Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) stated in an interview today on MSNBC at around 12:25 P.T. that Judge Alito would, and I paraphrase, force a woman to consult her husband before receiving an abortion even if she feared him. Sen. Boxer was of course referring to Judge Alito’s dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Either willfully or out of ignorance, Sen. Boxer completely distorted not only Judge Alito’s opinion but the Pennsylvania law in question in the case. As Patterico pointed out yesterday in his review of Judge Alito’s dissent, the law in question did not force a married woman to consult her husband if she "ha[d] reason to believe that notification is likely to result in the infliction of injury upon her." Judge Alito acknowledged and cited this in his dissent. Further, all that was required was the woman’s uncorroborated assertion to this effect for her to be able to avoid the requirement. Quite the opposite of Sen. Boxer’s false statement.
Judge Alito’s nomination is only hours old and already Senate Democrats are not only distorting the truth but spreading lies. Unfortunately, Sen. Boxer’s statement is likely only a foretaste of the many distortions to come from her and members of her caucus throughout the nomination process. These tactics do the nominee, the process, the judiciary, and the nation a great disservice and hopefully enough senators from both sides will see fit to rise above them.
Cross-posted @ Respectfully Republican
Monday, October 31, 2005
Announcement Today?
The Washington Post is reporting that the president will likely announce his next Supreme Court nominee today, October 31. The possible nominees are Judge Samuel Alito of the Third Circuit, Judge J. Michael Luttig of the Fourth Circuit, and Judge Alice Batchelder of the Sixth Circuit. Do not be surprised however if the nominee is someone whose name has not been circulating through speculative circles.
If you had asked me who my favorite would have been yesterday I would have told you Judge Luttig with Judge Alito as a close second. Erick Erickson has commented however that there are concerns within some circles that Judge Luttig might possibly "grow in office", the infamous description the media uses for judges and politicians who have grown more liberal and less conservative while in office. I was surprised to learn this; Judge Luttig has had an extensive tenure on the federal bench with a consistent originalist/textualist record. Since Justice O’Connor announced her retirement last July I had favored Judge Luttig precisely because of the assumption that he was the least likely to change his spots if he were to become Justice Luttig.
If however there are legitimate concerns that Judge Luttig might indeed change over time once on the Court than Judge Alito should be the choice, as indications are that he very well might be. Judge Alito is a jurist of the deepest humility and knowledge of the constitution and his practice of judicial restraint is exactly the type of jurisprudence the Supreme Court sorely lacks at the moment.
Irregardless, the three possible nominees all have distinguished records on the bench and I'm sure all three will garner the widespread support of national conservatives that the Miers nomination failed to. Though there is little doubt that Democrats will fight tooth-and-nail against the nominee, whomever it is (they would have done that to Ms. Miers as well if conservatives hadn’t done their jobs for them), I'll hold off on commenting on the political dynamics of the nomination and confirmation process until the actual nominee is announced. I’ll simply say that any one of the three would be an excellent choice and will attract the type of overwhelming conservative support requisite in getting that nominee confirmed and on the Supreme Court.
If you had asked me who my favorite would have been yesterday I would have told you Judge Luttig with Judge Alito as a close second. Erick Erickson has commented however that there are concerns within some circles that Judge Luttig might possibly "grow in office", the infamous description the media uses for judges and politicians who have grown more liberal and less conservative while in office. I was surprised to learn this; Judge Luttig has had an extensive tenure on the federal bench with a consistent originalist/textualist record. Since Justice O’Connor announced her retirement last July I had favored Judge Luttig precisely because of the assumption that he was the least likely to change his spots if he were to become Justice Luttig.
If however there are legitimate concerns that Judge Luttig might indeed change over time once on the Court than Judge Alito should be the choice, as indications are that he very well might be. Judge Alito is a jurist of the deepest humility and knowledge of the constitution and his practice of judicial restraint is exactly the type of jurisprudence the Supreme Court sorely lacks at the moment.
