One of the recurrent claims made to explain the supposed need for an EU ‘Constitution’ was that, regardless of its merits, the very process of drafting this document would engage the people of Europe and bring them closer to the whole Brussels project, a project from which they had come strangely, ahem, detached. This was always a laughable idea, but when the details of who was going to draft this constitution were explained, it became quite simply absurd. A constitution drafted by a convention packed largely with stooges and presided over by a bossy failed French president with a dodgy reputation was never very likely to ‘engage’ anyone other a few careerists and the terminally bored.

And that, it seems, is exactly what has happened.

Here’s another angle on food labeling, this time from the Cato’s Steven Milloy. He raises some awkward questions:

“…Who would argue that consumers shouldn’t be informed about what they’re eating? The problem, though, is that mere disclosure of nutrition information on menus won’t necessarily make us thinner or healthier. First, the food labeling that’s been done to date apparently hasn’t helped reduce our waistlines. Obesity rates have “skyrocketed” over the last 30 years, according to the waistline police. But that’s the same timeframe during which nutritional labeling of packaged foods became standard practice. If mere information were an effective means of weight control, it’s no wonder that the labeling of packaged foods has failed -- the information presented is of dubious relevance to most of us. Current nutrition label information is qualified by fine print that reads, “Values are based on a 2,000-calorie diet” -- implying that 2,000 calories is the universal daily nutritional requirement. But the Food and Drug Administration (search) picked the 2,000-calorie standard because it approximates the nutritional requirements for postmenopausal women. The vast majority of us, however, aren’t postmenopausal women...”

Read the whole thing.

…Conservatives.

Christopher Lee: ”I vote Conservative, and I think Michael Howard is the ideal person to lead the party. When the last election was won by Labour, I said to my wife, "The man we need is Michael Howard", and I've said it ever since. He is an honourable man and his power lies in the fact that he is a splendid debater…”

And that ring, of course...

…Conservative. Check out the (priceless) headline for the London Spectator piece that brings us this good news and the revelation that the man knows a good meal when he sees one:

”At no time in his rarefied Sixties existence did Keith ever lose touch with his mum, or with the simple pleasures of sitting in the back room of a pub playing dominoes. Much of his life was spent at Redlands, his thatched retreat in West Wittering, where he still likes nothing more than wolfing a large plate of shepherd’s pie with HP sauce.”

And who can blame him?

Israel’s Shin Bet security service is not, I imagine, a dovecote and that makes this interview (described here in the Independent) with four of its former chiefs all the more interesting. With the caveat that the nuances of the interview may not have been fairly reported (the Independent, after all, is the home of Robert Fisk), it’s fairly striking to see this:

“The four men gave a joint interview to the mass circulation daily Yedioth Ahronoth, in which they called for Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories and evacuate Jewish settlements there.”

It’s increasingly difficult to avoid the conclusion that (as if the horror of the current wave of suicide bombings and other attacks were not enough) Israel looks set to encounter even greater troubles in future. The Shin Bet four may not necessarily have the answer, but it’s clear that some sort of rethink is needed.

Following political pressure in the UK, British food manufacturer Cadbury Schweppes is reportedly close to including some information about ‘healthy eating’ on the wrapping of its chocolate bars. Not only is this cowardly and patronizing, it also makes no business sense. Once the company concedes, even implicitly, that it has some sort of obligation to tell its customers that they should not gorge themselves senseless on its products, it is opening the door to litigation not only on the fact that it did not include such wording before, but also on the wording that is ultimately used. Note too, that Cadbury’s are not proposing to put similar wording on products distributed internationally. There will be some trial lawyer in, oh, America who will be bound to just love that.

For Cadbury’s, this is a Pandora’s box – even if it is filled with chocolates. The company should scrap any plans to coat its candy with cautions.

OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta...

The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration. Intelligence reporting included in the 16-page memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. Some of it is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, and some of it is more than a decade old. The picture that emerges is one of a history of collaboration between two of America's most determined and dangerous enemies.

According to the memo--which lays out the intelligence in 50 numbered points--Iraq-al Qaeda contacts began in 1990 and continued through mid-March 2003, days before the Iraq War began. Most of the numbered passages contain straight, fact-based intelligence reporting, which in some cases includes an evaluation of the credibility of the source. This reporting is often followed by commentary and analysis.

The relationship began shortly before the first Gulf War. According to reporting in the memo, bin Laden sent "emissaries to Jordan in 1990 to meet with Iraqi government officials." At some unspecified point in 1991, according to a CIA analysis, "Iraq sought Sudan's assistance to establish links to al Qaeda." The outreach went in both directions. According to 1993 CIA reporting cited in the memo, "bin Laden wanted to expand his organization's capabilities through ties with Iraq."

The primary go-between throughout these early stages was Sudanese strongman Hassan al-Turabi, a leader of the al Qaeda-affiliated National Islamic Front. Numerous sources have confirmed this. One defector reported that "al-Turabi was instrumental in arranging the Iraqi-al Qaeda relationship. The defector said Iraq sought al Qaeda influence through its connections with Afghanistan, to facilitate the transshipment of proscribed weapons and equipment to Iraq. In return, Iraq provided al Qaeda with training and instructors."...

