Friday, September 30

Seems It Wasn't Only Kohl

Dianne Feinstein also wanted to know Roberts heart, to have him talk to her like a father instead of a judge just like Kohl did.

Dianne Feinstein's thoughts on the nomination of John Roberts as chief justice of the United States should be read with a soulful violin solo playing, or perhaps accompanied by the theme song of "The Oprah Winfrey Show." Those thoughts are about pinning one's heart on one's sleeve, sharing one's feelings and letting one's inner Oprah come out for a stroll.

Read all of George Will's piece.
The only problem is that Sen. Feinstein and Sen. Kohl were suppose to be trying to decide if he was a good judge; it wasn't about whether he was going to adopt them!

I wonder who won this left sided "sensitivity sweepstakes"? My guess Kohl lost and Feinstein won. After all Feinstein voted against Roberts; Kohl for.

Wisconsinite On Short List

Women remain high on the list: Fourth Circuit Judge Karen Williams, Fifth Circuit Judge Priscilla Owen, Sixth Circuit Judge Alice Batchelder, and a new addition, Seventh Circuit Judge Diane Sykes, placed on the federal bench just last year.

That is the buzz today on the next Supreme Court nominee. Sykes was originally from the Wisconsin Supreme Court and remembered here as a popular solid conservative. I wonder if the fact that both of our Senators are on the Judicial Committee has anything to do with this new speculation.

Decision likely on the nominee out on Monday. the place to check up on things.

Thursday, September 29

Why Only Creationsim?

I've always wondered why it is only Creationsim that sparks establishment clause violations in the schools. I mean there are lots of things that the Bible teaches about that schools have taken a position on as well. Take abstinence. The Bible teaches that abstinence until marriage is right, does that mean that any school that teaches abstinence is teaching religion? If so, does that mean that ANY teaching that is found in the Bible or any other religious belief cannot be taught and the the opposite must be taught? So the Bible says it's wrong to murder. Public schools must teach that it is OK? Or what happens when the religion of humanism or Islam teaches one thing and Christianity another?

Creationism is not different than my other examples because it inevitably leads to one religious belief either. Jews and Muslims both believe in Creation. The problem continues to be that our very existence has to follow some sort of religious belief--it is outside of the scientific method.

Teacher Gag Rule

It's the "C" word. No wait it's the "ID" words but you got to believe me it stands for the "C" word. Once again any teaching of the controversy that is ongoing in the scientific world over evolution, intelligent design, and creationism is being taken to court in order to gag teachers from letting public school kids in on the controversy. Too bad for school kids across America for the next few weeks. They will not be able to read or study any current events either since this case will be in the news and any exposure even to the media reports that mention that there is a controversy would probably be found by some activist judge to violate the establishment clause. Yes, too bad.

Admin: WW Free Offer

The first person who advertises on WW with an image on this blog will get the one month for free. The second person who looks into advertising here will get a text ad for six months for free. For more information email me.

Wisconsin Quote of the Day

"The bill (Conscience Clause bill) also allows providers to refuse infertility treatments and life-saving stem cell therapies, even if refusing could harm or kill the patient." Link

They're closer to the truth now than ever before; just mixed up which side they were to take on the bill with the above position. Harm or death to a patient is the very reason health care providers would take advantage of this bill. They believe the actions the Conscience Clause protects them from being forced to participate in cause harm to one or both of the patients they are caring for.

Wisconsin Passes Pro-life Bills

Ban on human cloning.

Conscience Protection Act:
Protects medical professionals who do not wan to participate in the destruction of human life both now and in the future.

Fetal Pain: Requires any women more than 20 weeks along that their babies can feel pain before they have an abortion.

There was also an abstinence bill that required abstinence to be taught as "the preferred choice of behavior" for unmarried people, as well as a Cord Blood Donation information bill.

Good info on all these bills here.

Also of great interest on these bills was that there was bipartisan support for these bills. Both Jeffrey Plale of Milwaukee and Roger Breske of Eland joined every Republican in approving these bills, and two more Democrats supported the abstinence bill. At least some Democrats are beginning to learn that pro-family legislation is (surprise!) supported by Wisconsin families.

But it appears it will be awhile before the unbiased MSM figures out the same thing. "Abortion foes win day in state Senate" reads the Capital Times headline above a story that quoted from the 12 who opposed the measure seven times and the 21 who supported the measure not once.

Quote of the Day

"That is the oath that I just took. I will try to ensure, in the discharge of my responsibilities that, with the help of my colleagues, I can pass on to my children's generation a charter of self-government as strong and as vibrant as the one that Chief Justice Rehnquist passed on to us."

--Cheif Justice John Roberts in some of his first words shortly after his oath today.

The vote was 78-22. Half of the Dems voted for him. Feingold continues to grab ink because of his vote and Presidential long shot ambitions.

Around the Web: A quick Answer

I normally use google to answer my questions but can be helpful in getting definitions and a general understanding of concepts and words. It conglomerates dictionary definitions and encyclopedia from around the web. Been using it lately.

Also, my brother taught me the other day that if you want a dictionary definition type "define: any word" into google and you get definitions from all over the web. Handy.

Admin: Reminder

Discourse: Comments are welcome on this blog. All commenters are encouraged to post under their real first name and provide a link to either their email address or, preferably, a web site. All forms of profanity are prohibited and will be deleted as will solicitation unrelated to this blog. Those who comment are also encouraged to refrain from attacking people and address instead the issue at hand. Any questions or infractions should be reported to me via email. I often respond to comments but don't commit myself to answering all question, and any time I don't answer a comment should not be taken as a position on any subject.

Tuesday, September 27

Whoa Baby!

Donald Trump's wife is expecting a fetus, while the Supreme Court might once again decides if a baby, inches from birth can live. (Opps I guess I got two words mixed around there!) Oh well, I guess if the MSM does it all the time you can excuse me for making the same mistake once in awhile.

Monday, September 26

The Definition of Irony

When war protesters break the law. And you thought they were about peace...

Update: No, they are about "solidarity" with activists who may [have] disrupted the city's traffic and commerce with lawbreaking resistance. Disrupt American commerce? My, that reminds me of some other group.


'Little Platoons'

A good article about the need for the smaller community institution to solve social ills by a Brit and an American.

Conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic and beyond are charting a new vision of social justice. It recognizes that the problems caused or aggravated by the growth in government cannot be corrected by a crude reduction in its size. Policy must also deliberately foster the growth of what Edmund Burke called "the little platoons" of civil society: families, neighborhood associations, private enterprises, charities and churches. These are the real source of economic growth and social vitality.

