Oct
31
2005
Finally, we have been given a nominee that conservative of all stripes can get behind! Samuel A. Alito, Jr. is just what we have wanted…
The Supreme Court is an institution that I have long held in reverence. During my 29 years as a public servant, I’ve had the opportunity to view the Supreme Court from a variety of perspectives — as an attorney in the Solicitor General’s Office, arguing and briefing cases before the Supreme Court, as a federal prosecutor, and most recently for the last 15 years as a judge of the Court of Appeals. During all of that time, my appreciation of the vital role that the Supreme Court plays in our constitutional system has greatly deepened.
I argued my first case before the Supreme Court in 1982, and I still vividly recall that day. I remember the sense of awe that I felt when I stepped up to the lectern. And I also remember the relief that I felt when Justice O’Connor — sensing, I think, that I was a rookie — made sure that the first question that I was asked was a kind one. I was grateful to her on that happy occasion, and I am particularly honored to be nominated for her seat.
My most recent visit to the Supreme Court building was on a very different and a very sad occasion: It was on the occasion of the funeral of Chief Justice William Rehnquist. And as I approached the Supreme Court building with a group of other federal judges, I was struck by the same sense of awe that I had felt back in 1982, not because of the imposing and beautiful building in which the Supreme Court is housed, but because of what the building, and, more importantly, the institutions stand for — our dedication as a free and open society to liberty and opportunity, and, as it says above the entrance to the Supreme Court, “equal justice under law.”
This nomination will not only put a proven conservative on the bench, but seems likely to give us all the ideological fight we have been itching for. Actually, this is shaping up not just to be a fight, but a Battle Royal! Well, I don’t know about the Dems, but we’re ready!
Oct
28
2005
This is a few days late (sorry, we had a bit of weather down here!), but according to the Main Stream Media, it seems that on October 25th we reached some sort of artificial milestone: 2,000 of our country’s best and brightest have died liberating Iraq. As is the case with most things done by the MSM, this “milestone” is only recognized for it’s negatives, with no mention of anything positive that the sacrifice of those brave 2,000 men and women has attained, nor any mention of the fact that the reality of Iraq is so much better than what most had expected. Senator Patrick Leahy (Democrat-Vermont) even used the occasion to suggest we cut and run from Iraq the way we cut and run from Vietnam. All I can say is if we do what Senator Leahy (Democrat-Vermont) suggests then we will guarantee that those 2,000 soldiers did indeed die for nothing, and sign the death sentences of hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions of Iraqi citizens. You know the ones, those with the purple fingers.
Oct
27
2005
Salute as they walk by
Filed Under War and Terrorism | Comments Off
Salute as they walk by
Filed Under War and Terrorism | Comments Off
The Salt Lake Tribune offers some good news of stout patriotism.
For his part, Sgt. 1st Class John Kyle Hill, who served two stints in Afghanistan as a medic with the 19th Special Forces, is staying in and hoping for another tour. Hill, a Nebo School District high school science teacher, said that unlike many of his students, his comrades are highly motivated.“We lived on the edge in a life-and-death situation,” said Hill, 42. “There was no apathy, no laziness. It was ennobling. It was the greatest thing I’ve ever done.”
1st Lt. Bruce Bishop, 31, a Salt Lake County firefighter, said he’ll stay “because as I look around at the state of this nation and see all of the weak little pampered candy-asses that are whining about this or protesting that, I’d be afraid to leave the fate of this nation entirely up to them.”
Best of the Web
Oct
27
2005
Miers withdraws
Filed Under Law and Ethics | 3 Comments
Miers withdraws
Filed Under Law and Ethics | 3 Comments
Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination for Associate Justice to the Supreme Court.
I’m not sorry to have been an early critic calling for withdrawal, and I’m grateful we had the chance to discuss some serious problems in the Republican Party.
Other than that, I’d just as soon put the whole business behind us and get on to a new nominee that better exemplifies the principles of judicial restraint, and who won’t run from a fight over conservative principles. Mr. President, the ball is back in your court.
UPDATE: National Review imitates The Black Republican:
It follows that President Bush should pick the most qualified and confirmable conservative he can find – male or female. Such a fight could be the way out of the president’s current trough…. Bush and conservatives on both sides of the Miers debate should now let bygones be bygones, and stand together in the fight they will now almost certainly face.
Oct
27
2005
Back to work
Filed Under Internet and Blogging | 1 Comment
Back to work
Filed Under Internet and Blogging | 1 Comment
Hurricane Wilma has blown past, and after a week of long drives and hurricane shudders, we’re back from bliatus. Unfortunately, I’m now sick with a cold, but I’m trying to catch up as best I can. Stay tuned.