Irregardless, the three possible nominees all have distinguished records on the bench and I'm sure all three will garner the widespread support of national conservatives that the Miers nomination failed to. Though there is little doubt that Democrats will fight tooth-and-nail against the nominee, whomever it is (they would have done that to Ms. Miers as well if conservatives hadn’t done their jobs for them), I'll hold off on commenting on the political dynamics of the nomination and confirmation process until the actual nominee is announced. I’ll simply say that any one of the three would be an excellent choice and will attract the type of overwhelming conservative support requisite in getting that nominee confirmed and on the Supreme Court.
Friday, October 28, 2005
Moving Forward
The balance of the conservative movement has gotten it’s way and the Miers nomination is a thing of the past. I’ve already shared my thoughts on the subject, in regards to both conservative reaction to and treatment of her and the White House’s handling of her nomination. In the interest of brevity I’ll avoid any repetition of these views and simply say that though I disagreed with many of my fellow conservatives’ opposition to her I hope we can now move forward and create the impetus and momentum needed to accomplish all the aspects of our agenda that remain unaccomplished.
There is still much to be done. Federal spending is out of control and substantial cuts are needed. The U.S.-Mexican border has been neglected for far too long and the border problem is in dire need of attention. The tax-code is too complex and is a burden on the economy. At the very least the code should be dramatically simplified.
The same goes for Social Security, which will be in serious trouble in the not too distant future. To help alleviate the looming crisis congress should stop spending the annual surplus and return the money in the form of personal savings accounts back to whom it belongs—the people. Though the accounts won’t look at all like those the president proposed they will go a long ways towards permanently fixing Social Security once and for all.
None of this is possible however without national conservatives supporting the president and pressuring their representatives in congress to get things done. The Miers debacle was a bitter and divisive affair and now that it is over we should all put the past month or so behind us and move forward. Too much still needs to be done to dwell on any hurt feelings or old scars; it’s time to let bygones be bygones and focus on the next nomination and the yet to be enacted Bush agenda.
NOTE: Indications are that the next nominee might be Judge Samuel Alito of the Third Circuit or Judge J. Michael Luttig of the Fourth Circuit. The internet chatter has been leaning in Alito’s direction. Either man would be a great choice and a nominee whom conservatives could coalesce around.
Cross-Posted @ Respectfully Republican
There is still much to be done. Federal spending is out of control and substantial cuts are needed. The U.S.-Mexican border has been neglected for far too long and the border problem is in dire need of attention. The tax-code is too complex and is a burden on the economy. At the very least the code should be dramatically simplified.
The same goes for Social Security, which will be in serious trouble in the not too distant future. To help alleviate the looming crisis congress should stop spending the annual surplus and return the money in the form of personal savings accounts back to whom it belongs—the people. Though the accounts won’t look at all like those the president proposed they will go a long ways towards permanently fixing Social Security once and for all.
None of this is possible however without national conservatives supporting the president and pressuring their representatives in congress to get things done. The Miers debacle was a bitter and divisive affair and now that it is over we should all put the past month or so behind us and move forward. Too much still needs to be done to dwell on any hurt feelings or old scars; it’s time to let bygones be bygones and focus on the next nomination and the yet to be enacted Bush agenda.
NOTE: Indications are that the next nominee might be Judge Samuel Alito of the Third Circuit or Judge J. Michael Luttig of the Fourth Circuit. The internet chatter has been leaning in Alito’s direction. Either man would be a great choice and a nominee whom conservatives could coalesce around.
Cross-Posted @ Respectfully Republican
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Straight From CENTCOM
I received an e-mail from First Lieutenant Brian Anderson of U.S. Central Command today asking me to link to a CENTCOM press release regarding the story being put out about bodies being burned in Afghanistan. I'll let the press release speak for itself but Lt. Anderson made it clear in the e-mail that CENTCOM does not condone such activity. Here is the link to the press release:
http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/News_Release.asp?NewsRelease=20051071.txt
http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/News_Release.asp?NewsRelease=20051071.txt
A Pox On Both Your Houses
Blogging on Redstate.org in regards to the Miers nomination Pejman Yousefzadeh emphatically stated that "the White House has thoroughly botched the mechanics of her [Ms. Mier’s] nomination". This sentiment is widely held throughout the country and in many ways it is correct.
