Who Won the Elections Anyway?

In case anyone is wondering why judicial appointments are necessary, read this decision in Kelo v City of New London. The division was 5-4, with only Justices O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas dissenting. O'Connor and Thomas both wrote dissenting opinions. Kennedy and Stevens wrote the majority opinions. Souter was appointed by Bush 41, but has been decidedly liberal in his opinions. Only Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist have held to original construction of the Constitution. O'Connor is often the swing vote. Powerline has more.

Powerline also has the lowdown on another attempt by the minority party to determine not only who is approved, but who is nominated.

Senator Durbin officially compares our military treatment of the unlawful combatants at Guantanamo with Pol Pot, the Nazis and the Soviets, never retracts his statement, in spite of the obvious fallacy (over 30 million murdered by said regimes - not one death at Guantanamo, etc.), and the Republican leadership accepts his apology. Trent Lott made an offhand remark at a birthday party and lost the Senate Majority Leader position. Why is Durbin still the party whip?

Hat Tip to Cassandra and Liberal Larry

Cassandra at Villainous Company has some interesting history questions.

1. Who said this (and when): "I call on those who question the motives of the president and his national security advisors to join with the rest of America in presenting a united front to our enemies abroad."
2. What major newspaper pointed out a link between Osama bin Laden and Iraq (and when).

Liberal Larry has some thoughts on who should be the next ambassador to the UN.

The One True Church

I figure we'll get a lot of mileage out of this one. Consider this: Since the term Christian originated in Antioch, and since they have not changed the worship service in centuries, maybe the Greek Orthodox Church fits the title.

Okay, that should set up the debate. See you later.

Judiciary Votes

So far, the Democrats have honored the "deal" to invoke cloture on the three Bush nominees. Two have been confirmed (Owens and Brown) as of this writing and one (Pruor) will be voted on today.
The vote to invoke cloture on Owens had only 18 Democrats voting no. The subsequent confirmation vote was more along party lines, with only Byrd (D-WV) breaking ranks to vote for the confirmation.
The cloture vote on Janice Rodgers Brown had more Democrats voting no, but still passed eassily with 10 voting yes. Jeffords (I-VT) joined two Democrats not willing to commit either way. The confirmation vote broke almost completely along party lines, with Nelson (D-NE) being the only Democrat to vote for her. Jeffords continued to abstain.
The cloture vote for William Pryor passed easily 67-32-1, with Jeffords again abstaining.
"Moderate" Hillary Clinton (D-NY) voted no for both confirmations and the last two cloture nominations. Stay tuned for the nomination vote on Pryor.

Update 8:07 PM

William Pryor has been confirmed. The vote was almost along party lines. Three predictable Republicans voted against [Chafee (R-RI). Collins (R-ME), and Snowe (R-ME)] and one [Murkowski (R-AK)] joined Jeffords (I-VT) in abstaining. That meant only 51 Republicans voted in favor, but the vote was 53-45 because two Democrats [Nelson (D-NE) and Salazar (D-CO)] voted in favor.

Two other judges have also beeen confirmed to the Sixth Circuit: (1) Richard A. Griffin, of Michigan, by a 95-0 vote (Jeffords plus Alexander (R-TN) , Biden (D-DE), Murkowski (R-AK), and Obama (D-IL) abstained); and (2) David W. McKeague, of Michigan, by 96-0 (Jeffords, Biden, Alexander, and Murkowski abstained again).

Judicial and Filibuster Watch

For most of the people with whom I correspond, the 2004 elections were all about the judiciary.  We feel betrayed.  We handed the President a Republican majority in both the House and Senate and expected that originalist judges would be appointed to stop the leftward slide of the judiciary.  The deal made by the "Gang of 14" was a slap in the face to voters.  Seven Republicans agreed to oppose a Senate rule change, thereby ensuring that the Constitutional option would fail 48-52.  In exchange the seven Democrats agreed to vote invoke cloture, thereby ensuring 62 votes to shut down a filibuster - except for "extraordinary circumstances", such circumstances to be determined by each individual Senator.

So you can watch the players, here is a list of the 14 by party and Class.  Class I comes up for reelection in 2006, Class II in 2008, and Class III in 2010.
Republicans
   Class I
Lincoln D. Chafee (R-R.I.)
Mike DeWine (R-Ohio),
Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine)
   Class II
Susan Collins (R-Maine)
Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.)
John W. Warner (R-Va.)
   Class III
John McCain (R-Ariz.)

