Posted by Dodo David at 06:02 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Turning Back the Clock - Good

I love this woman; you all know that. Which woman?

Well, Ted "Sponge-Liver Square-Face" Kennedy" had this to say about her:

[W]hat has not ended is the resolution and the determination of the members of the United States Senate to continue to resist any Neanderthal that is nominated by this President of the United States for any court, federal court in the United States.

Ah, yes. That new N word was spoken with judges like Janice Rogers Brown in mind. She just wrote the majority opinion affirming a dying patient's right to life-saving, though experimental, drugs.

Neanderthal, indeed.

Posted by Aaron at 05:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

More Sad Days ahead for Military Haters

8-0 SCOTUS decision: if you have your stinkin' hand out for free federal money, military recruiters must be allowed on campus.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that colleges that accept federal money must allow military recruiters on campus, despite university objections to the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays.

Posted by Aaron at 10:38 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

More Government Censorship

The following painting was banned by a judge in Virginia:

A federal judge has ruled against a public school teacher who filed a lawsuit after administrators removed Christian-themed postings from his classroom, including a depiction of George Washington praying at Valley Forge and news clippings about the faith of President Bush and former Attorney General John Ashcroft.

The postings, removed at the beginning of the 2004-05 school year after a parent complained, included news articles about Bush's Christian faith and Ashcroft's prayer meetings with staffers.

I don't understand why it's legal to ask students to observe Ramadan in California but not discuss Christianity in Virginia.

Posted by Aaron at 02:28 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

It's Never Their Fault

Joseph Smith cried to the judge last week when a Florida jury voted 10-2 for him to receive the death penalty. He was convicted of raping and murdering 11-year-old Carlie Brucia in 2004. He was caught on a car wash video surveillance camera grabbing Carlie as she walked home from a friend's house. Sentencing will be on March 15.

Smith told [Judge] Owens he had been a heroin addict since he was 19 and had unsuccessfully tried to quit several times. He said his wife had kicked him out of their home in January 2004 and he had lost his job when in the hours before abducting Carlie he tried to overdose.

"I just wanted to die that day," he said. But, he said, "I take responsibility of my crimes."

He wanted to die that day, but instead took the life of a young girl after brutally raping her. He says he takes responsibility for his crimes. But the responsibility obviously ends when his own life is endangered. He says he wants to live for the sake of his own family. How contrived is that?

I have no sympathy for this man. When I think about what this child had to endure before her life was taken away truly sickens me. Where does responsibility for one's actions begin and where does it end?

He had a drug problem and claimed he had difficulty in kicking the habit. He said his drug problems prompted his wife to kick him out of the house.

Carlie was not to blame for Smith's problems, but Carlie ended up as the sacrificial lamb.

I know people who have had drug problems. One of them is now dead due to an overdose. But no one I know ever killed anyone else because of drug problems. And if they had, I would say the same thing.

Many in our society seem more concerned with the feelings of those who commit the crimes than those who are the victims of crime. Personal responsibility is going the way of the horse and carriage. It's no longer fashionable to say, "I did it," but to say, "The [insert excuse here] made me do it."

Opponents of the death penalty are convinced that by utilizing death as punishment, society loses part of its humanity. However, I believe that once you take the life of someone else and the reason can't be attributed to a bonafide accident or self-defense, then you have forfeited your own humanity.

Why should we show mercy to people like Smith when he himself was incapable of the same mercy?

Posted by Pam at 12:55 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Con Law According to Specter (aka Finger Painting)

I worked at Specter's law firm (not as a lawyer) and lately, I wonder how he even got a job there with his legal reasoning. From the UPI:

Specter called the administration's legal reasoning "strained and unrealistic..."

This from a man who a) argues that Roe v. Wade was sound legal reasoning and that it is b) a "super-duper precident." What is this, kindergarten?

Anyone worried about the legality of the Terrorist Surveillence Program because of Specter's opinion should take a breath.

Posted by Aaron at 11:18 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Specter's Questions for General Gonzales

Look at this question from the letter Senator Specter sent to AG Gonzales in preparation for Monday's hearings:

Wasn't President Carter's signature on FISA in 1978, together with his signing statement, an explicit renunciation of any claim to inherent Executive authority under Article II of the Constitution to conduct warrantless domestic surveillance when the Act provided the exclusive procedures for such surveillance?

I love how there is still yet another instance in which Carter surrendered. This time, he surrendered his authority of Commander in Chief. What a great leader.

Posted by Aaron at 12:53 PM | Comments (11) | TrackBack

Senator Lurch Calls for Filibuster of Alito

Does John Kerry still matter?

