As the votes occur in the U.S. Senate this week to confirm Judge Sam Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court, Senate Democrats are apparently preparing to take their party over the cliff and out of the "mainstream".
Consistent among their arguments in their opposition to Judge Alito is that he is out of the "judicial mainstream".
It's not enough that he has sterling levels of experience, written opinions, and judicial temperament. No, all of that was attested by the American Bar Association (ABA) in their report to the Judiciary Committee that found him to be well qualified. No, that's not enough. Consider Sen. Chuck Schumer's only question to them in response, where he asked them if they measured whether or not the judge was within the "judicial mainstream"? The ABA's response - "We don't do politics".
Well the Democrats do politics. And they have decided that is in their interest to appease their radical left wing base and attack, oppose, and possibly filibuster the nomination of this fine man.
So I ask you - who is outside of the judicial mainstream?
Judge Alito, who the ABA found through interviews with 2000 people who knew him - judges who served with him, lawyers who clerked for him, lawyers that argued in front of him, etc - was an honest and fair man of utmost integrity and judicial temperament?
Or partisan Democratic Senators who threw every unfounded, mean, and illogical argument at him in the hearings and weren't able to lay a glove on him? You want to take Teddy Kennedy's word ethics? Or Hillary Clinton's on the "mainstream"?
It's inevitable. The Senate Democrats will choose disgrace over integrity this week in their votes to oppose the judge. They will publicly line up and exit the mainstream. And Judge Alito will be confirmed anyway. That's justice.
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
My ill-spent Morning in Traffic Court
There is an old saying that a "conservative" is a liberal who has been mugged. (As my twelve year old would say.."Get it, they now believe in law and order, get it?)
I would modify that to say that a conservative should be anyone who has spent time in the paragon of beauracratic efficiency know as traffic court, as I had the privilege of doing this morning.
It should certainly cure liberals of a belief that government should be delivering most services to "the people".
Yes, I know. I wasn't one of the people today. I was a perp. A violator. Who am I to comment on the wonders of the "Law and Justice Center"? Just shut up and put up with the two and a half hour excercise in civics and learn a lesson already.
Two and a half hours? To pay a traffic ticket? What's up with that?
Was I protesting the charges? Um, no. You got me, officer. Fair and square. Speeding? Guilty. 88 mph in a 65 zone. Not a close call. No seatbelt? Guilty. I didn't even try to drag it surreptitiously across my stomach as the officer approached the car. Nope. Guilty.
I've got $150 buring a hole in my pocket. Let me pay it and give me the prize - my Driver's License back - already.
But, it's not going to be that easy. The wheels of justice have to grind me down a while. Stand here. Sit there. Court appearance required. That's right - the courtroom where 50 people are all scheduled for the same 9:00am hearing. We'll call your name - eventually. Say hi to the pretty State's Attorney. What? No, I don't want to protest it. I'm guilty. Who can I pay already?
You just want to pay? Sign this. Plead that. Go down and stand in that long line in the hallway. Never mind that there are several computer stations unmanned. These two plodding bored people will help you - eventually.
What? Don't mind that doctor who's trapped in line behind you on his cell phone talking his nurse through how to perform a diagnostic test to decide whether a patient needs to go to the emergency room or not! The line will eventually move it's two feet per ten minutes and free him up too.
If my liberal friends get to experience this encounter with your local government some day, ask yourself this as you observe the proceedings: if this was a business, would they treat you this way? I mean, after all, they generate huge amounts of cash for your city to operate on. No one gets out of there for less than $100, I noted as I watched them staple stacks of cash to thick permanent files on us.
I know you guys hate Walmart. But wouldn't you really want them to run the traffic court? Do you think they would have hesitated to open another register to clear out that line?
I would modify that to say that a conservative should be anyone who has spent time in the paragon of beauracratic efficiency know as traffic court, as I had the privilege of doing this morning.
It should certainly cure liberals of a belief that government should be delivering most services to "the people".
Yes, I know. I wasn't one of the people today. I was a perp. A violator. Who am I to comment on the wonders of the "Law and Justice Center"? Just shut up and put up with the two and a half hour excercise in civics and learn a lesson already.
Two and a half hours? To pay a traffic ticket? What's up with that?
Was I protesting the charges? Um, no. You got me, officer. Fair and square. Speeding? Guilty. 88 mph in a 65 zone. Not a close call. No seatbelt? Guilty. I didn't even try to drag it surreptitiously across my stomach as the officer approached the car. Nope. Guilty.
I've got $150 buring a hole in my pocket. Let me pay it and give me the prize - my Driver's License back - already.
But, it's not going to be that easy. The wheels of justice have to grind me down a while. Stand here. Sit there. Court appearance required. That's right - the courtroom where 50 people are all scheduled for the same 9:00am hearing. We'll call your name - eventually. Say hi to the pretty State's Attorney. What? No, I don't want to protest it. I'm guilty. Who can I pay already?
