Keep the Republic

A blog dedicated to expressing faith in God, hope in America, and a conviction to preserve the principles on which the nation was founded. Benjamin Franklin, after the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, was asked by a concerned citizen of Philadelphia what type of government had been created after four months of closed-door meetings by the delegates; he responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."

Name:
Location: London, Kentucky, United States

Monday, November 29, 2004

Top ten

Sorry if posting is light this week. Duty calls. Nevertheless, here is the latest AP poll:

1. Wake Forest (40)
2. Kansas (18)
3. Syracuse (4)
4. Georgia Tech (7)
5. Illinois (1)
6. Oklahoma State (2)
7. Connecticut
8. Kentucky
9. North Carolina
10. Duke

Out: Michigan State (11).
SEC Representatives in Top 25: Kentucky, Mississippi State (15), Florida (19), and Alabama (22).

Thursday, November 25, 2004

Happy Thanksgiving

Tuesday, I posted a link to the original George W.'s Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1789. On this Thanksgiving Day, here is the Thanksgiving Proclamation from the George W. currently residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue:

"All across America, we gather this week with the people we love to give thanks to God for the blessings in our lives. We are grateful for our freedom, grateful for our families and friends, and grateful for the many gifts of America. On Thanksgiving Day, we acknowledge that all of these things, and life itself, come from the Almighty God.

"Almost four centuries ago, the Pilgrims celebrated a harvest feast to thank God after suffering through a brutal winter. President George Washington proclaimed the first National Day of Thanksgiving in 1789, and President Lincoln revived the tradition during the Civil War, asking Americans to give thanks with "one heart and one voice." Since then, in times of war and in times of peace, Americans have gathered with family and friends and given thanks to God for our blessings.

"Thanksgiving is also a time to share our blessings with those who are less fortunate. Americans this week will gather food and clothing for neighbors in need. Many young people will give part of their holiday to volunteer at homeless shelters and food pantries. On Thanksgiving, we remember that the true strength of America lies in the hearts and souls of the American people. By seeking out those who are hurting and by lending a hand, Americans touch the lives of their fellow citizens and help make our Nation and the world a better place.

"This Thanksgiving, we express our gratitude to our dedicated firefighters and police officers who help keep our homeland safe. We are grateful to the homeland security and intelligence personnel who spend long hours on faithful watch. And we give thanks for the Americans in our Armed Forces who are serving around the world to secure our country and advance the cause of freedom. These brave men and women make our entire Nation proud, and we thank them and their families for their sacrifice.

"On this Thanksgiving Day, we thank God for His blessings and ask Him to continue to guide and watch over our Nation.

"NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Thursday, November 25, 2004, as a National Day of Thanksgiving. I encourage all Americans to gather together in their homes and places of worship to reinforce the ties of family and community and to express gratitude for the many blessings we enjoy.

"IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-third day of November, in the year of our Lord two thousand four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-ninth.

"GEORGE W. BUSH "

Happy Thanksgiving.

Wednesday, November 24, 2004

Declaration of Independence Banned!

That's not a misprint. A fifth-grade teacher, Stephen Williams, in a San Francisco Bay-area school has been prohibited by his principal from using original source documents to supplement the history textbook used in his class. (The civil rights complaint filed by the teacher can be read here.) Among the supplemental documents Williams used in his class were excerpts from George Washington's journal, John Adams' diary, "The Rights of the Colonists" by Samuel Adams, the "Frame of Government of Pennsylvania" by William Penn, "The Principles of Natural Law" by Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui, various state constitutions, and yes, the Declaration of Independence. The principal's reason for banning the use of the documents? They contain religious content.

Regardless of your position on whether the United States is a Christian nation, it is undeniable that Judeo-Christian principles heavily influenced the Founders of the United States. If a person chooses to believe there is no God, that does not change the historical fact that the Founders believed that our inalienable rights were given to us by our Creator, the Supreme Judge of the world, and relied on the protection of divine Providence in proclaiming their independence,and wrote those beliefs into not only the Declaration, but numerous other works as well. They did not believe that faith was something that was not to be used to inform the rest of your life's decisions.

The principal has yet to comment, so one can only speculate as to her motives. One possibility is that the principal is simply hostile to Christianity and is engaged in a one-person crusade to expunge religious references from the foundational documents of the United States, or at least make sure that the students in her school are not exposed to their "corrupting" influences. A second explanation is that this is the absurdly logical extension of Supreme Court decisions that have banned prayer from schools and football games and, as Chief Justice Rehnquist noted, exhibit a jurisprudence that "bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life." Hostility to faith (and in this case, a willful ignorance of history) appear to be guiding the decision no matter how it is viewed. But it is a sad commentary on the Supreme Court's influence that its opinions may lead to the banishment of the Declaration of Independence -- America's founding document -- from public schools.

Tuesday, November 23, 2004

First Tom, Now Dan . . . um, Peter?

On the heels of Tom Brokaw's retirement as anchor for the NBC Nightly News comes news today that Dan Rather will step down as anchor of the CBS Evening News on March 9. Dan's had a rough year. I can't say I'm sorry to see him go.

The other seasonal slight . . .

. . . goes, naturally, to Christmas. In South Orange and Maplewood, New Jersey, the school district's fine arts chairman, Nicholas Santoro, claims that because of complaints from parents over religious music in the schools, no religious carols will be performed at the school's Christmas concert. Such a decision bans songs such as Handel's Messiah, Joy to the World, Silent Night, or the Jewish hymn "Ma'oz Tzur" in favor of bland "holiday" songs such as Frosty the Snowman, Winter Wonderland, or Deck the Halls.

Is the chairman's decision legally sound? No. Federal courts have ruled that "public schools are not required to delete from the curriculum all materials that may offend any religious sensibility." The United States Supreme Court has noted that "[m]usic without sacred music, architecture minus the cathedral, or painting without the scriptural themes would be eccentric and incomplete, even from a secular point of view."

No court has ever banned the singing of religious Christmas carols as part of a public school's Christmas program. Yet year after year, uninformed and misguided educators assume that, because the ACLU will sue them if those songs are included, they must be tossed into the intellectual wastebin, along with the religious origins of Thanksgiving, apparently.

The Alliance Defense Fund, the American Center for Law & Justice, and Liberty Counsel are just three legal organizations that will represent a school district if the ACLU challenges the ability to include religious references in Christmas programs. By the same token, those organizations are prepared to sue any school district that infringes on a student's right to freely express religious beliefs in the same context. The same battles seem to be fought year after year, but as long as the ACLU continues its assault on public religious expression, these organizations will soldier on in the fight.

'Tis the season to be Scrooges

As certain as the sun rises in the east come this year's efforts to take religion out of two unquestionably religious holidays. In a story covered last night on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Maryland public school students are not being taught that the Pilgrims celebrated to give thanks to God.

"Maryland public school students are free to thank anyone they want while learning about the 17th century celebration of Thanksgiving - as long as it's not God. And that is how it should be, administrators say. . . . what teachers don't mention when they describe the feast is that the Pilgrims not only thanked the Native Americans for their peaceful three-day indulgence, but repeatedly thanked God. Thanksgiving is usually taught as a part of social studies and emphasizes cultural immersion. . . . School administrators statewide agree, saying religion never coincides with how they teach Thanksgiving to students." . . .

"'We mention they were Puritan but students usually just understand that they had a belief system and not much more than that,' said Carol Williamson, Queen Anne's County Schools' associate superintendent." "'We don't focus on religion, because it is not a part of our curriculum,' said Sandra Grulich, Cecil County Schools' elementary school curriculum coordinator."

