"Achieve maximum effect
by exhibiting
Reasoned Audacity."
Need a speaker? Click here to bring Charmaine to your event.
Recent events:
MOPS, Truro Church, Fairfax, Virginia
September 8th
Washington & Lee University, Washington D.C. Program, "Women and Politics"
May 13th.
Trinity Fellows, Charlottesville, VA, "Gay Marriage"
May 26th.
Cedarville College, April 14th.
Sex Trafficking PPT
For Josh, Michael and Will.
Be safe.
Don't miss Connie Mackey's report on Inside-the-Beltway scuttlebut on the White House's reaction to winning the Alito nomination: they found the fight so bruising that they are considering a moderate for the next open Supreme Court seat.
Rumored to be on the horizon for the Spring.
They won the Superbowl of politics. . . and now they are saying, "Ouch, I got bruised!"?
Cross Posted From Jack Yoest.
at www.FRCBlog.org. FRC launched the blog on January 6th to promote public education on important policy issues.
The non-profit is on the cutting edge of conversation on the Sam Alito Senate hearings.
I think they are off to a great start as a new group blog. Do visit the FRCBlog and let me know what you think.
Soon, all major corporations and not-for-profits will be hosting blogs. FRC is proving to be an early adopter of this communication channel.
Was this helpful? Please comment.
Consider a free eMail subscription.
Thank you (foot)notes:
The Managing Editor of the FRC Blog is Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D., who also blogs at Reasoned Audacity. The wife of Your Business Blogger.
Pete Williams, of NBC News, noted an interesting irony about the Alito nomination tonight on PBS. This week the ABA announced that they had rated Judge Alito "well-qualified," their hightest rating.
Wonder what their rating was for Justice O'Connor? Since the Left is making such a fuss about him "replacing" her?
The ABA rated Justice O'Connor "well-qualified" on judicial temperament and integrity; but only "qualified" on professional competence.
NOTE: Updates added, please scroll.
Who's next? Take a minute and VOTE! Look left (on the sidebar); Vote right.
Ironically, the President this next time needs to nominate a divisive figure: someone, that is, who is drawing fire from the right quarters.
Or actually the Left quarters.
Someone whose name is not anywhere near Harry Reid's short list.
Janice Rogers Brown
Someone like Judge Janice Rogers Brown. People for the American Way hate her. Need I say more? This would be what someone referred to as a "bench-clearing fight." Bring it on.
Ted Olson
Or, someone like Ted Olson. I sat next to Ted at a luncheon honoring his wife, Barbara, shortly after she died on 9/11. He is such a gracious gentleman. I realize that has little to do with qualifications for the Supreme Court. (Or does it?) But there's plenty more that does. The Left hates him too.
Edith Jones
Or, someone like Edith Jones. "I am hopeful that with the debacles of the twentieth century ... we can recover the original intentions of the founders of the Constitution," Jones said in a speech at the University of Texas. She thinks Roe v. Wade was an exercise in "raw judicial power."
More coming. . .
Or someone like Alice Batchelder.
Alice Batchelder
Not sure who she is? Christopher Flannery, from Claremont, makes the case for her.
Michael Luttig
Or, Michael Luttig. Graduated from UVA, worked for Reagan and clerked for Scalia. A triple-threat. And upheld the constitutionality of a partial-birth abortion ban. [corrected] That should be a no-brainer, but in these judicial times, that makes you pretty gutsy.
Michael McConnell
And Michael McConnell. Talk about guts -- and intellectual honesty: he's on the record calling Roe "an embarrassment to those who take consitutional law seriously." PFAW hates "strongly opposes" him too. Still, like John Roberts, even many on the Left concede that he is "one of America's most distinguished constitutional scholars."
Samuel Alito
And finally, Samuel Alito. Another Reaganite who is on the Left's hit list for a ruling in an abortion case. Alito was the sole dissenter in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in the Third Circuit, arguing in favor of a Pennsylvania law that required wives to notify their husband's prior to an abortion. Again, not exactly, a wild-eyed idea, but enough to get him in trouble.
* * *
UPDATE: For the POLL, use the comments, or email me, with your write-in candidates. . . I will tally and add these in with a final report.
FRIDAY UPDATE: Welcome Powerline readers (Thanks John!) And welcome Captain's Quarters readers; thanks Ed.
Chris Cox
Lowell Brown wrote and reminded me of Chris Cox. At the Hedgehog Blog Lowell makes the case for Chris. As does Quin Hilyer at NRO.
Lee Jenkins writes in with Karen Williams.
MORE WRITE-INS: (The complete list -- links to follow)
Chris Cox
Maureen Mahoney (Background post from law-blogger, A3G)
Karen Williams
Alex Kozinski, 9th Circuit (1995 George magazine profile, via A3G)
Judge Roy Moore
Miguel Estrada
Diane Sykes, 7th Circuit
Richard Posner (A blogger on the Supreme Court!)
