Several Supreme Court decisions came down in the last couple of days. As is the case with many Supreme Court decisions, you have the conservative wing (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito) opposite the liberal wing (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer). Therefore, Justice Kennedy seems to hold the key to what the court will decide, and he did in each of these cases.

District of Columbia v Heller - The Supreme Court finally analyzed whether or not the "right to keep and bear arms" applies to the government or to individuals. Of course, no other right in the Bill of Rights was applied to the government. The Bill of Rights essentially either places restrictions on government by securing to rights to individuals. Liberals have been arguing for years that the "right to keep and bear arms" wasn't on par with freedom of speech, press, or religion. The conservative wing of the court was joined by Justice Kennedy to provide a sensible, plain interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

Kennedy v Louisiana - The Supreme Court decided that states cannot provide the death penalty as an option for punishment of those convicted of child rape, saying that this violates the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause. Look, either the death penalty is cruel and unusual or it isn't. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the death penalty (even as recently as two months ago!), but it seems like the court (at least the liberal wing of it) wants to micromanage exactly how it can be used. Justice Kennedy joined the liberal wing of the court.

Boumediene v Bush - The Supreme Court said "just kidding" (according to Scalia's dissent) and required the executive branch to grant all detainees at Guantanamo Bay full habeas corpus rights. (Previously, the court instructed Congress to outline a process for the military to apply to consider a detainee's request for release, which was passed as the Military Commissions Act of 2006. This ruling basically makes that act of Congress worthless.) Essentially, the judicial branch is now determining how the executive branch should wage war, including what rights it must grant upon enemy combatants captured in the field of war. Judicial activism at it's finest. Justice Kennedy again joined the liberal wing of the court.

The point isn't whether you personally agree with the liberal or conservative view of any of these decisions. The question is whether the decision was based on a principle of the separation of powers, and whether a right is explicitly defined by the Constitution or not.

For instance, the "right to keep and bear arms" is explicitly in the 2nd amendment, and residents of Washington, DC have been denied that right for some time. The liberal wing of the court wanted to continue to deny them of that right. The conservative wing of the court sees that the 2nd amendment was passed by legislative and democratic processes, and that it is outside of the government's power to completely deny them a right specifically guaranteed to them.

In terms of capital punishment, a case could be made that the death penalty is "cruel and unusual" - however, the court has repeatedly upheld this as a form of punishment. In what circumstances a punishment should be applied is open to interpretation, but it is exactly this kind of interpretation that was destined for legislatures to debate through democratic processes. Instead, the liberal wing of the court likes to look for "evolving standards," "national consensus," and making their own decisions about what is an acceptable "proportional punishment." These types of decisions were never meant to be decided by unaccountable judges, only by elected officials.

With regards to enemy combatants, the power to wage war is vested in one individual, the commander-in-chief. Congress declares war, but the president wages it. And the president is accountable, as an elected official. As the Supreme Court enters into the issue, our ability to wage war must now be held against standards set by an unaccountable, unelected branch of government. Congress is given the power to set the jurisdiction of the courts, which is what it did in the Military Commissions Act of 2006. But for some reason the Supreme Court can just decide that this law is worthless, and instead of allowing the president to wage a war that was declared by the Congress, it has stepped in and declared that enemy combatants have the same rights as citizens under the Constitution (at least with respect to habeas corpus).

The liberal wing of the court likes to accomplish by judicial fiat what cannot be accomplished through legislative means. Protecting judges from political pressure is not supposed to be a blank check to enacting whatever changes they desire. But in a world where the Supreme Court is the most politically active and most politically powerful institution in the land, we should not be surprised that nominations and confirmation hearings are as politically charged as they have become since the Democrats made a mockery of the process with Robert Bork. (The slanderous accusations made by Ted Kennedy led to Bork's defeat, and to today's situation of Justice Kennedy as the swing vote.)

Conservatives desire justices who read the laws, interpret, and apply them. Liberals desire justices who will continue to uphold the court's liberally activist past, while forging ahead into new frontiers of liberal activism impossible to pass legislatively.

All of this becomes extremely important when deciding who to vote for this November for president.