You just want to pay? Sign this. Plead that. Go down and stand in that long line in the hallway. Never mind that there are several computer stations unmanned. These two plodding bored people will help you - eventually.
What? Don't mind that doctor who's trapped in line behind you on his cell phone talking his nurse through how to perform a diagnostic test to decide whether a patient needs to go to the emergency room or not! The line will eventually move it's two feet per ten minutes and free him up too.
If my liberal friends get to experience this encounter with your local government some day, ask yourself this as you observe the proceedings: if this was a business, would they treat you this way? I mean, after all, they generate huge amounts of cash for your city to operate on. No one gets out of there for less than $100, I noted as I watched them staple stacks of cash to thick permanent files on us.
I know you guys hate Walmart. But wouldn't you really want them to run the traffic court? Do you think they would have hesitated to open another register to clear out that line?
Friday, January 13, 2006
The Party of Unfinished Sentences
The continued drumbeat from the Democrat leadership this week about President Bush's "illegal warrantless spying on Americans" shows that the Party of Unfinished Sentences is at again.
Of course, their main ritual of the unfinished sentence was on display as well in the Alito hearings. The being "a woman's right to choose." Choose what? Well, of course they don't want to finish the sentence and say "a woman's right to choose whether or not to hire an abortionist to take the life of the unborn child developing within her." Let's just shortcut that at the right to choose.
Back to the NSA eavesdropping story. Just because Democrats keep repeating all day, every day, that the President broke the law by "spying on Americans" doesn't make it true.
As to the unfinished sentence - what Americans? Me? You? My preacher? The little old lady next door? Bill Clinton? Ted Koppel? The Red Hat Society?
Let me finish the sentence for them. The President authorized the NSA to monitor, by eavesdropping, the conversations of people on American soil - citizens or not - who they had probable cause to believe were in contact with Al Qaeda leaders.
When I say it that way, and I do say it that way, it's a different story. We would expect the President to be taking aggressive action to monitor those people to protect the security of our homeland. Except Democrat leaders, or course, who just want the issue to bash the President with - not the truth.
I could make the whole argument here, but Jonah Goldberg has already done it extremely well in his column "so what if you are". Go read it.
And always ask - what's the rest of the sentence?
Of course, their main ritual of the unfinished sentence was on display as well in the Alito hearings. The being "a woman's right to choose." Choose what? Well, of course they don't want to finish the sentence and say "a woman's right to choose whether or not to hire an abortionist to take the life of the unborn child developing within her." Let's just shortcut that at the right to choose.
Back to the NSA eavesdropping story. Just because Democrats keep repeating all day, every day, that the President broke the law by "spying on Americans" doesn't make it true.
As to the unfinished sentence - what Americans? Me? You? My preacher? The little old lady next door? Bill Clinton? Ted Koppel? The Red Hat Society?
Let me finish the sentence for them. The President authorized the NSA to monitor, by eavesdropping, the conversations of people on American soil - citizens or not - who they had probable cause to believe were in contact with Al Qaeda leaders.
When I say it that way, and I do say it that way, it's a different story. We would expect the President to be taking aggressive action to monitor those people to protect the security of our homeland. Except Democrat leaders, or course, who just want the issue to bash the President with - not the truth.
I could make the whole argument here, but Jonah Goldberg has already done it extremely well in his column "so what if you are". Go read it.
And always ask - what's the rest of the sentence?
Senators Behaving Badly
"Senators, have you no shame?" would have been a good question for someone to direct to the Democrat Senators on the Judiciary Committee in this week's hearings on Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court.
Desperate to defeat Alito - yet unable to do so on the merits of his experience, capability, or judicial temperament - the Democrats loaded up the smear arsenal.
Thank heavens for C-Span! Staying up late to watch Kennedy and Schumer and Leahy etc. thunder imperiously at Alito, all but calling him a bigoted unethical women-hating stooge of an illegal President, until his wife retreated from the room in tears: Priceless! Nice, Democrats. Real nice.
Watching Chucky Schumer haughtily conclude that he was troubled by the nominee's unresponsiveness and would have a hard time voting for him, like there was any chance in the world that he might even consider voting for him: Priceless!
At least I got to prove my "News Junkie" bona fides this week by taping C-Span in order to watch Committee hearings into the wee hours of the morning.
Desperate to defeat Alito - yet unable to do so on the merits of his experience, capability, or judicial temperament - the Democrats loaded up the smear arsenal.
Thank heavens for C-Span! Staying up late to watch Kennedy and Schumer and Leahy etc. thunder imperiously at Alito, all but calling him a bigoted unethical women-hating stooge of an illegal President, until his wife retreated from the room in tears: Priceless! Nice, Democrats. Real nice.
Watching Chucky Schumer haughtily conclude that he was troubled by the nominee's unresponsiveness and would have a hard time voting for him, like there was any chance in the world that he might even consider voting for him: Priceless!