The White House’s attempts at propping up the nominee have been weak and ineffective. We have heard little, if anything about Ms. Mier’s work in the White House the past four and a half years, only the constant recitation of some of her firsts in Texas and the fact that she is a devout evangelical Christian. All interesting facts to know but otherwise irrelevant to her judicial temperament or ability.
It has also slipped out that Ms. Miers really wasn’t the first choice but the replacement for the nominee who opted out at the last minute. Such a revelation can work in no way except to the detriment of Ms. Miers confirmation prospects and her credibility should she be confirmed. The last thing she needs through this whole ordeal is the label of "second choice" hanging over her head like a dark storm cloud.
Equally at fault though have been national conservatives. They have opposed Ms. Miers nomination from the start, rising in righteous indignation with the certainty that they have once again been betrayed by a Republican president. In fact, the tone and volume of conservative reaction has been such that one can sense conservatives were just waiting to be betrayed and are now indulging themselves in self-pity now that their expectations have come to fruition.
This reaction has been knee-jerk. Maybe Ms. Miers will be a terrible disappointment; another O’Connor perhaps. But at the very least she deserves a chance to prove herself, both in her hearings and once she reaches the Supreme Court. In the interest of fairness conservatives should cease this gnashing of teeth for at least five minutes and wait to pass judgment.
The White House has done Ms. Miers few favors since her nomination, but the conservative movement has convicted her a failure in the court of public opinion without the benefit of a fair trial. Ms. Miers has been done a great inservice by all involved in the process.
The White House’s attempts at propping up the nominee have been weak and ineffective. We have heard little, if anything about Ms. Mier’s work in the White House the past four and a half years, only the constant recitation of some of her firsts in Texas and the fact that she is a devout evangelical Christian. All interesting facts to know but otherwise irrelevant to her judicial temperament or ability.
It has also slipped out that Ms. Miers really wasn’t the first choice but the replacement for the nominee who opted out at the last minute. Such a revelation can work in no way except to the detriment of Ms. Miers confirmation prospects and her credibility should she be confirmed. The last thing she needs through this whole ordeal is the label of "second choice" hanging over her head like a dark storm cloud.
Equally at fault though have been national conservatives. They have opposed Ms. Miers nomination from the start, rising in righteous indignation with the certainty that they have once again been betrayed by a Republican president. In fact, the tone and volume of conservative reaction has been such that one can sense conservatives were just waiting to be betrayed and are now indulging themselves in self-pity now that their expectations have come to fruition.
This reaction has been knee-jerk. Maybe Ms. Miers will be a terrible disappointment; another O’Connor perhaps. But at the very least she deserves a chance to prove herself, both in her hearings and once she reaches the Supreme Court. In the interest of fairness conservatives should cease this gnashing of teeth for at least five minutes and wait to pass judgment.
The White House has done Ms. Miers few favors since her nomination, but the conservative movement has convicted her a failure in the court of public opinion without the benefit of a fair trial. Ms. Miers has been done a great inservice by all involved in the process.
Saturday, October 15, 2005
Iraq Votes
The vote seemed to go fairly smoothly today. There was some scattered instances of violence but not nearly as much as was previously expected or feared, much like the election last January. Turnout was high as well, estimated at or a little over sixty percent.
Indications are that turnout was also high within the Sunni provinces, not at all like last January’s election. Some might fear that high Sunni turnout bodes poorly for the constitution’s chances of ratification. I tend to agree with John Hinderaker of Powerline however that the constitution will be ratified regardless and that Sunni participation in the democratic process should be welcomed and viewed as a positive development. Remember, Sunnis were boycotting the process not too long ago; Sunni involvement in Iraq’s infant democracy is a sign of progress. They now realize the train is leaving the station and they better get on board; good news for Iraq and bad news for the terrorist "insurgency" within that country.
