South Dakota Politics

More on North Dakota Race

From TBND blog:

This has to make Senator Conrad's collar a bit tight. Survey USA has released a new survey out on the approval rating of all 49 governor's and the one governator.

John Hoeven is NOW tied for the most popular governor with a ranking of 75% approval.

TBND also reports on a new Roll Call report:

North Dakota Gov. John Hoeven’s (R) continued silence on whether he will challenge Sen. Kent Conrad (D) next year is leading many in the state to believe the popular chief executive will in fact run.

“I think the pressure on [Hoeven] is pretty intense, and that he’s going to be convinced that this is what he needs to do, both by the [Bush] administration and Republican folks in the state,” said Eric Aasmundstad, president of the North Dakota Farm Bureau. “I’d be kind of surprised if he didn’t run.”

Hoeven, with approval ratings near 70 percent, has declined to squelch the speculation. And with his popularity and incredible statewide name identification, he has the luxury of waiting until as late as the March 2006 Republican nominating convention to announce his candidacy.

This is Great

Michelle Malkin:  Don't Get Stuck on Stupid
Radio Blogger has the transcript.

Hat tip to California Conservative.

The Grassroots Come to Mitchell

Mitchell Daily Republic:

A new billboard in Mitchell is raising debates as well as eyebrows.

The billboard, located on North Sanborn, reads: “Jesus cares for the poor - So Do We.” At the bottom, the billboard states, “Democrats Make America Stronger.”

...

The Grassroot Democrats South Dakota was formally established in June 2004. While the group shares many of the values and tenets of the Democratic Party, it is not affiliated with it. The billboard campaign began in May 2005 in Sioux Falls.

But one local Republican, state Rep. Lou Sebert, of Mitchell, said he thought Democrats wanted to keep religion out of politics.

“I haven’t seen the billboard, but if it says ‘Jesus cares for the poor’ … I don’t see how Jesus ties to the Democratic or Republican Party,” Sebert said.

“Jesus is not a party builder,” he added. “I’m a religious person and I have sympathy for the poor. All people are created equal, but we don’t have all the same opportunities. I don’t think it’s a party issue. It’s a public issue. As a legislature we deal with it as a state as best we can.”

...

Grassroot Democrats, according to Roger Berggren of Sioux Falls, executive director of the group, is addressing what he said the last election left out in the cold: a Democratic moral position.

“(The billboard is) there for the hundreds of moderate and liberal Christians that see Pat Robertson on the news and Bill Frist in front of churches preaching and who don’t understand how their values fit into Jesus’ life,” said Berggren. “To try to say that Democrats are just going to ignore religion is ignoring part of what makes us, us.”

Read the whole article.

UPDATE:  SD War College--Jesus is just alright with the dems.

Are you sure its not the Daily KOS?

From USA Today:

An Idaho weatherman says Japan's Yakuza mafia used a Russian-made electromagnetic generator to cause Hurricane Katrina in a bid to avenge itself for the Hiroshima atom bomb attack — and that this technology will soon be wielded again to hit another U.S. city.

Meteorologist Scott Stevens, a nine-year veteran of KPVI-TV in Pocatello, said he was struggling to forecast weather patterns starting in 1998 when he discovered the theory on the Internet. It's now detailed on Stevens' website, www.weatherwars.info, the Idaho Falls Post Register reported.

Stevens, who is among several people to offer alternative and generally discounted theories for the storm that flooded New Orleans, says a little-known oversight in physical laws makes it possible to create and control storms — especially if you're armed with the Cold War-era weapon said to have been made by the Russians in 1976. Stevens became convinced of the existence of the Russian device when he observed an unusual Montana cold front in 2004.

Of course we here at SDP would never take such a story seriously.  The Yakuza, after all, are a criminal and not a political organization.  The Nation Magazine, or the Daily KOS, now that would make some sense.

But you have admit, the folks in Idaho Falls don't have a boring weatherman. 

 

Fear and Loathing at the KOS

According to our friends at Clean Cut Kid, Republicans are too ridgid to tolerate any dissent in their ranks.  Well, this is how the Daily KOS, an extraordinarily popular blog, deals with a heratic among the Democrats.

On a day that Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) showed great leadership by announcing his opposition to John Roberts' confirmation to the SCOTUS, Max Baucus, Senator from Montana, demonstrated his wonderful backstabbing skills, undercutting his Leader by supporting Roberts:

I have found that Max Baucus meets my criteria for a gutless son of a bitch. Baucus demonstrates a healthy disrespect for his Leader in the Senate and for the values and principles that define the Democratic Party.

Throughout his career, Max Baucus has been kissing Republican rings and can not seem to break that habit, even with George Bush at the nadir of his Presidency.

Well, now.  Baucus " demonstrates a healthy disrespect for his Leader."  Imagine what CCK would be saying about us if we used such language about the President?  Better yet imagine what that blog we used to tangle with so often would say: "Republicans Openly Fascist!"  "Stalinist Show Trial Language in Republican Memos!"

Does the left wing blogosphere really believe that respect for capital L Leaders requires obedience?  That individual party members are not free to case their votes in what ways they think right?  Or is every question a simple matter of loyalty to the side of the righteous?

Startling Meanness Watch

Washington Post:

FBI Investigates Democrats on Steele's Credit Report

Federal prosecutors are investigating whether two Democratic Party researchers in Washington illegally obtained the credit report of Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele as they conducted opposition research on the likely Republican Senate candidate.

Phil Singer, a spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, acknowledged yesterday that two of his organization's employees had resigned as a result of the episode, which he said was subsequently referred to the U.S. attorney's office by the Democratic committee.

Under federal law, it is illegal to knowingly and willfully obtain a credit report under false pretenses. A spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney's office for the District of Columbia confirmed last night that an investigation by its fraud and public corruption section is proceeding with the assistance of the FBI.

Does Kos Think Senator Johnson is a Traitor?

Last night, when Montana Democratic Senator Max Baucus said he'd vote to confirm Judge Roberts, the people at Daily Kos attacked him as a traitor.  Now Senator Johnson has announced he's voting for Roberts:

Johnson Announces Position on Judge Roberts

Washington, DC—U.S. Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) today issued the following statement of his position on the nomination of Judge John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court:

After careful and diligent review of the testimony provided by Judge John Roberts during hearings recently conducted by the Senate Judiciary Committee, it is my belief that Judge Roberts should be confirmed by the Senate as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.  I will cast my vote accordingly.

There are few decisions of greater consequence that I will ever be asked to make than whether to approve an individual for a lifetime appointment as Chief Justice to our nation’s highest court.   While it is impossible for any Senator to know with absolute certainty how a nominee will conduct himself in this high office, it appears to me that Judge Roberts is a thoughtful and respected jurist who possesses integrity and great legal skills.  I see no reason to believe that the nominee is an ideologue or otherwise outside the broad mainstream of contemporary conservative legal thinking.

