A lower case yippee! for the president.

So it was not "Joy" Clement after all. I would like to think that evil genius Karl Rove was up to his old tricks again, but it was probably some fool reporter who got carried away.

From National Review Online's Bench Memos comes the latest on the nominee and the fight. (Interspersed, as usual, with my brilliant comments.)

Bench Memos
ALL EYES ON THE COURTS
[ home archives e-mail ]

Get a Load[Ramesh Ponnuru 07/20 08:34 AM]
Of Linda Greenhouse's front-page "news analysis," in which it is posited that Scalia and Thomas wish to "recaptur[e] a distant constitutional paradise in which the court was faithful to the original intent of the framers" and are "at the margin." Also, they are flame throwers. I am beginning to think Greenhouse might be a liberal.

I wish. The real Constitution and flame throwers. Sounds like a plan to get bin Laden.

This Morning[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/20 08:30 AM]
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE POOL Rose Garden
7:30 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning, how are you? I just had a cup of coffee with the nominee and told him I thought things were off to a very good start for his nomination. I'm not surprised — he's highly qualified for the job. He's the kind of person that will bring great dignity to the Court. Judge Roberts is off to the Senate this morning to begin his consultations. I'm confident the senators will come to realize what I've come to realize: We're lucky to have a man of such wisdom and intellectual strength willing to serve our country.
I'm also confident that the process will move forward in a dignified, civil way. In my conversations with senators last night, we discussed how important it is that Judge Roberts get a fair hearing, a timely hearing and a hearing that will bring great credit to our nation and to the United States Senate. And so I told Judge Roberts over coffee that we'll provide all the support that's necessary for the senators to be able to make up their minds, that we will push the process forward, because he and I both agree that it's important that he be sworn in prior to the Court reconvening in October, and that I wished him all the best.
So I appreciate you coming by for coffee this morning.
JUDGE ROBERTS: Thank you very much.
END 7:32 A.M. EDT

More Radio[NRO Staff 07/20 08:25 AM]
Shannen Coffin and Ed Whelan will be on Michael Graham's radio show this ayem.

Indiana Boy[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/20 08:22 AM]
Putting a little pressure on Evan Bayh.

Abortion in the Court[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/20 06:33 AM]
Here's the National Right to Life Committee on the stakes.

Boring, But that's Alright[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/20 06:30 AM]
John Podhoretz on the pick

Last Night and This Morning[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/20 06:21 AM]
totally feels like campaign season. Which is somewhat appropriate inasmuch as this is one of the most important reasons Bush was reelected — the courts.

Yep. I think I read that somewhere.

What She Said[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/20 06:11 AM]
Hanna Rosin: "At the Capitol, Democrats Wait To Fill in the Blank." Confirmation of the obvious.

The Harvard Majority[Matthew J. Franck 07/20 06:05 AM]
More trivia: With the addition of Roberts to the Court, five of the nine justices will have their law degrees from Harvard, the others being Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, and Breyer. A sixth justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, began at Harvard but transferred to Columbia. The others? Thomas graduated from Yale's law school, and only Rehnquist (from Stanford) and Stevens (from Northwestern) graduated from law schools too far west to smell the Atlantic Ocean.
Harvard is a huge and diverse law school, and it is not to be expected that its graduates all think alike — as we can see they don't when we look at the justices who studied there. And a nominee's law school, especially when it is one of the handful every student wants to attend, should not be held against him. But is it the best of all possible worlds when a majority of the nine most powerful lawyers in America went to the same law school?

Sticking with the Talking Points[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/20 05:56 AM]
The NYTimes is a lot more non-committal and suspicious about Roberts in its editorial.

"A Fight, Maybe, but Not a Battle"[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/20 05:52 AM]
So says Ron Brownstein. He writes:
In effect, Roberts may represent an effort to thread the needle in filling the court vacancy. The selection could offer Bush an opportunity to maximize his chance of a relatively smooth confirmation while minimizing the danger of either conservative disaffection or scorched-earth Democratic opposition.

The Decision Process: The Clincher[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/20 05:42 AM]
From Nina Easton:
A senior White House official stressed yesterday that the choice reflected a personal connection that Bush made with Roberts during the vetting process.
''He really hit it off with Roberts," the official said. ''As you know, the president is a person of intuition and he saw in [Roberts] not only a brilliant legal mind but a terrific judicial temperament. This guy is a thinker. He's not a polarizer."

Oh, no. The Putin Syndrome. ("I've looked into his eyes, and seen his soul, and I liked what I saw." )

Wow[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/20 05:37 AM]
From the Washington Post editorial this morning:
Judge Roberts is a conservative, but he has never been an ideological crusader; he has admirers among liberals. If confirmed as the successor to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, it is likely that he will shift the Supreme Court toward the right. But his nomination is not a provocation to Democrats — as some other possible nominees would have been. Mr. Bush deserves credit for selecting someone with the potential to attract broad support."

Think Roberts Is Young?[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/19 11:21 PM]
Joseph Story was 32.

Say It Ain't So, Joe[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/19 11:20 PM]
WashPost:
Among Democrats, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) may well be the most crucial voice in the Gang of 14. Republicans were pointing last night to a statement he made last week that appeared to say that he saw no justification for a filibuster of Roberts, but an aide said last night that he was misinterpreted and would wait for a fuller examination of Roberts's record before making any judgment about his suitability.

Scroll Down[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/19 11:14 PM]
to about 7:47 this evening for the Roberts reax...and check The Corner too.

Watch for Shannen Coffin on GMA on ABC tomorrow[NRO Staff 07/19 11:11 PM]

And Cliff May on CNN's American Morning...

Coffin on Roberts[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/19 11:05 PM]
Shannen has a piece up on JR. And I have a plea to the Senate.

Schumer on Roberts[Jonathan Adler 07/19 11:01 PM]
Hugh Hewitt transcribed Senator Schumer's initial reaction:
"There's no question that Judge Roberts has outstanding legal credentials and an appropriate legal temperment and demeanor. But his actual judicial record is limited to only two years on the D.C. Circuit Couirt. Fot the rest of his career he has been arguiong cases as an able lawyer for others leaving many of his personal views unknown. For these reasons it is vital that Judge Roberts answer a wide range of questions openly honestly and fully in the coming months. His views will affet a generation of Americans and it is his obligatio during the nomination process to let the American people know those views. The burden is on a nominee to the Supreme Court to prove that he is worthy, not on the Senate to prove that he is unworthy. I voted against Judge Roberts or the D.C. Court of Appeals because he didn't answer questions as fully and openly when he appeared before the committee. For instance, when I asked himn a question that others have answered — to identify three Supreme Court cases of which he was critical, he refused."


Easy. Here are three off the top of my head. Dred Scott v. Sandford, Buck v. Bell, and Griswold v. Connecticut . Put those in you crack pipe and smoke 'em, Chucky.

Alberto Gonzales[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/19 10:53 PM]
on John Roberts

"Dumbass Questions"[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/19 10:47 PM]
"Some [of his questions] I totally disagree with," Hatch of Utah said. "Some I think are dumbass questions, between you and me. I am not kidding you. I mean, as much as I love and respect you, I just think that's true."

HeeHee. A funny mormon. Imagine that. Score one for Orin.

