Posted 7:06 PM by Jason
Morons

Despite having engaged in a little at Drake as an undergrad (take that Joan Jett!), I think the sign-waving and chanting method of demonstrating is generally pretty much worthless.  Signs, songs, chants, woo hoo, aren’t you impressive?  On a political issue, maybe, maybe you can have some effect, but it isn’t likely, since any argument gets reduced to something stupid, simple, and utterly incomplete.  On a legal issue, seriously, how can you even think this would make a difference either way?  Do these people think RBG is going to wake up one morning, see their signs and think “Oy vey! I’ve been so wrong!”  Or Clarence Thomas deciding “you know what, to hell with the text, I’ll ask these people what they think” Oh well, its probably really just a way for them to raise funds for when it really matters.           

Note: The link no longer works, the story that it linked to was about demonstrators on both sides of the issue (using the aforementioned signs, songs, chants, etc…) were doing their thing outside of the Supreme Court building because of the Ayotte case.

0 comments

Posted 12:11 PM by magnu231
NYT: Of Course Nothing's Going Well Here, Bush is Still President!

Some would say the economy is doing rather well. Some would say that things are looking up in Iraq. Some would say there actually is some good news to be found in various walks of life. But the Times puts a stop to those rumors. There is nothing good in the U.S. right now that could possibly be attributed to George W. The economy? Actually quite bad . Iraq? Vietnam. Of course! It stands to reason. Obviously anyone the Times dislikes on some issues must be universally bad for the country. Cindy Sheehan may complain about some pics taken of her, but there's no question in my mind that there is still a strong bent to the media, and it ain't against Sheehan and her ilk.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/29/business/29cnd-econ.html?ei=5065&en=cc6de7a6bcd8d048&ex=1133931600&adxnnl=1&partner=MYWAY&adxnnlx=1133319896-xeBG9cMSHDGgSzVw6VqhTA&pagewanted=print

0 comments

Posted 9:41 AM by Jason
Solomon amendment debate rears its ugly head

David Bernstein had an interesting post on the Volokh Conspiracy last night on everyone’s favorite topic, the Solomon Amendment, tying the use of the coercive spending power under Solomon to its earlier use, enforcement of Title VI and Title IX of the Civil Rights Act.             

0 comments

Posted 1:36 PM by magnu231
Joe "Liber"-man

Sorry, I had to go with the pun off the bat. This Wall Street Journal article is interesting. I know many (if not most) libs consider Lieberman a bit of a squish, but I still think his opinion is worth something. I think his piece is an interesting perspective on Iraq. Personally, I'm still torn on the issue of going to war in the first place. I think it was justified, but not necessarily the right thing to do . I for one am a little disturbed by the arguments stressing our justification in "freeing" the people of Iraq rather than protecting our own citizens. I don't think it is our government's responsibility to provide freedom, peace, and prosperity to non-citizens (or due process?). Anyway, I do think it's encouraging the good news that one hears from Iraq, if one ignores the conventional media.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007611

0 comments

Posted 12:04 PM by Jason
BOOM BOOM, Out go the lights!

In just a few hours the John M. Olin Foundation will approve its last round of grants and figuratively turn off its lights for good.  As I have mentioned before, the Olin Foundation played a role in the creation of the Federalist Society, as well as innumerable other bastions of conservative thought.  John J. Miller has an article (and a book out soon) on the foundation in yesterday’s New York Times.  Some may wish the foundation could stay around just a little while longer, but Mr. Olin’s will was explicitly otherwise. I think he would be proud of the strides made in his name, which have created a network for intelligent conservatism that can stand without the constant support of the foundation.  In a sense, the metaphorical training wheels are off.  

0 comments

Posted 10:57 AM by Jason
Re: Lucky

Jmag,
While I must confess to not being as well versed in Chambers’ actual writings as I should be, I have read a fair amount about him.  What I find very interesting is that he enrolled at Western Maryland College at a relatively advanced age to study science, having been told by Arthur Koestler that he could not possibly understand the world without understanding science.  I think his pessimism with respect to the march of communism, at least at that time (and with his health issues, I suppose it would be difficult to be all sunshine and daisies), was justified, and we can be thankful that at least on this he was wrong.  Derbyshire’s pessimism though I usually find amusing, and he is one of those few political writers who also ventures fairly credibly into science.  


0 comments

Posted 10:50 AM by magnu231
Rinos and Dinos.

I know I've posted an inordinate amount of NRO material, but this is too good to pass up. Like the late C.S. Lewis, I also mourn for the days of good old fashioned Believers, who sincerely thought their ideas were correct, and were willing to give their lifeblood for the cause. Those days are gone, and our politicians now believe in nothing but power, money, and electability. Debates are solely a function of "what the public will accept", and both parties are united in growing their own power through the federal government. I'll also included "Screwtape Proposes a Toast" for good measure.


http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200511280808.asp

http://www.seark.net/~jlove/screwtape.htm

0 comments

Posted 9:11 AM by magnu231
Lucky?

Great article by John Derbyshire here. He posits that he is part of the "luckiest" generation, missing all of the horrors of the 20th century, while perhaps dying before what he predicts to be the horrors of the 21st century. And I would agree with some of his conclusions (although not all). But I think he has perhaps fallen victim to the defeatism that comes with age, on occasion. Whit Chambers was one of my favorite writers, but it is now almost amusing to read the depths of despair that he fell to, and the gloom that he predicted would overtake human history. Communism has been beaten (perhaps temporarily), and we're living in what by almost any measure are the "good times" for the world in general. Sure I see the problems on the horizon, the looming welfare state, the corruption of the political system, the increasing morally bankrupt, lazy, and "soft", American populace, and of course the (again) rising threats of fascism, socialism, and religious terrorism. But let's not be defeatist. Previous generations have defeated threats that the generation before it (who had also defeated tremendous threats) never thought conquerable. Like Faulkner, I refuse to believe in the end of man (or America), at least until I am old, and existance becomes less tenable.


http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire200511230838.asp

0 comments

Posted 7:44 PM by Jason
My thanks

As a conservative, to me no list of thanks today would be complete without William F. Buckley, Jr., founder and longtime editor of National Review, who celebrates his 80th birthday today.  Here are some remarks from Tim Geoghlin, deputy director of the Office of Public Liaison at the White House, at the official NR celebration last week.

2 comments

Posted 2:47 PM by magnu231
Things I'm Thankful For

I'm not going to go with a list of the usuals, although I'm thankful for them. Here's some unusual things I'm thankful for.

