in today's Opinion Journal. For the most part, the article discusses Wells' political and social views--which, according to Miller, appear to be based upon even greater fictions than Wells' own literary works of science-fiction.

The anecdote at the beginning about Wells' failing grade in astronomical physics and his get-back in a subsequent writing is both amusing and creepy. (It would probably be nothing other than funny if it weren't for more recent, high-profile episodes of actual violence at schools.)

At this point, I remember little about Wells' War of the Worlds. I read that book along with two others (The Invisible Man and Time Machine) back in my sophomore english class in high school. Anyway, reading his books gave me insight into his fanciful imagination--but it wasn't until much later that I ever learned he had such flighty ideas about the non-fiction world.

(Downtown Seattle, WA)

2005-06-21T11:30:00.000-07:00

CLOSING THOUGHTS ON TERRI SCHIAVO. Wesley J. Smith is back from vacation and blogs about the life, death, autopsy and burial of Terri Schiavo.

(Downtown Seattle, WA)

2005-06-20T11:14:00.000-07:00

DURBIN SHOULD BE CENSURED. Read Hugh Hewitt's column, "Breaking the Durbin Code," in today's Daily Standard.

Here's Hewitt on the American electorate's reaction to #2 ranking Democratic Senator Durbin's inflammatory Senate floor remarks:

They are disgusted over this slander of the military, and they deserve a vote on whether Senator Durbin's argument deserves anything except complete and quick condemnation by responsible members of both parties intent on supporting the war, the military, and the country's defense.

Yes. Exactly right.

And here's Hewitt with an important point to consider:

Durbin's slander was simply a rhetorical bridge too far, but for both the man and his party there are no regrets and no apology. Not one senior Democrat has condemned Durbin's statement. Not one Democratic senator has asked for a caucus meeting.

This matter is not even close to being over. Hopefully, some Senate Republicans will have the moral courage to stand up against this kind of slander against our military. People often accuse powerful Senators of covering for each other. Here is an important chance for that accusation to be proven false.

(Downtown Seattle, WA)

2005-06-19T10:23:00.000-07:00

...AND NOW, MARK STEYN. His Chicago Sun-Times column about Sen. Durbin's outrageous comments on the Senate floor says it all. (HT: Powerline.)

(North Seattle--Green Lake, WA)

2005-06-17T09:33:00.000-07:00

BLOGSWARM: DEM SEN DICK DURBIN COMPARING U.S. SOLDIERS TO NAZIS & GULAG OPERATORS. The outrageous floor remarks by Senator Dick Durbin are now being widely discussed throughout New Media--including the blogosphere. James Taranto's "Best of the Web" has a post containing Sen. Durbin's worst words. So far leading Democrats have been eerily silent on this matter.

This morning, Hugh Hewitt cuts right to it:

Every member of the military and their families and every voter who admires the military should be watching very closely as the Democratic Party and MSM say and do nothing about Dick Durbin's smear. You can't be a supporter of the military and allow the #2 Democrat in the Senate to put the Nazi/Stalin/Pol Pot brand on the troops, which is exactly what Durbin did.

Precisely. Sen. Durbin's remarks are shameful. This story has been growing for a few days now, and I only suspect it will continue to grow.

(Downtown Seattle, WA)

2005-06-16T12:58:00.000-07:00

COVANCE STRIKES BACK AGAINST RADICAL ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS. Michael Fumento gives some background on PETA's anti-human ideology, discussing the recent lawsuit that its been slapped with by the medical research lab Covance. His article, "Animal Extremism Versus Human Rights," appeared yesterday at TownHall.com. There are links aplently in Fumento's piece. Highly recommended.

Human exceptionalism is foundational to Western Civilization. Simply put, human life is more important than non-human life. PETA and eco-terrorists disagree.

(Downtown Seattle, WA)

2005-06-16T09:55:00.000-07:00

FINAL THOUGHTS ON MICHAEL JACKSON CASE. Having thought the whole matter through, I am still strongly inclined to think that Michael Jackson got away with something. Admittedly, it is difficult to keep the freak factor from influencing my opinion. Of course, the suspect nature of the accuser’s mother is certainly a factor here as well. In the end, excessive complaining can’t be called for given that a 12-member jury unanimously held for Jackson on all charges, and appeared to have carefully examined the evidence. It’s certainly legitimate to question the results of the legal process in a liberal democracy. But due process has undoubtedly taken place.

I remain extremely wary of a man who appears insulated and disconnected from reality and normative standards of behavior. And I still harbor doubts about the correctness of the trial’s outcome. Yet, the respect owed to the process and the verdict of a unanimous jury settles the matter: there was not sufficient evidence for a conviction. I don’t have to like it, but will accept it.

(Andrew McCarthy has some interesting observations in an NRO article from the other day.)

(Downtown Seattle, WA)

2005-06-16T09:29:00.000-07:00

WITH BOARDS LIKE THESE... Kimberly Strassel has an interesting article discussing the NY Attorney General's case against former NYSE head Dick Grasso--available online in Tuesday's Opinion Journal. The extraordinarily high level of compensation given to Grasso in his contract made many headlines. I have not followed the case very closely and am not familiar with enough details to form an opinion, but as Strassel's article shows, there's more to this story than I first suspected. Namely, you had a board that voted on the contract but then turned on the very same man that they UNANIMOUSLY agreed to so generously compensate. Curious...

(Downtown Seattle, WA)

2005-06-13T13:58:00.000-07:00

JACKO JURY TRIAL VERDICT. As I've been watching on cable news for the last fifteen minutes now, Michael Jackson is in the courtroom, awaiting the jury's decision...

UPDATE (2:05pm). Judge Napolitano and Shepard Smith have discussed the judge's weekend conferences with the jurors. Interesting. There could be a hung jury on some lesser charges. Speaking of which, the jury has been seated. Waiting for the judge...he's now in.

UPDATE II (2:20pm). NOT GUILTY?! Wow. He was found "not guilty" on all counts--including the lesser-included. I'm shocked. This isn't good. We've not heard the last about this, I'm sure...

(Chelan, WA)

2005-06-12T22:44:00.000-07:00

CLARITY TO COME TO REPORTER-INFORMANT CONFIDENTIALIY? Former U.S. Soliciter General Theodore Olson has an editorial in today's OpinionJournal discussing the case of his client--Time, Inc. and one Matt Cooper--which he is hoping the U.S. Supreme Court will grant certiorari and hear.

