Justice Delayed...and Delayed and Delayed

A contract murderer just received a temporary stay of execution by the governor. This guy has had twenty-five years of life since the murder and his initial trial, but let's make sure that he is comfortable and had every chance.

I'm on the fence about capital punishment--not so much for it...unless one of my relatives was killed. However, justice delayed is justice denied, and justice has been delayed too long for the citizens and the murdered man's family, if there are any still around. In thinking about this issue, consider this case.

Governor grants stay of execution

MONTGOMERY – Gov. Bob Riley granted a 45-day stay of execution this morning to Thomas Douglas Arthur who was scheduled to die by lethal injection at 6 p.m. at Holman Prison near Atmore. ..."The evidence is overwhelming that Thomas Arthur is guilty and he will be executed for his crime," Riley said.

In a related article, I loved this classic comment from the murderer.

He admits he was having an affair with Troy Wicker's wife. He admits an earlier murder, for which he was still in work release when Wicker was killed. He admits shooting a jailer during an escape.

"I've got a checkered past," Arthur told me in 2001, "but I'm not running for citizen of the year."

What a joke! "Checkered past." Not "citizen of the year." By trying to brush off those crimes with such a flippant comment, this guy needs to be on Hillary Clinton's campaign staff.

Now, the same journalist who provided that quote had this to say at the end of her article about giving him another chance with one more time-delaying appeal.

He's not the best person in the world. He may not even be the best person on Death Row. But that's not the point. It's this: What kind of people are we?

Some people (I assume the writer is a liberal) are never happy. Am I responsible for what he did and the long-established laws of the state? And, forget that "we" business. The question needs to be switched to ask what kind of person is the murderer, besides not being "citizen of the year?" He committed the crime and got caught and now has to pay.

Now, here's my concern. I don't mind another forty-five day stay, but why does the process take so long, in this case twenty-five years, to carry out capital punishments? The guy could have died of old age first. I don't recommend that we adopt the system that had Saddam Hussein hanging three months after his conviction, even though I have to say that Iraq has a better handle on swift and sure punishment.

But, we either change the laws and do away with capital punishment or we carry out the laws on a timely basis, without unreasonable time delays, for the sake of justice for the citizens and for the families of the murdered.

Oh, and I don't want to even think about what the frivolous delays have cost the taxpayers or how that money could be used to improve the prisons for others, but that's a financial and a moral issue rather than a legal and a moral issue.

Capital punishment - it may be repealed but, until such time, it should be administered in a timely manner in accordance with justice.

For earlier details on the conviction and appeals, click on "Read More."

Continue reading "Justice Delayed...and Delayed and Delayed"

A New Law Long Past Due

'Pull ’em up or pay up’ is new law in Mansfield (LA)

“Pull ‘em up or pay up.”

That’s Police Chief Don English’s interpretation of a new law that takes effect in Mansfield on Sept. 15

Anyone caught wearing sagging pants who exposes his or her underwear will be subject to a fine of up to $150 plus court costs, or face up to 15 days in jail. ....

Kids in the malls and overweight plumbers, consider yourselves on notice.

17 Years Later, I'm Laughing My Butt Off!

This is a cautionary tale, but a true one. Many years ago, I was the Program Director of an adult psychiatric unit in a private psychiatric hospital I had a program assistant by the name of... well, let's call him "Dario." Dario told everyone that he had a degree in Chemistry, and 3 years of medical school. He talked the talk and walked the walk. He had learned conversations with physicians, and though only a lowly assistant, he believed that he was the next Albert Schweitzer.

One day, sitting in the coffee room, Dario came in and went into the bathroom. Previously, one of the staff had been in there and had knocked over a bottle of talcum powder. Dario goes in, and comes out. "There is white powder all over the floor in there."

"Oh no," says I, "you didn't step in that and get some on your shoes did you?"

"Why?" says Dario.

"One of the psych patients walked in there earlier and he has dry urine disease. It's highly contageous Dario, if you stepped in it, please, sit down and carefully take off your shoes, and put them in the trash."

Dario sat as requested, with a look of concern on his face and the beginnings of a bead or two of sweat on his brow.

"Wait," said I, "let me get you some latex gloves so you don't accidently touch the powdered urine." I rose to get him the latex gloves. I swear he was almost shaking by the time I got back.

Gently, Dario took his shoes off and placed them carefully in the trash can.
Later (much later in fact) we took pity on Dario and told him it was a joke.

A couple of months later, I discovered that Dario did not have a degree in Chemistry and, calling the medical school, found out they didn't know who he was. When confronted he initially tried to bluff his way through, but I kept grilling him. Not too much later, I fired Ducky.

Many years later, after I was in private practice, I came across Dario at a bidding conference for a local agency. Dario introduced himself as a Psychologist. Another (real) psychologist and a good friend of mine questioned Dario who confirmed he was indeed a Psychologist.

My friend, called the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists though and found out that Dario was fraudulently claiming that distinction. My friend filed a complaint with the TSBEP who issued, I believe, a cease and desist order.

Complaints against Dario have been filed with the Licenesd Professonal Counselors Board, the Licensed Chemical Dependency Counselors Board and the Social Workers Board.

This last week Dario allegedly was found to be practicing medicine without a license, having obtained the name of a real physician similar to his own. Dario was arrested and has been released on $100,000.00 bond. I hope no one was hurt by this guy.