Washington – Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, issued the following statement on the continued obstruction preventing votes on the President’s judicial nominees and on the conclusion of the “Justice for Judges Marathon.”

“The character assassination, name-calling, and unfair smearing of the President's fine nominees needs to stop. The future of the third branch of government – our independent judiciary – is at stake.

“’The Justice for Judges Marathon’ was a success because it helped the American people understand that a minority of Senators is distorting the Senate’s constitutional role of ‘advice and consent’ to block up or down votes on the President’s fine judicial nominees.

“Every judicial nominee approved by the Judiciary Committee deserves an up or down vote. That’s fair and what the Constitution requires. A minority of Senators is rigging the system by engaging in unfair and unprecedented filibusters.

“Abuse of the rules to block fair, up or down votes means we must consider changing those rules to restore the principle that each nominee reaching the floor deserves an up or down vote. I am exploring all options – including the Constitutional alternative – and will continue to fight to free the six current hostages from unfair, unconstitutional filibusters.

“I have served in the United States Senate for 27 years, and I can honestly say that President Bush’s nominees are among the best I have ever seen. They are experienced, they are intelligent, they are ethical, they are hard-working, they are respected in their communities, and they have given their lives to public service. We honor these great men and women for volunteering to serve our country. They have put forward their good names for evaluation by the Senate, and they deserve a simple up-or-down vote. Our priority is to vote on these nominees. We owe them no less.

“Vote them up - vote them down, but vote!! Let the chips fall where they may, but these nominees deserve a vote.”

HANOVER, N.H. A group of students who attended Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean's appearance at Dartmouth College on Thursday unveiled Confederate flags as he was introduced.

The group of about nine students, whom fellow students and Dean campaign staffers identified as conservative activists, did not otherwise disrupt the former Vermont governor's speech about paying for higher education. And Dean did not acknowledge them or refer to controversy surrounding his recent remark that he wanted to attract voters with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks.

The students sat with the flags draped across their shoulders throughout Dean's appearance.

Dean declined to comment as he left the college auditorium where he delivered his speech. Spokesman Matthew Gardner later dismissed the incident as "a political trick. And it's sad that whoever is behind this felt forced to resort to misrepresentation."

No, the alternative to rock is rap, and not only for Mr. Dean. Dick Gephardt told Blender that his favorite artist was Eric Clapton, but according to MSNBC he told a documentary filmmaker on the campaign trail that he has taken a shine to Eminem, whose movie, "8 Mile," Mr. Gephardt "raved about." Mr. Kucinich's hip-hop outreach project, the "Representin' Tour," has yielded a campaign rap song, available on the Kucinich Web site, written and performed by "hip-hop activist" Joel Tyner. Titled "Go, go Dennis," its recurring line is: "Dennis / he ain't no menace."

And then there is Wesley Clark. He is now appearing in a Rock the Vote television ad, surrounded by earnest-looking college students. "I don't care what the other candidates think," Gen. Clark says. "I don't think Outkast is really breaking up. Big Boi and Andre 3000 just cut solo records, that's all." Yes, it's meant facetiously, but it comes from the same youth-pandering shtick.

France and Germany are reportedly looking at some form of closer entente. Paradoxically enough, despite the tone of this account in the Daily Telegraph of these developments, such moves shouldn’t be any great cause for concern: if anything, these steps are a recognition that Paris and Berlin are gradually coming to the realization that their wider project – a quasi-federal EU – is increasingly unlikely to succeed.

Of course, there’s another striking aspect to this story. There’s no mention of what the electorates of these two countries have to say about this news. There’s a good reason for this. As usual, they have not been consulted, and, as usual with elite schemes such as this, they are unlikely to approve.

The people of Louisiana are hungry for more economic opportunities. Why should our children have to pursue their dreams in Houston, Atlanta, Birmingham, or Charlotte? Here's why: We've created a climate in Louisiana that's hostile to business, to progress, to taxpayers. New Orleans was once the capital of the South, but 75 years of demagogues ranting in Technicolor ways about government being the answer to all our problems has taken a toll. We'll eliminate the investment taxes unique to Louisiana that keep businesses away, reform our tort system so that we're no longer among the worst states in terms of frivolous lawsuits, and ease the regulatory burden so that small businesses can create jobs. This message is resonating with our voters. Louisianians want to build their own version of the American Dream, and the crying shame is that they don't have enough opportunities to do it here at home.

Mr. Goldberg reports he is "drinking and ....baby watching". Do social service agencies have jurisdiction in international waters?

Isn’t today a good day to admonish your readers to contact their Senators, particularly their Democratic Senators, concerning judicial nominees?

Sorry for the radio silence. But between drinking, shmoozing, working (I brought a lot with me) and baby-watching (not to mention technical issues with my dying laptop), I just haven't had much time to hang out around here. Rich just got on board yesterday. He caught up with the ship in Curacao. Lucy is the second most popular girl on the boat -- after Kate O'Beirne. Everything's going swimmingly, including me. So I'll talk to you later.