1. I'm thankful that the turkey isn't our national bird (sorry Ben Franklin).

2. I'm thankful for the irrational people on the other side of the political spectrum, because they make me look smart. I'm thankful for the irrational people on my side of the political spectrum, because they make me look reasonable.

3. I'm thankful that Miers didn't get nominated, and that Alito will.

4. I'm thankful that the Democrats are in shambles, and that the Republicans are turning into everything they've professed to hate, because that makes the possibility of a viable third party that much larger. (Go Libertarian!)

5. I'm thankful that I don't get the grades for 1st term for a while.

6. I'm thankful that in a month I'll be done with my first set of finals.

7. I'm thankful that my opinions are always right. What a gift!

0 comments

Posted 4:22 PM by Jason
Sports Arbitration

Thought this story on arbitration was interesting, mostly because I think Terrell Owens is pretty much worthless as a human being.  Also because the NFL Players’ Association is just as worthless as an organization, at least for players on TO’s level, who can afford their own lawyers (since the Eagles were still paying him, just not allowing him to play).  The union has now threatened to dismiss the arbitrator that upheld the team’s decision during their window to do so in the beginning of December because "His ruling ... ignores the obligation a club has to either provide employment to a player or allow him to play somewhere else. We are confident that we put in a winning case at the hearing last Friday, and we still believe Terrell Owens had a right to a legitimate reinstatement."
Forgive me if I shed no tears for Owens, I instead agree with Joe Theismann, who said, Obviously he won't be with the Eagles next season. He walked across that bridge with jet fuel and a lighter, and now there's no turning back.”  I will admit to being absolutely clueless on the existence of any “right” of a player to play as long as he is still being paid under his contract, so I ask: Any ESLA people out there to comment?

0 comments

Posted 4:53 PM by magnu231
Once More, Into the Breach

The ID speaker today was interesting, but I think a bit off track. I don't think putting ID into the category of science is defensible, and trying to put it there tacitly accepts the other side's best argument that their position is scientific. Nobody, but nobody, has ANY scientific understanding of the beginning, either of matter, of life, of consciousness, etc. ID's have a philosphical explaination: someone or thing created these things. Evolutionists also have a philosophical explaination: these things were created by chance circumstances. Both are philosphical, and if one is taught, the other must be as well, but as philosophical points, not as scientific. Much of what is accepted as science today is simply philosophy with some fun facts to cite, but with no demonstrable causal connection. The vestigal organ debate? Philosophical. Intra-species change? Philosophical. I just wish scientists would stop pretending to be the be-all end all of rational knowledge in today's world. A lot of them work off biases and assumptions like everyone else, and then everything counts as evidence for their side, and anyone who disagrees with their philosophy is against progress, a superstitious fool, and blind to science. But, in the interests of intellectual honesty, I don't like IDers also fighting in this territory. They don't belong there either.

0 comments

Posted 9:28 AM by magnu231
Come on, Drudge.

Seriously. You can do better than this. Technical difficulties prove existence of liberal bias? Surely there's better evidence than that? Just look at the NYTimes. Every day. I'm sure you'll come up with something better.


http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3cnc.htm

0 comments

Posted 9:44 AM by magnu231
Racist Liberals? You're kidding.

I'm shocked. Surely these are not liberals attacking someone with whom they disagree not on the merits of their ideas, but on their skin color, appearance, family, etc. But they're tolerant! Oh, wait, being free from racist insults is one of the perks of joining the liberal "club". If you're not in the "club" you're fair game. I personally am not a big fan of Malkin all the time. I think she has the occasional tendency to stray into Coulter-land, valuing shock over substance, and bomb throwing over speaking the modest truth. However, this is unconscienable.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003955.htm

8 comments

Posted 12:25 PM by Jason
Creative sentencing in Ohio

“Michelle Murray will now have the opportunity to experience what the dozens of kittens felt the night she abandoned them at two Lake Metroparks in September.”


0 comments

Posted 7:32 PM by Jason
pseudo-Celebrity DeathMatch! Wilson v. Woodward!

I just don’t have a side in this one, and that is rare enough to warrant a post.

0 comments

Posted 7:28 PM by Jason
Screaming for relevance: Sheehan found guilty

"I absolutely believe he has an obligation to meet with me," Sheehan said.

Wait, he already did.  And I think that waving signs is a funny way to try to deliver petitions.  

0 comments

Posted 7:20 PM by Jason
Rehashing last night, having fun at the expense of moronic undergrads

Jmag,
I must note that you just blew any anonyminity you had planned to maintain, but I did like the article.  Unfortunately for Provost Sullivan, the entering class may not be as bright as he thought.  I quote one Amelia Smith, a freshman (I changed that to freshman from “first year student” in the article, since she is probably the type who would be offended by the term freshman) and one of the protesters:

  “Yoo has helped to commit a lot of atrocities. I want to make sure that he knows he’s not welcome at my university.  In my eyes, he’s pretty much a criminal.”

Gee Amelia, glad to know you’re a judge, I could use a clerkship for the summer.

She apparently was a speaker and organizer at some sort of anti-war walkout last week.  It occurs to me that given her tactics, Miss Smith may have been one of the older members of the audience who appeared to have just recently stepped out of her 1967 haze.  

Furthermore:
“As students paying for tuition, we want him to know that he isn’t welcome here.”
  
And what about all of the students on both sides that did welcome Professor Yoo?
Amelia, teach yourself something about funding at a large public university before you decide that you think your tuition dollars are paying for anything over in Mondale Hall.  Also, your debate style needs help, I mean, putting your hands over your ears and shouting “I can’t hear you!” just does not hold up.  

As for my peers on the left, thank you for being respectful.  I think Sebastian Ellefson put it well “It seems an odd thing to express your free speech at the expense of others.  A bunch of us just came to learn.”

1 comments

Posted 6:22 PM by magnu231
Egregious Ego

This is just hilarious. I thought judges were monomaniacal, but they've got nothing on Congressmen apparently.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashch.htm

0 comments

Posted 2:09 PM by magnu231
More on Yoo

Interesting article here. And not just because I'm quoted.

http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2005/11/17/66213

0 comments

Posted 11:59 AM by Jason
Ideologues?

Ed Whelan, as would be expected, goes further and does better with the Alito/RBG comparison than I have time to.  Its a good read, a sample:
Twenty years ago, Alito expressed the view that there is not a constitutional right to abortion. From the day Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973 until the present, many liberal scholars and commentators who support abortion as a matter of policy have been intensely critical of Roe. The view that Alito expressed twenty years ago is squarely in this broad tradition.
In 1977, 16 years before Clinton nominated her to the Court, Ginsburg strongly criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling in Maher v. Roe that the Constitution does not require taxpayers to fund abortions. The view that Ginsburg expressed was and is an extreme minority position. As her vote in Lawrence v. Texas shows, Ginsburg does not hesitate to overrule precedent that she disagrees with.


