Mehlman spoke of his disgust that activist judges are micromanaging decisions at, for example, Gitmo, decisions that should be properly made by a branch of government accountable to the electorate, in this case the Executive Branch.

The Republicans are finally getting around to spinning Miers to their incrowd. The content about Meirs is fairly lame. When somebody asks you if your nominee is going to be like a Scalia (a strict constructionalist) or a Thomas (an orignalist) "yes" is a stupid answer.

However, the above comment resonated with me. I'm really growing tired of conservatives using "strict constructionalist" to refer to any legal decision they like and "activist/legislating from the bench" to refer to any legal decision they don't like. These words actually have meanings and they aren't always consistent with your objectives. Does Mehlman really mean to call Scalia an "activist judge?"

"There shall be no law but the will of the electorate" is anti-constitutional and runs against the grain of every argument they make about their "consistent" judicial philosophy, not to mention the fundamental idea of a free society. Yes, Virginia, civil rights limit the power of the government.

Does anyone know any "liberal" lawyers who consistantly blog on SCOTUS stuff?

Blogger Conference Call, Ken Mehlman, RNC Chairman

Hugh Hewitt posts:
The near silence in the blogopshere when it comes to appeals for aid to South Asia tells me that post tsunami, Katrina and Rita, the wilingness or ability of Americans to dig deep, again, is limited.

This disaster is much worse then Katrina. Americans ought to be as helpful here as we were in the previous disasters this year.

CALIFORNIA YANKEE: How We Can Help Quake Victims

Perhaps a neat game for kids but I would like to know what these atoms are and what molecule I'm trying to make...

bliesch.com - atome

On the one hand conservatives are extremely vocal about decrying the pernicious influence of the country's most prestigious universities on the intellectual elite. They're inclined to use the names of certain institutions almost as swear words: Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Berkeley, and the University of Chicago. But when it comes time to nominate a supreme court justice, who do they regard as ideally qualified? Graduates of Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Berkeley, and the University of Chicago. Huh? (Remember, one definition of 'stupid' is repeatedly doing the same things and expecting a different result.) It's hard not to think that what depresses them the most about Harriet Miers are the initials "SMU." That's right. Harriet Miers got her law degree at Southern Methodist University in Texas. How awful. How gauche. How disappointing. Especially if you're an intellectual who got your degree from Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Berkeley, or the University of Chicago.

In many ways Miers represents what the populist side of the Republican party wants... An evangelical christian who isn't a member of the intellectual "elite."
The spin that will develop is that she is poised to go in there and fuck the system by providing a perspective that is untainted by moderate religious views and those terrible educational institutions in this country who produce such useless people. She will bear the standard of the culture war, and the talk radio people will get this shortly and run with it. The right wing blogosphere is mostly populated by professional lawyers who are going to be offended by this nomination, but they are slowly starting to fall in line for political reasons.
Its not about the "strict constructionalism" of Thomas and Scalia for most Republicans. They don't really understand all that stuff, and they don't like it when Scalia does something like argue that the President can't detain U.S. citizens indefinately without trial. Its about power and its about policy. Its about what we want and not what the law says. Its about tearing down all those smart ass fuddy duddies in the cities with their ivy league degrees and their tolerance for homosexuals. Its about fucking the Liberals and ACLU, and instutionalizing all of the prejudices of small town America, federally.
This is the culture war. This is their moment. They are slowly starting to realize it, and its going to turn into a really bloody confirmation battle.

If Miers wins, they win, they have their populist on the court.
If Miers looses, they win, because they'll have the whole right wing base wipped up into a tizzy about how opposing this nomination is anti-american. A loss here will be a mandate for a massive conservative electoral turnout headed into the 2006 election season.

Put on your seatbelt.

Instapun***K.com Archives:

"It's important that whomever I pick is viewed as an independent person from politics. It's this independence of the Fed that gives people, not only here in America but the world, confidence."

Wasn't it also important that the judiciary be independent?

Bush Preparing for Greenspan Successor

Ning is a free online service (or, as we like to call it, a Playground) for building and using social applications. Social apps are web applications that enable anyone to match, transact, and communicate with other people.

Boggle...

Ning | Home: Front Page

He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.

I don't really mean to take a position on Bush's nomination by posting this, but I thought it an interesting reference nonetheless.

The Federalist #76

Harriet Miers
From Wikipedia

Hopefully this resource will expand as things develop.

Harriet Miers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ibenez wrote:

NEW YORK — A federal judge Thursday ordered the release of dozens more pictures of prisoners being abused at Abu Ghraib (search), rejecting government arguments that the images would provoke terrorists and incite violence against U.S. troops in Iraq.

If this is going to provoke terrorists, which anyone with a brain realizes it will since anything Abu Ghraib seems to do - then what the HELL IS WRONG WITH THE ACLU and this judge?

Why release these pictures now - can't it wait a few years till we're leaving Iraq? I don't understand where this anti-Americanism comes from - we are at war why doesn't this judge realize that? Doing this UNDERMINES the war - so if they do realize that we are at war - they are KNOWINGLY abiding the enemy.

I agree that releasing these pictures will hurt the war effort. I don't think irreparibly so, but there are costs. I think I can explain "what the hell is wrong with the ACLU and this judge." I'm not sure they are right, but I think understand what they are thinking, for what thats worth.

We don't yet know exactly what these pictures document, but it is clear that they document a significant war crime. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham from South Carolina said "The American public needs to understand we’re talking about rape and murder here. We’re not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience."

The ACLU, and this judge, aren't thinking about this specific incident. They are thinking about the long term. They would likely offer that the people who hurt our war effort aren't the people trying to publicize these pictures but the people who were responsible for the abuses in the first place. These kinds of problems are certainly not unique to America. But they shouldn't happen and the question is how can we prevent them from happening in the future.

This matter was not receiving the high level (Congressional) attention it deserves until after the pictures were originally released. The proceedures needed to prevent this sort of problem were not in place (otherwise it wouldn't have occured). The Red Cross has argued that this sort of problem is systemic and this is not an isolated incident.

If we live in the sort of society which would cover things like this up (ie if the law allows the Pentagon to prevent the disclosure of the pictures), then there is no direct incentive for the Pentagon to establish the right processes to keep this from happening other then their general benevolence, and there will be limited means for third party organizations to investigate this kind of problem when it occurs again. If this sort of thing can damage war efforts, then those tasked with making war will be careful to avoid it. That is the sort of incentive this judge and the ACLU seek to create, for the long term, and they are prepared to accept some cost in order to do that.

The question becomes, will the damage that the release of these pictures will do to our present effort be more significant long term then the benefit of ensuring that the military is strongly incented to prevent these things from going on in the future. That is a question that I feel completely unqualified to answer.

RE: FOXNews.com - U.S. & World - Judge: Release Abu Ghraib Photos

When Congress agreed this spring to tighten the bankruptcy laws and crack down on consumers who took on debt irresponsibly, no one had the victims of Hurricane Katrina in mind.

Oh whatever, those people are totally responsible for the fact that their city flooded. They shouldn't have taken on debt knowing that hurricanes sometimes blast cities. How can we imbue a sense of personal responsibility in our society if people don't have to pay back debts they incurred before totally unpredictable, collosal disasters!

Strict bankruptcy law new blow for victims | IndyStar.com