The Jewish World Review.... I'm really impressed, now.

Our party is wimping out...

I could almost understand the admin's behavior if there was re-election involved... (still wouldn't like it, thought). I had so hoped that the very DAY Bush won re-election, that true conservative pol's would have grabbed the nearest covenient Moonbat, Rino, etc., by the ears, and rammed it down their throats, and said "FEEL THAT, MOONBAT!?!... GET USED TO IT!!!!"

I'm pretty disappointed, too, Denny. But I just can't seem to get too worked up about it right now, either.

I appreciate your BLOG, Sir.... Great fun to read.

By the way.... Being the Aviation nut that I am, ya got me hook, line, and sinker, with the window crack thing.... This is just wrong!!!!

Jim

Strange & interesting!

All of my Conservative neighbors are saying exactly the same thing(s). Except for one, they are all going on about the need for a "Libertarian"-Party.

What the hell happened??? I once was able to depend on 'them' to staunchly-support any & all things GWB in the face of any argument or fact; now they say aloud such things as: "Y'know, one more bozo-act and I'm ditching this guy Junior."

I actually heard this: "If he says 'trust me' one more time, .... Cheney/Rove, Baby ... Cheney/Rove!"

What in the World is going on?????

Re: John Fund writing about Louisiana dimocrat congressman William Jefferson's house being raided- When his D.C. residence was raided in August, the FBI found $31,000 in $100 bills in his freezer. Gives a whole new meaning to the words "cold hard cash"...And it was the same William Jefferson who comandeered National Guard vehicles and troops to go to his house right after the hurricane to remove computers, etc. A coincidence? I think not...

I'm taking bets, GWB is sneaking her in under our noses...I bet that she will be not a swing vote Sandra Day-Oh and history will show that all is cool with her. I'm a staunch fiscal Conservative, but hey, I can hope and stand to maybe win a few coins!?

Presidents have gotten lists of "approved" justice candidates from the ABA for many years. Is it any wonder that the ABA would pick liberals.
But President G. W. Bush has known and discussed law and politics with THIS person for more than a decade. Bush isn't using the ABA lists to select people, that tells us something!
The fact that she has no public record means that there is everything and nothing that the hearings will discover.
The idiots are worried about abortion, which is a non-issue. Nobody is forcing abortions on anybody in this country and if Roe is over-turned, abortion will be legal in every State unless that State outlaws it.
But my issue is gun control and the Second Amendment because jerks like Schummer are trying to take the rights away from every citizen (except their bunch) because that will amke such things as forced abortions, property confiscation and other government action easy since the people will no longer be able to resist.
In short, I trust Bush on this.

Denny, maybe this will set you off on another rant...

El Baradei and the IAEA won the peace prize for their "efforts" at nuclear non-proliferation. As for results, "move along, there's nothing to see here."

Hell, Bush has made more concerted efforts to eliminate Al Qaeda. Don't think he was even nominated.

Dan S. - Simple. The conservative base of the Republican Party voted for a conservative and got a RINO. As a libertarian/conservative I voted for a conservative and got a RINO.

I'm amazed at the uproar on the right about the nomination of Harriet Miers. It seems everyone was itching for a fight over this and is now disappointed that we didn't get it.

Understand, I like a good brawl as much as anyone, but guys, let's remember that the objective is to seat a Supreme Court Justice who doesn't have himself confused with God, the Supreme Court confused with the Congress, or his personal opinions confused with the Constitution.

The way Republicans are fighting must make Harry Reid feel like a running back who just took out two tacklers with a head fake.

Bottom line, I think we misunderestimate both George Bush and Harriet Miers. She may not be the rumbling tank you hoped would come out firing away, but I like this stealth bomber.

Cajuns are Canadians who moved to the bayous of Lousiana. Dimwit.

Carlo.......Cajuns are not Canadians who moved to Louisiana, they are from French Acadian ancestory who were forced to relocate to louisiana by the British. They were never considered to be Canadian by the provincial Authorities & never once considered themselves to be Canadian either. In fact the term French Canadian is considered to be fighting words by the majority of the inhabitants of the province of Quebec as well as the few remaining Acadians who`s ancestors were not forced to move by the British. Moved to Louisiana??? it is called ethnic cleaning. Sheesh!! I thought everybody read "Evangeline" in High School.