0 comments

Posted 11:00 AM by Jason
Commie chic

If Green Day went to Hungary, they could be arrested and sentenced to jail for a year for their little red stars.  While I can see why Hungarians would ban communist and Nazi symbols given the history of oppression and abuse, I of course wouldn’t advocate the same here in the U.S.  One question: Who’s the American Idiot now?  

(for you clever folk who are itching to post “you”, save it, I already know)

0 comments

Posted 10:09 PM by Jason
Its not you, its me

Ivan over at Joint Strike Weasel thinks I was making fun of him (or his hat) in my previous post.  Sorry Ivan, I wasn’t referring to anyone in particular, just the general state of things.  And I wanted to mention that P.J. O’Rourke is still alive.  Wait, I forgot to mention that.  He is.  
On the other hand, he apparently thinks we’re interesting enough to read, so that’s a plus.  As to the issue of this blog being possibly more political than legal, well, I can only argue that often times the issues intersect to a great deal, as with the Alito nomination.  There’s also the fact that a lot of our laws are made by politicians, which I personally see as very consistent with the Fed-Soc’s purpose.  We may disagree as to which politicians at which level, but rule by judges is, I would think, I pretty common distaste.  It is simply too hard and too tunnel-visioned to draw the line, something I have a hard time with. Kind of like Congress (and the Court for that matter) and the Commerce Clause.  

1 comments

Posted 9:42 PM by magnu231
The Closing of a Mind

"For in the absence of debate unrestricted utterance leads to the degradation of opinion. By a kind of Gresham’s law the more rational is overcome by the less rational, and the opinions that will prevail will be those which are held most ardently by those with the most passionate will. For that reason the freedom to speak can never be maintained merely by objecting to interference with the liberty of the press, of printing, of broadcasting, of the screen. It can be maintained only by promoting debate." Walter Lipman.

My thoughts on the debate tonight are many and somewhat jumbled in places. Forgive me in advance if this comes off like one of my more unsuccessful legal writing assignments. First, I'd like to thank those who were there to learn, to debate, to dissent, to reason, and above all to respectfully learn about an opposing view. As you may know, if you search my prior posts, I personally came into the debate tonight rather opposed to Yoo's constitutional view. Unfortunately, I did not get much of a chance to hear a debate. The frenzy of a few people drove reason from the building, and left the hippies, foaming at the mouth, against the rest of the people. It obviously united the speakers. There was no substantive debate on the issues, because the opposition to Yoo had to continually defend him from scurrilous claims of everything vile. That took away from my education on the issue. In fact, it put me on Yoo's side, too, regardless of my views. The man wrote a legal memo on a legal issue, not a moral issue. It was obvious that few in the crowd could even hope to compete with him on intellectual grounds, so they retreated to the more defendable ground of epithets, interruptions, and the most ridiculous costumes I've seen in quite some time.

I'm not really going to deal much with the substantive issues that were raised (few as they were). I will mention that Yoo did have some good points that I had not thought. I'll also mention that I was happy to have heard of most of the cases presented on both sides. Charles did a good job preparing us. And all of the law students I saw were remarkably respectful and courteous, leaving the greasy, aging, hippies to protest. I knew it was going to be confrontational, when I saw a protestor outside in the freezing cold, manfully holding some sort of sign accusing Yoo of playing Zed to Bush's Maynard. (Actually that would have been the most intelligent and entertaining metaphor of the night, most protestors actually stuck to the tried and true "torturor, murderer, babykiller, etc" epithet.) I was sitting in the back, and was constantly struck by the humor of seeing women who looked vaguely similar to my grandma, sternly standing in orange jumpsuits either raising signs, or displaying wires they'd cut from their curling irons hanging from their hands. I was hedged before and aft by foul smelling do-gooders with no idea of the substantive law, just opinions based on articles in the People's World Weekly, who would pull out the occasional note card and launch into some poorly worded attack on...something. I couldn't understand what they were saying most of the time, but their preparation shamed me somewhat, especially compared to my prep work for most con law work. I need to work on having less knowledge but more vitriol packed into my responses to Charles' questions, I think. A simple "I'm not sure", or "I don't know", are certainly inferior to a strong "BABYKILLER!" The protestors usually spoke loudly but incoherently, until the University police, doubtless happy at the break from escorting tipsy frat boys, and vomiting sorority girls back to their various places of abode. One particularly entertaining bald man in front of me made me fear for his sanity. Whenever he'd disagree with a point (including with ones that were absolutely factual, such as legal precedents), he'd expansively shake his head, looking similar to my golden retriever's tail when he sees me return from a long absence. He also murmured something about the "bombing of Dresden" sagely under his breath, as if it were the definitive answer to John Yoo's point on Hamdi and Ex Parte Quirin. People were irate after the speech to find that none of their questions were read. The angry cry went up, "Those are all law student questions!" To which I noted to myself that last time I had checked, this was a law school event, sponsored by law students, and primarily for law students. The funny thing was that much of the yelling and interrupting and anger would probably have qualified as torture if it had been done to any prisoner currently in custody.

I went and thanked Yoo, his counterpart, and the police, afterward. I should have thanked the protestors. They contributed to one of the most entertaining evenings I've had in quite some time, and certainly my most entertaining experience at the law school, even passing the occasionally mediocre professor talent show. I admit that I was frustrated at the lack of knowledge I recieved. Actually, who am I kidding? I loved the spectacle. A good fight always gets my juices flowing. Also, it crystalized the debate for me (although not necessarily in a good way). I realize that although we focus on reason here at the law school, I will perhaps run into a similar crowd, substituing invective for insight, and vituperation for vigorous intellectual debate. I hope in that case that I will comport myself as well as did the speakers for tonight, as well as the various students who tried to calm the crowd down in order to learn.

0 comments

Posted 8:34 PM by Jason
Debate Update

For those of you who were not able to attend the debate this evening, you didn’t miss much.  I can’t say that the participants did poorly, only that it was hard to pay attention thanks to the presence of some “free speech advocates” (dressed in orange and gagged, by themselves, now that’s irony) who were there to ask us why we were letting Prof. Yoo speak, though in much less polite terms.  Shameful.    

UPDATE:
Scott Johnson over at Powerline attended the debates this evening, and mentions in his post the antics of the “leftover left”.  He doesn’t, however, mention that to the best of my (or anyone else’s) knowledge the disruptors were NOT students of our law school.  As an alumnus of our institution, I would have thought that he would have mentioned that fact.  I mean, we have our share of radicals, but I will give them the benefit of not being complete morons, until proven otherwise.

