Citizen Journal Home
Make a Donation
Our Store
Citizen Journal Home
Join our mailing list
Powered by MailMentum - Easy Email Marketing
Web's Best

September 14, 2005

Day of the Manchildren

Today's topic: Children and the people who act like them:

- Senator Arlen Specter, who yesterday asked John Roberts whether Roe v. Wade is a "super-duper precedent" (no comment from the Senator's "magic" woobie woobie) bounced today from infantile to ironic, telling Roberts, "We don't like being treated like schoolchildren..." and, in a bizarre exchange requesting that Roberts not make Senators look stupid, as if only Roberts to do so. Paging Ted Kennedy! Paging Ted Kennedy!

- Then there's President Bush, who was caught scribbling a note to Condi Rice today in New York asking for a potty break: "I think I may need a bathroom break," it read. Questions abound. Among them is why Bush used the word "may" (?), and why he sounds just a dash tentative. Does the President need a hall pass? Was it the Manmohan Singh's curry chicken box lunch?

- Meantime, the actual children were told today that they'd all along been victimized by a "coercive" requirement to "affirm God," until they were rescued from such horrors by self-absorbed atheist asshole Michael Newdow.

Posted by bill at 08:08 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 08, 2005

World War III

John Hinderaker writes that Judge Roberts' elevation to Chief Justice nominee might be a blessing in disguise for Democrats:

Substituting Roberts for O'Connor would have been a significant upgrade, from a conservative point of view. Replacing Rehnquist with Roberts, on the other hand, is good to the extent that it likely represents another 30 years of conservative service on the court, but it will not effect a short-term change in the balance of power. In that sense, the key appointment has always been O'Connor's successor. And for that appointment, Roberts had turned out to be an inspired choice. The Senate Democrats and their supporters badly wanted to block the rightward shift that would be implicit in the replacement of O'Connor with a conservative. But Roberts proved to be an immensely circumspect figure. In 50 years, he seems to have said or done almost nothing controversial, while nevertheless establishing his reputation as a solid conservative. In personal, professional, and ideological terms, Roberts appears bullet-proof, and Democrats had more or less resigned themselves to being unable to block his succession to O'Connor's prized "swing" seat.

And so:

If President Bush nominates another strong conservative to replace O'Connor, the result will be the political equivalent of World War III. Liberal interest groups will face an existential crisis if they do not fight bitterly to keep the Court's current ideological makeup. Win or lose, they have no choice but to make the effort to oppose Bush's second nominee. And, unfortunately for Republicans, it appears likely that any conservative jurist whom Bush may appoint will give the Democrats more ammunition than John Roberts did. So be prepared for the ugliest, most bitter confirmation battle in a generation.

Read the whole thing.

Posted by bill at 07:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 11, 2005

Morning Blend - Thursday, August 11, 2004

All Cultures are Not Equal - David Brooks, NYT
Muslims Unite! - Salman Rushdie, Times of London
The Other War - Dorothy Rabinowitz, WSJ
Roberts, Misjudged - Abigail Thernstrom, LAT
Why the base stands by W - Peggy Noonan, WSJ
Big Disappointments in Iraq - John Connly Walsh, Amer. Spectator
There He Goes Again - George Will, NYP
Private vs. public jurisprudence - Ronald C. Moe, Wash. Times

Posted by bill at 07:40 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 10, 2005

The lurid lies of the loony liberal left

Factcheck.org takes down the lying NARAL ad, as does Manuel Miranda, who's been doing one helluva job covering the Roberts' nomination for WSJ. But don't take their word for it. Read the Bray decision here and distill NARAL's claim that Roberts' "ideological view of the law compelled him to go out of his way to argue on behalf of someone like Michael Bray," as Planned Parenthood, err, NARAL, claims. (H/T: Michelle Malkin.)

Posted by bill at 08:32 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

  Google
Web Citizen Journal