The historical revisionism practiced by the educators in Maryland is astounding. The best source for the purpose of the celebration is always a primary source, where available. One of those is Mourt's Relation, written by Edward Winslow, in conjunction with William Bradford, in 1620-21. The account of the harvest festival celebrated by the Pilgrims is in Section 6. The holiday was not an annual celebration at this time. The University of Oklahoma Law Center also reproduces a copy of the first Thanksgiving Proclamation from 1676: "The Council has thought meet to appoint and set apart the 29th day of this instant June, as a day of Solemn Thanksgiving and praise to God for such his Goodness and Favour . . . ."

George Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1789 is even more explicit:

"Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor--and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me 'to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.'

"Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be . . . ."

And with Abraham Lincoln's Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1863, the nation began its tradition of an annual holiday:

"It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and voice by the whole American people. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens."

How can religion not coincide with the teaching of Thanksgiving? Erasing from the history books and destroying the foundations of the holiday does a disservice to the students, who are not being taught history in an intellectually honest manner.

Top Ten in College Hoops

The latest AP poll:

1. Wake Forest (25)
2. Kansas (26)
3. Georgia Tech (11)
4. Syracuse (4)
5. Illinois (1)
6. Oklahoma State (2)
7. Connecticut
8. Kentucky (1)
9. Duke
10. Michigan State

Out: North Carolina (11), Arizona (18).
SEC Representatives in Top 25: Kentucky, Mississippi State (14), Alabama (19), and Florida (23).

Monday, November 22, 2004

To protect and serve

Two thoughts on this story from the weekend, in which President Bush went back to where his Secret Service agent had been prevented by local security from accompanying the president into a dinner, and the president physically pulled his agent through so that the agent could do his job:

It is a measure of the character of the president. Secret Service agents are trained to sacrifice their lives, if necessary, to protect the life of the president. Bush could have sent someone else over to clear up the problem, but he took control of the situation himself. A stark contrast to his former opponent in the election who, when he fell on a ski slope on one of his vacations, blamed it on the Secret Service agent. "I don't fall down, the [expletive] knocked me over."

The second, much more disturbing aspect of this story, has been discussed by a Power Line correspondent:

"Let me put it into perspective: the president has been marked for death by hundreds of terrorist groups; he is in a foreign country, one where there have been near contintuous [sic] riots against America and against him, personally, over the Iraq War; as he's walking into a banquet hall, the local police intentionally cut him off from his security detail.

"If the first thought that popped into your mind when you heard about that was not "assassination," then your mind is still laboring in a pre-9/11 world."

Read all of the post here. It's a chilling thought (no pun intended).

It's the media, stupid!

That appeared to be the theme yesterday on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer. During a panel discussion about "past defeat and future hope" for the Democrats, Al Franken commented that the problem for the Democrats was that "we can't get our message across because the media isn't doing its job." When his comment was paraphrased just as it sounded, that it was the media's fault that the Democrats lost, he claimed, "I didn't say it was entirely the media's fault. I started about articulating our values."

Outgoing Texas Congressman Martin Frost followed up by saying that, when it comes to the media, Democrats "have to scream loud and make sure that message gets through, because it's very hard to get through." Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., also stated that "I think there's a role for the media [in the Democrats' defeat]. And I think Al would probably make that point better than any members of Congress has, because he deals with them in more ways than many of us do."

Not to be outdone, Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez had this exchange with Blitzer:

"BLITZER: What do you think? Loretta Sanchez, what do you think?

"SANCHEZ: I agree with Jesse. I agree with my colleague. I believe that we made mistakes. The media certainly is not in our hands any longer, and, in particular, radio talk shows where that is completely in the opposition's hands, and they use it effectively against us.

"BLITZER: But, Loretta, when you say the media -- when you say the media is not in your hands, are you saying that ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN are hostile to Democrats?

"SANCHEZ: No, that's not what I said. I'm saying that -- if you would let me finish -- that the majority of people are now receiving a lot of their information out of radio. And the radio isn't in the hands of the Democrats anymore. Many years ago, the Republicans made a very effective play. They sat down. They made a strategy. They decided they were going to put big thinktanks around, that they were going to fund them. They decided that they would buy radio, that they would use that to talk to people. And people drive in their cars, they're listening to the radio all the time. They're getting a lot of information that way. You know, networks are losing -- you know, they're getting less and less viewership.

"BLITZER: Let's bring back Al Franken, because he raised this issue.

"SANCHEZ: So they're not impacting the message any longer. But also Democrats made a lot of mistakes."

Unbelievable, really. And note the hilarious exchange between Blitzer and Sanchez. "The media is not in our hands anymore . . . Are you saying the MSM is hostile to Democrats? . . . No." Of course it's not. From CBS' fake Texas Air National Guard documents story to the New York Times running the "missing" ammo story during the last week of the campaign and the hostility from the mainstream media, including all of the outlets mentioned by Blitzer, plus the Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and Al Franken's "Air America" radio network (established for the purpose of defeating Bush), all relentlessly beating the drum for the Democrats this year, it is beyond ridiculous to claim that the Dems lost because the media was too soft on Bush. As Zell Miller might say, that dog won't hunt.

The National Basketbrawl Association gets Stern

The NBA has handed out suspensions to nine players involved in the fracas in Detroit Friday night, including suspending Ron Artest for the remainder of the season. The more times I watched the video of the melee over the weekend, the more disgusting it became to realize that adults were behaving so childishly. And now the players' union has announced plans to appeal, claiming that the suspensions are too harsh. Ron Artest said, "I respect David Stern, but I don't think that he has been fair with me in this situation."

You're right, Ron. You should be subject to a lifetime ban. Jermaine O'Neal got off easy too. He should be out for the season.

The ugliness that was the NBA Friday night needs to be addressed comprehensively and prospectively. Here are three back-of-the-napkin proposals:

(1) Any player involved in a physical altercation with another player that results in punches being thrown should be out for the season. I know that tensions (and testosterone) run high during the game, and competitive juices are flowing. That's fine. But when you commit an act that, if done on the sidewalk outside the arena, would land you in jail, you've crossed the line from friendly competitor to criminal.

(2) Any player who goes into the stands and assaults a fan should be permanently banned from the league. Period, no questions, no gray areas, no "Steve Howe" type lifetime bans. The player has violated a trust. These guys get paid a lot of money -- to play a game! With the publicity will come some heckling from the fans, but that's no excuse to assault a spectator. You lose your right to earn a living in that profession when you assault a bystander.

(3) The fans behaved terribly at the game. Any fan who throws an object onto the floor or at a player should be permanently benned from the venue. Your money buys you a seat in the arena, not the right to endanger the players, officials, coaches, or other spectators. Each of these suggestions also includes criminal prosecution to the individual involved, player or fan.

The saddest part of the whole affair was seeing children at the game with stunned looks of surprise and horror on their faces. With the first player strike and owner lockout, most of us accepted that professional sports are a business. But the children still have enough innocence about them so that they see the game in its more pristine form, as a game, and the athletes are guys whose pictures are on cards the children collect. For the children in the arena Friday night, that innocence was shattered.

Commissioner Stern hasn't been fair with you, Ron? You behaved despicably in front of the world Friday night. You got off easy.

