Judicious Asininity

This is the Archive Page. Click Here for Main Page

Mon Oct 31, 2005

Bush's next speech

Why we went to war and who's trying to stop us

This war was not started by America. It was started by the fanatics who claim to represent Islam. It was financed by radicals made wealthy by the dollars we spent on their oil. The fanatics were sheltered by repressive regimes.

The first World Trade Center attack was designed to topple one tower onto the other. Had it succeeded, 40,000 Americans would have died in seconds. America treated that attack as a criminal justice issue. We convicted some of the perpetrators but one of the ring-leaders fled to Iraq where he was sheltered by Saddam Hussein.

The terrorist organization that attacked us in 1993 merged with Osama Bin Ladin's organization. Soon afterwards Bin Ladin declared war on the USA and Israel in his 1996 fatwa (an authoritative Islamic religious decree).

We know that Saddam Hussein was in contact with Al Qaeda and that he supported terrorist organizations. We know that Saddam was using the United Nation's oil for food program to subvert the sanctions imposed after the first Gulf War. We know that Saddam had developed and used weapons of mass destruction in the past. We know that Saddam had previously attempted to develop nuclear weapons. We know that Saddam refused to comply with UN resolution 1441 that required him to disclose all his WMD programs. We know he had 500 tons of yellowcake. We know that he could have bought nuclear weapons technology from the A.Q. Khan network.

Who knew that Libya had an advanced nuclear weapons program? That wasn't discovered until Saddam was captured. Everybody believed that Saddam had WMD. President Clinton believed it. John Kerry believed it. Jacques Chirac believed it. The CIA believed it.

But some people in the intelligence community thought we could live with Saddam in power. They would rather I lose an election than Saddam be brought to justice. One of these people was sent on a mission by the CIA to check whether Saddam was trying to buy even more yellowcake from Niger. In his CIA debriefing he confirmed that Iraqis had explored trade options with Niger, a country that exports uranium ore and goats. But it was election year in the United Sates and this person wrote an op-ed for the New York times that claimed he found no evidence that Iraq was trying to buy uranium ore. He leaked the same misinformation to two other columnists. It turns out that his wife recommended him for this mission. Presumably, she approved of his op-ed and his leaks.

The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee found that this man was a serial liar.

This man seems to think that bringing freedom to Iraq was a mistake. This man is a national disgrace. If his views had prevailed in the dark days of World War II we would now be speaking German or Japanese. That is, if we hadn't been slaughtered because of our race or religion.

The price we have paid for bringing freedom to Iraq and Afghanistan has been small compared to previous wars. It compares favorably with armed forces losses in peace time during the 1990s. Our armed forces have shown that they are the best in the world.

We need to set aside our political differences, to stop the partisan attacks on our efforts to bring freedom to the Muslim world, to keep our political differences domestic, to win this war. If I, as Commander-in-chief, lose, we all lose. When Joe Wilson claimed his wife was undercover, I suspect he didn't have a burka in mind. But, if we lose this war, that's what she will have to wear, assuming she'd rather convert to Islam than have her throat slit.

Cancer research spending priorities

Cathy Seipp has some well-informed thoughts

Instapundit links to Cathy' Seipp's post about her battle with lung cancer. One of my wife's oldest and dearest friends is fighting the same battle. Never smoked. Stayed slim and fit. Went to get a check-up and found that she had lung cancer and it had metastasized.

Cathy makes a good point about research spending by disease:

For one thing, I’m beginning to feel a responsibility to point out that lung cancer, which kills more people annually (about 163,000) than the next four most common cancers (colon, breast, pancreatic and prostate) combined, is terribly underfunded compared to other diseases: $950 in research money per lung cancer death, compared to $8800 for breast cancer and $34,000 for AIDS.

That’s because the vast majority of lung cancer (about 85%) is still caused by smoking, even though the rate for lifelong nonsmoking women like me (and Christopher Reeve’s widow) has been going up for some mysterious reason, and the general attitude is that smokers deserve whatever they get.

But half of all lung cancer patients have been nonsmokers by the time of diagnosis, sometimes for decades, like Warren Zevon. If they deserve to get sick, then I suppose so do people who are overweight or don’t exercise or who have promiscuous sex with strangers, all of which are contributing factors for various illnesses that get much more sympathy in the form of research dollars. Maybe the amount of attention we pay to a disease should have less to do with how many celebrities and magazine editors and junk bond kings carry its banner, and more with how many people actually die of it.

My wife's friend is doing well, so far. I hope Cathy does too. I'm an ex-smoker. While I hope that two decades of non-smoking combined with a rigorous exercise regime will help me avoid bad news, I would not be surprised if I get unlucky. I had one coughing-up-blood scare, and went through the emotions of thinking my number was up. It's that call from your Dr. when he says there's a spot on your lung X-ray that's troubling, that gets the heart and mind racing.

Does money count? Cathy notes that :

Because sure, breast cancer is no fun; I’ve had friends who’ve died of it. But it also has a survival rate of around 85%. That’s the unsurvival rate of lung cancer, which is what I have. I’m actually lucky still to be alive, given that I was diagnosed almost three and a half years ago, after a cough that wouldn’t go away, and most lung cancer patients don’t make it past two years.

The money invested in breast cancer research seems to have paid off; the money not paid for lung cancer research has probably cost millions of lives.

If wife beating is OK

Then maybe honor killings are OK, too

Little Green Footballs links to a report that police in the Australian state of Victoria have been told to:

In incidents such as domestic violence, police need to have an understanding of the traditions, ways of life and habits of Muslims.

They are told it would be appreciated in cases of domestic violence if police consult the local Muslim religious leader who will work against "fragmenting the family unit".

Muslims also have a tradition of killing their womenfolk if they besmirch the family's honor. Here's a sample of links that comes from googling "Muslim Honor Killing":

Berlin
Britain
Holland
Denmark
Sweden

If you believe that all cultures are equal then you have to respect the Muslim tradition of honor killing. If Muslims choose to live in Western countries then they should be treated equally under the rule of law. Honor killings should be seen for what they are: cold blooded murder. Wife beating should also be seen for what it is: a cowardly assault by a man with no honor.

Fri Oct 28, 2005

Fitzgerald's inquiry - what a waste of time and money

Two years to indict Libby on trivial charges that were purely the result of the investigation

The Libby Indictment (warning - scanned PDF doc) omits any mention of the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee's findings on Joseph Wilson's credibilty, or more precisely, lack thereof. The crooks get away and the guy trying to expose the crooks get's indicted. What a crock.

One effect may be that the administration will no longer risk talking to reporters off the record.

The Strata-Sphere is not impressed:

But at least we understand the timeline perfectly now. Kristof teams up with the Wilsons to write the first article - containing classified informaion on methods, sources and results of the Niger trip, and then also the classified information Wilson should not have known about the Niger documents which surface 8 days later. Somehow all this snuck by Fitzgerald who was concerned about leaking of classified information??? The guy obviously was not interested in discovering the truth - he had agenda.

