South Dakota Politics

A Sober Liberal Reflects on the Roberts Nomination

Having exposed the mental instability of one liberal journalist in yesterday's edition of SDPolitics, its only fair to point out that sober and reasonable souls do still trod the uncomfortable ground to our left.  Colbert I. King has the good sense to point out that it is not the Republican's shrewd strategy over the last couple months that is responsible for John Robert's strong position in the upcoming confirmation battle. 

If John Roberts is confirmed as a Supreme Court justice, as now seems likely -- barring a shocker in his record or his past -- the reasons he made it won't be solely his résumé or the support of President Bush. The groundwork for Roberts's elevation to the high court -- and the likelihood of success for future Bush Supreme Court nominees -- was laid nearly three years ago in Georgia, Minnesota and Missouri, and last November in North Carolina, Georgia, South Carolina, Louisiana and South Dakota, when Republicans captured eight Democratic Senate seats.  Today, with Republicans holding 55 seats and having a good chance of landing the votes of some Democrats, the White House enters the Supreme Court fights in excellent shape.

King's argument is that the Democrats focused too much time and energy on winning the White House, and not enough on winning South Dakota. 

The presidency, in their view, is the instrument to make the way straight and easy for all who wage war against the heathen right.  So, lo these many years, they have been spending millions of dollars and consuming time and energy treading the primary roads that they hoped would take them to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Meanwhile, far beyond the presidential trails, Republicans have been picking off Democrats on the Hill one by one, making it possible for George W. Bush to fulfill his upfront pledge to govern America from the right, where tax cuts, changing the face of the federal judiciary and making liberals perfectly miserable every waking moment remain the order of the day.

I'm not sure that King is being fair to the Democrats.  They surely did try valiantly to save the seat of one Tom Daschle, and I doubt that a lot more attention would have helped.  But since his argument fits one of my pet theories, I'll ignore the caveat.

The pathological loathing for Bush that infects such as Chait and Frank Rich indeed seems to have bent their minds around the single object of humiliating George Bush.  Rich peddles the ridiculous theory that the Robert's nomination was timed to take attention away from the Plame pseudo scandal, which again, he argues, is only a cover for the real story: how the Bush administration lied our way into the Iraq war.  But Rich can almost taste Bush's coming humiliation.

When a conspiracy is unraveling, and it's every liar and his lawyer for themselves, the story takes on a momentum of its own.

This fits Colbert King's argument pretty well.  A liberal elite that can only see a Supreme Court nomination as a smoke screen for events that happened two years ago has little energy left for anything so vulgar as the present moment. 

 

Intentional Infection

Below, Jon Schaff is pondering morality in our culture (mostly within pop culture).  As an addendum, I have this to add from KELO:

A transient woman faces serious charges for knowingly infecting four people with HIV.

Officials arrested 21-year-old Melissa A. Treadway Thursday in Box Elder. Police say Treadway had sex with at least four men, one multiple times, but never told them she was HIV positive.

She was arrested at a friend's house in Box Elder on six counts of intentional exposure to HIV, the disease that leads to AIDS. Authorities say the alleged incidents happened in Rapid City between April and July of this year at various locations.

Names and ages of the four victims aren't being released, but authorities did tell us that all four men are being tested for HIV.

Intentional exposure to HIV is a felony. Treadway faces a possible 90 years in prison if found guilty on all counts. She is still in jail on $50,000 bond.

Treadway is the third person in South Dakota to be charged with this crime. [The the others are Nikko Briteramos and William Kenneth Jenigen.]

According to the Pennington County State's Attorney's Office, Treadway is originally from West Virginia and has four children. She has only been in the Rapid City area for two years. They say she doesn't have a home here in South Dakota, but rather has been staying with various friends and acquaintances.

And Now A Post on Terror

I draw your attention to a powerful piece by Caleb Carr in today's WSJ.  His thesis is that the more we fear terrorism, the more we feed it.  The solution seems to be an aggressive fight against the evil of terrorism.  As Bernard Lewis has put it, the question is not why do they hate us, but why do they not respect us?  The answer is that we are perceived as weak.  Hit the Americans and they run.  Here is Mr. Carr:

In all of these examples, then, the "trigger" for terrorist action was not any newly adopted Western posture of force and defiance. Rather, it was a deepening of the targeted public's wish to deal with terrorism through avoidance and accommodation, a mass descent into the psychological belief, so often disproved by history, that if we only leave vicious attackers alone, they will leave us alone. It is hardly surprising that by actively trying--or merely indicating that they wished--to bury their collective heads in the sand, the societies were led not to peace but to more violent attacks. Al Qaeda and terrorist groups in general have tended to press their campaigns of violence against civilians in areas where they have sensed disunity and a lack of forceful opposition. In the manner of clinical sociopaths, they seem to "smell fear"--and to find in it, not any inspiration to show mercy or accept accommodation, but a compulsion to torment all the more vigorously those who exude it...

While we in the West, in our efforts to defeat al Qaeda's terrorist network, occasionally elect unwise or even duplicitous leaders and courses of action, there is no lack of wisdom so profound (to paraphrase the often duplicitous FDR) as that produced by fear. As it feeds historical distortion and ignorance, so does fear feed terrorism--indeed, it is terrorism's very DNA. Citizens afraid of future attacks, along with ignorant protestors and careless celebrities, do no good--do, in fact, the work of terrorists for them--when they divide the members of the most important Western alliance by displaying faintheartedness at a time when the West needs above all to maintain its unity. Just now, that unity must be defined as seeing the Iraq endeavor through to some sort of safe conclusion, if only because al Qaeda have themselves made it clear that their fate hangs on their ability to demonstrate their potency, as well as gain a new home, in Iraq.

Who Is An Activist?

Stuart Taylor has an impressive article today about the definition of judicial activism and who on the Supreme Court is really an activist.  I think he is harder on conservative judges than the evidence warrants.  Taylor selectively chooses cases, makes too much out of disagreements in conservative legal circles, and he repeats the errors of Paul Gewirtz in the NYT, which are corrected here and here.  But, on the whole, his piece gives one much to chew on intellectually. 

I do think Taylor implies a dangerous conclusion.  While not coming right out and saying it, he seems to suggest that bad precedent that has gained support of the people and remains extant for some length of time should gain the blessing of the Court.  I am less sure of this, although I have my sympathies with that position.  My beef with the Court is that they often unsettle settled matters, such as on abortion, the death penalty, the religious clauses, homosexuality, etc.  And as I've argued before, to the extent these questions become unsettled it is best for the people to figure them out, not judges.  So if there is long standing precedent that has the support of the people, it's best to leave it alone. 

Except that leads to some unfortunate conclusions.  Take Plessy v. Ferguson (please!).  By 1954 it had stood as good law for 58 years.  Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I suspect that if one took a poll in 1954 Plessy would have had, at minimum, substantial (if not majority) support.  Yet the Court overturned Plessy (albeit only in part) in Brown v. Board of Education.  Now here is what Taylor writes about Roe v. Wade:

Or take Roe v. Wade, long assailed as judicial legislation not only by conservatives but also by many moderate and even liberal scholars; this includes many who favor making abortion broadly accessible as a matter of policy. While disputing vigorously whether Roe should be overruled, these ideologically diverse critics agree that nothing in the Constitution empowered the unelected justices to impose their own abortion policies on the nation in 1973 by sweeping aside the laws of all 50 states.

Justice Harry Blackmun's widely ridiculed opinion for the 7-2 Roe majority "is bad constitutional law, or rather ... it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be," wrote the late constitutional scholar John Hart Ely, an admirer of the Warren Court, in 1974. "The Court ventured too far in the change it ordered," then-Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the leading feminist lawyer of the 20th century, wrote in 1985. "Even most liberal jurisprudes -- if you administer truth serum -- will tell you [Roe] is basically indefensible," wrote Edward Lazarus, a liberal Washington lawyer who clerked for Blackmun, in a recent Washington Post op-ed.