While I have voted against President Bush’s nominees to the lower federal courts a modest number of times, I have voted over 200 times to confirm judicial nominees who I believed were conservative Republicans of great legal skill and who deserved bipartisan respect.  By my vote for Judge Roberts, I signal to President Bush my hope that his nominee to succeed Justice Sandra Day O’Connor will similarly be a distinguished jurist or scholar who can win broad bipartisan support. 

Our nation is in need of healing and coming together, and choices for our highest court ought to further that goal rather than serving to polarize a country that is at war and still struggling with an immense natural disaster.

The proper legal foundation for

America

is found in the broad mainstream of contemporary jurisprudence and not in the extreme agendas of the political far left or far right.

Proof is in the Quotes

I have discussed in two recent posts (here and here) the disturbing consequences of taking the abstract principles of "autonomy" and "reproductive freedom" to certain logical conclusions.  It turns out that some of my theoretical musings that I intended to be shocking (such as advocating for legalized prostitution and wondering why children can't consent to sex) were previously advocated by now Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  You can read all about it at NROs Bench Memos.  Here are some samples of things Ginsburg advocated in 1974:

“Prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions.”

A statutory restriction on political rights of bigamists “is of questionable constitutionality since it appears to encroach impermissibly upon private relationships.”

“The Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts, while ostensibly providing ‘separate but equal’ benefits to both sexes, perpetuate stereotyped sex roles to the extent that they carry out congressionally-mandated purposes.”

Other nuggets abound. For example, Ginsburg recommended that the age of consent for purposes of statutory rape be lowered from 16 to 12.

Is there anything advocated by John Roberts, to say nothing of the most extreme Bush judicial nominee, that compares with these far out arguments by Ginsburg?  Yet, as Prof. Blanchard notes, Ginsburg's nomination to the Supreme Court was supported by the Senate on a 96-3 vote.  If Republicans can support this woman, why can't Democrats like Harry Reid support John Roberts, who has been called by the dean of Washington reporters, David Broder, "so obviously -- ridiculously -- well-equipped to lead government's third branch that it is hard to imagine how any Democrats can justify a vote against his confirmation"?

DASCHLE BACK IN POLITICS; OPEN TO PRESIDENTIAL OR VP BID

From the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON - Former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D, is returning to political life with a new political action committee and an upcoming appearance in Iowa.

Daschle has quietly eschewed most publicity since his defeat to Republican John Thune last November. But Steve Hildebrand, director of the new committee and Daschle's former campaign manager, said Daschle "is not going to rule out opportunities to play important roles in public service."

"It could be president, it could be vice president, it could be something else," Hildebrand said. "It could be nothing."

He said Daschle's Iowa speech, scheduled for the state party's annual Jefferson-Jackson Dinner Nov. 5, will probably be his most political since last year's election.

But Hildebrand insisted Daschle's appearance is not about running for the presidency. It is about supporting his Democratic friends in Iowa, he said.

"He is not today looking at his options for higher office," Hildebrand said.

Daschle has transferred $500,000 into the new committee, New Leadership for America PAC. Hildebrand says the committee will give money to endangered incumbents, support younger candidates looking to run for office and "provide a forum for him to continue to speak out on issues that are important."

As part of the new effort, Daschle held a fundraiser last week for West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd, a Democrat. He is also planning to appear at an event for Fernando Ferrer, a Democrat running against New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Daschle's new PAC, which will give to both federal and state candidates, was registered with the IRS Tuesday, according to the PoliticalMoneyLine Web site.

In July, Daschle said he was not planning a rematch against Thune in 2010.

He made the statement in a letter to the Federal Election Commission, which had asked him to clarify his candidate status. Since Daschle's candidate fundraising committee had spent more than $5,000, he officially qualified as a candidate.

North Dakota Senate Race Heating Up

Just like Daschle began running tv ads in July 2003 long before his November 2004 election, Democratic Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota is doing the same thing this time around.  From the great blog "Taking Back North Dakota":

Senator Conrad has already started running TV ads. Senator Conrad's press secretary says that it's not a campaign ad... but we know better. He knows that he is vulnerable and has started his TV ad campaign more than a year before the election! I wonder what their internal polls are showing.

Daschle Attacks Use of Voter ID

South Dakota requires voters to show an ID before voting, but Tom Daschle is against it and compares it to the days of segregation, according to a story on a voting commission's suggestions in today's Washington Post:

The most controversial recommendation calls for all voters to produce a standard photo identification card before being allowed to vote. The commission proposes that, by 2010, voters be required to use either the Real ID card, which Congress this spring mandated as the driver's license of the future in all states. For about 12 percent of eligible voters who do not have a driver's license, the commission says states should provide at no cost an identification card that contains the same key information.

Critics of voter ID cards say the requirement could raise privacy issues and intimidate or discourage some Americans, particularly the elderly, the poor and minorities, from participating in elections. To alleviate those concerns, the Carter-Baker commission urges states to make it easy for non-drivers to obtain such cards and seeks measures to ensure privacy and security for all voters. The commission report states that by adopting a uniform voter ID card, minorities would be better protected from shifting identification standards at individual polling places.

Still, the proposed ID card drew sharp dissent from some commissioners, among them former Senate Democratic leader Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.). In a dissent joined by two other commissioners, Daschle likened the ID to a "modern day poll tax."

Voting On Roberts

I addition to the liberal newspapers Ken Blanchard mentioned, add the LA Times as endorsing john Roberts for Chief Justice. 

I would argue that the bellwether for the Senate Democrats is not their leader, Harry Reid, but Hillary Clinton.  Clinton has much more at stake politically than does Reid.  She must cultivate an image of moderation and good sense.  If she can't vote for John Roberts, as Prof. Blanchard suggests, there is no one to the right of Steven Breyer for whom she could vote.  The moderate thing to do is to vote for Roberts and then hope Bush does not appoint a racial minority to fill the O'Connor seat.  I suspect this is what Clinton will do: vote for Roberts and then vote against the next nominee to show she is in touch with the party's base.  But given my track record on predictions, this makes it likely she will do the exact opposite of what I have just said.

Anyone have any clue how Tim Johnson is going to vote?  I bet Kent Conrad votes for Roberts, as he is already running for his life in NoDak. 

