Right Wing Think Tank

Washington Post : Roberts a Risk

2005-09-17T20:41:00.000-05:00

I just read the Washington Post editorial that will run tomorrow. While encouraged that the WaPo can read the tea leafs and see that Roberts confirmation is nearly certain, I am not surprised that the stated reason for confirming Roberts by a large majority is to help the dems oppose the next nominee.

The most offensive line in the article is this

These are all risks, but they are risks the public incurred in reelecting President Bush.

The WaPo risky statement is based on their fear that Roberts will not support their agenda. Perhaps this is to be expected by a bunch of liberals, but really, risk? What do they expect, Roberts to rule that all women are not to be let out of the kitchen? Will Roberts rule to prohibit the education of minorities? Will Roberts Rule that Congress should be abolished, in favor of state legislators? Or perhaps Roberts will rule that the 2 term limit on presidents is clearly unconstitutional, condemning all of us to 40 more years of Bush?

Surely I am not the only one who thinks that liberals have lost all perspective. I hope that the dems follow the fringe lefts demands and do everything that they can to stop Roberts, and that Bush really sticks them with the next nominee.

Judge Roberts Prediction

2005-09-16T18:55:00.000-05:00

I think that the committee will vote 10-8(straight party line vote) to send Roberts to the full senate. The full senate will confirm Roberts by 70-30.

What a Circus

2005-09-14T21:17:00.000-05:00

This is the first confirmation hearing that I have been able watch closely. I was only 17 when Thomas was put through the ringer. I missed both Clinton appointees. That said, I am really impressed with how many times the various senators seem to be addressing the national audience or lecturing Roberts on the importance of adhering to their view and agenda. It is almost comical listening to Biden rant. It is extremely frustrating to watch the various senators dish out small barbs and large misrepresentations of Roberts position.
conversely, I have been very impressed with Roberts' restraint in defending himself from personal attacks. He has also not risen to answer questions that are only implied. I am impressed with his mastery of soo many previous decisions of the Court. I am further impressed by his complete lack of notes. I expect that you really do have to work hard to convince Roberts in an argument.
I expect that Roberts will be just what he purports to be, a judge that is first and finally committed to the rule of law. That is something that we should all demand in a judge.

Biden Does Not Want Answers

2005-09-13T19:58:00.000-05:00

As I listened to the confirmation hearing on Judge Roberts, I was struck by the wide difference in tone between the republicans and the democrats. The democrats were uniformly hostile to Roberts. Biden was particularly hostile, he repeatedly talked over Roberts. Biden's questions were very long and most of the time Biden was making statements that were aimed at framing Roberts in a negative light. This became obvious right from the first pitch when Biden tried to establish that Roberts was being disingenuous with his baseball analogy. About halfway through I realized that Biden did not want to hear any answers from Roberts, he merely wanted a platform to characterize Roberts as a neanderthal. A great example of this is while Biden is pressing Roberts a bout a memo he wrote more than 20 years ago where Roberts used the term "heightened" scrutiny. Biden tried to beat Roberts into agreeing that "heightened" is equal to strict scrutiny. Roberts indicated that "heightened" actually ment "intermediate" scrutiny. This is the middle level of the three levels that the supreme court uses when reveiwing arguments. here is the exchange:

BIDEN: I understand. My time's running out. I'd love to hear the explanation of the three tiers. But let's stick to this one for just a second.

Then, explain to me what you meant, 10 years after the decision laying out this level of scrutiny, when you wrote an '81 memo to your boss. You wrote that gender, quote, is not a criterion calling for heightened judicial review.

What'd you mean by that?

ROBERTS: Referring to what you called strict scrutiny.

BIDEN: He didn't know the difference between heightened and strict?

ROBERTS: Well, I was about to lay it out. You said you didn't want to hear about it.

(LAUGHTER)

ROBERTS: Strict scrutiny is the...

BIDEN: I know what that is. I wonder what you meant by that.

SPECTER: Senator Biden, let him finish his answer.

BIDEN: But I have no time left, Mr. Chairman. I understand the answer.

Anyone who was listening realized that Biden only understood that he had been cornered and would not be able to beat Roberts into submission.
One other interesting note from the Biden piece was Biden's instance that he had no time left. Of course he would have more time for answers if he cared about them and if he shut up.