0 comments

Posted 3:56 PM by Jason
Hat-equitte

I have noticed that a lot of men (I will refrain from commenting on women, as rules for women’s hats are, unsurprisingly, beyond all comprehension) wear hats (though I rarely if ever do, partly because my head is shaped funny, and is huge, and is covered by an insurmountable mass of hair) in class.  I know it seems a little high school, but would it kill you to take the hat of in class?  Wear a hat in a courtroom and the judge will bench-slap you.  Ditto on legislative chambers.  While our classrooms, certainly not those here in Mondale Hall, are neither of these, I don’t think that it would be a bad idea to take it off.  After all, a hat serves absolutely no purpose indoors to begin with.  Need to keep your head warm?  Sun out of your eyes? No.  While I am not nearly as anti-hat as P.J. O’Rourke, who famously wrote “A hat should be taken off when you greet a lady and left off for the rest of your life.  Nothing looks more stupid than a hat.” I think that wearing a hat in class looks ridiculous.  Outdoors, hallway, even the library, ok, fine, wear it.  We all know you’re going bald anyway.  (joking, joking)

0 comments

Posted 12:33 PM by Jason
Punk-er than thou

Though I am generally averse to listening to what celebrities have to say about politics, Jmag’s reference to Green Day reminded me of this article from the Washington Times on Johnny Ramone.  “When Johnny Ramone tells you something is uncool, well, it is.”

0 comments

Posted 11:51 AM by Jason
The Fourth Estate screams

The New York Times, that bastion of truth, integrity, and intelligence, has an editorial up about Justice Alito (yeah, I’m going to go ahead and start calling him that now).  Yes, yes, its on the memo from his job application to join the Justice Department under Ed Meese during the second Reagan term.  Here are the bare arguments, to get all of their “nuance” you’ll have to read the whole thing:

First, he has extreme views on the law.
Second, Judge Alito does not respect precedent.
Third, he is an ideologue.

Well super, add that all up and what do we find out?  The NYT opposes Alito because they think he opposes abortion.  If that makes him unqualified, they better call up their buddies Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and start up some impeachment proceedings for a few of the justices we have sitting now.  The ideologue charge is related to his statement that he is a life long conservative and republican, and that, horror of horrors, he may have acted on his beliefs.  The problem with this charge, aside from the RBG standard, is that it has nothing to do with how he will act as a judge.  Precluding people that have strong beliefs from serving on the court would be idiotic at best, actual neutrality of beliefs is not a commendable position.  Regarding his lack of respect for precedent, the Times refers to Clarence Thomas as an example of claiming to respect precedent and then violating it.  An appeals court judge is bound to follow precedent, the SCOTUS is not so much, applying a looser conception of stare decisis.  If it didn’t, and the Court couldn’t correct its own errors, well, we would live in a Plessy v. Ferguson world.  The Times ignores the fact that in his Casey dissent, Alito was merely trying to follow his predecessor’s “undue burden” test.  Ed Whelan does a nice job comparing Alito and O’Connor here.  As to his “extreme views”, the Times does little but note that Alito was proud of working on cases where he agreed with the issues.  How dare he.  

Their final note on the memo is that it is “Equally alarming is the notion that he fudged the truth to tell a potential employer what it wanted to hear.”

Well, I guess the Times could set a good example by going through their reporter pools and firing everyone who claimed in an interview that they wanted to work for things like “truth.”

0 comments

Posted 11:50 AM by magnu231
People's Weekly World

I've noticed that someone's been dropping off this fine publication every now and then here at the law school. I also noticed that nestled in between the positivity that the "people" believed was resulting from every negative thing that happens to everyone else, was an interesting item. The paper covered the celebration of the Russian Revolution, and had pictures of "veterans" marching to celebrate the rise of the most repressive regime of all time (and sorry Green Day, that regime is represented by the red stars you wear on your idiot "punk" clothes, not the leader of the country in which you have the freedom to spew your idiot "punk" slogans, stirring up the junior high brats who want to rebel, but are afraid to do it against their parents. Sometime I'm going to do a whole entry on Green Day.) Anyway, the article also mentioned that the revolution was the "foundation for modern society". So that's why there's so much poverty and violence and hatred in the world today! I was wondering, but it turns out that society is based on communism, and communism has died, so apparently (by the logic of the PWW), human society in general must be dying too. Interesting.

0 comments

Posted 10:32 AM by Jason
Debate Tonight

The Federalist Society is putting on a debate tonight here at 7pm in room 25 on “Presidential War Powers and the War on Terror”, should be interesting.  There’s a piece in the Star Tribune on the issue here, and the guys over at Powerline add a few comments here.  Should be an interesting event, and unlike some other groups here at the law school, our events are open to the public.

0 comments

Posted 10:57 AM by magnu231
"Cool Mom"?

Time to take a break from the soft news, cast lightly aside such ephemera as avian flu, foreign policy, various indictments, Alito, etc for some meaty fare. What am I talking about? Why the Mom who gave meth, pot, and alchohol to her daughter's high school friends of course! If you want to see an unbelievable example of the erosion of personal responsibility in this society, check out her excuses. http://www.9news.com/acm_news.aspx?OSGNAME=KUSA&IKOBJECTID=8fc1ee8a-0abe-421a-0156-6b5ec9b1880b&TEMPLATEID=0c76dce6-ac1f-02d8-0047-c589c01ca7bf

1. "I have bipolar." I suppose this might be true. I don't know. It sounds mighty suspicious, however. Every bipolar person I've ever met or heard of usually doesn't manifest it in binge drinking with kids 25 ages her junior, but in running around barefoot, and wearing too much makeup, or lousing up the Vikes draft for Denny Green. I think there's too much of a tendency in the law to let up on people who have "problems". Of course she had some sort of emotional or mental problem, or else she wouldn't have done what she did. However, that shouldn't absolve her from the consequences, in my humble opinion.

2. "I always wanted to be popular, and this was my chance." Sure, there are a lot of people who weren't spectacularly popular in high school. But not all of those people are now obsessing about it to the degree of this woman. Get over it! Everyone has probably felt isolated or lonely or unpopular at some time or other, even those who are to all appearances quite popular. That doesn't mean anyone who's ever felt this way is justified or even partially excused in buying meth for high school kids, and then getting in their pants, which leads me to...