This is critical. Conservatives should never let big government liberals distort the truth that conservatives care for those who have less or are in need for an instant. For the most part, they care enough not only to offer a different alternative, but an alternative that works.

Via worldmagblog

Friday, September 23

Pets or People

This has been a sore spot for me in the midst of the rescue effort going on down south after the storms. We worry about the puss and pup pets before people. And now we get a federal law on top of it all.

Federal disaster grants to state and local governments should be conditioned on how they accommodate pets in their evacuation plans, say lawmakers disturbed that some Hurricane Katrina victims refused to leave home because they couldn't take their animals with them.

"I cannot help but wonder how many more people could have been saved had they been able to take their pets," Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., said Thursday.

Lantos and Reps. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., and Barney Frank, D-Mass., are sponsoring a bill that would require that state and local disaster preparedness plans required for Federal Emergency Management Agency funding include provisions for household pets and service animals.

The first thing people need to understand is that resources are limited. What goes for rescuing a pet, will be at the expense of saving a person. Well I have some of my own family pets that I am admitably attached to and we don't want to be unnecessarily cruel to animals, an animals worth is related to the relationship to humans rather than having an intrinsic worth of its own. Thus when federal officials are in an emergency situation were people are dying, placing the burden of pups and pussy cats upon them may quite likely come at the expense of a person. This is not just a silly law or sentiment; its dangerous and wrong.

(I can see already that I'm going to have to duck often for all the comments sent my way about this post. I recently talked to a state rep. who gave me this advise: stay away from any legislation related to pets! I guess I didn't listen.)

Thursday, September 22

News Flash: Kohl and Feingold Vote "Yes" for Roberts

Good for them. Kohl I can figure out, but that Feingold with his presidential ambitions would vote for Roberts and face the wrath of the Angry Left surprises me.

Iraq is like...

Most in the media say Iraq is like Vietnam. How so? Why clearly they say Johnson's words are similar to Bush's. It's really just another demonstration of the inept reporting done by the AP. What next? Shall we compare Stalin's words to Bush's and see if we will loose just as he lost the Cold War?

While they even admit that many of the facts, events, and progress of the war indicate completely different conflicts they don't follow it up. It's a given presupossition that Bush is wrong and will fail, and it's up to them to make sure every other American also believes this.

Allow me to submit to you that if you want to compare the Iraq conflict to any engagement, a better comparison would be the war in the Philippines. Yes, we were there for about 3 years. Yes there were many American lives lost (4,234), and much of the war was guerilla fashion and yet, may I also say that the guerilla insurgents were crushed and the Philippines became a better place.

An even more intriguing comparison between the two wars is to trace the home front opposition. Presidential candidates tried to advocate cutting and running, but it normally backfired. Only fringe groups could support that type. If the press wants to make a comparison to any administration they should compare it to the McKinley and Teddy Roosevelt's. But of course they won't because both their administration and the Philippines war were stunning successes.

Update: No need to reinvent the wheel. Here is an excellent piece on the subject.

There is one respect in which the Iraqi insurgency differs considerably from that which unfolded in the Philippines. The insurrectos of the latter conflict had a clearly defined political agenda that they aggressively marketed to their fellow citizens. Rebel commanders distributed public letters arguing their case, appealing to sentiments of patriotism, nationalism, and self-sovereignty. Their message, quite simply, was that the Philippines should be ruled by Filipinos, without interference from an unelected colonial government.

Tuesday, September 20

The Litmus the Message Test

It seems that many of the Dems will vote against Roberts not because he is not qualified or because they disagree with his positions on issues or even because he didn't speak enough. Now the new test is the "message" test. By voting for Roberts what sort of "message" will it be giving the White House. This constitutes the height of politicization of judicial nominees; treating them as nothing more than bargaining chips.

I guess I was to generous to assume that the Dems would reject Roberts because he did not have a "heart."

Monday, September 19

R-ConHearings: Wrap Up

To wrap up the coverage, it appears that Roberts is cruising to confirmation, and Bush is looking toward the second nominee. As far as I can tell, Roberts deserves to be. What has struck me as one of the dilemmas of the whole debate over the Courts is that even tho John Roberts may seek to make the judicial branch less political he faces the difficulty that even that position is political: liberals want it more politicized, conservatives less.

Also on to the second nominee, some are saying that they want another nominee like O'Connor, a nominee who would preserve the "balance on the court." Hogwash. First, Bush has no reason to nominate a swish-wish, wish-wash: he campaigned on judges who will follow the law not invent it. Second, the close division in general and O'Connor's own contributions to it under her inconsistent reasoning only created confusion, distortion, and disrespect for the whole judicial system. If Bush can find enough nominees who will follow in the shoes that I believe Roberts will walk in we may have for the first time since Earl Warren donned black robes a genuine judicial system with respect for judging from the law, instead of policy from the heart.

Around the Web: Books and Search

Copyright laws written long before the digital age are about to be tested as Google Inc. attempts to scan millions of books and make their text fully searchable on the Internet.

I really hope this doesn't shut the whole program down. I'm well ready to have searchable digital access to books. Well I don't really like to read my books on the web, it would be an astonishing combination to be able to search any book on the web that you had read, find the page number and then be able to find it in the book. You'd think that even the publishers should be able to figure this out. They need some system that gives you access to a digital copy of your book on the web whenever you buy a hard copy. I don't even know if Google's idea will make this possible but someone should be able to pick up on this thought concept.

A Blessing in Disguise

While the state, local, and federal gov't might not have responded in a fashion to live up to everyone's expectations, this report shows that many churches have stepped up to the task. Maybe my early pessimism that the churches were doing nothing was misplaced.

The task of sheltering evacuees has largely fallen to the Red Cross, which has leaned on dozens of churches across the state to house, clothe, and feed hundreds of destitute families. While hundreds of thousands wait on aid from FEMA, many churches are not only meeting evacuees' basic needs, but helping them rebuild their homes and lives.

Mr. Curtis stumbled on the Faith Presbyterian Church (FPC) shelter late at night when he stopped in Brookhaven with a hungry family and an overheated car. A clerk at Wal-Mart told him a Red Cross shelter was less than a block away, and the Curtis family joined nearly 250 other evacuees in FPC's crowded gym.