Indications are that turnout was also high within the Sunni provinces, not at all like last January’s election. Some might fear that high Sunni turnout bodes poorly for the constitution’s chances of ratification. I tend to agree with John Hinderaker of Powerline however that the constitution will be ratified regardless and that Sunni participation in the democratic process should be welcomed and viewed as a positive development. Remember, Sunnis were boycotting the process not too long ago; Sunni involvement in Iraq’s infant democracy is a sign of progress. They now realize the train is leaving the station and they better get on board; good news for Iraq and bad news for the terrorist "insurgency" within that country.
Friday, October 14, 2005
History Repeats Itself
Mort Kondracke pointed out during the panel portion of today’s Special Report W/ Brit Hume that the constitution Iraqis will go to the polls to ratify tomorrow is, in a way, incomplete. The negotiation process has been tricky and contentious between Iraq’s sectarian groups and only this week was a compromise reached between the Sunnis and the Shias and Kurds. Still, a few of the most tricky issues were reportedly put off to the side for the time being, with promises that these issues will be dealt with through the amendment process should the constitution be ratified and the permanent parliament comes into session. In this regard Mr. Kondracke is correct.
It deserves mentioning however that the United States went through a nearly identical situation when writing and ratifying our constitution. A handful of states were wary of the strong centralized government that a new constitution would install. The concern was that such a government would go on to violate individual rights in the same manner King George III and parliament had done prior to the revolutionary war. To placate these concerns leading proponents of the constitution promised that a bill of rights would be ratified in the first congress in return for those states’ support.
So yes the Iraqi constitution is "incomplete", but so was ours. The important thing is that Iraq’s varying factions have reached consensus and agreement and Iraq is on the cusp of ratifying a constitution that will create a permanent democratic government.
It deserves mentioning however that the United States went through a nearly identical situation when writing and ratifying our constitution. A handful of states were wary of the strong centralized government that a new constitution would install. The concern was that such a government would go on to violate individual rights in the same manner King George III and parliament had done prior to the revolutionary war. To placate these concerns leading proponents of the constitution promised that a bill of rights would be ratified in the first congress in return for those states’ support.
So yes the Iraqi constitution is "incomplete", but so was ours. The important thing is that Iraq’s varying factions have reached consensus and agreement and Iraq is on the cusp of ratifying a constitution that will create a permanent democratic government.
Sunday, October 09, 2005
Gonzales v. Oregon
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in the case of Gonzales v. Oregon, sure to be one of the most important cases the new Roberts Court will deal with in it’s first term. The question presented is whether the federal government has the authority to preempt the state of Oregon’s assisted suicide law under the Controlled Substances Act. More specifically, can the Justice Department prevent physicians within the state of Oregon from prescribing certain drugs banned under the CSA to terminally ill patients?
The short and simple answer to this question is no, the federal government cannot preempt the Oregon law. Under the Tenth Amendment Oregon can pass and enforce just about any law that it and it’s residents desire.
This does not mean however that the state action in this case is immune from federal influence or interference. If a doctor prescribes a drug that is banned under the CSA, and is or has been in the interstate commercial market, the federal government has the power to step in and prevent that drug from being prescribed and used. In other words, the federal government may act so long as it’s action is a legitimate and valid means in achieving it’s legitimate, constitutionally-authorized end, which in this regard is regulating interstate commerce.
The federal government’s reach and authority ends here though. If the Oregon law in question were to permit doctors to prescribe non-CSA banned drugs and/or those drugs are not tangibly interstate nor commercial----in terms of their cultivation, transport, and consumption----than the federal government has no reach or authority in the matter. Put simply, the federal government cannot substantively prevent Oregon from legalizing doctor-assisted suicide within the state. What it can do, under authority of the Commerce Clause, is prohibit certain drugs from being prescribed for the purpose of assisted-suicide provided those drugs are a tangible aspect of the interstate, commercial drug market. Absent this, the federal government has no leg on which to stand.
The short and simple answer to this question is no, the federal government cannot preempt the Oregon law. Under the Tenth Amendment Oregon can pass and enforce just about any law that it and it’s residents desire.
This does not mean however that the state action in this case is immune from federal influence or interference. If a doctor prescribes a drug that is banned under the CSA, and is or has been in the interstate commercial market, the federal government has the power to step in and prevent that drug from being prescribed and used. In other words, the federal government may act so long as it’s action is a legitimate and valid means in achieving it’s legitimate, constitutionally-authorized end, which in this regard is regulating interstate commerce.
The federal government’s reach and authority ends here though. If the Oregon law in question were to permit doctors to prescribe non-CSA banned drugs and/or those drugs are not tangibly interstate nor commercial----in terms of their cultivation, transport, and consumption----than the federal government has no reach or authority in the matter. Put simply, the federal government cannot substantively prevent Oregon from legalizing doctor-assisted suicide within the state. What it can do, under authority of the Commerce Clause, is prohibit certain drugs from being prescribed for the purpose of assisted-suicide provided those drugs are a tangible aspect of the interstate, commercial drug market. Absent this, the federal government has no leg on which to stand.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
The Miers Nomination
Conservatives are panicking. They are in a furious rage. The president promised them a constitutionalist and judges who would never legislate from the bench and he gave them.....Harriet Miers. The reaction to the president’s announcement this morning was fast and furious from the right. Redstate.org opined that Ms. Miers is, as far as they know, "unqualified for the position." Paul Mirengoff of Powerline asserts that Miers would not have been nominated were it not "for her gender" and her "status as a Bush crony". William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, goes so far as to say he is "disappointed", "depressed", and "demoralized" with the Miers selection. The mood within the comment sections of conservative blogs is much harsher.
At first I was not all that enthusiastic about the pick either. As most conservatives, I was enchanted by the prospect of a Luttig, Alito, or Garza joining Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts on the high court. Harriet Miers would not have been my first choice, not even close. But this does not mean that Ms. Miers is not a good choice, or quite possibly, a great choice. Conservatives would do well to desist the hysterical gnashing of teeth they are currently indulging in and keep a few things in mind.
First, the president has not broken his promise to nominate judges in the mold of a Scalia or a Thomas----he has never made such a promise. The president said that Justices Scalia and Thomas were those whom he most admired. What he promised, throughout his presidency and his reelection campaign, was that he will nominate judges who respect the law and will not legislate from the bench.
Ms. Miers is not unqualified. The fact that she has never served on a bench, state or federal, or is not a prominent legal scholar in no way disqualifies her from serving on the U.S. Supreme Court. She has spent her life in private practice, she has served as president of the Texas state bar, and has served in the Bush Administration in it’s entirety. If Ms. Miers’ credentials do not suffice as proper qualification than neither did those of William Rehnquist, the late and great Chief Justice whom all conservatives agree was one of the nation’s greatest.
Neither is Ms. Miers a Bush "crony". The fact that she is a close associate and subordinate of the president should comfort conservatives tepid over her lack of a paper trail or discernible judicial philosophy. The president wants a justice who will exercise judicial restraint and remain faithful to the constitution just as much as anybody. His lower court appointments bear this out. After reviewing all possible candidates his personal association with Ms. Miers convinced him that she will meet this criterion. The president came to the same conclusion in a similar circumstance when selecting his running mate and vice president. Does any conservative dispute his judgment in that instance?
The president knows Harriet Miers, he trusts her with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. In turn, I trust the president; he has never given me, nor any other conservative reason not to.
Hat Tip: John Hinderaker, Patrick Ruffini
UPDATE (4:13 P.M. 10/4/05): Read this.
At first I was not all that enthusiastic about the pick either. As most conservatives, I was enchanted by the prospect of a Luttig, Alito, or Garza joining Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts on the high court. Harriet Miers would not have been my first choice, not even close. But this does not mean that Ms. Miers is not a good choice, or quite possibly, a great choice. Conservatives would do well to desist the hysterical gnashing of teeth they are currently indulging in and keep a few things in mind.
