Month: January 2006

Does this picture say it all or what?

Someone’s not a happy camper!

The Judiciary Committee favorably recommended Samuel Alito’s Supreme Court nomination to the full Senate on a party-line vote Tuesday, moving the conservative jurist one step closer to joining the high court.

All 10 Republicans voted for Alito, while all eight Democrats voted against him. The partisan vote was almost preordained, with 15 of the 18 senators announcing their votes even before the committee’s session began.

The full Senate expects to take a final vote on Alito’s nomination before the end of the week. That vote is also expected to follow along party lines, with only one Democrat — Ben Nelson of Nebraska — coming out so far in support of Alito. Republicans hold the balance of power in the Senate 55-44, with one independent.

He has the support of Americans too. A recent CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll showed more than 54 percent believe Alito should be confirmed. Yet, the Democrats are as looney as ever.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said things are different from when the Senate considered Breyer and Ginsburg, who were confirmed 87-9 and 96-3 respectively. “There was not the polarization within America that is there today, and not the defined move to take this court in a singular direction,” Feinstein said.

“This is a nomination that I fear threatens the fundamental rights and liberties of all Americans now in for generations to come,” Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont said of the Alito nomination.

“He still believes that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion, but does not want to tell the American people because he knows how unpopular that view is,” said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

The fact is, their complaints are falling on deaf ears, and even they know it. This is why there will be no filibuster. There will be no public outcry. Well, maybe just one public outcry – exercised by the electorate when they vote out a few more Liberals in November.

I don’t know about you, but I had no idea that the game of tennis, when played by a member of the United States Supreme Court, is “an activity that is itself of dubious ethical propriety”.

At the historic swearing-in of John Roberts as the 17th chief justice of the United States last September, every member of the Supreme Court, except Antonin Scalia, was in attendance. ABC News has learned that Scalia instead was on the tennis court at one of the country’s top resorts, the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Bachelor Gulch, Colo., during a trip to a legal seminar sponsored by the Federalist Society.

Not only did Scalia’s absence appear to be a snub of the new chief justice, but according to some legal ethics experts, it also raised questions about the propriety of what critics call judicial junkets.

“It’s unfortunate of course that what kept him from the swearing-in was an activity that is itself of dubious ethical propriety,” said Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor, who is a recognized scholar on legal ethics.

I predict this story is the first in a long line of stories focusing on what ABC News calls, “judicial junkets”. After all, if your review of court rulings fails to prove that an individual justice is legislating from the bench, you have to try and prove it otherwise. That requires a little work. A little follow up. A little stake-out.

As you can see, this is one of those “camera hidden in the gym bag of an unassuming spectator during a harmless game of tennis being enjoyed by a Supreme Court Justice during personal, private time” photos. The kind the FBI shoots when they’re on the hunt for a mob boss.

Scalia had a completely appropriate response to media queries over this so-called “judicial junket”.

 “I was out of town with a commitment that I could not break, and that’s what the public information office told you,” he said.

It “doesn’t matter what it was. It was a commitment that I couldn’t break,” Scalia continued when questioned further.

Yet, that’s not good enough for law professor Stephen Gillers.

“I think Justice Scalia should not have gone on that trip for several reasons,” Gillers commented. “They are a group with a decided political-slash-judicial profile.”

One night at the resort, Scalia attended a cocktail reception, sponsored in part by the same lobbying and law firm where convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff once worked.

“You know a lot of people would be embarrassed at that. I don’t think Antonin Scalia will be embarrassed,” Gillers continued.

I’m sure it didn’t take ABC News a long time to find someone to react critically to Justice Scalia. A quick Google search shows that Gillers is not a fan.

Democrats and their MSM partners are smarting over Bush’s success in placing two well-qualified conservative justices on the court, and there is a chance that the president will have yet one more opportunity to nominate a judge to the highest court before his term is up. Given their inability to derail John Roberts, and the pending confirmation of Sam Alito, the Liberals have no choice but to enlist their buddies in the media to construct stories full of empty allegations. Their efforts do nothing but further highlight their desperation.

A European human rights investigator says there is evidence that the US outsourced torture to other European countries, and that the involved countries know about it.

Oh, and that evidence he says he has? Well, it doesn’t really exist. Yet, the story gets reported as if he does.

Swiss senator Dick Marty, who heads an investigation by the Council of Europe human rights watchdog, said he had not uncovered any irrefutable evidence to confirm allegations that the CIA operated secret detention centers in Europe.