I plan to be at the trial, for sure. I want to see what the long term effects of dry urine disease is.

Government Out of Control

It's one thing to get upset with government bureaucracy, government stupidity, and government power. It's another thing when those are combined to wreck your life with a long and humiliating investigation covering something that common sense could have dismissed. Read about the tale of a family that took pictures of their kids on a camping trip and the nightmare that they faced when an untrained drug store employee notified the Department of Family and Children's Services about his interpretation of those pictures that he developed. It's a nightmare that I wouldn't wish on anyone. The following link goes to the story. Read all of it and check some of the comments from their readers, too.

They called me a child pornographer (From Salon)
I took some photos of my kids naked on a camping trip. A drugstore employee called the police -- and my family's life became a living hell.

I don't want to diminish the horror of child abuse and the need for protecting abused children. I suspect that G.M. has an even greater appreciation for that and may have some stories from his work that would be too hard for me to hear. However, government, in many cases, just casts too broad of a net and causes unnecessary damage that will never be forgotten or repaired.

I know two families who have suffered from unsubstatiated accusations of child abuse. In one situation, the parents did not agree to a medical procedure for their new born child, as they felt that the treatment was premature and excessive. (The mom was a health care provider herself, and it turned out that she was correct.) The doctor reported them to authorities for child abuse for not taking his advice, and they had to undergo extensive investigations and home visits. Another parent was in a doctor's waiting room with her child when the child decided to test the limits of patience by acting terrible. The mom clarified the limits with a good swat to the child's bottom. Result? The doctor's receptionist called authorities reporting child abuse, and that parent's nightmare started. Even though there was no crime, the parent was warned that she only gets one pass and that the child will be taken into protective custody with just the filing of another complaint.

If government cared so much about "the children," then it would try to help their parents rather than turn their lives upside down. If it cared for the children, then government would properly train it's workers to recognize and handle real cases and to distinguish them from false accusations. Real victims need help and need those resources being wasted chasing down frivolous claims.

Are government workers being stupid, afraid to apply good judgment to poorly written laws, trying to justify their jobs, or maybe getting a charge out of their power (which may be the case when they won't give it up?) Whatever the problem, they need to make changes so that these nightmares don't become a continued problem for parents who love and care for their children. Currently 60-70% of such claims are without merit. That's too high of a miss ratio and indicates that government has more problems than do parents.

The job of protecting children is important and must be hard. That's why it should be done right without the usual government ineptness.

Found at Nealz Nuze

Government Out of Control

It's one thing to get upset with government bureaucracy, government stupidity, and government power. It's another thing when those are combined to wreck your life with a long and humiliating investigation covering something that common sense could have dismissed. Read about the tale of a family that took pictures of their kids on a camping trip and the nightmare that they faced when an untrained drug store employee notified the Department of Family and Children's Services about his interpretation of those pictures that he developed. It's a nightmare that I wouldn't wish on anyone. The following link goes to the story. Read all of it and check some of the comments from their readers, too.

They called me a child pornographer (From Salon)
I took some photos of my kids naked on a camping trip. A drugstore employee called the police -- and my family's life became a living hell.

I don't want to diminish the horror of child abuse and the need for protecting abused children. I suspect that G.M. has an even greater appreciation for that and may have some stories from his work that would be too hard for me to hear. However, government, in many cases, just casts too broad of a net and causes unnecessary damage that will never be forgotten or repaired.

I know two families who have suffered from unsubstatiated accusations of child abuse. In one situation, the parents did not agree to a medical procedure for their new born child, as they felt that the treatment was premature and excessive. (The mom was a health care provider herself, and it turned out that she was correct.) The doctor reported them to authorities for child abuse for not taking his advice, and they had to undergo extensive investigations and home visits. Another parent was in a doctor's waiting room with her child when the child decided to test the limits of patience by acting terrible. The mom clarified the limits with a good swat to the child's bottom. Result? The doctor's receptionist called authorities reporting child abuse, and that parent's nightmare started. Even though there was no crime, the parent was warned that she only gets one pass and that the child will be taken into protective custody with just the filing of another complaint.

If government cared so much about "the children," then it would try to help their parents rather than turn their lives upside down. If it cared for the children, then government would properly train it's workers to recognize and handle real cases and to distinguish them from false accusations. Real victims need help and need those resources being wasted chasing down frivolous claims.

Are government workers being stupid, afraid to apply good judgment to poorly written laws, trying to justify their jobs, or maybe getting a charge out of their power (which may be the case when they won't give it up?) Whatever the problem, they need to make changes so that these nightmares don't become a continued problem for parents who love and care for their children. Currently 60-70% of such claims are without merit. That's too high of a miss ratio and indicates that government has more problems than do parents.

The job of protecting children is important and must be hard. That's why it should be done right without the usual government ineptness.

Found at Nealz Nuze

Milosevic is Dead!

Slobodan Milosevic was found dead in his cell this morning. According to the Wall Street Journal he apparantly died of natural causes. Milosevic was on trial in the Hague for crimes against humanity by leading his country to slaughter tens of thousands from a would be break-away provence. Milosevic frequently and vociferously denied guilt. One would suspect that Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao and others would claim the same.

I don't know whether to be happy that the world is better off without one more madman or to mourn the fact that justice is denied. Perhaps the only justice meted out here was when his immortal soul found itself condemed to hellfire.