Roberts Trivia[Matthew J. Franck 07/19 10:44 PM]
I join in the general acclamation of John Roberts as the president's nominee to the Supreme Court. This was a bold, brave choice. The president revealed much about his own character as someone who makes decisions on a principled basis, does not pick fights gratuitously, but is not afraid that someone else will pick one either.
Here's a bit of Roberts trivia: he will be the first former clerk to a justice of the Supreme Court who will join the Court as a justice himself while his old boss is still serving — assuming that Roberts is confirmed and that Chief Justice Rehnquist, for whom he clerked 25 years ago, is still serving when he is sworn in. Four other justices in the Court's history have previously served as clerks to justices of the Court, but none before has joined the Court alongside his or her former boss. (Anyone care to name the other four?) As the junior justice, Roberts will relieve Stephen Breyer (after eleven years) of the duty of answering the door when the justices are closeted for their private conferences. I can imagine the twinkle in Rehnquist's eye when his old clerk takes up those duties.

Stop the Madness![Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/19 10:29 PM]
Consultation Craziness: Ralph Neas on CNN just announced he is disappointed that Harry Reid and Bill Frist weren't standing next to him as he made his announcement.
It's going to be a long ridiculous ride.

What is he, a girl?

Durbin[Mark R. Levin 07/19 10:24 PM]
I understand Dick Durbin's original draft statement accused Roberts of being Pol Pot's lawyer.

HeeHee. That's a good one.

What People for the American Way Is Saying[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/19 10:23 PM]
Kathryn :
This evening, President Bush nominated John Roberts to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. The Radical Right has been chomping at the bit for weeks in anticipation of this announcement. The Senate must now stand up to the pressure to simply rubber-stamp the President's pick. Tell your Senators to fulfill their constitutional obligation to advise and consent.
The next 24 hours are crucial. Tell your Senators to withold their support for Robert's nomination until they have all the facts about his troubling record. Unless you and thousands of other activists speak out right away, the Bush administration may lock up the support of dozens of members before the confirmation process truly gets underway and the American people have a chance to learn where Roberts stands.
At this critical moment, we need you to do more than just call or write your Senators. We need you to do both, and get your friends to do the same.
1) Call Senator Schumer at (202) 224-6542 and Senator Clinton at (202) 224-4451to demand that they thoroughly review John Robert's record before lending him their support.
2) Write Senators Schumer and Clinton to make sure they heard the message you delivered to them by phone.
3) Forward this email to your friends, amplifying your message by getting them to call and write their Senators themselves.
John RobertsWhat we know about John Robert's record as Deputy Solicitor General and as a judge shows a troubling lack of concern for the fundamental civil and constitutional rights of all Americans. Americans deserve a justice who will protect our rights and freedoms. Serious questions must be addressed before Robert's nomination to the nation's highest court can be evaluated properly.
Some alarming aspects of Robert's record they must consider include:
Reproductive and Privacy Rights: Roberts urged the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade while arguing before the Court as Deputy Solicitor General in a case that did not even directly concern that issue. His brief plainly states that "Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled."
Separation of Church and State: Roberts argued against clear First Amendment protections for religious liberty and in favor of officially sponsored school prayer at graduation ceremonies before the Supreme Court, which rejected his argument.
Environmental Protections: As a judge, Roberts suggested in a dissent that the Endangered Species Act was unconstitutional as applied to a California development case.
Veteran Protections: Roberts argued American POWs tortured in Iraq during the Gulf War should not be able to utilize federal courts to pursue their claims.
Excessive Arrest Procedures: Roberts ruled against a 12-year old girl who was handcuffed, arrested and taken away by police for eating a single French fry on the D.C. Metro, even though an adult would only have gotten a paper citation in that situation.Your Senators need to hear from you today — there must not be a rush to confirm John Roberts until all the facts are in! Call and write your Senators to demand that they fulfill their constitutional obligations of advice and consent - our rights hang in the balance!
— Your Allies at People For the American Way
SchumerPhone: (202) 224-6542ClintonPhone: (202) 224-4451
Click hear to send them a message. http://www.savethecourt.org/WriteTheSenate
Support PFAW's Supreme Court Defense Fundhttp://www.SaveTheCourt.org/support
www.SaveTheCourt.org

More like People for the Backdoor Way.

I Know I'm an Obsessed Junkie Type[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/19 10:20 PM]
But at 10:14 I realized Greta was already back in Aruba.

"Looks Like Him"[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/19 10:11 PM]
Susan Estrich just said on Fox that Roberts "looks like" Bush. Uh, meaning, he's a white guy?

Roberts in His Own Words[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/19 10:10 PM]
His text from tonight.

Bush's Announcement[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/19 10:09 PM]
Here's the text

The Knights of Columbus Get Behind the Choice[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/19 09:49 PM]
Supreme Knight calls Supreme Court nomination "a first rate choice" Judge Roberts "among the finest judges in the land"
(NEW HAVEN, CT.) - Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson, head of the 1.7 million member Knights of Columbus, this evening called Judge John Roberts "a first rate choice for the United States Supreme Court." President Bush announced that he would nominate Roberts in a nationally-televised address earlier tonight.
"Judge Roberts is exactly the kind of nominee that members of both parties have described as the kind of choice the President should make," Anderson said. "He is one of the brightest legal minds in America, graduating at the top of his class at Harvard Law School, and has a well-deserved reputation for fairness, integrity and superb judicial temperament on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit."
"During his years in private practice," Anderson recalled, "he argued a case pro bono - free of charge - on behalf of some of the District's neediest welfare recipients, who were about to lose their benefits under the D.C.Public Assistance Act. He is someone who knows and appreciates the plight of the poor, especially those who have the most difficult time getting fair and even-handed treatment in our legal system."
"Judge Roberts' experience in private practice, in the Executive Branch, and as a Judge make him exceptionally well-qualified to serve on the U.S.Supreme Court, and we applaud President Bush for making such an excellent nomination to fill the vacancy created by Justice O'Connor's retirement,"Anderson concluded.
The Knights of Columbus is the world's largest Catholic lay organization, with more than 1.7 million members around the world.

It seems Judge Roberts is a Catholic.

Memo to our protestant friends: Do you see a pattern here? Scalia, Thomas, and perhaps Roberts. Right Thinking: It is not an accident.

Of course, we do not know what sort of Catholic Roberts is. After all, Senator Murder (a.k.a. Senator Divorce and Re-Marry) likes to call himself a Catholic when it suits his purposes.

It seems the Bay State Butcher wants the nominee to answer some penetrating (ha! get it?) questions about babyslaying.

Sure, Ted. Let me pierce your skull with these scissors, suck out what few brains you have left, and in a few seconds all your questions will be answered. Forever. However, I am willing to bet $20 you will not like them.

From an RNC Release...Some Good Rounding Up[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/19 09:45 PM]
That these are from Jeffrey Toobin, who wants snapped at me on air for daring to be "divisive" is not small thing:

CNN's Jeffrey Toobin: "[Roberts] Is A Very Smart Guy. He's Argued In Front Of The U.S. Supreme Court, Which Is Awfully Good Practice." (CNN's "Paula Zahn Live," 7/19/05)

Toobin: "[Roberts] Is A Very Distinguished Lawyer. This Is The Kind Of Lawyer That People Have Been Talking About For 20 Years, About Being On The Supreme Court. He Is Someone Who Has A — Who Has The Experience That Makes Him A Plausible Candidate." (CNN's "Paula Zahn Live," 7/19/05)

Toobin: "When It Comes To Credentials, There Can't Be Any Argument That John Roberts Isn't Qualified." (CNN, "Paula Zahn Live," 7/19/05)
Toobin: "Harry Reid Has To Bow To Reality. He Does Have Suitable Credentials." (CNN, 7/19/05)More here.

Roberts's Enemies[Jonathan Adler 07/19 09:43 PM]
RedState.org has a round-up of those who opposed John Roberts's nomination to the D.C. Circuit. Of course, in the end he made it through committee 14-3, and was confirmed by unanimous consent.