Since I'm away from my office, I don't have my Van Alstyne's First Amendment casebook from law school, so I cannot recall with any certainty if I had perviously read any cases in the area of media and informant confidentiality. According to Olsen, the First Amendment protections afforded in this area are unclear. The Branzburg v. Hayes (1972) case was one of those close calls with a concurring opinion thrown into the mix for the majority, resulting in little clarity on the issue.

I throw in with Olsen on this matter--and not just because he's representing a guy named Cooper. A qualified reporter’s privilege concerning disclosure of confidential news sources is important for a liberal, democratic society with a free press.

It is worth noting that Washington State's Attorney General Rob McKenna has joined with thirty-three other State AGs on an amicus brief in support of Time and Cooper. As he states in a recent press release:

If reporters are unable to protect their sources, their ability to gather news is severely compromised. The First Amendment would be meaningless unless the law also protected the practical ways in which news is responsibly gathered.

Exactly. I applaud AG McKenna for joining the amicus brief and for his defense of an important component of a free press.

(Chelan, WA)

2005-06-10T20:16:00.000-07:00

SPITZER SLAPPED DOWN AT TRIAL. "Prosecution by press release won't do in court," says today's OpinionJournal editorial. I won't pretend to have any particular familiarity with the facts in the case of former Bank of America broker Theodore Sihpol. But the editorial provides an interesting read about a recent courtroom defeat for NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.

I don't remember too many high profile cases involving AG Spitzer actually making it to trial. His forte seems to be in getting defendants to make settlements on generous terms for the state of New York.

But alas, Sihpol and his case proceeded to trial. A New York jury apparently thought the State's case against him for "late trading" was weak. They sided with Sihpol on 29 counts. The jurors weren't as convinced as AG Spitzer was that late trading was unlawful.

Seeing as AG Spitzer is one of America's most powerful unelected leaders--elected by New Yorkers, perhaps, despite the fact that many of his high-profile lawsuits have profound effects nationally--I like to read articles discussing the latest developments in his interesting tenure as NY AG.

In any event, the editorial closes by noting the U.S. Department of Justice's ability to secure verdicts in major fraud cases, whereas AG Spitzer has used NY's Martin Act to prosecute legally questionable cases. My thought is: Why don't other states get the message and pass Martin Act equivalents? It's seems more reasonable than not that enterprising state legislators would wish to keep their states on equal footing with NY and get in on the aggressive litigation action. (Not that that would necessarily be a good thing.)

Short of a more desirable situation in which federal authorities deal with business and commercial matters of interstate import, it's a wonder why other states haven't taken cue from AG Spitzer and become more agressive. Maybe we should just give the states more time...

(Chelan, WA)

2005-06-08T22:08:00.000-07:00

MUCH-NEGLECTED CLAUSE MAKES A COMEBACK--SORTA. The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that Congressional power extends to a prohibition of private, non-commercial use of marijuana for medicinal purposes pursant to a state law in Gonzales v. Raich has garnered much attention. This was another case that implicated the parameters of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. For me, however, what was particularly intriguing about the case was the attention paid to the Necessary & Proper Clause--a Clause that has been paid scant attention in recent...well, decades.

Justice Scalia brings a clarity to the extent of the Necessary & Proper Clause's operation that had heretofore been unseen in Commerce Clause cases. In this regard, I found his concurring opinion the most interesting and exciting. Justice Scalia discarded the notion that Congress cannot regulate non-commercial activities or wholly intrastate activities, per se. Instead, he reoriented the analysis to legitimate means to Congressionally appropriate ends (the "necessary" component of the Necessary & Proper Clause). Additionally, Justice Scalia took note of the "proper" component of the clause as it pertains to state sovereign immunity. Previously, the state sovereign immunity cases seem to have focused almost entirely upon the Tenth Amendment.

At this point, I still have to gather my thoughts as to whether the Controlled Substance Act can extend to the defendants in the case. Arguably, one could hold to the framework enunciated by Justice Scalia but find that Congress' power to regulate still does not reach the activities involved in the case. But I can say that I'm clearly of the view that Justice Steven's application of Wickard v. Fillburn's "aggregate effects" test undermines the enumerated powers provided in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Further, Justice Thomas has some worthwhile points in his dissenting opinion.

(North Seattle--Green Lake, WA)

2005-06-06T23:41:00.000-07:00

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL LOSING GROUND ON GITMO/GULAG COMPARISON. AI leadership had recently equated grabbed headlines for ridiculously equating the U.S. military-operated prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to a Soviet gulag. Since those outrageous public pronouncements, AI has found its reputation tarnished and undermined.

First, as Kenneth Anderson pointed out in the recent Weekly Standard article "An American Gulag?", AI's recent human rights report is devoid of such a comparison or conclusion:

With the release of its 2005 human rights report, Amnesty International got all the headlines that even an organization that lives for press attention could possibly hope to get. It did so by lobbing rhetorical hand grenades--each delivered in press statements but, revealingly and characteristically, not found in the text of the report itself...

And now, leadership of AI has found itself having to backtrack on its earlier, baseless public statements about Gitmo. Tuesday's editorial in OpinionJournal notes the recent retraction of certain remarks:

"Clearly, this is not an exact or a literal analogy," said William Schulz. "In size and in duration, there are not similarities between U.S. detention facilities and the gulag. . . . People are not being starved in those facilities. They're not being subjected to forced labor."

Like Anderson, the editorial writers goes on to take AI to task for the absurd statements of its leaders. It comes as little surprise that the editorial would mention Natan Sharansky. It is people like Sharansky and Jean Bethke Elshtain who have carefully argued that when someone loses moral clarity and ends up equating the forces of the Ameriacn military with anti-western democracy jihaddists, that same someone simply gets the facts WRONG. And these are important facts to get RIGHT--especially when you're working in the area of human rights...

(North Seattle--Green Lake, WA)

2005-06-04T13:15:00.000-07:00

NOTHIN' LIKE A COLD BEER AND A COMEDY MOVIE TO CALM THE NERVES. Today I have the honor and good fortune of being the Best Man in the wedding of a long-time friend. Oh-gotta go. Time to rock...