According to the WSJ:

A figure of beguiling charm and cunning ruthlessness, Mr. Milosevic was a master tactician who turned his country's defeats into personal victories and held onto power for 13 years despite losing four wars that shattered his nation and impoverished his people.

Mr. Milosevic led Serbia, the dominant Yugoslav republic, into four Balkan wars, but always managed to emerge politically stronger. The secret of his survival was his uncanny ability to exploit what less adroit figures would consider a fatal blow.

Each time he would bounce back, skillfully reinventing himself in a series of political transformations -- as a devout communist, a reform-minded nationalist, and again as a communist at a time when most of the world had abandoned Marxist ideology.

He once described himself as the "Ayatollah Khomeini of Serbia," assuring his prime minister, Mr. Panic, that "the Serbs will follow me no matter what." For years, they did -- through wars which dismembered Yugoslavia and plunged what was left of the country into social, political, moral and economic ruin.

But in the end, his people abandoned him: first in October 2000, when he was unable to convince the majority of Yugoslavs that he had staved off electoral defeat by his successor, Vojislav Kostunica, and again on April 1, 2001, when he surrendered after a 26-hour standoff to face criminal charges stemming from his ruinous rule.

Few will mourn his passing, and certainly not this blogger!

Insta-Update: Austin Bey has more, and it is well worth reading

California Supreme Court Protects Child Predators

So much for protecting "the children...." It seems to me that a rational court would defer to stronger provisions by the governor and legislature on matters of protecting young people from sexual predators. But, they are in California...and, can stay there.

From KION 46: California Supreme Court rules on oral sex

California's justices overturned state law requiring adults 21 years or older who are convicted of having oral sex with 16- and 17-year-olds to automatically register as a sex offender for life. The California Supreme Court, ruling 6-1, said the law, first adopted in 1947, was unconstitutional. The majority said that the law was too harsh or unfair....

Righteous people of all faiths and beliefs should find this ruling and the trend of such rulings unacceptable and should stand up for what is right--and, pray for our nation before it completely loses its moral foundation. Our future and our children are at stake, and we should expose those who pretend to care about the children but really only care for their own "right" to do wrong.

A funeral is not a protest event!

For most Americans, burying a loved one is a private matter. Most of us wouldn't like to have a crowd of people we don't know hanging around. watching us in our moments of grief and sadness. Not only watching us, but yelling at us and pushing signs with hateful messages on them in our faces. This is disgraceful.

Continue reading "A funeral is not a protest event!"

Democrats Cut and Run, Or Is It Slash and Burn? Anyway, Read It.

Did you ever wonder what happened to the paid workers of John Kerry's campaign who slashed the tires on vans and cars of Republicans on election day in November, 2004? The main stream media has been very quiet about them. (Imagine if Republicans had done that to Democrats.) Well, we have the answer, and you won't be surprised. Mark Belling, a Milwaukee journalist, covers the final box scores with totals and highlights in his editorial of January 25th. Here are some excerpted sentences, but please read the entire article.

What a surprise - the tire slashers got away with it. Despite overwhelming evidence of their guilt, the five men accused of vandalizing vehicles to be used by Republicans on Election Day in 2004 will face no punishment at all. What was the reaction of most Democrats to the verdict? Glee. Why did they get away with it? Answer: Because everybody involved here was a Democrat. We had Democrats accusing Democrats that were prosecuted by a Democrat and a jury laden with Democrats. Justice never had a chance.

I'm not sure, but they might have applied for purple hearts from the Kerry campaign for self-inflicted razor cuts.

Found at and a thanks to Tom McMahon!

Filibuster, John Kerry, Kennedy and Judge Alito

There are a lot of things in politics that deserve a rip-roaring belly laugh; JFK excuse me, John Friggin Kerry being chief among these. Kerry is most noted for being elected as Mr. Flip-Flop of 2004. Of course, he was running for president at the time, but so what?

Kerry (and his partner in crime - T. Kennedy) have decided that they would like to filibuster the vote on the nomination of Samuel Alito to the United States Supreme Court. Senator(s) can you say STUPID? You two have got to be the dumbest of the dumb.

From the CNN folk comes this:

Sources close to Kerry, who lost to Bush in the 2004 race, told CNN that the senator was calling colleagues from Switzerland, where he was attending the World Economic Forum. He announced his decision to support a filibuster Wednesday at a meeting of his Democratic colleagues.

The White House believes Alito's supporters have the 60 votes they need to block any filibuster, spokesman Steve Schmidt said, and suggested that Kerry's move was designed to buttress a possible 2008 presidential run.

The Washington Post's Charles Babington reports:

Several prominent Democratic senators called for a filibuster of Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s Supreme Court nomination yesterday, exposing a deep divide in the party even as they delighted the party's liberal base.

The filibuster's supporters -- including Sens. John F. Kerry and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts -- acknowledged that the bid is likely to fail and that Alito is virtually certain to be confirmed Tuesday. But they said extended debate may draw more Americans' attention to Alito's conservative stands on abortion, civil rights, presidential powers and other matters.

"Judge Alito will take America backward, especially when it comes to civil rights and discrimination laws," Kerry said in a statement issued by his office. He added: "It's our right and our responsibility to oppose him vigorously and to fight against this radical upending of the Supreme Court."

The Democrats are divided? News to me! On the other hand, that famous entertainer Will Rogers once noted: "I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat."

