Just Like O'Connor

Tuesday, December 27, 2005

What a surprise. USA Today has provided us with yet another anti-Alito editorial:

When Samuel Alito was a Justice Department lawyer in the 1980s, he wrote that he saw no legal problem with a police officer shooting and killing an unarmed 15-year-old who was fleeing from a $10 burglary.

Alito, now nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court, said the shooting "can be justified as reasonable" and advised his bosses that the courts shouldn't interfere with police discretion to use deadly force. But the Supreme Court thought otherwise - by a 6-3 vote. Justice Byron White noted that the Constitution bars "unreasonable" searches and seizures, adding acidly that "a police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead."

Oh what a problem this Alito character has become for liberals. They of course -- having demanded repeatedly -- want President Bush to replace Sandra Day O'Connor with another moderate justice like Sandra Day O'Connor.

Yet in the above mentioned case decided by a 6-3 vote, the author of the dissenting opinion in which Burger and Rehnquist joined was written by darling Sandra Day O’Connor!

The editorial concludes:

Alito's record suggests little deference to those most basic American values. This merits aggressive questioning before the Senate puts him on the nation's highest court, where he would have the power to strip away rights Americans assume to be theirs.

Therein lies a critical flaw of the author's point. A "right" isn't so just because Americans "assume" it's theirs to enjoy. It's a "right" if it passes constitutional muster. Whether Alito will be supportive of these "assumed rights" is yet to be determined, as well the validity of the author's opinion that such rights fall under the category of "most basic American values."

Merry Christmas

Sunday, December 25, 2005

Merry Christmas to all. Hope everyone had a great year and may 2006 be even better.

Yesterday I went with my father to see the Bucs fight for the NFC South division title against a pesky Atlanta Falcons team. It didn't end until there were 15 seconds left in overtime; almost becoming the first game to end in a tie since 2002.

Needless to say we won the contest after the fans were put through an exhausting emotional rollercoaster. The game started after a moment of silence for Tony Dungy's son who committed suicide earlier this week in his Tampa apartment.

More posting later...enjoy your Christmas.

This One's For Dungy

Friday, December 23, 2005

I've been rooting for the Colts this season for a variety of reasons, and not just because I'm tired of hearing about the 1972 Dolphins and their perfect season. As a Tampa Bay Buccaneers fan I appreciate all that Coach Tony Dungy has done for the team. He took a struggling franchise and made it Super Bowl-caliber in the five years he's been in Tampa.

The Colts won't be perfect this year, but Bucs fans must continue to root for the coach who paved the way for Jon Gruden to take us all the way, and that is because yesterday morning his 18-year-old son was found dead from an apparent suicide in his Tampa apartment.

I pray for the Dungy family, and while sports at this point must be insignificant this year, I hope he returns to the team to win the ring he absolutely deserves.

Alito Now As Popular as Roberts

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

ABC News has a new poll out that should have anti-Alito liberals nervous:

Dec. 21, 2005 -- Most Americans support both Samuel A. Alito and Roe v. Wade.

Whether these two are in conflict is not entirely clear. But the disclosure that Alito wrote an anti-Roe memo while a Justice Department lawyer does not look to have hurt his nomination: Fifty-four percent of Americans say the Senate should confirm him, up slightly since early November.

Support for Alito is about the same as it was for newly installed Chief Justice John Roberts on the eve of his confirmation hearings in September.

Democrats cannot contemplate filibustering a Supreme Court candidate who's supported by more than 60% of the country. I don't even think you could get away with filibustering a nominee who's supported by 45% of the country. But now that he's as favorable as Chief Justice John Roberts was, liberals might as well get used to saying "Associate Justice Sam Alito" come February.

I give very little credence to the Roe debate among the average American as the average American can't name four of the nine Supreme Court justices. People wrongly assume that the overturning of Roe v. Wade would instantly put an end to abortion.

Instead, it would allow the states to debate the issue democratically. And because the same poll says more than 40% of the country wants to make abortion more restrictive I think they would welcome the reversal if only because it would allow passage of commonsense abortion laws.

Of course, this whole debate is moot if Alito votes to uphold Roe.

Bush Seeks Victory

Sunday, December 18, 2005

President Bush blitzed a nationwide audience tonight that was prepared to watch Family Guy with a speech on the success of this week's Iraq election. He forced his critics to pay attention, including those who only get their news from the Mainstream Media.

As a war critic I didn't expect to be impressed or get anything more than the "we must win" mantra, but this was an impressive speech and I was caught off guard by the following part (the entire speech here):

From this office, nearly three years ago, I announced the start of military operations in Iraq. Our Coalition confronted a regime that defied United Nations Security Council Resolutions ... violated a cease-fire agreement ... sponsored terrorism ... and possessed, we believed, weapons of mass destruction. After the swift fall of Baghdad, we found mass graves filled by a dictator ... we found some capacity to restart programs to produce weapons of mass destruction ... but we did not find those weapons.

It is true that Saddam Hussein had a history of pursuing and using weapons of mass destruction. It is true that he systematically concealed those programs, and blocked the work of UN weapons inspectors. It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. And as your President, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq.