Bo Case, a resident of the small town just south of Jackson and a member of a local Baptist church, arrived the same night to help oversee shelter operations. He says the 300-member FPC has taken in evacuees from as young as 5 days old to as old as 100 years. Church volunteers have done the bulk of the work.

The one critical difference between gov't relief and church relief is that the church can deal with the deeper needs of these people, the gov't with safety and basic infrastructure. The total destruction of ones home not only exposes physical needs but also many emotional needs. When all earthly possession are washed out in one big wave and people are left wondering what their purpose in life is. That is exactly needs the church is called to fulfill.

On the other hand, I just want to point out that this should be a partnership between the gov't and church. The church can't provide security nor the basic rebuilding of infrastructure in the damaged area; the gov't can and should. When both work side by side like this, great things can happen.

Saturday, September 17


We should all be thankful when justice is served out and the state protects the innocent: the primary duty of any state.

A jury yesterday convicted an immigrant truck driver of first-degree murder in the shooting deaths of six deer hunters during a confrontation over trespassing, rejecting his claims that he fired in self-defense after one hunter used racial slurs and another shot at him.

Chai Soua Vang, 36, faces mandatory life in prison. Wisconsin does not have a death penalty.

Jurors deliberated about three hours before convicting Vang on six counts of first-degree intentional homicide and three counts of attempted homicide. In addition to the six dead, two hunters were wounded in the Nov. 21 shootings that began when the hunters confronted Vang, who was also hunting, for being on private land. Prosecutors charged Vang with three counts of attempted homicide because he had attacked one man twice.

Friday, September 16

R-ConHearings: Sekulow, Roberts, and Roe

Some pro-life advocates are concerned about Roberts' comments on the Griswald v. Connecticut birth control case from the late 1960s that created the privacy notion the high court used to allow abortions in Roe v. Wade. Roberts called the case "settled law."

"His answer to that question was the same, word for word, as [pro-life Justice] Clarence Thomas," Sekulow said.

Sekulow explained that Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the case had to do with marital privacy and Roberts "specifically said it is not resting within the context of penumbras, or emanations of the 14th Amendment" as the high court claimed in Roe.

"That is where the Roe v. Wade rights came into play, and he answered exactly the same way that Justice Thomas did, and I think he holds the same viewpoint," Sekulow argued.

Sekulow told CBN News that Roberts' answers on Roe v. Wade were appropriate and showed he understands how the court could figure out a way to overturn the decision.

"Roberts said stare decisis is the starting point, it's not the end point," Sekulow observed. "Sometimes the Supreme Court has to correct itself. And John Roberts laid that out very clearly."

Sekulow said abortion advocates are so intense in their opposition to John Roberts because they know he will likely overturn Roe and because he has the brilliant legal mind to be able to lead the court to do that.

"They are reacting so strongly because he knows how to apply the law, and that will be historic in Supreme Court history," Sekulow said.

"I think everybody should be very comforted that he understands his role as a judge," Sekulow concluded. "He is not a policy maker. He said that. I think that is going to be helpful on so many of these issues."

No one has questioned the extremely bright mind of Roberts, so if Sekulow is right, that he is forming the overturn of Roe, then he could be more critical than many realize.

Again from

The Judge Lynching Abortionist Update carries the story (as well as the penalty this action can carry) of the abortionist that wants the judge that upheld a state parental notification law "to be lynched."

Reacting to the U.S. District Court in Cincinnati ruling, Director Westfall said, "My opinion is the judge should be lynched."

I am sure Ms. Westfall and the ACLU feels betrayed since they know the courts are their only hope for imposing their radical pro-abortion on the American people.

Ms. Westfall should perhaps worry less about performing more abortions and more about her own future. Threatening a federal judge can carry a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000.

Last time I posted about this someone asked if I would condemn those who kill abortionists, which I didn't think was really an issue, but happily did. Since that wasn't clear here is another thing I will state clearly: I think the states should make laws against and prosecute these docs of death. They too are not only threatning innocent life but taking it.

Thursday, September 15

R-ConHearings: An Oath From the Heart

So it appears that the great undefined and extremely subjective "heart" that Kohl was looking for at the start continues to be the only problem the Dems can point to about Roberts. As Powerline says:

So this means that the Dems will give up the game and vote for Roberts with near unanimity, as the Republicans did for Justice Ginsburg, right? Well, no. The Chronicle goes on to note that "the eight Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee — and other Democratic senators — are being pressure by liberal interest groups unified against Roberts. [So] as the hearings continued today, the committee Democrats seemed to be searching for a way to explain to their constituents a vote against the nominee."

Here's what they came up with -- Roberts lacks a heart. The Dems couldn't explain how they know this. It's difficult to exhibit heart while conducting a seminar on the law. Can we say that Hank Aaron lacks a heart because he didn't display one while he was hitting all those home runs?

In fact, however, Roberts' pro bono work for a variety of needy or unpopular clients provides evidence of his heart; better evidence, in fact, than the pious posturing of Senate Dems does of theirs.

Yes 'tis a terrible crime that Judge Roberts wants to faithfully apply the Constitution to the cases before him without relying or forcing the sentiments of his "heart" onto the rest of society by high-handed judicial command. Maybe the Senators should first start by adding it to the judicial oath that judges take. Repeat after me: "I John Roberts Jr. in my capacity as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America do solemnly swear that I will faithfully follow the tugs on my heart strings, so help me God!"

Quote It!

"It's important to determine not just the quality of your mind, but the fullness of your heart," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

Sen. Lindsey Graham: "If I wanted to judge Justice Ginsburg on her heart, I might take a hard-hearted view of her and say she's a bleeding heart..."And I want this committee to understand that if we go down this road of putting people's hearts in play, and the only way you can have a good heart is, Adopt my value system, we're doing a great disservice to the judiciary."

And what about Kennedy? He "told reporters as the hearings drew to a close that he retained doubts over "whether he really recognizes in his heart and his soul the extraordinary march to progress in the last 50 years.""

Roberts gets the last word: "My obligation is to the Constitution. That's the oath."

R-ConHearings: Feingold; Death Penalty

Feingold, a staunch foe of the death penalty, grilled Roberts on the issue. "Supreme Court justices do have the power of life and death,' Feingold said.

"There is always a risk in any enterprise that is a human enterprise, like the legal system,' Roberts said. 'When you're dealing with something like capital punishment, the risk is something that has to be taken extremely seriously.'