Taylor does not deny that Roe was incorrectly decided, yet he wants it upheld. Why? 

Roe v. Wade continues to embitter tens of millions of Americans. But in a Gallup poll this month for CNN/USA Today, respondents said "no, not overturn," by 68 percent to 29 percent when asked: "Would you like to see the Supreme Court completely overturn its Roe v. Wade decision, or not?"

Of course there are some problems here. First, Taylor admits that "millions of Americans" were and are "embittered" by Roe  (in fact, all you who hate the presence of evangelical Christians in American politics can thank Roe for inciting them to action).  And here is a highly relevant passage from UVA sociologist James Davison Hunter's Before the Shooting Begins (forgive the length of the quote).

The very day Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall retired from the bench in 1991, speculation about the fate of Roe v. Wade began to pick up…Peter Jennings of ABC News announced that evening the results of a new ABC/Washington Post survey showing that about six of every ten Americans favored keeping Roe v. Wade intact. On the surface his announcement seemed to provide compelling evidence to his audience for maintaining the legal status quo. But what Mr. Jennings did not say was that only about one out of every ten Americans has any real understanding of what Roe v. Wade actually mandated.

According to the Gallup survey, one out of four Americans thought Roe made abortions legal only during the first three months of pregnancy and regardless of a woman's reasons for wanting one.  Another one out of six believed that the decision permitted abortions only during the first three months and only when the mother's life or health was threatened.  Four percent actually believed that the decision outlawed all abortions in the United States.  Finally, almost half (43%) collectively shrugged their shoulders, openly confessing their ignorance of the outcome of this landmark case.  Another survey conducted by a  Gallup affiliate at about the same time framed the question negatively, and the results were the same: 80 percent of those polled disagreed that abortion was available through all nine months of pregnancy, and indeed, 65% disagreed strongly!

I doubt seriously that the results of such a poll would be measurably different today.  Of course the effect of Roe is to have abortion on demand for all nine months of pregnancy, as its "health" exception for proscribing late term abortions is drawn so broadly that it becomes the exception that swallows the rule. So Americans are supporting a ruling that next to none of them understand.  Why should we uphold a ruling that Taylor admits is bad law and that the public is so ill informed about?  I think that Justice Scalia was likely correct in his opinion in Casey that the real reason the abortion question is so contentious is that it has been left to inept courts, rather than the people, to settle a matter that has no relevance to the Constitution.  I agree with Justice Scalia; if some measure of sanity is to be gained in the debate over abortion, Roe must be overturned.

The Democratic Santorum

Rick Santorum is a Republican whom Democrats love to hate.  So next November should bring them joy as it seems likely that Santorum will lose his Senate seat (more on that in a moment).  The Democratic version of Santorum is either Chuck Schumer or Dick Durbin.   And like Santorum, it looks like Durbin, the Senate Minority Whip, might have a tougher go in his next re-election campaign than expected.  I don't expect Durbin to lose, but it might be that Durbin has stuck his foot in his mouth one too many times.  It should prove interesting.

I do find it intriguing, and a bit satisfying, that the Democrats have for second time used a pro-life Democrat to try to beat Santorum.  In 2000 it was former representative Ron Klink, who was a pro-gun, pro-life Democrat.  Now it is Robert Casey, Jr., the son of the former pro-life governor who gave his name to the infamous Planned Parenthood v. Casey and was denied the podium at the 1992 Democratic Convention because of his pro-life views.  So now not only do the Democrats in PA need a pro-lifer, but they also need a famous name to beat Santorum, which, as I say, I think they will do.  Santorum himself is a victim of his own imprudent mouth. 

Just yesterday Howard Dean was making overtures towards pro-lifers, but as this article points out, the party will have to drastically change its rhetoric on abortion to make this successful.  Maybe they could start by not trashing every Supreme Court nominee who threatens the "sacred right" of abortion.  Or they could give these people more of a voice.  Or maybe avoid this:

Back in 1994 while in Virginia campaigning against Oliver North in his U.S. Senate bid, then-Vice President Al Gore attacked North supporters as "the extreme right-wing, the extra chromosome right wing." Down's Syndrome is caused by an extra chromosome.

Or this from Sen. Johnson:

When Stephanie Herseth fills this seat, we are going to have a rising star in the House of Representatives. And how sweet it's going to be on June 2 when the Taliban wing of the Republican Party finds out what's happened in South Dakota.

Culture Matters

My gain is your loss.  This my first uninterrupted weekend at home in over a month.  I have spent it sleeping past 6:00am and web surfing.  That means I have alot to post.  Let's get this started with a post about the horrible murders at Rocori High School in Minnesota.  Today's STrib reports that it appears the defendant is drawing from pop culture to create false stories of hallucinations in an attempt to get himself declared insane.  A quick disclaimer: It is entirely possible the kid really did have these hallucinations and the fact that the imagery is also found in movies or TV shows is coincidence.  But, for now, it seems unlikely.  What seems likely is that this is yet another kid adversely effected by the culture in which he lives.  Another quick disclaimer: I would never argue that a piece of pop culture caused something heinous such as this school shooting, nor do I absolve parents, teachers, and, most of all, the perpetrator of the moral responsibility for their actions or inactions.  But, is it so surprising that in a culture abounding in coarseness, vulgarity, and violence that we take on the characteristics of what we see and hear?.  Surely it will be at the margins, but the margins may be enough. Political Scientist Ken Meier argues that there are perverts and nerds, people at two ends of a spectrum who are immune,for good or for ill, to all social or legal stimuli.  But most of us respond to one extent or another to our surroundings as we make moral choices.  In other words, we ask ourselves, "What will society let me get away with?"  Every parent knows that stories are one way in which we teach our children what we want them to be, and thus, in some sense, we are the sum of the stories we tell.  Entertainment folks often try to get off the hook by saying, "If you don't like it, turn it off," and no doubt there is some truth to that.  But more so it is a lame attempt to absolve themselves of any moral responsibility for what they produce.  "If people didn't like it, they wouldn't watch it."  Very true. But if the people wanted to see babies thrown in the air and caught on spears, would the entertainment industry give us that, too, if it proved profitable?  I don't think so, which betrays the falseness of the "if you don't like it" defense.  Everyone agrees that there are things which we shouldn't portray in entertainment even if people would watch it.  Now let's start arguing about what those limits are.  And let's hear less about the entertainment industry's rights, and a little more about what it means to be a good corporate citizen. 

And yes, I love Deadwood in all it's vulgarity.  I guess that makes me a hypocrite.  But I will also say that the affection I have for the Spiderman films (number one and number two) comes from the fact that they are a rip roaring good time, but also they exist in a moral universe, especially Spiderman 2.  And heck, even Plato suggests that a good judge needs to know something of the seamier side of life.

Update: Does anyone know what is going on in the Red Lake, MN case? 

Support for Roberts and GOP Senate

A poll indicates that 59% of Americans think the Senate should approve Judge Roberts.  Colbert King in today's Washington Post says that the probable approval of Roberts is also due to Republican victories in the Senate, such South Dakota in 2004:

If John Roberts is confirmed as a Supreme Court justice, as now seems likely -- barring a shocker in his record or his past -- the reasons he made it won't be solely his résumé or the support of President Bush. The groundwork for Roberts's elevation to the high court -- and the likelihood of success for future Bush Supreme Court nominees -- was laid nearly three years ago in Georgia, Minnesota and Missouri, and last November in North Carolina, Georgia, South Carolina, Louisiana and South Dakota, when Republicans captured eight Democratic Senate seats.  Today, with Republicans holding 55 seats and having a good chance of landing the votes of some Democrats, the White House enters the Supreme Court fights in excellent shape. ...