(North Seattle--Green Lake, WA)

2005-06-03T16:46:00.000-07:00

COOP MENTION IN MAG. In one of the more thrilling moments of my young career, I am quoted in the Harvard Political Review's 2005 "The Politics of Sex" cover-story issue. No, I didn't make the cover--lost out to a sexy blonde girl--but I was mentioned in an article concerning federalism and public education.

I just received the printed edition in the mail. Yet, after a brief scan of the website, I didn't find the article. While I am quoted correctly, the policy position I was advocating was misconstrued by the way it was framed in the article. Oh well.

(Downtown Seattle, WA)

2005-06-01T11:22:00.000-07:00

IN THE END, DEEP THROAT MYSTERY DOESN'T DELIVER. Greg Piper (via The Smoking Room) encapsulates the sentiment surrounding the recently revealed identity of Watergate-informant Deep Throat:

Worst Revelation Ever.

No kidding. Since I was little I can remember my dad talking about what a big, BIG story it would be when the secret identity of the man who had helped bring down the Nixon White House would be revealed. Its like a lousy letdown ending to a film with a promising start and buildup. Oh well, there's always the next high-drama political scandal...

(Downtown Seattle, WA)

2005-05-31T23:38:00.000-07:00

TAKING THE PARAMETERS OF CONGRESSIONAL SPENDING POWER SERIOUSLY. At The Remedy, Professor John Eastman notes a recent concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas in the Cutter v. Wilkinson (2005) case--concerning the constitutional limits of congressional spending power. In Cutter, the U.S. Supreme Court majority upheld the constitutionality of the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) under the First Amendment's (anti-)Establishment Clause. But Justice Thomas's important concurrence brings to light a much-neglected constitutional issue of a different sort.

Justice Thomas makes mention of the lingering question as to the constitutionality of the RLUIPA pursuant to Congress' spending power--as well as the constitutionality of the conditions placed upon the states for receipt of federal funds. As Justice Thomas acknowledged in footnote two of his concurrence, he did agree with the majority's decision not to take up the spending power issue. But the judicial recognition of the constitutional issue is of real significance--certainly enough significance to cause some screeching voices on legal academia's left wing to have a cow. (MOOO!) Expect some silly law review articles discussing this concurring opinion in sky-is-falling sort of terminology.

Most law students hear about the political battles in our nation's young history concerning the scope of the powers of Congress to spend--with the stricter Jeffersonian/Madisonian on one side and more expansive Hamiltonian view on the other. Unfortunately, it's arguable that the proponents of political process federalism (who deny that there are judicially enforceable limits to the exercise of the enumerated powers of Congress), have streched the Hamiltonian view so far as to be unrecognizable from its historical underpinnings.

But as Prof. Eastman & Co. point out in the Center for Constitutional jurisprudence's amicus curiae brief to the Court in Cutter, even the Hamiltonian notion of the spending power involved SOME sort of intrinsic limits. Prof. Eastman has previously written an interesting article in an issue of The Chapman Law Review about judicially enforceable constitutional limits upon the spending power. Those ideas feature prominently in the amicus brief.

It was during my own time in law school that I first came across Eastman's spending clause work. In fact, I myself was a student of Prof. David Engdahl--an outstanding constitutional scholar who has written an authoritative and widely-cited article in a 1994 issue of The Duke Law Journal about the origins and history of federal spending power. If I'm not mistaken, the article is simply called "The Spending Power."

There were likely some nuanced differences in the respective views of Profs. Eastman and Engdahl. Yet, regardless of the fact that I haven't devoted enough study to come to a definitive position concerning the scope of the Hamiltonian view of the spending power (which I find far more plausible than the Jeffersonian/Madisonian view), this latest acknowledgement of the spending power issue by Justice Thomas is intriguing and exciting. Congratulations are in order to Prof. Eastman in this regard.

(North Seattle--Green Lake, WA)

2005-05-31T11:55:00.000-07:00

WISE WORDS OF THE DAY. Compliments of Dr. Thomas Sowell:

Runaway extrapolations are the last refuge of hysteria mongers when confronted with facts that demolish their lies. Think about it: The temperature has risen about 10 degrees since this morning. If you extrapolate that, we will all be burned to a crisp before the end of the month. Extrapolations prove nothing.

(Downtown Seattle, WA)

2005-05-27T09:38:00.000-07:00

COALITION OF THE CHILLIN'... Timothy Goddard's recent post has brought to my attention the "Coalition of the Chillin'"--a group of bloggers who "aren't having a cow over fili-deal." I've decided not to become a member, since I do still have serious reservations about what the end-result of this deal will be (as I have blogged about previously). But The Coalition of the Chillin' has a good sense of humor and perspective on this. In fact, upon learning about the group I found myself having a good laugh. And The Coalition of the Chillin' might also be helpful in dispelling any tendency toward alarmism on the judical filibustering issue.

(Downtown Seattle, WA)

2005-05-26T09:49:00.000-07:00

MORE ON THE SENATE REPUBLICANS COMPROMISED---ER, "COMPROMISE." Following up on my last post, two more articles have caught my attention. The first is Hugh Hewitt's Daily Standard column, "Non-nuclear Fallout." Hewitt gives a rundown of the winners and losers--mostly losers--who emerge from this deal. I concur with Hewitt that Sen. John McCain's prospects for the Republican nomination just took a major hit.

Looking to the Senate Democrats and the consequences of the recent deal that was struck, Hewitt provides the following analysis:

[Senate Democratic Minority Leader Harry] Reid and his colleagues cannot be blamed for trying to load up the poorly drafted memorandum with their spin. If they can sell a waiting-to-be sold media on the idea that the GOP gave up the Byrd/Constitutional/Nuclear Option, then the coming summer clashes over one or more Supreme Court vacancies will be tilted from the start towards Democratic talking points.

The Senate Republicans appear to have given away the high ground. They had a principled case to make against the anti-majority rule that has come govern the Senate concerning the confirmation of federal judges. The compromise gives the impression that they have traded in their principled case for a mere pragmatic deal to get a few judges in and avoid further discomfort to themselves.

I known little about Massachussetts Governor Mitt Romney and whether he or newly-elected Senator John Thune have Presidential aspirations. But I do know that both of these respective leaders have faced serious issues and shown moral courage and a sense of priority. The same can not much be said for those who capitulated to the Senate Dems tar 'n feathering of well-respected, highly-qualified nominees to the federal judiciary.