Sen. John Kerry has decided to support a filibuster to block the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, CNN's Congressional Correspondent Ed Henry reported Thursday.

Kerry, in Davos, Switzerland, to attend the World Economic Forum, was marshaling support in phone calls during the day, Henry said.

Ah, yes. Davos. That seems to be the place to make ludicris statements.

Posted by Aaron at 04:32 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Court Rules Spanking Advocate Should be Reinstated in Graduate Studies

We all remember how the school expelled Scott McConnell because his dissertation advocated corporal punishment of children and decried multiculturalism. Remember, colleges want diversity except conservatism. Well, Le Moyne College will have to suffer Scott McConnell again!

Yesterday, a New York appeals court ordered Le Moyne College to reinstate Scott McConnell in its graduate education program. The school took first prize in the Collegiate Network's 2005 Campus Outrage Awards (the "Pollys") after the administration expelled McConnell for writing a paper rejecting multiculturalism and advocating light spanking in elementary school classrooms. Despite receiving an "A-minus" on the paper and earning exemplary grades in all his coursework, McConnell received a letter from the Director of his program stating: “I have grave concerns regarding the mismatch between your personal beliefs regarding teaching and learning and the LeMoyne College program goals…. You will not be allowed to register for any additional courses. Your registration for Spring 2005 courses has been withdrawn.”

The NY appeals court ruled, however, that Le Moyne had failed to respect McConnell's due process rights. The college's own handbook states that a student may not be disciplined or expelled simply for expressing unorthodox views. Terry Pel, president of the Center for Individual Rights, the group that represented McConnell during the legal proceedings, commented on the appeals court decision: "Institutions that claim to believe in academic freedom cannot selectively protect only the speech they happen to favor."

Good for him. I hope he publishes his dissertation for all of us to read.

Posted by Aaron at 04:07 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Overreach?

Everyone is (rightfully) up in arms over that Vermont judge giving that pedophile only 60 days in jail for continually raping a seven year old girl for four years.

Now, Ace points to a 24 year old man who trapped a 15 year old boy in his jeep and assaulted him.

But this case here seems a little light for a sexual assault case:

Hoff told the boy other friends had canceled on plans for dinner and a movie, but he still took him out. The boy said Hoff hugged him while driving and being sexually aroused. The boy broke away from Hoff, who told him, "still looking good buddy."

"I'm truly sorry to the court and would like to offer my heartfelt apologies to both Jeb and [the 17-year-old boy]," Hoff said during his sentencing hearing.

So the 17 year old (hardly a child) already knows how to hustle for 20 bucks. The only contact was the hugging. Is this sexual assault or is it harrassment? Should the dude be in jail or wouldn't losing his job and paying a hefty fine be appropriate?

Posted by Aaron at 11:24 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Nice!

Chairman Ann always improves my mood:

The Federalists drafted the greatest political philosophy ever written by man and created the first constitutional republic. The anti-Federalists – or "pre-Democrats, as I call them – were formed to oppose the Constitution, which, to a great extent, remains their position today.

Having won that one, today's Republican Party stands for life, limited government and national defense. And today's Democratic Party stands for ... the right of women to have unprotected sex with men they don't especially like. We're the Blacks-Aren't-Property/Don't-Kill-Babies party. They're the Hook-Up party.

And then there's this:

"Give me liberty or give me the right to have unprotected sex with men I don't want to have a child with" just isn't that attractive a principle in the light of day.

Precisely.

Posted by Aaron at 09:40 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

They Should be Executed

I really wanted to throw up when I read this horrifying story:

An AIDS activist was one of two people accused of sex crimes against a 13-year-old boy last year over several weeks.

Deputies last week arrested Douglas Wayne Murphy, 43, who lives at the same address as Yow, on the same charges. His bond was also set at $1.5 million.

If they are found guilty, they should be executed--but unfortunately that is not an option.

Posted by Aaron at 03:14 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

I Was Under the Impression...

...that the SCOTUS hearings were about the nominee -- in this case, Justice Samuel Alito.

However, hearing that there were opening statments from each of the 18 members on the Senate Judiciary Committee, I begin to wonder.

When he finally was given the chance to speak, Alito gave an 11-minute speech regarding his background and the fact that a good judge "can't have any agenda."

If the senators on the committee each spoke for 11 minutes (I don't know how long any of them spoke for; I can't find a breakdown), then it meant over three hours of Alito and the rest of us having to stay awake. (And yes, I know the majority of senators on the committee are Republicans...that doesn't make them less prone to grandstanding. It's the prerogative of a politician.)