The greatest civil rights lobbyist to walk the face of the earth, the late Clarence Mitchell Jr., director of the Washington Bureau of the NAACP and a respected figure in the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, liked to tell the story about the lesson President Lyndon Johnson taught him when he was pressing for legislation. As reported in the Mitchell biography "Lion in the Lobby," by Denton L. Watson, Johnson used to say, "Clarence, you can get anything you want if you've got the votes. How many votes have you got?"

Roberts as Establishment Conservative

It is a sign of the relative strength of the conservative movement over its liberal counterpart that the former is capable of generating new arguments that are both plausible and interesting, whereas the latter are not.  I have written below of E. J. Dionne's sudden discovery that a President elected by a small majority, and a Senate that is non-majoritarian by design, have no right to fill Supreme Court vacancies.  That's a new idea to be sure, but hardly a useful contribution to the debate. 

From the conservative side a defense of the Robert's nomination has emerged that is somewhat novel, and surely worth thinking about.  This from David Brooks in the New York Times (hat tip to RealClear Politics):

Roberts nomination, how do I love thee? Let me count the ways. . . .  I love thee because John G. Roberts is the face of today's governing conservatism.  Conservatives who came of age in the 1960's did so in an intensely ideological time when it was arduous to be on the right. People from that generation are more likely to have a dissident mentality, to want to storm the ramparts of the liberal establishment, to wade in to vanquish their foes in the war of ideas.

But John Roberts didn't enter Harvard until the fall of 1973. He missed all that sturm und drang, so he lacks, his former colleagues say, the outsider/dissident mentality. By the time he came of age, it was easier for a conservative to be comfortable in mainstream institutions, without feeling embattled or spoiling for a fight.

The argument here is that it takes one kind of conservative to take power (consider Newt Gingrich) and another to effectively govern.  Roberts, Brooks thinks, is of the latter sort.  And such men are necessary if the conservative position in politics is to be sustained. 

And then there is William Kristol's piece from the Weekly Standard:

IT TAKES AN INSURRECTION TO change a country. It takes an establishment to govern one. Conservatives want both to change and to govern America. Thus we need our dissatisfied, troublemaking, occasionally splenetic, sometimes raffish anti-establishmentarians. After all, without brave resistance and bold insurrection on the part of conservatives, liberal orthodoxy and institutions would still dominate American life.

But insurrection isn't enough. At some point, the radicals need assistance, support, and reinforcement from establishment conservatives--individuals ill-suited to insurrection but well-suited to rising through the institutions and moving them gradually but meaningfully in a conservative direction. Thus, we need our sober, calm, and respectable establishmentarians. Conservatives also need to be able to put together majorities--in public opinion, in Congress, and on the courts. The conservative tent therefore has to be a big one. As a Supreme Court justice, John Roberts will be an important (and, we trust, happy) camper in that tent.

To be sure, there are risks in this argument.  Accepting it, conservatives may dilute their movement to the point that nothing has been achieved.  But probably Brooks and Kristol are right.  If John Roberts is in fact a genuine conservative, then he is probably the perfect pick for the Court.  Not only does he appear to be easily confirmable, but he is likely to be the sort who can persuade others that his decisions are reasonable and acceptable.  That is the way to achieve and sustain real change.

 

Liberal Crack-Up Watch

Those whom the Gods would destroy, they first make mad.  So the saying goes.  Those whom the Gods would merely humiliate, they first render, well, a little bit off their nut.  Michelle Malkin has a marvelous note on Jonathan Chait's recent mumbling in the LATimes.  Chait, she reminds us, made a big splash when he defended the utter loathing of President Bush that backs up like sewer water from deep inside the contemporary liberal soul.  In this latest product of bad spiritual plumbing, Chait argues that President Bush is dangerously obsessed.  By retrograde religion?  No.  By a passion for exercise.

A week ago, when President Bush met with Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III to interview him for a potential Supreme Court nomination, the conversation turned to exercise. When asked by the president of the United States how often he exercised, Wilkinson impressively responded that he runs 3 1/2 miles a day. Bush urged him to adopt more cross-training. "He warned me of impending doom," Wilkinson told the New York Times.  Am I the only person who finds this disturbing?

As the irrepressible Malkin remarks, yes, Jonathan, you pretty much are.  The evidence above was apparently misquoted.  Bush advised Wilkinson that he was courting doom for his knees, which is a questionable but surely reasonable defense of cross training.  So what else has Chait got?

Earlier this year, an airplane wandered into restricted Washington air space. Bush, we learned, was bicycling in Maryland. In 2001, a gunman fired shots at the White House. Bush was inside exercising. When planes struck the World Trade Center in 2001, Bush was reading to schoolchildren, but that morning he had gone for a long run with a reporter. Either this is a series of coincidences or Bush spends an enormous amount of time working out.

So based on these three pieces of evidence, hitherto ignored by a corrupt and unnerved press, he can assure us that "Bush has an obsession with exercise that borders on the creepy."

One of Malkin's readers shrewdly notes that, during the recent unpleasantness known as the 2004 campaign, that there was scarcely a single rich man's sport that Kerry was not photographed playing at.  But never mind that.  However justified Chait's loathing of Bush may be, it has distorted the trajectory of his reasoning to the point that, well, therapy seems in order.   

 

GIs criticize

The Washington Times Inside the Ring:

    Soldiers from Massachusetts and Hawaii who work at the U.S. military detention facility at U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, gave visiting home-state senators a piece of their mind last week.
    Sens. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, and Daniel K. Akaka, Hawaii Democrat, met with several soldiers during a visit led by Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. John W. Warner, Virginia Republican.
    Pentagon officials said soldiers criticized the harsh comments made recently by Senate Democrats.
    Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, last month invoked widespread military outrage when he compared Guantanamo to the prison labor systems used by communist tyrant Josef Stalin, Cambodia's Pol Pot and Adolf Hitler.
    "They got stiff reactions from those home-state soldiers," one official told us. "The troops down there expressed their disdain for that kind of commentary, especially comparisons to the gulag."
    A spokesman for Mr. Kennedy had no comment. A spokeswoman for Mr. Akaka confirmed that the senator met with soldiers from Hawaii but did not recall receiving any complaints during the meeting.
    Both senators made no mention of the incident in press statements after the visit. Mr. Kennedy, in his statement, said that he is "impressed with the courtesies and professionalism of the men and women in our armed forces."
    Mr. Kennedy has been a leading advocate for closing the prison facility. Mr. Akaka in April voted for an amendment that would have cut funds for the prison.

The Last of the Code Talkers

Some World War II history for the day:

July 22, 2005, NY TIMES

Charles Chibitty, 83, the Last of the Comanche Code Talkers, Is Dead
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

OKLAHOMA CITY, July 21 (AP) - Charles Chibitty, the last survivor of the Comanche code talkers who used their native language to transmit messages for the Allies in Europe during World War II, died Wednesday in Tulsa. He was 83.

His death was announced by Cathy Flynn, administrative assistant in the Comanche Nation tribal chairman's office.

The Army selected a group of Comanche Indians from the Lawton, Okla., area for special duty to provide the Allies with a language that the Germans could not decipher. Like the larger group of Navajo Indians who performed a similar service in the Pacific theater, the Comanches were called code talkers.

"It's strange, but growing up as a child I was forbidden to speak my native language at school," Mr. Chibitty said in 2002. "Later my country asked me to. My language helped win the war, and that makes me very proud. Very proud. "

He once told a gathering, "I wonder what the hell Hitler thought when he heard those strange voices."

Mr. Chibitty was born on Nov. 20, 1921, near Medicine Park, Okla., and attended high school at Haskell Indian School in Lawrence, Kan. He enlisted in 1941.

In 1999, he received the Knowlton Award, which recognizes individuals for outstanding intelligence work, during a ceremony at the Pentagon's Hall of Heroes.

"We could never do it again," Mr. Chibitty told Oklahoma Today magazine. "It's all electronic and video in war now."

Lakota was also used in the war.