Daschle Mentioned

Todays Hotline:

The FEC charged the Club for Growth for violating campaign-finance laws, specifically for raising and spending at least $4M more than the soft-money limits for 527s allow (Dinan, Washington Times, 9/10). From the suit: "The Club itself has repeatedly asserted that its purpose is to 'elect pro-growth congressmen' and 'defeat status quo incumbents' (but) has never registered as a political committee with the Commission and has failed to report to the Commission its receipts and disbursements" (Whittington, Roll Call, 9/20). FEC Vice-Chair Michael Toner: "This litigation is an important test case on when 527 groups are required to register with the FEC and follow hard-dollar restrictions in federal law" (Washington Times, 9/10).

CFG pres. Pat Toomey called the suit "outrageous" and "a bizarre interpretation of the club's mission, the Constitution and the laws adopted by Congress. ... We have consulted with counsel every step of the way and have followed the law and regulations that govern our work."

FEC investigated CFG as a result of a DSCC complaint about an ad that ran against ex-Sen. Min. leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) "over his opposition to a tax-cut proposal." Center for Responsive Politics head/ex-FEC counsel Larry Noble said the lawsuit focuses on spending that urged voters to elect or defeat candidates. Noble said the suit would leave questions for the FEC on partisan groups which aim to influence voters, but "didn't go quite as far as the club did" (Theimer, AP/Lexington Herald-Leader, 9/20).

Party of Obstructionists

Up until today I was guessing, along with many others, that a substantial number of Democrats would vote to confirm John Roberts.  This would have made the Democrats look less obstructionist and more reasonable.  That, I supposed, would have positioned them better for the next fight.  But it appears that this is not to be the strategy after all.  The Senate's designated Daschle, Harry Reid, as announced that he will oppose Roberts.  This announcement comes just before the Judiciary Committee issues its report.  That's surely a breach of decorum.  It amounts to a vote of no confidence on the committee.  The Democrats would have some excuse if there were an attendant scandal of the sort that Clarence Thomas had to face.  But considering that three liberal metropolitan papers-the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, and the Minneapolis Star Tribune, have endorsed Roberts, it suggests that most Democrats will oppose any nominee sent up by a Republican. 

Democrats did not always behave like this.  Consider the following confirmation votes:

Sandra Day O'Connor 99-0.
Antonin Scalia 98-0.
Anthony Kennedy 98-0.
David Souter 90-9.

We note that Senate Republicans showed the same decorum.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg 96-3.
Stephen Bryer 87-9.

These votes all make sense.  The nominees were all well-qualified, modest in their behavior, and none were known to take radical positions on fundamental questions.  Within those bounds it is reasonable to give the President the nominees he chooses.  That is what keeps the process Democratic.  Americans get the Court they want when they get the Presidents they want.  Roberts is clearly one of the best nominees a President has ever sent up.  If more than a small portion of Democrats vote against him it will suggest that they no longer respect the traditional constitutional processes.  That is not a good thing for either party.

Does Daschle Have Presidential Bug Again?

Daschle to Headline Jefferson-Jackson Dinner

Des Moines, September 20th, 2005 -- Former South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle will help rally Iowa Democrats this fall. He'll be the main speaker at the state party's annual Jefferson-Jackson Dinner on November fifth in Des Moines.

Daschle served 26 years in the House and Senate, and was both majority and minority leader in the Senate. He lost to Republican John Thune last year. The Jefferson-Jackson dinner will also include speeches from the Democratic candidates for Iowa governor.

Covering Up The Stink

The Vikings release the plans for a new stadium.  I suggest the name "The Vomitorium."  At least that would be truth in advertising.  Now the Vikings can stink in style. 

Thune Responds to USA Today

John Thune has responded to the Gannett/USA Today editorial that advocated the closing of Ellsworth:

'Common sense' to maintain South Dakota base

by Senator John Thune

USA TODAY's editorial "Cold War drags on — forever" ignored facts for fiction. When the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) voted 8-to-1 to remove Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D., from the Pentagon's closure list, it wasn't sparing a "costly" base. BRAC members neither defied "common sense" nor were "absurd." This decision, if signed into law, would save tax dollars (Our view, Military needs debate, Wednesday).

The BRAC staff presented overwhelming data from the commission, the General Accounting Office (GAO) and even the Pentagon that proved closing Ellsworth would not result in a single penny saved.

What defied common sense was USA TODAY's omission of the facts. The Defense Department claimed that closing Ellsworth would save $1.8 billion over 20 years. This was flat wrong. A GAO report proved that 60% of the projected savings simply did not exist. The Pentagon also failed to calculate enormous costs associated with consolidated training flights and cleanup and construction, which further reduced savings by hundreds of millions of dollars. The end result: Closing Ellsworth would cost almost $19 million.

The editorial went on to suggest that politics must have "played a role." If so, how does USA TODAY explain that two Democrat appointees on the commission voted to save Ellsworth while the one dissenting commissioner was appointed by the Senate Republican leader?

Ellsworth is a premier Air Force base with exceptional military personnel who are aiding our effort to win the war on terror. Common sense would suggest that closure would have been absurd.

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., Washington

Denise Ross: "Is Hilde getting some revenge?"

From the Rapid City Journal blog Mt. Blogmore:

By Denise Ross

The FEC has sued the Club for Growth, and it’s all over that nonsensical anti-Daschle ad the group ran in the midst of all the other campaign ad clutter. Something about tax cuts and Daschle being an obstructionist. I barely remember. (You guys really got your money’s worth, in other words.)

Here’s the AP report. The suit is about broader issues — the new campaign finance laws and who has to follow them. But the activity that leads to these broader issues being raised is the Daschle ad, according to this story.

One note: Stephen Moore of Club for Growth said in my former RCJ column that John Thune ran a “feckless” campaign in 2002, so these guys are warm and fuzzy to everyone.

This lawsuit makes me ask: Is Hilde getting some revenge? And also, whatever happened with that letter the FEC sent to Daschle about his ongoing campaign spending?

Right to Privacy

Joe Knippenberg at No Left Turns directs us to this fine piece by Robert George on the so-called right to privacy.  There is no doubt that the Constitution protects kinds of privacy rights, but it is another thing altogether to say that there is a generalizable privacy right.

Another thought today about the "right to privacy," "autonomy " of women, and their "ability to control their reproductive lives."  If women have autonomy, a right to privacy, and have the right to control their reproductive lives, can the state make it illegal to serve alcohol to a pregnant woman?  Can a woman who is refused service demand her constitutional right?  If she wanted to abort her unborn child, the Supreme Court would protect that choice.  So why not let her affect the prenatal development of that child by drinking alcohol?  After all, it's her body and her rights.  Or so some would say. 

Daschle

A lot of Daschle talk today.  First off, from today's edition of Hotline:

DASCHLE: What's Tom Up To? Should We Start Wondering About IA And NH?