What I am looking forward to is Alito putting his critics in their places. Somehow, I am not too worried about him.

Posted by Pam at 09:55 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Class Action Lawsuit to Stop Katrina Cleanup

I am a little torn by this and cannot decide how I come down on this issue:

Angry residents and protesters in New Orleans' devastated Lower 9th Ward clashed with workers who were using bulldozers to clear debris from a sidewalk Thursday.

City officials said the workers were clearing rubble from a public sidewalk, saying they have an obligation to do so to make sure it's accessible. But about 30 protesters and residents said that the debris was actually what remains of someone's home.

I guess the question is this: If my house is swept away in wind or flood and it lands on a public road--is that still my property? Or is it right for the government to say that means it was totally destroyed and that they can bulldoze it away? I think it's a hard decision.

Posted by Aaron at 06:13 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Abramoff

Anyone involved in illegalities with Jack Abromoff, Republican or Democrat alike, should be thrown out of office and persecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Get ready for more of that "Culture of Corruption" canard being thrown at the Republican party by a bunch of Democrats, just as dirty.

All of them need to go who are involved with this kind of crap.

Posted by Aaron at 12:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Precisely What We Need in the Hearings

The Washington Post (which has generally been pretty even handed on with Roberts and Alito) has a GREAT glimpse into what the SCOTUS hearings will be like with Judge Alito. Let me cut to the part I like:

But two of Judge Alito's supporters who participated in the murder boards, speaking about the confidential sessions on condition of anonymity for fear of White House reprisals, said they emerged convinced that his demeanor was a political asset because it gave him an Everyman appeal.

Judge Alito "had no bones about coming back for clarification," the same person said, adding that the judge sometimes stumped the legal experts acting in the roles of senators and suggesting that he could pose an even greater challenge to actual senators reading from staff talking points. Still, both participants emphasized that during the practice sessions, Judge Alito never became heated or combative.

Now, imagine if you will, someone who will call out Durbin and Kennedy and Schumer in front of the nation for all the euphamisms they will try to use like "right to privacy," or "rolling back the clock" and other such blatherings. Kennedy better be sober. I feel that unlike Roberts who believed he was totally qualified, Alito will be damned if they try to do to him what the liberals have done to Bork and Thomas (and in retrospect Scalia).

Posted by Aaron at 10:10 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Liberal Judges Play Games, Bush Gives them the Finger

I wonder what this means:

U.S. President George Bush decided to skip seeking warrants for international wiretaps because the court was challenging him at an unprecedented rate.

But since 2001, the judges have modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for surveillance by the Bush administration, the report said. A total of 173 of those court-ordered "substantive modifications" took place in 2003 and 2004. And, the judges also rejected or deferred at least six requests for warrants during those two years -- the first outright rejection of a wiretap request in the court's history.

I want to know who these judges are and who appointed them and why they feel the need to give Bush a harder time while we are at war than during previous adminstrations.

Posted by Aaron at 01:02 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

The Real Grand Jury

What is Ken Starr doing? Or what about Louis Freeh? Our nation has some work for them to do...

[credit Rush] We now know that leaking classified information from our security agencies is a crime. So it's time to empanel a grand jury and waltz every last member of congress, every employee at NSA and everyone at the New York Times involved in this story in front of them and demand answers. Any member of congress or security agency that is involved with leaking this information should be summarily thrown out of congress or fired, tried and if found guilty jailed.

The Karl Rove/Scooter Libby shoe seems to fit. Let's ask the Democrats to wear it.

Posted by Aaron at 01:24 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Arnold to Tookie: Hasta La Vista, Baby

I believe Arnold made the correct choice--not one based on celebrity fanfare.

Posted by Aaron at 04:06 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

Tookie Riots

This prediction is both disturbing and quite probable:

Four Los Angeles City Council members called for calm Friday as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger considers whether to grant clemency to Crips co-founder and death row inmate Stanley "Tookie" Williams.

"We picked up information that led us to believe that there were some planned and intentioned acts of violence that could occur in the wake of the decision or the execution planned for Stan "Tookie" Williams," Robin Toma, executive director of the Los Angeles County Human Relations Commission, said during a news conference at City Hall.

I can totally believe that there are groups out there that plan on sparking riots to blame it on the Governator--and close behind that President Bush. The MSM will demand a discussion of "race relations" and you will hear all kinds of linkages to the looting during hurricane Katrina [vanden Heuvel]. We will see people saying that Tookie was actually a victim of the same society that left black people to die in New Orleans.