Thu Oct 27, 2005

Miers' withdrawal and executive privilege

Restoring the precedent

One good thing has come out of the withdrawal of Miers' nomination. In his official Statement , Bush explained the reason why he was accepting her withdrawal:

senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel.

During the hearings on John Roberts's nomination as Chief Justice, the Opinion Journal ran a featured article that was critical of the White House's decision to release certain presidential papers:

By authorizing the release of documents from Judge Roberts's work in the Reagan Justice Department and White House Counsel's office, the Bush Administration had made it that much harder to refuse Democratic demands for his later work product from the Solicitor General's office. More important, it makes it harder for the White House to defend the vital constitutional principle of executive privilege.

This is not some fine legal matter. It is essential for the workings of government that decision-makers hear the candid views of the people who work for them. That won't happen if they believe Dick Durbin might one day be reading from their memos on the Senate floor. Or, as Clinton White House Counsel Jack Quinn put it the other day, if the public has unfettered access to the advice that Presidents get, "Presidents won't get very good advice."

By accepting Miers' withdrawal in order to preserve executive privilege, the White House has reversed the possible damage done by Roberts's nomination, and re-established a precedent that respects the integrity of executive privilege.

Miers withdraws citing Senate requests for WH documents

You have to feel sorry for what she suffered in this process

Fox News quotes Harriet Miers withdrawal letter:

"I have been greatly honored and humbled by the confidence that you have shown in me, and have appreciated immensely your support and the support of many others. However, I am concerned that the confirmation process presents a burden for the White House and our staff that is not in the best interest of the country," Miers wrote.

"As you know, members of the Senate have indicated their intention to seek documents about my service in the White House in order to judge whether to support me. I have been informed repeatedly that in lieu of records, I would be expected to testify about my service in the White House to demonstrate my experience and judicial philosophy," she wrote.

This was the out the President needed. It may also have the effect of protecting executive privilege from further encroachment by the Senate.

Now, will we get the candidate the base wants, and will the Gang of 14 betray the President?

Wed Oct 26, 2005

Will Fitzgerald go after the real villains in l'affaire Plame?

Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Wilson

Joe Wilson's intent in his leaks to NYT columnist Nicholas D. Kristof and WPO staff writer Walter Pincus and his op-ed piece in the NYT was obvious. He was doing his part to help the CIA in its election-year war against the Bush Administration. The bi-partisan Senate intelligence committee concluded that virtually everything Wilson leaked or wrote was a fabrication. One of those fabrications was denying that his wife was involved in selecting him for the Niger mission. That denial, rather than protecting her, implicates her in his campaign of leaks and lies.

If justice is to be done, then the Wilsons, and their accomplices in the CIA and the MSM, are the ones deserving indictment.

Best coverage of l'affaire Plame:

The Strate Sphere and Just One Minute.

Sun Oct 23, 2005

You know you've seen a really bad game of football

When the QB throws an interception and that's a plus

I had the misfortune to attend the Browns vs Detroit game today. The score of 10-13 reflected both sides' inability to play offensive football. Their play was just offensive. The highlight was when the Cleveland QB threw long -- about 35 yards -- and was intercepted. That was probably the best Cleveland gain of the day, excluding a punt return that went all the way.

With 2 minutes to go Cleveland got the ball and lost about 35 yards, They should have thrown another long interception.

The crowd was an amiable bunch. They got their exercise walking into the stadium to see this inept display. The most fun part was watching the interaction between a group of 30'ish male fans (black, white and hispanic) on one row and three middle-aged white female fans sitting in the row in front of them. There was lots of good-humored banter and innuendo until the ladies left about 5 minutes before the end. Then, a minute later, one of them came back to tell the guys which bar they were going to after the game. She claimed she was on a mission inspired by her friends.

There was a pair of young Asian guys in front of us. Their mother, dressed in full Browns regalia, came to their seats at half-time and the black guys took family shots using the proferred digital camera.

The melting pot is still bubbling; I just wish the game had bubbled too.

Fri Oct 21, 2005

Bush's price for withdrawing Miers

It should be a guarantee that Senate Republicans will ban filibusters on Judicial nominees

Captain Ed notes that:

Whether or not the White House recognizes it as such, the pair used this demand to send a shot across the bow of the administration. The White House has long defended the right of the executive to retain attorney-client privilege when nominating a counsel to another post, even to the federal bench, a position well worth defending. Both Senators understand this and have long backed that position. They would not issue demands that abandon this important precedent lightly -- well, perhaps Graham would, but not Brownback.

They want to tell the White House that Bush has sent an insufficient candidate to the bench, and that the only possible way the Judiciary Committee could justify a vote to confirm her is to find significant work that just doesn't appear in her public record. That message can be boiled down further: under the current circumstances, they are not prepared to support her, and in fact do not see themselves moving off that position.

and suggests that:

The Senate GOP wants to protect George Bush and the White House by giving him a face-saving way out of the mess he made. At this point, this is one life-saver the President should seriously consider grasping with both hands.

That would be a good deal but the President should only take it if the threat of filibusters is removed, and only the Republican Senate can do that.

Thu Oct 20, 2005

The burning Taliban bodies

They are Radical Islamist terrorists - we shouldn't care what happens to them

The media is all abuzz about the report that US forces burnt the bodies of two dead Taliban fighters and then taunted the Taliban in a nearby village as being too cowardly to reclaim the bodies. So? If that flushed out a few more, so much the better.

I didn't see the Taliban showing any sympathy when innocent American civilians were burnt to death on 9/11. To the contrary, the Taliban proved to be protectors and sponsors of Al Qaeda, the perpetrators of the 9/11 terrorist atrocity. The Taliban are still murdering anyone they can, including humanitarian workers.

All I can say is the only good Taliban fighter is a dead Taliban fighter. The more we kill the better. The more we attack their perverted religion the better. When, oh Lord, are we going to realize that if Radical Islam has its way, the world would look like Afghanistan under the Taliban's rule, and we'd all be forcibly converted to their perverted religion or dead?

Neal Boortz has a similar reaction.

So, we're in for another round of self-flagellation driven by the left and the MSM, but I repeat myself. We know which side they are on. They're the be-nice-to-Saddam crowd rooting for America's defeat.

Able Danger is going to become explosive

Rep. Weldon has gone ballistic on DIA's treatment of Lt. Col. Shaffer

And he is dropping bombshells left, right and center. The Strata-Sphere has summarized Weldon's speech. The smearing and cover-up tactics of the Defense Intelligence Agency are just unbelievable. Those bureaucrats should recall the central lesson of Watergate. It's not the crime that gets you, it's the cover-up.

