We Win, They Lose
The Wit and Wisdom of Three Guys Named Brent, Mark and Mike
Friday, September 24, 2004
I didn't mean it....
Guess who said the following?

"We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians. We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest."

That's right -- John Kerry, in 1997.

The Worst Constitutional Decision of All Time
is the title of a law review article written by University of Minnesota law professor Michael Stokes Paulsen. The Lexis cite is: 78 Notre Dame L. Rev. 995 (2003). Go read it, it is excellent. Professor Paulsen convincingly argues that Planned Parenthood v. Casey is the worst Supreme Court decision ever. He concludes:

As noted before, the Supreme Court did not invent abortion. There might be plenty of abortion, perhaps authorized or permitted by state laws, even without Roe and Casey. Moreover, the Court is, arguably, not directly responsible for the wrong moral choices of individuals that the Court's decisions permit. Finally, the Court is not responsible - cannot be responsible, consistent with its constitutional role - for correcting all injustices, even grave ones. But the Court is responsible for the injustices that it inflicts on society that are not consistent with, but in fact betray, its constitutional responsibilities. To the extent that the Court has invalidated essentially all legal restriction of abortion, it has authorized private violence on a scale, and of a kind, that unavoidably evokes the memories of American slavery and of the Nazi Holocaust. And by cloaking that authorization in the forms of the law - in the name of the Supreme Law of the Land - the Court has taught the American people that such private violence is a right and, by clear implication, that it is alright. Go ahead. The Constitution is on your side. This is among your most cherished constitutional freedoms. Nobody ought to oppose you in your action. We have said so.

The decision in Casey, reaffirming Roe and itself reaffirmed and extended in Carhart, in my view exposes the Supreme Court, as currently constituted, as a lawless, rogue institution capable of the most monstrous of injustices in the name of law, with a smugness and arrogance worthy of the worst totalitarian dictatorships of all time. The Court, as it stands today, has, with its abortion decisions, forfeited its legal and moral legitimacy as an institution. It has forfeited its claimed authority to speak for the Constitution. It has forfeited its entitlement to have its decisions respected, and followed, by the other branches of government, by the states, and by the People. The enthusiasm of liberal intelligentsia for the Court's abortion decisions, the sycophancy of the law professorate, of the legal profession, and of our elected officials, and the docility of the American people with respect to our lawless, authoritarian Court rivals the pliancy of the most cowardly, servile peoples toward ruinous, brutal, anti-democratic regimes throughout world history. We suffer people to commit despicable acts of private violence and we welcome - some of us revere - a regime that destroys popular government for the sake of perverted, Orwellian notions of "liberty." After a twentieth century that saw some of the worst barbarisms and atrocities ever committed by humankind, at a time when humankind supposedly had progressed to more enlightened states, we still have not learned. The lesson of the Holocaust - "Never Forget" - is lost. We fail to recognize the amazing capacity of human beings to commit unthinkable, barbaric evil, and of others to tolerate it. We remember and are aghast at the atrocities of others, committed in the past, or in distant lands today. But we do not even recognize the similar atrocities that we ourselves commit, and tolerate, today.

And check this out -- a class, offered by Professor Paulsen, titled Atrocious Cases: The Worst Constitutional Decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. The class "will be a collaborative search for the Top Ten Worst Constitutional Decisions of the Supreme Court. The first session will address the issue of appropriate criteria for judging a judicial decision to be atrocious. The next four sessions will be in-depth case studies of possible candidates for The List."

Man, I'd love to be in that class!

(cross-posted at Southern Appeal)

Thursday, September 23, 2004
GOP Base Racist?
In our local "alternative" (read: hippie, liberal, dope-smoking, etc) newspaper, the following "News" story recently appeared, detailing the uphill battle facing the Democrat running for US Representative this fall. One line in particular struck me as inappropriate for a purported "News" article. It said:

One sure sign of a Republican candidate riding high is when he feels like he can reach out to minority voters, especially blacks, without fear of alienating his base.

You know, because it's just a fact that the "base" of the Republican party is racist. We're just reporting the "news" here folks. What a joke. I don't care if this idiot wants to spout off, and he is certainly entitled to his opinions. But to label them as "news" goes too far, especially since there is not a shred of evidence in the article to back up the assertion.

Friday, September 17, 2004
Senator Reid -- Minority Leader
Dave has another interesting post at A Soft Answer. This one deal with two subjects -- Mormon Senator Harry Reid, who may be next in line for the position of Minority Leader, and the size of Mormon families. Check it out.