UPDATE: Larrey Anderson dealt with this same topic in Justice Anthony Kennedy and Our Schizophrenic Supreme Court, and summed the problem up well: "Your personal right to firearms was one vote away from being thrown on the ash heap of history. And it still is. Cities, like New York, with strict gun control laws, will be sued in federal court using the holding from Heller. Justice Kennedy could change his mind tomorrow." Ann Coulter also handled this topic mightily in last week's column, Justice Kennedy: American Idle.

Labels: politics

In 10 Concerns about Barack Obama, Bill Bennett and Seth Leibsohn outline ten reasons to be very concerned about Obama. Head over to the article for the full reasoning, but here's the list, with my comments:

"Barack Obama’s foreign policy is dangerous, naïve, and betrays a profound misreading of history." He likes to compare his desire to meet with our enemies to Reagan meeting with Gorbachev - which only happened after Gorbachev began making changes and revealed himself as a different kind of leader. And also only happend AFTER Reagan called the Soviet Union out as an "evil empire." Reagan's views were best summed up as "peace through strength" and "trust but verify."

"Barack Obama’s Iraq policy will hand al-Qaeda a victory and undercut our entire position in the Middle East, while at the same time put a huge source of oil in the hands of terrorists." With all the progress made in Iraq in the past several months, Obama still hasn't changed his tune on this. Obama will simply hand Iraq to al-Qaeda on a silver platter.

"Barack Obama has sent mixed, confusing, and inconsistent messages on his policy toward Israel." Saying one thing to AIPAC one day and quickly backtracking from it the next, he's confused both supporters of Israel and those who desire to destroy it (Obama did receive an endorsement from Hamas).

"In the primary campaign, Barack Obama consistently campaigned against NAFTA, but has now changed his tune, as he has with other issues." They also point out his switch on public campaign financing. Along with his switches on support for Israel, it looks like the Democrats have picked another flip-flopper.

"Barack Obama’s judgment about personal and professional affiliations is more than troubling." Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers were bad enough, but the list keeps getting longer. These types of affiliations represent the types of people he will appoint for positions in his administration, as ambassadors, as judges, etc.

"Obama is simply out of step with how terrorists should be handled; he would turn back the clock on how we fight terrorism, using the failed strategy of the 1990s as opposed to the post-9/11 strategy that has kept us safe." Obama considers it no big deal that captured terrorists will have to be granted habeas-corpus rights under the recent Supreme Court ruling. He considers the first World Trade Center bombing to be a shining example of battling terrorists - wait until they bomb us, then arrest them and keep them in prison. That mentality didn't protect the country on 9/11, and a break from that mentality has kept us safer over the past seven years. Obama would return back to the "law enforcement" strategy that gave us a false sense of security.

"Barack Obama’s economic policies would hurt the economy." Obama wants to increase taxes on income, payroll, capital gains, dividends, and inheritance. His proposals would have a devastating affect on the economy, which is currently struggling. Add tax hikes on top of that, and you can bet that the economy will go into a full-blown recession.

"Barack Obama opposes drilling on and offshore to reduce gas and oil prices." Despite the way Democrats like to blame oil companies, the only way to reduce the price of a limited resource is to either reduce demand or increase supply. Better yet, do both. And while you're at it, keep money away from terrorist-sponsoring countries. That's not going to happen under Obama.

"Barack Obama is to the left of Hillary Clinton and NARAL on the issue of life." Like all liberals, Obama has a very weak argument for his position on abortion, voting against any abortion restriction he's had in front of him.

"Barack Obama is actually to the left of every member of the U.S. Senate." Kerry's heavy (and lengthy) liberal voting record hurt him greatly in 2004. Obama doesn't have that long of a voting record in the Senate, yet the record he does have has earned him the title of "the most liberal Senator in 2007." He received a score of 95.5 from the National Journal, higher than any other Senator.

So what good is inspiration if it is accompanied by all of this? If you're a liberal through and through, I can see why you're excited about Obama. For the first time since 1996, you have a presidential candidate that represents your views who is more expressive than a doorknob. But for the rest of you Obama supporters out there, why does a candidate's inspirational voice mean that you can gloss over all of these serious problems?