3. "It's the double standard". I agree that there's a bit of a double standard here, but it's actually in favor of this undeserving woman. The woman was bothered by the fact that "if a man does it, he's a stud, if a woman does it, she's a slut." Guess what. If a man was passing out alchohol and drugs in order to take advantage of fifteen year old girls in his house, he would be in far deeper than this woman. He'd be headed for the grey bar hotel and probably would have a waiting list for his "favors" once he got there. (Child molestors are not popular in prison, or rather, more popular than they'd like to be. Or so I've heard). This woman in all probability, however, was the "cool mom". And she is more to be pitied than censured. In some sense that's probably because we'd expect the forty year old guy to be more likely to be a predator than this woman. That shouldn't mean that she's absolved from her egregious behavior. That should just mean we are more aware that people like this exist in the world.

0 comments

Posted 2:56 PM by Jason
BBC must be French for BS

Ok Jacques, “resurgence” wink wink, we get it. You’re not trying to appease them, just keep it from happening “again.”
Cracking down on illegal immigration? Facist
You know, if France had any sort of economy, their president wouldn’t have to create jobs for all of these thugs.
Of course, the plan is to train them over a year from now.  

0 comments

Posted 12:20 PM by magnu231
Torture

Torture seems to be the topic of the week. John Yoo is coming to the U, Nick Coleman had a pretty harsh piece last week on Professor Delahunty from St Thomas law school (a good man), the topic was dealt with at length in my conlaw class, and my classmate at generic heretic had a blog entry (http://genericheretic.blogs.com/generic_heretic/) on the difference between a Wall Street Journal editorial on torture and an Economist editorial on the same subject. He (generic heretic) wondered out loud why it was even a debate. Rather than replying on his site, I figured I'd use this site to reach out to the literally ones of people who view us everyday and briefly deal with this topic.

I find it interesting that the Democrats, long opponents and deriders of the "simplicity" of conservative beliefs, (a topic apparently being pontificated on right now by some speaker here at the U), revert to at least as, and probably more egregious, moralizing self-aggrandizement whenever their ox is being gored. The question appears to be rather philosophical and revolves around the old debate over liberty and security. To put it in plainer terms, it’s the debate between what is right and what is necessary. The question of whether torture is a moral one. Personally, I’m against it, mostly on usefulness grounds, although the concept and indeed the mere word offend my moralistic sensibilities. However, that doesn’t immediately mean that any who are for it are monsters. Utilitarians have long argued that the real cruelty is in allowing injustice to come to many by reason of refusing to administer injustice to some. And as cold-hearted as this may seem, we all use this logic occasionally, especially in the law. Everyone knows that innocent people occasionally are sent to prison, but we accept some measure of justice to prevent the greater injustice of either sending nobody to prison or spending too much of the money of the taxpayers.

Now the administration argues that to prevent the harm of terrorism coming to the citizens of the U.S. is a worthy goal. There is no doubt that this is correct (except among some of those on the left who feel it is our “penance” for ignoring the world and daring to associate with Israel). They also claim that sometimes some form of torture is necessary for preventing this terrorism. This is certainly an arguable claim, and as such, needs to be debated. But both sides seem to have side-stepped this issue in the race to the moral high ground. Apparently you’re either a lily-livered liberal who won’t Do What It Takes to protect the U.S., and as such, are a traitor, or you’re a Goebbels-esque madman, dragging out the torture tongs for some sort of sadistic self satisfaction. Although I for the most part disagree with the former, the smug self-satisfaction and “holier than thou” attitude of the latter makes me even more peevish.

I don’t disagree that sometimes in protecting a nation, one’s hands must get dirty. The nuclear bombing of Japan was necessary I believe. As I said before, however, I don’t like the idea of torture. But the reflexive attitude of many of those on the left has left me cold. Their attitude seems to be “if America does it, it must be wrong” (although of course I’m generalizing). Like the U.N. Human Rights Council (and almost every other useless organization of that August institution), America’s actions are held up to strict critique while those of our enemies, or even our friends, are ignored as “cultural” or “expected” or “not as bad”.

But I fear I’m getting off on one of my anti-UN tangents. To wrap up, I’m a bit torn on the subject, and can probably be convinced either way. At this time I’m leaning against the use of torture in interrogation, but then again I was the one applauding when Jack Bauer broke a suspect’s finger on 24. Mainly I’m against the self-serving righteousness employed by both sides, but hypocritically employed by the left, who claim to despise the very type of argument they are here making.

3 comments

Posted 10:08 AM by magnu231
Politics and the Court

I think it's interesting that most of the opposition to Alito has fallen into one of two categories. First is the political attack disguised as an attack on credentials or some other feature of Alito the man. However, this attack has been given pretty short shrift by everyone. Democrats are left with the "liberals should vote against Alito because he's a far-right, activist judge, who doesn't unite the country", which of course, translated into out of poli-speech means, "he's against abortion, and we don't like that." Such a blatant political argument is quite a political boon for the Republican party, however. Democrats feel the need to rally their base, which, apart from the absurdly disconnected-from-reality-left, is not really rallying, feeling perhaps the battle is, in this case, to the strong, and feeling no particular need to rally. The real problem the Democrats have, of course, is that most observers realize the enormous hypocrisy of their position (a position they are not infrequently in, as some new book that my Dad is currently reading points out). They were all for Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, both of whom had similar if not inferior credentials to Alito. And no one could accuse Ginsburg or Breyer of moving the country to the middle, unless you're as far left as some are, and think the middle is allowing Christians to remain in the country. They don't seem to realize that not only would overturning Roe not make abortions illegal, but that half of the country would like to see abortions made illegal, that there is another side to the issue, and that the president, as Clinton did, has a right to appoint a Justice as he sees fit. Of course the President will feel political pressures when appointing someone, as he should, and as he did with Miers, an incident I think is a great representation that political power can sometimes be leveraged by those with only a computer in front of them and not a whole lot of money behind them. But I've gone a bit afield. I simply mean to say that the Democrats have very little to go on, which is why at this moment somewhere, someone liberal is doubtless rummaging through every corner of Alito's work, life, family background, etc looking for some reason to keep someone who may have a different view from sitting on the bench.

0 comments

Posted 8:44 AM by Jason
Newdow

Mike, we get it, you’re an atheist. If “In God We Trust” excludes atheists, how does he keep paying his lawyers?

0 comments

Posted 8:39 AM by Jason
Update

Here is the Washington Times piece Drudge was scooping, that discusses Alito’s application to become deputy assistant to Ed Meese in the Reagan Justice Department.  

0 comments

Posted 11:33 PM by Jason
Oh SNAP!

Drudge has the siren up:  
Alito rejected abortion as a right; paper shows personal view... Developing...
Thanks Matt, now we get to hear Ralph Neas run his mouth all day long, and no doubt endure a new round of talking points against this eminently qualified judge.  Sure, Pat, Jerry, and James will dig this, but really, how much do they ever help anything?  
As I have said before, what some people have trouble understanding is that abortion will not become instantly illegal if Roe is overturned.  The left promotes the view that it would be, because they know they will be impotent when it comes to taking the fight to the state legislatures.  Sure, states like New York and Connecticut (and Minnesota) will probably continue to allow abortion on demand, but others will not.  If the Republicans in the House and Senate are smart, they will take the opportunity to shut their mouths and not act on such an overturn (if, and it is a HUGE if, it ever occurs), emphasizing that the proper level for decision on this issue is beneath them.  

A point to ponder:
I would guess that liberal/leftist advocacy groups put far more effort into defending the Constitutional “right” created by Roe than the NRA et al. put into defending a right that is in the Constitution pretty explicitly, yet the NRA gets ridiculed.

0 comments

Posted 10:49 PM by Jason
Deplacez-vous, rien a voir ici

Move along, nothing to see here.  And by the way, the riots are dying down, even if, you know, they torched 2 schools and dozens of cars…

0 comments

Posted 1:08 PM by Jason
They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old: Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the mornin

At the eleventh hour, of the eleventh day, of the eleventh month of 1918, the guns of August 1914 finally fell silent.

Today is Veteran’s Day, originally known as Armistice Day. Memorial Day always gets more attention, because people get the day off, though most do little to nothing in recognition of it. Veteran’s Day has gone the way of George Washington’s Birthday, still an official holiday on the books, but hardly recognized, supplanted by the urge to celebrate more modern figures. Here in the U.S. that takes the form of schools giving students off for ridiculous occasions like Caesar Chavez Day, but not Columbus Day, not President’s Day (which, by the way, is still George Washington’s Birthday on the books, and I am of the opinion that titans like Washington and Lincoln deserve their own days). In Britain Red Ken Livingstone wants to add a statue of Nelson Mandela to Trafalgar Square, since apparently Admiral Horatio Nelson is no longer important enough. Am I arguing for more days off? No, in fact I think it entirely proper to go about our work, because the day is, at its core, a celebration of the work and sacrifice of others that allows us to do what we do. If you happen to be a communist/socialist/other crazed radical, do the world a favor and take the day off. As I said, I think too often we roll things together out of convenience, which in a way diminishes our societal consciousness of them and diminishes our respect for what has made us who we are as a nation, and for western civilization. My solution, offered only for the sake of not complaining without any idea of what would be better, would be to split the conglomerated holidays, celebrate each in its proper place in a proper way. Oh, and cancel Labor day.

There has been plenty to celebrate and remember this week, with Wednesday marking the fall of the Berlin Wall, yesterday being the Marine Corps’ 230th birthday, and today as Veterans’ Day. There are plenty of remembrance pieces on the web today, read one, read five, whatever, just do something.

0 comments

Posted 4:14 PM by Jason
Movementarians

I could be accused of posting links to National Review’s website far too often, but that would require that we actually have readers.  Too bad.  National Review, to a large extent, is conservatism.  Not that this is to the exclusion of the Weekly Standard, the American Spectator, Human Events, the American Enterprise, Commentary, or even the American Conservative, (not to mention the numerous think tanks, blogs, etc…) it just happens to be my preferred “brand” in most cases.

That said, here are some more links:
Mac Owens, a Marine, an associate dean of academics and professor of national security affairs at the Naval War College, has an excellent tribute to the Marine Corps on its 230th birthday.  For my part I will be sure to raise a glass to the Corps at some point this evening.  

John J. Miller, National Review’s national political reporter, is writing a book on the John M. Olin Foundation and how it helped propel the modern conservative movement.  He is interviewed for NRO here.  This is of particular interest to Fed-Soc members, because the Foundation funded the original meeting that spurred the creation of the society, with some accidental help from National Review.  

And in an attempt to convince myself that I can read other things, here is a decent article from the New York Times on the first few weeks of the Roberts court.


0 comments

Posted 10:52 AM by Jason
Fed-Soc, YAF (the YAF that's not YAF, but kind of is), and TJ on NRO

Aren’t you glad you don’t go to Thomas Jefferson School of Law?

0 comments

Posted 10:52 PM by Jason
Extra Extra! House loses spine!

So we hear people complaining about gas prices and oil shortages EVERY DAY.  The press, politicians, me, you, everyone.  So the Senate puts it in, the House takes it out, and we are no closer to getting anything done.  I think a lot of the trouble is the designation of the area as a wildlife refuge, when it is in fact a desolate stretch of mud and puddles that serves primarily as a breeding pit for vicious insects that harass the caribou that people see in pictures, the same caribou that make them say “oh, we shouldn’t drill there, its so beautiful and natural and pristine”  If you have a little spare time, check out this piece by National Review’s Jonah Goldberg on the topic of ANWR.  

0 comments

Posted 3:12 PM by Jason
What a crazed, isolationist, right-wing nutjob!

The AG gave a speech at U Chicago Law School criticizing the use of foreign law in SCOTUS decisions, reported by the Chicago Tribune here.  I agree with Gonzales generally, but it would be nice if the Trib had included, you know, some actual details about what he said, or barring that, what sorts of foreign laws were cited in the cases.  These people really just don’t understand that I don’t have time to post in class AND do additional research.  

0 comments

Posted 2:09 PM by magnu231
Opportunism

Who didn't see this coming? Le Pen's seizing the opportunity to put his oar in. He claims that if the elections were held today, his chances would increase "ten-fold". Which is probably true. I'm not sure we've ever seen facism, socialism, and violent religious fanatacism in a free-for-all, as we're seeing here. The riots might be dying down, but I think the next few years in Europe should be interesting.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/09/D8DP4IE02.html

0 comments

Posted 8:41 AM by Jason
Mr. Gorbachev, Tear Down This Wall.

Today, November 9, marks the 16th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.  For your reading pleasure, here is the full text of President Reagan’s June 12, 1987 speech at the Brandenburg gate.



0 comments

Posted 11:15 AM by magnu231
Liberalism: Opiate of the West?