Friday, November 19, 2004

Chris Matthews continues to ignore reality

"Hardball" used to be an entertaining show (or maybe just the SNL spoof of Hardball was good, I'm not sure). But Chris Matthews has become little more than a partisan hack, shilling for the left while ignoring reality. During the presidential campaign, he repeatedly made the charge that George W. Bush was not pro-life, as in this October 21 transcript:

"Very clearly, the president of the United States has not promised to . . . promot[e] a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion, to overturn Roe v. Wade. He‘s not saying he‘s going to pick pro life judges. How can you say he‘s pro life, then, I don‘t get it. He‘s not pro life. . . . Don‘t call the president pro life—don‘t call the president pro life if you mean it. . . . But he doesn‘t want to outlaw abortion."

One week earlier, he had made the following remarks:

"What struck me is that he never really came down and said he is pro-life in the sense of meaning something. He didn‘t come out for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion or to leave it up to the states. He didn‘t come out and say I‘m going to pick judges who are going to overturn Roe vs. Wade. He seemed to play around the edges of the issue. Yet he is enjoying the support of the Catholic hierarchy on this issue. . . . They‘re pro-life. They want to outlaw abortion. And yet he doesn‘t seem to be taking their position, but he is benefiting from their opposition to a Catholic being elected president as a pro-choicer. It seems like he is benefiting by hedging."

This, about the first president to sign a ban on partial-birth abortion. But Matthews has not relented on revising history since the election. On tonight's broadcast, he reached back into the 1980's and asserted that Ronald Reagan was not really pro-life, and only paid lip service to the issue. In fact, Reagan was passionate on the issue. In his 1985 State of the Union Address, he said,

"The question of abortion grips our nation. Abortion is either the taking of a human life or it isn't. And if it is--and medical technology is increasingly showing it is--it must be stopped. It is a terrible irony that while some turn to abortion, so many others who cannot become parents cry out for children to adopt. We have room for these children. We can fill the cradles of those who want a child to love. And tonight I ask you in the Congress to move this year on legislation to protect the unborn."

An essay written by Reagan in 1983, "Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation," became the first book ever published by a sitting president, and inspired the pro-life movement. Chris Matthews needs a reality check.


I love this brawl!

For the last several years the culture of the NBA has been in a steady decline, in part because younger, less mature players are being pushed into high-profile positions before they are ready, and in part because the "old guard" -- Jordan, Bird, Magic, Thomas -- left, and there are few respected elder statesmen in the league to keep passions under control.

That was on display, possibly as never before, in Detroit tonight during the Pacers-Pistons game. In the final minute of the game, with Detroit ahead by 15, Indiana's Ron Artest committed a hard foul on Detroit's Ben Wallace as Wallace went in for a layup. Clean foul, but not necessary at that point in the game. Wallace turned and gave Artest a hard shove, and the situation deteriorated to the point that Artest and Stephen Jackson, also of the Pacers, went into the stands and took several swings at fans who had been pelting the Indiana players with drinks.

Plenty of blame to go around here, from the players to the fans who were throwing objects at the players. The NBA has some serious work to do in cleaning up its image. Good luck.

Thursday, November 18, 2004

Survivor

It looks as though Senator Arlen Specter will have the support of all of the current Judiciary Committee members to become the next chairman after seemingly agreeing to support President Bush's judicial nominees and working to give them quick committee hearings and ensuring floor votes. Specter continues to maintain his independent streak ("Specter said he felt no pressure to make the commitments he made"), and has left himself some wiggle room ("I have no reason to believe that I'll be unable to support any individual President Bush finds worthy" of the federal bench).

Not all of the Senators seem to be enthusiastic about Specter. Notice Senator Jeff Sessions' lukewarm response: The agreement "represents the views of people at this time, on this day." Presumably, if Specter tries to be too much of a maverick, today's views are not necessarily tomorrow's. In all, it was worth putting pressure on Specter to rein in his "Roe is inviolate" tendencies, and to attempt to return some degree of propriety and civility to the confirmation process.

A minor point on presidential libraries

Former President Bill Clinton's Presidential Library is formally opening today in Little Rock, Arkansas, with all of the media fanfare that is expected to be associated with such an event. Reading an AP article on the library today, I was struck by this paragraph: "Another highlight is the only full-scale replica of the Oval Office in a presidential library. Administration officials took thousands of photographs of the office to re-create the placement of every statue, photo and award."

A few years ago, while in southern California, I had the pleasure of visiting the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, and saw what I thought had been billed as a full-scale replica of the Oval Office. So I checked the library's
website, and sure enough, "[The] full scale replica of president's Ronald W. Reagan's Oval Office is furnished just as he left it in January 1989. Pause and listen to the president's own voice describing how he used this historic room." (Hopefully, visitors to the Clinton library will not be treated to Clinton's voice describing how he used the study off of the Oval Office). There is also an Oval Office replica at former President Carter's library.

It may only be a small point, but with all of the attention the opening of Clinton's library has received, you would think that a reporter writing a story about it could check these details.

Justice Scalia in the lion's den

Justice Scalia spoke this week at the University of Michigan law school. Of course, he dissented in the Supreme Court opinion that upheld the school's use of race as a factor in admissions, which makes his appearance all the more interesting. He had been scheduled to speak last year, but because the case was still pending, he postponed the event until this year. UM law student Heidi Bond live-blogged the speech and Q&A, and can be read here.

I heard Justice Scalia speak at Regent University when I was a law student there, and from what I have read (now) and recall (from then), his comments at UM are remarkably consistent with what he said six years ago at Regent. One of the most engaging things about Scalia is his sense of humor, sometimes self-deprecating, which was on display in this
comment from Heidi Bond (scroll to bottom of post):

"The first guy to ask a question basically said, 'Here are some bad things you've done. You bad man. And you had so many opportunities. You said that blacks can't get affirmative action because they're not good enough. But you got to go to a super-duper law school. You terrible, terrible over-privileged man.' And so forth. After about a minute, someone from the audience yelled out 'Question?' Scalia responded with, 'The question is going to be, "And isn't that true?"'"

Tuesday, November 16, 2004

The disgraceful ACLU

Time and again, the ACLU takes on faith in the public sphere, attempting to relegate religious expressions to within the four walls of a church. It has now done it again. In the past, the Pentagon had permitted military bases to sponsor Boy Scout troops. The Boy Scouts, as you may recall from their Supreme Court case in 2000, is a private association that is nonetheless federally chartered. The Boy Scout oath is as follows: "On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight." The general mission of the Scouts is "to instill values in young people."

The ACLU
objected, claiming that DoD sponsorship of Scout troops constituted government officials administering a religious oath, and filed a lawsuit that includes several other challenges. DoD has reached an agreement with the ACLU that it will inform all of its military bases around the world to stop direct sponsorship of Scout troops. "If our Constitution's promise of religious liberty is to be a reality, the government should not be administering religious oaths or discriminating based upon religious beliefs," claimed an ACLU spokesman. It is sad that the Pentagon has hardly even put up a fight on behalf of the right of the bases to sponsor Scout troops.

The Scout oath recognizes that there is a God; so does the Declaration of Independence, with its statement that we "are endowed by [our] Creator with certain inalienable rights." Which of our traditions will the ACLU attempt to assault next? Our currency? The Pledge of Allegiance (they will have to get in line behind Michael Newdow)?

This is the same ACLU that has represented NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association. NAMBLA (whose site I will not link to) states that its "goal is to end the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships by: building understanding and support for such relationships; educating the general public on the benevolent nature of man/boy love; cooperating with lesbian, gay, feminist, and other liberation movements; [and] supporting the liberation of persons of all ages from sexual prejudice and oppression."