R-ConHearings: More Kohl

At one point, Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) asked in exasperation: "You have . . . suggested on numerous occasions that the things that you represented in writing or in an opinion back in the '80s and into the '90s . . . were in many cases the opinions of people for whom you worked, not necessarily your own. I assume, therefore, there are those opinions that you're prepared to disavow?"

Roberts replied: "My view in preparing all the memoranda that people have been talking about was as a staff lawyer. I was promoting the views of the people for whom I worked, and in some instances those are consistent with personal views, and in other instances they may not be.

"In most instances, no one cared terribly much what my personal views were. They were to advance the views of the administration for which I worked."

R-ConHearings: Eminent Domain and Kohl

When Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., asked Roberts to comment on the Supreme Court's decision in June upholding the use of eminent domain by a Connecticut city to acquire homes and businesses for a redevelopment plan anchored by a private business, Roberts neither praised nor criticized the ruling. But he said recent bills in Congress and state legislatures proposing to curb eminent domain showed that "this body and legislative bodies in the states are protectors of the people's rights" as much as courts are.

"House adds sexual orientation to 'hate crimes'"

Concern no doubt.

Wednesday, September 14

R-ConHearings: Looking for Direction from Opposition

One of the most ironic things about Roberts confirmation is that one of the primary sources of whether people support him or his position is if the opposition does. They find out then do the opposite.

For example People for the Liberal (I mean American) Way said

. . . Right-wing leaders are apparently comfortable concluding that Roberts "provide[d a] basis for reversing Roe v. Wade," as one LifeNews headline put it. Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network reported that Roberts "may vote [to] overturn Roe v. Wade," and that "[p]ro-life groups were happy to hear" his answers on when it is appropriate to overturn settled law.

How about this from the Kos Kids:
The fact is that after Roberts' answers on privacy yesterday, someone should have been upset. Either the Party of Dobson. (sic) Or progressives.

I'll admit it myself. I do much of the same thing, even tho I'm much more sceptical about taking the opposite view of such orgs then agreeing with reputable ones. Now, Planned Barrenhood and clan all were against Souter too even tho he turned out to be their greatest bon.

R-ConHearings: More Griswold


There is way too much Conservative hand-wringing over Roberts’ response concerning Griswold!

Democratic Senator Herb Kohl asked Roberts: “The Griswold v. Connecticut case guarantees that there is a fundamental right to privacy in the Constitution as it applies to contraception. Do you agree with that decision and that there is a fundamental right to privacy as it relates to contraception? In your opinion, is that settled law?” One way Supreme Court justices are able to expand precedent is by phrasing the holdings of prior cases in general terms. Roberts reeled the Senator’s statement back in: “I agree with the Griswold court’s conclusion that *marital* privacy extends to contraception . . . The court, since Griswold, has grounded the privacy right discussed in that case in the liberty interest protected under the due process clause.

Kohl announced that he was “delighted” with Roberts’ answer because “many, many constitutional scholars believe that once you accept the reasoning of Griswold and find that the Constitution does contain a right to privacy and a right to contraception, that you’ve essentially accepted . . . the basis for the court’s reasoning and decision on Roe, that a woman has a constitutionally protected right to choose.” Roberts declined Kohl’s invitation to comment, but there is a strong argument that Kohl’s unnamed scholars are wrong.

The precise issue before the Court in Griswold in 1965 was whether a Connecticut law that forbid the use of contraceptives invaded the privacy of married individuals. The case centered on the sanctity of marriage and its fundamental values. Justice Douglas in the majority opinion asked: “Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.” Justice Goldberg in his concurring opinion wrote: “Although the Constitution does not speak in so many words of the right of privacy in marriage, I cannot believe that it offers these fundamental rights no protection.”

Griswold was more about marriage than it was about sexual privacy. Or so the state of Massachusetts thought until the Supreme Court, in the 1972 case Eisenstadt v. Baird, struck down a similarly hardly-ever-enforced law against contraceptives that applied only to unmarried people.

The Court majority admitted that Griswold had been based on the unique marriage relationship, but then, like sly Senators, it spun the case from there: “[T]he marital couple is not an independent entity with a mind and heart of its own, but an association of two individuals each with a separate intellectual and emotional makeup. If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.” At that moment, the Court leapt into new territory that laid the foundation for the Roe decision the following year. Eisenstadt is the key evolutionary link between Griswold and Roe.

In sum, Roberts carefully limited himself to the specific holding of the Griswold case, said nothing about Eisenstadt in this context, and left himself a jurisprudential exit if the issue of reconsidering Roe should ever come before him.

Tuesday, September 13

R-ConHearings: and Feingold

Also from Althouse. (I have not read Feingold's yet myself.)

Russ Feingold. First question: Why not televise the Court's arguments? Please say yes! Roberts talks way too much here, for some reason. Maybe he's trying to run out Feingold's time. Second question: How did September 11th affect your thinking about the law? Again, he gets weirdly chatty, telling the story of how he heard about the attacks unusually late, which was interesting but utterly irrelevant. Again, I'm thinking he's trying to eat up Feingold's time. Really strange! He hasn't done this to any of the other questioners. Feingold pushes him to focus on the question of undervaluing rights during wartime. This part is productive. Roberts is fairly noncommittal, but shows a somber concern about rights, as, of course, he must. He flatly rejects Korematsu.

R-ConHearings: Griswold and Althouse

Althouse doesn't see much in Kohl's questions about Griswold. And the way he answers does not endorse the penumbra rights (if true, whew!).

It's time for Herb Kohl. Kohl gets Roberts to say that he believes in the right of privacy articulated in Griswold, as later framed in terms of substantive due process. That is to say, he doesn't endorse the notion of rights in the penumbra of the Constitutional clauses, as stated in the case. Roberts puts the right into the due process clause, as later cases did. But how big is this privacy right? Roberts will only say that it covers at least what Griswold spoke about — married persons' right to use contraceptives. The reason he would talk about that but not abortion is that he's sure that there would never be another case on that subject. That's a neatly framed position! It stops those who would try to destroy him for not believing in the right, but it commits him to nothing that he might actually decide.

R-ConHearings: Griswold and Justice Thomas

The Kos Kids sure didn't like Roberts's answer. Not that it really means that much. What means more is the Clarance Thomas hearings that they refer to that indicate that Thomas also endorsed Griswold's understanding of privacy but rejected its application to Roe.