Here's a great story on NRO by John Derbyshire talking about the French riots. I think the riots are an example of why socialistic economic policies are abject failures, especially in the face of immigration and social change. Others (the mainstream media) claim that racism and poverty (which must of course be combatted by socialism) are the tickets. Derbyshire has a nice article.

http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire200511080819.asp

Supporting the idea that muslims have a better life in the U.S. where they are "discriminated against" but at least have jobs, is this article. It has some interesting stats, although I don't necessarily agree with all the conclusions.

http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=58&story_id=25151&name=Muslims+more+integrated+in+US+than+France

0 comments

Posted 10:45 AM by Jason
Note to Assassins: You're Not Helping

Someone, or some group more likely, has taken to offing lawyers engaged in the defense of Saddam Hussein’s co-defendants.  Maybe they’re just really confused about how this whole “trial” thing works, or maybe in an attempt to understand the west they’ve taken to reading Shakespeare ("The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."- William Shakespeare, "Henry VI", Part IV).  Whatever the case, it needs to stop, through better security probably, so the Iraqi’s can have a trial that on the surface at least looks fair (and probably actually will be, Saddam had that whole crimes against humanity thing down pretty well), after which the former dictator can be promptly executed.      

0 comments

Posted 3:18 PM by Jason
Everyone's Favorite Topic

Interesting piece by Richard Noyes of the Media Research Center on the Human Events website comparing and contrasting the media’s treatment of Judge Alito with Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s 12 years ago.  

0 comments

Posted 1:49 PM by magnu231
Solomon Amendment

Seriously, has that whole debate been beaten into the ground or what? On a completely unrelated note, I've got a piece in something called the Wake student magazine on the shield law. Check it out. If you can find it. 'Cause I can't.

0 comments

Posted 11:44 AM by Jason
Knee-Jerk liberalism continued

I also wonder if its tiring being so outraged all of the time. I mean, if I had to keep up my outrage at that level and always on the lookout for things to offend me (and, by connection in my own head, absolutely everyone else not a Neanderthal), how would I ever get anything done?  

0 comments

Posted 11:12 AM by Jason
Knee-jerk liberalism

So I am sitting in the subplaza studying, and someone, a student I presume, just came around and took table tents off of every single table that promoted National Guard service in exchange for tuition reimbursement.  I asked her what she was doing, to which she replied snippily/angrily “they don’t belong here.” Awful tolerant person, I could tell.  We know you don’t like the Solomon Amendment.  We also know that you really hate the military because of “don’t ask, don’t tell”.  I saw a sign over by the 1L mailboxes that said “The problem isn’t gay soldiers, the problem is dead soldiers”.  And fine, you could make that argument.  My thought is, why do you care so much if those with whom you are allied can join the military you despise?  I would guess that even without discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, these same people would find some way to argue against any military recruitment on campus.  How about you resist your knee-jerk reaction just for a moment and give your fellow students some credit for being capable to make their own decisions.  Or would that be intolerant?          

0 comments

Posted 10:59 AM by Jason
UMN Law faculty on NRO

Prof. Stras has, like practically everyone else, a piece on the Alito nomination on NRO today, urging against the use of the filibuster to block a Supreme Court nomination.  He basically argues that using the filibuster in this area is completely unprecedented, but also that invoking the “nuclear option” to stop it would be a bad step as well, and that ultimately threats of filibusters and nuclear options would lead to far less qualified nominees.  As for me, I can’t say I oppose that last part; I might need a job someday.

0 comments

Posted 12:14 AM by Jason
Bork on Alito

Neglected to link to this on Thursday, though if you read National Review Online you should have seen it anyway.  


0 comments

Posted 11:52 PM by Jason
a bit of blogstory

Rummaging around, I found this, the first post posted on FritzFeds.  Simple, not audacious, but to the point:

“Welcome to the Fritz Feds! This page stands to offer proof that the University of Minnesota has so far failed to eradicate all ideological diversity from the Walter F. Mondale Hall. Some of us even decided not to vote for Fritz last November.There is so much more to come. Stay tuned.”



0 comments

Posted 6:37 PM by Jason
Behold the amazing power of science!

Being from rural Wisconsin, people often feel the need to tell my about their alleged cow tipping.  I have always been skeptical, but now, science saves the day.  As I have often said (notwithstanding the fact that cows lay down to sleep), “how would you like it if a bunch of cows came into your bedroom and stood you up?” (which I stole from somewhere)

0 comments

Posted 3:53 PM by Jason
Media shenanigans

Apparently the press has been hounding Judge Alito’s mother.  I especially like the quote at the end: “Why are they harassing Judge Alito’s 90 year-old mother when he has written over 350 legal opinions? The media should leave Judge Alito’s mother alone. ” (via Drudge)    

0 comments

Posted 10:52 AM by magnu231
Tale of Two Societies

Dickens was half right. It is the worst of times in modern France. Rioters in Paris, and now in other towns are causing a ruckus of the first order. Instapundit had an article on the riots, pointing out that France was one country that laughed and scoffed at the U.S. during the L.A. riots. Effete French intellectuals proclaimed that their enlightened society was free from such nuisances, because they were less racist and had a more liberal social welfare society. But now Paris burns, while the U.S. has had peace internally, even with tensions between immigrants and ignorant people who fear change still present. I would argue that the very “peace” that France championed, and the comfortable safety net that it set up, have led to the explosive situation they are now facing. Europe, from Sweden to France, has long proclaimed “peace, peace” when there is no peace. Meanwhile, racism is still often front and center in the American consciousness. The problem is that racism is something that a society can’t simply “get over”. It’s something that needs to be fought in the minds and hearts of the people, not in the halls of government. Enforced morality is no morality at all, and will usually be rebelled against. The socialist system adopted by Europe has only exacerbated the problem. First, the high unemployment leaves many people with a lot of time on their hands, to pick out the problems with their lives, and to cause trouble. Plus, the tension that immigration places on the system angers those who have to support them in the safety net. Sweden’s a good example of this. Socialism doesn’t work, period. However, it can kind of survive in a homogenous system, where people aren’t blaming each other for not working. If the “lazy” are given a face and a skin color (usually unfairly) by the “working”, then tension will arise. When that tension is denied, it leads to violence. Meanwhile, in the U.S., we deal with our problems (usually), and people don’t have much time to riot, because we’re all working. Idle hands are the devil’s plaything. France has long mocked us for the long hours we work. The leisure enjoyed by that enervated society has led to ennui, which has led to dissatisfaction, which has led to an ethnic blame game, which has led to tension, which has inevitably led to violence. And I don’t want to let the Islamic jihadists off the hook, either. They are undoubtedly gleefully involved in this attack on a western country. However, there are two ways to deal with this situation. I happen to like our way of dealing with it better.

p.s. Drudge has something up suggesting that these riots may have been organized. http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm

0 comments

Posted 2:39 PM by Jason
Oil Drilling in ANWR

Well it’s about time.

