i apologize for not blogging much lately. i have been very busy, spending almost all of my waking time trying to care about the whole Scooter indictment. So far i have been unsuccessful.

Yesterday, in a desperate effort to make myself care, i attached this picture to a device i invented, so that i could look at it all day long. That didn't work, and in fact was more of a distraction than i intended.

Later on, i picked up the New York Times and scanned the three stories above the fold. i looked at the first story, which began with something like: Lewis Libby was indicted. Then i went to the second story which said Lewis Libby was indicted. Then i tried the third story, which talked about Lewis Libby being indicted. Then i looked at the... well, you get the picture. i thought, "what the hell?" There was nothing on there about any Scooter! If the New York Times doesn't care enough about the story to put it on their front page, why should i care?

Posted by: annika at 08:43 AM | Comments (35) | Add Comment
Post contains 184 words, total size 1 kb.

Earlier, i posted my preliminary opinion on the Miers nomination. At the time i fully expected the controversy to die down, although i was mildly disappointed with the choice. Or rather, i was more disappointed with the fact that Bush had chosen not to nominate one of my preferred candidates, instead opting for another apparent stealth nominee.

Over three weeks have passed, and i've watched and listened as the controversy refused to die. This story has had "legs," in the news parlance of the day. And the more i learned about Miers, the less willing i have been to close my eyes and hope for the best. Now, i am ready to commit to a side in this debate. It shouldn't be a surprise, given my background as a conservative with a history degree, that i have decided to oppose the confirmation of Harriet Miers as Supreme Court justice. My reasons have little to do with ideology.

Many reasons to oppose her confirmation have been proffered by conservative pundits much more knowledgeable than i am. These reasons seem to fall into a few broad categories. One group is mad because she isn't a big name judge. These folks are mad because they expected Luttig or Brown or Pryor. i can understand this criticism. i wanted McConnell or Brown. i still don't understand why Kozinski's name wasn't batted around more often. But i could have lived with my disappointment if Miers had been a good choice, and i think most conservatives feel the same way.

Another group is mad because Miers lacks a clear "judicial philosophy." The most articulate spokesman for this point of view is Mark R. Levin, who's turned the phrase " . . . but what's her judicial philosophy?" into a kind of mantra. This criticism has a lot of merit, in my view. i think it's fair to suspect that a person who has shown no evidence of having a coherent underlying approach to constitutional issues probably does not have such an underlying approach. At age 60, it's a little late to expect Ms. Miers to start developing a useful judicial philosophy if she hasn't given much thought to it before now.

Still, i'd be willing to give Ms. Miers the benefit of the doubt on the judicial philosophy question if that were my only objection. It's quite possible that despite the scant evidence of any coherent philosophy, she might actually have one. The trouble is, we don't know what it is. Larry Tribe and Erwin Chemerinsky have coherent judicial philosophies, but woe unto us if they were ever placed on the court. At least Tribe's and Chemerinsky's viewpoints are well known, as are their towering intellects. Which brings me to my next point, which is the clincher.

i'm not saying that Harriet Miers is not smart. Her background, education and experience proves to me that she is. But the position of associate justice on today's Supreme Court is not a job for just any smart person. It's a highly specialized occupation, and those who say it's not a place for "on-the-job training" have it absolutely right.

i am certainly no expert on constitutional law, although i have studied it in more detail than most people my age, both as a law student and in undergrad and graduate history courses. i know enough to know what i don't know. It is perhaps the most difficult area of law, not because it surpasses the intricate detail of a subject like tax or securities law, but because it is so malleable and its standards can be so hard to define. Con law is the "big leagues" of the legal profession. And doing con law as a Supreme Court justice is like being in the World Series. You have to be on your game at all times. You have to be the best of the best to do it right, and if you're not, it will become painfully obvious to knowledgeable observers very quickly.

i think that is the problem when non-lawyers like President Bush try to make decisions concerning the legal world. Most non-lawyers i've met seem to think that all lawyers know everything about all fields of law. No one would think to ask a dermatologist questions about spinal surgery. Yet Miers supporters are quick to assume that a corporate lawyer could easily slip into the role of constitutional scholar overnight.

i don't care that Miers has been at the White House for almost five years. That's not the same thing as spending a lifetime thinking about constitutional issues and the development of precedent from year to year and case to case. That's what con law is all about. It's analyzing precedent, history, argument and policy, then trying to extrapolate the potential reverberating effects of a ruling on future transactions, often for generations to come. Con law is to regular legal practice as Chess is to checkers.