Carlo - Try to come up with a more amusing insult than dimwit. Also try to be factual in your comments since, as dudley1 pointed out, you are the dimwit. I normally like Italians. You are the exception to that rule. Remember that it is best to be thought to be an idiot rather than making a stupid comment and removing all doubt.

ROTLMAO,

Canada didn't even become a country until 1867.

I guess all of those cajuns are retroactively Canadian.

I havent heard anybody else say this, although we all know its true, but:

Wanna know the real test for whether Bush f'ed up with Roberts, and even more with Meirs? Ask yourself this: If these 2 USSC vacancies had opened in 2004, or 2003, do you think there's any way in hell Bush would've picked these same 2 people?

Answer: Of course not, Rove wouldnt let him. Rove knew and Bush would know his election was arguably pushed over the top by the votes of conservatives who believed him when he said he'd appoint justices "in the mold of Scalia & Thomas". He had those available - Luttig, Owen, Rogers-Brown - and he didnt pick them. Meirs is not "in the mold of Scalia & Thomas". She may very well turn out that way, but we hoped that for Souter too, and looked what happened.

And Bob - its not about abortion. Its not about gay marriage. Its not about the 2nd amendment. Its about all of those things. At its heart, what its about is whether the USSC will respect the democratic republic provided by the Constitution, or rather will decide for themselves what the Consitution should say, based perhaps on the laws of other countries.

Although intellectually its curious that the folks who "find" in the Constitution an individual right to "privacy" and "liberty" to protect abortion and gays rights are the same folks who have trouble seeing a similar individual right for gun ownership thats ACTUALLY PROVIDED in the text of the document itself.

daniel:

Preach it brother!

It's not about the RESULTS of the decision as much as how the decisions are made. If they're made in concert with the Constitution - then the results are fine, and if we don't like the results? We can pass new laws. Simple. As. That.

The Fudges in Roe v Wade saw a penumbra. If you don't know what a penumbra is, its a halo like one sees arround the moon on a foggy night. Halo and halucination are just too darn close in my book here. What exactly were they halucinating from?

Jeremy:

Allow me to argue against my own point, slightly.

I'm not totally against the *idea* of a "penumbra", if by that, you're trying to get to the root of the MEANING behind the Constitution.

For example, there is no explicit right to "privacy" written in it. But, do you mean to tell me, after specifically saying that you can't be forced to house troops, can't be searched, or your properties siezed (let's not get off on a tangent on how badly those are mangled), nor can laws be made concerning religion or arms, that the guys who wrote this, this whole system wasn't built on some right of the ability for someone to be private, and keep secrets?

Sure, privacy *is* a major point in the Constitution. My problem is then taking that privacy, which I believe is constitutional, and then slapping down a set of rules on a series of medical procedures. "The Unwritten Abortion Amendment". (The Super-dooper-pooper-scooper of a prescedent according to Arlen SPECTRE)

Wait just a cotton-pickin' moment. So, privacy extends to exactly ONE proceedure? What about when I go to my doctor and ask for heroin? NEIN! No! COMPELLING STATE INTEREST! errr, OK, how about, I want to get some antibiotics and flu treatment for my SHTF bag in case of a medical emergency/flu epidemic. NO! YOU CANNOT! UNSAFE!

The concept of privacy is fine.

The concept of twisting and turning a decision isn't.

"Yet I picked a jury in a civil case in Harris County District Court back in March — and I have absolutely no idea whether anything I did or didn't do in that jury selection, or that my opponent did or didn't do, violated Batson."

But back, at last, to Judge Souter and the proper role of the United States Supreme Court. That Court does not exist to right individual wrongs not even in death penalty cases. Anyone who thinks that the Supreme Court could do that, or even approximate doing that, is a fool. The Supreme Court's job is to announce the rules for other judges, and for the lawyers who practice before them, to follow. And friends and neighbors, the Hon. David Souter's opinion for the Court in Miller-El v. Dretke completely fails in that regard.

The Supreme Court's decision today means a lot to Mr. Miller-El and his lawyers, I'm sure, and I don't mean to mock or belittle him or them. But no lawyer or judge reading that opinion is going to have a clue what it means for any other case. Any time an appellate decision contains long, long quotes from the trial transcript and not many case citations, that's a pretty good hint that the decision will be of little precedential value. And that's almost all Justice Souter's opinion is.

Beldar points out the problem with that. Supreme Court cases are supposed to set guidelines. If every one is "Well, how do I feel today" then the USSC has failed, massively. O'Conner, I'm looking at you. Particularly.