Explaining why it represented NAMBLA, the ACLU
stated, "[w]hat we do advocate is robust freedom of speech. This lawsuit strikes at the heart of freedom of speech. The defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive." In defense of NAMBLA, the ACLU asked a court to "dismiss what it calls an "unconstitutional" lawsuit against a national pedophile organization being sued in a wrongful death case after two of the group's members brutally raped and murdered a 10-year-old boy."

To recap: the ACLU is willing to defend the rights of pedophiles to engage in illicit conduct, but continues to wage its assault on the Boy Scouts, who are trying "to instill values in young people." The ACLU's animus toward the Boy Scouts stems no doubt from the 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision stating that, as a private organization, the Scouts could not be compelled to accept as a scoutmaster an individual whose lifestyle contradicted Scout policies. What disgusting priorities.

Monday, November 15, 2004

It's basketball season

The first regular season poll of the men's college basketball season has been released by the Associated Press. This site will track the top ten on a weekly basis, keeping a close eye on the Cats (the Bluegrass breed):

1. Kansas (26)
2. Wake Forest (23)
3. Georgia Tech (10)
4. North Carolina (8)
5. Syracuse
6. Illinois (2)
7. Oklahoma State (2)
8. Connecticut
9. Kentucky (1)
10. Arizona

There are four SEC schools in this week's Top 25 -- Kentucky, Mississippi State (No. 12), Alabama (No. 18), and Florida (No. 23).

Sunday, November 14, 2004

Arlen update

Even if he is elected chairman, this story shows that the pressure applied by everyone interested in preserving some order in judicial nominations has already paid off.

The irony of O'Donnell

O'Donnell's "threat" of secession by the blue states just drips with irony. Of course, the mere idea of blue state secession if they aren't permitted to be in charge sounds like a schoolyard tantrum similar to, "It's my ball, I'll take it and go home."

But the real irony is that liberals, for generations now, have promoted the concept of the redistribution of wealth through taxation. It is an article of faith with the left that "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer," the rich are not paying their fair share, and that "problem" should be remedied through government action.

Now that the left is not in control of the pursestrings, however, its cry has become "It's not fair to take money away from richer states and send it to poorer states. You can't do that; we are the only ones who know best how to spend your money." The liberal agenda could not have been made more clear than it was in O'Donnell's extemporaneous remarks, and it exemplifies the pettiness among some of the liberal elite at their reaction to the recent election results.

"Mass hysteria!"

In case you've missed it, many on the left have seemingly come unhinged since the re-election of George W. Bush. Maureen Dowd wrote, "We're entering another dark age . . . ." Helen Thomas predicts "a further easing of environmental regulations and a chipping away of workers rights and at health and safety standards in the workplace [and] deeper inroads in the constitutional precept of separation of church and state. During the campaign, he played up his religious fervor and so-called traditional values (translate that as 'no gay marriage'). Not the least worry for liberals is the matter of the Supreme Court, already stacked with conservative appointees." According to Garry Wills, "The moral zealots will, I predict, give some cause for dismay even to nonfundamentalist Republicans. Jihads are scary things."

Lawrence O'Donnell (who came unglued during a pre-election MSNBC appearance opposite John O'Neill, and could not refrain from screaming "Liar! Liar!" at O'Neill -- a review of the transcript confirms that he did not say "pants on fire,"), stated on The McLaughlin Group that "the big problem the country now has, which is going to produce a serious discussion of secession over the next 20 years, is that the segment of the country that pays for the federal government is now being governed by the people who don't pay for the federal government. . . . Ninety percent of the red states are welfare client states of the federal government. They collect more from the federal government than they send in. New York and California, Connecticut, the states that are blue are all the states that are paying for the bulk of everything this government does, from the ward of Social Security to everything else, and the people in those states don't like what this government is doing."

I am reminded by all of this hyperbole of a scene from Ghostbusters, in which the Ghostbusters team is describing the magnitude of their problem to the mayor:

Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, biblical?
Ray: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor. . . real Wrath-of-God-type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies.
Venkman: Rivers and seas boiling!
Egon: 40 years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanos.
Winston: The dead rising from the grave!
Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats, living together... mass hysteria!

Friday, November 12, 2004

What's going on at CBS?

In its zeal to report on the death of Yasser Arafat Wednesday night, CBS interrupted one of its signature television dramas, CSI: New York, and pre-empted the last five minutes of the show. Word on Friday was that the producer who made the decision to interrupt the show has been fired.

That is a remarkably fast personnel decision for CBS. After all, they ran a news story critical of President Bush over a month ago based on apparently forged documents, but the Thornburgh investigation into how that story made it on the air is still going on. Strange priorities at Black Rock.

Specter's response to NRO

Senator Specter has responded directly to National Review's editorial opposing his elevation to Senate Judiciary chairman in a letter posted here. NR's editors offer their response at the conclusion of the Senator's letter, to which I would add the following comments.

Specter says, "I strongly believe that the president's choice of a Supreme Court justice should be respected, absent lack of qualification or judicial temperament." Does this mean that he no longer believes in the "'Senate's right to reject' a nominee solely on the basis of his judicial philosophy"? If so, that's quite a shift in position from sixteen years ago.

Second, he claims, "My prediction that Roe will not be overturned is simply my opinion, based largely on the political fact that Democrats have a history of filibustering nominees. It is not a warning to anyone that I won't support a pro-life nominee," and further states that "the highest judicial seats in this land must be open to people on both sides of the hotly contested abortion issue." Does this mean that he no longer considers Roe "inviolate"? If so, that's quite a shift in position in a week.

Unfortunately, answers to these questions are not likely to be forthcoming, as this response, admirable though it may be, basically repeats the arguments he has been making in favor of being elected chairman since the controversy broke last week, without adding anything new of substance. It also fails to address differing options for dealing with the filibuster, such as eliminating it with regard to judicial nominees or reducing the number of votes required to end debate with each subsequent cloture vote, and assumes that business will go on as usual in the Senate with regard to these nominees. While he claims that he tries to change Senate rules, his proposal did not address these options. I am still not persuaded by the senator.

Thursday, November 11, 2004

Stand clear

Two items of interest today. First, there is news that Michael Moore intends to make a sequel to his mockumentary Fahrenheit 9/11. According to Moore, "Fifty-one percent of the American people lacked information [on election day] and we want to educate and enlighten them. They weren't told the truth. We're communicators and it's up to us to start doing it now." Before you rush to Michael Moore as the ultimate purveyor of truth, check out these 59 deceits contained in Fahrenheit 9/11. But essentially, Moore believes that people who voted for Bush were not "educated" about the issues.

Moore is not quite as bad as Ted Rall, however. Rall doesn't claim that Bush voters weren't educated about issues; he says that simply aren't educated. "[I]f militant Christianist Republicans from inland backwaters believe that secular liberal Democrats from the big coastal cities look upon them with disdain, there's a reason. We do, and all the more so after this election. . . . Though there is a religious component to the election results, the biggest red-blue divide is intellectual. 'How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?' asked the headline of the Daily Mirror in Great Britain, and the underlying assumption is undeniable. By any objective standard, you had to be spectacularly stupid to support Bush. . . . So our guy lost the election. Why shouldn't those of us on the coasts feel superior? We eat better, travel more, dress better, watch cooler movies, earn better salaries, meet more interesting people, listen to better music and know more about what's going on in the world. If you voted for Bush, we accept that we have to share the country with you. We're adjusting to the possibility that there may be more of you than there are of us. But don't demand our respect. You lost it on November 2."

