Rightank

Today, the Senate voted 58-42 to confirm Judge Samuel Alito to the United States Supreme Court. Shortly thereafter, Judge Alito was sworn in as Justice Alito by CJ Roberts. I heartily congratulate Justice Alito and wish him many years of originalist interpretation on the Court.

Alito’s ascension to the Court means that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has written her last opinion. Thankfully so. With one more Bush nomination to the Supreme Court (assuming he nominates a true, verifiable conservative jurist), the Court will be able to forestall any judicial foray into the activist realms of foreign policy, legislative policy, and the rights of State governments to determine what social mores govern their peculiar populaces.

Alito’s confirmation illustrates the importance of having a Republican Senate. Alito was able to sway only three Democrats to his side–he lost the liberal Republican Lincoln Chafee’s vote. Without the Senate, President Bush’s insistence on nominating a judge in the likeness of Scalia or Thomas might not have been possible. Also, the Alito confirmation process illustrates the profundity of the Democrats lackluster and highly irascible objections to Alito. The Democrats, in order to thwart Alito’s nomination, needed to persuade a modest amount of Republicans to jump ship. To do this, they either would have needed to fester a concern among true conservative Republicans that Alito is a liberal on social issues and would vote based upon his personal policy preferences or convinced some of the “moderate” Republicans (particularly Specter) that Alito was the second coming of Robert Bork. The Democrats accomplished neither, being more concerned about boosting their campaign contribution amounts for ‘06 and placating their Hard Left base, resulting in a disorganized, smattering of objection whose effect was a mere whisper on those Senators whom the Dems needed in their anti-Alito voting bloc.

Justice Alito–another victory for President Bush and another indicator of the detectable Democratic Party malaise.  Hurrah!

There is good news on the horizon for Marriage Amendment supporters. NRO’s Steve Spuriell revealed that Republican Study Committee (”RSC”) Chairman Mike Pence said that the top three areas of focus among the conservative Republicans who are members of the RSC are “budget, marriage, and ethics.” Further, each candidate for Majority Leader (Blunt, Boehner, and Shadegg) were questioned on “legislative strategy” and “timing” of the Marriage Amendment. Congressman Pence described the push for a Marriage Amendment as “standing up for the sanctity of marriage.”

This is great news for true conservative (economic and social) Republicans. I am very pleased with Congressman Pence’s position on the importance of marriage–placing it ahead of ethics, which is a striking and poignant statement, given the political buzz regarding Abramoff and the polished guffaw Democrats have been nervously confiding to the press about Republican corruption. The vast majority of Americans want to preserve and protect marriage, as evinced by the state majorities who have voted to constitutionalize the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Hopefully, whomever is selected to fill the Majority Leader’s seat, that Republican will be dedicated to putting the Marriage Amendment on the table and then advocating for its passage. Time is of the essence in preventing state and federal courts from usurping the legislature’s constitutional law-making power to force gay marriage on an unwilling American populace.

Nick Danger at RedState suggests that due to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid’s receipt of $60,000 plus in Abramoff money, Reid may be forced to relinquish his coveted Democratic leadership post. Since Abramoff’s multiple convictions for money laundering etc., Reid has insisted that Abramoff is a Republican scandal–perhaps an early attempt to dissuade attempts to uncover his own pocketing of Indian tribe money, courtesy of Abramoff.

However, 40 out of the 45 Democratic Senators received money linked to Abramoff. How will getting rid of Reid help free the dirty Dems from the potential of a scandalous quid pro quo with Abramoff?

It’s not surprising the Reid has denied being a part of Abramoff’s congressional coterie, yet, his dishonest denial of even receiving Abramoff money is characteristic of his duplicitious behavior.

Likely, some Republicans and Democrats will be forced to faced the music over potential Abramoff corruption–which they should.  Giving Reid the boot, whatever Dean or other Democrats think, will not give them the elasticity to pin Abramoff on the Republicans.  Rather, the tail of Abramoff’s corruption has already been pinned . . . on the donkey.

Ah, to be Senator Joe Lieberman. In 2000, he was the Democratic Party’s Vice Presidential nominee. Along side Mr. Internet, Lieberman spoke to a different part of the Democratic party. Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew, was seen as a person who could captivate the “moderate” independent vote for the Gore campaign. Upon learning of the VP nomination, CNN called Lieberman a “moderate Democrat” and portrayed Lieberman as a “style-styled moral crusader.” How times have changed.