Labels: politics

There are so many lessons of the failure of socialism during the 20th century that the left refuses to learn from. 120 years ago, socialism was a bright idea that many wanted to try out and experiment with. America weathered that storm, in some ways, despite the socialist influences present in the New Deal and the entitlement programs that followed. But liberals still crave more and more socialism, believing that while every nation to try socialist principles has failed, they will be the ones to finally get it right.

There was an awesome opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal today about Argentina, titled From Breadbasket to Basket Case. In it, Mary Anastasia O'Grady describes Argentina's "ballooning entitlements, class warfare, hostility toward producers, capital and private property, protectionism and subsidized central-planning." Argentina has been going through political upheaval in the past decade, repeating the benefits of nearly 90 years of of socialist experimentation.

If America is not cautious, we will be in a similar problem. The dollar is already having trouble on the world market. Democrats find it easy to get the spotlight by blaming just about any problem on companies that are turning a profit. Entitlements are already out of control - Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are all in serious danger and are growing at unsustainable rates, but all Democrats want to talk about is adding a huge new entitlement in the form of "universal health care." Just this past week some congressional Democrats expressed their desire to have the government take over oil refineries. The sad thing is, 37% of Democrats think the oil industry should be nationalized.

Socialists knew that this would happen in America.

The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. -- Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate 1940, 1944 and 1948

This situation should not be surprising to us. In a climate where few people understand the basic principle of supply and demand, because of the lousy state of government education, it is easy for an eloquent, inspiring speaker to come along and talk about "change" and pull on people's heartstrings, while promoting what is, more or less, a socialist agenda. Few people understand the principles behind this inspiration, and what the long-term effects on the government and our economy could very well be.

In many, many ways, it's 1976 all over again. My mom recently admitted to me that she voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976. My mother is no fool, but she was convinced that this was a really nice man who would be a great president. She was wrong. And it took the mistake of Jimmy Carter for us to get Ronald Reagan (who my mother voted for twice).

Does America have to make a mistake again in 2008? Or will it learn from the thousands of mistakes made by socialist governments and leaders with socialist leanings over the past century?

We'll know the answer to that in November.

Labels: politics

Odie Mooney

1995 - June 3, 2008

Odie was, simply put, the greatest cat in the world.

He passed away last night, at home, after a couple of weeks of not eating well and losing a lot of weight. The vet visit on Sunday confirmed that all of his blood cell counts were decreasing, which indicated a bone marrow problem. We tried some prescription food with him Sunday evening and yesterday, but he wouldn't eat anything. We even tried plain tuna last night and he completely ignored it.

Odie was a stray when we found him. Before we were married, Amy was living with some friends in an apartment, and one day as she came home there was a kitty cat outside. She called to the kitty, and he came towards her, and the cat enjoyed the attention - something very unusual for a stray. Amy also noticed that the kitty's leg had been injured, like it had been broken. She took pity on the stray cat and started feeding him occasionally.

Before long, calling for "kitty" would result in him running towards her, meowing as he came. We took him to the vet, who told us that he was about a year old, and had FIV - the feline version of the HIV virus - and should be kept separate from cats that did not have FIV. With this condition, they said, he could live a couple of years or as many as 10.

His leg had indeed been broken, but had already set and it would be a major ordeal to re-break it and heal it correctly. He didn't seem to have any trouble getting around, so we left things as they were.

We named him "Odie" after the dog in the Garfield comic strip, for several reasons. First, he came when you called him. He also starting responding to snapping fingers - we'd snap and he'd come running. He also tended to drool a lot. He was always looking for attention, and would let you pet him like a dog - including petting his tummy, something I do NOT recommend trying with other cats (especially if they have claws!).

I kept Odie outside at my parents house, initially, since my sister already had an indoor cat. Amy and I were married in 1997, and he became a part of our family. He was there when we moved into our apartment.

It was always apparent to us that Odie had not always been a stray. He was way too interested in human affection, but also the first time we opened a can at our apartment he went nuts. So we knew he had been fed from a can at some point.