The condescension is remarkable. I hesitated to even give Ted Rall space here, but thought it would be enlightening. Liberals are now feeling free to say what they have always believed about conservatives. Whether this bile is likely to seduce any of those Bush voters to vote for a Democrat next time is a tough sell.

There is an old adage -- when your opponent is self-destructing, don't stop him. Michael, Ted -- have some more rope.

The Herald-Leader lets off steam

In this editorial, published last Friday, the Lexington Herald-Leader editorial board has its own tantrum over the election results. Admittedly, Kentucky saw some ugly campaigning, on both sides, which hopefully will not be repeated in the next election cycle (by which time pigs will fly and hell will be ready for its spring thaw). The newspaper's endorsements were apparently not very persuasive, and in response it chose to lash out at voters who follow "fundamentalist teachings," who are apparently too ignorant to vote for their own selfish interests. Rather, the voters were more concerned with moral values and security in rejecting the paper's candidate recommendations, "vot[ing], against their own economic interests, to stay the course." The editorial concludes, "[c]oncerns about moral values carried the day, but telling the truth apparently is no longer a moral value." By essentially dclaring that Kentucky voters don't know what is best for them, the paper joins the list of newspapers and columnists blaming the election results on the voters' ignorance. That's not the best way to persuade those voters to come to your side.

Just out of curiosity, I wonder what was the paper's position on former President Clinton when he was found, by a federal district judge, to have committed perjury by giving false testimony under oath in a civil action? If I had to hazard a guess, it would be that there was some "tsk tsk"-ing around the editorial room, but no outcry at Clinton's failure to tell the truth. There are probably some pretty long noses at the Herald-Leader itself. But it's wrong to, in a knee-jerk fashion, blame the voters for poor judgment when, considering the poor showing of the paper's anointed candidates, it is more likely that the Herald-Leader is the one exercising poor judgment, and is out of touch with what Kentucky voters want.

Happy Veterans' Day

Today is the day set aside to honor our military veterans, living and dead, for their service and sacrifice to our country. With a battle raging for control of Fallujah, it is incumbent upon us all to acknowledge the bravery and valor of everyone who has ever honorably worn the uniform of the United States military for their patriotism and love of country. My father was a veteran of World War II, and he, along with all of our nation's veterans, deserve our undying gratitude for all that they have offered.

The original proclamation recognizing Armistice Day, as the holiday was formerly known, was enacted by Congress on June 4, 1926. It stated the following:

"WHEREAS the 11th of November 1918, marked the cessation of the most destructive, sanguinary, and far reaching war in human annals and the resumption by the people of the United States of peaceful relations with other nations, which we hope may never again be severed, and

"WHEREAS it is fitting that the recurring anniversary of this date should be commemorated with thanksgiving and prayer and exercises designed to perpetuate peace through good will and mutual understanding between nations; and

"WHEREAS the legislatures of twenty-seven of our States have already declared November 11 to be a legal holiday: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That the President of the United States is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the officials to display the flag of the United States on all Government buildings on November 11 and inviting the people of the United States to observe the day in schools and churches, or other suitable places, with appropriate ceremonies of friendly relations with all other peoples."


President Bush's proclamation for 2004 can be read here. Say a prayer for our veterans today, especially those engaged in combat on this holiday.

Thank you, veterans, for sacrificing your time and, when necessary, your lives to preserve those unalienable rights endowed to every person by God.

Professor Sowell weighs in

Thomas Sowell is another individual for whom I have the utmost respect. He offers his take on the Specter-Bork affair here. He also makes an excellent point about the ultimate issue involved in this mini-drama, which I won't bother paraphrasing:

"After more than half a century of escalating judicial activism -- judges imposing their own beliefs instead of applying the law -- our country is at a crossroads. There is an opportunity -- one that may not come again in this generation -- to make judicial appointments that will restore the rule of law.

"The issue is not whether judges will impose liberal policies or conservative policies. The larger issue is whether they will destroy the voting public's control over their own destiny. Too many generations of Americans have fought and died to preserve the right of democratic self-governance to let judges continue to erode that right and become judicial dictators."

Read the whole article -- it's very illuminating.

Peace at hand in the Middle East?

Yasser Arafat is dead. Is a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinian people now at hand? Not likely. The sides have been at war for centuries in a religious struggle, and while Arafat may have been a huge impediment to reaching an agreement, the larger obstacle is the culture into which all sides have been born, one of distrust and fear. That attitude has been cultivated by leaders over the years, particularly Arafat in his forty-year rule, to continue to incite divisiveness, violence, and terror. Mourn for Arafat? Mourn for a life that was spent sowing hatred.

President Bush's statement notably does not gush about Arafat's life. The first two sentences contain the entirety of the remarks about him: "The death of Yasser Arafat is a significant moment in Palestinian history. We express our condolences to the Palestinian people." No mourning of Arafat, but the statement does go on to express optimism about the future and possible peace in the region. Considering the life Arafat lived, primarily as a purveyor of terror, the statement is appropriate.

Wednesday, November 10, 2004

Hugh Hewitt dissents

Hugh Hewitt, for whom I have tremendous respect, disagrees with the strategy of challenging Arlen Specter's ascension to the Senate Judiciary Committee chairmanship. He makes many interesting and fairly debatable points in his argument, but loses me in his defense of Specter when he makes the following call:

"The decision in the last couple of years --led by Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy-- to radicalize judicial nominations even beyond the terrible precedents of the Bork and Thomas nomination battles was one of the most irresponsible ever taken, and now the prospect of filibusters and smear campaigns seems inevitable. The only chance of repairing this process is for a united and determined GOP caucus to demand a return to past, pre-Bork practices, and failing to obtain that demand, to launch and win a great debate leading to new rules on judicial nominations."

I agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment. It is time to return to the days where judicial nominations were not treated as political footballs. That is unlikely to happen for two reasons. First, the judiciary has grown too powerful because the other branches of government have ceded responsibility to it to avoid making politically sensitive decisions that might result in the loss of a few votes here or there. Second -- and more immediate to the argument at hand -- Hugh Hewitt is arguing on behalf of the very individual for chairman who injected politics into the nominations process.

In 1987, Specter was a member of the Senate minority. Democrats controlled the chamber, and had a numerical advantage on the Judiciary Committee. Judge Bork was nominated by President Reagan to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. The nomination sparked debate and controversy, to be sure, but it was Specter's opposition that gave the Democratic majority the cover it needed to deny the president his choice for Supreme Court justice. Instead of Bork, we were treated to Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has voted to re-affirm the central holding in Roe, to prevent student-initiated, student-led prayers from being said at high school football games, and, of course, made his "memorable" references to spatial and transcendent aspects to liberty in the sweeping ruling in Lawrence v. Texas.

Specter, remarking on the Bork hearings, claimed that the hearings had "'established the important precedent of the Senate's right to reject' a nominee solely on the basis of his judicial philosophy." (link via The Corner) Given Specter's history, and his obvious pride in his role in the Bork hearings (which he recalled fondly in a speech on the Senate floor just last year), can there really be a return to the "past, pre-Bork practices"? Highly unlikely.

