The Consortium

Hornet's Nest

I was in the Federal Courthouse this morning in Chicago prior to a court call in a civil matter.  As I approached the Dirksen Building, I encountered a throng of television news trucks -including no less than three NBC/Telemundo trucks - parked around the corner.  There was a mob of reporters milling about the building waiting for the sentencing of former Illinois Governor George Ryan who was convicted of misusing his office in some way or another.  (He received a six and one-half year sentence.)

The buzz in the courthouse was palpable with the swarm of reporters and observers but there was something very depressing about the whole scene.  The mill-abouts reminded me of a group of hyenas honing in on a wounded animal on a National Geographic special. Now, I understand that in an open society, it is necessary for the press to fully cover matters of public concern, especially where the corruption of state officials is involved.  However, it is still sad to see how the reporters react when they sense blood in the water or when the mighty are about to fall.

This is not to suggest that Ryan be excused for his transgressions or that he doesn't deserve his sentence.  The feeding frenzy surrounding his sentencing arose as a result of his own bad behavior and he deserves no sympathy.  On the other hand, it is unfortunate that these sorts of events must always erupt in an explosion of chaos and reporters.

-Matthew

Equal Protection?

Yesterday, the NY and GA supreme courts upheld their respective state's laws barring same sex marriage.  A lot of my friends and acquaintances ask me frequently about the supposedly divisive issue of gay marriage.  Here's how I view it:  it's a civil liberties matter.  No one's civil liberties are being denied by protecting and codifying traditional heterosexual marriage.  Unlike the miscegenation laws of the Jim Crow era, the recently (overwhelmingly) popular state laws banning same-sex marriage do not afford a right to some while denying it to others.  Simply put any man that wants to marry a woman, can.  Any woman that wants to marry a man, can.  A straight man, however, cannot marry another man no matter the 2nd man's declared sexuality and neither can a gay man.  Everyone is afforded the same rights regarding marriage.  No matter how the elitist gay DC establishment tries to (incorrectly and insultingly) co=opt the Civil Rights movement, their argument does not hold water. 

The NY and GA courts were right in upholding the bans on same-sex marriage and if the issue ever reaches the Supreme Court, I believe they will rule similarly.  While I appreciate the issue's value to maintaining and perhaps even increasing the current (and necessary) GOP majority, that is not the only reason I support these recent court decisions.  They are correct on the merits and the application of the 14th amendment.  No one's 'rights' - real or imagined- are being trampled upon.  Long live the great US Constitution.

BORU

Silly Thought Experiment at LBC

LaShawn Barber at LaShawn Barber's Corner writes the following on her blog arguing that President Bush could hypothetically be impeached for his failure to address the immigration issue.  She even goes so far as to draft articles of impeachment:

According to Article II, Section 4, of the United States Constitution:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

I believe George Bush’s failure to enforce immigration law and stop the foreign invasion, which he has the power and authority to do, warrants impeachment. Because of Bush, illegal invaders are emboldened, demanding that which they have no legal right to obtain.

While the invasion has caused incalculable physical and economic harm to legal citizens, the president proposes to offer amnesty and allow the harm to continue. To the detriment of those he swore to protect, Bush chooses instead to protect those he has no duty to protect. His actions are in violation of the Constitution.

I hate this kind of talk and I think it lends credence to the current "progressive" trend of criminalizing politics.  I would expect to see this kind of thought experiment from a college campus hate-speech advocate or a Democratic aide in Congress than from LaShawn Barber.  You usually see this type of thing from uninformed neo-hippies that disagree with the "illegal war for oil" in Iraq. President Bush's policies regarding immigration are not impeachable offenses.  Ms. Barber cannot even point to an actually law or specific Constitutional provision that the President has broken.  Just because you vehemently disagree with the President does not mean that he should be thrown out of office. 

LBC's impeachment articles recall another article appearing in the blogoshere today.  At The National Review Online, Michael Rubin argues against any softening of the American rejection of the International Criminal Court and ties his opposition to a series of speeches he gave recently in Iceland.  During his tour of Iceland, Mr. Rubin ran into a group of anti-war neo-hippies that wanted to criminalize his political speech:

This trip would not be so smooth. Word of trouble began to percolate in the morning of the first lecture. A local antiwar activist was demanding my arrest as a war criminal. My crimes were multifold: Writing an article blaming Saddam Hussein—not United Nations sanctions—for Iraqi deaths, and then advocating for Iraqi liberation. This made me responsible for “war-crimes and violating international law by indirectly causing the invasion of Iraq.”

There really is not much difference between the absurd behavior of the Icelandic neo-hippies and the silly thought experiment at LBC.  Hopefully there will be better stuff coming from LBC in the future.

-Matthew

PS.  This post notwithstanding, I still like LaShawn Barber's blog.

Let The Battle Begin

Giving conservatives what they want, President Bush nominated Samuel Alito to the Court this morning.  Boru should be satisfied and this should give everyone the battle they've been gearing up for over the past 15 years.