Like a dog, Odie was an over-eater. If we filled his bowl with food, he would eat the entire bowl in one sitting, even if it meant that most of it would come back up later. So we quickly learned to feed him the "right" amount, twice a day, just like a dog.

When we had guests over, including a large party, Odie was always in the middle of it, looking for attention. The picture above was taken at McKenna's birthday party in December. Odie was right in the middle of it, like he always was.

When McKenna was about 2 and a half years old we discovered that she was having mild allergic reactions to him. After petting him her face would have a minor rash, even if we washed her hands afterwards. So we started looking for another home for him.

After awhile, our friends Kevin and Faith took him in at their apartment, where Odie had his home away from home. Odie spent a few years there, until Kevin went to college, and married housing didn't allow pets. Meanwhile, we were finishing our basement at our new house that would be a great place for Odie to hang out. So last fall Odie came home.

McKenna and Jeremiah had really begun to enjoy Odie again. We kept wanting to see if McKenna still had an allergy, but McKenna insisted on petting Odie only with her bare feet. Which didn't bother Odie at all.

A couple of months ago Odie stopped eating as well as he used to. We tried to start using canned food with him, and that improved things, but soon after that he wasn't eating that very well, either. We took him to the vet about three weeks ago, where they discovered a heart murmur, and found that all of his blood cell counts were low - which indicates that the bone marrow is not doing its job. Last Sunday's visit confirmed that diagnosis, but we really thought we could get him eating prescription food (or plain tuna) enough to go on for a few weeks. We also thought that this process would last a little longer, but it seemed to happen so quickly.

Even up to the very end, Odie was still a sweet kitty. Last night I was downstairs with the kids playing a video game with them, and Odie came up and sat down right between us. Looking for attention. Naturally, we obliged. We tried to give him lots of extra love over the past couple of days, including a good brushing (which he always loved).

We will miss Odie. I'm really glad that he was able to be at home with us for a few months, and that the kids could get to know him again.

McKenna wants to know if Odie is in heaven. I told her that if dogs and cats go to heaven, Odie is surely there - he was such a loving, sweet, and gentle cat. If Odie is in heaven, his heaven is likely to be a place with lots of hands to pet him and lots of feet for him to rub on.

In many ways, he spoiled us, because after having the greatest cat in the world, any other cat won't quite do.

Labels: life

From NASA:

For about 300 years Jupiter's banded atmosphere has shown a remarkable feature to telescopic viewers, a large swirling storm system known as The Great Red Spot. In 2006, another red storm system appeared, actually seen to form as smaller whitish oval-shaped storms merged and then developed the curious reddish hue. Now, Jupiter has a third red spot, again produced from a smaller whitish storm. All three are seen in this image made from data recorded on May 9 and 10 with the Hubble Space Telescope's Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2. The spots extend above the surrounding clouds and their red color may be due to deeper material dredged up by the storms and exposed to ultraviolet light, but the exact chemical process is still unknown. For scale, the Great Red Spot has almost twice the diameter of planet Earth, making both new spots less than one Earth-diameter across. The newest red spot is on the far left (west), along the same band of clouds as the Great Red Spot and is drifting toward it. If the motion continues, the new spot will encounter the much larger storm system in August. Jupiter's recent outbreak of red spots is likely related to large scale climate change as the gas giant planet is getting warmer near the equator.

First Earth, then Mars. Now Jupiter. There are other reports of warming on Saturn, Neptune, Pluto, and various moons of other planets. When will the madness end? Pretty soon "global warming" (oh, I'm sorry, "climate change") will affect all of the planets in our little corner of the universe.

Of course, you'd think some people would make the connection about what is common between all these planets warming up.

Government education at work.

Labels: politics

Warning, there are spoilers in my rant below.

I went to see Indiana Jones 4 last week. It's exactly what you should expect from George Lucas these days.

It's amazing how a movie can be good and stupid at the same time.

The movie starts out well enough. Indy is captured, forced by some Russians to look for something mysterious, fights his way out, etc.