A shield law for journalists is a very bad idea

The problem is that most jounalists are partisan hacks rather than professionals

The proponents of this law assume that whistle-blowers and anonymous sources always operate out of the purest of motives; their only wish is to expose some great evil that is being perpetrated by their organization.

But the left's war on Bush has exposed this assumption as false. Consider Rathergate. Sixty Minutes obtains copies of contemporaneous memos that cast doubt on Bush's TANG service. The source is anonymous and 60 Minutes goes to air with a program that conforms the left's claim that Bush's service was less than honorable. Luckily, the memos were exposed as forgeries by the blogosphere. CBS failed to do any basic validation of the memos yet it asked the viewing public to trust them.

To be continued...

Update: Andrew McCarthy skewers media stars Miller and Cooper for publicly disclosing their grand jury testimony. So much for protecting confidential sources. McCarthy writes:

Yet, you are the public, and you do know their sources. Why?

You know them because the journalists decided to tell you. Miller and Cooper both made certain that the public knew every syllable uttered by the sources they've sanctimoniously told us, again and again, they made commitments to shield. And they did it in the worst possible way: in hyper-hyped, autobiographical, self-adulating accounts of their valiant struggle to withhold information from a grand jury despite that nagging inconvenience the rest of us know as the law. Miller, in fact, is planning to cash in with a book about the whole thing, while the previously obscure Cooper has become America's latest fifteen-minute celebrity (whose clock, we can hope, is nearing its last ticks).

Who would want to shield such hypocrites from the law?

Tue Oct 18, 2005

26.2 reasons why I'm still hurting

But I still love the challenge

Well, I said it in my previous marathon post:

Marathoning is a tricky business. There is a fine line between success and failure. Start off too fast and you risk "bonking" at mile 20. Bonking is what happens when your muscles run out of easy fuel and start breaking down fat and, worse, protein. Your legs feel like lead, everything hurts, and your pace drops precipitously.

I went into my second Columbus marathon under-trained and over-confident. I started too fast, thinking I could run as well as I had a year ago. At mile 20 I paid the price. I "bonked". I walked. I jogged. I barely ran. I finished 24 minutes slower than last year. Instead of exhilaration as I got to the finish, I experienced simple relief.

But marathoning is also a mind game. At mile 22 one of my running partners passed me. At mile 23, another one caught up to me. At that stage I stopped walking. I kept running to stay ahead. As I approached the finish, I saw the guy who'd passed me at mile 22. I broke into a sprint and flew past him. If I'd been really determined, I wouldn't have walked. But I'd qualified for Boston and that qualification extended to 2006. I didn't have anything like the motivation I had last year. Without it, I took the easy way out - taking walk breaks - instead of pushing. Introduce some competition though, and motivation returned. Funny game, marathoning.

Bill Clinton is a moron

Now we know why Al Qaeda prospered on his watch - he's clueless and shameless

This report proves it. He said:

"We have no excuse now for not building a world with more partners and fewer terrorists,...We cannot kill, jail or occupy all of our enemies, we cannot have a security policy only....We have to find a way to reach out to the half of the people in the world who think we don't care about them and, in fact, that we've got the system rigged against them,"

Perhaps Clinton forgot where Bin Ladin and most of the 9/11 hijackers came from. Perhaps he forgot that their homeland sits on buckets of oil and the civilized world has paid trillions of dollars to buy the oil they pump out of the ground for pennies a barrel. I'd say they had the system rigged against us.

George W. Bush named the enemy. It took him a few years but he did it. The enemy is Radical Islam. Their goal is to restore the Caliphate over all former and current Muslim territories, and that's just for starters. Their ambitions are little different from those of the Nazis and the Communists.

Clinton still thinks poverty causes Islamic terrorism.

We know one thing for certain about the Plame kerfuffle

Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson is a serial leaker and liar

Stephen F. Hayes, writing in the 10/24/05 issue of the Weekly Standard, outlines the background to the President's claim that Saddam had tried to buy yellowcake from Africa. Hayes explains how that assessment came to be included in the President's state of the union speech. Wilson is exposed as a serial leaker and liar.:

It should be clear by now that the only one telling flat-out lies was Joseph Wilson. Again, Wilson's trip to Niger took place in February 2002, some eight months before the U.S. government received the phony Iraq-Niger documents in October 2002. So it is not possible, as he told the Washington Post, that he advised the CIA that "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." And it is not possible, as Wilson claimed to the New York Times, that he debunked the documents as forgeries.

That was hardly Wilson's only fabrication. He would also tell reporters that his wife had nothing to do with his trip to Niger and, as noted in the New Republic article, that Vice President Cheney's office had seen the report of his findings. Both claims were false.

The MSM, including Fox News and the WSJ, is all in a tizzy because they expect Fitzgerald to indict Libby and/or Rove. They keep forgetting two major points.

1. Wilson is a proven leaker and liar determined to destroy the Bush administration's credibility.

2. Judith Miller went to jail for 83 days, getting out just before Fitzgerald issues his findings.

It's hard to believe that Miller went to jail to protect Libby. It's also hard to believe she was protecting any administration official. She is, after all, a New York Times reporter.

My expectation is that Libby and Rove will not be indicted. The MSM will look pretty stupid since they have been busy telling the public that Rove is guilty as sin and will go to jail for life.

Fri Oct 14, 2005

26.2 reasons why blogging will be light

It's the closest I get to an extreme sport

You guessed it. I'm off to run a marathon in Columbus. It should be a fun break although I have no idea how well I do. Last year I had vague hopes of breaking President Bush's marathon time of 3:44. Well, I shocked my friends and amazed myself by blowing past him in 3:42. This year, I think he's got me beat, but we'll see what happens.

Marathoning is a tricky business. There is a fine line between success and failure. Start off too fast and you risk "bonking" at mile 20. Bonking is what happens when your muscles run out of easy fuel and start breaking down fat and, worse, protein. Your legs feel like lead, everything hurts, and your pace drops precipitously. Start too slow and you never make up lost time. Of course, a lot of runners are running just for the feeling of accomplishment that comes from completing a marathon. Others are trying to join the 50-state club where the objective is to run a marathon in every state. They tend to take their races easier than those going for a personal best or to qualify for the Boston marathon.

Who told the President that Miers was OK?

Stuart Buck has the answer

The Buck Stops Here points out that:

That would be Bill Kelley, formerly a professor at Notre Dame Law School, and a former clerk for Ken Starr and Justice Scalia. The Washington Post elaborates:
At that point, according to another senior official close to the process, deputy White House counsel William K. Kelley suggested to Card that Miers ought to be considered for the next seat that opened. "It began to be kicked around in a small circle of people," the official said. With Bush's approval, Card and Kelley began the secret vetting, looking at Miers's public work.