     Ex-Senate Dem leader Tom Daschle's new PAC, New Leadership for America, will help him maintain his post-Hill influence in politics, according to advisers. Through DASHPAC and on his own, Daschle has donated/helped to raise more than $500K for Dems across the country, including large donations to the WV and ND Dem parties. But Daschle has no plans to run for office anytime soon. DASHPAC is being shuttered; the new PAC is being built on top of Daschle's old campaign committee, but it's being given a new coat of a paint, a new name, and a new, multi-candidate purpose and FEC designation. Daschle political adviser/ex-manager Steve Hildebrand: "The first and primary purpose for this new PAC is to aggressively help progressive candidates run for public office. To contribute to them, to foster their candidacy, to encourage support from others" (Hotline reporting). Daschle is "in the process of lining up a series of political travel on behalf of Democratic candidates around the country." Last week, Daschle helped WV Sen. Robert Byrd with a $100k fundraiser and "a direct mail pitch." Because Daschle is "no longer a federal officeholder, Daschle is incorporating a nonfederal account within the PAC" (i.e. a 527). That account will be allowed to accept unlimited donations, although Daschle plans on capping such donations at $25,000 a year per individual" (Kane, Roll Call, 9/19).

Today's Roll Call is noting him too:

Seeking to re-establish himself as a political force, former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) is forming a new political action committee, raising money for his former colleagues and trying to pump new life into his state’s Democratic Party.

Daschle transferred more than $500,000 in leftover funds from his unsuccessful 2004 re-election bid into the new committee and launched the New Leadership for America PAC at a retreat for potential new Democratic candidates in the Black Hills of South Dakota held Sept. 9-11.

The PAC will become Daschle’s primary political vehicle as he seeks to maintain a level of political relevancy beyond that of other Congressional leaders who have left office in recent years.

...

Earlier this summer Daschle penned a direct-mail piece for Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), who may face one of the toughest re-elections in 2006. The piece yielded $190,000 for Conrad’s campaign.

And Daschle is in the process of lining up a series of political travel on behalf of Democratic candidates around the country.

The new political activity is not being viewed as any sort of a potential springboard for Daschle to return to electoral politics, as his friends and former aides say he has settled fairly happily into a post-Senate career combining a mix of private-sector jobs as well an academic component. Daschle is working with a longtime supporter, Leo Hindery, in a New York investment outfit focusing on mid-size media companies. In addition, he has set up shop in the Washington, D.C. office of the law firm Alston and Bird, where he is not lobbying but instead advising clients.

...

New Leadership for America is taking over where Daschle’s old committee, DASHPAC, is leaving off. DASHPAC, with just $11,000 in its coffers on July 31, will officially terminate in the next few weeks, leaving Daschle just with New Leadership.

Afghanistan Holds Legislative Elections

The weekend featured two key elections: Germany and Afghanistan.  Both involved millions of people confronting new worlds.  Of the two, Germany was clearly the more backward.  The Germans faced a choice between a demonstrably failed policy and a lukewarm prospect of reform.  They straddled the fence.

Afghanistan is the real story. 

From USA Today:

By Paul Wiseman

KABUL, Afghanistan — Afghan voters by the millions braved Taliban threats and contended with bewildering ballots Sunday to pick a new parliament for the first time in three decades.  . . . Ed Morgan, chief of a delegation from the non--—profit International Foundation for Election Systems, estimated a turnout of 7 million of the 12.4 million registered voters. Eight million voted in November.

What is astounding is that the left has virtually no interest in such events.   

My View Triumphs

The Moderate Liberal Punditocracy has swung around to my view so fast that I am not sure they really had time to read my blogs in order to know what to say.  But that's the nature of the blogosphere: thoughts travel with the speed of your cable connection.  David Broder now accepts the general principle that Judge Roberts ought to be confirmed for the simple reason that he is extraordinarily qualified for the job.

The question of whether Judge John Roberts is qualified to be chief justice of the United States has been rendered moot by his performance in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. He is so obviously -- ridiculously -- well-equipped to lead government's third branch that it is hard to imagine how any Democrats can justify a vote against his confirmation.

With the Washington Post on board, the only interesting question is how all this will affect the next nomination struggle.  I argued that Democrats were now in the business of appearing reasonable, if grossly verbose, so that their cries and laments would seem more credible one Bush sends up his next nominee.  Mark Steyn, whose prose has the most deliciously wicked edge of any knife in the journalistic drawer, cuts it the same way.

We're now told that most Dems will vote for Roberts in order to give themselves some bipartisan cred before they Bork the president's next nominee. That sounds like feeble spin to avoid getting flayed by the Moveon.org types.

Yeah, it does.  And anyway it has been seriously compromised by Broder and the Washington Post.  If the standard for confirming Roberts is that a judge be reasonable, not a radical, and well-qualified, then that is the standard for the next nominee as well.  I imagine that the Bush Administration can drive another conservative through that gate.

Clinton v. Bush

Power Line:  Uncharted Territory, Once Again

Drudge:  Clinton Turns on Bush

Dred Roberts the Pirate III

Within hours of my last post the Washington Post has adopted my position: that a Supreme Court nominee who is well qualified and not a radical should be confirmed by the Senate, regardless of whether that nominee leans to the conservative or liberal side of the judicial spectrum.  Like the Star Tribune, they urge the Senate to confirm Roberts.

JOHN G. ROBERTS JR. should be confirmed as chief justice of the United States. He is overwhelmingly well-qualified, possesses an unusually keen legal mind and practices a collegiality of the type an effective chief justice must have. He shows every sign of commitment to restraint and impartiality. Nominees of comparable quality have, after rigorous hearings, been confirmed nearly unanimously. We hope Judge Roberts will similarly be approved by a large bipartisan vote.

This is not to say we expect that as chief justice, Judge Roberts will always rule as we would like. Reading the tea leaves of any justice's future votes is a dicey business. But on a number of important issues, Judge Roberts seems likely to take positions that we will not support. His backing of presidential powers, and willingness to limit civil liberties, appear worrisomely large, while his deference to congressional authority relative to the states may be too small. He appears more suspicious of affirmative action than we think the court should be, and his view of certain civil rights protections has been narrow. Given his comments about precedent and the right to privacy, we do not believe a Chief Justice Roberts will be eager to overturn federal abortion rights. But we recognize that he might end up supporting that unfortunate step, as the late chief justice William H. Rehnquist did unsuccessfully. These are all risks, but they are risks the public incurred in reelecting President Bush.  [My italics]

This is the reasonable position.  I note that it clearly strengthens Bush's hand in the next nomination struggle. 

 

Democracy

New York Times:

Afghans turned out eagerly to vote today in their first democratic parliamentary elections in 35 years, expressing hope for a better future and for a government that will be answerable to the people, despite a number of scattered attacks around the country.

...

