- EverVigilant.net - "The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." - John Philpot Curran
It has just been reported that President Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court is John G. Roberts Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Roberts was appointed to his current position by the president in 2003 and enjoyed both Republican and Democratic support during his confirmation process.
Have conservatives' dreams come true? Are we witnessing the arrival of the pro-life, constructionist judge of whom Bush's supporters have long prophesied? A recent AP article seems to suggest that we are:
Abortion rights groups allege that Roberts, while deputy solicitor general during former President Bush's administration, is hostile to women's reproductive freedom and cite a brief he co-wrote in 1990 that suggested the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 high court decision that legalized abortion.
"The court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion ... finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution," the brief said.
What a relief to see someone with common sense and conviction nominated to the highest court in the land!
In his defense, Roberts told senators during his 2003 confirmation hearing that he would be guided by legal precedent. "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."
Sorry. Never mind. I mistook Roberts' upright position in his photo as evidence of a backbone.
They must use quite a bit of starch in those judicial robes.
I shall probably get disinvited from the next White House tea dance just for asking the following question, but I'm going to ask it anyway.
Given that the four London suicide bombers were all raised--in at least one case, born and raised--in Britain, the quintessential liberal democracy; and given that the entire premise of current U.S. policy is that we can end suicide bombing and other terrorism by bringing liberal democracy to the Middle East; shouldn't we be re-thinking our policy?
Posted at 01:36 PM
That, my friends, is the $270 billion (and counting) question.
Dozens of people are dead and hundreds have been wounded in multiple bomb attacks on London's public transportation system. Three of the explosions occurred in the London subway at the height of morning rush hour. Another blast tore apart a double decker bus. London police officials have confirmed 33 deaths in the subway system alone. CNN is reporting at least 40 people are a dead, including passengers on the bus. Hospital officials have reported at least 360 wounded. Many of the injured are in critical or serious condition.
In a web-site posting, a previously unheard of group calling itself the "Secret Organization group of al Qaeda Organization in Europe," is claiming responsibility for the attack. ...
Is this what it means to "take the fight to the enemy"? Isn't this exactly the kind of thing our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were supposed to prevent?
It appears Charles H. Featherstone got it right in his latest essay, "All This Useless Power": "We have unleashed our power upon the world only to discover that it is terribly finite, a great deal more limited than we hoped and imagined. Hundreds of billions of dollars spent on bombs, tanks, planes, soldiers, and every passing day we are less and less able to bend the world to our will."
It has just been reported that President Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court is John G. Roberts Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Roberts was appointed to his current position by the president in 2003 and enjoyed both Republican and Democratic support during his confirmation process.