* * *
Bush sat down with Miers in the Oval Office that same day for the first of four conversations in which she was the interviewee instead of the interviewer. Miers was stunned at first.

"We said, 'Well, Harriet, look at your résumé. Is that the résumé of someone you would recommend the president consider?'" recalled the senior official. "And she said, 'Yes.'"

I'm presuming someone with Kelley's experience would know whether or not Miers fit the mold.

Thu Oct 13, 2005

Why did GWB nominate Miers?

The only way he can avoid a Democrat filibuster is with stealth candidates (or liberals)

I think GWB calculated that none of the overtly conservative candidates could be confirmed without a bloodbath that would make what happened to Bork or Thomas look like a walk in the park. It's also likely that some of the better conservative candidates didn't fancy being chum in a bloodbath.

Why would GWB think that a Luttig or Brown couldn't be confirmed? Because the Senate Republicans includes the Gang of 14, a bunch of Rinos, a cry-baby and assorted lily-livered gutless wonders who are only interested in their own re-election and the pork they need to buy it. If the Democrats throw a tantrum, they'll throw the President's nominee overboard. They did it to Saad. They did it to Bolton. They forced Bush into a bunch of recess appointments.

Bush cannot afford to nominate someone with a solid, conservative paper-trail until the Senate Republicans change the Senate rules to stop Democrats filibustering judicial nominees. Much as the base would like the fight, their team, the Senate Republicans, doesn't. They've already demonstrated that.

That leaves Bush with no option but to play it safe with stealth candidates. Hence Roberts, Hence Miers. Both are qualified. Both will get confirmed. Both will swing the court away from judicial activism. Be thankful for small victories when your team is weak.

Wed Oct 12, 2005

Miers deserves confirmation

She brings fresh credentials to SCOTUS

I've thought Miers was a pretty good candidate from the get-go. She brings much needed diversity to the court. I don't mean gender diversity either.

She's from the South and made her professional career in Texas instead of the Beltway. She has done more real lawyering than anybody currently on the court.

She cleaned up the Texas Lottery , despite the possible conflict with her religious beliefs. How many of the current Supremes had to get down and dirty and clean-up a corrupt institution? Can't think of any. I know of one Judge who would be a contender, but he'll never get nominated.

She has the experience of joining a law firm as its first female lawyer and rising to the top. I suspect managing 400 lawyers would be like herding cats.

She's represented major clients, like Microsoft and Disney, so she understands commercial litigation. She's also helped out the little guy.

Since tort reform is a major problem today, her practical perspective could prove invaluable when the Asbestos mess returns to SCOTUS. She knows the Texas trial lawyer scene and she's fought against them. They don't come any meaner than they do in Texas. Just ask Merck and Dow Corning.

She won the only 12th Amendment case when the stakes could not have been higher.

She's provided legal guidance to the most powerful man on the planet when all his enemies, from Al Qaeda through to the ACLU have been gunning for him.

The conservatives who have been gunning for Miers should re-direct their fire at the Republican Senators who won't block the Democrats use of the filibuster to block judicial nominees.

I recommend that Miers be confirmed.

In the unlikely event that Harriet Mier's nomination fails...

Bush should give the base this highly qualified candidate

Here's his resumé (with identifying information crossed out):

Judge XXX is Dean of the XXX Law School, and a partner with the law firm of XXX, specializing in appellate work. He has taught Issues in Constitutional Law as an adjunct professor at XXX School of Law and as a distinguished visiting professor at XXX of Law. He recently published: XXXX, which is described by United States Circuit Judge XXX as "eminently readable and informative.… not just the best treatment to date of the XXXX, it is likely to have that distinction for a long, long time."

XXXX served as XXXX of the United States from XXXX to January XXXX+4. He argued XXXX cases before the Supreme Court and represented the U.S. government on legal issues involving regulatory and constitutional statutes. He also served as United States Circuit Judge for XXXX from XXXX to XXXX+6, as counselor to U.S. Attorney General XXXX from XXXX to XXXX+2 and as law clerk to Supreme Court Justice XXXX from XXXX to XXXX+2 and X'th Circuit Judge XXXX from XXXX-XXXX+1.

Having received his B.A. from XXXX in XXXX and his M.A. from XXXX in XXX, Judge XXXX graduated from XXXX School with a J.D. degree in XXXX. He was Note and Comment Editor of the XXXX Law Review and graduated XXXX. He has been admitted to the XXXX, District of Columbia and XXXX Bars.

XXXX has numerous professional affiliations, including having served as president of the Institute of XXXX as well as the Council XXXX. Other Boards on which he serves or has served include the XXXX, XXXX, Supreme Court XXXX, XXXX Inns of Court XXXX, Institute for XXXX, XXXX University, XXXX University, and XXXX Journal Board of Editors.

He has received numerous honors and awards including the XXXX Cup award from the XXXX, the XXXX Award for Outstanding Service in the Department of XXXX, and the XXXX's Award for Distinguished Service.

XXXX was born on XXXX XX, 19XX, in XXXX, XXXX, and was raised in XXXX. He and his wife XXXX have XXXX children, XXXX. They have made their home in XXXX since 19XX. He volunteers his time as a Sunday School teacher and as a volunteer teacher at XXXX High School. He also assists disadvantaged students in XXXX find summer internships, safe after school programs, and financial help for attending college.

Guess who I'm recommending and then click Read More to see if you're right and to read the unexpurgated version. Read more »

Judge Kenneth Starr's Biography:

Judge Kenneth W. Starr is Dean of the Pepperdine Law School, and a partner with the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis, P.C., specializing in appellate work. He has taught Issues in Constitutional Law as an adjunct professor at New York University School of Law and as a distinguished visiting professor at George Mason University School of Law. He recently published his first book: First Among Equals: The Supreme Court in American Life, which is described by United States Circuit Judge David B. Sentelle as "eminently readable and informative.… not just the best treatment to date of the Court after Warren, it is likely to have that distinction for a long, long time."

Judge Starr served as Solicitor General of the United States from 1989 to January 1993. He argued twenty-five cases before the Supreme Court and represented the U.S. government on legal issues involving regulatory and constitutional statutes. He also served as United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit from 1983 to 1989, as counselor to U.S. Attorney General William French Smith from 1981 to 1983 and as law clerk to Chief Justice Warren E. Burger from 1975 to 1977 and 5th Circuit Judge David W. Dyer from 1973-1974. Judge Starr served as Independent Counsel for five investigations, including Whitewater, from August 1994 to October 1999.

Having received his B.A. from George Washington University in 1968 and his M.A. from Brown University in 1969, Judge Starr graduated from The Duke Law School with a J.D. degree in 1973. He was Note and Comment Editor of the Duke Law Review and graduated Order of the Coif. He has been admitted to the California, District of Columbia and Virginia Bars.

Judge Starr has numerous professional affiliations, including having served as president of the Institute of Judicial Administration as well as the Council on Court Excellence. Other Boards on which he serves or has served include the American Law Institute, American Judicature Society, Supreme Court Historical Society, American Inns of Court Foundation, Institute for United States Studies, American University, Shenandoah University, and American Bar Association Journal Board of Editors.

He has received numerous honors and awards including the Jefferson Cup award from the FBI, the Edmund Randolph Award for Outstanding Service in the Department of Justice, and the Attorney General's Award for Distinguished Service.

Judge Starr was born on July 21, 1946, in Vernon, Texas, and was raised in San Antonio. He and his wife Alice have three children, Randy, Carolyn and Cynthia. They have made their home in McLean, Virginia since 1978. He volunteers his time as a Sunday School teacher and as a volunteer teacher at Anacostia High School. He also assists disadvantaged students in Washington, D.C. find summer internships, safe after school programs, and financial help for attending college.

Do you think this eminently qualified man would get confirmed? Not in today's environment. Not until the Republicans take on the Democrat's filibuster threat. Since Bush can't plan on their support he has to nominate candidates who are willing to stand, and able to pass. The last thing he needs is another Bork. Miers is another stealth candidate who will move the court to originalism.

« Collapse

The Plame Game is nearing end-game

And it may prove a lot more fun than the World Series

The MSM, including Fox News and the WSJ, are still behind the ball game. They still think Rove and/or Libby are/is in trouble and in danger of being indicted, notwithstanding the fact that both media outlets, amongst others, claimed in a brief to the court that no crime had been committed in the leaking of Plame's name. The blogosphere has been wrestling with this issue like a dog with a bone. If no crime was committed, then what are Fitzgerald and his grand jury investigating?

Blogger AJStrata has a link-rich post to get you started on figuring out Fitzgerald's target. Here's a taste of the riches to be found:

What I am interested in pointing out is how slow some in the media are in catching up to all the spade work done by the bloggers - especially Maguire. It is not news that battle between Wilson and the administration was engaged well before his Op-Ed piece. He had been leaking like a sieve up until that point.

And this is where it gets interesting. If there are going to be indictments against Plame and Plame’s CIA cohorts it will be due to leaking information supporting Wilson’s claims to the press. And the initial events of this taking place are obviously during this time period before his NY Times piece. In fact, Miller could have been simply asking for confirmation of Wilson’s claims as a fact checker for the NY Times prior to the running of the editorial.

Fitzgerald's grand jury expires on October 28th, right at the end of the World Series. I'm much more interested in knowing who loses in that game than which team won the World Series.

Tue Oct 11, 2005

Another reason to like Miers

That is, if you believe in Tort reform

Texas is notorious as the home of outrageous lawsuits. The recent ludicrous case against Merck was heard in Texas. What does Miers think of Tort Reform? Here's what the WPO reports:

Miers's letter urging Bush to veto legislation came as lawmakers were debating a host of measures he had pushed that were aimed at limiting lawsuits. The Texas Supreme Court had announced that it was going to launch a study of contingency fee arrangements, in which lawyers agree to take a case in return for a percentage of the verdict, which prompted trial lawyers to lobby lawmakers to pass the bill in question.

Bill Whitehurst, former president of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association, said lawmakers were concerned that the state Supreme Court was "getting ready to do something that was not the court's prerogative."

But Miers called the legislation an "assault" on the state Supreme Court's authority to regulate and discipline lawyers and said the legislature had overstepped its bounds. If the bill became law, she warned, it would only benefit special interests that had "brought shame on this State, badly hurt our economic development efforts and continue to this day to cause our State to be held in disrepute for 'justice for sale.' " Bush vetoed the bill.

Anyone who takes on the trial lawyers lobby would be a plus on SCOTUS in my book.

Why Miers?

Ask your Republican Senators

I'm going to quote this comment by Jkelly to a post at Irish Pennants in full:

I decided to end my self-imposed exile from posting due to information that I received this past weekend from 'a little birdie' in Washington, which I subsequently had confirmed by another 'insider' if you can call him that.

You know I won't tell, so don't bother asking me for names, links, or further information. I trust these individuals, and have received accurate information from them before and shared it here on Free Republic. Of course, all are free to either accept or reject what I am about to share, but if you know anything about the Dog, I don't change my mind often, and my only goal is to pass on information that can help support the Conservative agenda.

Issue 1.

Information was shared with me on Saturday, which described in no uncertain terms that Harriet Miers stands as the only nominee on Bush's list which has any chance of confirmation by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The reasons for this are numerous, and would be embarrassing to the Conservative movement should one or many of the 'stars' who we hoped Bush would select be shot down in Committee, which again, if true, would be a certainty.

More than one of the persons we might have wanted made it clear to the President that they would not accept his nomination if selected. You can draw your own conclusions as to why, but the only hint I will provide is that data mining works too damn well these days. What we saw back when Clarence Thomas was nominated would seem like a walk in the park, compared to what would be done to some of our most popular jurists.

Our Democrat opponents have been quite busy, especially after John Roberts embarrassed them, searching for any information that would allow an open personal attack on a nominee. Sadly, many of the folks we wanted badly would have had their lives destroyed had they attempted confirmation to the bench, and wisely declined. There is no one among us who has not done (or had a family member do) things that we either regret, or would rather keep to ourselves. Because none of us are perfect, it is possible that had one of our choices been selected, we might have lived to regret that day for a very long time.

Issue 2.

Arlen Specter is in my opinion, a traitor to the Conservative movement. He has made it clear to the White House that he is determined to protect his legacy, by NOT supporting any name among those who might make it possible to overturn Rowe V. Wade. What that means, is that had Bush put up someone who might make us proud, Specter reneged on a PROMISE to support Bush's judicial nominees in return for his, (and especially Rick Santorum's) support for his re-election. This promise was made when there was strong consideration for removing Specter's pending chairmanship in favor of John Coryn, or an extension to the term of Orrin Hatch.

The removal of Specter from the Chairmanship would have been disastrous, because he would have remained a committee member, and would have sided with Democrats against the President's selections out of spite. So, why not simply remove Specter from the committee? That would have been really bad PR, considering Specter's health issues at the time these decisions were being made.

One could argue that it might have been best to send up nominee after nominee, even if eventually defeated, but remember that O'Conner is only around hoping for a quick confirmation so that she can be with her ill husband. Bush was under the gun to come up with a confirmable candidate, or risk a Supreme Court not running at full strength as important rulings came under review.

I am told that Arlen Specter has gone back on every single promise he made when his chairmanship was still a question, and feels untouchable now that he is ill, because any punitive measures taken against him would be seen as 'less than compassionate' by the MSM and Democrats, who admittedly would have a field day, were Specter punished for his duplicity. The sad thing is that after "Scottish Law" or even the "Magic Bullet theory" that some think that anything that Arlen Specter says can be trusted. Sure, he supported Clarence Thomas, but does anyone believe that Specter would still be a Senator if he had not?

Issue 3.

Let's face it; our Republican Senate is an embarrassment. From the weakness of Frist, to the petulance of the dude who 'thinks he is leader' McCain, down to his McCainiac compadre Lindsey (tinker-bell) Graham, to the nut from Mississippi who thinks he can actually get his leadership position back by actively rebelling against the President, we aint looking to good at all.

Our Republican Senate has as members at least 7 Democrats who could have never gotten elected as Democrats, who nonetheless support the Democrat agenda whenever they can get away with it, which unfortunately due to the weakness of Frist, is all too often. I find myself wishing Tom Delay would run for the Senate against Hutchinson, just so we can have someone in the Senate not afraid to break some heads to get things done. Why can’t we have a Republican Lyndon Johnson when we need one?

Because our Republican Senate is so weak, President Bush cannot rely on them for much. He could not have gotten majority support in this current Senate for any judicial nominee that would have made us proud. The usual suspects have made it clear to the President that any nominee who would have put their re-election prospects at risk would vote against that nominee. The bottom line, is that the Republican Senate is made up of too many who want the job, but not the work. The only job they see before them is that of getting re-elected to another six year term.

Luttig, McConnell, JRB, Owen, Alito, or anyone else you want to name, would have been defeated, and probably defeated in committee, in order to save other Senators from having to vote them down on the floor. Of this, I am now convinced. Only two names were considered allowable for Senate confirmation; Miers and Gonzales. When Bush met with Senators, he was reportedly told that these two names were the only ones that stood a chance to be confirmed, but Gonzales would face pointed questions about Abu Gharab, Gitmo, and the administration’s policy on torture. It would have been ugly, but he would have been confirmed against the added damage done by dejected a dejected conservative base, and liberal attacks on the President’s agenda. There would have also had to be a new search for an Attorney General, which would have been just as ugly.

Had Bush put up selections that would have been defeated, the chorus of 'Lame Duck' chanting coming out of Washington would have drowned out the President's agenda. A defeat in the Senate would have also signaled to Congress that they were on their own, and no longer had to back up, support, or even listen to President Bush. They would have been free to play the political-calculation game that the Democrats have been playing for 6 years; avoiding tough votes that would be used against them in a future campaign.

So, what's the bottom line?

The bottom line is that Bush did his best to give us what we want, in a way that will not hurt the prospects of the Conservative agenda. The primary thing that must be considered, is that the Congress can NEVER be put back in Democrat hands, for that would destroy all progress made up to now. Our day will come, but this aint it. If we had a Republican Senate made up of real patriots without the odd liberal in Republican clothing, things would be a lot better.

In Miers, Bush has clearly taken what he can get, and our best hope now is for another vacancy on the court before this administration’s term is up. The current makeup of the Congress will just not allow our agenda to be passed at this time without major sacrifices and pragmatic thinking to overcome the inherit weakness of having traitors in our midst.

It appears to me that Harriet Miers is the best CONFIRMABLE candidate for the Supreme Court at this time. This fact is not the fault of the President. Indeed it is OUR fault. It is us who have supported less than the best candidates for the Senate. We are responsible for Chaffee, Snowe, McCain, Graham, Lott, Frist and other persons of questionable courage. We should not be blaming Bush for our own votes. We selected the people that the President must rely upon to move his agenda forward. If they are losers, then he loses too.

Though they literally suck, we are stuck with these people because we must keep the majority to keep our agenda alive. There have been worse moments for us, but none would be worse than than the day we lose the Senate our House majorities. I now believe that although Bush disapointed many of us, that he did the very best he could do without destroying our momentum.

Yes, like Rush Limbaugh said, it was a choice made from weakness.

But the thing to remember, is that it was not Bush's weakness, but our own, and that of the people we have elected to Congress that made this happen. Had they been strong, Bush could have selected anyone we wanted.

Because of what I now know about how and why Harriet Miers was selected, I withdraw my earlier statements against her, my statements suggesting anything less than my strong support of the President, and finally, my self imposed exile from Free Republic.

We have real enemies. George W. Bush isn't one of them. But with friends like us, Bush doesn't need enemies.

I've said from my first post on Miers that gutlessness in the Republican Senate is the root cause of the current crisis in the Republican movement. That's not to denigrate Miers. I think she would be a great nominee. The Supremes need numeracy and horse-sense. Harriet has both.

Mon Oct 10, 2005

Allah moves in mysterious ways

There was some good news in the Pakistan earthquake disaster

Cheat-Seeking Missiles picked up this Daily Telegraph Report:

Training camps used by jihadists battling with the Indian army for control of Kashmir were buried by landslides or left in ruins by the earthquake, bringing hope of a new opportunity for peace-making after a 16-year Islamic insurgency.

The result may increase the chance for peace in Kashmir:

Many in New Delhi see the earthquake as presenting a new opportunity for India and Pakistan to overcome their past hostilities. "This is an opportunity for India and Pakistan to forget their differences," said N M Prusty, of the aid agency Care.

Within hours of the earthquake, Manmohan Singh, the Indian prime minister, telephoned President Pervez Musharraf of Pakstan to offer help. The countries' military chiefs were in touch with one another, as were commanders along the Kashmir frontier. An Indian soldier who mistakenly crossed into Pakistani territory after the earthquake was allowed to return yesterday, an unthinkable gesture in the past.

I know it's a vain hope, but one wonders how close Bin Ladin's cave was to the epi-center?

Sun Oct 09, 2005

Bush sends aid to earthquake victims

Will it be too soon or too late?

For the victims, the sooner the better. For the MSM, the yardstick is the alleged slow response to Katrina. If Bush sends aid too soon, he is guilty of reacting to foreign disaster victims before Katrina victims. If he sends it too late, he is guilty of ignoring the needs of poor Pakistanis.

Unfortunately, both time periods are virtually identical. He can't win a nickel.

But the people will know he has heart, even if he's spending our tax dollars to express it.

How to empower Iraqi forces and get US troop levels down

Train the Iraqis to use JDAMs

As always, VDH makes a great point:

The lesson of Vietnam is that the south was more secure in 1973 without almost any American ground troops than with over 500,000 present in 1968. Promises of air power to support ARVN forces between 1971-3 proved about as viable as thousands of prior search-and-destroy patrols by American soldiers. It also never made sense to tie down nearly half of available American combat manpower in Iraq, at a time when vigilance was necessary in Korea, near China, and in other spots in the Middle East.

Let's roll forward to Afghanistan 2001. A few US special forces soldiers on the ground, combined with local forces, used the ability to rain down JDAMs on the enemy to win the day.