Democrats
   Class I
Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.)
Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.)
Ben Nelson (D-Neb.)
   Class II
Mary Landrieu (D-La.)
Mark Pryor (D-Ark.)
   Class III
Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii)
Ken Salazar (D-Colo.)

Here's what  justices are supposed to do:
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made under their authority;  - to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; - to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; - to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; - to controversies between two or more states; - between a state and citizens of another state; - between citizens of different states; - between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, or between a state, or citizens thereof, and  foreign states, citizens, or subjects.  (Article III, Section 2)


Notice that there is no mention of foreign law, world opinion, unratified treaties, or any other outside source.  The basis is the Constitution, current law, and current treaties.  Liberal judges who say that "the Constitution should grow" (liberal-speak for "move left") willfully neglect that there is provision within the Constitution for it to grow:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution,or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. (Article V)


In that manner, changes and growth of the Constitution can be made "safe, rare, and legal", to borrow a phrase.  For an oligarchy of five robed justices to write law from the bench is not the orderly change process envisioned by the fathers.  It is a defeat of the representative process outlined in the Constitution.  The fight about justices is not about abortion and gays, it is about maintaining the Constitution.

When an individual assumes the office of POTUS, he (or she) takes an oath that goes like this:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the duties of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. (Article II, Section 1)


President Bush is attempting to do exactly that by appointing originalist judges who will abide by the Constitution instead of twisting it and interpreting it in light of foreign law.  The Left cannot stand for that to happen and will obstruct at every turn.

Currently we have a non-filibuster(?) delaying a vote on John Bolton's nomination as Ambassador to the UN.  Okay, the agreement was for judicial nominations, but this is indicative of how we might see the votes in those.  In the vote to end debate for John Bolton, only two [Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.)] of the seven Democrats voted to invoke cloture.

Stay tuned for "extraordinary" circumstances.

Happy Memorial Day

I did a little research on war fatalities and discovered some interesting numbers (and the inevitable "fog" of war in getting the accurate counts):

World War I deaths = 50,585 (Minimum figure reported - maximum combat deaths reported = 53,402 KIA + 63,114 other deaths = 116,516 (DoD; 1991 Info. Please) or 126,000 with no breakout by other sources)
World War II deaths = 291,557 (KIA + 113,842 other for a total of 405,399 (DoD & Info Please))
Korean War deaths = 33,741 (hostile deaths only - total of 36,576 in-theater deaths from all causes)
Vietnam War deaths = around 58,000
War on Terror deaths = 1,840 (to date)

The first thing that strikes me about these statistics is how low the casualty rate in the War on Terror is compared to the other conflicts. The second thing is that today's war protest crowd has no sense of history.

Let me say that I am anti-war. War is dangerous to living things. War is chaos and destruction. War is, in fact, Hell. War, however, has been thrust upon us by the Islamic fanatics who think a Koran is worth more than human lives. We have been under attack since the 70's. Only under George Bush has the country finally said "Enough. You can no longer attack us with impunity. You have brought the war to us, but we will bring it to you."

Two quotes seem particularly appropriate today:

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill
English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)

Any community's arm of force - military, police, security - needs people in it who can do necessary evil, and yet not be made evil by it. To do only the necessary and no more. To constantly question the assumptions, to stop the slide into atrocity.
Lois McMaster Bujold "Barrayar", 1991
US science fiction author


Let us honor the fallen not with mourning of their loss, but with thanksgiving for their lives - that they were willing to expend them for this great country. That the great majority of them did so honorably, without committing atrocities. That we live in a country where even the rabid left has the freedom to express their views because better than they purchased that right with their own blood.

God bless America!

What's It All About?

Burning the Bible is OK.
Flushing the Koran (impossible, by the way) is not.
Burning the flag is OK.
Disrespecting Islam is not.
What's wrong with this picture?
Ever since the Ten Suggestions were outlawed in public places, we have things like this going on. And we wonder why.
According to the Bible (Hey, it's my blog, I can refer to it if I want), sin comes in three basic forms:

1. Sin is the trangression of God's law. 1 John 3:4
   
2. Sin is knowing to do good, but refusing. James 4:17
   
3. Sin is doing something you think is wrong. Romans 14:23

So, while it is possible for you and I to do the exact same thing with one sinning and one not, there are some definitive things that are sin no matter who does them. However, our relativistic world would prefer that all "sin" be in the mind, and therefore not real. If sin is not real, we don't need to worry about an accounting for our sins. We certainly would have no need of a Savior. "If it works for you, fine" doesn't cut it where the rape and abandonment of an eight year old girl is concerned.