Now, Lieberman is in the fight for the right to keep his party’s nomination in his (perhaps) final run for the Connecticut Senate. This change in direction–from running on a presidential ticket to running for his political life– is politically salient not only because of the raucus anti-war crowd mustering Democratic Party support against Lieberman. The ostracism of Lieberman is symptomatic of the takeover of the Democratic Party by the Hard Left, who are anti-war, anti-democratic, and social nihilists–in short, they reject American nationalism, the source of our liberty and freedom.

Lieberman, unlike “genuine political superstar ” Harry Reid and John Kerry, has rejected the Hard Left’s modality of thinking. Lieberman has supported the war effort from the beginning but, unlike most Democratic Senators and most House Democrats who now oppose the War on Terror, Lieberman has not yielded to the pressure of liberal bloggers to give Bush the middle finger.

Today, Lieberman’s fear of retaining his seat forced his decision to vote “No” against the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito. However, his peace offering will not fool those who oppose his re-election. Rather, it signals that 2006 marks the death of the moderate Democrat.

Thirty-three years ago, Justice Harry Blackmun (a recent appointee of President Richard Nixon) wrote the most farcical and constitutionally inaccurate opinion of the 20th Century–Roe v. Wade.

Roe was premised upon the so-called right to privacy which Blackmun “found” in the Constitution. Blackmun, after conducting a judicial séance of the Constitution, found in the murky shadows of due process, liberty, and the prohibition of unlawful searches and seizures penumbras of privacy that guaranteed a woman’s right to abort her child on a whim. The Democratic Party (and Specter) hold Roe up as a holy relic of constitutional history, despite its weak constitutional footing.

I still find in hard to understand how Blackmun could believe that a fetus, the child creation of a mother and father, which he called “unborn” could not be a “person” worthy of protection under the Constitution. I find it harder to believe, constitutional questions aside, that he felt that in his heart and mind, which was the basis of his decision.

My wife and I are expecting are first child. There is absolutely no way you can tell me that our baby is not a person, a living and sentitent being. Blackmun used the label “unborn” to imply that the fetus had no independent life, that it was not a child. However, we are all dependent beings, not independent. Those not “unborn” need oxygen to breath, water to drink, etc. It is impossible to create these vital necessities on our own.

Every child born is precious and deserves protection. Speaking to those who participated in the “March for Life”, President Bush stated:

You believe, as I do, that every human life has value, that the strong have a duty to protect the weak, and that the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence apply to everyone, not just to those considered healthy or wanted or convenient. These principles call us to defend . . . all who are weak and vulnerable, especially unborn children.

Despite my misgivings about Roe, I do believe in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother’s health is in danger, that abortion should be permitted. However, abortion is not the answer for unwanted pregnancy–which is want Roe and its progeny have sanctioned.

Today, Judge M. Brooke Murdock declared Maryland’s law defining marriage between a man and a woman unconstitutional because it is unlawful sex discrimination under Maryland’s constitution.

Judge Murdock followed the yellow brick road laid out before her by the four Masschusetts Justices, usurping the legislative (and the people’s) perogative to define social policy and codify that policy through the constitutionally mandated process. Murdock based her “constitutional” decision enthroning gay marriage by claiming Maryland’s marriage law treated men and women in a discriminatory manner based upon sex. She reasoned that because a man cannot marry a man, Maryland discriminates because it restricts a gay or lesbian’s choice to marry someone of the same sex. But her supposition is mistaken. Marriage is open equally to male and female alike, but they must marry someone of the opposite sex. An individual’s homosexuality–a choice to sexually align with a member of the same sex–does not take the place of one’s gender identity. Murdock’s transmogrification of gender is indefensible.

Rejecting the state’s argument that a male/female coupling provides the optimal environment for child rearing, Murdock plunked:

This Court is unable to agree [that a traditional married couple provides the optimal environment for children] because the vast number of assumptions necessary to do so, exceeds the scope of reasonable legislative speculation.

Wow! You can’t get any more activist than that. It is revealing that Murdock cites absolutely nothing to support her conclusion. Then, to put the icing on the her judicial cake, Murdock deduces from the legislative speculaion that social morality does not matter:

Although tradition and societal values are important, they cannot be given so much weight that they alone will justify a discriminatory statutory classification.

In other words, neither the longevity of marriage nor the societal values that undergird heterosexual marriage can bar gays and lesbians from marrying.

This decision is yet another case of a judge who actively legislates her morality from the bench and lectures the legislature for their outlandish belief that social values and tradition matter in determining marriage policy. What a joke.

The eminent director of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the U.N.’s international agency responsible for overseeing Iran’s compliance with the NPT (Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons). In a recent interview with Newsweek, ElBaradei’s demonstrates why Iran is in a position to quickly develop a nuclear weapon.