Roll foward to Iraq, 2005. Trained level 1 & 2 Iraqi forces acquire the ability that US special forces had in 2001. Instead of fighting man-on-man with terrorists holed up in some booby-trapped Mosque, they will be able to call down JDAMs at will. Talk about a force-multiplier!

So, as Iraqi forces get up to speed, and that's starting to happen, the US can withdraw thousands of ground troops in exchange for Air Force power combined with precise local intelligence, the sort of intelligence that Iraqi forces can provide. Any place the bad guys hide becomes JDAM material.

Seems like a win-win to me.

The Muslims who thought Katrina reflected Allah's wrath might want to rethink things a little

It looks like the tremblor on Muslim territory was much worse

According to this report, between 20,000 and 30,000 people may have been killed by this latest example of what happens when continents drift together, i.e. a magnitude 7.6 earthquake.

Our legal system recognizes natural disasters as "Acts of God". The less religious amongst us are more succinct: "S**t happens".

The difference is not about my God versus your God. Nobody knows what tests God will send their way. The difference is in preparedness and response to God's tests (aka natural disasters).

The reason why so many people die when a earthquake hits a poor country is because they don't have building codes that recognize that they live in an earthquake zone. That's a function of poverty and an Inshallah culture.

But the US can't be too smug. We don't yet have uniform building codes to protect against hurricanes and flooding. We know which areas are vulnerable but we pay people to rebuild ordinary houses there. Building codes that enforce hurricane and flood survivability standards, just as they enforce eathquake standards, would be a huge step towards reducing the costs imposed by natural disasters.

Sat Oct 08, 2005

Bork can talk

His failure gave us Anthony M. Kennedy

According to Beldar, who is a lawyer (but not my lawyer):

Robert Bork. The acid-tongued, short-fused, fire-breathing, contempt-dripping law professor-turned-judge who famously scolded senators on the floor of their own chamber for being so stupid and who generally freaked out the American public. A genuinely brilliant conservative, whose lifetime personal contributions to the precedent of the Supreme Court turned out to be zero. Well, he is indeed qualified to speak of disastrous nominations and botched confirmation processes, being as he is the all-time quintessential example of same in the history of the Republic.

Ronald Reagan followed that nomination with Anthony M. Kennedy. We'll leave it to Mr. Bork to describe the composition of the court:

The justices of the Supreme Court confirmed in the last thirty years are John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth B. Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer. Scalia and Thomas are considered conservative; O’Connor and Kennedy are swing votes, not clearly identified with either bloc; while Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer must be classified as liberals. Some ideological lock. If the Republican right wing can’t do any better than that, it is either powerless or incompetent.

Instead of moving the court firmly to the right, as Reagan intended, Bork made himself an easy target for borking. Net gain for originalists: ZERO. Better a Roberts or a Miers than another Bork.

John Bolton should have gotten the Nobel Peace Prize

But he would have turned it down; he knows it's worthless

I see the media is all agog that Mohamed ElBaradei got the Nobel Peace Prize for his role as head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for the last eight years. During that period North Korea claims to have developed nuclear weapons and Iran has considerably advanced its plans to build the first terrorist nuclear arsenal. Great job, Mohamed.

In early 2003, the US led Strategic Proliferation Initiative was announced. It was the brainchild of John Bolton, then the US Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security. In its short life it has already rolled up AQ Khan’s black market network in nuclear proliferation activities, shut down Libya's hitherto unknown nuclear weapons program, and intercepted shipments of ballistics missile technology from North Korea.

In the press conference on the occasion of the first year anniversary of the Proliferation Security Initiative, Bolton explains how PSI works (link above):

We don’t in PSI discuss the diplomatic track to the solution of North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. I think we’re all relying on the six-party talks that China has been hosting. What we talk about with respect to North Korea is its extensive history of outward proliferation activities. North Korea is one of the most extensive proliferators in the world. They’re probably the largest proliferator of ballistic missile technology and we fear that if they develop sufficient quantities of weapons grade uranium or plutonium that they, based on their history, would be prepared to sell that or actually sell weapons to other rogue states or terrorist groups. North Korea’s outward proliferation activities earn them hard currency, which in turn they use to finance their nuclear weapons program. So curtailing North Korea outward proliferation is not only positive in of itself, but it also impedes their pursuit of nuclear weapons. In addition to PSI the United States and others have engaged in extensive diplomatic activity over the past year to reduce North Korea’s sale of ballistic missile and other weapons technology. We think we’ve had some success in that regard and we think that PSI has been an important part of that.

Actions speak louder than words, or the Nobel Peace Prize.

If Miers couldn't argue a constitutional case then Al Gore would have won

Bet you anti-Mier zealots didn't know about that case

You would if you'd read Beldar Blog. Back in 1999, George W. Bush was governor of Texas. Dick Cheney was chief executive officer of Halliburton from 1995 through August 2000. Since Halliburton is headquartered in Texas, Cheney was resident in Texas at the time.

A few smart Texans realized that the Twelth Amendment to the Constitution provides, in relevant part:

[HN1] The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice--President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves[.]

So, while all eyes were focussed on the kerfuffle in Florida, there was a case going on in Texas that could have deprived George Bush of Texas's electoral votes and the Presidency. On first reading, or even a second, it looks like there was a serious constitutional problem with the Bush/Cheney candidacy. Beldar Blog explains how the case went:

And last, there's Jones v. Bush, 122 F. Supp. 2d 713 (N.D. Tex), aff'd mem., 244 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1062 (2001). It appears that Harriet Miers, on behalf of candidate and President-Elect George W. Bush, became one of the country's exceedingly few lawyers ever to handle a case involving the Twelfth Amendment. (How many Twelfth Amendment cases have John Roberts, Larry Tribe, and David Boies collectively handled? Why, I believe that number would be ... zero!)

Twelfth Amendment to what, you ask? It definitely looks like they're talking about the U.S. Constitution.

You remember that one, doncha? "The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves[.]" Gosh, that might have been embarrassing! Win in the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore, then have another federal court rule it was all for naught if both Bush and Cheney were held to be inhabitants of Texas? Ouch.

I wonder: Who was on the other side of Ms. Miers in that case? Who was trying to undo the 2000 election with this Twelfth Amendment argument? Hmmm — hey, I recognize this guy too: Sandy Levinson. He's only the "W. St. John Garwood and W. St. John Garwood, Jr. Centennial Chair in Law" at the University of Texas School of Law. (Translation: heap big professor-guy.) "[A]uthor of over 200 articles in professional and more popular journals." Been a visiting prof at some other pretty good law schools: Harvard, Yale, New York University, and Boston University law schools. Co-author of a leading constitutional law casebook. I actually sorta know Prof. Levinson. Had him for a class, and I edited a book review he wrote for the Texas Law Review; I liked him a lot, and he's definitely one of the national stars on the UT-Law faculty. (I think he blogs some too!)