Nan Aron on Roberts[Jonathan Adler 07/19 09:39 PM]
Nan Aron is on record saying the Alliance for Justice would urge Senate Democrats to filibuster the nomination of Judge Roberts to the Supreme Court (and she said it at the time most folks thought CJ Rehnquist would be retiring).

Scalia on Roberts[Jonathan Adler 07/19 09:36 PM]
According to Stuart Buck, Scalia is a fan.

Saint of the Day and daily Mass readings.

Today is the Feast of St. Margaret (or Marina), martyr and one of the Fourteen Holy Helpers. Pray for us, all you angels and saints.


Today's reading is Exodus 16:1-5, 9-15 .
Today's Gospel reading is Matthew 13:1-9.

Everyday links:

The Blessed Virgin Mary
The Rosary
Our Mother of Perpetual Help
Prayers from EWTN
National Coalition of Clergy and Laity (dedicated to action for a genuine Catholic Restoration)
The Catholic Calendar Page for Today


Memorare

Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it known that any one who fled to thy protection, implored thy help or sought thy intercession,was left unaided.Inspired with this confidence, I fly unto thee, O Virgin of virgins my Mother; to thee do I come, before thee I stand, sinful and sorrowful;O Mother of the Word Incarnate, despise not my petitions, but in thy clemency hear and answer me. Amen.


St. Joseph, her most chaste spouse, pray for us.


Prayer to Saint Anthony, Martyr of Desire

Dear St. Anthony, you became a Franciscan with the hope of shedding your blood for Christ. In God's plan for you, your thirst for martyrdom was never to be satisfied. St. Anthony, Martyr of Desire, pray that I may become less afraid to stand up and be counted as a follower of the Lord Jesus. Intercede also for my other intentions. (Name them.)


PRAYER TO SAINT MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle, be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the devil; may God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do thou O Prince of the heavenly hosts, by the divine power, thrust into hell Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

Must-see blasphemy.

The pea-brain network strikes again.

Modern-day Jesus coming to NBC television



The NBC network, eager for new hits to reverse a ratings slump, said on Friday it has given a mid-season 2005-06 commitment to a new drama titled "The Book of Daniel," depicting Christ as a contemporary confidant to a pill-popping priest.

The series stars Aidan Quinn ("Legends of the Fall") as conflicted Episcopal minister and family man, the Rev. Daniel Webster, and Oscar-winner Ellen Burstyn as his bishop.

How lovely. Ellen Burstyn. Just perfect casting. How about Cindy Crawford as a sexy younger bishop? I'd watch that.

The character of Jesus is portrayed by relative newcomer Garret Dillahunt, a regular on HBO's gritty, Emmy-nominated western "Deadwood." He played the man who murdered Wild Bill Hickok.

"Book of Daniel" was one of several high-profile projects NBC touted to advertisers at a special presentation in March, but it was left off the upcoming fall schedule unveiled by the General Electric Co.-owned network in May.

In announcing a mid-season pickup of the show, NBC did not say how many episodes were ordered or give a premiere date.

"This challenging new series is our first announced drama for mid-season as we continue to seek different, out-of-the-box projects," NBC Entertainment President Kevin Reilly said in a statement.

Reilly has said NBC's development of the show was inspired in part by the success of religion-themed novels like the "Left Behind" series and Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ."

"Daniel," however, is a far cry from "Passion" or the conventional Easter-season TV specials that portray Christ in a biblical context. According to NBC promotional materials, the Jesus character on "Daniel" is depicted as a "contemporary, cool" figure who appears only to the minister.

Get the latest on Judge Clement and other possibilities at National Review Online's "Bench Memos"

Bench Memos
ALL EYES ON THE COURTS
[ home archives e-mail ]

Think Progress on Clement[Jonathan Adler 07/19 04:20 PM]
Two posts on the Center for American Progress' new judicial blog start the criticism of Judge Clement. First, Eduardo Penalaver suggests Clement "stands among the most conservative judges on one of the most conservative courts in the country," at least on the issue of sovereign immunity because she appears to believe in it. Penalaver gives little consideration to the fact that the opinion is a reasonable interpretation of existing Supreme Court precedents supporting sovereign immunity — opinions joined by the Justice whom Clement may be nominated to replace. By that standard, Clement's decision to join this opinion dissenting from denial of an en banc petition is hardly remarkable.Brad Joondeph follows up with a post suggesting that Clement may believe federal civil rights laws are unconstitutional. Where would he get this idea? From a dissent from denial of an en banc petition written by Judge Edith Jones in a case challenging the constitutionality of an application of the Endangered Species Act, GDF Realty v. Norton. In that opinion, Judge Jones argued that “the regulated activity is the take [of the species]" — in this case a bunch of cave bugs — rather than any commercial activity. On this basis, Jones concluded that the federal government lacked the constitutional authority under the commerce clause to prohibit the development in question. Joondeph suggests this would place federal civil rights statutes in jeopardy because they prohibit discrimination, rather than economic conduct. This is absurd. The Civil Rights Act bars racial discrimination in employment and in public accommodations — in other words, it is confined to economic contexts and therefore fits neatly under commerce clause authority under current precedent. Moreover, Jones' opinion made clear that part of the problem for the Feds in GDF Realty was that the species in question — a collection of cave bugs that only exist in Texas, have no commercial value, and never leave their caves, let alone the state — had a particularly tenuous connection to interstate commerce. Therefore application of the Endangered Species Act here was more problematic than in cases involving more economically valuable species, such as wolves or migratory birds. The idea that this application of commerce clause precedent would threaten laws barring discrimination in hiring or public accommodations is simply unfounded.

"This Would Be War"[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/19 03:44 PM]
John King just now on CNN speculating on Janice Rogers Brown as a "wild card."

Clement's Opinions and More[Jonathan Adler 07/19 03:31 PM]
SCOTUSBlog's Tom Goldstein is posting summaries of notable Clement opinions here. He's also collected more Clement-related resources here.

What If It Were Ashcroft? Pryor?[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/19 03:28 PM]
Ramesh has two posts you'll want to read up in The Corner on abortion and Clement.

Charmaine Yoest[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/19 02:40 PM]
wants a man

Bait and Switch?!?[Jonathan Adler 07/19 02:38 PM]
This would certainly set off Washington. I don't believe it, but it's an interesting thought.

Prime Time Pick[Jonathan Adler 07/19 02:29 PM]
I agree, Kathryn. The President's decision to announce his first Supreme Court nomination is a very wise move. One of the lesson's of past nomination battles is the importance of defining the nominee before the opposition. This is particularly important with Supreme Court nominations where less of the battle will get waged under the radar. Starting tonight, and on tomorrow morning's news programs, the video will be of the President commending his nominee, rather than a Massachusetts Senator warning of segregated lunch counters and back alley abortions.

Clement, Natch[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/19 01:53 PM]
is doing ridiculously well over at TradeSports.

Anyone Know Where Janice Rogers Brown Is Right Now?[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/19 01:47 PM]
The president surely would get the media annoyed if he announced, say, the first black woman SCOTUS justice tonight.

Dems Are Not Being Serious[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/19 01:20 PM]

John Lott looks at some senatorial suggestions.