Embarassingly, ElBaradei admits that he needs more time to verify Iran would produce nuclear material for peaceful purposes:

For the last three years we have been doing intensive verification in Iran, and even after three years I am not yet in a position to make a judgment on the peaceful nature of the [nuclear] program.

Three years is an awful long time to determine the “peacefulness” of the Iranian nuclear program. Maybe ElBaradei believes he can earn another Nobel Prize if he sits on his hands for another two years. Ultimately, ElBaradei gets at the rub of his pusillanimity:

I still would like to be able to avoid escalation, but at the same time I do not want the Agency to be cheated; I do not want the process to be abused. I think that is clear.

ElBaradei believes his monkeying around with the Iranian mullahs deserves international approbation. Granted, the Nobel Committee and others have not hesitated to throw their encomiums at ElBaradei’s feet. Yet, ElBaradei seems to imply that bureaucratic success (meaning the IAEA) trumphs nation-state concerns about Iran’s capability to swiftly compile and produce nuclear material to weaponize their own missile or to sell to Al Qaeda-type terrorist organizations. In other words, Israel and the United States should sit on their hands and wait until the IAEA bureaucrats resolve any questions regarding Iran’s nuclear intentions. ElBaradei wants the credit–this is his stage. He does not want to allow Israeli and U.S. concerns regarding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s intent to foil his diplomatic success.

The only reasonable conclusion for the lengthy inspection process is that ElBaradei wants the IAEA to clear Iran of any malignant intent. At what cost? ElBaradei laments:

[I]f I say that I am not able to confirm the peaceful nature of that program after three years of intensive work, well, that´s a conclusion that´s going to reverberate, I think, around the world.

Yeah, there will be a reverberation alright: a nuclear warhead courtesy of the Iranian mullahs. ElBaradei’s selfish quest imperils the security of the Middle East and any credibility left at the U.N.

Ken Blackwell, Ohio’s Secretary of State, is the leading Republican candidate for the 2006 gubernatorial race. Blackwell faces opposition in the Republican party ranks, against two liberal Republicans–Jim Petro and Betty Montgomery. As an Ohioian, I heartily and eagerly support Blackwell because he is a true conservative–an individual who abhors high taxes, believes in small government, and supports traditional morality (i.e. opposes same-sex marriage).

City Journal’s Steven Malanga discusses Blackwell’s run for the governorship and explains why this race has race-dividing Democrats and liberal Republicans worried:

Right now, Ken Blackwell stands at a pivotal point in American politics. He’s taken an early lead in the race for governor of a state that was key to reelecting George W. Bush and that may well be even more crucial in picking the next American president. Moreover, Blackwell has built his early lead not by tacking toward the center of this swing state but by running on an uncompromisingly conservative platform that’s won him grassroots support from both Christian groups and taxpayer organizations—a novel coalition that makes the old-boy network in his own Ohio GOP as uneasy as it makes the state’s Democrats, who have begun a “stop Blackwell” campaign.

Ken Blackwell has so many people worried because he represents a new political calculus with the power to shake up American politics. For Blackwell is a fiscal and cultural conservative, a true heir of the Reagan revolution, who happens to be black, with the proven power to attract votes from across a startlingly wide spectrum of the electorate. Born in the projects of Cincinnati to a meat-packer who preached the work ethic and a nurse who read to him from the Bible every evening, Blackwell has rejected the victimology of many black activists and opted for a different path, championing school choice, opposing abortion, and staunchly advocating low taxes as a road to prosperity. The 57-year-old is equally comfortable preaching that platform to the black urban voters of Cincinnati as to the white German Americans in Ohio’s rural counties or to the state’s business community.

Blackwell’s embrace of true conservatism is what makes his candidacy remarkable. In a state that has elected two liberal Republican senators (who can forget Voinovich’s crocodile tears in his unsuccessful fight against John Bolton’s nomination to the U.N. ambassadorship) and a not-so-conservative Republican Governor (Bob Taft), Blackwell’s election would turn the liberals upside down. Blackwell is more than Reagan’s heir, he is the embodiment of Reagan conservatism. From a national perspective, a Governor Blackwell might be a sign to liberal Republicans to either get rid of their socially destructive views or leave. Even more important, it would signal to true conservatives within the Republican Party that fiscal and social conservatism is the winning ticket. Grass roots support for state constitutional amendments protecting marriage evince this type of conservative victory. Blackwell exemplifies this dynamic:

[Blackwell’s] early lead in the 2006 gubernatorial race is as much a product of support for his cultural agenda from the state’s increasingly active religious organizations, an agenda that places him even further out of step with the Ohio GOP than his fiscal agenda. He strongly supported a 2004 ballot initiative defining marriage as between a man and a woman, vigorously opposed by most key state Republican figures and by some business groups, who clearly misread voter sentiment. The initiative, pundits say, sparked record turnout in the 2004 election, drawing out Christian voters and other cultural conservatives, who helped give President Bush a 119,000-vote margin in a state where the race seemed much tighter. The amendment had far broader appeal than the president did: it attracted half a million more votes in Ohio than Bush and won with a 62 to 38 percent margin.