Emilio Garza, 5th Circuit
. . . and John Cornyn
And note to the White House: the ultimate stealth strategy is floated in the comments -- both Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham are attorneys. Turn one of them loose on the Judiciary Committee.
* * *
Here are profiles of Samuel Alito, Janice Rogers Brown and others from WaPo.
Confirm Them has profile links down the right sidebar.
Thanks to Mudville's Open Post. Hey, milbloggers: take a minute and VOTE!
Captain Ed says this is "No Time to Celebrate." He also has a whole post on Maureen Mahoney -- the Drill Sergeant brings up her name in the comments below as well.
GOPUSA did an overnight poll, Bobby Eberle at the Loft reports, of 1,000 conservative Republicans and found the majority felt the Miers withdrawal was the right thing. Who did they want as the next nominee? Janice Rogers Brown.
The Washington Post has an overview of possible candidates this morning.
A new book from Texas judge Janice Law argues that Lawrence v. Texas, the landmark Supreme Court case that declared anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional, was a staged set-up. . .
This you've got to read. I always wondered about the factual details behind that case. It never made sense to me.
Turns out that's because there were no real facts. And it didn't make sense.
Sandra Day O'Connor
Credit: Joe Marquette
EPA/Associated Press
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor stepped down from the High Court this morning, but the President has announced that he will not nominate a replacement until he returns from next week's G8 summit.
The President's official statement said that he will be consulting with his advisors on the nomination during the trip. But of course that selection decision has already been made.
The real discussion focuses on the politics of the nomination battle. All of Washington is still speculating that the President will put his friend Alberto Gonzalez (currently serving as Attorney General) in O'Connor's chair. See this earlier post for more on that rumor.
I was part of a press conference today on the O'Connor nomination,and the questioning was most pointed about Gonzalez.
Loyalty to his friends is one of this President's good qualities. But in this case, he needs to find someone to put on the bench who will be loyal to the Constitution.
Thank you to the Honorable Mudville Gazette for the Open Post
Ready for battle joining the ProLifeBlogs in O'Connor Retires.
Right Wing News gets it right at O'Connor Snatches Defeat...
Bill Kristol says that Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor will step down next week -- not the Chief Justice as everyone has been expecting -- and that the President will replace her with his close friend, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. (Heard hangin' out at the Corner from John Podhoretz.)
Alberto Gonzales
A moderate for a moderate. That's how they'll sell it. That's how Washington works.
Sandra Day O'Connor
Credit: Joe Marquette
EPA/Associated Press
The Gonzalez appointment has been kickin' around for a looong time. The President is determined to see him on the High Court. For more on Gonzalez and the politics of his nomination, see this 2003 article from Ramesh Ponnuru.
Thomas Sowell writes a must-read column about bigotry. . . and he sees it in the Senate maneuvering to keep judicial nominees from getting a vote.
Thomas Sowell
Maybe the non-stop denunciations of judicial nominees by Senate Democrats will seem relevant to some people but it is in fact wholly beside the point. Senators who don't like any particular judicial nominee -- or any nominee for any other federal appointment -- have a right to vote against that nominee for any reason or for no reason. . .. . .The real issue is whether those Senators have the right to deprive all other Senators of the right to vote on these nominees. . . The essence of bigotry is denying other people the same rights you have. For generations, it was racial bigotry which provoked filibusters to prevent the Senate from voting on bills to extend civil rights to blacks. But bigotry is bigotry, whether it is racial bigotry, religious bigotry or political bigotry.
The truth is, the Left lost the election in November. And they simply refuse to accept the loss. After all, "those people" couldn't have won, could they?
Case in point: Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of the Nation, on This Week yesterday talking about those "right-wing Christians." Voice dripping with scorn. That's bigotry. And it's not any prettier dressed up with intellectual pretension.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
And they can't say that the question of the courts wasn't part of the election: Judicial nominations were a part of the national discussion at the time.
So now, we've moved on to a raw power grab. The debate over the filibuster is hardball politics, plain and simple. Fueled by, as Sowell brilliantly recognizes, good old-fashioned bigotry.
About Charmaine
My writing over the years, and longer pieces: click here for more Reasoned Audacity.
"You turn if you want to. The lady's not for turning."
~ Margaret Thatcher, 1980
The Occasional Adventures of the Penta-Posse: Diva, Dreamer, Dude, Dancer, and Darlin' Boo . . .
Site maintained by
This is Charmaine Yoest's personal website. The views expressed here are solely her own.
Copyright, All Rights Reserved
Charmaine Yoest, 2006
Comments
Email:
comments at charmaineyoest dot com
Messages sent to this email are assumed to be public and publishable.