What happens when we complete the conceptual reorientation and see judging as a mere extension of ordinary politics? Nothing good. The bottom of a downward spiral of politicization is a thoroughly politicized judiciary. We know what that looks like. It exists in odd corners of the United States, where lawyers know that winning even in a run of the mill tort case is almost entirely a function of how much you have contributed to the local political machine. A thouroughly politicized judiciary is the norm in much of the third world, and the result is that the transparency required for well-functioning markets cannot be achieved--at enormous costs in human welfare. In a thoroughly politicized judiciary, every case is a patronage opportunity or a chance to score political points.

Tom Daschle watched The Bachelor last night. But did he sleep peacefully, his dreams untroubled by the damage that both parties have done to the rule of law? I hope not.

After someone suggested that we Corner addicts write to our local libraries and request they buy [Rich Lowry's new book] Legacy, I did just that. Yesterday I received a response letting me know that they were indeed adding Legacy to their inventory. Just thought you would like to let the other Corner readers out there that library requests work.

By the way I also requested the library purchase Zell Miller's new book and they are doing that as well.

Ok. Schumer is complaining about the judges that were left over after the Clinton administration -- the nanny nanny boo boo argument. There were something like 40 or so judges left at the end of that Administration. Pretty typical stuff. After Bush, there were about 60 judges left.

What chaps my hide about that is that Leahy and Hatch had a deal -- there were some folks who had problems that popped up on their FBI reports. So rather than embarrass the nominees, the nominations were quietly scuttled. Now, Leahy et al are beating Hatch up about it and Hatch is too much of a gentleman to rat on the deal.

But it still stands. If a filibuster on nominees is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional. It is immaterial if 168 judges have gotten through -- if 4 are being filibustered, that is 4 too many. It is the principle of the thing.

CLAIM:

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA):

“This case [Sanchez-Scott v. Alza] shows she [Carolyn Kuhl] is outside the legal mainstream.”

RESPONSE:

From CFJ’s report, “Carolyn B. Kuhl: Brining Balance to the Ninth Circuit.”

Sanchez-Scott v. Alza Pharmaceuticals, reveals Judge Kuhl’s commitment to the rule of law. Judge Kuhl’s detractors evidently believe that, because the plaintiff in Sanchez-Scott was a sympathetic figure, Judge Kuhl should have ignored the requirements of the law and ruled in her favor. That would mean the end of the rule of law. In order for judges to apply the law fairly and even-handedly, they must interpret legal rules without regard to their emotions or any sympathy they feel for a party. That is why the appellate judge who later reversed Judge Kuhl has written a letter enthusiastically supporting her nomination, and explaining that her ruling was reasonable and unbiased:

“With all respect to those who have criticized Judge Kuhl as being insensitive or biased because of my opinion in Sanchez-Scott, they are simply incorrect.” Indeed, the appellate judge has since conceded that Judge Kuhl’s ruling may have been right, after all: “a strong argument can be made that [Judge Kuhl] correctly assessed the competing societal interests the California Supreme Court requires all jurists in this state to weigh in determining whether the tort of intrusion has occurred.”

Everyone agrees that the plaintiff in Sanchez-Scott was not treated appropriately by her physician; the doctor admitted as much in a later letter of apology. But the legal issue was not whether the plaintiff was treated badly, but whether she had a legal claim against a third party who was not responsible for the doctor’s misbehavior. During a scheduled appointment, the plaintiff’s doctor entered the examining room with another gentleman, who was introduced as Mr. Martinez, “a person . . . who was looking at Dr. Polonsky’s work.” (Martinez was a pharmaceutical salesman who was participating in a mentorship program, which even the appellate court agreed was a “well-established and accepted method of providing training to therapeutic sales specialists.”) The plaintiff alleged in her complaint that during the exam, she became flushed and began to fan herself. The doctor took the fan from her and gave it to Mr. Martinez, explaining that it would “give him something to do.” The plaintiff later explained that she became uncomfortable with the situation. But at the time, she did not inform her doctor of her discomfort, and allowed Mr. Martinez to remain in the room for the entire exam. Judge Kuhl therefore found that, the presence of the mentorship participant in the exam room did not meet the standard for an invasion of privacy claim against the pharmaceutical company.

Judge Kuhl’s ruling had nothing to do with the claims against the doctor, and would have allowed to go forward the plaintiff’s tort claim against the doctor for failing to obtain informed consent. Nor did Sanchez-Scott in any way involve an issue of the constitutional right to privacy. Rather, Judge Kuhl was faced with several issues of first impression under California law relating only to the tort of intrusion. When looking to precedent for guidance, Judge Kuhl found that the California Supreme Court had not established a firm rule on the issue of intrusion. The court had suggested that judges must weigh the facts in each individual case: “privacy, for purposes of the intrusion tort, is not a binary, all-or-nothing characteristic.

There are degrees and nuances to societal recognition of our expectations of privacy.” The appellate judge likewise acknowledged in his letter that, “[i]n ruling on the demurrer, Judge Kuhl was required to apply what the California Supreme Court has characterized as degreed and nuanced rules of law involving relative concepts.”