Hollywood actors will go on television and call Arnold a terrorist, gestapo, facist racist. Then they will say that President Bush is one as well because he too could pardon Tookie. A bunch of thugs will be told that this is the perfect time to go rob stores for XBox 360s and then go on television and say they just wanted to give their kid something for Christmas--er, Festivus--but couldn't because of the oppression they face because the GOP cut food stamps to fund their illegal war in Iraq and tax cuts for the rich.

And don't think this will be lost on the confirmation hearings of Judge Sam Alito. Senator Kennedy will go to the floor of the senate and do an "In Judge Alito's America" speech stating that all black people will be executed: "The current administration could not kill all the black people in New Orleans with the hurricane Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby asked Halliburton to create, so the administration nominated someone from the extreme far right-wing of judicial thought to ensure that we can kill all the blacks through execution."

And don't think this will be lost on the international community. Tookie's execution will start a movement to keep Saddam Hussein from being executed because he has written poetry since his capture. The Nobel committee will hastily nominate Saddam for a peace prize for that poetry. Code Pink and the Democratic Party will launch a campaign saying that President Bush, in his illegal war for oil, will have the blood of Saddam (a reverent, poetic, Nobel Prize nominee, repentant example to other dictators in the world) on his hands. Arnold will be blamed for Saddam's execution for the precedent he set in California and Democrats will demand a recall.

What's worse? After writing this satire, I honestly believe it could become true.

Posted by Aaron at 08:25 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

What's In a Nobel Prize Nomination?

Marathon Pundit has an interesting little something about how, when Tookie's supporters bring up that he was nominated for the Nobel Prize, we should remember that Hitler and a few other unsavory folks have received nominations in the past.

Kinda puts things in perspective, doesn't it?

Posted by Pam at 10:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Liberal Hypocrisy on Crime

Tookie Williams should fry simply because he murdered 4 people in cold blood and also started the Crip movement that is responsible for thousands of deaths in SoCal and throughout the nation.

But reading this column, I found something very interesting:

In fact, Williams' own clemency lawyers have stipulated that the jury that convicted him in the 1979 murders of Albert Owens, Yen-I Yang, Tsai-Shai Yang and Yee Chen Lin during two armed robberies was not all-white.

I am not interested in the fact that his jury was not all-white (even though Tookie supporters lie and claim it was); I am interested in these three people: Yen-I Yang, Tsai-Shai Yang and Yee Chen Lin. Wouldn't liberalism say that the murder of these three people was a hate crime? A man murders three people of a different race execution style, shouldn't that be a hate crime? And shouldn't Tookie receive a harsher sentence for his personal ethnic cleansing?

But no, liberals say that a person who executes four people, commits hate crimes against three Asian Americans, but writes children books, deserves clemency.

But if a white man killed some black people, he should be shot on sight. Will Snoop Dogg fight for the life of Scott Peterson?

Posted by Aaron at 12:22 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Alito Blockbuster

WaPo breathlessly reports the following:

As a senior lawyer in the Reagan Justice Department, Samuel A. Alito Jr. argued that immigrants who enter the United States illegally and foreigners living outside their countries are not entitled to the constitutional rights afforded to Americans.

My God! He is an extremist.

Posted by Aaron at 04:12 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Biden: Totally Illogical

Senator Biden this weekend said there might be a filibuster over Judge Alito because of his stance on reapportionment (commonly called "one man, one vote").

So, the best way to save democracy from the hands of evil conservatives who disagree with reapportionment (judicial gerrymandering) is to prevent a vote.

Wow.

Posted by Aaron at 08:16 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

The Man Is a Murderer, but...

What do you think of the following statement?

O.J. Simpson on Friday questioned the system that allowed both him and actor Robert Blake to be found liable for murder after being acquitted in criminal court, calling it "double jeopardy."

"I still don't get how anyone can be found not guilty of a murder and then be found responsible for it in any way shape or form," Simpson said in a phone interview from his Florida home. "... If you're found not guilty, how can you be found responsible? I'd love to hear how that's not double jeopardy."

Honestly, I am torn by it. I believe in my heart that the man is a murderer, but sometimes I do feel that the criminal/civil dichotomy could seem like being tried twice for the same crime. What are your thoughts?

Posted by Aaron at 12:10 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Let the Fireworks Begin!

From Drudge:

Alito rejected abortion as a right; paper shows personal view... Judge Alito, Bush's Supreme Court nominee, wrote that 'the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion' in a 1985 document obtained by the WASHINGTON TIMES.... 'I personally believe very strongly" in this legal position... Developing...

Here's the article.

Posted by Aaron at 09:01 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

Question of Recusal

Do you think that Chief Justice Roberts should or would recuse himself from the upcoming SCOTUS case about presidential war powers?