Next, Thomas Sowell's latest, "A Compromised Party," gives a somber assessment of the situation in the Senate. Notes Sowell:

...Democrats have long understood that they are in Washington to represent the people who voted for them. Too many Republicans seem to think that they are in Washington to make deals with the Democrats.

Dr. Sowell is spot on in his observation. Abandoning a President and qualified judicial nominees and avoiding "conflict" in the Senate is not the work of statesmanship, but of crass politics. Sowell provides another clear-cut observation:

You can always ease tensions and avoid confrontations by surrendering. You can always postpone a showdown, even when that simply lets the problem fester and grow worse.

And its probably more likely than not that things will get worse for the Senate Republicans who want to confirm solid nominees for the federal bench. Unfortunately, I must concur with Hewitt's sentiment:

The disfigured filibuster is a constitutional horror, and only the left's babblers pretend otherwise. Writing in a super-majority to the advice and consent clause of Article Two, Section 2 is simple willfulness by a deeply distressed political party, a naked power grab which should have been struck down immediately upon its introduction in 2003, and one which gains false credibility with every day it's left alive.

Perhaps the Senate Republicans who capitulated will find the courage to stage a comeback. Perhaps Democratic fillibusters of future appellate court nominees or U.S. Supreme Court nominees will give them the opportunity to redeem themselves. Or perhaps not.

(Downtown Seattle, WA)

2005-05-26T00:26:00.000-07:00

REPUBLICANS TAKE RAW DEAL ON JUDICIAL NOMINEES? I would count myself as one who is very skeptical of the Senate Republican's recent deal with the Senate Democrats concerning judicial nominees, Senate fillibustering and Senate Rule changes. Make no mistake: I am glad that Justice Priscilla Owen was recently confirmed by the Senate and I am likewise elated that both Justice Janice Rogers Brown and Judge William Pryor will receive confirmation votes before the full Senate. But this is a big part of Senate's are supposed to do: take votes.

True, the Dems look less-than-admirable by showing their willingness to let supposed "extremists" on the bench. It shows that their charges against three qualified nominees were all a ruse. But the Republicans might be making things more difficult for themselves down the road, when the Dems presumably fillibuster all the remaining circuit court of appeals nominees in question.

And then there's the issue of the next U.S. Supreme Court nominee. I would expect the Dems to FILLIBUSTER there, too. So the big question will remain whether or not the Republicans will take serious action should the Dems not live up to their side of the bargain. Not to mention a deeper problem: is the agreement too open-ended to give the Republicans solid traction in responding to Dem obstruction on other nominees to the federal judiciary?

The agreement still allows for Dem fillibustering in "extreme" cases. But Sens. Schumer, Leahy and Ted Kennedy all sound like broken records when it comes to that word. They say "extreme" or "extremist" ALL THE TIME. Why would Republicans want to let those three guys determine what the mainstream is? The most recent Presidential and congressional eletions give a far better indication of what the mainstream is--and its not in line with Schumer, Leahy & Kennedy.

Talk about the recent bi-partisan deal continues. "Admission of Guilt," by Senator John Cornyn remains one of the best reads on the subject--although I give honorable mention to Prof. Douglas Kmiec for "Forfeiting Principle."

(North Seattle--Green Lake, WA)

2005-05-25T23:43:00.000-07:00

TAXPAYER-FUNDED HUMAN EMBRYO DESTRUCTION: MY VOTE IS FOR VETO. Growing attention is being paid to legislation just passing through the House of Representatives that would devote more taxpayer dollars to the immediate destruction of human embryos for embryonic stem cell research. One sometimes wonders if many members of Congress never find a spending program they don't like.

DeRoy Murdoch has an excellent article about the funding of embryonic stem cell research at NRO.

I oppose the legislation in question, and support President Bush's commitment to veto the legislation. This would be the first exercise of a veto by this President and I think the occasion would most certainly merit it.

Some of the President's critics falsely claim that the President has banned stem cell research in America. Not so. And that would be an extraordinary act of executive power were that true. But the claim is false. The President allowed the use of federal funds for human embryos that had been destroyed--but he did not allow for taxpayer dollars to fund the destruction of further human embryos for harvesting. States and private companies are still free to fund and conduct embryonic stem cell research. And nothing prohibits the morally UN-problematic exerimentation with adult stem cells. An editorial from Thursday's OpinionJournal correctly sets the record straight in this regard.

My overall stance is this: ban all human cloning, and prohibit the use taxpayer funds for embryonic stem cell research. This means that some embryonic stem cell research will take place outside of taxpayer funding, but it still outlaws the growing of human life for the sole purpose of destroying it and using it as raw materials. (If you're unfamiliar with this issue, then the distiction will probably make little sense to you and I suggest you do some research.)

And so, I also think the editorial is right to commend the President for his willingness to protect the dignity of human life:

...we're glad Mr. Bush is at least drawing a line somewhere. His critics often sound as if the promise of scientific progress raises no ethical questions and is itself a kind of moral trump card. Millions of Americans also want to draw a line, and that includes not being forced to pay for destroying human embryos.

NRO has a recent Q&A with Wesley J. Smith--conducted by Katharine Jean Lopez. The whole thing is interesting and I found myself having difficulty narrowing down only one or two passages worth quoting. But I'll quote a couple interesting points nonetheless.

Despite the disheartening fact that Legacy Media appears unwilling to cover adult stem cell successes or the clearly define the terms and issues at stake, Smith notes the strong opposition to human cloning that is still pervasive in this country and beyond:

...Much of the world is turning away from human cloning. The United Nations General Assembly voted by a nearly 3-1 margin to urge member nations to outlaw human cloning. While a few countries like Great Britain decided to be unilateralist on the issue, many nations have already outlawed human cloning, including France, Canada, Australia, and Norway. Indiana just became the seventh American state to ban cloning. If enough countries and states reject cloning and fund adult/umbilical-cord-blood-stem-cell research (along with the private sector), I believe sufficient treatments will be developed so that even the New York Times will be forced to report on the progress. At that point, public support for therapeutic-cloning research would likely collapse and the vast continuing public investment of tax dollars needed to further develop and perfect human-cloning technology would peter out. At least this is what I hope would happen, which is why so many people — conservatives and liberals, religiously oriented people and secularists, pro-life and pro-choice on abortion — are working diligently to continue to hold the line.