Senator Kerry, you greatly remind me of a saying by Dietrich Bonhöffer:

Folly is a more dangerous enemy to the good than evil. One can protest against evil; it can be unmasked and, if need be, prevented by force. Evil always carries the seeds of its own destruction... Against folly we have no such defense. Neither protests nor force can touch it; reasoning is no use...

So the fool, as distinct from the scoundrel, is completely self-satisfied; in fact, he can easily become dangerous, as it does not take much to make him aggressive. A fool must therefore be treated more cautiously than a scoundrel.

H/T to Stop the ACLU

The Press - Hoist On Its Own Petard

Scooter Libby is planning to subopena a number of journalists in his defense trial. This poses a series of tough decisions for the press for a number of reasons. Timothy Phelps has a lengthy (but worth the time) article in the Columbia Journalism Review regarding the background of the Plame case, including his own actions and the actions of others.

Of course, as a member of the press, Phelps is not happy about the possibility of two things. One, that Libby may call journalists for testamony, and two, that the press doesn't seem to have the "protections" under the first amendment that it did in the past. Phelps does acknowledge that there are indeed limits on the ability of journalists to protect sources, but decries the lessening of that.

It should be noted that much of the current brouhaha is of the making of the journalism profession. They were less concerned about the "leak" than about (in general) being able to hammer the Bush Administration for wrongs (real or perceived). In fact, two journalists, David Corn (The Nation) and Paul Krugman (The New York Times) raised a big stink about the illegality of "outing" Plame.

Even Phelps says she was in a role "undercover." However, nothing could be further from the truth. Undercover typically means assignment in the field, pretending you are something you are not in order to gather information necessary for our national security. Plame worked in a "secret" department of the Directorate of Operations, but was not "under cover" as she drove to work daily, was doublessly photographed many, many times by our adversaries (who ever they may have been) and even people in her neighborhood knew where she worked. Too, her "cover" had been blown years before and that is why she was pulled from the field.

The press demanded an investigation until finaly, someone in the CIA asked for an investigation. Usually, these requests don't go very far as Phelps acknowledges. This time, however, with the reporters and Democrats up in arms, Gutless Ashcroft recused himself and recused his deputy from looking into the matter and appointed a Special Prosecuter to look into the "outing" of Valarie Plame.

As we know, that investigation went nowhere, despite calls for Karl Rove to be frogmarched out of the White House. Libby in what must have been a non-compos-mentos moment lied about who he talked to or when or under what circumstances and as a result he is up on perjury charges. If found guilty, I hope they throw the book at him. What could he have been thinking?

But, I digress. The issue is that the press, so rabid in their attempts to nail the Bush Administration (and denying that is ludicrous on it's face) is now going to have to testify in the Libby trial. Too damn bad. The old saw that you need to be careful what you ask for, because you may not like what you get couldn't be more apt.

Libby's right to a fair trial trumps, it seems to me, any 1st amendment protection the predatory press has. Phelps may have said it best:

The prosecutor seems to have had the last word about the First Amendment, at least for now. “Journalists are not entitled to promise complete confidentiality � no one in America is,� he told Thomas F. Hogan, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Hogan agreed. Of course, we never did have the right to offer complete confidentiality in every circumstance. But as a result of this case and others in the pipeline, the question now is, Can we honestly promise our sources anything?"

A tip of the GM Chapeaux to James Taranto

Senate Democrats ≠Rational Thinking

The Circus is over, the Big Top has been struck. The Ringmaster has put away his top hat and whip, the clowns have removed their makeup. Bits of popcorn and other detritus litter the floor of the once formidable Greatest Show On Earth, but now, the lights are dimmed, and sadly we walk away from the circus.

The analogy between a circus and the Alito hearings is an apt one I think, given the clown like performances of certain members of the Judiciary Committee. I won't mention their names, but their initials are Ted (Chappaquiddick) Kennedy:

In an era when the White House is abusing power, is excusing and authorizing torture and is spying on American citizens, I find Judge Alito's support for an all-powerful executive branch to be genuinely troubling..."

Joseph (Who thinks the Constitution requires two female members) Biden:

And it's also important to note that you're slated to replace the first woman ever nominated to the Supreme Court. We can pretend that's not the fact but it is. And through no fault of your own [though I'm holding you responsible - snark added], we're cutting the number of women in half on the court."

Charles (Please Don't Indict Me) Schumer:

This controversial nominee, who would make the court less diverse and far more conservative, will get very careful scrutiny from the Senate and from the American people."

Patrick (Damn it, I want a liberal judge) Leahy:

The American people deserve a Supreme Court Justice who inspires confidence that he, or she, will not be beholden to the President but will be immune to pressures from the Government or from partisan interests [emphasis added as a snark]."

Diane (I don't care what Ginsberg said, how will YOU answer) Feinstine:

However, in 1985 you clearly stated that you believed Roe should be overturned and that the Constitution does not protect a woman’s right to choose. Despite voting to sustain Roe while on the Third Circuit, your opinions also raise questions about how you would rule if not bound by precedent. I will be interested to learn about your legal and personal views on Roe and the Constitutional right to privacy as you see it today."

and Dick (Damn Those Nazis) Durban:

Your record raises troubling questions about whether you appreciate the checks and balances in our Constitution � the careful efforts of our Founding Fathers to protect us from a government or a president determined to seize too much power over our lives..."