ACLU Looses, US Wins

2005-09-09T20:09:00.000-05:00

Today the 4th circuit appeals court ruled to overturn a lower court decision that Jose Padilla can be held as an enemy combatant. The court reasoned that

The exceedingly important question before us is whether the President of the United States possesses the authority to detain militarily a citizen of this country who is closely associated with al Qaeda, an entity with which the United States is at war; who took up arms on behalf of that enemy and against our country in a foreign combat zone of that war; and who thereafter traveled to the United States for the avowed purpose of further prosecuting that war on American soil, against American citizens and targets.
We conclude that the President does possess such authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution enacted by Congress in the wake of the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001.

The opinion was written by Michael Luttig, who you may remember, has been rumored to be on the short list for the US Supreme Court. Ankle biting Pundits states that "[Luttig] has gone to the top of my wish list" for the nomination.

The decision was authored by Judge Michael Luttig, widely feared to be the president's choice to replace Justice O'Connor. If the president hasn't yet decided on a nominee, he may be tempted to reward Luttig for this unprecedented and dangerous expansion of presidential power.
TalkLeft

Anyone who the left describes as "widely feared" seems like a pretty good choice to me.

The ACLU argument is basically that because Padilla is a US citizen, he should go through the normal civilian pathways, meaning among other things, that he should be charged or released. The court basicly said no, he shouldn't. A very brief search at technorati reveals a pretty deep split, and right along party lines. Some how I am not surprised. I know the perfect charge for Mr. Padilla, and I'll get to it in a moment, but first a brief recap.

The court documents describe Padilla's activities thus:

Appellee Jose Padilla, a United States citizen, associated with forces hostile to the United States in Afghanistan and took up arms against United States forces in that country in our war against al Qaeda. Upon his escape to Pakistan from the battlefield in Afghanistan, Padilla was recruited, trained, funded, and equipped by al Qaeda leaders to continue prosecution of the war in the United States by blowing up apartment buildings in this country. Padilla flew to the United States on May 8,
2002, to begin carrying out his assignment, but was arrested by civilian law enforcement authorities upon his arrival at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago.

The President's reasoning for detaining Padilla as an enemy combatant is that "Mr. Padilla possesses intelligence, including intelligence about personnel and activities of al Qaeda, that, if communicated to the U.S., would aid U.S. efforts to prevent attacks by al Qaeda on the United States or its armed forces, other governmental personnel, or citizens".
Indeed. You may aremembereber the Hamdi decision issued by the Supreme Court recently, in the Hamdi case, the reasons were very similar. Clearly the 4th circuit coremembersbers, and said:

As the AUMF authorized Hamdi's detention by the President, so also does it authorize Padilla's detention. Under the facts as presented here, Padilla unquestionably qualifies as an "enemy combatant" as that term was defined for purposes of the controlling opinion in Hamdi. Indeed, under the definition of "enemy combatant" employed in Hamdi, we can discern no difference in principle between Hamdi and Padilla. Like Hamdi, Padilla associated with forces hostile to the United States in
Afghanistan.

So Padilla is an enemy combatant, and we should hold him until the war is over. In the mean time, we should get everything he knows, and use it to destroy al Qaeda and friends.
Then we should charge Padilla.
The Constitution states

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

If there is a more clear case of treason, I am not aware of it. We should try Padilla for treason, and then execute him.

Let's Not Forget Iraq

2005-09-08T19:43:00.000-05:00

Nearly 2 months ago The Weekly Standard published a piece entitled The Mother of All Connections that has not gotten nearly enough attention. It should be required reading for anyone who wants a sincere understanding of what is going on in Iraq. I believe if everyone was aware of these (now old) developments, public support for the War on Terror would be huge, perhaps at an all time high. Terror is a real threat to civilization. The price of winning will not be cheap, but loosing will be fatal. We must win, and so far it has been very cheap in historical terms. It is impossible to find any military action that is as wide spread and as long lasting as this one has been that cost less.

Stop the Whining

2005-09-08T19:42:00.000-05:00

NRO has a great response to some of the whining going on . Read it.