And as Smith makes clear, this is an area in which the President has the opportunity to do some important work:

...I would like to see the president personally calling attention to major adult-stem-cell successes as they occur, successes that are almost routinely ignored by major media. He could also tour adult-stem-cell-research facilities and bring patients who have been treated with adult/umbilical-cord-blood stem cells to the White House for events. This shouldn’t be an occasional mention, but an enthusiastic ongoing political effort engaged in with the president’s usual energy, verve, and gusto...

(North Seattle--Green Lake, WA)

2005-05-23T21:31:00.000-07:00

FUTILE CARE THEORY & FORCED EXIT, POST-TERRI SCHIAVO. If you want to get a glimpse of where many so-called bioethcists wish to take end-of-life medical care, be sure to read Wesley J. Smith's eye-opening article "The English Patient"--available in the forthcoming Weekly Standard. Smith also posts about the case at his blog--Secondhand Smoke (here, here and here).

Human life is characterized by its inherent dignity and equality. But this is undermined when when futilitarians are empowered to determine whether another person's life is worth living based upon their own checklist of priorities. Any one of us could be one accident or mishap away from disability or need of serious medical care. If we hand over delicate life-or-death situations to futilitarian ideologues masquerading as "ethics committees," then NO ONE remains safe in their humanity.

(North Seattle--Green Lake, WA)

2005-05-21T09:58:00.000-07:00

REVIEW OF THE FACTUALLY INCORRECT POLITICALLY INCORRECT.... The latest issue of The Claremont Review of Books includes an article by John B. Kienker--reviewing a much-advertised book called The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Turns out that aside from a few worthile points, the book peddles pro-Confederacy nonsense.

Says Kienker:

At its core, The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History is just more wheezy propaganda from the Old Confederacy (the book's cover features a scowling Dixie general). "Thomas E. Woods, Ph.D.,"...rehearses all the familiar fictions: the "States had the right to secede," the so-called Civil War was really a "War of Northern Aggression," Abraham Lincoln was probably a racist and only "fought to 'save the Union'… and consolidate its power."

Kienker also points out the author's support of nullification--contra James Madison. I don't know about anyone else, but whenever Madison said something concerning the dynamics of state power vis a vis federal power, I listen.

The Pro-Confederacy claptrap is enough to keep me from purchasing the book. It's a shame that such a great title should be wasted on a publication containing that kind of content.

Something to keep in mind: politcal incorrectness finds value in truthfulness--in factual correctness. By contrast, political correctness silences or ignores facts and reality when they do not support the sentiment of the contemporary moral elites or the currently preferred victim-group sentiment. In the end, the whole "War of Northern Aggression" stuff doesn't amount to political correctness because of its factual incorrectness.

(North Seattle--Green Lake, WA)

2005-05-20T22:04:00.000-07:00

CASTLE & DeGETTE DON'T GET IT ON CLONING; BUT COHEN DOES. New Atlantis editor Eric Cohen has an excellent article in the upcoming Weekly Standard, "Go Forth and Replicate." Cohen discusses recent legislation proposed by Delaware Republican Mike Castle and Colorado Democrat Diana DeGette that would authorize Congress to fund research involving the destruction of embryos left over in fertility clinics. In an act of moral courage, the President has pledge to veto such a bill, should it ever pass the House of Representatives next week. Read the article.

A key paragraph from Cohen's article gives a good assessment of things:

One does not need to believe that human embryos are human persons to have one's conscience stirred by our current predicament--where the drive to advance stem cell research has apparently made us tolerant of human cloning. One simply needs to believe that we should not bulldoze ahead with ethically hazardous research in an environment with no limits on the brave new world; and that we should try every other avenue of scientific possibility before trampling the values of many fellow citizens to make embryo destruction a national project. This is what the Castle-DeGette bill really does, under the false guise of moderation.

Cohen does, howeveroffer a troubling picture of our nation as utterly devoid of ethicial limitations upon scientific experimentation using human life:

In America, there are currently no prohibitions and no limits on human cloning...

I'm sure there are some bioethicists and rogue researchers who might hope this would be the case. But This might also be taking things a little too far, for there are some hopeful signs and some brave states that have taken a stance against human cloning. As Wesley J. Smith noted earlier this week (at his blog, Secondhand Smoke), Indiana recently joined six other states to ban human cloning. One hope more states will soon join that list.

I've said it once before and I'll say it again: it is WRONG to grow human life simply for the sake of destroying it and harvesting it as raw materials.

(North Seattle--Green Lake, WA)

2005-05-20T15:28:00.000-07:00

FEC NEEDS COMMENTS ON POTENTIAL BLOGOSPHERE REGULATIONS! Hat tip to Ramesh Ponnuru at NRO's The Corner, for spotlighting a RedState post about the drawing deadline for comments to the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) concering its draft rule for regulating the political speech of bloggers.

Go to RedState for the relevant links and info. If you think that the First Amendment's free speech clause includes protections for political speech, then I urge you to submit comments. However, if you like bureaucrats telling you what you can and cannot say about the persons who will be drafting adopting and enforcing the laws and policies that affect your life, then you needn't bother. As for this blogger, I will be looking over the rules this weekend and will be submitting comments to the FEC, advocating whatever position best insures a continued marketplace of ideas and a public square that allows public debate.

(Downtown Seattle, WA)

2005-05-20T14:51:00.000-07:00

SAGA OF STUPID STATEMENTS FROM PEPSICO COO NOOYI. The blogosphere has been all over the recent remarks by PepsiCo's COO Indra Nooyi--whose use of the middle finger as an analogy for the United States formed the basis for her recent commencencement speech to the Columbia Business School. Worse, Nooyi followed up the statements with a NON-apology, claiming her remarks were "misconstrued." What nerve, Nooyi. Worse still, Nooyi later posted ANOTHER statement amounting to a semi-apology--saying she was sorry but downplaying her objectionable remarks by comparing them to off-hand comments.