Taking on Frank Kloucek

South Dakota War College's PP:

What lessons have I learned from running campaigns in South Dakota? It's like the Jim Croce song..... "You don't tug on Superman's cape. You don't run as a Republican in District 15, and you don't mess around with Frank."

If At First You Don't Succeed

Jason notes just below the request by John Kerry of documents relating to John Roberts' tenure in the executive branch.  This line of attack by the Democrats was anticipated by Todd Zywicki over at Volokh.  As Zywicki reminds us, this is that same game the Democrats played with Miguel Estrada (that and the racist argument that Estrada was a race traitor).  The Democrats demanded that Estrada turn over all memos he wrote while in the Solicitor General's office under the Clinton administration.  When he refused, the Democrats voted against him on the grounds that he was not "forthcoming."   Zywicki notes, though, that seven former Solicitor Generals of both parties, and I believe that was every Solicitor General still alive, wrote the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee arguing that it was totally improper for the Committee to request these documents as they clearly represented privileged communication.  But Kerry is dipping into that well again.  Elections matter.  The man leading this shameless attack on John Roberts was almost the President of the United States.  And Tom Daschle paid the price for these kind of tactics.  Will they never learn? 

Kerry & Roberts

John Kerry wants documents released on John Roberts:

Democratic Sen. John Kerry urged the White House on Friday to release "in their entirety" all documents and memos from Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' tenure in two Republican administrations.

"We cannot do our duty if either Judge Roberts or the Bush administration hides elements of his professional record," said the Massachusetts senator who was his party's presidential candidate last year.

Can Kerry really preach for the release of documents, I mean, how long did it take Kerry to finally release his Form 180?

Abortion and South Dakota

In a couple weeks the abortion task force appointed by the legislature will meet in Pierre.  This task force was charged with investigating the harmful effects of abortion (did we need a task force for this?) and to consider another abortion bill for the 2006 legislature.  Some might recall that in 2004 a pro-life measure failed because some thought that the Supreme Court would certainly strike it.  With the nomination and likely confirmation of John Roberts to the Supreme Court one wonders if minds won't be changed. 

Low Blows

A small cadre of people on the left are trying to spread rumors that John Roberts is gay.  How liberal minded of them. 

"Coward's Crime"

SDBWM is writing about a great line from the police chief of Hot Springs.

Dyess Lawsuit

The Rapid City Journal has more about that lawsuit which might compromise Dyess Air Base in Texas:

Meanwhile, a 5-year-old lawsuit challenging the Dyess bomber training route as disruptive was apparently not factored into the Air Force recommendations, Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., said this week. The training range is operating under court-imposed restrictions pending a supplemental environmental impact statement.

"That range complex is being managed by a federal judge, not the Air Force," McElgunn said. "It takes time. … It's not something that can be cleared up next week." He said that the lawsuit only takes into account the number of planes now at Dyess.

Good Friday

The Argus says that the Missouri River is ten feet higher this year:

What was expected to be a dry and dull summer on Lake Oahe is turning into a hot spot for anglers and boaters this year.

Surprising late spring rains and controls on the fish hatch launched conditions favorable to water sports and excellent fishing at the recreation area, and jolted the local economy.

At 1,577 feet above sea level, Lake Oahe is as much as 10 feet higher than expected at this point in the summer. The state has been able to keep 18 boat ramps open from Pierre to the North Dakota border, six to eight more than the ramp managers thought might be available back in April.

The Argus also reports that Homestake Gold Mine is a finalist for an underground laboratory.

More High School Stuff

A reader sends me an email about a post a couple days ago regarding low high school achievement.   I have no direct knowledge of how accurate this is, although I know this person and trust this person's judgment. 

I'm sure that Aberdeen Central isn't the exception by any   means.  However, I went to [another South Dakota high school] for three years and   Aberdeen Central for one year and I know how bad Central's system is.  In   AP English, my senior year at ACHS, we were instructed to read books I had   read in my freshman Honors English course in [my other high school].  The college prep   courses are an absolute joke.  My CP economics course consisted of basic   consumer economics.  In other words, we were taught how to grocery   shop.  The majority of teachers are coaches of some sort and are never   around in the mornings or after school.  The library is filled with 200   page pop culture fiction books that are at best, meant for 8th   graders.  Grade inflation is an unmonitored plague that taints every   transcript.  Students are not encouraged to take the most challenging   courses (of which there are few) but they are certainly encouraged to take   time off of school to attend all sports games.  And why not?  The   teachers are absent from class and at the games.  ACHS revolves around   sports not academia.

SD Blog Roll

A new blog has joined the SD blogosphere:  Progressive Republican, run by Brookings resident Gabe Mydland.  Great stuff there.  Welcome aboard!

Churchill/Fragging Blogging

A while ago, Michelle Malkin had an article titled "Why the FBI Watches the Left."  On her website, she expanded on it:

Ben Johnson at FrontPage Magazine is on the same wavelength.

In related news, check out this report on an animal rights zealot allegedly planning a jail breakout.

See also London Telegraph coverage of American animal rights fanatic and University of Texas in El Paso professor Steven Best, who told an international gathering of like-minded thugs: ""We will break the law and destroy property until we win."

In case you missed it, Mark Blumberg, behavioral neuroscientist at the University of Iowa., had a blood-boiling piece in the WaPo last weekend on how animal rights zealots destroyed his lab.

And for those deluded into thinking that Ward Churchill's recent fragging comments aren't being taken seriously, check this out. (Hat tip: Pirate Ballerina)

Our colleague in Vermillion is getting a lot of attention:

Would someone like to tell me how this happened? Tokala Resistance has been quite popular for a while now, but I was never expecting thousands of readers a day. I suppose it is in part due to its popularity at the Department of Defense Network Information Center (214.13.62.180, MSIE 6.0, Windows XP, 1024x768 Res). The DoDNIC takes care of all the .mil websites, and holds a big chunk of the internet in its grasp. ....

The recent popularity of this blog has a lot to do with Pirate Ballerina and Michelle Malkin mentioning the fragging post.

The Permanent Campaign

Ryne is speculating on the permanent campaign.

Also, tdaxp also has some interesting observations.

I don't know what's the most bizarre part of this letter: that Daschle's mailing address isn't in Aberdeen (that's where he said he would move if he lost!), that the Federal Elections Commission thinks he is running against Thune in 2010, or that the the FEC uses fax numbers for email addresses. ...

Update 2: On the same day, Clean Cut Kid and David Kranz of the Argus Leader pick up the story. But are [sic] Democrat-sympathizers, so it is not surprisinge that they took their time with the information. At least CCK bothers to post his work online, unlike Kranz.

Advantage Bush on the Nominee

As I have written before, there is no way to be sure what kind of jurisprudence Judge Roberts will be prudent in, but there is little question that the Republicans have played their hand very well.  Professor Schaff below notes Joe Lieberman's remarks with approval.  Here's some more recent comments.

"There was united agreement that it's too early to reach a judgment" on trying to thwart Roberts, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) said after the group's morning meeting. "But I think there was also a consensus . . . . that this is a credible nominee, and not one, as far as we know now, that has a record that in any sense can be described as extremist."

Bringing Roberts forward now is helping to cement the general impression that ideology is not sufficient grounds for a legitimate filibuster.  It was a part of this strategy, I suspect, to keep Rehnquist on the court for as long as possible.  Replacing O'Connor was always going to be the more charged event.  I predict the Republicans will get two solid conservatives at least. 

Touche

Australian PM John Howard was in London today when the latest round of bombs went off.  He was asked, I take it, whether this isn't payback for British and Australian support for the was in Iraq.  The Prime Minister responds (hat tip, NRO):

PRIME MIN. HOWARD: Could I start by saying the prime minister and I were having a discussion when we heard about it. My first reaction was to get some more information. And I really don't want to add to what the prime minister has said. It's a matter for the police and a matter for the British authorities to talk in detail about what has happened here.