"I think most ballplayers are conservatives"
So says my old buddy Scott Spiezio, who now plays for the Seattle Mariners. This article begins:

Politically, the Mariners bat from the right.

In a completely unscientific poll with a margin of error of 100 percent, we polled Mariners who are U.S. citizens and were handy, and asked who they supported for president. The results: Bush 13, Kerry 2, undecided 2.

"A lot of it is money, taxes, and I think most ballplayers are conservatives," Scott Spiezio said. "I think if I were making $50,000 a year, I'd still be a conservative, though."

I knew Scott when we were both undergrads at the University of Illinois. I haven't kept in touch with him, but glad to hear he's still on board with the program.

13-2, that's pretty good, especially in Seattle!

Thursday, September 09, 2004
Ms. Morality has returned. All is once again right with the world.

Back on August 5, thatcoloredfella was calling himself a "dangerously optimistic Democrat," and even saying ridiculous things like "with the selection of John Edwards, all bets are off! This puts North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia, in play."

I, of course, had to call him on South Carolina, and pointed out to him in the comments section, "You must be nuts if you think, even for a moment, that South Carolina is 'in play.' It's not."

He cited me to some crazy poll, to which I replied "They must not be polling people who actually live here, because I can guarantee it won't even be close. Even the Democrats here acknowledge this."

Well, turns out I was right. As reported in this story in the Greenville News on September 5, the best even former state Democrat chairman Dick Harpootlian could say was that "if right track-wrong track trends continue favoring Democrats, 'I don't know you could say the state is in play, but it's going to be a lot closer.'"

And that's the best quote in the article from any Democrat on the party's chances here.

Bruce Ransom, a Clemson University political scientist, said there may be an expectation in the Kerry/Edwards campaign that they may be able to run a little better than Democrats have been traditionally able to do in South Carolina.

"Even if they run better, Bush should still enjoy a comfortable victory in South Carolina," he said.

Even current state Chairman Joe Erwin, asked whether the state had again been "written off" by the national party, replied "Don't make me say that."

Don't worry, Joe. You don't need to.

Guess thatcoloredfella was right -- he is "dangerously optimistic."

How do you know?
Check out this story on the idiot who started the racist group the Aryan Nations. It contains this paragraph:

Butler died peacefully in his sleep at his home in Hayden, Idaho, sheriff's Capt. Ben Wolfinger told The Associated Press. It was not known when he died; his body was found in his bed Wednesday morning.

Question -- if it was "not known when he died," how does this guy know that he "died peacefully in his sleep at his home"? It doesn't make sense.

Reminds me of a news story from perhaps ten years ago. It was reported that a dog had called 911 after its owner had a heart attack or something like that and passed out. The story said that the dog attempted to wake the man and, unsuccessful, knocked the phone off the hook and called 911. Apparently, its owner had trained the dog to call 911 in an emergency.

My question was this -- how could anyone know that the dog had attempted to wake the man before calling 911? This was reported as fact, but there is no way they could have known it.

Unless they interviewed the dog. I can't stand it when supposedly reputable news organizations miss glaring problems like this in their reporting.

Tuesday, September 07, 2004
Abortion Politics and Mormons
The always interesting A Soft Answer has an excellent post by Dave with the above title.

Saturday, September 04, 2004
NOW Nutballs
The National Organization for Women has on its website the "2004 National NOW Conference Resolutions." I'll list a few highlights, but the entire list of priorities reads like a leftist dream.

For example, their first goal (of course) is to "Mobilize Women to Defeat George W. Bush." They state:

WHEREAS, the re-election of George W. Bush for a second four-year term would do incalculable damage to women and the world, and the only candidate able to defeat George W. Bush in the 2004 election is Senator John Kerry whose public statements over the years and voting record in the U. S. Senate demonstrate his strong support of women's rights;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the National Organization for Women declare a state of emergency beginning immediately and extending through November 2, 2004 (Election Day) and continue to the time the election is finally determined; and


BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that we urge women everywhere to work to re-defeat Bush in 2004.

Gosh, we're in a "state of emergency," and I didn't even know it!!! And what does that mean, "extending through November 2, 2004 (Election Day) and continue to the time the election is finally determined"?