Ediths[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/19 01:19 PM]

What Hadley Arkes wrote earlier this month:
But my own hunch is that Luttig, McConnell, and Roberts are likely to come forth when the departure of the chief opens up another slot, either to replace Rehnquist or to take the place of a sitting justice raised to his current office. Of course, I could well be wrong — and in case anyone missed it, I repeat that I may be wrong — but my own hunch is that, for very good reasons, the choice for O'Connor's spot may center on the two Ediths: Edith Jones in Texas or Edith (Joy) Clement in Louisiana.Edith Jones has the sharper definition as a conservative, tagged as pro-life in her perspective, and she is bound to draw the heaviest fire. Joy Clement, in contrast, would be a harder target: Her own specialty was in maritime law; she has not dealt, in her opinions, with the hot-button issues of abortion and gay rights; and she has stirred no controversies in her writings or in her speeches off the bench. She would be the most disarming nominee, and it would be a challenge even for Ralph Neas or Moveon.org to paint her as an ogre who could scare the populace. The main unease would come in the family of conservatives: If people don’t know her personally, they will suspect another Souter or Kennedy. For they have seen the hazard in relying on the assurances given even by the most reliable conservatives, who claim they can vouch for the nominee.I would vouch for Joy Clement myself, and I would vouch for Edith Jones. But as I commend Joy Clement, I open myself to these searching questions from friends who have suffered the lessons of experience: If we know little, really, about her philosophy or jural principles, how do know that she will not alter when she is suddenly showered with acclaim from the law schools at Harvard and Columbia? Will she not be lured as she is praised in measures ever grander, as a jurist of high rank, as she “grows” with each step ever more “moderate” and liberal? Those who commend her face the risk of joining the ranks of those who offered assurance on Kennedy and Souter, and lost forevermore their credibility.But even more unsettling than that, the willingness to go with the candidate without a crisp, philosophic definition may mark the willingness to act, once again, within the framework defined by the other side: It begins with the reluctance to admit that we have ever discussed the matter of abortion with this candidate, or that she has any settled views on the subject. In other words, it begins with the premise that the right to abortion is firmly anchored as an orthodoxy; that those who would question it are unwilling to admit in public that they bear any such threatening doubts. The willingness to accept premises of that kind, as the framework for confirmation, may account for a Republican party that has brought forth as jurists the team of Stevens, O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter.If the administration finally comes forth with the name of Edith Jones, that will be taken as the clear sign of a willingness to break from those debilitating premises that signal, in advance, the eagerness to back away from an argument. But on the other hand, Edith Clement may be the stealth candidate who, for once, delivers to the other side the jolt of an unwelcome surprise. She may be the disarming candidate who truly disarms before she goes on to do the most important work that a conservative jurist at this moment can do...

About Timing[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/19 01:16 PM]
In all seriousness: I like that the president is making the first SCOTUS announcement a primetime event. Whether or not people watch, it is that important.

It's a Grand Tradition[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/19 01:15 PM]
I'd bet it's not Clement just because we're all talking about her. Of course, I said the same thing about Cardinal Ratzinger and the papacy in the moments while we were waiting for the smoke to clear. Whomever it is, I continue to bet it be someone we'll like. We'll see.

Viewing Clement from the Left[Jonathan Adler 07/19 01:11 PM]

Additional analyses of Judge Clement's record at ACSBLog and NathanNewman.org. Meanwhile, Jack Balkin thinks nominating Clement would be a "shrewd political move" by the President.

re: AP SAYS[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/19 01:04 PM]
Doesn't the president know some of us have lives (really!)? 9 pm. Isn't that his bedtime anyway?

AP SAYS[KJL 07/19 01:03 PM]
Announcement tonight at 9 p.m.

Would They Bother Telling Bill Frist?[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/19 12:54 PM]
Fox:
FOX News has learned that Clement has been interviewed by Vice President Dick Cheney, a possible sign that she is the choice for the high court.
Asked whether he expected an announcement, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said Tuesday, "I don't know, but I don't think so."
White House press secretary Scott McClellan would say only: "The president is closer today than he was yesterday on naming a nominee,"

RE: Clement[Mark R. Levin 07/19 12:27 PM]
As I feared, a thin record. I am sure she will be opposed by the lib-kooks, but so will anyone else.

Today[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/19 12:22 PM]

What the Washington Post is reporting as of 12:15: "The White House has told allies to be prepared for a Supreme Court nomination as early as this afternoon."

Nan Aron's Wishes[Jonathan Adler 07/19 12:20 PM]
Nan Aron is currently quoted on the Alliance for Justice website urging President Bush to appoint "someone like Justice O’Connor" to the Supreme Court — remember, that's the Justice O'Connor who joined the majority in Lopez, Morrison, Seminole Tribe, and Garrett, who supports the constitutionality of school vouchers, who dissented in Kelo and Raich, who was not particularly friendly to criminal defendants or tort plaintiffs, who opposed the use of numerical quotas in college admissions, and who (despite her pro- Roe holdings) voted to uphold quite a few restricitons on abortion that Aron opposes. Will Aron continue to sing that tune if Bush nominates Clement?

It looks likely CuriousGeorge BushMonkey is gonna blow his first Supreme pick.

From Yahoo!News:

President Bush settled on a nominee for the Supreme Court on Tuesday and the White House made arrangements for a nationally televised prime time announcement. "I'll let you know when I'm ready," he said at a midday news conference where he declined to tip his hand.

That only intensified speculation on his choice for the first opening on the court in more than a decade and a replacement for Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor.

The announcement was set for 9 p.m. EDT from the East Room of the White House. The nominee's family was expected to be with Bush and the candidate.

One list that circulated was top-heavy with the names of women. Judge Edith Clement of the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans was among them. Another female candidate thought to have been under consideration was Edith Hollan Jones, who also serves on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

Bush said he had considered "a variety of people, people from different walks of life."

The idea of a "woman's seat" on the court is un-American as well as an insult to women, men, and even hermaphrodites. Selecting a Supreme Court justice using genitalia as a criterion is contrary to Mr. Bush's public words on the subject.

Judge Clement, in her testimony before the Senate during her confirmation hearings for elevation to the 5th Circuit, said Roe v. Wade is sacrosanct. This too flies in the face of the president's stated goal of putting judges who respect the rule of law on the court.

Do not be surprised if Judge Clement turns out to be another Kennedy or Souter.

If her name is a smokescreen, bravo Karl Rove. But I am not going to hold my breath on this one, girls and boys.

Senator At Least Torricelli Got to Bone Bianca Jagger steps in it.

From our most corrupt state comes this story that makes me wonder how big a piece of that hotel is waiting in ol' Corzine's Swiss bank account.

Sen. Jon S. Corzine probably never thought he would need to woo environmentalists in the race for governor of New Jersey.

The liberal Democrat has consistently earned high marks for his pro-environmental voting record, and green activists' loyalty to New Jersey Democrats seemed automatic. But actions early in his campaign has put him at odds with the state's largest environmental groups.

He has been lauded by environmentalists for a voting record that includes opposing offshore oil and gas drilling and calling for more money to preserve the nation's coastline from erosion.

But representatives of several groups recently stood shoulder to shoulder with his opponent, moderate Republican Douglas Forrester, to condemn proposed development of a chemical-tainted island on the Delaware River in south Jersey.

The state had rejected a proposal by landowner Citgo Petroleum Corp. to clean up Petty's Island, nesting site of one of New Jersey's 49 pairs of bald eagles, and donate the 392-acre tract as a wildlife refuge. Instead, the state endorsed a plan favored by local officials to claim the island by eminent domain and use it for a hotel, conference center and homes.
(Thanks to the Asbury Park Press and Yahoo!News.)

I think someone changed the definition of eminent domain while we weren't looking.

Since I don't want to be accused of pulling a Dennis Miller, here is a link to the Bianca Jagger reference. Sorry, kids. She wasn't hot even when she was hot.

Jim Parker, Requiescat in pace.

Jim Parker, a Hall of Fame lineman with the Baltimore Colts who made a career out of masterfully blocking for Johnny Unitas and Lenny Moore, died Monday. He was 71.