Personally, I would only say yes if Robert's opinion in the Hamdan case were found in a DC Court of Appeals dissent, but he joined a unanimous three-judge panel. I don't think a person should recuse him/herself for holding the same legal opinion they did in a lower court.

Posted by Aaron at 07:01 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Courts Rule "Parenthood" Unconstitutional

You cannot make this stuff up.

Posted by Aaron at 09:37 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Alito: First Impression

My first impression after seeing the news conference is what a hunk this Alito guy is--a man's man. This is very different than Roberts who was very handsome, but also very soft.

Why was I surprised? Because the man that came out on Monday morning:

looks a heck of a lot better than what I was expecting from his only other pic I could find on the web:

.

Truth be told, Bush likes the handsome guys for the judiciary (Bill Pryor is up there as well).

Posted by Aaron at 12:37 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Fair Assessment by a Democrat

From Senator Lieberman:

When the Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United States is indicted in a criminal case, it is a sad day in the history of our government. While it is important to remember that an indictment is not a conviction, these charges are extremely serious. Our national security, intelligence protocols to protect covert agents and classified information must be protected. Witnesses under oath and in legal proceedings must tell the truth and be held accountable if they do not. The public’s confidence in government has been damaged by this matter and it must be restored. For this reason, Mr. Libby’s resignation is appropriate and necessary.

This indictment is about serious violations of law. It is not about partisan politics or the war in Iraq. Whatever our party affiliation or opinion on the war, we all agree that perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements to a grand jury are inexcusable criminal acts. That is where our shared focus should be so that today’s indictment does not become one more cause of debilitating political divisiveness in our government.

Precisely.

Posted by Aaron at 07:22 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Miers Roundup

Kitty: I know many feel as though the conservatives won, and maybe we have, but we also lost something in the process, too. I was neither for nor against Harriet Miers because I didn't know her. I was appalled by the knee-jerk reaction by the conservatives, which did nothing for Bush and smeared Miers in the process. Their reaction was instant and severe even though they knew relatively nothing about her, and it fed into the ongoing left-wing anti-Bush feeding frenzy. Pam said it best:

You know, all of those Republicans and conservatives who declare that a nominee should be afforded the dignity of a straight up-or-down Senate vote after a timely confirmation hearing really need to check their double standards list. I'm just disgusted with the whole affair.

Posted by Aaron at 01:06 PM | Comments (11) | TrackBack

Let Them Gloat

Democrats are out in force talking about the FAR RIGHT WING influencing the president.

They will eat those words when Bush nominates a judicial conservative and the NARAL, PFAW and Moveon.org types lose their collective minds.

Posted by Aaron at 11:12 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Miers Withdrawl

I hope that conservatives remain respectful of an accomplished attorney who serves our president dutifully; gloating is not appropriate.

Posted by Aaron at 10:52 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

And in Other News...

With all the excitement about possible indictments of White House bigwigs, the "milestone" death in Iraq, and Janet Jackson denying the existence of a secret child from her brief marriage to James DeBarge back in 1984, here's a tidbit that got left by the wayside:

A federal judge upheld the conviction of terror lawyer Lynne Stewart yesterday, finding that a juror who said she was scared into voting guilty is not believable.

But Koeltl said the cleric used his communications from prison to participate in a terrorist conspiracy.

Hmmm...nothing on her support Website as of this writing.

Sentencing is set for December 22. See you in court, counselor.

Posted by Pam at 09:26 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

Perjury Is a SERIOUS Crime

I just want my opinion on the record that perjury attacks the very fabric of our judicial system and is a serious crime whether a prior crime was committed or not.

Posted by Aaron at 03:15 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

I Oppose Miers' Confirmation

Two weeks of patience and wait-and-see did not work. I am coming out officially against the Miers confirmation. Let me make three caveats:

1. Miers is not threatened with a fillibuster. I oppose fillibusters of judicial nominees because if the majority of the senate would approve a nominee put forth by the White House, then that fulfills the advise and consent clause of the constitution.
2. The president, while given the power to select, does not have the power to override the senate. I look to the Bork defeat (which was a travesty if you ask me); Bork was defeated by the majority of the senate--not the fillibuster of a minority.
3. I do not believe that Miers is unqualified. She is simply not the best and must be held accountable to her career choices. If I chose to pursue a course in mathematics and received a PhD in that study, I don't belong on the Supreme Court. Simply because you are a lawyer (even an excellent one) does not you believe you belong on the Supreme Court. I believe the Supreme Court is different than other branches of government. Is Bush the BEST administrator in the nation? Hardly. Are any of the Senators or Representatives the best legislators in the nation? Hardly. But that is NOT the requirement; popular election is the requirement for the Executive and Legislative branch. These branches are beholden to the electorate. Judges are beholden to the constitution and must meet a different standard.

