Posted 4:55 PM by Jason
Thirty-nine hours until round two.

How about a quick roundup of what's going on out there?  

Zacarias Moussaoui avoided the death penalty and was given life in prison.

Commander-in-Chief was not as lucky. (anyone who thinks this isn't a permanent axing can go ahead and leave comments; I'm pretty sure this is it, even if ABC does air the last 3 episodes later this summer)

Jonah Goldberg runs through a Bush-Nixon comparison on NRO:

"There are other problems with the comparison. The economy was a mess toward the end of Nixon's term. It's going gangbusters now."

I will link to almost anything that uses the word gangbusters.  BUT:

"But there is one area where we can make somewhat useful comparisons between Nixon and Bush: their status as liberal Republicans.

Nixon has a fascinating reputation as one of the most right-wing presidents of the 20th century. This impression is largely a product of the fact that few presidents have been more hated by the Left. But simply because the left despises you doesn't mean you're particularly right-wing. If LBJ were alive, you could ask him about this. Or just take a look at poor Joe Lieberman."

Finally, because I am absolutely sick of studying Substantive Due Process for my Con Law final this Friday, here is what Justice Scalia had to say about SDP in a speech last year:

"What substantive due process is, is quite simple, the Constitution has a Due Process Clause, which says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Now, what does this guarantee? Does it guarantee life, liberty or property? No indeed! All three can be taken away. You can be fined, you can be incarcerated, you can even be executed, but not without due process of law. It's a procedural guarantee. But the Court said, and this goes way back, in the 1920s at least, in fact the first case to do it was Dred Scott. But it became more popular in the 1920s. The Court said: there are some liberties that are so important, that no process will suffice to take them away. Hence, substantive due process.

Now, what liberties are they? The Court will tell you. Be patient. When the doctrine of substantive due process was initially announced, it was limited in this way: the Court said it embraces only those liberties that are fundamental to a democratic society and rooted in the traditions of the American people.

Then we come to step three. Step three: that limitation is eliminated. Within the last twenty years, we have found to be covered by Due Process the right to abortion, which was so little rooted in the traditions of the American people that it was criminal for two hundred years; the right to homosexual sodomy, which was so little rooted in the traditions of the American people that it was criminal for two hundred years.
So it is literally true, and I don't think this is an exaggeration, that the Court has essentially liberated itself from the text of the Constitution, from the text, and even from the traditions of the American people."





1 comments