Parker, the Colts' first pick in the 1957 draft, helped Baltimore win two NFL championships before retiring in 1967. He earned All-Pro honors in eight straight seasons, was named to the Pro Bowl eight times and in 1973 became the first full-time offensive lineman to be elected to the Hall of Fame.

"When that big guy pulled," Moore said Monday, "someone was going to hit the ground. Nobody was better at his position -- both of them."
Parker spent half his career at left tackle and the other half at left guard, manning both positions with equal effectiveness. Unitas, Moore and Raymond Berry got most of the accolades when the Colts won titles in 1958 and 1959, but Parker, who wore No. 77, was a key component of that offense.

"Parker was a decapitating blocker who lusted for defensive blood," former Colts defensive lineman Art Donovan wrote in his book, "Fatso."
Parker died after a lengthy bout with diabetes, according to Moore, who was at his longtime friend's bedside Monday when he passed away.
"Obviously, he was more than just a teammate to me," Moore said.

The 6-foot-3, 273-pound Parker came to the Colts after a stellar career at Ohio State during which he won the Outland Trophy and was twice named to the first-team All-America squad. He played offense and defense for the Buckeyes but was immediately told to focus on his blocking in Baltimore.
His primary role was to protect Unitas, who evolved into one of the game's greatest quarterbacks.

Parker didn't do much pass blocking for the run-oriented Buckeyes, but Colts coach Weeb Ewbank made him the team's starting left tackle with this priority: Do not let the defense get hold of Unitas.

"He told me, 'You can be the most unpopular man on the team if the quarterback gets hurt,' " Parker once said. "I couldn't forget that."

Parker was also responsible for opening holes for Moore, who ran for 5,174 yards and scored 113 touchdowns during a Hall of Fame career.
"To get to me, you had to get through Jim Parker," Moore said. "He protected me."

Parker was born on April 3, 1934, in Macon, Ga. He began his career at Ohio State on defense but, after helping the Buckeyes beat Southern California in the 1955 Rose Bowl, was moved to offensive guard. His coach, Woody Hayes, called Parker "the best offensive lineman I have ever coached" and presented Parker at his induction into the Hall of Fame.

"We are deeply saddened by the news of Jim's passing," Hall of Fame president John Bankert said. "He was without a doubt one of the greatest linemen of not only his era but of all-time."

During Parker's career at OSU, the Buckeyes won two Big Ten titles and a national title and went 23-5.
(Thanks to ESPN.com.)

East Berlin lives!

Here. And here.

And that made me think of The Ramones.

Ain't the internet grand?

Even Tank McNamara gets it!

Click to enlarge.

TAKE SOUTER'S HOUSE! TAKE SOUTER'S HOUSE!

General William Westmoreland, Requiescat in pace.

Retired Gen. William Westmoreland, who commanded U.S. forces during the Vietnam War from 1964 to 1968 and advocated a strong military buildup at a time when American casualties were mounting, has died.

Westmoreland died Monday of natural causes at Bishop Gadsden retirement home, where he had lived with his wife, said his son, James Ripley Westmoreland. He was 91.

"I have no apologies, no regrets. I gave my very best efforts," Westmoreland told The Associated Press in 1985. "I've been hung in effigy. I've been spat upon. You just have to let those things bounce off."

Shame on those of you who did that. Shame on the rest of us for not socking you in the face for it.

The silver-haired, jut-jawed officer, who rose through the ranks quickly during World War II and later became superintendent of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., contended the United States did not lose the conflict in Southeast Asia.

"We held the line. We stopped the falling of the dominoes," he said in 1985 at the 20th anniversary of the Army's 173rd Airborne Brigade's assignment to Vietnam. "It's not that we lost the war militarily. The fact is, we as a nation did not make good our commitment to the South Vietnamese."

Amen to that, brother.

As commander of U.S. forces in Vietnam, Westmoreland oversaw the introduction of ground troops in South Vietnam and a dramatic increase in the number of U.S. troops there. He also sought in vain permission to engage enemy forces in their sanctuaries in Cambodia, Laos and North Vietnam.

American support for the war suffered a tremendous blow near the end of Westmoreland's tenure when enemy forces attacked several cities and towns throughout South Vietnam in what is known as the Tet Offensive in 1968. Though Westmoreland fought off the attacks, the American public remained stunned that the enemy had gained access to the U.S. Embassy in Saigon, even if only for a few hours.

Snatched defeat right out of the jaws of victory, we did.

After the event, President Lyndon Johnson limited further increases in troops; Westmoreland was recalled to Washington to serve as the U.S. Army Chief of Staff after asking for reinforcements in response to the attacks.

Later, after many of the wounds caused by the divisive conflict began to heal, Westmoreland led thousands of his comrades in the November 1982 veterans march in Washington to dedicate the Vietnam War Memorial.
He called it "one of the most emotional and proudest experiences of my life."

Amen, brother. Amen.

After his four-year tour in Vietnam, Westmoreland was promoted to Army chief of staff from 1968 to 1972. He retired from active duty in 1972 but continued to lecture and participate in veterans' activities.

"I met him a couple of times," former South Vietnamese Maj. Gen. Nguyen Huu Hanh, who witnessed the fall of Saigon, said Tuesday. "He was a good man."

A decade after his retirement, Westmoreland fought another battle involving Vietnam.

In 1982, he filed a $120 million lawsuit against CBS over a documentary "The Uncounted Enemy: A Vietnam Deception," which implied he had deceived President Johnson and the public about enemy troop strength in Vietnam.

At the time, Westmoreland said the question "is not about whether the war in Vietnam was right or wrong, but whether in our land a television network can rob an honorable man of his reputation."

There's a war no decent man could win.

After an 18-week trial in New York, the case was settled shortly before it was to go to the jury.

I hope those sons of bitches paid through the nose.

William Childs Westmoreland was born near Spartanburg, S.C., on March 26, 1914, into a banking and textile family.

He attended The Citadel for a year before transferring to West Point. He graduated in 1936 and, during his senior year, held the highest command position in the cadet corps.

Westmoreland saw action in North Africa, Sicily and Europe during World War II. He attained the rank of colonel by the time he was 30.

As commander of the 34th Field Artillery Battalion fighting German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, he earned the loyalty and respect of his troops for joining in the thick of battle rather than remaining behind the lines at a command post.

He was promoted to brigadier general during the Korean War and later served in the Pentagon under Army Chief of Staff Maxwell Taylor. Westmoreland became the superintendent of West Point in 1960 and, by 1964, was a three-star general commanding American troops in Vietnam.

In his autobiography, "A Soldier Reports," Westmoreland wrote that in Vietnam, while he "tried to avoid any vendetta against the press," he sometimes resented the time he had to spend correcting "errors, misinterpretations, judgments and falsehoods" contained in news reports.

But he wrote that the press is "such a bulwark of the American system, that it is well to tolerate some mistakes and derelictions to make every effort to assure that total freedom and independence continue to exist."

In later years, Westmoreland often spoke to Vietnam veterans' groups, accepting invitations to visit veterans' groups in all 50 states, his son said.

"That became, in effect, his raison d'etre," the younger Westmoreland recalled. "He did have a point of view on Vietnam but he did not speak about that. He was not out there trying to justify anything."

In addition to his son, Westmoreland's survivors include his wife, Katherine, and two daughters, Katherine and Margaret.

Thank you General Westmoreland for your life of service to our country. You served her well and faithfully. I hope you forgave us for not doing the same for you.

BTW kiddies, do not believe a word you hear from the totalitarian left-fascists concerning General Westmoreland. He was a hero. and they were, are, and always will be cowards and criminals. And traitors.

Saint of the Day and daily Mass readings.