Then he finds himself in the middle of nowhere, and a town is nearby. So he takes off for the town. Only to find that it's a nuclear test site. Then the sirens go off.

Up to this point, it's been pretty classic Indy. It's good. Then comes the stupid part.

He gets in a lead-lined fridge. Now this might be his best bet, but most likely you would not survive in such a small lead-lined box.

Then the fridge gets tossed all over the landscape. And Indy makes it out without a scratch.

One word: stupid.

Now the gag could have been saved pretty easily - let's say there's a bomb shelter in the backyard. Surely the government did some tests that included different backyard bomb shelters to test their effectiveness. It could have even been made comedic by having some monkeys in there or something. Maybe a video camera and switching to a monitoring station where somebody notices Indy in with the monkeys.

But here's the thing: Lucas is so fascinated with technology that he'd rather consider a solution that included a fridge flying through the air and bouncing all over the place. Easy enough effect shot for the ILM'ers.

The movie was full of stupid stuff like that. As well as other dumb stuff. For instance:

Reminiscing over dear ol' dad and Marcus Brody. Move on!

After being chased by KGB agents, Indy spends some leisurely time at his place translating a bunch of cryptic symbols. Surely the KGB would have thought to check his house?

The romance was really flat. I mean, Anakin/Padme flat. You got the feeling that Lucas directed some of it, it was so dry.

Don't even get me started on the jungle chase scene.

Now the general idea of the movie wasn't so bad. In fact, it had a lot of potential. A lot of people have complained about the ending, but I didn't mind that so much. I think this movie was lost in the little moments. It moved so fast, there wasn't much room for characters to interact, unless it was in the middle of another action moment.

All in all it was still entertaining. But stupid at the same time. Not awful, but not great.

So now Indy 4 is my new yardstick. Every movie I see from now on will either be "better than Indy 4" or "dumber than Indy 4." It actually works pretty well to have a mediocre film as a yardstick.

Labels: movies

This is one of Bush's best speeches ever:

There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is--the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it.

Why is it that in the best speeches Bush has ever given, he sounds almost exactly like Reagan? Actually, come to think of it, that's not really a surprise at all.

And when Obama complained that this was a political attack against him, he misunderstood who Bush was criticizing, I think. If you read Bush's words carefully, he's obviously criticizing Jimmy Carter. That Obama misunderstood it as a criticism of himself just further entrenches my belief that an Obama presidency would be as much of a disaster as a Carter presidency (and worse, that an Obama ex-presidency would be just as bad as a Carter ex-presidency). Which might be unavoidable, and it actually might be necessary for the country before we can turn to another Reagan-quality president. But still disconcerting nonetheless.

I think it is truly a proud position to believe that one can carry some type of "ingenious argument" that will "persuade them they have been wrong all along." Any would-be president who doesn't understand the principle here -- the problem with "the false comfort of appeasement," needs to take a few more history lessons.

Labels: politics

This is from a letter from Senator McCain to Senator Obama, dated February 6, 2006, on the issue of developing a bipartisan plan for lobbying reform:

Dear Senator Obama:

I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were sincere. When you approached me and insisted that despite your leadership's preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions with your letter to me dated February 2, 2006, which explained your decision to withdraw from our bipartisan discussions. I'm embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won't make the same mistake again.

...the American people do not see [lobbying reform] as just a Republican problem or just a Democratic problem. They see it as yet another run-of-the-mill Washington scandal, and they expect it will generate just another round of partisan gamesmanship and posturing. Senator Lieberman and I, and many other members of this body, hope to exceed the public's low expectations. We view this as an opportunity to bring transparency and accountability to the Congress, and, most importantly, to show the public that both parties will work together to address our failings.

As I noted, I initially believed you shared that goal. But I understand how important the opportunity to lead your party's effort to exploit this issue must seem to a freshman Senator, and I hold no hard feelings over your earlier disingenuousness. Again, I have been around long enough to appreciate that in politics the public interest isn't always a priority for every one of us. Good luck to you, Senator.

Sincerely,

John McCain

Ouch.

My respect for John McCain just went up tremendously. This reads like something Reagan would have written. Read the full letter here.

Labels: politics