In room 216, the Senate Judiciary Committee in the guise of it's Democrat members participated in what could be termed illegal torture of a United States citizen. Alito was in a room, hot via overcrowding, blazing lights aimed at the responder, torturous and repetitious meanderings from the bloviatings of said Democrats [equal to, for sure of blaring rap "music"], sitting in an uncomfortable position for hours and hours and hours with no relief - not able to get up and walk around, not able to relax and having to pay attention to those who do not have his best interests at heart (let alone the best interests of the country).

Perhaps, the denouement of this whole Democratic engineered farce will be the final vote. I'm predicting that the committee vote will be along party lines and the final vote in the Senate will be something like 78-22 with precisely the same idjits voting against Alito as voted against Roberts. These guys just don't learn. There are consequences folks for elections and this last election put a Republican in the Whitehouse with the ability to appoint judges and (finally) the willingness to appoint conservative judges. Cry all you want, the people see through you and know that your grasp of reality is tenuous at best. Carol Dean Thomas, a strongly liberal attorney probably said it best (in the NY Times no less):

The president took the high road on this nomination. He juggled his politics and his public relations, and while I don't like either, I have to be grateful for the quality of lawyer, and individual, who emerged as the nominee.

We have to decide whether the unfortunate tradition begun with Robert Bork's nomination should be continued indefinitely or whether, with the wisdom of hindsight, we exhume it only when absolutely warranted. Liberals among us have got to get real - to press for the finest jurists a conservative administration is willing to offer, and to spend our capital in that pursuit." [emphasis added]

Common Sense Judge Hits ACLU with Truth

A federal appeals court ruled that the Ten Commandments could be displayed in a Kentucky courthouse. What is particularly enjoyable about the ruling is what one of the judges had to say to the ACLU, which sued to have the display removed.

Judge Tells ACLU What Everyone Else Knows

Judge Richard Suhrheinrich's ruling said the ACLU brought "tiresome" arguments about the "wall of separation" between church and state, and it said the organization does not represent a "reasonable person."

Suhrheinrich wrote that a court has to decide whether a "reasonable person" would find that a government display endorses religion, not whether someone finds it offensive. He said the ACLU "does not embody the reasonable person." He criticized the organization for arguing that the First Amendment mandates a "wall of separation between church and state." "Our nation's history is full of governmental acknowledgment and in some cases accommodation of religion," the judge wrote.

The lawyer representing Mercer County said the ruling was welcome. "For too long (Kentuckians) have been lectured like children by those in the ACLU and elsewhere who claim to know what the people's Constitution really means," Manion said in a statement. "The court recognizes that the Constitution does not require that we strip the public square of all vestiges of our religious heritage and traditions."

(State representative Rick) Nelson said, "It's a common-sense ruling" that reflects "what a lot of people have said all along."

Isn't it nice to win one against the ACLU? They didn't have a prayer.

Linked At Stop The ACLU

More On Miers

I don't know much about Harriet Miers, and not many that are either pro Miers or anti-Miers do either. That doesn't seem to stop many of the pundits from both the left and right from pontificating. I choose, given what we know so far, and what I know of President Bush, to support his nomination for the USSC. But, don't take my word for it, here is an EXCELLENT post from Jay at Stop The ACLU complete with plenty of support from the right.

I Pledge....

1I pledge allegence to the flag

of the United States of America;

And to the Republic

For which is stands.

One Nation

UNDER GOD,

INDIVISIBLE,

With Liberty and Justice for ALL!

2. HEY, 9TH COURT of CALIFORNIA, KISS MY GRITS

Hey, Dems, Your Hypocrisy Is Showing!

In the election of 1960, some Republicans and Southern Baptists in particlular, but others as well argued that the election of John F. Kennedy would put the United States in the position of having to bow down to the wishes of the Roman Catholic Pontiff; that if Kennedy were elected he would "owe" more aligence to the Pope, than to upholding the Constitution. The creepoids making that argument were absurd then, and it hasn't gotten any better. Only now, the creepoids are (and have been for some time) members of the Democratic party.

In 1994, Mitt Romney had the gall to run against Teddy Kennedy (Whale, Mass) who promptly raised questions about Romney's Mormon Faith (The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints). Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe noted in a Town Hall.com article:

When Romney first ran for office in 1994 against US Senator Ted Kennedy, then-congressman Joe Kennedy -- the senator's nephew -- derided him as a member of a ''white boys' club" whose church treated women and blacks as ''second-class citizens." Kennedy later apologized, and said he didn't know the Mormon priesthood had been opened to blacks 16 years earlier. ''But the attack may have had the desired effect," Eastland notes. ''Ted Kennedy's poll numbers went up and stayed up."

Today, Adam Reilly says similar things in a lengthy article on Romney's faith (and little other than the impact of his faith on his politics) in the Boston Phoenix. Specifically Reilly states:

If there’s a moment that marks the beginning of the LDS ascendancy, it came in 1979, when right-wing Christian fundamentalist Jerry Falwell announced the formation of the Moral Majority, the anti-choice, anti-woman, anti-gay, pro-school-prayer group that reshaped American politics. In Falwell’s coalition, individual Mormons joined forces with Christian fundamentalists and conservative Catholics in an attempt to make American politics more godly. The oft-isolated LDS Church had finally found willing partners."

How's that for guilt by association?