Oct
20
2005
Going On Wilma Induced Bliatus
Filed Under Internet and Blogging | 2 Comments
Going On Wilma Induced Bliatus
Filed Under Internet and Blogging | 2 Comments
Bliatus, is my new word, combining blogging and hiatus. The most recent hurricane is predicted to come this way (Naples, FL.), and, taking my own advice, I have begun preparing to leave. I will not be in here again until the danger passes.
See you again after the storm.
Oct
18
2005
Well, the political correctness crowd has decided the state seal of Massachusetts is demeaning to Indians, shows the Indian in “improper attire”, and the heraldic sword over the design represents how Massachusetts colonists “subdued the Native Americans and took their land.” Naturally, they are proposing it be changed. There’s one huge problem the PCers have overlooked: the seal was designed by John Hancock in 1780.
Why is that a problem? If John Hancock put a “badly-dressed Indian” on a shield and waved a sword over his head as a symbol of vigilance, who says it’s even an Indian in the first place?
Oct
16
2005
Let us share a moment of silence…
Filed Under Entertainment and Sports | Comments Off
Let us share a moment of silence…
Filed Under Entertainment and Sports | Comments Off
As we visit The Black Madonna for a prayer.
Oct
16
2005
“This is Mathew Brady, reporting live from Atlanta…”
Filed Under History | Comments Off
“This is Mathew Brady, reporting live from Atlanta…”
Filed Under History | Comments Off
Continuing our tertiary mission to catalogue interesting references to the Civil War, I found this from Cliff May at NRO:
If there had been an MSM like today’s after the U.S. Civil War, imagine how they’d have covered the “insurrection” of the Ku Klux Klan. “Wolf, there’s been another lynching down here but when you consider the services that got knocked out in Atlanta after Gen. Sherman came through… well, people are obviously disappointed and angry and I think this puts the Union’s credibility on the line again.”Interestingly, the very next post at The Corner is a wonderful tale of anti-Semitic “evangelical” hypocrisy, courtesy of John Podhoretz. They seem to be hitting all the right buttons over there today.
Oct
15
2005
It’s hard for a student to stand up against a teacher he admires, but today I’m forced to do it.
The former publisher of National Review, William A. Rusher, who first taught me who the conservatives are and that I was one of them, has posted an op-ed backing the Miers nomination.
So I am left to conclude that my conservative brethren who oppose her are primarily upset because her nomination hasn’t triggered the all-out battle with the left to which they were looking forward (and to which, be it added, the left was looking forward as much as they were). If Bush had nominated Judge Luttig or Judge Owen – well-established conservatives with paper trails as long as your arm – the Democrats would have had a fit and launched a filibuster. The Republicans would then have blocked that with the nuclear option (changing the Senate rules) and confirmed the nominee with their 55 votes. A sure and solid victory for conservatism!What’s curious is that the current editorial board of the conservative magazine-of-record Rusher helped found has also decided to take up sides against their mentor.Or so the theory goes. But could we count on Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, or those two liberals from Maine, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe? Would John McCain be willing to scupper the filibuster at last, as a weapon in judicial confirmations? And what about that famous wobbler from Ohio, George Voinovich?
Look before you leap, my friends. And reconsider the merits of Harriet Miers.
Some conservatives have called on the president to withdraw her nomination, and a few have urged senators to vote against her. If the president withdrew the nomination, we believe that he would seek a replacement who could unite conservatives — as he no doubt expected Miers to unite them. But that nominee would be tarnished, perhaps fatally, by the suspicion that the president was forced to pander to the Right. The president, moreover, surely does not want to risk looking less than strong and steadfast. The prudent course is for Miers to withdraw her own nomination in the interests of the president she loyally serves. The president could then start over. Both he and his party would probably benefit from having the clear fight over the direction of the courts that only a new nominee would allow.The case for Miers was weak to begin with. The White House’s reflexive backhanding of conservatives and the whispers of recriminations against principled ideologues who won’t tow the party line made it worse. This site may be called The Black Republican, but our subtitle should give you ample warning that our raison d’être is to defend enduring principles – we are not a cult of personality for any man, woman, or fad of the moment.
The one thing you can’t show us with relation to Miss Miers – for all her admirable qualities and niceties – is a record of enduring principles.
ADDENDUM: For those who continue to be confused over the difference between our firm support for the still-somewhat-mysterious Chief Justice, and my lack of support and growing antipathy for this nomination (note: NOT the person, but the nomination), that’s it right there in a nutshell. John Roberts may have been elusive in how he’ll rule on specific cases – and properly so – but his record AND tesitmony spoke of a clear, resolved, and fixed dedication to principles rooted in the Constitution and interpreted according to the law.
Miss Miers’ testimony could reinforce what we know of her grasp of business law, and enlighten us to the details of a topic we shouldn’t even ask her about – her personal religious faith. The only other discussion that will jibe with her record is a four-day discussion of her fawning devotion to George W. Bush. This is not the Supreme Court nomination we were repeatedly promised.
UPDATE: David Frum takes us from the sublime to the ridiculous.
Oct
14
2005
Happy Birthday, Lady Thatcher!
Filed Under History | 2 Comments
Happy Birthday, Lady Thatcher!
Filed Under History | 2 Comments
A day late, I saw this post at NRO’s The Corner and followed the link to check out what nice things people might be saying to Lady Thatcher on the occasion of her 80th birthday. Take some time and visit there yourself – but run to the bathroom and stick a finger down your throat first. I think I might just skip lunch today.
Oct
12
2005
Chasing An Absurdity
Filed Under Law and Ethics | 1 Comment
Chasing An Absurdity
Filed Under Law and Ethics | 1 Comment
The morning lady on our local AM talk radio station made a strange statement today, she suggested the Wailing Wall be moved out of the Middle East. Her theory was that if the wall was not there, the two factions, Jewish and Arab, would not be fighting over the same land.
There is so much wrong with that idea that one hardly knows where to begin in disputing the notion. And, since she is a good girl, with a great track record of being on the right side of the issues; it is also important to acknowledge that she seemed to be on a trip of exploring unworkable ideas. Like her idea of dropping ice cubes into the tropics to destroy hurricanes. So, one must wonder how serious to take her, and how serious she took herself today. After all, these shows are ratings driven, she may have been attempting to drive participation, without any belief in the radical ideas she proposed. That said.
The notion that the Wailing Wall should be moved is perhaps the ultimate example of the damage done by eminent domain. For the Wailing Wall has been known even longer as the Western Wall, the western most wall of the Temple Of Solomon, a Hebrew Temple. It is also the western foundation of the Temple Mount, which contains the Islamic shrine, the Dome of the Rock. And, the Jewish people have only the least possible ability to visit their sacred ground due to the repressive mandates of those who now claim the territory as theirs. The new owners did not recieve the land in a business deal, they demanded its ownership, took it, and dictate its use without regard for the views of those who owned it before. No amount of money would satisfy the previous owner, even if such were offered, it is the land they hold precious. And, the dispute over use of the land is a driving force keeping these two peoples apart.
As the Muslims believe the Temple Mount is the location upon which their Prophet Muhammad died, and then from which he ascended to Heaven; it is understandable that they hold the site in reverence. What is unfortunate, and the source of so much Hebrew/Muslim animous, is the refusal of the Muslims to permit the Jewish people full use of the site as well. While the Muslims revere the property, the Jews have a longer, and equally important claim to it. One could say, in a manner, the Jewish people have lost their property rights to another religion’s claim of eminent domain.
Or do I overstate the case?
Well, that is one part of what occurred to me when Mandy spoke of moving the wall. A plan which is impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible. Gosh, that phrase sounds familiar. Could that be where she was headed? Naw!…..must just be a coincidence.
Oct
10
2005
What wonderful idea, this mail box was converted to accept used flags for proper disposal. This site is beside a fire department, I suppose they handle the flags. They also remind us to thank those who have fought to keep us free. Thank a Vet, indeed.
Oct
9
2005
White Legislator Denied Membership In Black Caucus
Filed Under Race and Prejudice | Comments Off
White Legislator Denied Membership In Black Caucus
Filed Under Race and Prejudice | Comments Off
Filing lapses could make Black Caucus vulnerable to problems with IRS – Friday, 10/07/05
The article headlines the issues the Tennessee legislature’s Black Caucus may have with the Internal Revenue Service. But also reports the racial inequities of the group.
Oct
7
2005
The Book Bennett Referenced
Filed Under Education | Comments Off
The Book Bennett Referenced
Filed Under Education | Comments Off
Look at the next link to see what the Dr. Leavitt, author of Freakonomics had to say about Bill Bennett’s remarks. Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner – William Morrow, 2005 He makes it clear that he did broach the subject of race, Bennett did not initiate the subject, BB reflected what he got from reading Leavitt. So, let’s put the myth that Bennett started that talk to rest.
When you read the comments, make certain to get far enough to read Steve Sailor’s remarks, where he takes Leavitt to task.
But let’s get real. Last Spring, when Levitt was the toast of American intellectual life, everybody who was proclaiming his wonderfulness knew deep down that his abortion-crime theory was still based in large measure on aborting black fetuses, but nobody would come out and say it.
I was the only one who kept pointing out the new emperor of the bestseller lists had no empirical clothes, but nobody cared, because the unwritten message of Freakonomics — no black, no crime, as Stalin might have said — seemed so convincing.
Also, look at Sailer’s article on the fuss raised over Bennett’s remarks.