Note to Nooyi: this doesn't cut it. You won't get off the hook this easy. You could have come right out and made a full apology and this story would have been over. Americans love to forgive anyone who says they're sorry. But you followed up your stupid speech with a non-apology that was insulting to read. This seriously undermined your credibility and renders far less weighty the semi-apology that you've subsequently issued.

So what next? I predict that the blosophere will stay on this one, with bloggers discussing Nooyi's comments and wondering where the heck Legacy Media/Old Media/MSM is at on this. The latter have been nowhere to be seen on this.

One might also expect to hear from bloggers who intend to avoid PepsiCo's products in the future. I'm just a young man with a much-neglected personal blog in Seattle, and so I certainly wouldn't call for a boycott of PepsiCo's products. But Nooyi's speech and follow-up statements have made an impression on me.

For the time being, when going to the store or out to eat someplace, I will choose the products of PepsiCo's competitors. I'll continue to follow the blogosphere on this one (along with the AWOL Legacy Media folks) and see if PepsiCo and Nooyi decide to take their audiences and consumers seriously.

For some good coverage of this--including the relevant links--see Hugh Hewitt, Powerline and Huffington's Toast.

(Downtown Seattle, WA)

2005-05-19T15:10:00.000-07:00

REVENGE OF THE SETH. In preparation for the release of Star Wars: Episode III: The Revenge of the Sith, I spent the last couple evenings reviewing the prior two Star Wars prequel movies, along with Vol. 1 of the Clone Wars cartoon. Now that I’ve spent the last few days keeping my neighbors up with the loud volume, I feel sufficiently nerded up for the 6:30pm showing of the new movie.

(Downtown Seattle, WA)

2005-05-17T09:58:00.000-07:00

SENATE DEMS' STALLING & SLANDERING OF JUDICIAL NOMINEES CONTINUES. With the debate over nominations to the federal judiciary heating up and then heating up further, NRO's "Bench Memos" makes for a good reading resource throughout the day. Speaking of NRO, U.S. Civil Rights Commissioner Peter Kirsanow has a fine article spotlighting fillibustered Justice Janice Rogers Brown: "The Dems’ Post-Nuclear Nightmare."

There is a myriad of articles, op-eds and blog posts available discussing the nuclear option/constitutional option/Byrd option aka dastardly majority rule in the legislative branch of government. There are also plenty of posts and articles--such as Kirsanow's--that show the utter incomprehensibility of the slanders made against President Bush's judicial nominees. Equally incomprehensible are the slanderers themselves. Democratic leaders who compare these distinguished nominees to terrorists are either dishonest in the extreme or deluded in the extreme.

A notable instance of this off-the-deep-end mentality exhibited by the Senate Democrats holding the minority in their chamber is the investigations into the financial backgrounds of several currently-serving appellate judges and other potential nominees for the U.S. Supreme Court. Robert Novak wrote a big, big BIG column about this yesterday. (Hat tip, Drudge.)

We the people have spoken in the last two congressional elections. The people want the judicial nominees to have an up-or-down vote in the Senate. If Sen. Bill Frist and the majority in the Senate calls for a rule change to end the fillibustering, I fully support them.

(Downtown Seattle, WA)

2005-05-16T09:17:00.000-07:00

ALIVE & BLOGGING. A busy work schedule that included some trips out-of-state forced me into a temporary blogging hiatus. Fortunately, that is now ended.

(Downtown Seattle, WA)

2005-05-03T19:28:00.000-07:00

INSTAPUNDIT ON NEW GILDER BOOK. Today's Leisure & Arts section of Opinion Journal has a quasi-review article by Prof. Glenn Reynolds (aka Instapundit) of George Gilder's The Silicon Eye. In the last year-and-a-half I have developed a deep interest in technology and a great admiration for the work of George Gilder. I look forward to this latest book by the telecosm's techno-enthusiast.

(North Seattle--Green Lake, WA)

2005-05-03T19:10:00.000-07:00

AND NOW...KIRSANOW ON CONSTITUTIONAL OPTION & JUDICIAL NOMINEES. Today's NRO has a follow-up to both Prof. Steven Calabresi and John Leo about the Senate Democrats' fillibustering of President Bush's judicial nominees. Peter Kirsanow, a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, authors an article entitled "Race, Sex & Roe." In short, he contends that both Calabresi and Leo are "partially right," and explains why.

I briefly blogged about Calabresi's article yesterday, but not Leo's. Leo's thesis has merit as well, and so I appreciate Kirsanow's short analysis. (As I've maintained, judicial nominees should face NO litmus test EITHER way on the abortion issue.)

(North Seattle--Green Lake, WA)

2005-05-02T10:16:00.000-07:00

CALABRESI ON CONSTITUTIONAL OPTION & JUDICIAL NOMINEES. The most recent edition of The Weekly Standard has an article by Northwestern University Law Professor Steven Calabresi (entitled "Minority Rule?"), discussing the fillibustering of President Bush's nominees to the federal courts of appeals and prospective attempts to end the fillibustering.

Prof. Calabresi says it all:

It is impossible to exaggerate just how important the upcoming vote on abolishing the filibuster of judges really is. For 214 years of our history, there was not a single filibuster of a judicial nominee who had the support of a majority of the Senate. Before 2003, there was never once a filibuster of a lower court judicial nomination. Today such filibusters have become commonplace, and they will become positively routine if filibuster reform fails to go through. The stakes for conservatives could not be higher.

Will the "nuclear option" aka the constitutional option aka majority rule be pursued in the Seante? The Senate Democrats have dug in, and the ball is in the Senate Republicans' court. This is now a test of the Republicans' moral courage.

(Downtown Seattle, WA)

2005-04-27T14:33:00.000-07:00

TECHNO-FEDERALISM. A top trio comprised of Gov. John Engler, C. Boyden Gray, & Dean Kenneth W. Starr give us an interesting article today at NRO, entitled “High-Tech Federalism.” The authors present some questions that need to be asked as our nation considers the role of state and local government in regulating telecommunications and other hi-tech sectors.

As the authors point out, emerging technologies render state regulation of cable and telecom obsolete in many respects. They conclude:

The old natural monopoly required economic oversight from guardians of the public interest. Today regulators need a keen eye for government-imposed barriers that can be swept away, so that technology and competition can bring consumers the ever greater wonders of the telecommunications revolution. Lowering regulatory barriers to investment and competition is not an abandonment of the states' role, but a leadership strategy that will benefit everyone.

Of course, there COULD be instances where it might be appropriate for the state to abandon its traditional role in regulation. Our country is growing ever more connected, and that technologically-driven interconnectedness may suggest re-examination of existing regulatory regimes. Sometimes it is prudent to ask whether the federal government or respective state governments can best serve as the regulatory overseer of competitive markets.

By its very text, our constitution empowers congress to regulate interstate commerce. And by implication, it frowns upon a state or states imposing regulatory costs upon other states. Claims for "states' rights" are sometimes nothing more than mere rhetoric employed special-interest, monopolistic or bureacratic institutions that seek to protect their fiefdoms.

If new technologies and developments in commerce can offer enhanced consumer protection and choice under new regulatory approaches, we should give such approaches careful consideration.

(Downtown Seattle, WA)

2005-04-27T13:04:00.000-07:00

BEST OF THE WEB! I'm pleased to see that my name is credited at the bottom of today's "Best of the Web," by James Taranto at Opinion Journal. My tip was the article that comprised today's entry "Is There a Fungus Among Us?" (See the bottom of the page.)

Hopefully, I'll still have a moment to enjoy what's left of my fifteen seconds by the time I'm finished with this blog post!

(Downtown Seattle, WA)

2005-04-27T09:24:00.000-07:00

ALIEN JURISPRUDENCE (or Roper vs. Simmons Sucks, Part III) At The Remedy, Ken Masugi links to and discusses the recent NRO article by EPPC's Edward Whalen "Alien Justice: Ruth Bader Ginsburg vs. the Declaration of Independence."

A growing concern has been the outsourcing of constitutional authority to foreign tribunals--this done by members of our own U.S. Supreme Court. This happened most recently in Roper vs. Simmons, a recent death penalty case that I also discuss here and here.

The members of our own high court have taken an oath to uphold and defend our own constitution. But invoking foreign popular opinion to influence the outcome of important court decisions runs counter to our own Declaration of Independence, as Whalen discusses.

Let me be clear: it is not wrong to cite treaties made with foreign countries or to cite foreign court decisions, per se. (Looking to foreign documents in order to ascertain the original understanding of an ambiguous provision in our constitution or in federal law in adjudicating a case, for instance.) But it is highly problematic for a judicial officer charged with expounding our constitution and federal laws to rely on them as a mere source of popular world opinion that our courts should base their opinions upon.

Its difficult to figure out just HOW authoritative Justice Ginsburg considers foreign court decisions. As Whalen notes:

[Justice Ginsburg] emphasizes that she does not regard foreign decisions as "controlling authorities." Could those foreign decisions be the tipping factor in a particular case? Ginsburg doesn't expressly say so, but she gives no reason why that couldn't happen. Nor does she offer any principle to determine what weight they should have. In short, she has no response to Scalia's criticism: "To invoke alien law when it agrees with one's own thinking, and ignore it otherwise, is not reasoned decisionmaking, but sophistry."

Masugi has some tough words in this regard, describing Justice Ginsburg's statements as "throwaway lines" and "smoke intended to cover up her agenda."

I think it likely that many international law professors WANT the Supremes to look to foreign court decisions and foreign opinion as CONTROLLING AUTHORITIES. But the American people won't accept that. Such elitists may hope to bring the American people along slowly to such a situation. But to do so they'll have to get around the Declaration of Independence and a constitution whose authority is derived from "We the People, of the United States..."

(Downtown Seattle, WA)

2005-04-21T10:12:00.000-07:00

SOULLESS CLONES SCOURING OUR SEWERS! Timothy Goddard has a delightfully funny blog post responding to a recent letter to the editor that appeared in The Herald (Snohomish County, WA), attacking our recent op-ed on cloning legislation in Washington State.

(Downtown Seattle, WA)

2005-04-20T12:29:00.000-07:00

STATE HOUSE MAJORITY CREATES A BACK-DOOR CLONING BILL? E2SSB 5581 – The Life Sciences Discovery Fund Bill – passed the Senate with a strong ban on human cloning. Unsatisfied with idea that the State should NOT condone and fund the growing of human life for the sake of destroying it and harvesting it for resources, amendments were made in House committees to the bill.

The House version of E2SSB 5581 gives the green light to state funded human cloning. The bill now goes back to the Senate for concurrence. Senate debate is expected soon.

The Senate passed a bill on the Life Sciences Discovery Fund (available here). The Senate version defined "human being" and cloning in an honest, straight-forward manner and stated:

No person shall knowingly clone a human being, participate in cloning a human being, or attempt to clone a human being.

Senate should stick with what they already passed and REJECT the House’s blank check for human cloning.

If the Senate does NOT concur with the House’s changes, then the bill will be sent to a joint conference committee to hammer out the disagreements.

This debate does NOT have to be about the Life Sciences Discovery Fund. We can still have the fund without calling for human cloning. The Senate version of E2SSB 5581 allows for precisely this. But fifty-three members of the House have muddied the waters. They have called for human cloning in this legislation—using the people’s money, no less.

I acknowledge that all sorts of arguments have been raised about the funding of the project contemplated by the bill--whether the money should come from private industry, whether it is right that we divert money the state will receive from tobacco companies via the Master Settlement Agreement into biotech, etc. On the other hand, biotech and life sciences research offers a variety of benefits for humankind and our way of life. But if THESE sorts of arguments were all that this bill was about, I wouldn’t bother to weigh in.

Growing human life solely for the purpose of destroying it as a natural resource is wrong. The Senate version of E2SSB 5581 does not conflict with this necessary truth. Sadly, the House version opens the door to ethically dangerous practices.

Last Wednesday’s edition of The Herald featured an op-ed co-authored by myself and fellow Sound Politics contributor Timothy Goddard. We identified the ethical dangers associated with EHB 1268. Granted, the House version of E2SSB 5581 would not explicitly enshrine human cloning into Washington State law the way EHB 1268 would. Nonetheless, the House’s E2SSB 5581 would allow funding for the very same thing.

(Cross-blogged at Sound Politics.)

(Downtown Seattle, WA)

2005-04-20T09:31:00.000-07:00

SIEGEL AT PLU: POLITICS & POPULISM. Last night I made it down to Pacific Lutheran University (where I'm an alumn) to hear KTTH morning talk show host and author Mike Siegel speak to the PLU College Republicans. Siegel is a passionate speaker and entertaining, as always. His brand of populism in politics and talk radio certainly has strong appeal.