Can I just say very directly, Paul, on the issue of the policies of my government and indeed the policies of the British and American governments on Iraq, that the first point of reference is that once a country allows its foreign policy to be determined by terrorism, it's given the game away, to use the vernacular. And no Australian government that I lead will ever have policies determined by terrorism or terrorist threats, and no self-respecting government of any political stripe in Australia would allow that to happen.

Can I remind you that the murder of 88 Australians in Bali took place before the operation in Iraq.

And I remind you that the 11th of September occurred before the operation in Iraq.

Can I also remind you that the very first occasion that bin Laden specifically referred to Australia was in the context of Australia's involvement in liberating the people of East Timor. Are people by implication suggesting we shouldn't have done that?

When a group claimed responsibility on the website for the attacks on the 7th of July, they talked about British policy not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan. Are people suggesting we shouldn't be in Afghanistan?

When Sergio de Mello was murdered in Iraq -- a brave man, a distinguished international diplomat, a person immensely respected for his work in the United Nations -- when al Qaeda gloated about that, they referred specifically to the role that de Mello had carried out in East Timor because he was the United Nations administrator in East Timor.

Now I don't know the mind of the terrorists. By definition, you can't put yourself in the mind of a successful suicide bomber. I can only look at objective facts, and the objective facts are as I've cited. The objective evidence is that Australia was a terrorist target long before the operation in Iraq. And indeed, all the evidence, as distinct from the suppositions, suggests to me that this is about hatred of a way of life, this is about the perverted use of principles of the great world religion that, at its root, preaches peace and cooperation. And I think we lose sight of the challenge we have if we allow ourselves to see these attacks in the context of particular circumstances rather than the abuse through a perverted ideology of people and their murder.

What Would Michael Kelly Say?

Anyone who has followed the Rove/Plame affair closely at all owes it to themselves to read this piece by Todd Bevan over at Real Clear about what the late, great Michael Kelly might think of all of this.  One reason to read the piece is that it quotes Michael Kelly liberally.  Boy, do we miss him. 

Dyess

Another reason to be questioning Dyess Air Force Base:

The body of a Dyess AFB officer was stabbed 41 times and weighted with more than 140 pounds of car parts and other items before being dumped in a West Texas stock tank, according to an autopsy report.

The report released Friday also confirmed that Staff Sgt. Michael Leslie Severance died of an overdose of drugs commonly found in veterinary clinics.

LA Times

The LA Times picks up the story:

Daschle: No Plans for Rematch With Thune

WASHINGTON [AP] -- There wasn't much fanfare, but former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle said this week he's not planning a rematch against Republican Sen. John Thune in 2010.

Daschle had to make that clear to the Federal Election Commission, which sent a letter last month asking Daschle to clarify his status. Since Daschle's candidate fundraising committee had spent more than $5,000, he officially qualified as a candidate.

Daschle's Political Future

Denise Ross of the Rapid City Journal is intersted in the latest discussion of former Senator Tom Daschle's future and is calling for comments on the Journal blog:

FEC to Daschle: What up, dawg?

By Denise Ross

Woster’s story in today’s RCJ, is delicous sustenance for this political junkie. Perhaps too much; now I want more.

The theories out there about Daschle’s plans are abundant.

Theories? Wild speculation? I want it all.

In a story this week, Journal reporter Kevin Woster also talked about Daschle's future and a "2010 rematch of last year's bitter Senate campaign. Others speculate that Daschle could be interested in other races, including the 2008 Senate race if incumbent Sen. Tim Johnson doesn't run, or even a bid for president or vice president."  Joel Rosenthal is also talking about Daschle running in 2008 on his blog:

Tom Daschle loved being a Senator and would love to be one again. Notice that he has not said that he never plans to run again his spokesman reportedly said "At this point in time, Senator Daschle does not intend to become a federal candidate for the 2010 election cycle." (Yes, I know that is the FEC reporting period in question, but it can be taken another way).

If Senator Daschle again becomes a candidate it will be for the Democrat US Senate nomination in 2008!

The good Senator in effect will force out Tim Johnson causing Johnson to retire or perhaps announce he is considering running for South Dakota Governor in 2010. (I say this because it is obvious to me that South Dakota Dems still like Daschle better than Johnson and Daschle still has closer ties to activist Dems and the party apparatus and would slaughter Tim in a less than 50 percent turnout Democrat primary. This of course would set all kinds of further scenarios in action. Johnson who has been the luckiest politician in South Dakota history would see his luck finally run out.

A few other observations about this prospective scenario (a 2008 announcement): (1) Would Daschle have to move back to South Dakota to run in either 2008 or 2010? (2) Tim Johnson would not be able to win the Governorship in 2010 because South Dakotans are very skeptical of Democratic administration. Bringing home the bacon is one thing actually administering is quite another. (3) Johnson would also be 62 years old, a little older than what South Dakotans like in a Governor. (4) It is the vision thing – Tim Johnson has never had any vision. When South Dakotans elect a Governor they don’t want more spending and the election is usually not about veteran’s benefits. Federal spending and veteran’s affairs is about all our senior Senator ever talks about.

If Daschle runs again he has a head-start given the permanent campaign run by his staffers.

Ward Churchill

History News Network:

Ward Churchill Defends Himself: In an interview published by Counterpunch, a leftwing website, Ward Churchill defends his record, denies he was a plagiarist, and claims that the liberal-left collaborated with right-wingers like O'Reilly to try to destroy him. He says that Michael Bellesiles was "destroyed on the basis of what amount at most to trivial mistakes."

Apparently everybody is out to get Churchill.  Plus, he chooses a horrible analogy.  Michael Bellesiles was caught plagiarizing in Arming America:  The Origins of a National Gun Culture, a book that began as an article in the Journal of American History and won the "Best Article of the Year" by the Organization of American Historians.  He was even awarded the Bancroft Prize in 2001, the most prestigious prize you can get for American history literature.  Yet, after the scandal broke out, he was forced to resign from Emory University and his awards were revoked.

Michelle Malkin was mentioned by Churchill in the interview, and she speaks out about it.

And why isn't the SD MSM covering Ward Churchill, given his connection to South Dakota?

Remedial Classes Response

A reader responds.  I don't claim support for everything in this email:

Your post regarding the need for remedial math/English was right on and is a problem I have been aware of for several years. I’m not sure where the Aberdeen paper got their figures, but these used to be posted on the statewide education website as part of the yearly profile of each school district. Then they stopped putting these figures in their report, possibly because they weren’t all that positive.

One of the problems I see is that some of the math/science teachers are really not very good. Most are basically nice people, but are coaches first and foremost, and are tenured, and for the last two reasons nothing is ever done. The kids suffer the consequences when they get to college by having then to take the remedial classes because the teachers didn’t or couldn’t teach the subject well in high school.

Another point is though the classes have been dumbed down so to speak in critical areas, a greater percentage of students are now on the honor rolls. Most of the students in each grade are now on the combined honor rolls. This would be great if it were a true reflection of learning, but I don’t think it is. The honor roll has been dumbed down too in the quest to not hurt anyone’s feelings or make them feel bad for not making the honor roll.

I have to admit that not all the blame can be placed on teachers or low expectations, however.  My own kids admitted this.  Sometimes the kids as high school students just don't see the purpose in math or science and just do not study as hard as they should to master these classes. If they do okay, that's all they want, not realizing it will be harder later without a good foundation learned in high school. 

Hopefully greater emphasis on math/science will help improve these problems.  It won’t though unless the problem of tenured poor teachers is also addressed. 