Today is the feast of St. John Plessington, English priest, missionary to the English, and martyr. He was hanged by the English in 1697. St. John Plessington, pray for us.

Today's reading is Exodus 14:21; 15:1 .
Today's Gospel reading is Matthew 12:46-50 .


Everyday links:

The Blessed Virgin Mary
The Rosary
Our Mother of Perpetual Help
Prayers from EWTNNational Coalition of Clergy and Laity (dedicated to action for a genuine Catholic Restoration)
The Catholic Calendar Page for Today


Memorare

Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it known that any one who fled to thy protection, implored thy help or sought thy intercession,was left unaided.Inspired with this confidence, I fly unto thee, O Virgin of virgins my Mother; to thee do I come, before thee I stand, sinful and sorrowful;O Mother of the Word Incarnate, despise not my petitions, but in thy clemency hear and answer me. Amen.


St. Joseph, her most chaste spouse, pray for us.


Prayer to Saint Anthony, Martyr of Desire

Dear St. Anthony, you became a Franciscan with the hope of shedding your blood for Christ. In God's plan for you, your thirst for martyrdom was never to be satisfied. St. Anthony, Martyr of Desire, pray that I may become less afraid to stand up and be counted as a follower of the Lord Jesus. Intercede also for my other intentions. (Name them.)


PRAYER TO SAINT MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle, be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the devil; may God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do thou O Prince of the heavenly hosts, by the divine power, thrust into hell Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

Say it ain't so, Taranto!

Two weeks without Best of the Web Today? Vacation my eye. After being outed as Valerie Plame's covert husband, Citizen Taranto hightails it to Reno for a quickie divorce. (Ever find yourself in a Fred Astaire/Ginger Rogers film?)

My Fetus Killing Me!

Usually Reuters is the most politically correct news organization around, but an exception is these two headlines, both from yesterday on the same story:

Reuters: "Unborn Babies Carry Pollutants, Study Says"

Associated Press: "Study: Fetuses Exposed to Toxic Chemicals"

As if you're not already confused enough about what to call those womb-bound critters, the Reuters dispatch includes yet another locution, in a quote from Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York:

"If ever we had proof that our nation's pollution laws aren't working, it's reading the list of industrial chemicals in the bodies of babies who have not yet lived outside the womb," Slaughter, a Democrat, said.

With a name like Slaughter, she ought to know that by order of the U.S. Supreme Court, you haven't lived until you've lived outside the womb.

Forget it, Sullivan. Taranto is watching.

Mind the Gap?

Andrew Sullivan had this little item on his blog the other day:

SODOMY WATCH: An obviously non-procreative couple gets married in Britain. Worse: "Simon is gifted with the organ." I anticipate condemnation from Maggie Gallagher, Stanley Kurtz, and Pope Benedict XVI.

This is supposed to be a snide little throwaway line, but it actually lays bare the sophistry at the heart of Sullivan's argument for same-sex marriage.

Sophistry, such a lonely word. But mostly what we get from you. (Sorry, I'm in a New York state of mind.)

The report to which Sullivan links appears in London's Daily Mail, and it describes the recent marriage of Simon Martin and Edna Townsend. He is 31; she is 70, a "sprightly grandmother." They share an interest in music, which explains Sullivan's reference to "gifted with the organ" (really mature sense of humor there, Andrew!). Sullivan implies that because Gallagher, Kurtz and the pope rest their opposition to same-sex marriage in part on the procreative nature of matrimony, it is inconsistent of them to tolerate a marriage like Martin and Townsend's, in which having offspring is a biological impossibility.

For the sake of argument, let's suppose someone actually were arguing for a policy that would bar the Simon-Townsend nuptials--that is, for a law preventing couples whose age difference exceeds some limit from marrying, or prohibiting men under a certain age from marrying postmenopausal women.

This would be an argument about the regulation of marriage. And make no mistake, marriage is subject to a lot of regulations. Current law everywhere in America prohibits, for example, marriage between a parent and child or brother and sister; a couple in which one partner is below the age of consent (with some exceptions); a couple whose "marriage" is a sham for immigration purposes; or a couple in which one partner already is married to someone else, even if separated. There are solid public-policy grounds for all these limitations on marriage. Other restrictions are invidious, such as the bans on interracial marriage that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down in 1967.

In evaluating a proposal to ban marriages à la Simon and Townsend, one would weigh its effect on the couples involved against the purported public benefit of such a law. The reason no one has actually advocated such a ban is because it so obviously doesn't pass the test. Even if we disapprove of the Simon-Towsend union--and to be candid, this columnist finds it pretty creepy--it would be cruel to outlaw it; and because very few 31-year-old men have any interest in marrying septuagenarian women, the public benefit of such a law (i.e., encouraging fertility) would be vanishingly small.

The debate over same-sex marriage is entirely different. It is about the definition, not the regulation, of marriage. Merriam-Webster's entry on marriage confirms the point:

(1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

For the entire history of mankind except the past few years, the first definition was the only one. That definition is broad enough to include forms of marriage that were once outlawed (exogamy) and others that are now outlawed (polygamy). But same-sex marriage requires a new definition. Note, however, that the original definition still has pride of place; same-sex marriage, according to the dictionary, is "marriage" only by analogy: "like that of traditional marriage." Presumably if Sullivan were writing the dictionary, only the first definition would stand, minus the phrase "of the opposite sex."

Legalizing same-sex marriage, then, represents a radical change in a bedrock social institution and thus is not comparable to any other reform of marriage law. This is why it generates such wide opposition even among people who harbor no antipathy toward homosexuals, and why it is much harder to stomach than any other gay-rights measure.
(Thanks to Best of the Web Today.)

Q: When are 4 suicide terrorist attacks not suicides?

A: Michael Ledeen offers a theory at Nationl Review Online. If true, it would mean a very teensy bit of rough justice has been meted out to the dead simpletons. (Remote-control mullah,anyone?) Ultimately, it is irrelevant, though. Unless you're a young moslem looking to make an impact.

"So maybe it wasn't a suicide attack after all?"

I had finally gotten a decent connection through the ouija board with the late James Jesus Angleton, once our leading counterspy, and I didn't want to waste time with the usual chitchat about fly fishing-whose fascination, frankly, I have never understood — and Renaissance furniture.

JJA: "Why would anybody think it was a suicide operation?"

ML: "Well, officially they seemed pretty confident. I think the main thing was that the three bombs in the subways went off more or less at the same instant, and that suggested there were timers. And then I think they actually found physical evidence of timers."

JJA: "Really. How brilliant. And since when do suicide terrorists need timers? Isn't part of the cult that you get to push your own button and blast off?"

ML: "Well, I think the simultaneity of the three explosions suggested technological coordination, if you see what I mean..."

JJA: "Couldn't they just coordinate their watches? They all met before they set off to kill, didn't they? And they were all well educated, I don't think any of them had a problem telling time."

ML: "Yes, some of the British papers, and a very smart Italian journalist named Guido Olimpio, have suggested that the terrorists were duped, that they didn't expect to be blown up..."

JJA: "Yes, notice that the London police chief was 'puzzled' to discover that the bombers were carrying around their personal identity documents. That's pretty lousy tradecraft, isn't it? It's what led the police to Leeds, where they found explosives and all kinds of leads."

ML: "And there's the odd story about the pay-and-display ticket for their rental car. If they expected to die, why bother to pay the parking fee?"

JJA: "Well, that one actually supports the suicide theory, because Muslim martyrs are supposed to settle all their earthly affairs before the event, including all legitimate debts. If they cheated on their parking fee, it might count against their immediate entry to Paradise...Although, to tell you the truth, after many years in this place..."