Think about a guy like Mike McConnell, for instance. i've spent many hours this semester dissecting his various Establishment Clause articles, most notably his William and Mary Law Review piece (44 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 2105), which is heavily footnoted, dense and unquestionably essential reading no matter what side of the religious argument you are on. i'm nowhere close to getting a handle on the subject. Here's a guy who's thought about this shit for years. He likes thinking about this shit. You could say the same thing about Prof. Tribe, if you're a liberal. Is there any evidence that Ms. Miers is similarly up to speed on even one subject of constitutional law?

So what if she's not up to speed? Why does that matter? i'll tell you why. An effective Supreme Court justice must have the power of persuasion. If the other justices do not have confidence in her mastery of the subject matter, in her authority as an analyst of the case law in question, they will eat her alive. At this point, i see no evidence that Ms. Miers has the kind of background that will give her that kind of persuasive authority. In fact, i have seen discouraging murmurs that she lacks just that.

How many Supreme Court opinions has she read top to bottom, and understood? It's hard to believe, with her busy career, that she's had the time for that kind of recreational study. If she's confirmed, when is she going to find the time then? i remember my first month of law school. In my nightly reading, i came across so many unfamiliar words and concepts that i was constantly going into Black's Dictionary to look things up. It was a nightmare. i've since learned how to skim the cases just to get through the reading, but that's not something i want my Supreme Court justices doing.

Oh sure, she can have her clerks do the heavy lifting. But in this day and age, i don't want unaccountable idealistic twenty year olds who were basically the best ass-kissers in law school leading around the new justice by her nose. There are plenty of historical examples of Supreme Court justices who relied overly much on their law clerks, but that was never a good thing. And today, the scariest issues are much scarier than they ever were back in the day. Terrorists who can blow up entire cities, scientists who can condemn millions more unborn lives to death, those are just two examples. This is a game best left to the pros.

i'm planning to watch the confirmation hearings, assuming she doesn't withdraw before then. i'm willing to keep an open mind, but unfortunately Ms. Miers has an even tougher job than Justice Roberts had. She must be absolutely stellar at the hearings, because she has to change minds. i know the White House has been working hard to prepare her, but i'd be very surprised if she can pull it off. Very surprised.

Update: You're freakin kidding me?! i told you the president reads my blog.

Update 2: i heard Dick Durbin this morning say, "this was not about documents, it was about Dobson." What an ignoramus. Dobson was one of Miers's earliest supporters, you moron.

And Hewitt's afraid we might lose to these guys?!

Update 3: The Anchoress, who correctly predicted the Miers nomination ahead of time, now turns her clairvoyant powers toward Ted Olsen. i see one problem that should prevent an Olsen nomination: a little case for which he represented the president once upon a time. Bush v. Gore. An Olsen nomination would be spun as a belated quid pro quo, fairly or not. Who needs that aggravation on top of everything else?

Let me go on record now and reiterate that McConnell is my first choice, J.R. Brown my second.

[cross-posted at A Western Heart]

Posted by: annika at 06:50 PM | Comments (43) | Add Comment
Post contains 1470 words, total size 9 kb.

With a collective sigh of orgasmic release, the US Media today celebrated the 2000th military death since the beggining of the Iraq War. In the past week or so, you could almost feel the tension mounting as various anti-American news outlets such as CNN, CBS, NBC and ABC finalized their preparations for today's festivities.