This was the first time I'd walked on the PLU campus, that I can recall, in five years. It made me miss the place. Hopefully, the PLU CRs will have plenty more events next year. Patrick Bell--whom I was glad to meet for the first time--is part of the group and one of the participants at their Respectfully, Republican blog. He assured me that they will have plenty in store for the fall.

(Downtown Seattle, WA)

2005-04-19T15:43:00.000-07:00

HOLSTEIN SPEAKS OUT AGAINST SPITZER. For some reason, I always enjoy reading articles about New York’s controversial Attorney General, Eliot Spitzer. He is a lightning-rod lawyer, with some fierce backers and strong detractors. In a prior blog post, I pointed to a Weekly Standard article that took AG Spitzer to task. Today’s Opinion Journal contains a shorter op-ed by William J. Holstein, which questions some of AG Spitzer’s actions and raises a conflict-of-interest question on a pending investigation by the NY AG’s office.

Most interesting to me is Holstein’s accusation that Spitzer abuses his of power through public bullying and intimidation:

So the New York attorney general both charges and convicts in the court of public opinion. This pattern of overcriminalization is of deep concern to many chief executives. The proper process is for judges or juries to convict defendants only after convincing themselves that a charge has been proven "beyond a reasonable doubt." Too much publicity can be deemed prejudicial.

While the office of Attorney General is (in most places) an elected, political office, the role is so closely tied with the legal process that a state’s top lawyer should be very careful in public comments. According to Holstein, the powerful AG Spitzer is ambitiously eyeing the Governorship of NY and using the powers of his office for political gain.

This is interesting stuff, and I must admit that I look forward to AG Spitzer’s campaign for Governor (as well as the race to determine his successor) simply for further discussion of how he has conducted himself as NY’s AG and for further analysis about the proper role for AGs in politically and legally charged world of today.

(Downtown Seattle, WA)

2005-04-18T22:43:00.000-07:00

HUGH HEWITT ON LOOMING SHOWDOWN OVER SENATE DEMS OBSTRUCTION & THE CONSTITUTIONAL OPTION. Via Radioblogger comes the transcript of Hugh Hewitt’s debate with the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights’ Nancy Zirkin, moderated by Larry Kudlow (of "Kudlow & Company," on CNBC).

Larry Kudlow:

…Is Robert Novak right? Does Bill Frist have the votes? Or are some of the people you've been interviewing on your radio show right, and there's six or eight deserters in the Republican ranks? In other words, how does the politics play out in your view, Hugh?

Hugh Hewitt:

Well, I think John McCain went with the Democrats for the illegal obstruction. They're concerned about Senator Hagel, Senator Chafee, Senator Snowe. If Senators Chafee and Snowe vote against their party, they will be thrown out of office in 2006. I do want, Larry, to point out one important distinction between the way I'm arguing and the way Nancy is arguing. The internet is full of hate speech, calling Jim Dobson the Ayatollah bin Dobson, referring to the American Taliban, to Bill Frist's Jihadists. You just heard Nancy use very charged terms of theocracy, the radical, extreme right-wing. If all of these judges are in fact those things, they will not receive majority support. The Senate elections of 2004 and 2002 were fought on these very issues. The Republicans won on these very issues. Nancy holds a losing hand, because the American people don't agree with her as to how the mainstream is defined. And that's why next week at this time, I think Senator Frist is going to appeal the Democrats' illegal use of the cloture rule, to block appeals court judges, and he will be upheld by the Chair, and supported by a majority, including Ben Nelson of Nebraska, a Democrat.

The proponents of the unprecedented filibuster of ten appellate court nominees shriek at the prospect of majority rule in one of the chambers of our legislative branch. But the majority of the American people should also give them worry.

Curiously, as Radioblogger points out, Zirkin never did respond to Hewitt’s challenge from earlier in the debate, when he asked her to name a single judicial nominee that had been filibustered besides Justice Abe Fortas.

In any event, a couple months ago I had a chance to look through an interesting article in The Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy entitled “The Constitutional Option to Change Senate Rules and Procedures: A Majoritarian Means to Overcome the Filibuster.” It was written by Martin B. Gold and Dimple Gupta. The article analyzes Senate battles over the years that related to prospective Senate rule changes to overcome minority filibustering. The current debate over the rule change is nothing new. Only the filibustering of appellate court nominees is new—and it has gone on for too long.

Spike the Underdog (aka Matt Cole),a recent addition to my blogroll, has an excellent post on the filibustering follies, entitled “Pirates of the Senate.”

(North Seattle--Green Lake, WA)

2005-04-18T16:35:00.000-07:00

AN INTELLIGENT GUY TACKLES INTELLIGENCE REFORM. Today’s Wall Street Journal contains an article by WaPo’s James Hoagland, briefly discussing Chief Judge Richard Posner’s forthcoming book “Preventing Surprise Attacks : Reforming Intelligence in the Wake of 9/11.” According to Hoagland, Judge Posner provides a blistering critique of the post-9/11 reform efforts, including those recommended by the 9/11 Commission. Apparently, Judge Posner criticizes the makeup of the 9/11 Commission entire approach toward intelligence reform.

The bottom line for Hoagland: “You can't read this book and come away believing that Congress has fixed the problem.”

Having previously read some materials related to the 9/11 attacks—including the Report of the 9/11 Commission, I look forward to purchasing and reading Judge Posner’s book for an additional perspective. One need not always agree with Judge Posner—and one can certainly have strong disagreement with his utilitarianism—but he has a sharp mind and likely has some very interesting things to say about bureaucratic reform and the American intelligence community. And when it comes to national security, one should NEVER have sacred cows or be afraid of re-examine EVERYTHING.

Judge Posner comprises one half of the Becker-Posner Blog. Speaking of blogs, at present there is little mention of Posner’s new book on the blogosphere. A Technorati search left me coming away empty-handed. (UPDATE [5:02pm]: I did find a brief mention of the book at NRO's The Corner.) This would largely be due to the fact that the release date is not until July. But one should expect to hear plenty about Preventing Surprise Attacks—in both the old and new media--once it finally hits the shelves.

(Downtown Seattle, WA)