When I first heard of Romney as a possible canidate for the Presidency, I thought "Ok, here come the anti-Mormon forces out of the darkness." I was right.

But, this isn't about Romney, I'll save that for sometime in 2007 (see, you have something to look forward to~). This is about Judge John Roberts' nomination to be a Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. And the anti-Catholic vultures are circling.

Christopher Hitchens, that irrascible tippler from the left whom I always enjoy reading, even when he is an ass (especially when he is an ass?) writes a decidedly anti-Catholic (as applied to Judge Robert's nomination) screed in Slate. Hitchen's states:

If Roberts is confirmed there will be quite a bloc of Catholics on the court. Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas are strong in the faith. Is it kosher to mention these things? The Constitution rightly forbids any religious test for public office, but what happens when a religious affiliation conflicts with a judge's oath to uphold the Constitution? Some religious organizations are also explicitly political and vice versa�the Ku Klux Klan was founded partly to defend Protestantism�and if it is true that Scalia is a member of Opus Dei then even many Catholics would consider him to have made a political rather than a theological choice. Are we ready for a Scientologist on the court rather than having him or her subjected to the equivalent of a religious test? I merely ask."

Now, why would Hitchens bring up Scientologists here? More guilt by association? Damn, those Dems are really good at this ain't they?

A simple Google search of "John Roberts and Roman Catholic Church" brings up over 360,000 articles/sites in less than 1/4 of a second. Amy Sullivan of Beliefnet states that the Republican defense of Robert's Catholic faith is libelous:

Not 24 hours had passed after Bush introduced Roberts to the world before conservatives played the Catholic card. In a move that could charitably be called a preemptive strike and more accurately called a political maneuver, Catholic League president Bill Donohue told Religion News Service that "Any scratching around this area would suggest that there's a veiled religious test by asking questions about his deeply held views." "Our antennaes will be up on that," he warned. In the same story, longtime Roberts associate and Washington attorney Shannen Coffin said he was concerned about "an anti-Catholic witch hunt."

A "pre-emptive" strike Amy? Why am I not surprised? A good offense the best sort of defense? Of course it is, and any argument to the contrary is hypocritical in the extreme.

The reality is that Roberts, like ALL CATHOLICS does not belong to a monolithic group that owes it's allegiance to the Pope. Catholics of all stripes have various ideas as to how their faith interacts with their public as opposed to their religious life. But the Dems aren't satisfied with this. They will attempt to belittle Roberts on his faith just as they are doing to Romney.

But note, the Constitution specifically prohibits a "religious test" for office and that would seem to include baring from office someone because of his faith. What don't the dems understand about these words:

Article VI of the Constitution of the United States:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. [emphasis added]

Not satisified with the wording of the Constitution, Christopher D. Morris of the Boston Globe opines:

Asking the bishops to testify would be healthy. If they rescinded the threats made against Kerry, then Roberts would feel free to make his decision without the appearance of a conflict of interest, and Catholic politicians who support Roe v. Wade would gain renewed confidence in their advocacy. If the bishops repeated or confirmed their threats, the Senate Judiciary Committee should draft legislation calling for the automatic recusal of Catholic judges from cases citing Roe v. Wade as a precedent.

Of course, such a new law should cover anyone whose religion makes it impossible for them to decide on their own whether abortion should be legal; therefore, testimony should be taken from the leaders of Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, and other faiths as well. It is clear that several mainline Protestant denominations separate the issue of abortion from church membership and personal salvation; judges from these faiths would face no conflict of interest.

Draft legislation for what amounts to a religious test? What part of the Constitution don't you understand Mr. Morris?

Mario Cuomo, the former Governor of New York, once considered a leading possibility for the Democratic nomination for President stated this last Sunday on Meet the Press:

The law today, we all know, is Roe against Wade. That was made my judges and it can be overturned by judges. To say that the rules that apply to legislators shouldn't apply to judges is, it seems to me, wrong.

Finally, Judge Scalia: Now, there's a Republican conservative, if there ever was one, on the bench. Judge Scalia dealt with this--tangentially, but he dealt with it--on the subject of the death penalty. He said judges, Catholic judges, may be bothered in their conscience in voting for the death penalty because the pope has said that it is evil. He said under those circumstances, the Catholic judge should resign. There is no question it's relevant. Everybody takes an oath to support the Constitution, including especially judges. So why not ask them: "Will you, Judge, apply a religious test to the Constitution? Will you start by saying, `I'm not going to support the Constitution if my pope tells me not to'?" [emphasis added]

Uh, Mario, what part of the Constitution don't YOU understand?

Attacking John Kennedy for his faith was wrong 45 years ago, it is wrong now to attack Roberts for his faith.

Border Patrol Catches, uh... Its Own Agent?

Well, the U.S. Border Patrol caught an illegal alien that went undetected by the Minutemen group. But, the Border Patrol had an advantage. The illegal alien was one of its own agents! On top of that, he is charged with smuggling more than one-hundred illegals across the border from Mexico using his border patrol vehicle. How was the Border Patrol to know that the birth certificate that he produced with his application four years ago was forged? What are the odds of that?

According to reports from San Diego, the now former agent, has been charged with falsely claiming to be a U.S. citizen and with smuggling illegal immigrants. He went before a federal judge for a bail hearing.