JUDGE THOMAS: Again, Senator, as I noted, my concern was that I didn't believe that -- it's such an open-ended provision as the Ninth Amendment. It was view that a judge would have to tether his or her view or his or her interpretation to something other than just their feeling that this right is okay or that right is okay. I believe the approach that Justice Harlan took in Poe v. Ullman and again reaffirmed in Griswold in determining the -- or assessing the right of privacy was an appropriate way to go.

Of course Thomas does not agree that the penumbra right to kill the preborn:

In construing the phrase "liberty" incorporated in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, we have recognized that its meaning extends beyond freedom from physical restraint. . . . [W]e have held that the term "liberty" includes a right to marry . . .; a right to procreate, . . .; and a right to use contraceptives, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972). But a reading of these opinions makes clear that they do not endorse any all-encompassing "right of privacy."

In Roe v. Wade, the Court recognized a "guarantee of personal privacy" which "is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." 410 U.S., at 152 -153. We are now of the view that, in terming this right fundamental, the Court in Roe read the earlier opinions upon which it based its decision much too broadly. Unlike marriage, procreation, and contraception, abortion "involves the purposeful termination of a potential life." Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 325 (1980). The abortion decision must therefore be recognized as sui generis, different in kind from the others that the Court has protected under the rubric of personal or family privacy and autonomy.

R-ConHearings: Kohl and Grave Concerns

KOHL:Judge, as we all know, the Griswold v. Connecticut case guarantees that there is a fundamental right to privacy in the Constitution as it applies to contraception.

Do you agree with that decision and that there is a fundamental right to privacy as it relates to contraception? In your opinion, is that settled law?

ROBERTS: I agree with the Griswold court's conclusion that marital privacy extends to contraception and availability of that. The court, since Griswold, has grounded the privacy right discussed in that case in the liberty interest protected under the due process clause.

That is the approach that the court has taken in subsequent cases, rather than in the (inaudible) and emanations that were discussed in Justice Douglas' opinion.

And that view of the result is, I think, consistent with the subsequent development of the law which has focused on the due process clause and liberty, rather than Justice Douglas' approach.

KOHL: Well, I'm delighted to hear you say that because, as you know, many, many constitutional scholars believe that once you accept the reasoning of Griswold and find that the Constitution does contain a right to privacy and a right to contraception, that you've essentially accepted -- scholars have said this -- essentially accepted the basis for the court's reasoning and decision on Roe, that a woman has a constitutionally protected right to choose.

These scholars reason that it follows logically that, if a woman's right to privacy and her control of her body includes the right to contraception, that it also includes a woman's right to choose to terminate her pregnancy.

I am not sure whether you wish to comment on that. I just wanted to point out to you something that I'm sure you are familiar with, that there is, in constitutional thought, a follow from Griswold to Roe.

ROBERTS: Well, I feel comfortable commenting on Griswold and the result in Griswold because that does not appear to me to be an area that is going to come before the court again. It was surprising when it came before the court in 1965, I think, to many people.

The other area is an area that is, to quote Justice Ginsburg from her hearings, live with business. There are cases that arise there.

And so that's an area that I do not feel it appropriate for me to comment on.

Warning!: If this is true then it carries grave implications. Some might say that Roberts is just trying to play around the Roe issue, but I actually think that Kohl is closer to the truth: Griswold's infamous "penumbra" right to privacy is where Roe (and may I add legalized homosexuality) begins and ends.

Andrew from Confirm them takes the same position. Is this the statement that will sink the nomination? I want to withhold judgment for now, but this is definitely the line of question to watch.

Things to wonder: Does the "conclusion" of the court not include its "reasoning?"
When he talks about "since Griswold" and a "privacy right protected under the due process clause" that he will not comment on, is he concocting an anit-Roe opinion that still holds to Griswold? I can't say, but it does not reassure.

R-Con Hearings: Feingold

For example, Senator Russell D. Feingold had commented earlier in the afternoon that the memorandums the young John G. Roberts Jr. had written as a lawyer in the Reagan administration were "highly ideological" and "sometimes dismissive of the views of others." But people can change, Senator Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat, observed, adding, "So I will be looking for a somewhat different John Roberts than the John Roberts of 1985."


Compare Decide: Kohl v. Coburn

After reading Kohl I started to wonder if there was anyone left who understands what the judge and the Constitution is about. Is it all fuzzy wuzzy hearty? Feelings and personal sentiments. I wonder no more.

I know Sen. Coburn is NOT from Wisconsin but his statements are worth contrasting with our pitiful representation:

America is an idea; it’s not competing ideologies. It’s an idea that has proven tremendously successful and, when we reduce it to that of competing ideologies, we make it less than what it is. I believe the genius of our founders is that they recognized that individual rights were derived from a creator, not a king, not a court, not a legislature or a state.

Our founders were concerned that, if our rights derived from the state or a court, they can be taken away by a state or a court.

Our Constitution enshrines this idea and gives its meaning in the rule of law. That’s why it’s important for us to respect the words of that Constitution.



Monday, September 12

District 3 Race blog

A new blog (The District 3 Race) out to defeat Kind here in the 3rd district. I wish Jeff Burton the best in his endeavor.

The Ginsburg Standard

That is the question these days. What is the standard that the Democrats has been in place since Ginsburg went thru the confirmation process. Analysis of it here.

And this is my favorite one I would like to submit to Sen. Kohl:

6. Nominees can decline to discuss their personal feelings or reactions to issues or decisions

Ginsburg sure didn't and wouldn't answer Kohl's fluffy fuzzy hearty questions. He voted for her. Should Roberts answer them now?

Kohl on R-ConHearings

He had this crazy obsession with about the directions of the "heart." Kohl: "You will have no constraints on the decisions you reach - other than your understanding of the Constitution and your heart." It sounds nice and fuzzy comfy, but when you are trying to impartially decide how to apply the intent of the law contained in a document, a fuzzy comfy heart would tend to get in the way as much as it helps. Later he also says: "Third, judicial excellence requires a sense of compassion." Well if you mention compassion, you might want to mention justice to those who are guilty don't you think. Well not Kohl.

It is also interesting that he never mentions the need for Roberts to uphold the Constitution. The judges responsibilit to the Constitution is only eluded to in statements like "Constitutional values" and "Constitutional interpertation". It's the classic dependence on personal feelings that the left loves in its judges.

Just as we want - and need -- to know much more about you, we presume that you want the country to know a lot about what is in your mind and in your heart [pop goes that fuzzy comfy heart thing]. People in high places of public trust in this country have a responsibility to share their thoughts about important issues like civil rights, privacy, property rights, the separation of church and state, civil liberties and much more. We hope you understand the need to be totally forthcoming in your answers to questions on these issues. Evasions, avoidance, and hiding behind legal jargon simply will not suffice....