After Blackwell wins the Republican primary, Democrats will scramble to bolster support for their candidate–the anti-conservative. As the Anti-Federalists fell, so will the anti-conservative Democratic candidate fall in Ohio. Ken Blackwell is a politician that true conservatives can bank on.

I’m sick and tired of homosexual advocates labeling those who oppose homosexuality as “homophobic.”

Espn.com, which is blantantly critizes any athlete who objects to homosexuality and gushingly promotes or hypes-up any gay athlete (e.g., Sheryl Swoopes), had a Page 2 article that dropped the homophobic card on Utah Jazz owner Larry Miller because he refused to play “Brokeback Mountain”–the liberal establishment’s hit movie of the year because of its anti-traditionalist gay love affair. LZ Granderson, who wrote the Miller piece, cries foul, characterizing Miller’s decision as an “act of blatant discrimination.” Granderson implies that Miller’s act is homophobic, prefacing his discrimination diatribe about Miller by calling an NBA player’s comment that he wouldn’t want to play on a team with a gay player a “homophobic comment.”

As I’ve explained in a previous post, toleration of gays–rather than overt approbation–does not make one homophobic. From the perspective of someone who disagrees with the gay lifestyle and their attempts in the courts to overthrow traditional marriage, my mere disagreement should not (and does not) make one a homophobe–someone with an abnormal fear of gays and lesbians. If I owned a movie theater like Larry Miller, there is no way I would have shown “Brokeback Mountain.” Miller had no obligation to show Brokeback and promote its gay agenda.

Homosexual advocates or who approve (unwittingly or audaciously) of homosexual behavior pounce on any person who dares object or disagree with homosexuality and automatically define that person as homophobic. Their aim is to silence dissent and scare away grass-roots support for those who have the courage to publicly denounce and disagree with the aims of the homosexual movement. Flipping the coin to the other side, is it accurate to call those who support homosexual marriage “heterophobic”? Of course not.

No one likes to be called a bigot, especially when that slur is undeserved. Granderson’s article is a snide display of a homosexual advocate who can’t believe that a NBA owner should be able to get away with shunning Hollywood’s gay movie of choice. It is Granderson who should apologize, not Miller.

Robert’s Bork’s recent book, “A Country I Do Not Recognize”: The Legal Assault on American Values, is an excellent read. Although Bork edited the five articles in the book, his preface makes the book worth its price. The only essay I didn’t enjoy was Terry Eastland’s, which was merely a regurgitation of First Amendment freedom of religion and establishment cases.

What stood out the most was Bork’s description (in his introduction) of the liberal Justices’ philosophy on the Supreme Court as Olympian: self-assured intellectuals who savor the lushness of their own enlightened reasoning, believing the traditional constraints of a constitutional democracy need not apply to their reasoning or judicial opinions. Olympians are self-appointed immortals who speak down to–not an equal level. To an Olympian, strict adherence to the constitutional text is an anachronism. Justice Kennedy’s reliance on “the right to define one’s concept of existence . . . of the mystery of human life” as part of the liberty guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment in Lawrence v. Texas to justify overturning the moral judgment of a state legislature is a prime example.

Thankfully, help is on the way. Chief Justice Roberts sits in Rehnquist’s place and Judge Samuel Alito is headed for confirmation. However, another one or two SCJs are needed to assure that the meaning and intent of our Constitution is not wrested from the People who ordained it or those who now abide by it articles and amendments. Bork concludes:

Control of law is part of a larger struggle for power, the power to coerce individuals, groups, and nations to accept particular values. In both constitutional and international law, the power-seekers are predominantly on the left, and so far they have been largely successful. That is a fact that United States citizens, insofar as they cherish self-government and American values, should recognize as reason for profound concern.

This power struggle is a big part of why the Democratic questioning of Judge Alito was so confrontational and bombastic. Both the Old Left and the New Left want to hold on to and expand their last vestige of power–the judiciary. Hopefully, that power will finally slip from their grasp.