"I came for my country and for a better future," said Alem, 25, a fruit seller, one of scores of men and women lined up under flags and colored bunting in the main mosque of Kabul's old city, in a district known as Chindawol. Like many Afghans he uses only one name. "We will have a good future with a Parliament. They should serve us well and bring some prosperity and security," he said.

Afghans have now voted for the lower house of the National Assembly and for provincial councils.   This progress was accomplished only because of our actions in that country.  The Afghan elections, plus the Iraqi elections and the Iraqi draft Constitution are all a result of our intervention.  How can you not have pride for what is transpiring in the Middle East?

The State Department's South Asian Affairs desk provides this guide for the elections.

The Bush Bathroom Break Note

Was it faked?

HT to LGF.

Dred Roberts The Pirate II

In spite of the intentional lack of content in Judge Roberts's confirmation hearings, he did provide a clear answer to the most fundamental question about his judicial philosophy.  Liberals want a justice who cares.  Conservatives want a justice who is capable of judgment.  Consider this exchange (from the Washington Post) between Senator Durbin and Judge Roberts on the last day of the interview:

DURBIN: Beyond loyalty to the process of law, how do you view this law when it comes to expanding our personal freedom? Is it important enough for you to say in some instances, "I will not use my skills as a lawyer because I don't believe that that is a cause that is consistent with my values and belief"?  That's what I've been asking.

ROBERTS: I had someone ask me in this process -- I don't remember who it was, but somebody asked me, you know, "Are you going to be on the side of the little guy?"

And you obviously want to give an immediate answer, but, as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy's going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guy's going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution. That's the oath.

The oath that a judge takes is not that, "I'll look out for particular interests, I'll be on the side of particular interests." The oath is to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States. And that's what I would do.  [my italics]

That's good enough for me.

 

Dred Roberts The Pirate

E. J. Dionne is at it again.  Having bad mouthed American democracy because it might result in a conservative Supreme Court, he now decides that the Senate and the American people have a right to know the future. 

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said that some of Roberts's potential opponents seemed to be saying that "the only way you can have a good heart is adopt my value system." That, Graham insisted, does "a great disservice to the judiciary."

But the doubts about Roberts have nothing to do with his good heart. The issue is the power about to be put in his hands and into the hands of President Bush's next appointee -- power both will enjoy for life. The Senate and the public have a right to far more assurance about how Roberts would use that power than they have been given in these hearings. The Senate is under no obligation to give the president or Roberts the benefit of the doubt.

This is absurd, because no one can know in advance how any person will use the judicial power once he/she is on the court.  If that were not true, Justice Souter would not be there now.  Nor, I think, would Anthony Kennedy.  Justices Harry Blackmun and William Brennan would never have been one out of nine if the Presidents who nominated them had had a clear idea of what kind of justices they would be.  There are a considerable number of cases of judges being surprisingly liberal once they were confirmed.  I can't think off hand of a judge who was more conservative than predicted in advance.  Does Dionne really lament this?  Of course not.  It isn't the process he really cares about, but the outcome.  And the only acceptable outcome is a liberal court.

The problem with that position is that if the Senators took it it would be impossible to confirm a judge  unless the President's party held a  filibuster proof majority.  That's why we came so close to seeing the filibuster abolished for judicial nominations.  The only practical way for the process to work is if, within reasonable limits, Presidents of either party get the nominees they choose.  A judge who turns out to believe that the Voting Rights Act should be struck down, or that every American has a constitutional right to a guaranteed income ought not to be confirmed.  A judge who believes the Roe v. Wade ought to be sustained or that it ought to be overturned should be confirmed.  If the Senate could be honest and reasonable about this, folks would have a much clearer idea of what they get when they vote for President and for the Senate.

But of course they can't be honest, even if they turn out to be more reasonable than they appear.  No liberal Democrat could afford not to strenuously oppose a nominee who admit ed he would overturn Roe.  Nor could most Republicans fail to filibuster a nominee who believed in a constitutional right to abortion.  As a result, nominees now routinely refuse to answer most of the interesting questions they are asked.  Many Democrats will do the reasonable thing, and vote for Roberts, only so long as they can pretend they didn't know what he would do. 

But Roberts is surely no great mystery.  He is a life long conservative Republican, as was Clarence Thomas.  See my next post for more.

SD Updates

Another smear of John Thune; be sure to note the comments section.

Sibby:  Jeremy Funked up again

And, what will Tim Johnson cast on the up-coming John Roberts vote?

Ellsworth

Gannett/USA Today, owner of the Argus Leader and a Daschle supporter, is cheering for the demise of Ellsworth:

By the end of next week, President Bush has to decide what to do with a list of military base closings and realignments he received Thursday from a special commission. The president has two choices: approve the list, or kick it back to the commission for further review.

Because the panel gave the Pentagon most of what it sought, and because Bush is occupied with Hurricane Katrina and other issues, he's not expected to pick a fight.

But this is a fight worth picking.

This is the final round of a 17-year process aimed at trimming forces that were needed to fight the Cold War. A succession of commissions were created to overcome political opposition. Yet this commission still spared costly Air Force and Navy bases that the Pentagon doesn't want.

As absurd as this is, it's not as absurd as the reaction of several governors, who are suing to reverse the panel's modest changes to National Guard bases. Connecticut's governor, for instance, says A-10 planes need to be based there for homeland security. A-10s are used for strafing ground forces. Perhaps Gov. M. Jodi Rell fears invasion from Canada.

Rejecting the commission's report would signal the governors that the Pentagon needs to focus on the terror threat from abroad, not domestic jobs at Guard bases. And a rejection would force the commission to reconsider other questionable decisions born of the same misplaced motivations:

...

Just as ill-advised was the decision to keep open South Dakota's Ellsworth Air Force Base. Many suspect politics played a role there because killing Ellsworth could have been fatal to the career of freshman Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., who won his seat by promising to keep the base open. There's no proof, argued the commission, that consolidating the entire B-1 fleet at a single base in Texas would save money.

Disturbing Details

Michelle Malkin:  Who is Mahmoud Mawwad?

Racism in New Orleans?

Don't miss this from Heather MacDonald:

The racial victocrats and left-wing agitators won’t change their behavior after the Katrina charity outpouring, but opponents of “benign” racial discrimination will have new weapons against it. When the New York Times and other mouthpieces of the elite media blame racism for segregated housing patterns, one might ask why so many allegedly bigoted Americans volunteered to take welfare mothers and their children into their homes. When the allegedly evil Wal-Mart is accused of exploiting the working class, one might ask why it opened up its warehouses and unleashed its manpower as no other corporation has done to help the homeless. When the lack of black proportional representation in technical professions is chalked up to a cartel of discriminating employers, one might query where all those black-rejecting bigots were hiding, as businesses across the country showered job offers on the black poor. And as the Bush-hating Democrats and other political opportunists call for new government welfare programs to assist the victims of American color hatred, just savor their shameless hypocrisy in simultaneously bashing the government for its racism and calling on its sovereign power to force “racial justice” on the public.