There was a sudden squawk of static before his voice came back, kind of gravelly.

JJA: "Sorry, I'm not supposed to talk about how things are here."

ML: "So you don't think they knew they were going to be martyred?"

JJA: "No I don't. There's an elaborate ritual that surrounds acts of Islamic suicide terrorism, and none of the ritual is present in this case. There's almost always a letter to the family, explaining what an honor it is for them to have an heroic martyr. There's almost always a video that shows them praying, preparing for sacrifice. If not, there's invariably an audio."

ML: "Yes, you're right. These acts are always used for 'propaganda' purposes, aren't they?"

JJA: "Never mind propaganda, they're recruitment devices, just like the films of the ritual beheadings."

ML: "Right. And there aren't any in the London case."

JJA: "There are not. And that, my friend, is a great example of the dog that did not bark. Can you imagine the shock value of a cassette of these proper Brits explaining the righteousness of their case, as they blow up scores of their fellow countrymen?"

ML: "Well, then, what happened?"

JJA: "What happened? What happened was what happens every day in Iraq. You recruit young men and tell them you want them to carry out a terrorist op. Not a suicide mission, but a strike on behalf of jihad. You tell them you want them to carry some bombs into the underground and leave them on the subway train. You tell them not to worry, everything is controlled by a timer, and the timer is set, say, half an hour after they are out of the Tube. So they go. Except then you set the thing off remotely. By cell phone, say."

ML: "But I thought cell phones don't work in the underground."

JJA: "I think you will find that some do. Or maybe there was a different kind of radio signal. But the technology certainly exists, and isn't very expensive. It might be something very simple, like putting a phony clock face on the timer, showing the explosion set for half an hour after the real time."

ML: "Actually, that might help explain the guy on the bus."

JJA: "Good for you, you noticed that?"

ML: "Well, now that you've got me thinking along those lines, it suddenly makes sense."

JJA: "You bet. You remember those passengers who said he was rummaging around, very nervously, in his backpack?"

ML: "Yes. And all the papers said he was probably checking to make sure it would work."

JJA: "Except that we're talking an hour and a half after the bombs went off in the underground, and maybe that surprised him. Maybe theirs wasn't supposed to go off until his did, too. Maybe he suspected what had happened. And maybe he was trying to find a way to shut it off, to get out of what had become a nightmare."

ML: "Why didn't he just run?"

JJA: "Don't ask rational questions about a person seized by panic."

ML: "Fair enough. Anyway, there are plenty of precedents for this theory."

JJA: "Yup. Lots and lots of them. Like that poor bastard in Baghdad, the Saudi kid who was trained in Syria and then smuggled into Iraq. They told him that he was just a courier. All he had to do was drive a truck in front of the Jordanian embassy, park it, and walk away. They would do the rest. So he starts driving across town, when BOOM."

ML: "Yes, I remember, and he was blown through the windshield, and miraculously survived, and ended up on Iraqi TV warning the world not to trust the guys who recruited him."

JJA: "And then there are the cases of terrorists who were chained to the steering wheel."

ML: "Right. And of course the suicide terrorists in Israel are accompanied by a handler almost until the moment of truth."

JJA: "Yes. There's not a very high level of trust. Lots of the kids turn themselves in when they get close, even the ones who are drugged..."

ML: "Hey, don't go now! Drugs?"
But it was over.

Q: When is a crackup not just a crackup?

A: When it can get your ignorant ass thrown in Hell.

A Christian adoption agency that receives money from Choose Life license plate fees said it does not place children with Roman Catholic couples because their religion conflicts with the agency's ``Statement of Faith.''Bethany Christian Services stated the policy in a letter to a Jackson couple this month, and another Mississippi couple said they were rejected for the same reason last year.

``It has been our understanding that Catholicism does not agree with our Statement of Faith,'' Bethany's state director Karen Stewart wrote. ``Our practice to not accept applications from Catholics was an effort to be good stewards of an adoptive applicant's time, money and emotional energy.''

Sandy and Robert Steadman, who learned of Bethany's decision in a July 8 letter, said their priest told them the faith statement did not conflict with Catholic teaching.

Loria Williams of nearby Ridgeland said she and her husband, Wes, had a similar experience when they started to pursue an adoption in September 2004.

``I can't believe an agency that's nationwide would act like this,'' Loria Williams said. ``There was an agency who was Christian based but wasn't willing to help people across the board.''

Bethany, based in Grand Rapids, Mich., has 75 offices in 30 states, including three in Mississippi. The offices are independently incorporated and are affiliated with various religions, spokesman John Van Valkenburg said from the agency headquarters. He couldn't say whether any were Catholic-affiliated.

He said the Jackson office is affiliated with the Presbyterian Church of America.``They included this practice of not including Catholics,'' Van Valkenburg said Friday. (Thanks to Sun Sentinel.com via Yahoo!News.)

Forgive them Lord. They believe the lies their fathers told.

Senator Brain Damage is brain dead.

Thanks to Yahoo!News for the latest vomit spewing forth from every orifice of the still twitching corpse that is the Keystone State's senior US Senator.

The chairman of the Senate committee that will oversee hearings on
President Bush's Supreme Court nominee said Sunday that he would like to see a moderate in the tradition of retiring Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor and perhaps someone with experience in politics.

Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record) said he didn't want to recommend a specific candidate because of his role as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. But he said he would like to see a nominee who has experience outside the judiciary, which would rule out many of the candidates that Bush is said to be considering.

The candidates mentioned most often are federal appeals court judges: Samuel Alito, Emilio Garza, J. Michael Luttig, John Roberts Jr., Michael McConnell and J. Harvie Wilkinson III.

Specter said on "Fox News Sunday" that he would like Bush to pick "somebody who's had more experience, somebody who's been out in the world and has a more varied background." He said someone who has been in politics might be a good choice.

"I have expressed the view that it would be useful, in my judgment, to have somebody on the court who does not come from the graduates of the courts of appeals," Specter said. "When you look back at the court which handed down Brown v. Board of Education unanimously, there was an ex-governor, there were three ex-senators, two attorneys general, a solicitor general, a professor and somebody from the SEC."

Yeah, that's what we need on an Imperial Court drunk on power - politicians.
Arlen Through the Freakin' Looking Glass.

Specter encouraged Bush not to bow to pressure from conservative groups and instead try to preserve the existing ideological balance on the court — meaning that his nominee would be a moderate like O'Connor.

Bush "stands in a position where he has to put a person on not where the president would be beholden to any group, no matter how much they contributed to his election, but something in the national interest," Specter said. "And when you have these very delicate questions, it's helpful to the country to have somebody who is a swing vote, which maintains the balance."

The rule of law rather than the rule of men is the national interest, you fatuous cretin.

Charles Krauthammer hits a weak single to right.

The most remarkable discovery is that Europe's second- and third-generation Muslim immigrants are more radicalized than the first. One reasonably non-political and non-radical Muslim activist, raised in the suburbs of Paris, explained himself (to The Wall Street Journal) as having ``immigrated to France at the local maternity ward.''

The fact that native-born Muslim Europeans are committing terror acts within their own countries shows that this Islamist malignancy long predates Iraq, long predates Afghanistan and long predates 9/11. What Europe had incubated is an enemy within, a threat that for decades Europe simply refused to face.

Wait a minute. What does this say about the holy grail of democratizing the moslem nations? Are moslems incapable of living in free, pluralistic societies. Is Islam incompatible with freedom?

Early news reports of the London bombings mentioned that police found no suspects among known Islamist cells in Britain. Come again? Why in God's name is a country letting known Islamist cells thrive, instead of just rolling them up?