Ultimately, Judge Kuhl concluded that the pharmaceutical representative did not invade the patient’s privacy for two principal reasons. First, Martinez was participating in a mentorship program, whose purpose was to improve the delivery of health care. Second, the patient had effectively consented to the representative’s presence in the exam room. In so ruling, Judge Kuhl carefully applied governing precedent from the California Supreme Court, which had held:

Moreover, the plaintiff in an invasion of privacy case must have conducted himself or herself in a manner consistent with an actual expectation of privacy, i.e., he or she must not have manifested by his or her conduct a voluntary consent to the invasive actions of defendant. If voluntary consent is present, a defendant’s conduct will rarely be deemed “highly offensive to a reasonable person” so as to justify tort liability.

Reasonable people certainly can disagree about whether Judge Kuhl reached the right result in the Sanchez-Scott case—indeed, the appellate judge who reversed her now thinks that she may have been correct. But there can be no disagreement that her ruling represents a scrupulous, reasonable effort to apply a complex and ambiguous body of law. The California Supreme Court has recognized that “the common law right of privacy is neither absolute nor globally vague, but is carefully confined to specific sets of interests that must inevitably be weighed in the balance against competing interests before the right is judicially recognized.” It should come as no surprise that reasonable minds can, and often do, disagree when applying such a shifting standard.

CFJ Truth Squad

“Liberal Filibuster Arguments Don’t Hold Water,” says Gray.

Volume 3

WASHINGTON, DC – As the Senate undertook its historic all-hours debate of the minority’s unprecedented use of the filibuster to deny the President’s nominees final votes, the Committee for Justice responded to senators’ initial arguments, made at a pre-debate press conference.

CLAIM:

Sen. Mark Dayton (D-MN):

“The nominees being blocked are not well qualified.”

RESPONSE:

Miguel Estrada – Honduran immigrant. Columbia College, Phi Beta Kappa. Harvard Law, magna cum laude, editor, Law Review. Clerk, Hon. Amalya L. Kearse, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Clerk, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy. Assistant U.S. Attorney and Deputy Chief of the Appellate Section, U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York. Assistant to the Solicitor General, United States Department of Justice. Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. Fifteen cases argued before U.S. Supreme Court. American Bar Association rating, unanimous well qualified.

Priscilla Owen – Baylor University, cum laude. Baylor Law School, cum laude, member, Law Review. Partner, Andrews & Kurth L.L.P. Member, the American Law Institute, the American Judicature Society, the American Bar Association, and a Fellow of the American and Houston Bar Foundations. Justice, Supreme Court of Texas. In her re-election bid to the Supreme Court of Texas in 2000, every major newspaper in Texas endorsed. American Bar Association rating, unanimous well qualified.

William Pryor - Northeast Louisiana University, magna cum laude. Tulane University School of Law, magna cum laude. Law Clerk to the Honorable John Minor Wisdom, U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Cabaniss, Johnston, Gardner, Dumas & O’Neal, associate. Samford University, Cumberland School of Law, Adjunct Professor. Walston, Stabler, Wells, Anderson & Bains, Associate. State of Alabama, Attorney General. American Bar Association rating, qualified.

Charles Pickering - top of his law school class at the University of Mississippi, Law Journal, Chairman of the Moot Court Board. Appointed and served as City Prosecuting Attorney of Laurel and was elected and served four years as County Prosecuting Attorney of Jones County. Laurel City Judge, 1969. Elected to two terms in the Mississippi State Senate. Lawyer in private practice, almost thirty years. U. S. District Judge, over ten years. American Bar Association rating, well qualified.

STUPIDITY IN BLACK AND WHITE: A new story from the Charleston paper confirms what I first reported here, that while 70% of the students rousted by the Goose Creek Gestapo were black, nearly 80% of Stratford High students are white. Now the police and the principal are complaining that black parents are unfairly accusing them of racial profiling. I'm no fan of the "race card," but this is the kind of incident that keeps it in the deck.

CFJ Truth Squad

“Liberal Filibuster Arguments Don’t Hold Water,” says Gray.

Volume 2

WASHINGTON, DC – As the Senate undertook its historic all-hours debate of the minority’s unprecedented use of the filibuster to deny the President’s nominees final votes, the Committee for Justice responded to senators’ initial arguments, made at a pre-debate press conference.

CLAIM:

Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD):

“Sixty-three Clinton nominees were filibustered in Committee.”

RESPONSE:

This is an abuse of language. When a nominee is blocked in committee, at any time a majority on the floor can demand discharge of that nominee. Therefore, no nominee who has majority floor support can be killed in committee, only those who do not have majority support. In contrast, the current Democratic filibusters are used by the minority to permanently deny the majority will.

The big picture is perfectly clear: The Republicans were as fair to President Clinton as they were to President Reagan. They confirmed 377 Clinton nominees – only five fewer than the 382 confirmed for Reagan. And Reagan had 6 years of his own party in the Senate, while Clinton had only two.

Here is what happened to the 56 Clinton nominees that did not get confirmed those 8 years. Three were left at the end of the 103rd Congress, when the Democrats were in control, so those 3 cannot count against the Republicans. That leaves 53. Nine were nominated too late in a Congress for the Committee to feasibly act on them or were lacking paperwork. That leaves 44. Seventeen of those lacked home-state support, which often resulted from the Clinton White House’s failure to consult home-state senators. There was no way to confirm those nominations without completely ignoring the senatorial courtesy generally afforded to home state-senators in the nominations process. That leaves 27. One nominee was defeated on the Senate floor, which leaves 26 remaining nominees. Of those, a number had issues in their backgrounds that made them impeachable. Out of decent regard for their personal and professional reputations, those reasons were never disclosed publicly, though it is worth noting that, in a number of cases, the White House privately agreed with the decision not to move forward on them.

Bottom line: in all 6 years that Chairman Hatch chaired the Judiciary Committee while President Clinton was in office, there were fewer than 26 nominations left in Committee.

Compare this treatment to that accorded George H.W. Bush’s nominees, when Democrats were in the majority and controlled the Judiciary Committee. Then, the Democrats failed to confirm 58 nominees over the course of only 4 years.

The Fortas episode is different from the current situation for other reasons. The Fortas filibuster lasted a little over a week. It slowed down the deliberative process, but it did not bring it to a halt. Just over three months in all elapsed between the date of nomination and Justice Fortas's decision to step aside as nominee for chief justice. By comparison, the floor debate on Mr. Estrada's nomination has been going on for well over three months; and the nomination itself has been pending before the Senate for over two years. Whatever else the Fortas episode stands for, it does not provide senators with precedent for a delay of this duration.

BURBANK - November 12, 2003 - NBC and Telemundo inaugurate the holiday season by stepping off with the network’s traditional and exclusive coverage of the 77th annual “Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade™” on Thursday, Nov. 27 (9 a.m.-12 noon in each time zone with a few exceptions). Among those featured this year are singer Harry Connick Jr. (from NBC’s “Will & Grace”), cast members from NBC’s “American Dreams” and “Happy Family,” and cast performers from Broadway’s “Wicked,” “The Boy from Oz,” “Little Shop of Horrors,” “Never Gonna Dance” and the Radio City Rockettes.

NBC’s favorite team of Katie Couric, Matt Lauer and Al Roker of the “Today” show will share hosting duties with Telemundo’s most recognizable news and entertainment personalities Roberto Angelelli, Candela Ferro and Mauricio Zeilic. For more than 50 years, NBC has brought the parade into more than 60 million homes across the country. For the second year, NBC-owned Spanish language broadcaster Telemundo will also bring the magic and pageantry of the beloved institution to Spanish speaking homes.

WASHINGTON, DC – As the Senate undertook its historic all-hours debate of the minority’s unprecedented use of the filibuster to deny the President’s nominees final votes, the Committee for Justice responded to some senators initial arguments, made at a pre-debate press conference.

CLAIM:

Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD):

“The use of the filibuster is not unprecedented; there have been numerous votes on cloture on judges in recent years.”

RESPONSE:

Define filibuster, Senator. A filibuster occurs when attempts to limit debate (either by unanimous consent or cloture motion) fails, not when they succeed. Holding a cloture vote is hardly the same as the permanent blockage of a nominee. Under the proper definition, prior to the 108th Congress, there were four filibusters against judicial nominations, including one Clinton nomination.

The Senate took 15 cloture votes on 14 different nominations (four of them Clinton nominations).

Eleven of those cloture votes passed, and those nominations were confirmed. Three of these were on Clinton nominations. These, by definition, were not filibusters. Four cloture votes failed. These were filibusters.

However, three of these were temporary filibusters, and the nominations were later confirmed.

***One of them was on a Clinton nomination, Brian T. Stewart nominated to the U.S. District Court. He was filibustered by Democrats, not Republicans. The 55-44 vote on cloture on 9/21/99 was to leverage confirmation of more Clinton nominees, which Republicans agreed to and Stewart was confirmed 93-5 on 10/5/99.

***The cloture vote on J. Harvie Wilkinson’s nomination to the 4th Circuit on 7/31/84 failed, but a second cloture on 8/9/84 passed and he was soon confirmed.

***The cloture vote on William Rehnquist’s nomination to be Associate Justice on 12/10/71 failed, but he was confirmed the same day without having to take a second cloture vote.

***The cloture vote on Abe Fortas’s nomination to be Chief Justice on 10/1/68 failed on a vote of 45-43. This means he did not have support of a majority in the Senate, and the 43 votes for the filibuster included 24 Republicans and 19 Democrats. The vote of cloture functioned as a test vote on his nomination, and President Johnson quickly withdrew the nomination. He was not blocked by the minority.

Thus, the filibusters during the 108th Congress are absolutely unprecedented. They are the first permanent (as opposed to temporary) filibusters against nominations with majority (as opposed to minority) Senate support.

Conservative activists have for some time now juggled the idea of using recess appointments to circumvent adamant Democratic opposition. However, the idea appears to have gained momentum among lawmakers in the wake of numerous failed attempts to hold an up-or-down vote on several of the president's most qualified nominees. "This is something I've been pushing for," said Jon Kyl (Ariz.), chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, speaking of the recess option. An alternative to appointing nominees such as Pickering, Bush could appoint ultra-conservative alternates to fill vacancies on the bench. Such substitutes might make the blocked nominees seem less controversial by comparison. "You could also fill the positions with interim appointments who could step aside [when blocked nominees clear the Senate.]" said Kyl, adding that the president could make a very good case for that option.

The Review accepts 14 first-years as “grade-ons”--those with the highest average score giving equal weight to grades and the writing sample. Twenty students are accepted solely on the basis of their writing scores, and seven to nine editors are accepted based on a student committee’s review of all their information, including grades, writing scores, race and any kind of disabilities--but not gender.

But some HLS professors, including HLS Dean Elena Kagan, said if the Review announced an affirmative action policy, it would imply that women could not be accepted based on merit alone. All three of the Review’s faculty advisors--who are also all women--do not support introducing affirmative action for women. “Such a plan would offer Law Review membership to perhaps a handful more women per class while making all women selected for the Law Review wonder whether they would have been selected absent such a program (and making other Review editors, as well as judges and other future employers, wonder the same thing),” HLS Professor and Review faculty advisor Carol S. Steiker told the Record.

K-Lo--

Check out this sentence from an MSNBC.com article about "the dark side of TiVo":

Fanatical TiVo users complain that their TiVo quickly fills up with shows they can’t bear to delete, from self-improving educational fare like “NOW with Bill Moyers” and “Chimps: So Like Us,” to less cerebral programs such as “Sex and the City.”

So there you have it: watching the unwatchable Bill Moyers is now officially educational AND self-improving (and you can't bear to delete it!). The "educational quagmire" is far, far worse than I thought.

You might be interested in a decision yesterday in the case challenging Nebraska's state constitutional amendment defining marriage and prohibiting domestic partnerships.

The amendment, Section 29, was approved by over 60% of the voters in the 2000 election. The local affiliate of the ACLU had threatened to sue but did not until this year. They have made a novel claim that this state constitutional amendment violates the federal constitution because it deprives the plaintiffs (groups that lobby for gay rights legislation) of access to the political process. The sleight of hand here is characterizing an amendment that settles the substance of a question (whether marriage will be redefined to include same-sex couples) as an infringement of procedural rights (can activists petition the legislature to get what they want). The state's position has been that plaintiffs are free to amend the constitution as the group of citizens who proposed Section 29 did or to get legislation enacted that does not violate section 29. Their concern is that any amendment on a substantive issue could be seen as disenfranchising people who disagree with the amendment. For instance, under plaintiffs theory, are Untarians suffering a constitutional deprivation because even though they may lobby the Unicameral to make Unitarianism the state religion, the constitution would prevent that result?

The state had motioned to dismiss the case based largely on standing grounds, arguing that no one has been affected by the law and that the plaintiffs lawsuit is premature. Yesterday, however Judge Joseph Bataillon of the Nebraska federal district court denied the motion to dismiss. The startling aspect of the decision is that the judge seemed not to be content with merely giving the plaintiffs the benefit of the doubt on their claims but showing a remarkable amount of sympathy with the plaintiffs' novel claims.

The court accepted the plaintiffs' theory of deprivation of their access to the political process. However, the most novel aspect of the court's decision was its handling of the plaintiffs' claim that Section 29 is an unconstitutional bill of attainder (a form of legislative punishment used to avoid a jury trial prohibited by Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution). This required a finding that the amendment (1) is directed towards a specific individual or group, (2) inflicts a punishment, and (3) occurs without a judicial trial. The court first makes the improbable holding that the group affected is "civil unions" and "domestic partners" without making any attempt to clarify who that group describes. The punishment the court sees is "prohibit[ing] their [the plaintiffs'] political ability to effectuate changes proposed by the majority." In a most troubling segment of the opinion, the court focused on the comments of one (non-mainstream) supporter of the amendment to hold that Section 29 was intended to punish same-sex couples. This despite the support of the Catholic Bishops of Nebraska, Nebraska's state family policy council (Family First) and many others.

On the bright side, the court did not hold that Section 29 is a letter of marque or reprisal in violation of the Constitution's Article I, section 10.

I love this line I heard today from a Vet who spoke at our school assembly.

He talked about the "...educational quagmire and political correctness..." of the institutions that no longer teach about military valor and honor.

Educational quagmire...wonder how the liberals would feel if conservatives started using that tagline?

Please forgive my fellow reader's suggestion of "Up From Liberalism" as the accessory for the Buckley action figure. While certainly a fine read, there is only ONE book for this role:

GOD AND MAN AT YALE, the book that started it all.

Although a poor student with no job and credit card reaching its limit, I would certainly find a way to buy each action figure, especially the Derb and Dunphy, but I'd need to get some sort of evil Maureen Dowd or Paul Krugman figure for them to pistol-whip. Worth every penny. And of course WFB and Jonah would beat them with book and Scotch bottle.

You know the oval 'vdh' logo, like the one on the article graphic over the weekend? Y'all should make a bumper sticker out of it. You know, like those trendy black & white european country bumper stickers (i.e., 'UK')? Only keep the color scheme. Maybe we can redeem Europe in the process.

Heck, I'd probably put one on my back window. Hanson's a stud.

What most Iraqis truly disliked about the GC was the absence of any effective communication betweeen GC members and the Iraqi people. I have never heard any speech from a council member to the people over the last 4 months. None of them have ever visited a school, or a university, or a ministry. Only Ibrahim Al-Jaa'fari bothered to visit Najaf during his one month term. As soon as the next member gets his turn he immediately gets busy with diplomatic and business trips to neighbouring countries instead of grasping the oppurtunity to show Iraqis that he might be one day a good leader and prove his legitimacy. I think most of them blew any chance they had. They haven't even held one cabinet meeting with ministers who in my opinion are doing a much greater job. They don't have an official newspaper or even a website. There was such a big fuss about the GC representing Iraq in the Arab League and the Islamic conference, who gives a damn what they think of Iraq or who represents it? Why bother with them in the first place. I think the GC forgot the meaning of the word 'interim'. There actions certainly don't reflect that fact, they act as benificiary owners and future rulers which worries me greatly.

But I think that dissolving the whole council would be another huge mistake. Expanding it into a national conference with greater powers and authorities would be more realistic. We can add professional technocrats and non-partisans from different Iraqi provinces who would be more of service to us than party leaders and tribal sheikhs. Or even better two bodies, a council with two or three members preferably technocrats elected from each of the 18 provinces of Iraq, and another council consisting of the present GC members with other parties and renowned Iraqi characters, won't hurt to throw in some judges, moderate clerics and sheikhs with them as well. And a presidential council of say 4 members elected by these two bodies. This national conference would study drafts of our previous constitutions and present a transitional constitution until elections are held in the near future. I think this would be the most realistic alternative instead of appointing a new council and going through another phase of trial and error which could last for months.

According to the latest estimates, the mass graves in Iraq contain the remains of at least 300,000 people, but we're still arguing about whether the war was "justified". The pacifism - or, more accurately, passivism - of Europe does not seem especially moral.

But even the British, according to Max Hastings in The Spectator, are "furious" with America. "British soldiers and diplomats anticipated almost every misfortune that has occurred," Sir Max assures us, and proceeds to recite a long list of things the shrewd Brits told their cocky Yank cousins: the Americans don't have enough troops on the ground, and they're the wrong kind of troops anyway, ill-suited to peacekeeping, lacking the cultural sensitivity of the wise old British, etc.

If "British soldiers and diplomats" really said all this to the Americans, the answer would seem to be obvious - You don't think there are enough troops? Send some more yourself. You think Americans are lousy at peacekeeping? Fine, we'll do the dirty work, you guys can do all the community-liaison foot patrols.

Veterans Day, which we hardly honor anymore, began as Armistice Day, memorializing those who fell in the "war to end all wars." But the only thing that always ends is peace. And then we turn, again, to those in uniform.

Think about them today.

Appropriately enough, perhaps, in the days approaching Remembrance Sunday. Britain last week saw the re-release of All Quiet on The Western Front . The discussion that followed produced a telling response from The Guardian’s Dave Aaronovitch. Here’s an extract:

”Last week saw the re-release of the anti-war classic, All Quiet on the Western Front . The film critic for my local paper expressed a widespread sentiment when he argued that the message of the film was that 'the only real weapon of mass destruction is human nature itself', and recommended, rather selectively, that it be 'mandatory viewing for all politicians, especially the United States and the present Government'.

”This theme was developed by novelist Philip Kerr in the New Statesman . Also writing about Lewis Milestone's 1930 Oscar-winning film, Kerr told readers that he was just three years younger than Tony Blair. So, he went on: 'I find it almost incomprehensible that someone from a generation who came of age during the Vietnam war, who read the war poets, [who]... listened to Joan Baez and John Lennon, and who must surely once have seen this marvelous film, could march this country into so many military conflicts.'

”It is Kerr's incomprehension that I find odd. Just seven years after Erich Remarque's novel, on which the film was based, was published in German, Hitler remilitarised the Rhineland. Kerr knows better than most the sequence that followed: Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland. In Spain, General Franco, it turned out, had not seen the movie.

”The military conflicts we have been 'marched into' by Mr Blair are Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq. That isn't because the PM never understood the words of 'Imagine', but because it transpired that the Taliban, the hard men of the Baath, the amputating militias of West Africa, the Hutu Interahamwe and the Serb army of Radko Mladic had been brought up on something other than Joan Baez.”

It’s well worth reading the whole thing.

Via William Sjostrom’s Atlantic Blog.

If, as we are so often told, the menace of global warning is so obvious, why is the math that is meant to demonstrate it quite so fuzzy?

This week’s Economist has an interesting piece on some of the ‘analysis’ carried out by the ‘Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’.

The nub of the case is, that in forecasting the likely future growth in greenhouse gases (which are, at least partly, a function of economic development), the IPCC’s methodology was flawed. In one scenario, the IPCC is arguing that the gap in incomes between richer and poorer countries will close over the next century. Well, that’s possible, but it seems that the IPCC’s statisticians have overstated the size of the current differential. In comparing different income levels, they used market-based exchange rates, rather than rates adjusted for differences in purchasing power. How dumb is this? Well, think about it for a second. Take the buck. $5,000 is $5,000, you might say. Well, yes it is, but no it’s not. That $5,000 will go far further in Mexico than Manhattan, unless, it seems, you work for the IPCC. These are not people to take with you on your next trip to Baja California, at least not if you are going shopping.

In its defense the IPCC has said that this is only one scenario, but, as the Economist points out, “even the scenarios that give the lowest cumulative emissions assume that incomes in the developing countries will increase at a much faster rate over the course of the century than they have ever done before. Disaggregated projections published by the IPCC say that—even in the lowest-emission scenarios—growth in poor countries will be so fast that by the end of the century Americans will be poorer on average than South Africans, Algerians, Argentines, Libyans, Turks and North Koreans.”

Well, it could happen, I suppose.

In what may be a moment of sanity, it looks as if Ireland’s proposed ban on ‘workplace’ smoking may be running into difficulties. For insanity, of course, there’s always The Onion:

“Bernard Nathansen, an attorney for the Personal Rights Deferred Center in Oakes, VA, is one of many individuals working to promote "governmental accountability." His organization arranges class-action lawsuits on behalf of Americans who have been hurt by the government's negligence, including individuals who suffer health problems related to overexposure to sunlight.

"We can all agree that many choices are too important to be left up to a highly flawed individual," Nathansen said. "Decisions that directly affect our health, or allow us to expose ourselves to potential risks, should be left to the wiser, cooler heads of the government."

"But things like food and drug labels are half-measures," Nathansen said. "The regulations, however well-intentioned, often allow citizens the choice of ignoring the instructions. Many current laws were written primarily to protect others from our dangerous actions, with no concern for the deleterious effect our actions can have on ourselves. The government must do more."

"To this end, Personal Rights Deferred has compiled an action list of more than 700 behaviors it wants regulated by state or federal authorities. The list includes such risky behaviors as swimming in cold weather and staying up all night playing video games. "

Satire? Sure – for now….

From today's NY Daily News, this excerpt from a Q&A with Gen. Wesley Clark:

Q: And what is Clark's reaction to former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean's pandering comment that that he, Dean, wants the votes of Southerners, i.e. "guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks"?

A: "Well, he shouldn't have said those things. I think all Americans - and this is a joke! - all Americans, even if they're from the South and 'stupid,' should be represented."

I love this! The more they talk, the deeper the hole this hapless bench of Democrats dig for themselves. They can't bring themselves to utter a discouraging word about the disgraceful race-baiter Al Sharpton, for fear of upsetting African-Americans, but they keep trashing the sensibilities of working-class white Southerners -- and now with Clark's remark, working-class white Southerners themselves. Karl Rove must be on cloud nine.

One does not have to approve of displaying the Confederate flag to realize that there are quite a few people who do, and they vote. You don't appeal to their reason, to try to persuade them that it's in their interest to vote for you, by denigrating them as "stupid." Is there any other social or ethnic group in America that the Democrats would feel comfortable speaking of in this manner, whatever the group's flaws? There's a very good reason the South is ever more Republican: very many Southerners understand perfectly well that the Democratic Party has contempt for their values. And for them.

Am I missing something or was this an act of utter madness?

“Gun-toting police burst into a South Carolina high school, ordering students to lie down in hall ways as they searched for drugs. The commando-style raid has parents questioning the wisdom of police tactics. ”The raid occurred Wednesday at Stratford High School in Goose Creek, S.C. Surveillance video obtained by CBS Affiliate WCSC in Charleston shows the police waving their guns and searching lockers as students lie flat on their stomachs or sides. The school's principal defends the dramatic sweep, caught on the school's surveillance tape. Police came into the school with guns at the ready, ordered all students to lie on the floor and then handcuffed anyone who apparently didn't comply quickly enough. “

A bin Laden sister-in-law (she’s going for a divorce) is reminiscing about her life in that family. Judging by this account in the Sunday Telegraph, it will make interesting reading. As for Osama himself, readers seem likely to be reminded that his is a piety that has long since tipped over into psychosis:

“A sister-in-law of the world's most wanted terrorist leader has described her life in Saudi Arabia as a "prison" and says that the young Osama bin Laden was so religiously zealous that he "froze" when he saw her face unveiled.

“Carmen bin Laden, who is divorcing the al-Qa'eda leader's half-brother, Yeslam, said that even in the privacy of her home, Osama bin Laden "couldn't bear looking at my naked face. He never deigned to speak a word to me".”

As for life in ‘Saudi’ Arabia:

“The book chronicles her marriage to Yeslam and her life in Jeddah, a city where, she says, "women are no more than house pets" and their "bright minds are brainwashed”.

As I write this I am watching the TV movie Helter Skelter about the Manson family. It seems curiously appropriate.

Bickering over the proposed EU constitution drags on over in Europe and so does the debate over whether it should be put to the vote in the different member states. Some countries have already decided to do this, but in Britain, Tony Blair is holding out, for the entirely reasonable (if utterly reprehensible) reason that this awful document would be rejected. France is also weighing a possible vote.

There’s a disturbing story in today’s Sunday Telegraph that suggests that British diplomats are now trying to persuade the French not to hold a vote. Their concern? That a decision by the French to consult their electors would put further pressure on Blair to schedule a referendum of his own. If that’s true, these diplomats have crossed the line between representing Britain and representing the interests of one British politician. If they did that, they should be fired.

It’s also interesting to see that Gisela Stuart, a prominent Labour member of parliament, is also reported to be intervening with the French. That’s charming. A British politician is trying to put pressure on the French in an effort to reduce the chances of British electors being given the chance to vote on this matter. Her constituents should take note - and vote her out as soon as they can.