Now, outside of my coming out against Miers, here is my dream scenario: Miers withdraws, Bush selects Janice Rogers Brown, puts Miguel Estrada in her slot and appoints Miers to the 9th or 2nd Circuit.

Miers can still be his third nominee, but only after we see at least ONE written opinion--of which she has none.

I cannot support a SCOTUS nominee for someone for whom I've read no example of a decision--as a judge--on constitutional matters.

I fully support Bush; I believe Miers is an amazing individual; someone else needs to be nominated.

That is only my opinion. I was not elected president or senator so I have no qualifications to support my opinion...it is simply my own.

[Note, I will not carry the water for those opposed to the nomination; I oppose it and will only post/link to information on the nomination going forward. My opinion is known and I will not move foreward to condemn Miers. Bush has the ability to appoint with the Senate's confirmation. My opinion is known, but this is not a political issue; SCOTUS is an apolitical entity and I will treat it as such.]

Posted by Aaron at 08:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Statement Harriet Miers Needs to Make

Question: Random abortion/privacy question...

Answer: Thank you Senator for giving me the opportunity to address this issue. There was a time in our history when the constitution itself said that black Americans were counted as 3/5s of a person. If this were still part of the constitution, I would--and must--vote to uphold it. However, after the nation ratified the 13th and 14th Amendments, I would be required to strike down any law that discusses humanity in portions.

The Roe v. Wade decision did just that: through the use of "trimesters," the court chose to define life and humanity in portions based on 90-day cycles. This is scientifically insufficient, unconstitutional and contrary to the intent of the writers of these amendments.

To illustrate this, we should look to laws against the torture of animals. The law grants rights against abuse and torture of animals, but the law also considers them as "property." What Roe v. Wade argues is that humans (many of whom would survive without the mother) have partial rights or fewer rights than those we would afford to the family dog.

Therefore, I wish to enter into the record that the constitutionality of the Roe decision is both racist, torturous and murderous; were there many murder trials of slave masters who killed their slaves through torture? Remember, these slaves were only considered partially human.

If the legislature, through the will of the people, wish to amend the constitution to define the unborn as "partial humans" as it once did with black Americans, then I would vote to uphold Roe.

Absent that legislation, the constitution forbids such practices that, like it once did black Americans, chooses to define humanity in artificial terms.

[thanks for the correction in the comments]

Posted by Aaron at 07:58 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

What a Difference Three Months Make

A lot can happen in 90 days; many opinions can change. Enter David Frum.

Frum once lauded Harriet Miers as a Dark Horse candidate citing exactly the points the White House now makes for her SCOTUS qualifications:

"...in the Supreme Court sweepstakes: Keep an eye on Harriet Miers, White House counsel. Miers was the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association, a co-managing partner of a 400-lawyer firm in Texas, a one-time Dallas city councilor, and by the by, the personal lawyer to one George W. Bush. She joined his staff as governor, served as staff secretary (Richard Darman's old job) in the first administration, and now oversees the White House's legal work. She is quiet, discreet, intensely loyal to Bush personally, and - though not ideologically conservative - nonetheless firmly pro-life. Plus she's a woman. Double plus - she'd be a huge surprise, and the president loves springing surprises on Washington and those pundits who think they know it all." -David Frum in a column written July, 2005 [emphasis added]

90 days later in his petition:

"For all Harriet Miers' many fine qualities and genuine achievements, we the undersigned believe that she is not that person. An attempt to push her nomination through the Senate will only split the Republican party, damage the Bush presidency, and cast doubts upon the Court itself.

"Sometimes Americans elect Republican presidents, sometimes we elect Democratic presidents. Whatever the differences between the parties, surely we can at least agree on this: Each party owes America its best. President Bush has a wide range of truly outstanding conservative jurists from which to choose. We believe that on second thought he can do better - for conservatism, for the Supreme Court, for America."

Where were his dire warnings a few months ago? If he thought she was unqualified then, why didn't he include this in his "dark horse" analysis?

I suspect that there may be some weak knees that developed after Katrina/Rita/Rove/Libby/DeLay/Brownie/FEMA/Spending making Frum--at the least--inconsistent.

Thanks, Lucianne.

Posted by Aaron at 01:21 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Hallmark Harriet

Is this the state of affairs for our Supreme Court nomination process? I have to decide whether I will support this nominee for SCOTUS based on birthday cards?