And finally, judicial excellence requires candor before confirmation. We are being asked to give the nominee enormous power. So, we want to know how he or she will exercise this power and how they see the world - and we need and we deserve - to know what is in your mind and in your heart [POP again].

I wonder what he was doing when he was questioning Ruth Bader Ginsberg? Did he apply this same test? He sure didn't get an answer from her on the abortion issue. He voted for her anyways. But he seems intent on getting it out of Roberts:

So, the panel will ask you about some of the most important issues that you will face should you be confirmed. For example, the right to privacy. In early writings, you questioned this freedom, calling it a "so-called right to privacy", so we expect you to discuss with us your current thinking on this basic question.

ConHearings: Opening Statements

"This is a confirmation proceeding...not a coronation. It is the Senate Judiciary Committee's job to ask tough questions." — Russell Feingold, D-Wis


Sensenbrenner on how the two should proceed:

House Judiciary Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Menomonee Falls [told] the Journal Sentinel editorial board Thursday, "There shouldn't be a litmus test on abortion or affirmative action or any other issue on a nominee. If that were the case, Ruth Bader Ginsburg would have been filibustered to death because she was general counsel of the ACLU."

J.B. Van Hollen

I got to hear him speak about the Patriot Act this last Sat. He focused on the two main accusations that people bring against the act: library records and delayed notification warrants. His main argument was that they have both been around for years and the law either standardized or codified these practices.

Do they limit a liberty? Any law enforcement activity does, but he argued that the amount they did was limited, conformed to historical precedent, and was necessary to protect Americans. Those who argue against the Patriot Act really are only using it as a soap box to complain about activities that have been around for centuries.

Of course J.B. is also running for attorney general of the state in '06. I have not heard enough about Paul Bucher to endorse Van Hollen, but there was little I could fault him on. And a very intense personality and a results orientated track record to go along with it as well. Here's a guy to keep your eye on. Remember were Doyle went from this position?

Special Edition: Roberts Confirmation Week

Due to the fact that Wisconsin is the only state that has two senators on the judicial committee, I will be committing most of this week to covering both Feingold and Kohl (and their expected exaggerations) during the hearings.

To start out with, here is Feingold's first statement:

Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold of Wisconsin dismissed the notion that Republican calls for a dignified confirmation process barred senators from pursuing a line of questions.

"If by dignified they mean that tough questions are out of bounds, I must strongly disagree," Feingold said.

I don't think that is what the Republicans were thinking about when they said dignified. When I think of dignified I think of avoiding anything along the lines of Anita Hill type of biz. If questions only mean wondering about a judicial philosophy the have no trouble with it. Specific cases or issues? Nope.

NRO has a good point what to watch out for in Feingold's tack:
Two others, Joe Biden and Russ Feingold, have presidential aspirations that would seem to require them to kowtow to the Left, even if they were not otherwise so inclined.

And a prediction that Kohl would like to do the honorable thing and vote for him, but why party pressure will cause him to do the opposite:

In 2003 Kennedy, Schumer, and Durbin voted in committee against Roberts's nomination to the D.C. Circuit. Absent a farfetched scenario in which Roberts abjectly repudiates his long-held commitment to judicial restraint, it seems virtually certain that they, and Leahy (who has already stridently attacked Roberts), will vote against him in committee,and very likely that Biden, Feingold, and Feinstein will as well. If so, they will place intense pressure on Kohl to join them, and my bet is he will. So a unanimous (or, at best, all-but-Kohl) Democratic vote in committee against Roberts is likely. And there could well be fewer than ten Democrats in the entire Senate who vote for Roberts in the final roll-call tally.

Never Forget: 9-11

It is a time to remember. A time to prepare for the future. A time to be willing to do what is necessary to protect Americans from future harm.

...and may God continue to bless America!

Saturday, September 10

Judges that Enforce an Abortion Choice Law Should be "Lynched"

Guess who said that? It was Carol Westfall, executive director of the Akron Women's Medical Group (a.k.a abortion facility) in response to a ruling by a judge that upheld a 1998 state law that requires teenage girls to obtain parental consent before they get an abortion. In other words, the good people of Ohio want to make sure that those who choose to have an abortion make an informed choice on the matter. Since even Democrats as liberal as Hillary should agree that an abortion is not some procedure to be taken flippantly shouldn't this be something they can support.

Nope, not so for those who make dollars from death. It's threatened violence to the judge who doesn't take law into his own hand and strike down this state law. Their opinion, is that "the judge should be lynched."

Friday, September 9

It Just Can't Be True

Kristol from the Weekly Standard:

But even astute presidents occasionally make big mistakes. And one worrisome straw in the wind is the comment by Bush loyalist John Cornyn (R-Tex.) in today's Washington Post, who, according to the Post, thinks the nominee will likely be "a woman or a minority." Cornyn offered what the Post described as "a vigorous defense of Gonzales." "He would be a very good nominee and one that I would be happy to support," Cornyn said. "I've read about these concerns from some conservatives, and I really wonder where they are getting some of these strange ideas."

Hints of the Battle

If this is what it comes down to, let it. It should be evident that a full fledged abortion debate will come somewhere between Roberts's nomination and Bush's nomination to replace either Ginsberg or Stevens (the theoretical tipping point on Roe). Now is as good a time as any.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, the California abortion advocate, has pledged to filibuster his [Roberts's] nomination if he doesn't back abortion or Roe v. Wade in his interview with the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Boxer said that she will both vote against Roberts and bring Senate activity to a halt if she doesn't get satisfactory answers to her questions about Roberts' abortion views.

If he declines to answer the questions the way she wants, Boxer told reporters at a pro-abortion rally at Golden Gate University in San Francisco that she will "use all the parliamentary tools I've been given as a U.S. senator" including procedures that "make it difficult for other business to get done until we get the information we need.''

Thursday, September 8

California's Illegal Bill

Just another illegal or out of jurisdiction action (think the courts) to force the nation to accept a lifestyle that assaults the foundation of marriage.

“The California Constitution expressly prohibits the Legislature from overturning a Proposition law passed by voters,” said Michael Bowman, state legislative director for CWA, and a former pro-family California activist.

Here's the wording in Article 2, Section 10 (c):

The Legislature may amend or repeal referendum statutes. It may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their approval [emphasis added].