First, the president has not broken his promise to nominate judges in the mold of a Scalia or a Thomas----he has never made such a promise. The president said that Justices Scalia and Thomas were those whom he most admired. What he promised, throughout his presidency and his reelection campaign, was that he will nominate judges who respect the law and will not legislate from the bench.
Ms. Miers is not unqualified. The fact that she has never served on a bench, state or federal, or is not a prominent legal scholar in no way disqualifies her from serving on the U.S. Supreme Court. She has spent her life in private practice, she has served as president of the Texas state bar, and has served in the Bush Administration in it’s entirety. If Ms. Miers’ credentials do not suffice as proper qualification than neither did those of William Rehnquist, the late and great Chief Justice whom all conservatives agree was one of the nation’s greatest.
Neither is Ms. Miers a Bush "crony". The fact that she is a close associate and subordinate of the president should comfort conservatives tepid over her lack of a paper trail or discernible judicial philosophy. The president wants a justice who will exercise judicial restraint and remain faithful to the constitution just as much as anybody. His lower court appointments bear this out. After reviewing all possible candidates his personal association with Ms. Miers convinced him that she will meet this criterion. The president came to the same conclusion in a similar circumstance when selecting his running mate and vice president. Does any conservative dispute his judgment in that instance?
The president knows Harriet Miers, he trusts her with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. In turn, I trust the president; he has never given me, nor any other conservative reason not to.
Hat Tip: John Hinderaker, Patrick Ruffini
UPDATE (4:13 P.M. 10/4/05): Read this.
Sunday, October 02, 2005
Public Opinion-The National Judiciary
A new poll released by the American Bar Association shows strong public dissatisfaction with the national judiciary. While I do agree that the judiciary is certainly out of control in many respects, I don’t agree with some of the other sentiments expressed in this poll. For example, "[a] majority of survey respondents agreed with statements that ‘judicial activism’ has reached the crisis stage, and that judges who ignore voters’ values should be impeached".
If judges are to simply stay in line with "voters’ values" and should be impeached if they fail to do so than the dividing line between the judicial branch and the other two political branches no longer exists. Judges must follow the letter and text of the law; following public opinion will only further the current problem.
Hat Tip: Confirm Them
If judges are to simply stay in line with "voters’ values" and should be impeached if they fail to do so than the dividing line between the judicial branch and the other two political branches no longer exists. Judges must follow the letter and text of the law; following public opinion will only further the current problem.
Hat Tip: Confirm Them
Saturday, October 01, 2005
Confirmed and Sworn In
John G. Roberts has been confirmed and sworn in as the seventeenth Chief Justice of the United States. Praising his credentials and qualifications at this point would be repetitive on my part, so I’ll simply state that John Roberts will be a fantastic Chief Justice and his confirmation insures our government’s third branch will be in good hands for many years to come. Congratulations to Chief Justice Roberts on his ascension to the Supreme Court’s center seat and to President Bush for nominating the most qualified man for the job.
The occasion of Chief Justice Robert’s overwhelming confirmation vote also warrants a tip of the cap to the one-half of the Democratic Caucus that voted for the chief, including my state’s senior senator Patty Murray. Granted, Thursday’s Democratic "yea" votes probably weren’t so much an affirmation of support for John Roberts as a strategic move intended to pay dividends in the next confirmation fight, but all that really matters in the end is that Democrats voting in the affirmative did the right thing, not why they did the right thing.
The occasion of Chief Justice Robert’s overwhelming confirmation vote also warrants a tip of the cap to the one-half of the Democratic Caucus that voted for the chief, including my state’s senior senator Patty Murray. Granted, Thursday’s Democratic "yea" votes probably weren’t so much an affirmation of support for John Roberts as a strategic move intended to pay dividends in the next confirmation fight, but all that really matters in the end is that Democrats voting in the affirmative did the right thing, not why they did the right thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)