Specter cites Pat Robertson in defense

Arlen Specter has been making the media rounds in an attempt to fend off the effort to keep him from being selected as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The most recent volley is in today's Wall Street Journal, where Specter has written an op-ed piece. It is mostly a rehash of his "clarifying" statement, with a few new adornments. Interestingly, he quotes Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson in his own defense.

Rush has not joined in the move to see Specter denied the chairmanship, but he has not endorsed Specter either. At the end of this transcript, he concludes, "I would like it if there were somebody better, somebody else, but the world is not lost and the cause is not over and all is not doom and gloom if he still ends up there. But let's just wait and see." Hardly a ringing endorsement.

It is saying quite a lot when Specter quotes Pat Robertson for anything that Specter considers favorable. During his own ill-fated run for the Republican presidential nomination in 1995, Specter was quoted in the Virginian-Pilot, Robertson's hometown newspaper, as saying the following:

"There is a continuum from Pat Buchanan's 'holy war' to Pat Robertson's saying there's no separation of church and state, to Ralph Reed saying pro-choice candidates can't be on the Republican ticket, to Randall Terry saying 'let a wave of hatred wash over you,' to the guy at Robertson's law school who says murdering an abortion doctor is justifiable homicide, to the guys who are pulling the triggers."

Wow. Political opposition to pro-abortion candidates lies on the same plane of moral equivalence as killing doctors who perform the abortions. I have more than a passing familiarity with "the guy at Robertson's law school"; here is the synopsis of the law review article in question:

"Using the three people killed by Michael Griffin and Paul Hill as a point of departure, this article examines whether violence is an appropriate tactic in the effort to end the national policy of abortion-on-demand. In particular, it discusses whether killing abortionists as they arrive at abortuaries to perform regularly scheduled abortions is a legally justfiable [sic] use of force in defense of another person's life. Assuming that tactic could be legally justified, the article further asks whether it can also be morally justified. The authors conclude it cannot . . . ."

I have not read the entire article, and do not have it at my immediate disposal. But law reviews are intended to be fora where ideas can be discussed and debated at length, sometimes with controversy, to lay out fully the positions that can be taken on either side of an argument, then argue why the author believes his preferred position is the correct one. This article's conclusion apparently was that, even if you assume there is a legal justification for such an act (which, by the way, I completely disagree with, and whether the authors actually make that definitive statement is unclear from the synopsis), there is no moral justification for it.

Would stifling the debate so that uncontroversial statements aren't made be healthy? No. In our country, the arena of ideas is open to all comers. Controversial statements invite (and often deserve) criticism as part of that exchange. What is unfair, however, is a mischaracterization of the initial idea under debate. Specter assumed that since the article debated whether killing abortion doctors could be justifiable homicide, it invariably must have reached that conclusion. According to the above synopsis, however, exactly the opposite is true.

Specter baited Robertson throughout that campaign. In his speech announcing his candidacy, Specter said, "When Pat Robertson says there is no constitutional doctrine of separation between Church and State, -- I say he is wrong. The First Amendment freedom of religion is as important today -- as when the Bill of Rights was written. . . . When Ralph Reed says a pro-choice Republican isn't qualified to be our President, -- I say the Republican Party will not be blackmailed. I and millions of other pro-choice Republicans -- will not be disenfranchised." No one is disenfranchised who engages in debate, and coming out on the losing end of the democratic process also is not evidence of disenfranchisement; it means you have not persuaded enough people that your position is correct.

Specter later characterized Robertson as a "fringe" Republican, and stated that Robertson and Ralph Reed were "a real threat to the country."

Given this history, it is rich to see Specter relying on Robertson today to defend his ability to assume the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee.

The Constitution, democracy, judges, and Specter

Andrew McCarthy has an excellent essay on National Review Online today discussing the impact of Roe on our ability to govern ourselves, and the competing judicial philosophies that begat the decision. He also examines to which of those philosophies Senator Specter subcribes. Here are a couple of teasers:

"The judiciary-committee controversy is not about abortion. It is about whether there is any meaningful limiting principle that compels judges, regardless of their predilections and the trendy pieties of any particular era, to stay their hands so that Americans are free to live as they choose — including in 50 different ways if that is the judgment of the people in 50 different states.

"There are, essentially, two competing visions of judicial philosophy. The first, the one that is regnant at this time (and to which it appears Senator Specter subscribes), is that the Constitution — with its many pliable terms — is as manipulable as necessary to place beyond democracy any issue that may be said to reflect a "value" the American people revere at a given time. The problem here is that this camouflages a brute power reality.

"In truth, the American people have very few values which enjoy such broad consensus that, given the choice, our society would enshrine them in our Constitution and render them immune from further popular consideration, regardless of evolving attitudes or changed circumstances. . . .

"The second school of thought holds merely this: that judges are not supreme. It contends that there are firm, objective limits to the areas of life that jurists may remove from the democratic self-determination of the American people. They are found in the text of the Constitution as it was originally understood at the time its provisions were adopted. They do not change over time or with passing fancies. This philosophy is erected on an unchanging premise: In a democracy, it is to be presumed that great social conflicts will be resolved democratically. That presumption is not beyond rebuttal, but for it to be overcome there must be unmistakable proof that the dispute at issue was removed from democratic consideration by the Constitution.

"Thanks to Roe, this philosophy has been inextricably bound to attitudes about abortion, and thus shamelessly maligned. Nevertheless, it is not a pro-life view, any more than it is pro-choice, or anti-gay, or unfriendly to civil rights. It is a pro-democracy view. It says the people should be trusted with their own destiny, not have destiny imposed on them by judicial fiat.

"Further, it recognizes the salubrious attributes of a federalist democracy that make it inestimably preferable to a suffocating nomocracy. . . .

"[In a world without Roe, t]here would also not be the embarrassing spectacle of judicial nominees contorting themselves at confirmation hearings as they parry with senators about their personal views on abortion or, worse, shy away at all costs from saying forthrightly something few serious practitioners now dispute: namely, that Roe v. Wade — regardless of what one thinks about abortion as a matter of public policy — was a terrible decision as a matter of constitutional law.

"Of all that has been said by and about Senator Specter in the last week or so, nothing compares to his remark — bizarre coming from so superb a lawyer — "
that Roe versus Wade was inviolate. . . .

"Who governs: the people or the courts? President Bush's reelection should be a herald of self-determination. Senator Specter's history suggests a tolerance, and too often a preference, for judicial diktat. That is the conservative objection against his accession to the Senate's judiciary chair. It should not be framed as if it were about abortion."

Read the whole article.

Tuesday, November 09, 2004

Keep the heat on

So far, there have been no public statements of support for Arlen Specter to be chairman from any of the Republican members on the Judiciary Committee. Not even from Specter's fellow senator from Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum. Human Events has this report. Keep the pressure on the committee members and the Republican leadership. Call, write, fax, email.

Specter commented on Sean Hannity's radio program yesterday about the brouhaha over his remarks. He said (among other things) that the people who are opposed to him are the same people who tried to have him defeated in the primary election last spring. Of course they are. They did not think he was the best option for Pennsylvania conservatives then, and they don't think he is the best option for conservatives on the Judiciary Committee now. Brilliant analysis, Senator.

More reasons to stop Specter

His pro-abortion position is only one reason why Arlen Specter would not make a good chairman. For instance, do we really want, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, someone who is opposed to tort reform? I realize that I am in the minority in my own profession when I say that the time has long come for such reforms. Specter is opposed, though he apparently believes that the judiciary has the power to impose caps of its own volition.