"Magistrate Judge Anthony Battaglia ruled that Oscar Antonio Ortiz, 28, is an illegal alien himself, and no amount of bail could ensure his return to court. The temptation for Ortiz to flee to his native Mexico was strong, the judge said. "You are an illegal alien," Battaglia told the defendant. "You have no right to work here. You have no right to live here."

Ortiz must have been shocked to be the first illegal immigrant in California to be told that he had no right to work or live there. However, he wasn't needed to pick fruit, so I guess he was dispensable.

Now, are you comfortable with the security of our borders?

US vs Richard Reid

Judge William Young, US District Court, Washington DC has a pair as we say. Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, attempted to murder a plane full of people by exploding a bomb built into his shoe. His clumsy attempts to light the fuse gave passengers and crew time to restrain him and he was taken into custody when the plane landed. He pled guilty to 8 counts and was sentenced by Judge Young. At the time of sentencing, Judge Young asked Mr. Reid if he had anything to say.

Reid replied:

I start by praising Allah because life today is no good. I bear witness to this and he alone is right to be worshiped. And I bear witness that Muhammad Sa'laat Alayhi as-Salaam is his last prophet and messenger who is sent to all of mankind for guidance, with the sound guidance for everyone.

Concerning what the Court said? I admit, I admit my actions and I further, I further state that I done them.

JUDGE WILLIAM YOUNG:

I didn't hear the last. I admit my actions and then what did you say?

REID:

I further admit my allegiance to Osama bin Laden, to Islam, and to the religion of Allah. With regards to what you said about killing innocent people, I will say one thing. Your government has killed 2 million children in Iraq. If you want to think about something, against 2 million, I don't see no comparison.

Your government has sponsored the rape and torture of Muslims in the prisons of Egypt and Turkey and Syria and Jordan with their money and with their weapons. I don't know, see what I done as being equal to rape and to torture, or to the deaths of the two million children in Iraq.

So, for this reason, I think I ought not apologize for my actions. I am at war with your country. I'm at war with them not for personal reasons but because they have murdered more than, so many children and they have oppressed my religion and they have oppressed people for no reason except that they say we believe in Allah.

This is the only reason that America sponsors Egypt. It's the only reason they sponsor Turkey. It's the only reason they back Israel.

As far as the sentence is concerned, it's in your hand. Only really it is not even in your hand. It's in Allah's hand. I put my trust in Allah totally and I know that he will give victory to his religion. And he will give victory to those who believe and he will destroy those who wish to oppress the people because they believe in Allah.

So you can judge and I leave you to judge. And I don't mind. This is all I have to say. And I bear witness to Muhammad this is Allah's message.

Judge Young then delivered this sentence:

Mr. Richard C. Reid, hearken now to the sentence the Court imposes upon you.

On counts 1, 5 and 6 the Court sentences you to life in prison in the custody of the United States Attorney General. On counts 2, 3, 4 and 7, the Court sentences you to 20 years in prison on each count, the sentence on each count to run consecutive with the other.

That's 80 years. On count 8 the Court sentences you to the mandatory
30 years consecutive to the 80 years just imposed. The Court imposes upon you each of the eight counts a fine of $250,000 for the aggregate fine of $2 million. The Court accepts the government's recommendation with respect to restitution and orders restitution in the amount of $298.17 to Andre Bousquet and $5,784 to American Airlines. The Court imposes upon you the $800 special assessment. The Court imposes upon you five years supervised release simply because the law requires it. But the life sentences are real life sentences so I need go no further. This is the sentence that is provided for by our statutes. It is a fair and just sentence. It is a righteous sentence.

Let me explain this to you. We are not afraid of you or any of your terrorist co-conspirators, Mr. Reid. We are Americans. We have been through the fire before. There is all too much war talk here and I say that to everyone with the utmost respect. Here in this court, we deal with individuals as individuals and care for individuals as individuals. As human beings, we reach out for justice.

You are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a soldier in any war. You are a terrorist. To give you that reference, to call you a soldier, gives you far too much stature. Whether it is the officers of government who do it or your attorney who does it, or if you think you are a soldier. You are not

Posted by GM Roper at 12:10 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack (1)

The ACLU Attempts Borking Of Judge Roberts

Everyone, well, almost everyone knows about the ACLU. What most folk don't know however is how far that they will go in attempting to block any nominee that President Bush puts up. Their most recent media release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Media@dcaclu.org
WASHINGTON -- The American Civil Liberties Union today expressed deep concern about some of the civil liberties positions advocated by Judge John Roberts, President Bush's choice to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court.
While serving as principal deputy solicitor general from 1989-1993, he authored briefs calling for Roe v. Wade to be overruled, supporting graduation prayer, and seeking to criminalize flag burning as a form of political protest.

"All these positions were rejected by the Supreme Court," said Steven Shapiro, the ACLU's National Legal Director. "But the Supreme Court remains closely divided on many of these questions."

As a senior Justice Department official, Roberts was in a position to help shape the government's legal positions as well as represent them.
At a minimum, the Senate should determine the extent to which the positions taken in these briefs also reflect Roberts's personal views.
Judge John Roberts was appointed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in May 2003. He received his undergraduate and law degrees from Harvard University and clerked for Justice Rehnquist. He served in a number of positions in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, including as principal deputy solicitor general from 1989 to 1993.
"The Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in advancing freedom," said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director. "Without the Supreme Court, the South would still be segregated, illegal abortions would be claiming thousands of lives, the indigent would have no right to a lawyer, and lesbian and gay Americans could be imprisoned for their private sexual conduct."
"The stakes could not be higher," Romero added.
The ACLU will only oppose a Supreme Court nominee on a majority vote of its 83 person national board.