HT to Michelle Malkin.

Constitution Day

RedState put it best:

Today is Constitution Day, when we celebrate the 218th anniversary of that wonderful and near-perfect document. The law that created Constitution Day requires all schools that receive federal funds -- and all agencies in the Executive Branch -- to teach about the Constitution on this day. Hmmmm.... Maybe they ought to expand this to the other two branches as well. In any event, this is so timely, falling as it does during the John Roberts hearings. Here is a man sworn to uphold the Constitution as is and not to wander off into legally adventurous territory. This day we also salute the Founding Fathers. Their intellect and enormous foresight is visible every day. This great document has been tested so many times and has proven its durability in ways they could never have imagined. We honor them this day and the wonderful document they produced. Here's a scan of the original Constitution (thank God Nicholas Cage rescued it!) from the Archives, and here's a link to the text. Take a while today to read it all again, let the freedom soak in.

A tale of two nominations.

Yahoo News reports this on the upcoming Roberts nomination vote:

Since Democrats don't plan to filibuster, they must decide if it's worth casting a symbolic vote against the 50-year-old Roberts, knowing they can't stop his confirmation and that Bush will soon choose another conservative to replace O'Connor, a swing vote on the court.

Reid has asked his Democratic caucus members not to make a decision before a closed-door meeting Tuesday. But Sen. Kent Conrad (news, bio, voting record), D-N.D., thinks about half of them ultimately will vote to confirm Roberts.

There are 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats, and independent Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont in the Senate, and Conrad told reporters, "I think he can get from 75 to 80 votes."

I think the Democratic strategy all along was to give Roberts a pass in the friendliest way possible.  All the digs about him not answering questions is largely an unsuccessful attempt to please their activist base.  Then when the next nomination comes up they can say: "see how reasonable we were when you sent us up a good nominee?  But this new nominee is a different kettle of fish, and so we are entitled to become obstructionists."  They can say this even if the next nominee has virtually identical stats.  There is always something that can be characterized as ominous.  Besides, they can appeal to the balanced court idea.  The death of Rehnquist made that a lot easier. 

But one can see here that the rise of internet politics poses a problem for traditional party politics.

[Eighty votes for Roberts] would surprise conservatives, who say Democrats are too partisan on judicial picks to consider voting for Roberts. It would also disappoint liberals, who are hoping the Roberts vote can influence Bush's next pick.

The blogosphere makes the popular base of  both parties  visible in a way that it never was before, and there is no easy way for the Congressional parties to get their cyber-rank and file to get with the program. 

Useful Counterpoint

Lou Dolinar on what went right in Katrina relief. 

Ok, Now I'm worried

The Minneapolis Star Tribune has endorsed the confirmation of John Roberts to replace William Rehnquist.

This week's Senate Judiciary Committee hearings have been fascinating on several fronts, not the least for their jab-and-parry-exchanges between senators and Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. Whether you liken the proceedings to a fencing match or a "subtle minuet," as did Chairman Arlen Specter, they ultimately -- if messily, and sometimes testily -- accomplished their purpose. They showed that Roberts is both qualified and fit to serve as chief justice of the United States. Barring any last-minute bombshells, the Senate should confirm his nomination.

The Strib is one of the most liberally biased of major metropolitan newspapers, and that's saying a lot.  So I am not sure if this is just a strategic capitulation, or if they know something I don't.   Otherwise you'd have to think they were being reasonable, and that can't be right.

What?!

LGF:

Mother Sheehan jumps the shark, at (where else?) MichaelMoore.com. (Hat tip: protein wisdom.)

I don’t care if a human being is black, brown, white, yellow or pink. I don’t care if a human being is Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, or pagan. I don’t care what flag a person salutes: if a human being is hungry, then it is up to another human being to feed him/her. George Bush needs to stop talking, admit the mistakes of his all around failed administration, pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans and Iraq, and excuse his self from power. The only way America will become more secure is if we have a new administration that cares about Americans even if they don’t fall into the top two percent of the wealthiest.

UPDATE:  Power Line has caught the story and adds a lot more to it.

A legal question about vampires and zombies

-----Original Message-----
From: Schaff, Jon
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 9:54 PM
To: Blanchard, Kenneth.
Subject: A Very Important Question

This came up in Presidency class.  If you become a vampire or a zombie, do you have to pay the inheritance tax?  It is sometimes called the death tax.  What about the undead?  Do they pay the death tax?

Dr. Blanchard Replies:

The answer is different in either case.  A zombie is a soulless, reanimated corpse.  It is no more alive than a dead body with puppet wires attached to it, so if you are a Zombie then you are authentically dead.  It is not quite accurate, however, to say that you have to pay the tax, since “you” are out of the picture.  Your estate does.

If you become a vampire, however, your spiritual status is ambiguous. Some say you die, go away, and a demon takes residence.  In that case, you have died and the spawn of Hell in residence will be liable for the estate tax.  Others say you gain immortality at the cost of your tan. In that case you could argue that, not having really died, your death cannot be taxed.  It would be best to avoid having a death certificate filled out, as the IRS would certainly find that useful in building a case in tax court. 

That is my considered answer.  But please remember than I am not an attorney.

Ken

Pheasant Season's Shaping Up

North Platte Telegraph:

However, the best spot to hunt pheasant in 2005 will be in South Dakota. I thought my hunting trips to South Dakota were great last year, but 2006 looks phenomenal!
The South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks reports that annual brood surveys were higher in 2005 than any time in the last 40 years.

Almost every area within the state of South Dakota posted at least 10-year highs with a total increase of 21 percent more birds than in 2004. South Dakota's CRP, combined with mild winters and good spring weather produced some huge pheasant numbers, about eight million birds are estimated to be in the state. Hunters may take up to two million during the 2005 season, which runs from Oct. 16 to Jan. 2.

South Dakota will be the Pheasant Hunting Capitol for 2005. If you have never hunted in South Dakota, this is the year to try it. If you are an upland game hunter, you owe it to yourself to make a trip to South Dakota. You will not regret it! I know I'll be going back to South Dakota for the pheasant season . . . several times!

What's The Diff?

Powerline and then Volokh correctly ascertain that what the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee want is a justice who will exert his will and promote (a left-wing) version of justice.  What Judge Roberts want is a judiciary that applies the law neutrally, regardless of whether he or anyone else agrees with the policy outcome.  That's his version of justice. 