Media hopes are high for a multi-orgasmic week, with many journalists openly speculating that Karl Rove may be indicted before the weekend.

"I haven't felt this good since we hit 1000 dead guys," said one giddy newsanchor, who chose to remain anonymous. "People around the newsroom are positively glowing today. And if Rove gets it, man, I'm gonna need a cigarette. Whew."

In a related story, something or other happened with some election they had over there recently.

Developing . . .

Posted by: annika at 04:20 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Because 2000 Americans were murdered last year in California, I am calling on America to withdraw all police from California. These police should be sent to Iraq where it is much safer for Americans.

Posted by: Jake at October 25, 2005 05:49 PM (r/5D/)

2 I've always said these reporters are animals. I can't help but feel less and less inclined to even watch the local news.

Posted by: tesco at October 25, 2005 06:24 PM (c0E+O)

3 This is the media's neo-"Tet" coverage that is supposed to herald our utter defeat. Fuck 'em. Instapundit has good link about this: http://www.facesfromthefront.com/content/view/137/3/

Posted by: reagan80 at October 25, 2005 07:35 PM (K9tdw)

4 I was utterly fuzzbuckled to see Democratic Senators, including Patrick Leahy and Frank Lautenberg, rise on the floor of the Senate and commemorate the 2000th death by calling for the U.S. to withdraw our troops from Iraq. I just... bizzafutz... I don't want to get started. FUCKERS. Everything about the Democratic Senators' actions - on several levels - infuriates me. These guys, these corrupt adolescents, CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO GAIN CONTROL OF OUR GOVERNMENT.

Posted by: gcotharn at October 25, 2005 08:26 PM (zILLH)

5 One of the greatest disappointments of my life was watching the American people elect a quintessentially feckless corrupt free-loader entirely representative of his party, and the disloyal left whom we had to drag through the cold war while they sniped at us from the rear. It was a repudiation of all those who sacrificed so much. That's why I always look forward to the next revolution. Canada's largest influx of population was Whigs running for their lives after the last revolt.

Posted by: Casca at October 25, 2005 11:23 PM (qBTBH)

6 I found it telling how for the last couple of weeks most reports of U.S. casualties did not report the actual number of casualties but instead reported it as "closing in on", "nearing", or "approaching 2000."

Posted by: shugbear at October 26, 2005 06:23 AM (U7X+u)

7 and we're not talking combat deaths either! any ol' death will do as long as it is an American servicemember overseas. some of these people do not deserve the rights and benefits the military ensures they retain. grrrrrrrrr.

Posted by: jcrue at October 26, 2005 09:17 AM (ZDQoM)

8 I fully agree with your assessment of the biased-as-ever media. However, I am very disheartened by the fact that despite all of the rhetoric pouring out of the White House, we don't appear to be gaining any meaningful ground in Iraq (in terms of US casualties). http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm ...and this is coming from a staunch supporter of this administration, and this war (me)... I'm finding it harder and harder each day to maintain my support in the face of what appears to be a flailing administration at this point; with the blatant crony-ism in Miers, the failure of Social Security reform, spending restraint, and the lack of the conservative/republican ideal of a limited government, the environment issues, etc. This in addition to the lack of concrete positive steps forward in Iraq as I mentioned before. The stance President Bush took and apparently thinks are important (abortion, and gay marriage, stem-cells) don't resonate at all in me. Where do I look for hope, my fellow conservatives?

Posted by: Rob at October 26, 2005 10:03 AM (OeHNk)

9 I'm appalled by the fixation myself; I don't get it -- just like it's been said, the 2000th American death in Iraq is just as important as the first and will be just as important as the last.

Posted by: Amy Bo Bamy at October 26, 2005 01:31 PM (kxatG)

10 CASCA SEZ:That's why I always look forward to the next revolution. Canada's largest influx of population was Whigs running for their lives after the last revolt. I'm with ya bro, when we take over there's gonna be a lot of guys on meathooks.

