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 s