Posted by Aaron at 09:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Why I Am Disturbed by Bush's Decision on Miers

Any move by Bush that puts me in agreement with Barry Lynn is disturbing:

"We're picking a Supreme Court justice here, not a Sunday school teacher," said Americans United for Separation of Church and State executive director Rev. Barry Lynn in a statement. "President Bush and his allies should be talking about Miers' knowledge of the Constitution, not the Bible."

I agree completely. And it is insulting to conservatives for the White House to be promoting her theological leanings as qualification to be a SCOTUS justice when we have fought so hard to remove religion from the equation because so many liberals have argued (like they did with Miguel Estrada) that strong religious beliefs should be considered (negatively) during the confirmation process because they can taint a judges judicial views.

I said it before weeks ago: I do not want an "evangelical" or other religious type on the court to vote the right way on Roe. I want a justice to recognize BAD LEGAL REASONING. Many constitutional scholars that support abortion up to an hour before delivery still argue that Roe was a horrible legal decision based on the law.

Also, for the White House to assume that I would be put at ease by the likes of James Dobson is absurd--just as absurd for the liberals and the media to pretend that Pat Robertson speaks for conservatives/Republicans in assasinating Hugo Chavez.

Posted by Aaron at 06:59 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Was the Constitution Written for the 'Reasonable Man' or for 'Philosopher Kings'?

Post to answer constitutional Q&A's...still working completed and bumped

[please know that this is working solely from memory of a class I took 8 years ago; I am not working from any notes]

Imagine my surprise this morning reading the comment to a post I wrote angry and drunk a couple of days ago: I received some really earnest questions/comments about the basic question of Harriet Miers.

The theme of the comments was about standards--who is fit to rule on what? Specifically:

1. What are the supposed/implied qualifictions for a Supreme Cour justice?
2. Who was the constitution's audience in the form it was written?

These are actually extremely profound questions that the political class is forgetting in this nomination progess.

To start from the same starting point, I want to further explain the questions I asked Harriet Mier detractors to answer:

• Why does race and religion require strict scrutiny but gender only require intermediate scrutiny?

One question was why are these categories viewed differently under the law; what mandates a "strict" versus "intermediate" standard of scrutiny? This is probably one of the more important distinctions made in constitutional precident. Let me explain what is actually under scrutiny.

When a law is written, sometimes it can include language that describes a "protected class," such as gender, race or religion. When reviewing legislation, there are levels of scrutiny that have been devised to determine whether a law is in fact constitutional. Most protected classes fall under what is called "strict scrutiny." If a law, in its language, positively identifies a racial group, then it must be examined with the strictest scrutiny (i.e. there better be a damned good reason why "black people" need to be mentioned in the law to sustain its constitutionality).

However, gender is viewed differently. I think a few examples of what a strict scrutiny would require shows why there is a difference: Should all men receive the same OB/GYN benefits under Medicare/Medicaid? Does the government have a responsibility to make sure that every man can become pregnant? Should women be required to sign up for the selective service? Should women be penalized for absenses due to pregnancy? These are cases that many use to assert that gender cannot come under the same scrutiny as race: one could argue that there should be recognized legal differences for women because they are the only gender who can become pregnant--but you cannot make a case why a black female should be treated different than a white female.

• Why does the court require that racial minorities demonstrate "de jure" discrimination to have claim, but white people can claim "de facto" discrimination, like Bakke vs. CA Board of Regents?

There is a distinction when the Supreme Court addresses issues like discrimination. De jure discrimination deals with overt racism; de facto discrimination deals with disparate impacts. To demonstrate de jure discrimination, you need to have evidence of racial animous: "you can't use this toilet because your black because black people are dirty." To demonstrate de facto discrimination, you need to show statistical evidence on how a law will disproportionally affect a protected class: "building this dam at this point will put out of business all of the people further down the river who are all black, but give more jobs to people up river who are all white."

The Supreme Court used to not recognize cases based solely on de facto discrimination when the plaintiffs were black; they required the plaintiffs to find evidence of overt racism. That was, until white people began to complain about affirmative action and quotas. Then the Supreme Court would allow cases brought solely on de facto discrimination showing how someone got higher SAT scores than the average applicant but was rejected.

• Can a justice apply NYT vs. Sullivan to the current GWOT and describe the differences and similarities?

This is too complicated for the real discussion. I think the big question raised is why, since the document is so simply written and short, does someone need to have to spend decades in school, clerkships and judgeships to look at the document and understand what it says.

Take for instance the death penalty. The fifth amendment quite simply states that, "No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...."