Posted by: Kyle N at October 26, 2005 03:17 PM (q9xP6)

11 2,000 dead is a milestone, especially considering in the run-up to this debacle it was being sold to the American sheeple largely on the basis of presuming it would be nearly bloodless. The REAL story however is the showcase of American "military" weakness that this farce in Iraq has become and its potential ramifications. The U.S. "military" is a laughingstock, totally stymied by a poorly-armed rag-tag guerilla force several times smaller than itself, especially disgraceful is the U.S.'s pusillanimous over-reliance on air power instead of the fundamentals of ground combat. When someone slams a door loudly or when a car backfires they duck and call for air support. "Oh no, it's an 80-year-old Iraqi woman in a wheelchair with a musket! We need air support!!" "Look out, I see a crippled Iraqi man hobbling towards us in a threatening manner and he's got a sharp piece of glass! Call in the helicopter gunships!!" The world is laughing at your cowardice America. Any infantry that upon encountering a handful of poorly-armed Rebels doesn't attack them using fire & maneuver tactics but instead hides and calls in air support does not deserve to be called infantry. Infantry is the backbone of any army and without that you got nuthin'. The U.S. high command has given up hope of militarily defeating the insurgency and is now settling for trying to whittle down the Rebel forces somewhat so they can claim to believe the puppet "Iraqi" sellouts will be able to handle them so the U.S. can make an exit. Disgraceful, like the "Vietnamization" scheme all over again. Notice how all the "operations" it launches in Iraq are "hit and run" pinprick "operations" just designed to (they hope) disrupt Rebel activities? Notice how many cities like Ramadi and Haditha and Husaybah are Rebel strongholds and the U.S. knows it but is too weak to try to clear them out of those cities and occupy them? Notice how the so-called "world's only superpower", after two and a half years in Iraq still doesn't control the airport road in Baghdad? Pretty humbling isn't it? You'd better thank your lucky stars that America isn't up against a REAL enemy army like that of North Korea or China or Iran because they'd croak 2,000 Amerifags in an afternoon. The U.S. "Army" and "Marine Corps" would be a grease spot. America had better stick to picking on places like Panama and Grenada because that's about all that it can handle.

Posted by: Allen at October 27, 2005 10:10 AM (6/LqO)

12 This is what I take away from your screed: If a crippled Iraqi man is hobbling towards me in a threatening manner, and is carrying a sharp piece of glass, I should double-tap center mass with my M-16. Calling in a helicopter gunship would be a waste of ammunition. Well, I agree. Can't we all get along?

Posted by: gcotharn at October 27, 2005 11:18 AM (zILLH)

13 I'm impressed, Allen. That is, by far, the largest single paragraph I have ever seen on this blog. The fact that it is also the most idiotic is icing on the cake for me. Thank you for wasting a small part of my life.

Posted by: Rob at October 27, 2005 12:13 PM (OeHNk)

14 "The U.S. high command has given up hope of militarily defeating the insurgency and is now settling for trying to whittle down the Rebel forces somewhat so they can claim to believe the puppet 'Iraqi' sellouts will be able to handle them so the U.S. can make an exit." Iraqi troops and police are "sellouts" for trying to defend their fledgling democratic gov't from terrorists? This reminds of the Jan. 30 comment fiskings at the Democratic Underground..... ["Where are the freedom fighters today? Are their voices silenced because some American puppets cast a few ballots?" -- 8,000,000 ballots. Turns out most Iraqis are... "American puppets?" "I can't believe the Iraqis are buying into this "democracy" bullshit." -- sorry, fellah, down here on Planet Reality, most people want democracy. Including Arabs. "Maybe they're afraid and felt they had to vote. That's the only way I can explain it to myself." -- since they were threatened with death if they _did_ vote, there's a bit of a contradiction there. In fact, they put on their festive clothes and in many cases danced to the polls, elevating their fingers to defy the "insurgents" who'd threatened to kill anyone whose finger was marked with the ink showing they'd voted. "Becuase if it's not--and if the Iraq vote is seen as a success that spread "freedom"--the world is screwed." -- let's see... the world is screwed if democracy spreads among the theocrats, kleptocrats, and general tyrants characteristic of the Middle East. Run that one by me again? Now let's sponsor elections in Saudi Arabia. I would just love to see the Saudi princelings in exile, clipping their coupons and complaining about how the Americans betrayed them. "they only increase the fight and take down those who betrayed their country today by voting in this fraud election." -- you want to kill off 8,000,000 Iraqis? Awesome, dude.] "The U.S. "military" is a laughingstock, totally stymied by a poorly-armed rag-tag guerilla force several times smaller than itself, especially disgraceful is the U.S.'s pusillanimous over-reliance on air power instead of the fundamentals of ground combat." How many battles with out troops have you heard about on the news lately have involved thousands, or even hundreds, of "rebels" on the OFFENSIVE against our troops? How many Khe Sanh-styled sieges have our troops faced in Iraq? Where'e today's Dien Bien Phu? All I hear about our troops facing are sporatic car bombings, IED's, sniping, and....wait for it.... "Notice how all the "operations" it launches in Iraq are "hit and run" pinprick "operations" just designed to (they hope) disrupt Rebel activities?" ....."hit and run" attacks just designed to (they hope) disrupt Iraqi democratic and reconstruction activities. Wow, the strength of our superior enemies has us quaking in our boots! "Pretty humbling isn't it? You'd better thank your lucky stars that America isn't up against a REAL enemy army like that of North Korea or China or Iran because they'd croak 2,000 Amerifags in an afternoon." It's funny that you mention China because, after the 1991 Gulf War, the Chi-Coms crapped their collective pants. Wikipedia says: [The People's Republic of China (whose army in many ways resembled the Iraqi army) was surprised at the performance of American technology on the battlefield. The swiftness of the coalition victory resulted in an overall change in Chinese military thinking and began a movement to technologically modernize the People's Liberation Army.] You should check Strategy Page more often: http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/articles/20051025.aspx You shouldn't be talking about our military's "weakness" since I'm sure that you live in a self-destructing welfare state with an atrophied defense force that would'nt survive a campaign against the Vatican, fucktard.

Posted by: reagan80 at October 27, 2005 12:27 PM (K9tdw)

15 Reagan, don't stop to kick every barking dog. Clearly, Allen's ancestors were some of those who ran North.

Posted by: Casca at October 27, 2005 01:56 PM (qBTBH)

16 i'm with Rob. i could spend a half hour explaining why Allen's comment is a collossal display of ignorance. Or i could choose to use my time more constructively, knowing that most of my visitors don't need to me to point out the stupidity of that comment.

Posted by: annika at October 27, 2005 01:56 PM (zAOEU)

17 Hey There - I really think you guys are way off the deep end. Your point seems to be "why be upset about 2,000 service men dead? Who Cares? No Big Deal. I mean I might be upset when there are 20,000 - but 2,000 just does not matter." Is there some way that you can honor the dead, and their families, without acting like it's a political thing. Two Thousand families hurt, maybe destroyed, is worth mourning, not mocking.

Posted by: bbbustard at October 28, 2005 04:58 PM (6krEN)

18 bbbustard, A sincere point. I plan to honor our fallen heroes by mocking Allen.

Posted by: gcotharn at October 28, 2005 05:03 PM (zILLH)

19 gcotham - Mocking an Allen is totally appropriate. Whatever you think of the war, calling U.S. troops, living wounded or dead, "Amerifags" like Allen does is really, really sick.

Posted by: bbbustard at October 29, 2005 02:49 PM (6krEN)

20 gcotharn - apologies for getting your name wrong.

Posted by: bbbustard at October 29, 2005 02:54 PM (6krEN)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

On Mondays, it's customary for me to make predictions. Bush is about to name Alan Greenspan's successor today, so here's my prediction:

Bush will name Zahira Zahir as the new chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.

Posted by: annika at 09:08 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.

Bravo, at long last, thank you.

Posted by: annika at 07:32 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.

i was listening to Hugh Hewitt's show on the way home tonight and i heard a conservative caller from San Francisco say something that really bothered me. The caller paraphrased Bush the Elder's response to criticism that he had flip-flopped on his famous "voodoo economics" quote after Reagan selected him for VP. Supposedly, G.H.W. Bush said something to the effect that "Before Reagan picked me I owed him my discretion, afterwards I owed him my loyalty." The gist of the caller's analogy was that we conservatives owe the president our loyalty, i.e. our trust.

We owe him no such thing. i voted for president Bush twice. He serves at my pleasure and at the pleasure of the American voter. i don't owe him or any other politician my loyalty. On the contrary, they owe me. That is our system of government. i just want this to be clear, because i think most Americans suffer from a fundamental misunderstanding of the most basic philosophy by which our nation was founded. It's not just a cute little theory that some old guys in powdered wigs made up. I believe it is Truth.

Do these words sound familiar?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. [emphasis added]

So anyone who says i owe my loyalty, or my trust to any government official, evan a president whom i like a lot, is simply mistaken and needs to take a refresher course in American History, preferably by a professor who knows what he's talking about.

Now i'm just taking the long way around, to make a minor semantic point. But these things do piss me off because i often wonder how people can be so dense.

Posted by: annika at 06:39 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 440 words, total size 3 kb.

i know everybody's been patiently waiting for my opinion on this chick Bush picked for Supreme Court. i wanted to read a little bit about her and listen to some other opinions before i weighed in.

i am a little disappointed that Bush did not take my advice. i have a pretty good idea that he or one of his aides reads this blog. My advice was to pick an in-your-face conservative. My personal choice would have been either Mike McConnell or Janice Rogers Brown. i like McConnell because he's a historian, and i like Brown because she's a Californian.

Of course, if i had my way, and i could give the Supreme Court an extreme makeover, things would be way different. i imagine there would be a huge exodus of liberals from this country, and that wouldn't be such a bad thing. Except for Canada and France, that is.

If i had my way, Roe would be overturned. Kelo would be gone. The Lemon test: gone. Oregon v. Smith: gone. Fifty years of establishment clause jurisprudence: gone. i wouldn't stop there either. The exclusionary rule? History. Miranda? Toast. 1A protection for Child Porn? Dead. The Second Amendment? Reborn. Federalism? Hell yah.

Regarding Miers, i'm adopting the wait and see approach. Maybe she'll be okay. Maybe not. The whole idea about wanting a known conservative is so that members of the Republican base, like me, won't have to worry. Now we have reason to worry. Two reasons, if you count Roberts.

Another disappointment is the likelihood that we won't get rid of that stupid filibuster rule now. i wanted a fight, because i wanted the nuclear option. But it's easy to forget that Bush is at heart a conciliatory kind of guy. All this talk about him being an evil warmonger has obscured that fact. It really should be no surprise that if Bush sees a way to do something without a fight, he'll do it. Again, if it were up to me, i'd have liked to see the Senate Democrats get straight-armed on this nominee, and losing the filibuster would have been gravy.

i'm not as worried as some people are about Miers having been a Democrat. Reagan was a Democrat once too. So was my dad. Still, neither of them would have ever given money to a freak like Gore. But the real problem is that Miers is not an idealogue. And the Court can change a person; i believe that. Unless a justice has a strong belief system, i'm afraid the pressure to get along can lead to a leftward drift over time.

So, should we trust Bush's judgment on this one as Professor Hewitt counsels us to do? Well, what choice do i have? Miers will probably be confirmed easily and i will have to hope for the best. But i can't help thinking this was a wasted opportunity.

Posted by: annika at 07:57 PM | Comments (33) | Add Comment
Post contains 489 words, total size 3 kb.