First, Roberts wrote briefs as an attorney, in the Solicitor Generals office. The job of the Solicitor General is to represent the President and the Administration in matters before the courts. Thus, by questioning this, in essence the ACLU is saying that the President didn't have a right to legal counsel OR that John Roberts shouldn't have done his job if he disagreed with the position of the President. OMG... can you imagine if all criminal attorneys had to follow that advice... "Don't do your legal best to defend and support your client." What happened to the legal professions stance that every person appearing before the courts has a right to effective legal council?

The ACLU wants "...the Senate ... [to] ... determine the extent to which the positions taken in these briefs also reflect Roberts's personal views." Wait a minute, what happened to "no litmus test?" What did the ACLU have to say when Justice Ruth Ginsburg refused to answer questions regarding matters that may come before the court? What do you want to bet that they were mum?

Then they make this statement:

Without the Supreme Court, the South would still be segregated, illegal abortions would be claiming thousands of lives, the indigent would have no right to a lawyer, and lesbian and gay Americans could be imprisoned for their private sexual conduct."

Of course the implication is that Judge Roberts would have opposed those issues. How do they know? But even that is not the purpose of the sentence. The purpose is to attempt to make Judge Roberts to be separate from the mainstream. Actually, I hope he is on matters of the takings clause, the 9th and 10th Amendments, the interstate commerce clause that OUGHT to be about commerce only, the late stage abortion issue etc; the liberal five in the SCOTUS need a really healthy conservative to balance their (IMHO)stupidities.

What the ACLU doesn't want is an honest and open debate on Judge Roberts merits to be voted up or down to the bench of the Supreme Court of The United states.

I hope they are ashamed of themselves. I know they probably aren't, but one can pray... or maybe not.. what was the latest SC decision on prayer on the internet?

Update: Captain Ed over at Captain's Quarters has a post up on the pro-abortion folks trying to Bork Judge Roberts by pointing out his wife being staunchly pro-life. His job, his responsibility, his beliefs are all part of the upcoming hearings to be held. His wife's? I would ask if they have no shame, but that would be a rhetorical question.

Judge Roberts and Political Wars

Judge Roberts has been nominated for the SCOTUS. Here is a great bio of him and I urge you to read it. Then take the poll below. It's not scientific, and it is in fun, but vote the way you really think.

Judge John Roberts Jr. has been nominated for the Supreme Court by President Bush. Should he:
	Be confirmed with all due haste but don't break the filibuster regardless
	Be confirmed, but the Democrats should grill the heck out of him
	Be confirmed with the overturn of the filibuster if necessary
	Be BORKED soundly regardless of his qualifications because he is ugh "conservative"
	Use the filibuster, but give in later
	Keep politics out of the supreme court. Confirm or deny, but no more damn politics!
	Who is Judge John Roberts?
	Do you want fries with that?
Free polls from Pollhost.com

Too Rich; Too Too Rich!!!

A Tip of the GM Chapeaux to The Discerning Texan

Trash The Fifth Amendment

One of my first inklings of a story to come was this story on ABC News. In a nutshell:

The issue revolves around whether a government is serving a public purpose when it uses its power of eminent domain to take land. The Fifth Amendment prohibits taking private property for public use without just compensation. The New London case is not about the amount of compensation being offered, but whether the government can take the property at all.

Specifically, the 5th Amendment states:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation [emphasis added].

Now the Supreme Court has ruled that local and state governments may take any property whatsoever if by so doing and by compensating the owners "appropriately" a greater good can be gained for the community. In essense, if your property is on a corner say and you pay $2000.00 per year in total property taxes and a developer wants to put a Mall on that corner it can. The city will make a judgement "Hmmmm, $2000.00 in taxes from Mr. Jones or $98,000.00 a year in property and sales taxes from Harvey's Mall. Easy choice, all in favor say Aye." Now, let's say that Mr. Jones is lower middle class, retired, lived in his home with his wife for the last 45 years and they have always struggled to pay their fair share of taxes. Does that matter? Nope Mr. Jones is outaluck.

Now, to me, and to any right thinking individual that ought to be just plain wrong. If you need the property for a school, a treatment plant, a city hospital, whatever. Fine! Take it. But to turn it over to another private entity just because they want it and can't buy it on their own?

I'm sure that there are plenty of folk that are essentially statists that will agree with this, but they are flat out wrong. The right should be against this because the meaning of property rights must be an individual right or it has no meaning. I'm not talking about the right of corporations or citys or other organizations, public or private, to own property. I'm talking about Joe Homeowner. The left should be against this because the wealthy homeowner won't be affected, the city/state gets plenty of tax money from them as it is and they are generally pretty powerful. Ahh, but the lower and middle class that own's their own home? Those who have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and lived the American Dream? They are the ones that will be hurt the most.

And the damnable thing is that they will be hurt most by the one governmental organization that ought to be looking out for their best interests.

There are currently 6 Supreme Court Justices and 1 Chief Justice. Each one, regardless of party or political persuasion that voted for this travesty should be ashamed of themselves.

More at bRight and Early and well stated too!

Update: Michele Malkin has a veritable link fest on this topic.

Update II: Donald Luskin, a far better economist than Paul Krugman has a good posting