At least I got to prove my "News Junkie" bona fides this week by taping C-Span in order to watch Committee hearings into the wee hours of the morning.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
You Can't Just Give Back the Money
The most important story on the front page of yesterday's USA Today was not the shockingly out-of-date "Dewey defeats Truman" kind of headline proclaiming that the trapped miners in West Virginia were found alive - when in fact they were dead.
No, that was a tragic story with an important side lesson about the ability of the print media to compete with the 24 hour news cycle on a deadline, but it was not the most important story for the nation.
That would be the 2nd story, below the fold, about super lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleading guilty to lobbying fraud and giving up evidence to take down a lot of Congressmen with him. This is the story with long term national ramifications.
Why? Because this story will damage the nation long term for two reasons:
1. It will directly take down a lot of powerful Congressmen if it plays out to the extent that is possible. Key figures like Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R) and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D) are potentially on the hook for taking bribes.
2. It will further undermine American's faith in government if a large group of nationally known politicians are indicted for accepting bribes.
Hastert, as was noted, immediately "gave back" about $69,000. Sorry guys. You can't just give the money back. If you took bribes, you are going down.
This has enormous implications for the 2006 elections. Stay tuned.
No, that was a tragic story with an important side lesson about the ability of the print media to compete with the 24 hour news cycle on a deadline, but it was not the most important story for the nation.
That would be the 2nd story, below the fold, about super lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleading guilty to lobbying fraud and giving up evidence to take down a lot of Congressmen with him. This is the story with long term national ramifications.
Why? Because this story will damage the nation long term for two reasons:
1. It will directly take down a lot of powerful Congressmen if it plays out to the extent that is possible. Key figures like Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R) and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D) are potentially on the hook for taking bribes.
2. It will further undermine American's faith in government if a large group of nationally known politicians are indicted for accepting bribes.
Hastert, as was noted, immediately "gave back" about $69,000. Sorry guys. You can't just give the money back. If you took bribes, you are going down.
This has enormous implications for the 2006 elections. Stay tuned.
Spy, President Bush, Spy
In case you had any doubt, President Bush has my full approval for his policy authorizing the NSA to conduct eavesdropping operations domestically on people who have been linked to terror suspects overseas. With a warrant or without, I applaud the full tilt war on terrorism that the President is waging.
If you've ever heard the folks in the silly apathetic middle argue that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats, this one story should put that argument to rest.
The facts are straightforward, only the spin is arguable. In the wake of 9/11, and in the aftermath of taking down the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, intelligence assets such as phones, address books, and computer contact lists were captured. The NSA, with the approval of the President, began eavesdropping activities on domestic contacts that were identified with these methods. The President had the authorization of the Attorney General, and he briefed relevant members of Congress on the program.
So, what is the different spin:
Democrats are outraged that the President would authorize domestic spying without proper court warrants. They fume about civil liberty violations. They shout abuse of power and hint at impeachment.
Republicans support the notion that in wartime all means of intelligence should be aggressively pursued to protect the nation. Also, that we learned post 9/11 that our laws and policies were antiquated tools when it came to dealing with non-state terrorists.
Clearly, one party is serious about the fact that we are at war, and is aggressively waging it with everything in the arsenal. Clearly, one party is not serious at war and thinks nothing of handcuffing the President for partisan advantage.
I know which side I'm on. I applaud the President and his reliable determination to prosecute this war with every tool he has available. I disdain the Democrats who would block efforts to monitor terrorist contacts operating in this country because the correct paperwork wasn't obtained.
If Democrats want to take on President Bush for monitoring Osama bin Laden's cell contacts within the U.S., I say bring it on. This is absolutely a winning issue for the President.
If you've ever heard the folks in the silly apathetic middle argue that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats, this one story should put that argument to rest.
The facts are straightforward, only the spin is arguable. In the wake of 9/11, and in the aftermath of taking down the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, intelligence assets such as phones, address books, and computer contact lists were captured. The NSA, with the approval of the President, began eavesdropping activities on domestic contacts that were identified with these methods. The President had the authorization of the Attorney General, and he briefed relevant members of Congress on the program.
So, what is the different spin:
Democrats are outraged that the President would authorize domestic spying without proper court warrants. They fume about civil liberty violations. They shout abuse of power and hint at impeachment.
Republicans support the notion that in wartime all means of intelligence should be aggressively pursued to protect the nation. Also, that we learned post 9/11 that our laws and policies were antiquated tools when it came to dealing with non-state terrorists.
Clearly, one party is serious about the fact that we are at war, and is aggressively waging it with everything in the arsenal. Clearly, one party is not serious at war and thinks nothing of handcuffing the President for partisan advantage.
I know which side I'm on. I applaud the President and his reliable determination to prosecute this war with every tool he has available. I disdain the Democrats who would block efforts to monitor terrorist contacts operating in this country because the correct paperwork wasn't obtained.
If Democrats want to take on President Bush for monitoring Osama bin Laden's cell contacts within the U.S., I say bring it on. This is absolutely a winning issue for the President.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)