It's Not Our Fault

2005-09-08T19:10:00.000-05:00

I have been amazed at how fast the discussion swirling around Katrina has devolved into a blame game on the left side of the dial. With each more fervent attack, I have become more disgusted.
Like most everyone else I have been horrified at the destruction and loss of life, but mostly over the loss of life.
My horror has been mixed with disgust and no small measure of disbelief at the race baiting, blame shifting, and partisan attacks that have been filling just about every single MSM outlet. I do not understand why so many liberals fall back on the race card, or the poor card, or the republicans are evil card.
The reason the disaster continued to worsen through the first week is the incompetence of the local and state officials. These people had a plan but chose to ignore it. What???? I really wish Bush had not said that no one had foreseen the levies failing, as just about everyone realized the threat, except that perhaps the mayor and governor of LA. So now this wrong and stupid comment is being used by the liberals to support the false assertion that Bush delayed support because he hates blacks, or he is stupid, or he is incompetent take your pick. The local officials made the wrong choice at every opportunity.
They did not order an evacuation until 24 hours before Katrina hit.
They did not use the busses before Katrina, or immediately after. (Apparently Mayor Nagen, thought the busses were not comfortable enough to use, because we would all rather die, than ride for a couple of hours on a school bus , right Mayor).
Also, lets not stockpile food and water at the superdome, or convention center, because after all we don't want people going there. We would rather pick up the corpses.
And while we are at it , lets not allow the Red Cross to bring supplies to these shelters either.
And we don't need help, but you better "get off you asses" and help us now.
And lets ignore the levy system, because that local project clearly is the responsibility of the federal government.
And lets excuse the desertion of the police department.
And lets blame Bush. He is the root of all evil.

Even after all of this, Bush should not be completely off the hook, but the hook should grab Nagen and Blanco first.

This effort to stick Bush for Katrina will backfire with voters, so while I am sickened by the democrats complete blindness to the local Democratic officials incompetence, I'll be smiling after the next election.

Alas, Babylon

2005-09-03T09:48:00.000-05:00

As I watched the rapid decent into lawlessness that occured in the Big Easy in the aftermath of Katrina, I kept having flashbacks to Alas, Babylon by Pat Frank. I first read Alas, Babylon in high school. Alas, Babylon is a captivating tale of live in a small town after nuclear war breaks out in the late 1960s. The description of how society begins to unravel is strikingly similar to the news reports from New Olreans. The lack of all the basic essentials, the death, the fires, the drug addicts breaking into hospitials, the looting, all of it. If you have not read Alas, Babylon, you are missing out on a very intersting book.

Moving America Forward

2005-08-29T07:14:00.000-05:00

On Saturday we attended the Move America Forward Rally in Crawford, TX. It was a very moving and uplifting tribute to our troops. There were at least 3000 people in attendance. That is pretty amazing since Crawford is away from the beaten path, and I'm sure the 100 degree heat keep people away as well.
Traffic started backing up about 3 miles outside of Crawford. Most of these cars sported Bush 04 stickers form the recent election. We drove through center of Crawford before the rally and there were many more Bush supporters than the media would lead you to believe.

This is the main intersection in Crawford

After visiting downtown we made our way to the rally. It was a packed house.

Melanie Morgan of Move America Forward introduced the speakers.

The speakers were family members who had lost a loved one in the war. These people spoke very movingly about their love of the country and there loved ones belief that the war against terror is a noble war. It was impossible not to have your courage stirred by these great Americans. I will always remember 2 speaker in particular.
This gentleman ( and I apologize I did not get the names) lost his twin brother in Iraq. His brother served 2 tours in Afghanistan and several tours in Iraq. He was killed 8 weeks before his retirement from active duty. His bother testified that he loved this country and that the Iraqi people in large love us. People like this make me proud to be an American.
This woman lost her husband on September 11th, on the flight that was taken over by the passengers. She spoke of how she told her husband what had happened at the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. She spoke to him 4 times that dreadful morning. He told her that they were going to do something, and that he was talking to other passengers. These brave Americans stopped the terrorists from executing their plan. They died defending America. They recognized what so many in America recognize, that America is bigger than individuals, but individuals make America great. These are true patriots who more than self, their country loved. This is what the media should be reporting.

I'm with Newt

2005-08-25T06:47:00.000-05:00

NPR has resurected a 1950's radio program called This I Believe that features short essays from a wide range of people. One of those people is Newt Gingrich. As a student of history, I could not agree more with him. Go listen to his essay.