And consider Specter's remarks on the Senate floor on the anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education. They clearly are not those of someone who believes in an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, but tend more toward the "living document" philosophy that permits unelected judges to legislate from the bench:

"There are still some who contend that original intent is the only way to interpret the U.S. Constitution. In the first place, it is very hard to divine what the intent was of the Founding Fathers in 1787 when the Constitution was signed, even more difficult to figure out the intent of the ratifiers of the U.S. Constitution; and then when there is the equal protection clause, there is no doubt that the intent of those who spoke to equal protection was not to have integration. When the fundamental values of our society changed in the intervening years, the Supreme Court of the United States recognized that and interpreted the Constitution and equality and equal protection in a very different way." (Hat tip The Corner)

Pick your own reason. Just make the calls.

Monday, November 08, 2004

Enlightened no more?

The hysteria among the liberal elite over the "values voters" who re-elected President Bush last week is reaching a fever pitch. Maureen Dowd wrote, "W.'s presidency rushes backward, stifling possibilities, stirring intolerance, confusing church with state, blowing off the world, replacing science with religion, and facts with faith. We're entering another dark age, more creationist than cutting edge, more premodern than postmodern. Instead of leading America to an exciting new reality, the Bushies cocoon in a scary, paranoid, regressive reality. Their new health care plan will probably be a return to leeches."

Thomas Friedman says that those people of faith who voted for the president "have used that religious energy to promote divisions and intolerance at home and abroad." Garry Wills is even more direct: "Can a people that believes more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution still becalled an Enlightened nation?" Wills, however, is just getting started: "Where else do we find fundamentalist zeal, a rage at secularity, religious intolerance, fear of and hatred for modernity? Not in France or Britain or Germany or Italy or Spain. We find it in the Muslim world, in Al Qaeda, in Saddam Hussein's Sunni loyalists. . . . The moral zealots will, I predict, give some cause for dismay even to nonfundamentalist Republicans. Jihads are scary things. It is not too early to start yearning back toward the Enlightenment." (Give the New York Times credit for consistency, at least; it printed all of the above-cited articles.)

So the voters to whom faith is a valuable part of their lives are no different than members of al Qaeda? The functional equivalent of the insurgents in Iraq who have been decapitating innocent hostages?

Garry Wills is a historian. He should know better. Consider the following "radical" passage:

"It would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations . . . that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes . . . . In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own . . . . No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of man more than the people of the United States."

That's from the first inaugural address, not of George W. Bush, but of that famed religious bombthrower George Washington. James Madison, a key member of the Constitutional Convention and the man who introduced the Bill of Rights in the first Congress, said "Religion [is] the basis and Foundation of Government."

Abraham Lincoln: "It is fit and becoming in all people, at all times, to acknowledge and revere the Supreme Government of God; to bow in humble submission to his chastisement; to confess and deplore their sins and transgressions in the full conviction that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; and to pray, with all fervency and contrition, for the pardon of their past offenses, and for a blessing upon their present and prospective action."

Gouverneur Morris: "[T]he most important of all lessons [from the Scriptures] is the denunciation of ruin to every State that rejects the precepts of religion." And John Witherspoon, a signer of the Decalaration of Independence, said, "Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy to his country."

That so many contemporary writers believe that religious principles are new to American political life is a sad commentary on the state of education at all levels in this country. The principles articulated in the Declaration of Independence are more rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition than the Enlightenment, although the Enlightenment did fuel one revolution in the eighteenth century -- the French, which deteriorated into a disastrous mess. That event prompted Washington to make the appeal in his Farewell Address that is posted at the head of this blog. If the liberal columnists want to start whacking at every person of faith in the public square, there are some big names at the top of the list -- Washington, Adams, Madison, Lincoln -- that should give them pause, but sadly, they don't.

More on stopping Specter

For a review of Specter's career and his fealty (or lack thereof) to those who have supported him, see here and here, both articles from National Review. A very good website devoted to stopping Specter from assuming the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee is here.

Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family has also expressed opposition to a Chairman Specter, describing him as "a big-time problem for us, and we're very concerned about him." The American Family Association has information about Specter along with a petition here.

Note: this post in The Corner indicates that an article in Roll Call states that Specter is secure as chairman. Keep those cards, letters, faxes and phone calls burning. Don't let it appear that opposition was a one-day affair that subsided with the weekend. Here again are the telephone numbers for the Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee:

Hatch (202) 224-5251
Grassley (202)224-3744
Kyl (202) 224-4521
DeWine (202) 224-2315
Sessions (202) 224-4124
Graham (202) 224-5972
Craig 202/224-2752
Chambliss (202) 224-3521
Cornyn 202-224-2934

Chief Justice Thomas has a nice ring to it

Drudge is reporting that Justice Clarence Thomas is high on the president's list to succeed Chief Justice William Rehnquist in the event of Rehnquist's retirement. The confirmation battle for Thomas would be bruising, possibly unlike any we have seen before, but the president is absolutely right to consider the elevation of Thomas to Chief Justice. Thomas has shown himself, throughout his tenure on the Court, to be one of its most thoughtful members, with a sound judicial philosophy. My fingers are crossed.

Saturday, November 06, 2004

The usual suspects . . .

. . . have weighed in on abolishing the Electoral College, namely, America's "newspaper of record," the New York Times. In an editorial today entitled "A Really Modest Proposal," the Times proposes something that is not modest at all.

The editorial suggests that direct popular vote for the president is desirable over the Electoral College system because more voters would be treated to campaign visits by the candidates, rather than just those whose states can tip either direction. The Times wholly ignores the original intent of the system -- to give the states as political bodies a voice in Washington politics.

The Times even goes so far as to implicitly criticize the makeup of the United States Senate, with equal representation from each state: "[Abolishing the Electoral College] would be a small acknowledgement that the United States really does believe in one person one vote, even though the United States Senate allots the same quota of two seats to a state with fewer than half a million people and to a state with 34 million." The editorial presumes that direct democracy is preferable to the republic created by the Constitution. In other words, the Times is now on record for majority rule.

But wait a minute. A majority of Americans are opposed to same-sex marriage. A majority of Americans oppose partial-birth abortion. A majority of Americans support "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. A majority of Americans are not troubled by references to God in the public square. If the Times now supports all of these positions, a logical extension of its "one person, one vote" argument, then the world truly has turned upside-down.

The editorial really makes no sense when compared to previous positions the Times has taken on that same page. The paper has argued, rightly in some instances, that the Constitution is designed to protect the rights of minorities from being subject to the whims of the majority. But when it comes to the EC, that goes out the window.

The Times simply doesn't get it. The states are sovereign entities, joined together by the Constitution into a federal republic. The states elect the president. That is the constitutional design. Whenever constitutional amendments are proposed, the paper is quick to say that the Constitution is not something to be lightly tinkered with. But when it comes to altering the fundamental structure of the Constitution, the Times doesn't hesitate to support such a radical step without question. Today it makes an intellectually vacuous and historically ignorant argument.

Thursday, November 04, 2004

The importance of judges

Judges have assumed a role in our constitutional system that the Framers could not have envisioned. This is in large part due to the abdication of authority that rightly belongs to the legislative and executive branches to the judiciary. The election, comments by Senator Specter, and recent events bring into sharp relief just how crucial the decisions on judges will be in the next few months.

