Rightank

In a recent article in Slate, Fred Kaplan offers up weak and impoverished arguments against the Senate’s approval of John Bolton as U.N. ambassador. Here are Kaplan’s arguments and my comments:

Kaplan et al. are feverishly mad at Bolton’s nomination because he possesses a strong, no-nonsense character. Bolton is a nationalist and that bodes well for the United States. Hopefully, the Bolton vote in the Senate will not become another prize of the Democrats filibuster trophy collection.

Today, a federal judge for the District Court of Nebraska struck down a provision of the Nebraska state constitution that limited marriage to heterosexual couples and prohibited civil unions. Article I, section 9 of the Nebraska constitution states:

Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in Nebraska. The uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or any other similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska.

The suit, brought by Citizens for Equal Protection, Nebraska Advocates for Justice and Equality, and (you guessed it) the ACLU, claim they only want a “level playing field”–in other words, “an opportunity to convince the people’s elected representatives that same-sex relationships deserve legal protection.” Hmmm . . . Isn’t the state legislature a body that stands in lieu of the people they represent and not the other way around? Moreover, isn’t our republican form of government a goverment of “We the People”? If the citizens of a state pass an amendment to their state constitution, is not that voice the ultimate arbiter? Basically, what Citizens for Equal Protection et al. desire to do is (1) cirumvent the people’s will through the courts and (2) further circumvent their will by lobbying the people’s elected representatives in order to “convince” them that the people’s voice does not matter and same-sex protections should be legalized regardless of the vox populi.

Interesting facts in the introductory pages of Judge Bataillon’s opinion:

Also, the plaintiff lesbians and gays are held in the highest of lights by Judge Bataillon. They are mostly “employed professionals” (as opposed to unemployed non-professionals and the homeless) and are involved in “long-term committed relationships” and are “raising children.” Oh goodie. So what? A mother or granddaughter and father and nephew can be involved in similar long-term relationships and raise children together as well. What about those relationships, Judge Bataillon?

Basically, the judge held that the First Amendment right to association and the Equal Protection Clause are violated because gays and lesbians can’t coalece with the Nebraska legislatures and petition them to address their grievance (i.e., marriage rights and rights derivative of marriage for same-sex couples). The judge also found that Section 29 was an unconstitutional Bill of Attainer (this position is beyond believeable and I refrain from further comment). Beyond the legal “basis” for the Judge’s decision, here are some more interesting assertions by His Judgeness:

A recent decision by the United States 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a county resident who practices Wicca can be excluded from a list of clergy who are invited to offer a non-denominational prayer for the County Board of Supervisors (i.e., Commissioners). The plaintiff, Cynthia Simpson (represented by the ACLU), who prefers witchcraft and witch over Wicca (wouldn’t you too, I mean Wicca is too prissy) is a member of Reclaiming Tradition of Wicca and part of a local Broom Riders Association (I wonder if they have a corporate sponsor?). Simpson demanded Chesterfield County let her “pray,” or she would file suit. Thankfully, Chesterfield County held firm forcing Simpson’s ACLU-blessed suit. After winning in the lower court (what was that judge thinking?), a panel of three 4th Circuit judges wisely reversed and ruled against Simpson.

The Court’s ruling was grounded on a U.S. Supreme Court case called Marsh v. United States. In Marsh, the Court held that a Nebraska Legislature could have a prayer given by a state-paid minister of a Judeo-Christian faith as long as “the prayer opportunity had not been exploited to proselytize or advance” a particular religion. This decision is one that the liberal legal elite and policy groups are dying to have the Supreme Court re-visit and overturn.

The liberals are disappointed that Wiccans are not part of the Chesterfield County and 4th Circuit’s idea of legislative religious parity. See here and here.

Plainly, the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause do not prohibit governmental bodies from deciding what type of religious worship they use to commune with the Almighty God and assist them in fulfilling their duties as the people’s not a person’s representatives. The Constitution says “We the People” not “I the Person.” Now that is a distinction with a difference.

It seems that Democrats are more and more nomadic–wandering from presidential epithets to anguished groans about Bush’s judicial nominees, searching desparately for a identity (apart from liberal insanity, that is).

Victor Davis Hanson authored a tremendous piece on the failings of the modern Democratic party and why the Democrats will continue to fail. Hanson highlights some of the Democrats hypocrisy:

[T]here is the widening gulf between word and deed — and Americans hate hypocrites most of all. When you meet a guy from the Chamber of Commerce or insurance association, you pretty much know that what you see is what you get: comfort with American culture and values, an upscale lifestyle that reflects his ideology and work, and no apologies for success or excuses for lack of same.