Does NOW expect that the election will not be determined on November 2, 2004? (maybe this has something to do with its call for "unbiased international observers" to "serve as monitors in this November's presidential election," a point addressed further below)

Next, NOW calls for a "Halt to Military Operations in Iraq." They state:

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the National Organization for Women call upon all presidential candidates to pledge to conduct foreign policy for the United States based on true international collaboration, integrity and honesty and respect for other nations' sovereignty and their right to self-determination.

I guess every nation is entitled to "sovereignty" and its own right of "self-determination" except the United States -- we need to get permission from the UN, and conduct our foreign policy "based on true international collaboration."

And I thought NOW was an organization committed to women's rights? If that's true, why can't NOW muster a single word about the atrocities committed against women by Saddam's regime? Not a single word? Guess women's rights (at least Iraqi women) don't mean much after all.

NOW follows that with a "Marriage Equality Litigation Campaign." It states:

WHEREAS, the National Organization for Women is committed to full equality for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered and Intersex people; and

WHEREAS, marriage equality is a fundamental right and civil unions do not provide the same benefits and rights as marriage;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the National Organization for Women urges NOW Foundation to participate in a litigation campaign immediately following this conference in which the Foundation would:

(1) sign on to amicus briefs supporting full marriage equality at the state level and

(2) seek the assistance of lawyers to represent the Foundation on a pro bono basis to author amicus briefs in support of full marriage equality at the state and national levels.

What are "Intersex" people? And how many American women agree with this? And note how there is no attempt at legislative action -- instead it's all through the courts and lawyers. Guess they recognize they could never get the American people behind this garbage.

They then make their pitch for "Outside Unbiased Observers Needed to Monitor 2004 Elections."

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that NOW fully supports the efforts of Members of Congress and our coalition partners and will work with them to demand that unbiased international observers serve as monitors in this November's presidential election; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NOW activists will encourage their Members of Congress to join in this effort; and

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that NOW uses this opportunity to educate our supporters and the world to the frightening aspect that our democratic government appears to be disappearing in front of our eyes, replaced by 5 members of the Supreme Court, Clear Channel Communications, and manufacturers of defective voting machines to name a few, unless, we can guarantee free and honest elections.

How many women know that NOW is "demand[ing] that unbiased international observers serve as monitors in this November's presidential election"?

Or that NOW believes our "democratic government" is being replaced by "Clear Channel Communications." This is pretty far-out stuff, folks.

What a bunch of nutballs. If these are NOW's priorities, doesn't it demonstrate how irrelevant they are to the average woman's life?

(cross-posted at Southern Appeal)

Thursday, September 02, 2004
Pure Trash
USA Today, what a joke. They'll print this garbage from Michael Moore, and they wouldn't print Ann Coulter's stuff? Come on.

Wednesday, September 01, 2004
Looks Like I Was Right...
Certainly not bragging, because everyone saw this coming:

Prosecutors will file a motion this afternoon to dismiss the sexual assault charge against Kobe Bryant, according to sources familiar with the case.

On July 24 (the day that the judge decided to allow evidence of Bryant's accusers sexual history), I wrote that it was game over -- "looks like Kobe's team just hit the winning shot."

Rape Shield Not Absolute
Excellent post at Crime & Federalism about a recent ruling of the Connecticut Supreme Court about a prostitute who allegedly cried rape after she didn't get enough money and the trial court that wouldn't allow the accused to present this evidence. Thankfully, the court reversed.

In a somewhat related item, I wrote recently in reference to the Kobe Bryant debacle that

if a woman who accuses a man of rape is shielded from direct evidence that she slept with several other men shortly before and immediately after the alleged rape, this is certainly evidence that the jury should hear in assessing her credibility.

The rape shield laws are a somewhat good idea, but have the potential to work injustice.

While in law school, I represented a kid who was accused of sexual misconduct by a fellow student. The accuser admitted that she was drunk, that she didn't have a clear memory of the event, and that she allowed the accused to basically get her naked. She even admitted that she was grinding all over the guy, while naked. She testified that she then "woke up" and he was having sex with her. Immediately afterward, she went to her boyfriend. I truly felt that she had simply gotten drunk, done something she didn't intend to do, and felt badly about it. In order to preserve her relationship with her boyfriend, she convinced herself that she had said no, when everything she actually did said yes.

Unfortunately, for the student, he was dismissed from the university because of this. It was the flimsiest accusation I've ever seen, but her feeling that she was raped trumped all.

Powered by Blogger

WWW We Win, They Lose