“Prop. 22 contained no such provision permitting repeal or any changes, so to rescind it legally, the Legislature would have to pass another proposition and put it to the voters,” Bowman said. “They obviously didn’t dare do that because they knew what would happen.”

I thought Guv. Schwarnzenegger's words that it should be left to the people was just a cop out. Looks like he was right, but in his own words he doesn't have any real conviction behind protecting marriage.

“The governor believes the matter should be determined not by legislative action — which would be unconstitutional — but by court decision or another vote of the people of our state,” said Thompson’s [his spokesperson] statement. "We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote.”

The statement also said Schwarzenegger “believes that gay couples are entitled to full protection under the law and should not be discriminated against.” The Los Angeles Times reported that the statement “did not offer his opinion on same-sex marriage, but when asked about it last year, the governor said, ‘I don't care one way or the other.’”

Wednesday, September 7

Find Displaced Loved Ones

Speaking of Wal-Mart, they have a site up and running to help you locate and post messages to loved ones affected by the storm.

For example, Alice Johnson in San Antonio TX writes: "Please contact me when you can. HAVE YOU HEARD FROM STEPHANIE OR LORRAINE LET ME KNOW PRAYING FOR U" I even detected a dry sense of humor when Lashawn Johnson posted from in New Orleans: "Conditions are normal." Yup, I'm sure.

And just to make sure there was some relative that had mistakenly gotten lost down south I checked to make sure there were no "Pillmans" yelling for help. Thankfully, nope.

A Wally Good Education

Here is an idea that I hope takes flight. What better way to help out education than help parents educate their children the way that they want to? It really concerns me that some people find this "alarming" becuase it might in some way weaken public education (read down a bit). First, it will probably won't. There's plenty of public and private secondary education institutions and it doesn't seem to harm the public. Second, and most seriously, do we have an educational system to serve the gov't or to serve the parents and their children? Has the gov't really become so egotistical that they believe they know what is better for children than their parents?

To boot, private and homeschool parents continue to pay taxes, and isn't it about time that private education loses its status as something only the eliet can attain?

Let me know Mr. Walton, if you need help finding ways to put your 20 billion toward the way parents want to educate their kids.

John Walton, one of founder Sam Walton's four children, says the family expects to donate as much as 20% of its $100 billion in Wal-Mart stock.

The shift could spur far-reaching education reform, say experts on philanthropy and education. "That could totally transform public education in this country. It's a mighty thumb on the scale," says Chuck Collins, co-founder of Responsible Wealth, a group critical of the influence of the megarich.

The Walton giving is another example of how Wal-Mart, the nation's biggest company, is shaking up fields far beyond retailing. It also illustrates how new entrepreneurial fortunes - like Bill Gates of Microsoft - are redefining philanthropy and charity.

Already, Walton money has helped pay for 62,000 scholarships for needy children in private schools across the USA. Gifts in 2002, the most recent year for which public information is available, range from huge - $300 million to the University of Arkansas - to not as huge: $7,549.71 to the Colorado League of Charter Schools


Walton, 57, who is leading the family's giving, says improving education could have the broadest impact on the most pressing problems. "Everything from poverty to productivity to crime to standard of living," he says.

Allies say the family's giving is injecting competition between public and private schools that will produce better-educated children, and so reduce unemployment, crime and other social ills. "There are so many great things that can happen when someone is well-educated," says Tim Draper, a prominent Silicon Valley investor who has spent millions to promote school vouchers.

Critics say the Waltons could do the opposite: weaken public schools by encouraging the flow of tax dollars to less-regulated charter schools and to religious and other private schools through vouchers. The prospect of the Walton billions is "alarming," says Marc Egan, head of anti-voucher efforts at the National School Boards Association

Tipped scales, Peeking eyes.

I want you to read this quote and see if you can't figure out why it should be sooo disturbing to every American:

Specter and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison... said Bush should choose a woman since O'Connor's retirement would leave only one woman on the court,
Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

"Two women, I think, are a minimum," Specter said.

Update:"Two women are, I think, a minimum," Specter said, though he added he does not favor a quota.

What do you call that? Interpret as I say not as it means? Ridiculous.

Hint: I gave most of it away in my title.

When it hits $3

Yup and I'm just about ready to start riding my bike to town.

Jim Jundt was so determined to rein in his spending on gasoline that he got out of bed early and rode his 14-year-old quarterhorse mare to work.

Jundt lives 15 miles south of Minot and works as a mechanic at Goodyear Tire & Auto Service in the city.

He said he and his co-workers had been talking about rising fuel prices, and he joked that he would ride his horse to work if gasoline ever hit $3 a gallon.

His co-workers laughed, but when the price at the pump soared to $3.20 last week, Jundt headed for the barn.

He said he was only five minutes late riding his mare, Patty, to work.

While he worked, Patty waited patiently, eating hay out of the back of a truck

HT: Bro. Peter

Tuesday, September 6

Wal-Mart, Private Ed, and Moral Vision

An editorial in the strib documents some of the success of private schools being matched up with needy families and a public benefactor.

Recently, the National Education Association -- the nation's largest teachers union -- called on parents to boycott Wal-Mart, in part to protest the "anti-public education activities" of founder Sam Walton's son, John Walton.

Walton's "anti-public education" sin? He co-founded the Children's Scholarship Fund, which gives tuition dollars to low-income children whose parents believe they would do better in private schools.

The Children's Scholarship Fund has a presence in the Twin Cities. Each year since 1999, it has partnered with Kids First, a local nonprofit, to help 600 to 1,000 children attend the school of their choice ( The mission, says Kids First director Margie Lauer, is to provide "a choice for parents, a chance for children."

Last week, I decided to test the conventional wisdom and visit Kids First families who clearly don't qualify as educational "cream." How are they faring outside government schools?

I stopped first at Mary Collins' home on Selby Avenue in St. Paul. Collins' sons, Lamar, 11, and Donte, 9, attend St. Peter Claver School in St. Paul on Kids First scholarships.

During the next legislative session, we're likely to hear "sky-is-falling" rhetoric about how public schools lack the resources they need to deal with "the hardest cases." But schools like St. Peter Claver and Ascension take "the hardest cases" on a shoestring budget.

They are confident in the power of their moral vision.

HT: Powerline

Monday, September 5

Katrina Politics

The federal gov't was resticted from helping out the victims of Katrina because of law, and states that did not authorize the federal gov't to do so says Boots and Sabers and Wis digest.