Internet and the Democrats

Ron Brownstein has an interesting cover story in the latest National Journal on the use of the Internet by the Democratic party (sorry, subscription only or cool university paid for unlimited journal access).   Brownstein first shows convincingly that the Democratic Party has put the Internet to far more use than Republicans.  This is shown by the amount of money raised via the Internet in the 2004 election cycle.  It was the only way Kerry kept pace with Bush.  The use of the Internet shows a strength, but also a weakness.  Democrats cannot depend as much on traditional sources of money as can the GOP.  Also, those who donate and are active online tend to be on the left of the Democratic Party (I think the South Dakota Democratic blogosphere tends to bear this out).  Brownstein reports:

These projections are encouraging Democrats about their ability to compete financially and organizationally with the GOP. But one of the most profound truths in politics is that no money, or any other form of support, is free; it all arrives with some kind of price tag. Few Democrats have thought seriously about what that price tag may be for the lifeline the Internet base is now offering them. The Internet activists believe they are liberating the Democrats from the demands of "special interests" by creating an alternative source of grassroots money. But the Internet support, financial and otherwise, comes with its own strong demands, as recent visits to two of the movement's leading figures demonstrated.

There is no such thing as a free lunch.  You get activism and money out of the online world, but you also get a louder voice for the far left of the Party.  Note this bit referring to Marcos Moulitsas Zuniga, aka Daily Kos:

[Kos] sweepingly dismissed the Democratic Leadership Council, Joe Lieberman, and The New Republic magazine as "tools of the GOP." In 2004, Kerry's campaign cut its link to Moulitsas's Web site after he wrote that he felt "nothing" when four American contractors were killed in Falluja, because "they are there to wage war for profit."

And also:

After years of uncertainty, he had discovered his niche. Kos quickly found an audience by expressing the unmediated anger of the Democratic base toward Bush, and even more so toward Democrats who cooperated with him, especially over the war in Iraq.

Kos's "niche" is fueling anger and resentment towards all who do not share his extremist views.  Or take this about Eli Paiser, who is now head of MoveOn.org PAC.  Praiser seems to have gotten his start opposing not the war in Iraq, but the one in Afghanistan. And then:

But they define the Democrats' left flank on foreign policy. MoveOn as an institution, and especially Pariser as an individual, not only opposed the war in Iraq, but resisted military action in Afghanistan.

It was just this extreme dovish mindset Peter Bienhart argued against in his now famous New Republic piece defending an aggressive foreign policy for the Democratic Party.  While Kos and Paiser disagree on the war in Afghanistan, they do have one thing in common:

In the long run, both want Democrats to move away from the Clinton model of courting swing voters through "Third Way" moderation and turn instead toward a Bush approach that tries to build a majority mostly by inspiring a large turnout from its base with an unapologetically polarizing agenda.

I would dispute the idea that Bush has an "unapologetically polarizing agenda."  In fact, the whole idea of "compassionate conservative" is an attempt to bring moderation to the Republican Party, especially when it comes to the knee-jerk anti-government wing of his party.  I think describing Bush as a conservative ideological polarizer says more about those who use that wordage than it does about George W. Bush (and no, I am not disputing that Bush is a conservative, I am suggesting it is not he who is polarizing, but his mad and desperate opposition).  But to the point at hand, I think it is interesting that the very part of the Democratic Party that is gaining power is rejecting the only part of the Party that has won an election in the last 40 years (remember Carter ran as a moderate Southerner).  Here is where an analogy Brownstein makes to the conservative movement fails.  Brownstein says the online Democrats are like the conservative Republicans who used direct mail and talk radio to push their message in the 80s and 90s.  The difference is this: those conservatives used those means because they recognized that the elite culture of media and academia were against them.  Thus they needed alternative ways of getting their message out.  The left still dominates academia and the national media, so the "alternative media" left of today is less mainstream than the "alterntive media" conservatives of the 80s and 90s.  The alt media left is defining itself against mainstream politics, even in its own Party, while the conservatives were defining themselves against a MSM they perceived (correctly, I think) to be little more than a wing of the opposing Party.  You might say they were promoting garden variety conservativism, while the online left is with the fruits and nuts of the produce section.  The fact that Kos and others like him feel shut out of a largely left-wing media world only shows how far out they are.  If the Democrats hope to win elections they would do well to listen to people like Joe Lieberman, the New Republic, and the Democratic Leadership Council, not the extremists in the online world. 

High School Achievement (Or Lack Thereof)

It seems 44% of all graduates of Aberdeen Central High School require remedial math when they go on to college, and the same is true for just below 20% regarding remedial English.  The school district seems to take this as bad news. I take this as a scandal.  Why should universities spend their scarce resources teaching subject matter to students that the students should have learned in high school?  How can one graduate from high school and not be capable of basic college math and English?  What, then, does the high school diploma mean?  I'd be interested in hearing opinions from around the state regarding how our schools prepare young people for college.  Is Aberdeen Central the exception or the rule?  It looks like there is one math teacher at Aberdeen Central who gets it, though:

Why expectations dropped: For approximately the last two decades of the 20th century, the tendency in education was to look at each student's individual needs and learning styles, which McQuillen said often resulted in a dumbing-down of the curriculum. "Expectations of our students went down considerably," she said.

For example, educators may have noticed children who weren't very good at math and created a low-expectation math course for them under the banner of "meeting their individual needs," McQuillen said.

That kind of system results in all kinds of low-motivated kids taking the easy math courses, even though they are capable of higher level math, she said.

James Doohan, RIP

Now Scotty really is up there.  Beam me up, Mr. Scott.  (BTW, read the article.  It turns out James Doohan was a WWII vet who stormed the beach at Normandy). 

Local Reaction to Roberts

Here's what our two Senators are saying.  Nothing remarkable here.

Thune described Roberts as a moderate conservative who is highly qualified and would do great service on the Supreme Court.

"That's kind of what we were all hoping for, that the President would make a good solid qualified pick, and a conservative," Thune said by telephone Tuesday night...

Johnson, D-S.D., said senators will want to know about Roberts' views on judicial precedents and the role of the court, and they'll also look over his past court decisions.

"He doesn't have a long judicial record," Johnson said by telephone Tuesday night. "He obviously has a very distinguished career as a lawyer. So we will be looking at what we can find.

"I think members of both parties will be a little curious about where he may come down."

Bush, in introducing Roberts on national television Tuesday night, said the White House had talked to some 70 senators before choosing a nominee.

Both Thune and Johnson said they were consulted on the decision.

National Journal, Washington Post/AP, KELO-Land, KSFY Weigh in on Daschle's 2010 Campaign

As we noted Tuesday, the Federal Election Commission sent a letter to Senator Daschle saying he had to either (1) declare himself a Senate candidate for 2010 or (2) stop his permanent campaign.  Several more press outlets took notice yesterday.  From the National Journal's Hotline:

DASCHLE: A Campaign So Indelible You'd Have To Sandblast It Away

Conservative South Dakota Politics writes, the FEC "has written a letter to [ex-Sen. Tom] Daschle about his '2010 candidacy'! It really is a permanent campaign! The FEC says Daschle is not in compliance if he doesn't (1) declare himself a candidate or (2) 'disavow [the] activities' of his ongoing permanent campaign. Apparently Daschle ignored the FEC's deadline to respond, which was July 14, but scrambled around yesterday when some reporters called and then wrote a letter." For more on the so-called "permanent campaign" involving '04 match-up victor/Sen. John Thune (R-SD) see the 7/13 Blogometer

The Washington Post picked up an AP story:

Daschle: No Plans for Rematch With Thune

By MARY CLARE JALONICK

The Associated Press
Tuesday, July 19, 2005; 7:48 PM

WASHINGTON -- There wasn't much fanfare, but former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle said this week he's not planning a rematch against Republican Sen. John Thune in 2010.

Daschle had to make that clear to the Federal Election Commission, which sent a letter last month asking Daschle to clarify his status. Since Daschle's candidate fundraising committee had spent more than $5,000, he officially qualified as a candidate.

The Daschle campaign responded to the commission on Monday in a letter: "At this point in time, Senator Daschle does not intend to become a federal candidate for the 2010 election cycle."