These are competing concepts of justice and the role of the Court.  Let's agree that there is abstract justice, such as articulated in the Declaration of Independence, and then there is positive justice, as articulated in the Constitution and usually referred to as "the rule of law."  So what will it mean for justice when Judge Roberts becomes "Justice" Roberts?  I think what Roberts has been saying all week is that the courts are a bad venue to pursue abstract justice.  Because abstract justice is a matter of speculation, the discernment of it's meaning is less concrete and is left open for divergent interpretations.  It's enforcement, one could say, is an act of will.  But the judge's art is the art of judgment, not will.  He decides based on what has already been decided. His job is to apply what others have already said about securing abstract justice, not apply his own view of abstract justice.  While the Constitution aims as securing the abstract justice of the Declaration, that task is left directly to the elective branches while the judicial branch is meant to apply positive law or, one could say, positive justice.  And regularity of law, i.e., its lack of capriciousness, is certainly helpful to securing abstract justice.  So this is not to say that positive justice should be confused with ultimate justice, but the judge is not given the tools to answer abstract questions. 

Dahlia Lithwick Metaphor Watch

Nothing is quite so diverting as to watch people like Dahlia Lithwick at Slate vent their displeasure with Senate Democrats. But look at the metaphors she comes up with. 

John Roberts is putting on a clinic.  He completely understands that he needs only to sit very quietly, head cocked to signal listening-ness, while senator after senator offers long discursive rambling speeches. Only when he's perfectly certain that a question has been asked does he offer a reply; usually cogent and spare. Here's a man long accustomed to answering really hard questions from extremely smart people, suddenly faced with the almost-harder task of answering obvious questions from less-smart people. He finds himself standing in a batting cage with the pitching machine set way too slow.

Ok, so its a mixed metaphor.  Its mostly Roberts as head shrinker listening to a beltway encounter group (what is the Senate Judiciary Committee?).  But it switches to good baseball metaphor at the end. But she's not through.

Whereas Biden and Patrick Leahy made at least some effort to develop lines of questioning, Herb Kohl and Dianne Feinstein give up entirely. Knowing there will be no Perry Mason moment—there won't even be a Lionel Hutz moment—they dully read their questions from a script and avoid the follow-up altogether. "Oh, so you aren't opposed to environmental protection? OK. Let's move on." The hunters have become the hunted. The lion is draped across a chaise longue, picking his teeth with their arguments.

Ok, thats a courtroom metaphor with a cartoon lion sated predator metaphor following closely on its heels.  And it closes with this:

It is an immutable rule of nature that every sadist needs a masochist, every leader needs a follower, and every addict needs an enabler. So, too, every egomaniac needs someone humble, and that's why, in the end, these hearings are so perfectly matched. Roberts wants to say little and literally fade to black. The senators want to give speeches and seize the limelight. It's a match made in heaven. It's just the watching it that's hell.

That's three distinct images in the first sentence, followed by a couple of showbiz allusions and capped with a little very light religious imagery.  Wow.

 

God and the U.S. Coast Guard

The question whether or in what form New Orleans will reemerge from the deluge probably depends mostly on which and how many of its former residents decide to return.  The Big Easy was easily one of the most dysfunctional cities in America, and that largely determined the debacle that followed the flood.  Modern welfare policy created a poverty sink to accompany the geographic sink that more than a century of river management had made possible.  Getting a lot of folks out of there and giving them a chance in new locales will surely help some.  On that note, Richard Morin and Lisa Rein of the Washington Post have this news:

Fewer than half of all New Orleans evacuees living in emergency shelters here say they will move back home while two-thirds of those who want to relocate plan to settle permanently in the Houston area, according to a survey by The Washington Post, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and the Harvard School of Public Health.

The wide-ranging poll found these survivors of Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath remain physically and emotionally battered but unbroken. They praise God and the U.S. Coast Guard for saving them, but two weeks after the storm nearly half still sought word about missing loved ones or close friends who may not have been as lucky.

Americans Love Their Conspiracies

Nation of Islam minister Louis Farrakhan on Katrina: 

"I heard from a very reliable source who saw a 25 foot deep crater under the levee breach. It may have been blown up to destroy the black part of town and keep the white part dry"

Indeed.

How We Remember

You can't miss James Lileks' article "The Sorry State of Modern Civic Memorials."  Excerpt:

How best to memorialize the victims of Katrina? Some would love a statue of President Bush in a dunce cap, strumming a guitar, with a quote on the plinth from Howard Dean: "He doesn't care about people." But an actual statue is out of the question, since we don't do literal-minded monuments much anymore.

You could have the modern memorial, abstract and sorrowful -- 800 small buses arranged in a pool, with the words "Never Again" in stone. The original design called for "It Will Never Happen Again" to be carved, but the stones bearing "It" and "Will" were stolen and "Happen" got cut because the memorial committee set aside funds for 498 no-show patronage jobs.

Or you could wait for New Orleans to return on its own, and let the sound of Bourbon street -- sweet jazz, boozy laughter, rubes chundering in the alley -- stand as the true memorial to Big Easy's spirit. Given the state of modern civic memorials, that might be best.
...
Now our memorials are muted things whose passive beauty often seems at odds with the events they describe. Such a problem arises from the ill-named Crescent of Embrace, a memorial designed to commemorate the heroes of Flight 93.

In this crescent -- a red one, in the mockups -- many see the symbol of Islam, which was not exactly represented by its best ambassadors on Sept. 11, 2001. Even the design committee noted the Islamic implications of the word "crescent," but went with it anyway -- perhaps to show that they were Citizens of the World, ecumenical in their sorrow, and surely not Islamophobic. (Islam is peachy! Unless it's in the Iraqi constitution.)

From Memory to History

BeldarBlog:  As 9/11 Becomes History Instead of Memory.  Read the whole exposition.  Here's an excerpt:

What I know of Pearl Harbor Day and of World War II is mostly from books. 12/7/41 is all history, no memory, for me and my entire generation, and every generation that has or will come after mine.

But I do know quite a bit of history. I studied it in school (effectively minoring in it as an undergrad), and I've read all sorts of history books regularly, almost compulsively, during my whole life. And ya know what? 12/7/41 does make me mad! Not nearly as mad as I still am about 9/11, which I remember. But mad. And I guess that since I don't have any of the personal memories to go with 12/7/41, I don't particularly get mad at the Japanese. No, what makes me mad is contemporary people who don't know, don't care about, distort, and/or ignore history like 12/7/41.