-tre

I Stand Ready For SCOTUS Nomination

Dear President Bush:

The purpose of this letter is to express my interest in the vacancy at the United States Supreme Court.  I am a hard worker, a tireless advocate for justice and the rule of law, and my typing skills are exemplary (over 60 words per flawless minute.)  I have closely followed your tribulations over the past month and I am aware of the continuing friction you have experienced with your conservative base.  Given my credentials, I believe I would be a perfect selection to fill the soon to be empty seat on the Court.

It appears to me that your modus operandi has been to choose so-called "stealth" nominees for the Court.  By definition, you seem to look for candidates that have a short paper trail upon which your opponents can assail your nominee's record.  I am perfect for the job.  I have almost no paper trail.  I have never published a legal article on any topic of Constitutional Law.  In fact, other than a few screeds on my website, I have never published anything at all.  I did not even participate in writing for a journal while in law school.  Simply put, there is nothing in my past that will automatically disqualify me according to your political opponents' various litmus tests.

That said, I would bring a fresh approach to the hearings process.  First, I do not believe that private meetings with various Senators is a wise approach to obtaining confirmation.  As your nominee, I would, instead, hold public news conferences in which I made my judicial philosophy known outright to anyone who asks.  I will happily and faithfully express my deep, almost dogmatic, originalist approach and would have no qualms about relating the black and white truth that decisions like Casey, Roe v. Wade, and Kelo, to name a few, were wrongly decided.  It is shocking to me that certain members of our society even try to hitch their ideological horses to such poorly written tripe. 

Second, I would be very forthcoming in the hearings.  I will be more than happy to do hypotheticals with the Senators and answer all of their questions.  I do not buy into the whole concept of not answering because the issue may come before me.  Any person with a knowledge of the Constitution can make a judgment on the facts presented.  The whole Ruth Bader Ginsburg approach is nonsense.  Besides, no hypothetical that the Senators could propose to me would be directly on all fours with actual cases before the Court.  Therefore, I will answer.

I look forward to hearing back from you Mr. President and will be available after business hours on my cell phone.  Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Very truly yours,

-tre

Lawyers Will Be Lawyers...

This attorney from the western Suburbs of Chicago seems to be in a pot of hot water after placing two cameras in the ladies bathroom in his Wheaton law firm.  Sadly, I have yet to run across this guy in the Courtroom. It seems that I will never get the chance since there aren't too many people who will hire a guy caught spying on his employee's bathroom trips.  I wouldn't be too happy if I were his partners.

-tre

Conservatives Appeased

It appears that Conservatives across the country have been appeased as Harriet Miers has withdrawn herself from consideration.  Thus ends a sad and unfortunate episode that saw an unlikely coalition of mainstream conservatives and anti-Bush leftists unite in criticism of Mr. Bush's nominee.  Perhaps she should not have been nominated and perhaps the right was appropriately disappointed by her selection.  Nonetheless, there was something about the whole event that left many of us with a bad taste.  I wish Ms. Miers the best and I hope that she doesn't take personally the attacks levelled at her over the past several weeks.  It was only Washington politics.

Going forward, given the reaction of mainstream conservatives to the stealth nominee, I expect that President Bush will nominate someone to start a real fight in the Senate.  Maybe such a fight would be a good thing to eradicate the malaise that has set in on this Administration.

-tre

Boru???

In discussing the Miers' nomination, Boru's illustrious Senator Mike DeWine had the following gem:

Mr. DeWine said Republican senators facing challengers in the 2006 election -- such as himself -- need not worry that their positions on the nomination will be held against them.

"This is not a factor," he said yesterday. "People are not having a big discussion back in Ohio. It's not a huge issue."

From the Washington Times.  Boru?  What say you as a resident of the great state of Ohio? Are you one of the apparent apathetic masses in the Buckeye State or is Senator DeWine just full of crap again?

-tre

Give it up

The National Review just won't give it up in its relentless assault on Harriet Miers.  The barrage of just plain mean attacks from the right and left on this nomination has become increasingly sickening to me.  Conservatives seem to be virtually gleeful in their continual predictions of Ms. Miers' demise.  The right's act has become completely distasteful.  Please let the piling on end and end soon.

-tre

NARAL's Backfiring Ad

"We regret that many people have misconstrued our recent advertisement about Mr. Roberts' record," NARAL President Nancy Keenan said.

How exactly were we to construe an ad associating Judge Roberts with an abortion-clinic bomber that he never represented and with whom, to my knowledge, he never had any association? NARAL has so undermined its own credibility that NARAL's statement on withdrawing the ad now appears completely bogus.  NARAL's silly advertisement, featuring a testimonia from a survivor of a criminal bombing of an abortion clinic, has mercifully met an early demise.  It seems to me that the ad's overreaching probably did more to hurt NARAL's case than help it. By pointing out the absurdity of the connection between Judge Roberts and Eric Rudolph, the blogosphere and new media really showed their worth on this one. 

-tre