The statement on its face shows that there is a legal process in the constitution for the federal government to DEPRIVE LIFE from a person after due process. [This is extended to the states in the Fourteenth Amendment]

Now, how on earth could a justice look at the Fifth Amendment and then say the death penalty is unconstitutional? This is quite plain and simple and can be understood by any reasonable/literate person. I believe this is the point Tom is trying to make--that one of the geniuses of the constitution is that it is understood by the public and doesn't need a "higher class" or group of "nobles" to divine its meaning to the public. Which is also why there are no professional credentials specified in the constitution that are required for the position of SCOTUS justice.

So as far as that goes, I agree with Tom. But there needs to be some basis of merit in getting that position and through recent tradition, that basis is through legal scholarship and judicial experience. And I don't disagree that these things can matter in making a decision, but they are not the be all end all in considering a person.

Harriet Miers received her undergraduate degree in Mathematics. What a wonderfully logic-based field of study! And that is also pioneering for a woman because women are very underrepresented in Mathematics. Would I trust a distinguished mathematician on the Supreme Court? I certainly could if that person would bring the same logic required in deriving a proof to deriving a SCOTUS decision. Math is dogmatic and so is conservative judicial philosophy (i.e. it has to be in the constitution--no cheating by grabbing foreign law).

Miers is a distinguished attorney and I can support her nomination. But she would not have been my choice as everyone who reads this site knows.

I hope this answers most of the questions from the prior post here.

Posted by Aaron at 02:25 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

Miers to Appeals Court

This was brought up by both Frum and Kaus and sounds like a perfectly reasonable solution to the problem with the President and his base: Grab Owen or Brown or Luttig or McConnell off the appeals circuit and appoint Miers to that newly vacant position. She won't be fillibustered (gang of fourteen already said they wouldn't for the SCOTUS position); she will get appeals court experience, and she will have two years to have some cases under her belt. If Ginsburg or Stephens retire, then he can promote her and she will have all the support in the world from the base.

Posted by Aaron at 01:53 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Constitutional Law Q&A

There were some good comments and questions to my post "Constitutional Scholars Can Suck." I will put up a post to address those questions tonight time permitting...

Posted by Aaron at 04:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Constitutional Scholars Can Suck

My support for Harriet Miers is tepid at best. What I cannot stand is this bemoaning by conservatives who, at best, have little or no knowledge of constitutional law.

I took constitutional law from one of the best undergraduate instructors in the nation: Carol Nackenoff at Swarthmore College (you are more than welcome to look up the names of both for recognition).

What I cannot stand is bloggers (even lawyers) who have no clue about constitutional law arguing against Miers. Case in point: Michell Malkin.

I am sure that she cannot discuss some of the most basic constitutional questions:

• Why does race and religion require strict scrutiny but gender only require intermediate scrutiny?
• Why does the court require that racial minorities demonstrate "de jure" discrimination to have claim, but white people can claim "de facto" discrimination, like Balke vs. CA Board of Regents?
• Can a justice apply NYT vs. Sullivan to the current GWOT and describe the differences and similarities?

Malkin cannot; but I suspect Hewitt and others could. I think we Bush supporters need to understand that even some undergraduates (me included) who can argue constitutional law better thans some lawyers (I worked at Covington & Burling and Dechert--again, look those up if you must) can do better in front of the likes of Kennedy, Schumer or Biden than some people with a keyboard, a degree and a book deal who pretend to know more than Bush. That is what is disgusting.

The likes of Krauthammer (no legal degree), William Kristol (no legal degree) or Michelle Malkin (no legal degree) are in no place to even warrant credibility in the discussion of Harriet Miers except as political hacks who only discuss others in a political framework.

Each deserves their place as pundits; none deserve their wanton criticism of constitutional scholarship.

Posted by Aaron at 09:55 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

Miers Anecdote

Just a story:

A final anecdote. A junior White House staffer got very, very sick. As this person lay dying in the hospital, Harriet visited constantly. Toward the end of this person’s life, Harriet delicately asked whether a will should be executed. One hadn’t been written. No one really wanted to think that the end could be so near. Harriet did it herself, with tears held back and a lock-jawed determination that her young friend’s wishes be honored. All present were awed by Harriet.

Posted by Aaron at 07:11 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Emotional Roadmap

Again, my feelings on Miers are just that: feelings. I wonder if we are all suffering from the Oscar's syndrome. We had all these great performances in movies, but the president awards the Oscar to a stage actress.

Who knows, but Lorie Byrd found a comment at Polipundit I find helpful. I am not all the way to enthusiastic, but I am thawing to the idea of Justice Harriet Miers...

My personal journey … has been from: