|
|
Saturday, November 29, 2003God in DC
Human Events has a photo essay of all the Establishment Clause violations in our nation's capital. Its quite amazing. Opinion Journal has this to say on it. The best line is in the title. "Shh! Don't tell the ACLU!" More to be thankful for. posted by The General @ Bush haters and the Bush haters who hate Bush and write books about their hatred of Bush
Andrew Ferguson at the Weekly Standard has a nice review and analysis of all the Bush-hating books that have come out lately (just in time for the holidays. Nothing says Merry Christmas like a book calling the president a liar). The piece takes a good look at several of the worst anti-Bush books out there. I agree with Ferguson that some of the left's hatred of Bush is part of a response to the Clinton-haters of the 90's (till present). Its sort of an "oh yeah! I know you are but what am I" response. This is particularly true in the context of calling Bush a liar, as demonstrated by this passage from the article:
"The question is why, and the most obvious possibility is that Bush really is a liar: a liar of astounding dimensions, a liar so vast that his lies overwhelm his standing as oligarch, hypocrite, or idiot. Another possibility suggests a reaction to the Clinton years. Of all the accusations leveled against Clinton, the hardest to refute was that he was a liar. Accusing Bush of the same may thus stand as a rebuttal to Clinton's accusers, since Clinton's lies, we were so often told, were about the trivial matter of an illicit liaison, while Bush's lies are about matters of state. (If only Bush had an illicit liaison to lie about!) As James Carville's ghostwriter cleverly puts it in "Had Enough?", "Democrats lied about something we really like: sex. Republicans lie about something they really like: war and money." Calling Bush a liar is a twofer. It at once underscores the gravity of the present president's misconduct, and it condemns the frivolousness of the previous president's accusers." Its a pretty good read, and amusing, too. I recommend it. posted by The General @ The party of the little guy
Billionaires Bundle Funds for Democrats. How refreshing. My favorite quote is: "These are the same people who were screaming for campaign finance reform," said Hollywood Republican activist Lionel Chetwynd. "I would like to compete with the likes of Mr. Soros and Mr. Lear, but frankly, I'm just not rich enough." In 2000, the GOP raised more money from small donors than did the Dems. They'll do it again this time around. Will someone please put to bed the notion that the Dems are the party out to protect the little guy? The Dems response? Blame the Republicans, what else. posted by The General @ "What has he sacrificed for his beliefs? Us. We've been sacrificed."
This is actually an amazing story. Jesse Jackson got booed by a bunch of protestors at a Rainbow Coalition rally. Its not as if these protestors are conservative or anything, but it is a good sign that black folks are openly questioning and criticizing the leadership and motives of these self-appointed Black leaders. Think about it. blacks have been promised so much by the likes of Jackson and Sharpton for so long and what have they gotten for it? Relatively little. Furthermore, if this type of thing occurs more regularly, it may open the door for conservatives to be able to offer their vision of fixing these problems. Like they say, the best welfare program is a job. Conservative ideas for producing the growth that leads to jobs is what the doctor ordered. It now seems that there may be some ears opening to these ideas. It has been a long time in coming and will take a long time, but if the liberal monopoly over the black vote is busted, it may spell the end to many of the racial divisions in our country, which is a good thing. posted by The General @ Friday, November 28, 2003"We didn't want to go to your stupid Thanksgiving, anyway!"
CNN didn't get "invited" for the President's secret Iraq visit. Boo hoo. Of course the trip was super secret, so its possible that the White House went out of its way to limit the number of media in the know. posted by The General @ Thursday, November 27, 2003Bush Rules!
Anti-war types often say that if the leaders pushing for war had their children in the military and at risk they would avoid going to war at all. Well, President Bush took an incredible risk in going to Baghdad to spend Thanksgiving with some troops. It isn't going to war, but in visiting the war zone, he definitely showed some guts. Of course, we all know he is an incredibly brave President, politically, and its more evident that he is brave personally. He definitely showed that he hasn't "forgotten" about the troops fighting to preserve our freedom. What am I thankful for? That our President is an incredible leader. More important ly, Bush was there to thank the people that preserve our freedom. I'm thankful for them. posted by The General @ Tuesday, November 25, 2003Keep it to yourself
I love free speech, particularly political speech. But sometimes its when we don't speak that makes the difference. Tonight, in my last Crim Pro class, my professor, your typical lefty public defender type had to provide all of lawyers to be with some words of wisdom. This is actually unusual at SCU Law, but actually it was a nice idea and a sentiment that could and should be appreciated. But, then the prof started talking. He worried that the USA is not understood by our good friends over in Europe. He thought he USA makes the mistake of not acknowledging the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court at the Hague. He broke down the world's population by stating that if the world were 100 people, the North American would have 13 and the USA only 5. 2/3 is not white or christian, but the USA still has 23% of the world's wealth. Interestingly enough he blamed our culture of entitlement, interesting because this was in the middle of fretting that America was not sharing its resources/wealth/power with unelected eurocrats not accountable in constitutional scheme. The implication was clear: this country has more than it needs, probably because we feel entitled to more. Finally, he harangued about the threat now existing to civil liberties and that granting government more power over these liberties for security will provide us neither security nor liberty.
While I agree with that last sentiment, it was clearly meant to imply that the government is now trying to take away all our liberties without providing any security. I'm surprised he didn't mention the Patriot Act. I actually wonder whether he would have made the same speech if a Democrat were in the White House. Overall, it was just more badmouthing the USA by another leftwing law professor. Anyway, my biggest problem here is what he said. I don't agree, but I've heard it all before. The problem is that he chose class time, which I pay for, to share his politics with us. Its not the first time. He's called Scalia the "midevil" justice before. Like I said, this is not new, but in my estimation its unprofessional for any law professor to attempt to indoctrinate their students into believing what he does. He probably thinks everyone agrees with him, so there no worry that he might offend. It would have been possible to share his words of wisdom, without getting into why he thinks this country stinks. He did say some things worthwhile, for example that we all will take an oath to uphold and defend the constititution. Its just hypocritical that he admires that oath, minutes after he stated that we should give up our sovereignty. This is just part of a larger problem. The problem of teachers and professors using class time to expound on their particular politics, using class to indoctrinate and propagandize rather than teaching. I'm not saying people should speak there mind. But I paid for Crim Pro, not Kroeber's Political Views 101. When I sign up for that class I will expect to hear these leftwing views. Otherwise, I'm hear to learn criminal procedure. He told us that professionalism is a major tenet of our vocation. Apparently not if you are a law professor. I'd appreciate words of wisdom, I just wish there was some wisdom behind the words. UPDATE: I should clarify this post by mentioning that the entire speech was not one long anti-American tirade. The prof did say a couple things about being attorneys that were worth hearing. In addition to the "defending the constitution" portion, the prof did say one other thing that was noteworthy. He told us to never apologize for being lawyers. I thought worth hearing and remembering. But to that I'd add, don't ever apologize for being an American. posted by The General @ Note on Gay Marriage
It is disenguous for people like Wesley Clark to state that they are against gay "marriage" but support all the rights and privileges that accompany it, for homosexual partnerships (Clark: "I think that people who want same-sex relationships should have exactly the same rights as people who are in conventional marriages.").What's the difference? It doesn't matter what you call it, if its legally the same. Whether you call it a civil union, a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, or an asodht2erhtpwai, its the same if its defined the same and has all the same rights and obligations that a hetero marriage has. Protection of the institution of marriage is not about the word "marriage." Its about an institution and if the government allows that institution to be diluted by including homsexual, incestuous, or polygamous relationships, etc, then the institution of marriage will have been severely, in my opinion, injured. (this is a separate argument than WHY I believe it is injured). posted by The General @ The Judicial Nomination Process
I know this is a little old, but since the latest Advocate (Santa Clara University Law Newspaper) has come out, my opinion can be posted. NOTE: this was written just after the GOP talkathon a couple of weeks ago.