In the midst of the euphoria over the sweep of eleven marriage amendments in the states on Tuesday comes
news that one of the amendments, in Oklahoma, as well as the federal Defense of Marriage Act, are being challenged in federal court as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

There was a time during the debate over the Federal Marriage Amendment when supporters of same-sex marriage, and some respected conservatives, claimed that principles of federalism buttressed their arguments that the FMA was unnecessary. They stated that enactment of a federal constitutional amendment would prevent the states from acting as "laboratories of democracy," and that instead, each state should be free to make its own decision about whether to permit same-sex marriages.

Here is Senator Barbara Mikulski's floor statement during the debate on FMA: "Congress in 1996 spoke on this issue. They passed something called the Defense of Marriage Act. What this legislation did was define marriage between a man and a woman. It also allowed each state to determine for itself what it considered marriage under its own state law, leaving the concept of federalism intact." Many of the Republicans and conservatives who voiced opposition to the FMA claimed that the federal DOMA was all that was needed to protect states from being required to recognize another state's same-sex marriage. Former Representative Bob Barr (R-GA) stated, "The Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] goes as far as is necessary in codifying the federal legal status and parameters of marriage. A constitutional amendment is both unnecessary and needlessly intrusive and punitive." And in the same release Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) is quoted as saying, "the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, explicitly authorizes states to refuse to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. . . . So a constitutional amendment is not necessary to address the issue of gay marriage, and will only drive yet another nail into the coffin of federalism."

These arguments, however, usually ignored two critical constitutional arguments -- the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the Equal Protection Clause, as enunciated in Lawrence v. Texas.

Now that eleven additional states have made decisions not to permit same-sex marriages, those same gay-rights advocates are now claiming that the federal Constitution does not permit those states to prohibit same-sex unions. The "laboratories of democracy" argument was simply a ruse.

This lawsuit will undoubtedly cite Lawrence, the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down Texas' sodomy law, in support of its claim. While the majority in Lawrence tried to sidestep this issue by stating that the opinion "does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter," that was merely a fig leaf. The support for the current lawsuit comes from a passage earlier in the opinion.

The Court, citing a previous decision, "confirmed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. . . .

"'These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.'"

"Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do."

The "mystery of human life" language notwithstanding, it is difficult to believe that a lower court, faced with the competing interests of a "public policy" exception to the FF&C Clause, and this language in Lawrence, would conclude that a "public policy" exception trumped matters the Court claims are "central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment."

As Justice Scalia warned in dissent in Lawrence, "Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. . . . This case 'does not involve' the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court."

And so the battle has been engaged in Oklahoma. If the federal court overturns the DOMA and the new state constitutional amendment, will any of those conservatives who placed so much faith in DOMA so as to proscribe the need for the FMA acknowledge that in today's upside-down world of judicial supremacy, their confidence was misplaced? I won't hold my breath.


Point to ponder

Ann Coulter is a conservative fireball, who sometimes is a bit over the top in her rhetoric. But she makes an interesting point in this column. Moral issues were the top concern of voters in this election, marriage amendments passed in all eleven states where they appeared on the ballot, Oregon -- Oregon! -- rejected a ballot measure allowing the medical use of marijuana, to name but a few of the issues decided this week. If the fabric if the electorate is so woven with voters who are primarily concerned with traditional family values (as I believe it is), is it wise for the Republicans to consider nominating Rudy Giuliani, who is pro-choice and pro-civil union, as a candidate in 2008? I loved his convention speech, and have incredible respect for the determination, leadership, and resolve he displayed following the events of 9/11, but the point is interesting food for thought.

Of course I realize that anyone is free to seek the nomination. The question is, will the groundswell for traditional values be sustained through the next four years? For those who view the right to life as inviolate (not Roe v. Wade, Senator Specter), it is hard to compromise on this issue. Of course, if Rudy wins and the choice is between him and, I don't know, say, Hillary -- Rudy! Rudy! Rudy!

Stop Specter

I told my wife last night that probably the only dark cloud in this election's silver lining was the re-election of Arlen Specter, Republican senator from Pennsylvania. Specter faced a tough primary challenge from conservative Representative Pat Toomey, and narrowly won the nomination because Senator Rick Santorum and President Bush held their noses and campaigned hard for Specter in the spring. How did Specter repay the president for that support? There were reportedly numerous "Kerry/Specter" signs around Pennsylvania, and Specter, if he campaigned at all for Bush, put in only token appearances.

Dick Cheney, in a rally before the election, had the following
exchange:

"The President and I are delighted to be part of a great Republican ticket here in Pennsylvania this year. I want to thank Congressman Tim Murphy for his kind words and the great leadership he provides. (Applause.) And I also want to put in a good word for Senator Arlen Specter, although he couldn't be here today.

"AUDIENCE: Booo!

"THE VICE PRESIDENT: This is a tough crowd. (Laughter and applause.)"

Now, in the immediate aftermath of Bush's victory, in which the president garnered more votes than any other presidential candidate in history and became the first president since 1988 to gain a majority of the popular vote, and in an election where the Senate minority leader, Tom Daschle, was defeated
in part because of his efforts to obstruct the president's judicial appointments, Senator Specter, in line to be chairman of the Senate judiciary committee, has essentially told the president not to send any conservative judicial nominees to the Senate. "When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v. Wade, I think that is unlikely," said Specter in an interview regarding judicial nominees.

"'The president is well aware of what happened, when a bunch of his nominees were sent up, with the filibuster,' Specter added, referring to Senate Democrats' success over the past four years in blocking the confirmation of many of Bush's conservative judicial picks. '... And I would expect the president to be mindful of the considerations which I am mentioning.'"

Also note
this story about Specter from the Philadelphia Inquirer. Specter says that Bush has no mandate, that he would oppose judges not supportive of abortion rights, and equates reversing Roe v. Wade -- discussed as the constitutional tissue paper it is here -- with reversing Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark desegregation decision.

The
movement to stop Specter from becoming chairman of the judiciary committee has begun (PLEASE click on and read this link). I am lending my meager support to the effort. A senator who owes his seat to the president's help in a primary election should not begin issuing threats to that president the day following the election. Give him an ambassadorship to Ecuador, or Belgium, or France. Give him another chairmanship. Anything keep him from being the chair of the judiciary committee.

The prospects of judicial appointments, especially to the Supreme Court, took on a heightened degree of urgency shortly before the election with the announcement of the chief justice's cancer. To have the incoming chairman threatening the president on this issue is just wrong. Join the movement NOW -- stop Specter.

Majority leader Bill Frist can be contacted by email
here, or by telephone at (202) 224-3344.

Kentucky's Republican Senators are Mitch McConnell and Jim Bunning. McConnell can be emailed
here, or reached by telephone at (202) 224-2541. Bunning can be reached by email here, or by telephone at (202) 224-4343. The Republican Senate caucus must vote on the chairmanships. Encourage these men to stop Arlen Specter from taking the helm in the judiciary committee. And as Kathryn says, remember to congratulate them on the Senate victories.

UPDATE: For those of you reading this who do not live in Kentucky but would like to contact your Republican senator(s),
here is the Senate directory.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Kathryn Jean Lopez, the editor on National Review Online and an associate editor of National Review, has done incredible work on this already. She has provided this update for those without Republican senators from their state. Here is the list of Republican Judiciary Committee members:

Hatch (202) 224-5251
Grassley (202)224.3744
Kyl (202) 224-4521
DeWine (202) 224-2315
Sessions (202) 224-4124
Graham (202) 224-5972
Craig 202/224-2752
Chambliss (202) 224-3521
Cornyn 202-224-2934

Thanks, Kathryn, for standing up for life.