0 comments

Posted 11:48 AM by Jason
DO NOT USE THE HOME DEPOT RESTROOMS

Seriously.  (hat tip Drudge)

0 comments

Posted 10:02 AM by Jason
Oh that crazy Ninth Circuit

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled yesterday that there is "no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children."  Parents had sued the Palmdale School District after finding that their kids had been asked a series of sexual questions in class regarding the frequency of, from a footnote on page 6 of the opinion:
Touching my private parts too much
Thinking about having sex
Thinking about touching other people's private parts
Thinking about sex when I don't want to
Washing myself because I feel dirty on the inside
Not trusting people because they might want sex
Getting scared or upset when I think about sex
Having sex feelings in my body
Can't stop thinking about sex
Getting upset when people talk about sex
Among other questions regarding nightmares, suicidal thoughts, gang violence, etc…

The program was apparently to address barriers to learning, and was devised in part by a volunteer graduate student “mental health counselor.” The questions were asked of first, third, and fifth grade students.  
The court also held that “parents have no due process or privacy right to override
the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students.” Page 3

While I have not had the time to read the full opinion, it seems to be ridiculous, if from nothing other than a policy standpoint, that the survey, sexual portions and not, be administered to first and third graders, fifth graders maybe (and if you really want to look at these questions as addressing roadblocks to learning, try law students).

I would also note that the parents based their claim in part on a “Constitutional right to privacy”, which the court sees as symbolic of pretty much everything but this issue.  This is the same court that held the Pledge of Allegiance’s current text to be an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.

In the interest of being labeled a shill for the religious right in addition to a Republican hack, I feel compelled to note that I post this only because it may seriously impair my enjoyment of the new O.C. tonight.    


0 comments

Posted 12:06 PM by Jason
Re: And Somewhere, Steve Zissou Weeps

Isn’t it always fun to have a laugh at Greenpeace’s expense? Yes, it is.  An interesting note, however, is that Patrick Moore, one of the group’s founders, left the group a few years back, seeing that it had become largely anti-human, anti-science and technology, anti-trade, anti-business, and anti-civilization.  Sometimes the truth hurts almost as bad a coral reef in your ship and a fine to boot.

0 comments

Posted 10:40 AM by magnu231
And Somewhere, Steve Zissou weeps.

Here's a pretty good article on Greenpeace. The funniest part of this article is that Greenpeace didn't find any evidence of global warming harming coral, and then noted that "global warming is very complex". Apparently, so is navigating ships around coral reefs.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051101/wl_asia_afp/philippinesenvironmentgreenpeaceshipfine;_ylt=Akir9coeEKi0HCM3ZmaLdAms0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ

0 comments

Posted 9:18 AM by Jason
Maryland Senate Race

I just have a feeling that MLK Jr. wouldn’t approve of this

0 comments

Posted 8:08 PM by Jason
Closed Session in the Senate

Today the Democrats pushed the Senate into closed session, information on that here.
I have to commend the Democrats on their brilliant plan to force a committee (that already exists) to review the work of a committee and report back to the Senate.  I mean, lets look at what people looked at and tell other people about it, because it will obviously make all the difference in the world.  If the same thing just gets looked at by enough committees, things will eventually come out in their favor.  

In the article Harry Reid tied the move to the Scooter Libby indictment, which "provides a window into what this is really all about, how this administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions." Ummm, ok Harry, too bad the indictment was for allegedly lying to the grand jury in the investigation (the left suddenly thinks this is serious, not that it isn't, but given their love of rooting out hypocrisy...) and not any actual "unmasking" of an agent.  The Libby indictment isn't not a big deal, but this is clearly an unsubstantial political stunt.  

Look, in going to war, our intelligence may have been bad, but so was everyone else's.  On the issue of Saddam seeking yellowcake uranium from Niger, the subject that Joe Wilson "investigated" on his tea sipping African trip, the fact that Saddam never obtained the yellowcake doesn't mean he never sought it, and British intelligence stands by their finding.  

Interestingly Joe Wilson was discredited by the Senate Intelligence Committee's report.
Maybe Senate Republicans should use this as an opportunity to point out (again) that Joe Wilson was a terrible investigator.  

Lets have a little sense here, not that this is original, but just a refresher.  If "Bush lied" about WMD's to go to war, actually knowing that none existed, he would have known (or if you want to believe that he is an absolute moron, his staff would have known) that we wouldn't be able to find any, and would know that that would be damaging politically.  The opposition just cannot stand the notion that mistakes can be made in anything other than bad faith, even when the same mistake was made by those they trust so much (i.e. non-Americans).    

2 comments

Posted 12:19 PM by Jason
The Coming Battle

Let me agree with JMag on the thrill of the coming battle. The left is going to fight this, and practically every nomination that could possibly change the composition of the court, because they have foolishy relied on it as the only way of keeping abortion legal. Instead of pursing a constitutional ammendment or individual state statutes to legalize abortion, they have placed their hope in their ability to continue to successfully litigate the existence of this "right". The consequnce is that one Court decision could overturn Roe and throw the issue back to the states. Had the abortion lobby used normal means of establishing/overturning laws in individual states, they may have been very successful. As it stands now, however, Roe's overturn would provide an opportunity for pro-life groups and state legislators to ban abortion, a fight that I doubt the pro-abortion lobby is prepared for. Thus they must continue to fight court nominations and pay their lawyers so the issue can be kept out of the hands of the people.

0 comments

Posted 11:59 AM by magnu231
The Coming Armageddon

Truth is, I don't know why there is such a battle on the horizon. To steal from George Will (something I'm not entirely averse to) the main arguments against Alito are either a: He's a conservative, and we don't like their kind or b: the President must "pull together" the country by not taking advantage of his office by changing the balance of the Court". Others have argued that Alito would argue for a stricter interpretation of the Commerce Clause, eliminating many of the sacred cows of the politicos, an idea that is about as popular in D.C. as Michael Moore at Old Country Buffet. The underlying objection is, of course, Roe. Why not change the makeup of the Court? Because Roe might be overturned. Why not have strict interpretations on the Court? Because Roe might be overturned. If it is, then, horror or horrors, the question will be left up to the people, the great unwashed, who don't always agree with the enlightened, euro-sensibilities of the Court and the "civilized" left. Frankly, the idea of a battle for this candidate excites me. The old Nordic blood-lust is rising within me, and I haven't even had my mead for the day. This is just the sort of political battle over Roe that the Left has been trying to quelch. They want to make the decisions for everyone. Hopefully there will be a fight, and the Dems won't desert their principles as egregiously as the Republicans have this term. In any case, I look forward to it. My best case scenario is that Alito is fought tooth and nail by all the snide and snooty Senators, and still manages to barely pass, and then turns out to be a good justice. And reads this post, and hires me to some sort of well paying position, and introduces me to his daughter. That'd be sweet.

0 comments