From KELO-Land News:

There Won't Be A Rematch

2010 is a long ways off, but already there's speculation former Senator Tom Daschle might make another run for political office. Daschle still has over a half million dollars in campaign funds.

Republicans think Daschle might be keeping the money to set up a rematch of last year's bitter senate race in which he lost to Republican John Thune. Now the Federal Election Commission is getting involved. It too wants an official answer from Daschle. Is he running or isn't he?

Tom Daschle was in congress for 26 years, but according to former staffers, Daschle won't run for the senate in 2010.

"I don't see it happening."

Daschle's former campaign manager Steve Hildebrand wrote a letter to the Federal Election Commission Monday stating "At this point in time, Senator Daschle doesn't intend to become a federal candidate for the 2010 election cycle."

The letter is in response to a letter from the F.E.C. It was sent to Daschle on June 14th questioning his future plans.

By F.E.C. rules, because Daschle has spent more than $5,000 from his left over campaign money, he either needs to notify the F.E.C. he's a candidate or disavow these activities.

Readers say that the FEC's letter to Daschle was also the first story on KSFY television last night.  So will he run?  Apparently, he's not planning to "at this time." 

New BRAC Twist: Thune Notes Problems in Texas

Rapid City Journal:

The uncertainty resulting from a federal lawsuit challenging the B-1B Lancer bomber training route at Dyess Air Force Base in Texas should have been factored into an Air Force analysis that eventually led to the recommendation for closing Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota, Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., said Tuesday.

If the lawsuit — which, in essence, has led to restrictions on low-level fly-overs — had been a part of the Air Force analysis, "it would have made a dramatic impact on their recommendation" to consolidate the nation's B-1 fleet, including the 29 aircraft from Ellsworth, at Dyess, Thune said.

"This appears to be an inadvertent error, but with that said, this represents a significant omission of facts on the part of the Air Force," he said.

Thune said he has raised the issue in meetings with members of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission, or BRAC, and its staff. The BRAC commission is the independent panel reviewing the Department of Defense recommendations for military installation closings and realignments.

BRAC

Blog Watch Man watched the BRAC hearings yesterday and collected lots of information.  The Rapid City Journal has more information about yesterday's activities.

Roberts Rising

Lets take a deep breath.  There's no way to know what John Roberts will be or do once he is on the high court.  The example of Anthony Kennedy should chasten all prognosticators.  But he sure looks to be the kind of fellow who knows what he thinks and will stick to it.  If that's true, and if the Bush folks have done their homework, we will get a very good conservative on the court.  Justice O'Connor was hardly the worst robe on the bench, from a conservative point of view.  But she was fond of mushy, problem-creating decisions.  We should not ask ourselves how Roberts will vote on Roe, or other specific issues, but ask whether he will bring reason and a solid constitutional perspective to the court.  Above all, will he view himself as an umpire or a player?  All indications suggest that the answers to these questions will please conservatives.

Lieberman Likes Roberts

Here's why many Democrats dislike Joe Lieberman: he is so eminently reasonable.  He's wrong alot, but he is not a hack like so many in his party (yes, and in the Republican Party, too).  In fact, one might call him "senatorial."  Here's what he had to say before today's SCOTUS announcement.

Lieberman said he was pleased with how the White House has handled the process so far.

"The administration has taken very encouraging and constructive steps," Lieberman said.

Lieberman cited in particular President Bush's statements that he had ruled out a litmus test for a nominee and that he would not be pressured by interest groups...

Lieberman offered reporters Wednesday three names he said could be considered without sparking a talk-athon. He would not say whether he brought them up to Rove.

He said federal appellate Judges Michael McConnell and John G. Roberts were "in the ballpark," and that "people tell me" appeals court Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson is "very similar."

BTW, this is what Orin Kerr is saying over at Volokh:

Bravo: It's all over the news that the President is nominating John G. Roberts to replace Justice O'Connor. He's an inspired choice. Robert is probably the best Supreme Court litigator of his generation, and is considered a total star within the DC legal community (on both sides of the aisle). Bravo.

Mr. Roberts

Powerline posted this from the Washington Post, which inlcudes profiles of the President's newly announced nominee, John G. Roberts, Jr., as well as J. Michael Luttig.  Powerline's Paul Mirengoff is "over the moon," which I think means very happy without any astronomical or astrological significance.  I also heard Ralph Neas bad mouthing him, which is always a good sign.

The Roberts Factor

The John Roberts nomination to the Supreme Court shows once again that George W. Bush is not a wall flower.  He uses his political capital to do bold things.  Bush is certainly trying to put an originalist stamp on the Court.  I suspect the left-wingers will go nuts over his nomination and make up all sorts of evil things this man has done in his life.  Despite the fact that he is clearly a well qualified judge (graduating with high honors from Harvard College and Harvard Law and unanimously ranked "well qualified" by the ABA) the Democrats will scourge him for the assumed outcomes of his decisions, never bothering to make a legal argument against him.  They will scream about theocracy, the end of civil rights, and the coming imprisonment of women.  It might be "Bob Bork's America" all over again.  I predict rage from the left, backed up with very few reasoned arguments.  Let's hope I am wrong. 

Roberts Bio

Mr. Roberts is the head of Hogan & Hartson’s Appellate Practice Group. He graduated from Harvard College, summa cum laude, in 1976, and received his law degree, magna cum laude, in 1979 from the Harvard Law School, where he was managing editor of the Harvard Law Review. Following graduation he clerked for Judge Henry J. Friendly of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the following year for then-Associate Justice William H. Rehnquist.

Following his clerkship experience, Mr. Roberts served as Special Assistant to United States Attorney General William French Smith. In 1982 President Reagan appointed Mr. Roberts to the White House Staff as Associate Counsel to the President, a position in which he served until joining Hogan & Hartson in 1986. Mr. Roberts’ responsibilities as Associate Counsel to the President included counseling on the President’s constitutional powers and responsibilities, as well as other legal issues affecting the executive branch.

At Hogan & Hartson, Mr. Roberts developed a civil litigation practice, with an emphasis on appellate matters. He personally argued before the United States Supreme Court and the lower federal courts, participating in a wide variety of matters on behalf of corporate clients, trade associations, governments, and individuals.

Mr. Roberts left the firm in 1989 to accept appointment as Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the United States, a position in which he served until returning to the firm in 1993. In that capacity he personally argued before the Supreme Court and the federal courts of appeals on behalf of the United States, and participated in formulating the litigation position of the government and determining when the government would appeal adverse decisions. Mr. Roberts had general substantive responsibility within the Office of the Solicitor General for cases arising from the Civil and Civil Rights Divisions of the Justice Department, as well as from a variety of independent agencies.

Mr. Roberts has presented oral arguments before the Supreme Court in more than thirty cases, covering the full range of the Court’s jurisdiction, including admiralty, antitrust, arbitration, environmental law, First Amendment, health care law, Indian law, bankruptcy, tax, regulation of financial institutions, administrative law, labor law, federal jurisdiction and procedure, interstate commerce, civil rights, and criminal law.

Mr. Roberts is a member of the American Law Institute and the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers, and has also received the Edmund J. Randolph Award for outstanding service to the Department of Justice. He is a member of the Bars of the District of Columbia, the United States Supreme Court, and various federal Courts of Appeals.

John Roberts?

That's that latest rumor.  You can learn more about him here and here.  The ever useful Volokh has this string of comments.  The ABA unanimously rated him as well qualified when he was nominated to the federal bench in 2001.  That evidently didn't stop Democrats for opposing his nomination.  Of course, the ABA unanimously rated Miguel Estrada as well qualified and Tom Daschle stood silently by as Estrada was trashed for not being Hispanic enough.  So I am sure if the Democrats could stoop to racism on Estrada they can make something up on Roberts.  Remember this?

Through it all, Daschle stood by impassively. He couldn't very well cite Estrada's alleged lack of authentic Hispanic-ness as a reason to filibuster and kill the nomination; even the most partisan Democratic senator would have a hard time making that argument. Yet he remained quiet while his allies bashed Estrada in the most personal terms.