And those are the same people who — as their personal memories of 9/11/01 fade, or become overlaid with others or tangled up with their domestic politics or whatever — will end up treating 9/11 as a day to grill hot dogs. I do regret — not despair over, but regret — that the Coalition of the Now-Merely-Miffed is almost certainly a growing one, whereas my own Coalition of the Weeping Shouting Fist-Shaking Dog-Confusers is probably shrinking. But thems the facts, as they stand now. Time only moves one direction, so the direct memories of 9/11/01 are indeed inevitably going to become less of a factor for America and Americans.

Bread and Circuses

Ann Althouse has a funny and informative review of yesterday's Roberts hearings.  Hat tip to Instapundit.  Like him, I think this line is the funniest and pretty much sums up the left's jurisprudence: "Or is one of Congress's enumerated powers the power to show it cares?"  To the left "something we think is really good" is equivalent to "protected by the Constitution."

Update: Here's another largely unsympathetic take on the Roberts hearings from Matthew Continetti of the Weekly Standard.

What Does Feinstein Believe?

In her questioning of John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Diane Feinstein used the phrase "the hard-earned autonomy of women" and approvingly cited Planned Parenthood vs. Casey in saying woman should have the "ability to control their reproductive lives."  Let us take this language to certain logical conclusions and ask some questions.
1. Is there a constitutional right to prostitution?  Or, put another way, are all laws outlawing prostitution unconstitutional?  If a woman has "autonomy" and can use her body and her reproductive system as she sees fit, why is it wrong for her to exchange her sexuality for money in a mutually beneficial exchange of goods?  If women (and men) can have sex for money in supposedly constitutionally protected pornographic films, why can't they do it when the cameras aren't rolling?  And yes, I am aware that there are male prostitutes. 
2.  Is there a constitutional right to adult consensual incest?  If we are autonomous and control our reproduction, what is wrong with sex between close relatives?  Some might argue that the chance of birth defect is higher in incestuous relations.  But I thought we had reproductive freedom?  If we control our own reproduction, who is the state to say we cannot have consensual relations with close family members and happily raise any children who result from those relations?
3. Feinstein no doubt, like most with a pro-choice position, is against parental notification or consent laws when it comes to abortion.  If girls are mature enough to consent to end a pregnancy without consulting their parents, why aren't they mature enough to consent to the act that leads to pregnancy?  And if they have the right to autonomy and reproductive freedom the same as adult women, why can't they use their autonomy to sell their sexuality for profit?  If young girls are mature enough to consent to ending a pregnancy, aren't they mature enough to consent to becoming prostitutes or starring in pornographic films?  And after all, aren't some young people very mature?  For example, we hold that some are mature enough to be tried as adults when they commit a crime.  Perhaps we can allow young girls the ability to go before a judge and if the judge thinks circumstances warrant she could be allowed to become a prostitute or star in pornographic films without their parents knowledge or approval. 

This is where you end up when you turn one good thing, autonomy, into a categorical good to exclusion of all other goods and reject the idea that there is an iota of public concern with matters of pregnancy or human sexuality.  "Autonomy" and "consent" are two important values, but they are insufficient grounds for a decent ethic of sexuality and our public law regarding that subject. 

Umpires and Judges.

This by Jack Shafer writing in Slate:

In today's hearings, Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., and Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., rejected the strikes and balls analogy as specious. But I think Roberts' analogy holds up remarkably well, so well that he could extend it further: Both groups of lawgivers come to work in dark costumes; both hold insufferably high opinions of themselves; both inure themselves to a crowd's catcalls; both worship tradition and their own authority; and perhaps most important, both regard themselves as absolute dictators within their domains.

Shafer goes on to make the "it ain't nothing till I call it" argument, especially concerning the strike zone. 

According to [Ken Kaiser, who umpired in the American League from 1978 to 1999] no two umps see the same strike zone. They view the plate from different angles, react differently to pitches, and change their opinion of what a strike is from batter to batter. When umpires say they call balls and strikes the way they see them, they mean it literally. They are the strike zone.

Yeah, but maybe an ump is not the best person to ask, precisely if they are the insufferable egomaniacs that Shafer thinks they are.  What you hear most often from players (especially pitchers) is that Umpires do enforce a more or less consistent strike zone, its just not the one in the rule book.  That's what conservatives complain about.  Not that judges, like Umpires, have their biases, but that as a group they tend to bend the rulebook. 

The Historical Memory of MacArthur

Today marks the 55th anniversary of an amphibious assault by Gen. Douglas MacArthur on Korea that turned the tide during the Korean War.  In South Korea, citizens paraded past a statue of MacArthur to defend  it, in contrast to last week where demonstrations were not so peaceful.  The debate now is how to remember MacArthur:

Hundreds of people marched peacefully through Inchon on Thursday to defend a statue of U.S. General Douglas MacArthur commemorating an amphibious assault 55 years ago that helped turn the tide of the Korean War.

Last weekend, the scene in this western port city was less calm. Those for and against the statue -- and the campaign the late general led -- traded blows and tossed rocks and bottles.

The violence exposed a generational divide between South Koreans who lived through the 1950-53 conflict and younger people more critical of the United States.

The city erected the imposing bronze statue in a public park in the late 1950s to honor a man whose bold landings inserted fresh U.N. troops behind North Korean lines, repelled the invading communist army and saved the South Korean state.

The statue, mounted on a stone base, shows MacArthur holding a pair of binoculars and surveying the port. These days it is under constant police guard.

On the anniversary of the September 15, 1950 assault, about 600 South Koreans marched through Inchon, west of Seoul on the Yellow Sea, to show their support for MacArthur and their appreciation for the U.S.-led United Nations forces who defended their state.

These days, though, vocal groups want the statue pulled down, saying Macarthur [sic] has Korean blood on his hands and the statue represents South Korean subservience to Washington.

...

Some older South Koreans who lived through the war revere Macarthur [sic], who died in 1964. Some younger people see him as a symbol of thwarted efforts to reunite the peninsula, split since the war, and of an overbearing U.S. military. More than 30,000 American troops remain in South Korea today to deter any communist aggression.

...

Chang Keum-suk, director of Inchon Solidarity for Peace and Participation, one of the first groups to call for the statue to go, said MacArthur had prolonged the war by taking the battle to the Chinese border and had cost more Koreans their lives.

"We need to seriously consider and review the hero-worship surrounding the general," Chang said.

South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun, a progressive who is supported by some leftist groups, said the statue must stay.

"Such illegal attempts to remove the statue are not only negative for Korea-U.S. ties, but also go against our society's view of history," Roh said in a statement on Monday.

Thune Responds to the Pledge Decision

The Washington Times:

"This is yet another example of an irresponsible decision by a liberal activist judge unable to separate personal politics from public service," said Sen. John Thune, South Dakota Republican. "As we work to fill two vacancies in the highest court of the land, today's news only serves to underscore the importance of appointing judicial nominees who refuse to allow their personal views to shape decisions."