But if you listen to Dr. Dean and his class venom, it hardly seems comparable with how he lives or how he was brought up. John Kerry’s super power boat, Teresa Kerry’s numerous mansions, Arianna Huffington’s gated estate, George Soros’s jet, Ted Turner’s ranches, Sean Penn’s digs — all this and more, whether fairly or unfairly, suggest hypocrisy and insincerity: Something like, “High taxes, government regulation, racial quotas, and more entitlements won’t hurt me since I have so much money at my own disposal anyway, but will at least make me feel good that we are transferring capital to the less fortunate.”

Worse yet, such easy largess and the cost of caring often translate into contempt for the small businessman, entrepreneur, and salesperson who is supposedly illiberal because he worries that he has less disposable income and is less secure. And when you add in cracks about Wal-Mart, McDonald’s, and the “Christian Right” — all the things the more cultured avoid — then the architects of a supposedly populist party seem to be ignorant of their own constituencies.

The Democrats in power are just as elite (if not more so) than the Republicans. The difference being that the Democrats represent values opposed to traditional morality, capitalism, and the Constitutional text while right-thinking Republicans (there are some dimwits) uphold, cherish, and pursue policies that preserve the national structure installed by the Framers. It’s a shame the Dems can’t get away with it anymore . . . and it’s entertaining to see their puerile fins flailing.

Prime Minister Tony Blair’s Labour Party won re-election yesterday in Great Britain. However, Labour (read: liberal) lost seats and carries a very small majority while the Conservative party (read: conservative) gained more than 30 seats (197 total) with the Liberal Democrats (read: liberal wackos) grasping hold of 62.

NRO has an excellent take on the election results.

Here’s an interesting immigration perspective.

The new Iraq took another step toward an enduring democracy by swearing in its first democratically elected government. The Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari promised to continue the fight against the Islamo-facist insurgency and move forward toward a “unified democratic Iraq.” Al-Jaafari obviously did not listen and is not listening to the naysayers and liberal pundits who hopefully prognosticated that Iraq would be a complete failure and that the insurgency would topple the provisional government instituted by the United States. Good for him . . .

. . . and for us. Iraq is a free nation because of American blood. Our soldiers deserve our tribute and praise for maintaing order and civility (despite the terrorists best efforts) and instilling hope for freedom and liberty from terror. Cradle on America, cradle on.

Liberals have wet their pants over a UCLA law professor Richard Sander who actually said that affirmative action is negatively affecting the number of black law students who become attorneys (See my previous post here).

Another Legal Lib has taken Professor Sander’s claim to task. Emily Bazelon, a senior editor at Slate and who (wonkers!) has taught at Yale Law School (should I start bowing now?), summarizes forthcoming legal critiques, one of which I previously bashed (Ayers and Brooks). Bazelon’s article is basically two themes: (1) non-stop collegial laudatory for critics of Sander and (2) affirmative action is actually really good for black law students. Oh, and did I mention that Bazelon’s article is racist?

Take this sentence about potential solutions for the dearth of black attorneys:

One way to increase the number of black lawyers might be to write a test that relies less on trick multiple-choice questions, or to convince the state bar associations that administer the exam to quit failing more and more would-be lawyers each year, as several have taken to doing. (Fewer new lawyers means less competition.)

So, Emily, are you saying the blacks can’t hack tests that contain “trick” multiple-choice questions? What makes them “tricky”? . . . that the examinee has to actually reason and critically analyze the question in order to determine the correct answer? Or are they “tricky” because the questions are written in the genre of all other races?

What about your second solution? Convince state bar associations to dumb-down their bar examinations? How would you convince them? Tell the state bar associations that it is in their best interest to have less intelligent lawyers? Are you implying that the harder the bar examination, the end result is that more blacks fail than pass? How easy should the bar exam be? Let me guess: Just show up on time, spell your name, recite 10 legal principles you learned in law school, and absolutely no “tricky” multiple choice questions?

To insinuate that black students are less capable then white or asian or any other student of a different racial make-up is racist. However, bar examination test data probably inform the unbiased interpreter that students who have lower LSAT scores entering law school and lower grades are probably more likely to fail the bar examination than students with higher LSAT scores and higher grades. Affirmative action, as Bazelon admits “isn’t a great long-term solution to black underperformance.” Yeah, and it isn’t an excuse to profer solutions to increase the quantity of black attorneys that stigmatize and carry racist overtones.