The meanness is startling.

Update: ROBERTS IT IS!!  Fox News reports it is Roberts, and we all know Fox News is never wrong.  Fair and balanced.   I guess the Edith bubble has burst. 

Supreme Concern

Those interested in the background of rumored SCOTUS pick Edith Clement can go here, here, and see this string at Volokh.  Or Bush may be appointing Edith Jones.  As long as it isn't Edith Bunker.  Of course, as a right-wing nut, I might favor Archie Bunker.

Update: Evidently ABC News is saying it is not Clement.  In the Edith Counter, that leaves one down, two to go.  By my calculations, that makes it a 50/50 shot that if the pick is named Edith, it will be Edith Bunker. 

Update II:  For those who care, I am basically watching NROs Bench Memos.  That is the best place I know of for SCOTUS rumors.  I must say, after a week of the Rove stupidity, this is actually fun. 

FEC DEMANDS DASCHLE DECLARE CANDIDACY OR DISAVOW PERMANENT CAMPAIGN!

As Professor Schaff noted last night, the Federal Election Commission has written a letter to Daschle about his "2010 candidacy"!  It really is a permanent campaign!  The FEC says Daschle is not in compliance if he doesn't (1) declare himself a candidate or (2) "disavow [the] activities" of his ongoing permanent campaign.  Apparently Daschle ignored the FEC's deadline to respond, which was July 14, but scrambled around yesterday when some reporters called and then wrote a letter.  It still doesn't appear that Daschle has clearly done (1) or (2), however.  Here's the report from the Rapid City Journal: 

The Federal Election Commission wants an official answer from former Sen. Tom Daschle, a Democrat, to the question many of his friends and foes continue to ask informally: Will he run again?

In a letter to Daschle dated June 14 and filed on the FEC Web site, an FEC official informed Daschle that the financial activity in his 2004 campaign committee, A Lot of People Supporting Tom Daschle Inc., had passed a threshold that required him to clarify whether he was a candidate for office in 2010.

Daschle, a 26-year congressional veteran who lost his Senate re-election bid last November to Republican challenger John Thune, said recently he has no immediate plans to run again. But he also declined to rule it out completely.

Daschle maintains his campaign committee, which currently has a balance of about $550,000. Based on activity in that fund, the FEC letter wants an official update of Daschle's status.

"This letter constitutes formal notification that ‘A lot of People Supporting Tom Daschle' has filed reports of receipts and disbursements with the Commission and appears to have received contributions and/or made expenditures in support of your 2010 candidacy in excess of $5,000," FEC official Patricia Carmona wrote in the letter.

Carmona then noted the FEC requirement that takes effect when disbursements or income exceed $5,000. Daschle either must file a statement of candidacy or disavow that candidacy in a letter clarifying that he is "not a candidate for federal office and that you have not authorized solicitation of contributions nor the making of expenditures on your behalf," Carmona wrote.

The letter caused a buzz among Republican activists who suspect Daschle is maintaining his campaign fund to use as a weapon against Thune, possibly to set up a 2010 rematch of last year's bitter Senate campaign. Others speculate that Daschle could be interested in other races, including the 2008 Senate race if incumbent Sen. Tim Johnson doesn't run, or even a bid for president or vice president.

They note the fact that a Sioux Falls consulting firm run by former Daschle campaign manager Steve Hildebrand has been receiving money from the 2004 campaign. And Hildebrand has made statements critical of Thune on key governmental issues. ...

Some Republicans question both the reasons and propriety of what Daschle is doing. Cleta Mitchell, a Washington, D.C. lawyer who works for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said Monday that Daschle was pushing the FEC regulations to the point of a violation.

Mitchell said Daschle was supposed to file notice of his candidacy or send a disavowal letter within 30 days of spending more than $5,000 from the campaign fund. Mitchell also questioned the idea of maintaining an active campaign committee without having an official candidate.

"He really is not complying with the normal winding-down responsibilities of a candidate committee where the candidate lost the election," Mitchell said. "They may think this is being very clever, but it's not in keeping with what the FEC requires."

Mitchell said Daschle must declare himself a candidate or change the name of the committee and distance himself from its activities.

"You can't operate a campaign committee without a candidate," she said.  ...

Mitchell still questions Daschle's handling of his campaign fund, which is separate from a political action committee fund that Hildebrand will continue to manage. She said there were enough questions on the issue to merit a complaint to the FEC, and she expects one to be filed.

As Jason said a few days ago, Daschle sure isn't doing much for his legacy.  Daschle needs to know the campaign is over and that he is getting close to Al Gore territory in the sore loser category. 

Blog Watch Man is also interested in the Daschle/FEC story.  Sibby is also paying attention to the story.  [note: BWM and Sibby haven't really hit it off]  Ryne McClaren is also weighing in:

And as Professor Schaff notes, the humor is that the letter to Daschle linked above refers to money being spent "in support of your 2010 candidacy." In essence, they're informing Daschle that he needs to either disavow his spending activities or file a Statement of Candidacy. Crap or exit the lavatory, so to speak.

Rove

Like my colleague, Professor Schaff, I am bored by the Rove affair.  Until something interesting happens, let this be my comment.

First, if this were a Democratic administration, most Republicans would be calling for Rove's head, and the Democrats would all be making arguments that its no big deal.

Second, the Republican's wouldn't get the head of a Democratic chief of staff over something like this, nor are the Democrats going to bring the Republican Rove down.  There just insn't any substance to the story.

Plame used her position to push her husband's project, and so doing gave the Administration a reason to act against her.  Maybe they did, and maybe Rove was just answering a question from one journalist with a piece of information he got from another.  Either way, this was politics.  Get used to it.

BRAC Commissioner Defends Ellsworth

Samuel Skinner, who was Secretary of Transportation and Chief of Staff in the Bush 41 administration, is now a member of the Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC).  He is now publicly questioning the commission decision to close Ellsworth Air Force Base near Rapid City. One does not want to get one's hopes up, but perhaps this is a sign that the commission has been successfully lobbied on the merits of Ellsworth.  The AP reports this:

Skinner, who visited Rapid City for a base closure hearing in June, also said the commission is wondering why Ellsworth is recommended for closure this year when it was spared in the last round of base closings in 1995.

"We are trying to understand what has changed," Skinner said.

Sen. Thune had this to say:

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., said Monday that Skinner "highlighted the argument we've been making all along."

"Placing vital military assets at different locations has always been an unshakable tenet of our national security," Thune said. "We should not abandon that tenet as we enter an era of emerging threats and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."

FEC to Daschle: Are You Running For Something?

This site has taken Tom Daschle to task for subsidizing anti-Thune activities out of campaign funds left over from the 2004 election.  It is one thing for us partisans to criticize Daschle, but now the Federal Election Commission has warned Daschle about the use of campaign funds long after the campaign.  In this letter sent to "A Lot of People Supporting Tom Daschle" (aka, the Daschle campaign committee), the FEC notifies Daschle that he is spending more money per month than is allowed under federal law for those who are not an announced candidate for office.  Daschle must announce for office or disassociate himself from these activities.  The humor of the letter is that the FEC refers to Daschle's run for Senate in...2010.  Do they know something we don't? 

Of course the Daschle people will say they are winding down their election operation.  I point out that the election was eight months ago.  That's one heck of a cool down period.  I happen to think most federal campaign finance laws are silly, but if they are on the books, one should comply with them. 

Tomorrow this is what Roll Call will report:

The Federal Election Commission sent a letter last month warning former
Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) of a potential violation of
campaign finance law.

The missive, dated June 14, informed Daschle that during the first three
months of 2005 he spent in excess of $5,000 from his principal campaign
committee (“A Lot of People Supporting Tom Daschle”) and must either file a
statement of candidacy for 2010 or “disavow these activities.”

Mobridge Newspaper