Senate Democrats value the rule of politics over the rule of law The Democrats in the U.S. Senate should be ashamed of themselves. But they aren't. These obstructionists are turning the U.S. Constitution on its head by filibustering many of President Bush's most qualified judicial nominees. Why are they doing it? They believe the rule of politics trumps the rule of law. Essentially, the Democrats in the Senate are blocking nominations of people who are qualified to serve on the federal appellate bench, but who are more conservative than Ted Kennedy (American Conservative Union lifetime rating of 3 out of 100). The Republicans have attempted to end the filibusters several times to no avail. We just saw 40 straight hours of talk that ended where it began. Republicans are currently considering parliamentary maneuvers just to get an up or down vote on these nominees. The filibuster has never been used to block judicial nominations, particularly when the nominees have the support of the majority of Senators. By requiring 60 votes to end debate and allow an up or down vote, the Democrats are rewriting the Constitution, which provides that a majority Senate vote constitutes consent. By requiring supermajority of 60 votes to approve a nomination, the Democrats are trampling on the Constitutional requirement of a simple majority. This mess all starts because the Democrats are out of power. The Republicans control the Executive and Legislative branches of the Federal Government. Normally, when Democrats cannot achieve their policy goals through legislative means, they turn to the courts to legislate for them. They are so hysterical now because they see Bush's nominees as too conservative and thus a threat to their "3rd" legislative body - the courts. Democrats are worried that Bush will fill the courts with judges who strictly construct the laws, and more importantly, the constitution. In other words, attempts to advance a liberal policy agenda through the courts will be prevented and the Democrats' political aims will be halted. The Democrats view the rule of law is used as a means to an end, rather than an end itself. Don't believe me? See this. If liberal politicians do not like the outcomes of cases, the answer is to change the law, not the judges. Democrats are saying that this was done to Clinton nominees so they are justified in their actions. But many of these nominations were made right before Clinton left office when there was no real time to do background checks or hold committee hearings. Yes, some Republicans used "blue slips" to deny some nominees a vote, but the GOP never resorted to filibustering nominees who would garner majority support. Furthermore, President Bush, in an attempt mend some fences and show goodwill towards Democrats, renominated some stalled Clinton nominees, who got their vote and are now federal judges. Of course all that gesture got him was a slap in the face by petty Democrats. Obviously, the Democrats are objecting to these Bush nominees because of the perceived political ideology of the nominees. But this is the first time in the history of this country such a political litmus test has been used as a reason to halt the nomination process. This strategy all started back in 2001, when the Democrats took control of the Senate (thanks to Jim Jeffords, not the voters). Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) used Judiciary Subcommittee hearings as a tool to find an historical reason to use ideology to block nominations (See also, Judging by Ideology by Charles Schumer, New York Times, June 26, 2001; Section A; Page 19; Column 2). Schumer also held hearings on whether the nominee has the burden of proving their worth, rather than the burden being on a Senator to justify voting against the nominee. It is not difficult to see what conclusion Schumer had in mind even before he held those hearings. The point was to justify voting against a qualified nominee whom the Democrats could declare "out of the mainstream" on issues like abortion, federalism, or racial preferences (Oddly enough, whether they are the majority or minority party, the Senate Democrats always get to decide who and what is mainstream). Furthermore, this setup justifies asking nominees how they would rule on these types of cases, and vote against them if they refuse to answer such questions. Answering that kind of question naturally puts these potential judges at odds with ethical guidelines and at risk of being forced to recuse themselves in certain cases. Justice Scalia's recent recusal illustrates this point. Additionally, the ABA has said: "Problems arise, however, when legitimate inquiries into a nominee's judicial philosophy degenerate into thinly veiled efforts to preordain how the nominee will rule on specific issues in the future. Such 'litmus test' questions cut to the quick of would-be judges' decisional independence and are properly resisted by the nominees." An Independent Judiciary Report of the ABA Commission on Separation of Powers and Judicial Independence. b. Judicial Appointments. So these nominees have to decide whether to voice their views and risk conflicts and a filibuster for being "out of the mainstream" or decline to vote (the ABA's view) and risk a filibuster for being non-responsive to these political questions. It's a lose-lose situation, unless you are Democratic Senator or liberal special interest group. Speaking of interest groups...Left wing activists from groups like People for the American Way, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, NOW, National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), NAACP, etc. are providing the real impetus for the filibustering of Bush's nominees. These highly effective and politically powerful groups have forced Senate Democrats to block Bush's nominees, particularly targeting nominees that are minority. Miguel Estrada, a Cuban American immigrant with an amazing story of making it in America, was targeted by left wing Hispanic groups, like La Raza and MALDEF, for not being Hispanic enough. Marisa Demeo, regional counsel for MALDEF said, "Being Hispanic for us means much more than having a surname...it means having some relationship with the reality of what it is to live in this country as a Hispanic American." This sentiment was echoed by New Jersey Rep. Bob Menendez, a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. He said, "Being Hispanic for us means much more than having a surname...it means having some relationship with the reality of what it is to live in this country as a Hispanic American." Democratic strategy memos prove the same thing: "They [a number of left-wing groups strategizing on nominations] also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible." (Wall St. Journal, Friday November 14, 2003, Section A; Page 12, Column 1. emphasis added). Estrada was targeted BECAUSE HE IS LATINO! That's racist, whichever way you want to look at it. What else is clear by these statements is being a "proper minority" means producing left-wing political results. The outcome? After two years of waiting for a vote, Estrada asked President Bush to withdraw his nomination. The Democrats just can't let President Bush get credit for appointing a Latino to the 2nd highest, and eventually the highest court in the land. Janice Rogers Brown, the first African-American woman on the California Supreme Court was similarly nominated by the President for the D.C. Circuit and is being filibustered. The left's main hang-up with Brown is that, like Estrada, she is a minority. The Democrats can't stand non-liberal minorities. She wrote the court opinion upholding Proposition 209, which banned race preferences by the California state government. She's black so she should know better, right? I guess not, so she’s accused of being "hostile to civil rights" because, as Senator Schumer said, she’s voted against "minorities" and "low-income" people. This smear means her rulings do not lead to the correct political results. She's been called another Clarence Thomas, as if that is a pejorative. Rep Diane Watson (D-CA) snickered, "this Bush nominee has such an atrocious civil rights record that Clarence Thomas would look like Thurgood Marshall in comparison." The Black Commentator called Brown a "Jim Crow era judge, in natural blackface." These statements imply that she is a race-traitor. This racist and patronizing attitude amounts to little more than calling her an "Uncle Tom." She's not sufficiently "black," so they block her. Priscilla Owen is being obstructed because the left does not like the way she ruled a parental consent to abortion law was constitutional. Doesn't Owen know that as a woman she is supposed to rule a certain way regardless of what the law says? I guess not. Blocked! The Democrats are filibustering William Pryor, the Attorney General of Alabama because as a Catholic, he has "strongly held views" on certain issues. The implication of this is that because of his "strongly held views" he cannot put them aside and uphold laws he disagrees with, particularly abortion precedents. Scrutiny of his record in Alabama doesn't show this, but whatever, block him. Charles Pickering is being filibustered for 5th Circuit position. The Democrats charge him with being racially "insensitive." That means he must not have ruled (as a District Court Judge) a certain political way. Overlooked is the fact that this man has the backing of all major African American politicians in Mississippi, including the endorsement of Charles Evers, brother of murdered civil-rights activist Medgar Evers. Pickering even testified against the KKK in a 1967 trial, which cost him his job as a local prosecutor. The Democrat's main dispute with Pickering is that he questioned whether a conviction of a cross-burner was too harsh in light of the deal prosecutors cut with the ringleader of the cross-burning incident. He thought the ring leader got off too easily, is the point here, but whatever. Block him. While it is appropriate to inquire about the general judicial philosophy of each nominee, these Democrats are confusing judicial philosophy for political ideology. Conservatives say they like judges who say what the law is and not what it ought to be. President Bush is putting forth nominees that he believes will uphold this judicial philosophy. The Democrats don't like these judges because they don't produce the right outcomes politically. These filibusters are aimed at judges who haven't produced the right outcomes. Janice Rogers Brown has been pilloried for upholding California's Proposition 209. Of course she couldn't have done it by herself; she simply led a majority of the California Supreme Court in upholding the law. The Democrats in the Senate disagree with the outcome of that case and others as do the left wing activists around the country. But it is constitutional. Political outcomes of cases should not be used to test a nominee's qualifications. Federal Judges should be independent of politics. That's why they get lifetime tenure. Using political ideology to test whether a nominee is qualified for the bench threatens this independence and the politicization of the judiciary threatens the rule of law. This is a bad thing. Finally, I should say that the Democrats' unprecedented action is fueled by their hatred of President Bush. They still have not moved on from the 2000 election. Democrats do not think Bush is legitimate and therefore all his nominations should be blocked. Senator Feinstein confirmed this strategy when she said, "I also deeply believe that the closeness of [the 2000] election and the fact that right-wing judges never really were part of this president's candidacy indicated to me that there is no mandate out there to skew the courts - and particularly the higher courts, the appellate courts - to the right." This is sad. What is even worse is Ted Kennedy using ad hominine attacks on these nominees, calling them "Neanderthals" and "turkeys." Ted Kennedy is the last person who should resort to name calling, but it just proves my point. Senate Democrats have no shame. posted by The General @ Monday, November 24, 2003Some are attacking the President for attacking the Terrorists!
This is the ad that the Dems are whining about. This is another example of the Dems asserting that Republican are questioning their patriotism, though no such thing has been said. The Dems are quite defensive on the patriotism issue, mostly because a lot of Americans see their actions as anti-American. Dissent is not the same thing as patriotism and the Dems should not equate the two.
That being said, the Republicans are frequently called "insensitive" (re race, gender, homosexuality, etc) by the Dems, which is the new language used by the left to assert that the GOP and conservatives are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. In other words, the Dems think its ok to hint at/imply/flatly state that Republican are bigots everytime there are substantive policy disagreements on these issues, but its not ok for the GOP to assert that the Dems/Left wing is unpatriotic and anti-American when they think the U.N. should have veto power over American foreign policy, Bush is a liar on Iraq, went to war in Iraq over oil and Haliburton, and the administration is trampling all of our civili liberties. Politics no longer stops at the water's edge. posted by The General @ Friday, November 21, 2003Money and politics will always go together
Ok. Here we go again. The McCainiacs are on their crusade again to wipe money from politics. Now they are saying that new legislation is required to "save the system." Didn't we just have pass wide ranging campaign finance law that would save the system? This is another one of those items that is never fixed and never will be. Every time the "anti-special interests" special interest tries to ban money from politics, the money just finds other ways to get in. Only now its less accountable and arguably more dangerous. This is another example of "reform" in which the cure is worse than the disease. posted by The General @ What? Get a job!
Remember that line from the Vietnam war that went something like, "to save the village, we had to burn it." I get the impression from PM Schroeder that is what he is saying here (or at least AP's interpretation of it):
Speaking on Germany's ARD television, he insisted the welfare state had to be shaken up if it was to survive. "One can only be fair when one is prepared for change," Schroeder said. "We're making these changes to free up resources for investment in future tasks," he said, naming better education and child-care as key to making the German economy more competitive. Of course all this presumes that it is a good thing that the welfare state survives. Anyway, the PM is only proposing new measures to make sure the able bodied work and free up investment by business. I suppose that IS a problem for these freeloaders; they don't want to work. This isn't a case, however, of burning the village to save it, but using a garden hose to put out a 4 alarmer. posted by The General @ Thursday, November 20, 2003Are we in a Bizarro world?
Excuse me, but, uh, James Carville, one of People's Sexiest? All this pinching is still not waking me up... posted by The General @ More from the Fogey Lobby
Let's be blunt: AARP and others in the old fogey lobby are just as much a special interest as are drug companies. This complaint about the Medicare proposal is simply whining about which special interest gets free government subsidies. This whole Medicare prescription drug benefit is just another gov't welfare program for seniors. Despite this, I'm inclined to support it because Ted Kennedy is against it, but something tells me he simply doesn't want Bush to get credit for it, rather than having an actual complaint about another big gov't giveaway. posted by The General @ Sorry, but I never heard of the guy...
U.S. Senator Carper (D-Del) must be the most unknown of all the U.S. Senators. He wants to hold up a ban on internet access taxes that states are eyeing to raise more revenues. posted by The General @ Thanks, Walter!
For all those who think reparations are a bad idea. No worries. The "oppressors" have been forgiven. posted by The General @ Blog's Motto
Vigilant Active Brave: the blog's new motto comes from Patrick Henry. In a speech to the Virginia Convention on 3/23/1775 he said, "The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave."
Find here. Subject: Courage, Author: Patrick Henry, Keyword: vigilant. posted by The General @ what failed economic policies?
More bad news posted by The General @ Wednesday, November 19, 2003Congratulations! Its a blog!
Yeah, I got a new blog!
posted by The General @
|
|