I suppose that would also make him one of those grand constitutional scholars who spends pretty much all of his time thinking about questions of great pith and moment. You know, the kind of superior, intellectually powerful, big-leagues lawyer that Harriet Miers ... obviously just isn't.

"So tell us, Beldar," you plead, "How'd that case turn out? Did Prof. Levinson save the day for either Al Gore or Joe Lieberman by keeping the Texas electors from voting for both Bush and Cheney?"

Well, the short answer, friends and neighbors, is that Harriet Miers just flat out kicked the distinguished Prof. Levinson's butt in court. On just about every issue, too. And she did it not once, not twice, but three times: federal district court, then again on appeal in the Fifth Circuit, and then again in the U.S. Supreme Court — another one of those "cert. denied" notations.
You ask breathlessly: "But is that 'cert. denied' really a win?" Why yes, friends, it surely is. Because, you see, when you've won in the lower courts, then your job as a lawyer is to persuade the Supreme Court not to take the case. Which is exactly what Harriet Miers did here — after first winning so convincingly in the federal district court that the Fifth Circuit, on the way up, didn't even bother to write an opinion of its own.

Of course, if she'd failed in that effort, and the Supreme Court had granted certiorari, then she'd have probably gotten to do an oral argument in the Supreme Court. Hey, I guess then her detractors couldn't have made that particular argument for why she's so unqualified for the Supreme Court bench, huh? "She's never argued in the Supreme Court, she's such a light-weight, nyah-nyah!" Well, no, she was so good in this case that she didn't have to. But I don't suppose her detractors are going to choke on that bit of irony, are they? Because this was actually just another missed opportunity for Ms. Miers; I think we've pretty well established now that she's never going to cut it as a Beltway Lawyer-Snark Player.

After all, Harriet Miers is just a "third-rate lawyer" from "an undistinguished law firm" who's never handled any big cases, hasn't got any appellate experience to speak of, and has never, ever done anything involving really hard or important stuff like constitutional law. She's just an unqualified crony. Fetches Dubya's coffee. There's just nothing in her record, no meaningful achievements, to distinguish her from a million other lawyers in the country.

Do you think Dubya could have left that case to any of a million lawyers?

The case turned on what the framers meant by "inhabitant of ... [a] ... state". The defendants (Bush and Cheney won on the argument that:

[HN11] U.S Const. arts. I, § 2, cl. 2, I, § 3, cl. 3 provide, respectively, that a member of the House of Representatives and of the Senate shall be an inhabitant of the state for which he is chosen. The framers selected the term "inhabitant" rather than "resident" because "inhabitant" would not exclude persons absent occasionally for a considerable time on public or private business. Because there is
no indication in the text of the United States Constitution that the same term should be given different meanings in these provisos, this understanding of the definition of "inhabitant" applies equally to U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 3 and to the Twelfth Amendment, U.S. Const. amend. XII.

Was the case a slam-dunk for Miers? No:

Plaintiffs' attorney Bill Berenson of Fort Worth said Monday he expects the case to go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"Houdini himself could not have escaped Texas the way Cheney supposedly did,'' he said. "We are dead right on the law.''

And no, again:

The Texans are prepared to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court if the appeals court sides with a lower court judge, said James Jones, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs.

"It's an important constitutional question," Jones said. "It's one that Bush and Cheney have tried to finesse, but I think it's one that deserves serious attention."

One final thought; how do you think the Florida supreme court would have ruled?

Fri Oct 07, 2005

More thoughts on Miers

Conservatives should back off until the confirmation hearings

It's truly amazing to watch otherwise reasonable conservatives transform themselves into Ann Coulter clones over the Meirs nomination. I'm thankful that Beldarblog blog has risen to her defence, based on first-hand knowledge of the Texas legal scene. Me, I rather like her resume. An evangelical Southerner who packs heat, works 16 hour days, represents clients big and small, ran a large law firm (which must be like herding cats), and has been one of W's closest advisors for years. That resume sure balances up the Ivy League court, the one which gave us Kelo and Campaign Finance Reform.

And those who would berate Miers for not being an Ivy League legal scholar should note that she didn't make it to the East Coast because of her family circumstances.

The usually reliable Krauthammer asks:

There are 1,084,504 lawyers in the United States. What distinguishes Harriet Miers from any of them, other than her connection with the president?

Krauthammer must not have known that Miers, to quote a comment Beldar made in his fisking of Randy Barnett, had "made the National Law Journal's top 100 list". Very few of Krauthammer's 1,084,504 lawyers, were ever good enough to make that list. Contrary to Krauthammer's implication that Miers is just an average lawyer, her making such lists indicates that she is first class lawyer.

The Supreme Court could use some old fashioned horse sense and Miers will deliver it.

Palestinian style suicide bombing has already come to America

It just hasn't been successful yet

I'm not talking about the Oklahoma bomber, either. According to this Radio Free Europe report on the vulnerability of subways:

One known example of police being able to disrupt a subway attack took place in New York City in 1997 when the FBI foiled a plan by two Palestinian would-be suicide bombers to detonate five pipe bombs at one of the city's major subway stations. The authorities apparently were able to thwart the plot through inside information.

The article notes that attacking subways is relatively cheap for terrorist organizations:

Another factor acting in favor of the subway bomber is cost. Crude bombs such as the ones used in London, Moscow, or by the lone subway arsonist in South Korea are inexpensive to construct.

One expert quoted by the BBC gave an estimate of $10,000-$15,000 for the 7 July attacks in London. She said that since the bombs cost so little, it was probably possible for the organizers to raise the funds locally and avoid bank transfers that could attract the attention of the authorities.

Gasoline might just be the cheapest potential terrorist weapon. No one needs a money-laundering scheme to start a fire with gasoline. Moreover, it is unlikely that current security techniques would be able to prevent such attacks.

It is surprising that there have not been more suicide attacks on American soil. Either the authorities are doing a far better job than we know or the supply of suicide bombers is miniscule.

The perfect counterpoint to Bush's speech

Michael Yon's blog

I'm still reading it. You won't read this stuff in the NYT or WPO. That's because Yon does real reporting, WW2 style. The MSM doesn't know how, any more.

Miers deserves our support

She's a good strategic pick

Power Line seems to be coming around to supporting the Miers nomination. I'm pretty happy with it. If we can't put Dubya on the court, then she is the next best thing.

Miers replaces O'Connor. Miers is an originalist in her religion and her law. That's an improvement on the wishy-washy O'Connor. See, Dubya wants to shift the balance of the court without causing the Democrat equivalent of civil war. With Roberts and Miers, he does that. He can save the fireworks for his third nomination, one which will surely inspire his base.

Judicious Search

Asinine Stats

Most Popular Entries

Archives

Syndicate RSS

News Links

Contact Form

Your Email

Subject

Message