Two things: First, it was good of the president to outline the importance of the war beyond the weapons of mass destruction claim. Too many people are calling the war a "failure" simply because we didn’t find any weapons.

Second, Bush took responsibility for going to war and understands the sacrifices that were made, and is prepared to see more until the war on terror is complete.

The only question that still remains is when. When, Mr. President, will the war be won?

What Alito Would Say if He Were Roast Duck

Friday, December 16, 2005

Take a look at this masterpiece drummed up by the creative folks at Pro-Choice America. It depicts a group of high-profile conservatives dining at a restaurant and sending back the soup brought to them by waiter President Bush because it contains a "moderate" (Harriet Miers?). So the faithful waiter comes back with Sam Alito on a platter who says upon the removing of the silver lid: "The Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion!"

Make sure you have your speakers on; it's the sound effects that sell this product.

More People Vote in Iraq than See King Kong

Thursday, December 15, 2005

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Millions of Iraqis, from tribal sheiks to entire families with children in tow, turned out Thursday to choose a parliament in a mostly peaceful election - among the freest ever in the Arab world.

Up to 11 million of the nation's 15 million registered voters took part, election officials estimated, which would put overall turnout at more than 70 percent.

This is absolutely fantastic news coming out of Iraq. I never would have imagined more than 70% of registered voters in a country once ruled by a murderous dictator taking part in a free election.

More people voted in Iraq's election than went out to see Peter Jackson's "King Kong." It took in roughly $10 million on opening day, but that's no match for the number of purple fingers coming out of the poll booth.

Free Speech? I Think Not

Wednesday, December 07, 2005

The University of Connecticut - a bastion of liberal students and professors. Must be a great place for diversity that welcomes opposing viewpoints, right?

Say that to Ann Coulter, who was invited to the university by the College Republicans. But when Coulter arrived she was met by protestors holding signs denouncing her as a Nazi. They called her racist (though she wanted Janice Rogers Brown to be appointed to the Supreme Court above all others), and sexist (though she believes women are capable of being trusted with firearms and the responsibility to carry them).

When she tried to talk and deliver her speech the protestors jeered, booed and blasted her with loud music to the point where she had to cut the speech short.

But don't feel too bad for Coulter. She was paid roughly $16,000 and didn't even have to deliver a full speech.

This behavior by the Left is pathetic and inexcusable. You can say what you want about her or her politics, but to obstruct an event so that she couldn’t even speak is quite hypocritical, since these are the same people who charge her with wanting to end free speech.

According to the school's official newspaper one student was quoted, saying: "She is a right-wing radical nutcase. If she had anything to say like she says in her books then we should throw rocks at her. I don't think it's fair to bring her point of view on campus."

I guess her detractors are moving up from throwing pies to objects that can actually cause injury. Maybe it's a good thing after all these people don't believe in guns.

Sad But Necessary

The story coming out of Miami this afternoon is certainly tragic. Responding to a passenger who made claims that he had a bomb, a federal air marshal shot and killed the suspect who in fact did not have any explosives of any kind on him.

Worse is that his wife witnessed the shooting, and reported that her husband was sick and not on his medication. Unfortunately, the agent had no way of knowing if the suspect had any explosives, or of his condition, and took the right course of action when the suspect ignored orders to halt and reached into a bag.

Military Recruiters Here to Stay

Tuesday, December 06, 2005

Today the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Rumsfeld v. F.A.I.R., which examines the Solomon Amendment that requires colleges receiving federal funds to give military recruiters the same access to students that it gives to other potential employers on campus.

In other words, if colleges allow employers of any stripe to recruit its students for potential employment, then it must allow the US military to do the same...unless it wants to lose its federal funding.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit may have struck down the law, but if my assessment of the oral arguments is correct it will be upheld by the highest court.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter are likely to dissent, but it's hard to argue against the point Chief Justice Roberts made when he said that if colleges don't want military recruiters on campus, they can simply just refuse federal funds.

The Solomon Amendment is perfectly constitutional and I expect it to be rightfully upheld.

Down With Quote-Grabbers

While perusing Drudge I was alerted to a Rush Limbaugh segment where he told his listeners that John Kerry called soldiers terrorists.

The offense committed by Limbaugh is not unique to the talk show host as it's being done virtually allover the Internet.

It has become commonplace now for people on the Left and the Right to accuse people of being something their not or saying something they didn't. Too often supposed watchdogs like MediaMatters (which conveniently edits video content) grab quotes from certain individuals with whom they disagree and deliberately take them out of context.

When Bill O'Reilly suggested on his program the U.S. Army shouldn't protect San Francisco in the even of a terrorist attack, he did not just then invite terrorists to attack the Bay Area,

When Ann Coulter said she believes the First Amendment is overrated in a speech before a Gainesville audience, she did not just then say she opposed the First Amendment.

When John Kerry said there's no reason "American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children," he did not just then call American soldiers terrorists.

As you surf the newspapers and Internet I urge you to use caution when coming across a quote-grabber. Before nodding your head like a drone it would only be fair to check out the truth behind the story.