So,it is simply a matter of police work then? Send a couple of coppers around and stop the bad guys?

British Islamists had spoken of a ``covenant of security'' under which Britain would be spared Islamic terror so long as it allowed radical clerics free rein. Sheik Omar Bakri Mohammed, for example, a Syrian-born, exiled Saudi cleric granted asylum 19 years ago, openly preaches jihad against Britain. He is sought by the press for comment all the time. And, a lovely touch, he actually lives on the British dole -- even though he rejects the idea of British citizenship, saying, ``I don't want to become a citizen of hell.''

Don't worry, sheik baby. You'll get there.

One of the reasons Westerners were so unprepared for this wave of Islamist terrorism, not just militarily but psychologically, is sheer disbelief. It shockingly contradicts Western notions of progress. The savagery of Bouyeri's act, mirroring the ritual human slaughter by Zarqawi or Daniel Pearl's beheaders, is a return to a primitiveness that we in the West had assumed a progressive history had left behind.

This is why I do not consider people like Citizen Krauthammer to be conservative. (No, Adolf. I'm not talking about the Jews.) What exactly are the "Western notions of progress" ? Marx had some notions of progress. So did Margaret Sanger. I'm about half certain Freud may have had some. (His intellectual descendents certainly like to consider Freudianism "progressive".) Children of the West, all.

Please Charles, enlighten my poor brain.

Our first response was, therefore, to simply sweep this contradiction under the rug. Put the first World Trade Center bombers on trial and think it will solve the problem. Even today, there are many Americans and even more Europeans who believe that after 9/11 the United States should just have done Afghanistan -- depose the Taliban and destroy al Qaeda's sanctuary -- and gone no further, thinking that would solve the problem.

But the problem is far deeper. It is essentially a civil war within a rival civilization in which the most primitive elements are seeking to gain the upper hand. 9/11 forced us to intervene massively in this civil war, which is why we are in Iraq. There, as in Afghanistan, we have enlisted millions of Muslims on the anti-Islamist side.

But what about the vast majority of European Muslims, the 99 percent who are peace-loving and not engaged in terror? They must also join the fight. They must actively denounce not just -- what is obvious -- the terror attacks, but their source: Islamist ideology and its practitioners.

Where are the fatwas issued against Osama bin Laden? Where are the denunciations of the very idea of suicide bombing? Europeans must demand this of all their Muslim leaders. They must also dismantle and destroy all ``known'' Islamist cells before trains and buses are blown up.

A modest beginning might be removing the likes of Sheik Omar -- and Bouyeri -- from the teat of the infidel taxpayer. ``He (Bouyeri) had the time to plan this,'' van Gogh's mother told the court, ``because for three years he was on unemployment benefits.'' Decadence is defined not by a civilization's art or music but ultimately by its willingness to simply defend itself.

Ah, welfare reform is the answer. The Brits need a taste of King Goober II.
(Thanks to Townhall.com.)

Meanwhile, back in The Holy Land...

Protesters will gag themselves to symbolize their silencing. (AP file)




From Israelinsider:

Reports are coming in from all over the country of massive police efforts to turn back busses and vehicles bringing anti-expulsion protesters to a huge rally in the South.

The Council of Jewish Communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza (Yesha Council) claimed that police were setting up roadblocks "from Kiryat Shmona to Eilat."

Anti-expulsion protest leaders claimed the government had "crossed a red line" by stopping the buses headed for Netivot, warning Police Commissioner Karadi that he will be "held responsible for the loss of control," if the situation is not correct and an assembly if forcibly prevented.

Many drivers have had their licenses confiscated and in some case the police have impounded vehicles and forced passengers to disembark. Malchi Ackerman from the community of Nofei Ayalon, between Jerusalem and Beit Shemesh, said that police stopped about five busses that came to pick up protesters and confiscated the licenses of the drivers, the Jerusalem Report reported. "This is the worst violation of democracy to date," she said.

The IDF and the police plan to deploy an unprecedented amount of 20,000 officers at checkpoints to stop the marchers. Forces will also be stationed alongside major roads in a bid to prevent road-blocking protests by the marchers. The police themselves plan to block roads.

The internal security minister has vowed that protesters will come nowhere near the rally site or the Kissufim junction leading to the Israeli population centers in Gaza. Interior Minister Gideon Ezra said that the march planned by anti-pullout protestors "will not enter Gush Katif, they won't even reach the road that leads to Gush Katif."

Organizers of the protest, set the start in the afternoon, say demonstrators will march with orange ribbons tied across their mouths to symbolize their silencing by forces, who have deened the planned demonstration illegal.

Rob, Satchel, & Benito.

Click to enlarge.

Citizen Conley gets metaphysical and manages a mention of the guy whose claim to infamy was being slightly less evil than Hitler.

I get mail from antipodeans...

...well, one actually. So far.

Responding to my ripsnorter of a post on Australia cozying up to the Slave China regime,

Johnboy said...

Well maybe if the US didn't try and screw us on every single deal we wouldn't be so keen on doing business with the chinese who, while tough negotiators, are a damn sight more honest.When the day comes the US has no friends left at all you'll have no-one to blame but the corrupt government's you've elected for generations.

I must say I was shocked at the tone of this message from one of the nations that gave us the heroes of Gallipoli. Shocked, I tell you.

But, after much thought, I realized the Australians are a proud people. Since we Americans seem to have hurt Mr. Boy's feelings in some manner, I have decided to act.

John, on behalf of the USA, I hereby grant you relief from your monstrous personal burden of being protected by our power; economic, military and political. You are now free to pursue what you perceive to be your interests without considering how they will affect the West, Christendom, the Free Nations of the world, or any other fanstasy construct of evil and corrupt American people.

Granted, we will still act for the sake of our national interests as well as for Democracy, Freedom, the Rule of Law, ANZUS, and other bourgeois concepts that do not necessarily do us any good but still manage to get some of Our Boys killed.

This may cause you some discomfort from time to time. You will probably suffer angst, rage, and paralyzing frustration when you realize there is nothing nothing you can do to influence evil Amerika.

I am certain your honest commie Chinese friends will be more than happy to commiserate with you.

Saint of the Day and Daily Mass readings.

Today is the Feast of St. Camillus de Lellis, patron of hospitals and hospital workers, who was a pioneer in hygiene and diet for the sick. He is often invoked against compulsive gambling. His life is another example of the healing power of faith. Pray for us, all you angels and saints.

Today's reading is Exodus 14:5-18 .
Today's Gospel reading is Matthew 12:38-42 .

Everyday links:

The Blessed Virgin Mary
The Rosary
Our Mother of Perpetual Help
Prayers from EWTN
National Coalition of Clergy and Laity (dedicated to action for a genuine Catholic Restoration)
The Catholic Calendar Page for Today


Memorare

Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it known that any one who fled to thy protection, implored thy help or sought thy intercession,was left unaided.Inspired with this confidence, I fly unto thee, O Virgin of virgins my Mother; to thee do I come, before thee I stand, sinful and sorrowful;O Mother of the Word Incarnate, despise not my petitions, but in thy clemency hear and answer me. Amen.

St. Joseph, her most chaste spouse, pray for us.


Prayer to Saint Anthony, Martyr of Desire

Dear St. Anthony, you became a Franciscan with the hope of shedding your blood for Christ. In God's plan for you, your thirst for martyrdom was never to be satisfied. St. Anthony, Martyr of Desire, pray that I may become less afraid to stand up and be counted as a follower of the Lord Jesus. Intercede also for my other intentions. (Name them.)


PRAYER TO SAINT MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle, be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the devil; may God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do thou O Prince of the heavenly hosts, by the divine power, thrust into hell Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.