Recess Nominations

2005-08-22T22:03:00.000-05:00

In September 1985 Ronald Reagan made 7 recess appointments, these appointments are the subject of Box 47-JGR/Recess Appointments (7). The 2 major documents in this set are a reply to Sen. Byrd(D-WV) and a draft of a reply to a NTY article about the recess appointments.
These documents are very eerie in that they could have been written this summer instead of 20 years ago. Senator Byrd suggested that the recess appointments made were "somehow an improper circumvention of the advice and consent role of the Senate." A very brief Google search turns up many stories about how Bush "bypassed" , or "evaded the constitution" in his recess appointment of Bolton to the UN.
In a Draft response to the NYT, Roberts takes the NYT to task for "picking and choosing" some sections of the constitution and ignoring others. Roberts opens with this

[T]he Times accused President Reagan of "misuse of the recess-appointment power," [argues] that the power "plainly" does not apply during the "vacation breaks" of today's Congress, and asserted that the power was being used "to circumvent the Senate's constitutional duty to advise and consent to appointments."

Roberts then proceeds to outline the long history of recess appointments and several of the court decisions that have upheld their use.
These memos are very germane to the political discussion that surround the appointment of John Bolton to the UN. For instance:
The Washington Post quotes Senate Minority leader Reid:

[He echoed] the concerns of fellow Democrats, said Bush abused a presidential power intended for narrow circumstances in order to dispatch "a seriously flawed and weakened candidate" to the United Nations.

On August 2nd, Cnn ran an article titled "Sidestepping Senate, Bush sends Bolton to U.N.", and in that article "Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, called Bolton's recess appointment an 'abuse of power.'"
While the NYT said this:

Mr. Bush had been unable to get Mr. Bolton's nomination confirmed by the Senate, so he waited until Congress left town and used his constitutional power to make recess appointments. This is a perfectly legal tactic, though one that has seldom been used to fill this kind of position. A recess appointment is particularly dicey for a major diplomatic post, where a good nominee should carry an aura of personal gravitas and legitimacy.

I do not imagine that the Democrats will find much to like in these memos (but it should be mentioned that Clinton made more than 100 recess appointments), while the rest of us have a better glimpse into the respect that John Roberts has for the Constitution.

Sore Losers ( and Desperate)

2005-08-20T18:21:00.000-05:00

I think that everyone still remembers the 2000 elections. The misleading exit polls, New Mexico changing directions suddenly, and of course Florida. Five years and 3 elections (1 presidential, 2 congressional) later, you'd think that the Democrats would be focused to the future and how to win in 2006, and 2008.
You'd be wrong.
According to Paul Krugman's column yesterday, "What They Did Last Fall", the Dems never lost. Like a lot of Libs lately he appeals to a foreign journalist from a liberal paper to defend his point. There has been a lot of ink spilled on the Florida election, but in the minds of some liberal hacks, the issue is still open. there is a great bunking by The American Thinker that is a must read.

Krugman ends with this gem "The Republicans will be strongly tempted to make sure that they win those elections by any means necessary. And everything we've seen suggests that they will give in to that temptation."
I guess Krugman already expects to loose in 2006, and in 2008.
(thanks Michelle)

I Can See It Now...

2005-08-20T10:50:00.000-05:00

John Roberts opposed desegregation in the 80's. That seems a likely headline in the MSM this week after the Reagan Presidential Library released some 56 boxes of documents from Roberts time in the Reagan administration. I spent some time reading fromBox 16 - JGR/(Department of Justice) DOJ Daily Reports (2) . This document is from a appeals case that the administration pursued against the Chicago Board of Education. At question is the the case United States of America vs. Chicago Board of education.

It should be noted here that these documents were not authored by Mr. Roberts, but were rather referred to him as a FYI, or that these documents were discussed with Mr. Roberts.

The history of this case is that in September 1980 (during the Carter administration) filed a complaint that the “Chicago Board of Education (“Board”) had established and established and maintained racial and ethnic segregation of students” and also offered a consent decree that required the Board “develop a plan to desegregate the schools”. The clause in question is 15.1

Each party is obligated to make every good faith effort to find and provide every available form of financial resources adequate for the implementation of the desegregation plan.

The lower court interpreted this to mean that the United States was required to “[underwrite] the financial responsibility for the Chicago desegregation plan to the extent that the Board could not meet costs.” The court determined that the administration (now Reagan) had not made a “good faith” effort to meet clause 15.1 because the administration had not pushed certain legislation, and had not distributed the $100 million. This the administration argued was an unconstitutional interference in both the Executive and Judicial branches of government as it is the president's prerogative to support, oppose, or veto any legislation that he chooses. Further that awarding such a large sum to the board would take funds from other worthy districts, to cover costs that the Board incurred by its own violation of the 1964 civil rights legislation.

Race is such hot issue with the liberals that they will try to construe any issue that addresses it as an attack by conservatives on racial equality. I would not be surprised to the following twisted logic. Roberts was part of an administration that did not want Chicago to desegregate its schools, as seen by their unwillingness to provide the necessary funds to implement a desegregation plan. Remember you heard it here first.

Let Judith Miller Rot

2005-08-18T16:50:00.000-05:00

I read this post and have wanted to comment on it for several days, but I have had no time. Finally, here are my thoughts.

The NYT editorial on August 15th begs and demands that Judith Miller be release from her cell because "Ms. Miller is not going to change her mind". It is the height of hubris to think that Ms. Miller is somehow different, exempt from the demands of the legal system. I do not recall any indignant outrage from the NYT on the behalf of others who have refused to testify. Perhaps consistency is too much too expect from major media organs.
Even accepting the hubris of the NYT, the argument that the article makes is not true because they said it is. The defense of Ms. Miller rests on the freedom of the press, and the NYT asserts that the secret source is the backbone, the basis of the free press. This defense is spurious; the free press depends on the first amendment of the constitution and as I recall there is no mention of secret sources there. While Ms. Miller may have a point that people will not tell reporters some information if they believe that they can be named, she may not have a point. If no one ever again talked to reporters, the media would still be free, and could conduct any investigation that they wanted.

Ms. Miller's instance on keeping her source secret does make one wonder who the source is. It can't be Rove, because he has given his permission to reveal his conversations. After Rove, I can only speculate, Joe Wilson, Valerie herself, Novak, and Cooper are pretty much all of the main players in this drama so far. I doubt that it is any of these people. If it were a conservative, I would not expect the NYT to protect him or her. So perhaps it is a liberal operative. That would be most interesting. I suspect that we will just have to wait for the book deal to find out.

Now that the True Believers have realized that they are unlikely to stick it to Bush or Rove there is an amazing silence regarding the whole affair. This is not so surprising as the whole affair was manufactured to hurt Bush. The assertion that Valerie was “outted” as revenge for Joe's lies has been shown to be wishful thinking on the part of the True Believers. Perhaps we can now move on to the real scandal of Cindy Sheehan.

Controversial = Lie

2005-08-12T22:27:00.000-05:00

Apparently controversial is the new word for lie. I heard the NARAL ad (since pulled) described as controversial at least 10 times today. Even the rabid pro-murder crowd is running from this piece. I do not see how NARAL expects to be taken seriously now.
David E. Seldin, communications director for NARAL has resigned. Of course NARAL is saying that it has nothing to do with the ad, but I would love to have been a fly on the wall during that discussion.(see Political Ads)
Cnn is reporting that NARAL has a new ad that will start on Monday.

NARAL Pulls Roberts Ad

2005-08-12T06:40:00.000-05:00

CNN is reporting that NARAL is pulling the "controversial" (read lying) Roberts ad. Aparently Arlen Specter wrote a letter condeming the ad and this convinced NARAL to pull the ad. Unfortunately NARAL president Nancy Keenan in not appoligetic. In fact she seems stunned that the ad did not start a "serious discussion" on abortion. Hello, Nancy, is anyone home??? You cannot start a "serious discussion" with a baltant lie. She also regrets "that many people have misconstrued our recent advertisement about Mr. Roberts' record", I think she should appoligize for this lie as well. The ad was clearly designed to mislead, and Nancy seems shocked that it did just that.

2005-08-11T20:38:00.000-05:00

I have read several opions about Jeannie Pirro running against Hillary Clinton in the offterm elections. Dick Morris (the ever reliable Republican stratigest) thinks that Pirro can beat Clinton. This seems pretty unlikely as NY is about a blue a state as there is, and I have a hard time believing that democrats in the Kerry/Ted Kenedy/Howard Dean mold could ever live with themselves after voting for and republican. Still old Dick may have a point that by forcing Hillary to commit to a full term, or her refusal to commit may hurt her in the race next fall.

At the very least, either of these paths will reveal her intentions for 2008. Historically speaking, the early front runner does not prevail in the final election. Al Gore and Howard Dean come to mind as the most recent failed frontrunners.

It comes as no suprize that the MSM has already picked sides. Ankle Biting Pundits goes into some detail about an article in the NYT today.

While this race certianly is not going to be a bell weather race, it will be very interesting and will surely get a lot of attention.

There is a poll at Patrick Ruffini (thanks Red State) discussing which of the Senate races are going to be most interesting, and the Pirro-Clinton race is in 3rd place.