Charity Accountability

Ever wonder if a charity is valid? Ever wonder if your gift to Katrina will really get there and not just line some bureaucrats pocket? Charity Navigators is a site designed to help you find out if a charity is reputable. For example here is info on Samaritan's Purse.

See also BBB's

Comment Reaction: Where does the Constitution Protect Life???

From a comment:

The Constitution does not have a guarantee of a right to life. If you simply put the Fifth Amendment (which I'm guessing you are referring to) into context, it deals with limits on the state in relation to criminal/civil proceedings (need an indictment, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain, etc.) It means the State cannot punish you with death for a capital offense without due process of law. How this applies to abortion is beyond me and I'd really like to hear your Constitutional analysis.

The reason Roe was incorrectly decided was not that the Constitution prohibits abortion. It is because the Constitution is silent on the issue and SCOTUS created a right where one did not exist. It is an issue that should have been left to the states.

Sigh. It is little wonder we still have abortion. While this commenter does bring out some important aspects of the 5th Amendment ( the 5th applies to Congress not to the state--little understood by most people), preborn life is protected--even from states taking that life--by the 14th Amendment. It is because our Constitution is manipulated and not read or understood that our rights are trampled today. The 14th reads: "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Clear as black and white. Since a person is alive living person before they are born, they are guaranteed life. Nothing is vauge only purposeful distortion allows for any other reading. Not even the states can allow murder.

A Roberts Response

My initial hope was that Bush would appoint Scalia to the top spot on the court so that we could enjoy more of his brilliant prose and consistent opinions, but I realize the practical reasons for a Roberts appointment: one less confirmation hearing, already confirmed as acceptable by the American people, being able to have the court full on Oct. 3, etc.

So I continue to trust Bush and others who have vouched for Roberts, and trust that he will easily pass the Senate and evenly apply the Constitution and guide the Court toward justice for many years to come. It will be the Roberts court. God save the honorable court!

Rehnquist Reaction

Ap overview of Rehnquist. The usual accident over at the NYT: they got the opinion page mixed up with news. What hyperbole to think that just because Katrina struck a justice retired, and there is a war in Iraq Bush is turning into a Johnson or starting to cover up a Watergate style scandal like Nixon.

Bush: "He's a man of integrity and fairness and throughout his life he's inspired the respect and loyalty of others,"

A Wisconsin native Feingold responds: "I have great respect for this son of Wisconsin's long and distinguished tenure on the bench and for the dignity he brought to the court and to his other duties,"

And Kohl: "He carried out the awesome responsibility of leading the judicial branch of our government with honor, dignity and forthrightness. Chief Justice Rehnquist even-handedly led the court through turbulent times, presiding over major decisions that have defined the legal contours of every aspect of American life."

Although born in Wisconsin, his loyalty to the state seems centered on Packer and Badger football.

Rehnquist grew up in the Milwaukee suburb of Shorewood, where he graduated 11th in his class of 234 in 1942. He died Saturday night at age 80.

Rehnquist’s father, William B. Rehnquist, led the Milwaukee sales office of a medical equipment and supplies firm, Bradney-Smith Co.

He left Milwaukee for college and never spent much time in Wisconsin after that, other than to visit his parents. His father died in 1973 and his mother, Marjorie, in 1988.

World War II interrupted his college career — he served in the Army Air Corps from 1943 to 1946.

After the war, he received degrees from Stanford University and Harvard. He returned to Stanford for law school. He still stayed a fan of the Packers and the Badgers and was known for placing small bets on almost every game.

RIP: Rehnquist

The death or Rehnquist really defines the ending of an era and the beginning of the a new one. Often called the "Lone Ranger" when he was first appointed as an associate justice, he help stop the rampant flow of free-wheeling liberalism that had infected a court that placed more weight on what they personally thought was right or what they interpreted society thought to be right rather than interpreting and applying the Constitution to the cases before them.

Although Rehnquist does not have the impressive defined and constant Constitutional philosophy that Scalia has, he has consistently help hold back the Federal gov't from totally encompassing the whole jurisdiction of the states. He also supported the 14th Amendments guarantee of life for every American: a position Rehnquist held since he voted against Roe in 1973.

Many place have also noted the order and decorum that Rehnquist provided to the court. Even those who wanted a squishy version of the Constitution like Justice John Paul Stevens, complemented Rehnquist on the way in which he held a very divided court to debating the issues in a civil manner instead devouring each other.

As Bush appoints the new justices to fill in the places of Rehnquist and O'Conner, there is real hope that the Constitution that has suffered so many slights and embarrassments in past courts, and often had to put up with indecision in the midst of the 5-4 division in recent years may be on the path to a new understanding of Constitutional law based upon what those who passed those amendments thought they would be.

Saturday, September 3

Help Pours In

It's wonderful to see the American people reaching out to those who have been hit by the natural disaster of Hurricane Katrina.

Americans are responding to Hurricane Katrina with a massive outpouring of giving, at times overwhelming call centers and computer servers set up by charities to field donations.
Total donations passed the $200 million mark by Friday, four days after the storm slammed into the Gulf Coast.

Even more when they give a cup of cold water in the name of Christ (one thing gov't just can't do when it lends support).

Campus Crusade for Christ International is mobilizing for the largest and longest relief and recovery effort in its history in response to the devastation and human suffering left in Hurricane Katrina's wake.

"Our hearts go out to those who have lost family and friends, and whose lives have been devastated by this event," says Mark Gauthier, National Director of the U.S. Campus Ministry of Campus Crusade. "This is a time to be in prayer for those families, that God would comfort them and meet them in their hour of need. And, this is also a time that we as a ministry can demonstrate the compassion of Christ toward those who are hurting."

Our church association is suggesting donations be given thru world relief. Go there now to lend your own helping hand. Hugh Heuwitt also has a list of churches in the area who you can give your gifts directly to.

Instapundit also has a list of general orgs to give to. NZ Bear has spearheaded blogosphere relief efforts.

Samaritan's Purse is another good place to go drop some $$$.

If anyone knows of specific churches that they could vouch for down in the area that was hit, please leave me a comment or email me (lpillman*at* about it. Hugh, has suggested the Canal Street Presbyterian Church, and there has to be many more who would be able to wisely use funds to minister to the body and soul.

Friday, September 2

Quote from School

We as Christians have a duty to...

Out live, out think, and out die everyone else around us.