His remarks, in a preliminary report, kept pressure on the CIA and European governments over allegations that the U.S. intelligence agency flew prisoners through airports in Europe to jails in third countries where they may have been tortured.

“There is a great deal of coherent, convergent evidence pointing to the existence of a system of ‘relocation’ or ‘outsourcing of torture’,” Marty said in his initial report into the allegations for the 46-nation Council, based in the eastern French city of Strasbourg.

He said it had been proved that “individuals have been abducted, deprived of their liberty and transported to different destinations in Europe, to be handed over to countries in which they have suffered degrading treatment and torture.”

A “great deal of coherent, convergent evidence” huh? Fine, hand it over. Oh, I forgot! You don’t really have that “great deal of coherent, convergent evidence”. It probably just feels good to say it though right?

Denis MacShane, a former minister for Europe in U.S. ally Britain, told reporters that Marty’s report “has more holes than a Swiss cheese.”

“I have read it carefully and there is nothing new, no proof, no witness statement, no document that justifies the claims made,” MacShane, a British member of parliament, said.

“The report simply re-circulates newspaper allegations and sustains the anti-American propaganda that seeks to divide the democracies of Europe and the world when we should be united to defeat those who murdered hundreds of Europeans in (bomb attacks in) Madrid and London, and who plan fresh attacks.”

This is exactly what we have here. The press has made unsubstantiated, baseless allegations, and anti-American groups have jumped on it. Why? Because they hate Bush and his policies. And that’s a good enough reason to continue to report fiction as fact I guess. I was watching ‘The Today Show’ on NBC and you know what? They reported this story, but stuffed the part about the evidence not really existing. As usual, the MSM feeds on this kind of stuff, and they run with the story until it is finally refuted, then they’ll run a correction on page ‘E-28’, or in the case of the Today Show, they’ll ignore it.

Will the trial of Saddam Hussein ever be completed?

The court trying Saddam Hussein cancelled the resumption of his trial Tuesday, delaying the session for five days, after some judges opposed the appointment of a new chief judge in a last-minute shakeup.

The delay and judges’ dispute were the latest sign of disarray in the trial of the ousted Iraqi leader and his former regime officials, calling into question the fairness of what is meant to be a landmark step in
Iraq’s political progress.

The trial has already been marred by delays, assassinations and chaotic courtroom outbursts by Saddam.

The latest postponement came a day after a new chief judge was appointed following the resignation of his predecessor and another member of the five-judge panel was ousted.

After hours of waiting for Tuesday’s court session to begin, court official Raid Juhi told journalists that the court had decided to postpone the hearing until Sunday.

He said the delay was because some of the witnesses due to appear Tuesday had been unable to attend.

But two judges said the members of the panel hearing the case were arguing over the appointment of the new chief judge, Raouf Rasheed Abdel-Rahman.

Some judges opposed the appointment, while others supported Abdel-Rahman, one of the two judges said. He said the arguments were still going on as the postponement of the session was announced.

The other judge appeared to complain about outside interference in the court. When asked what the problem was, he replied, “Matters are not in our hands.”

The question remains – can this trial be completed, in Iraq, or any middle eastern country? So far, all we’ve seen is fear and intimidation caused by Bathist sympathizers and other outside sources that have prevented justice from being served.

Iraqis must be willing to see this trial through, at all costs. If they fail, a credibility gap will hang over the country’s head like a black cloud, and that will be a win for Saddam.

Paul Martin concedes. 12 years of Liberal rule comes to an end in Canada. As of 12:45 a.m. EST, the Conservatives were in line to take 124 seats, versus 103 for the defeated Liberals.

I’ll be out on business travel for the next couple of days. So, this means today I’m either in a car, in an airplane, or waiting in an airport terminal. As such, blogging will be light.

UPDATE: OK, so I’m in the Eastern Standard Time Zone now. I hate the ‘process’ of travel. Driving to the airport. Getting through the airport, security, waiting. Then, getting on an airplane that is over-booked. That means it’s PACKED tight. No room to exhale, for 3+ hours. Oh, throw a delay in there which makes for a tight connection and you’ve got a run through the Minneapolis/ST. Paul airport. Have you ever done that before? Yep – sweat, and gasping for air as you frantically look for your gate. U-G-L-Y. And then you finally get to your destination, and it’s 11 PM at night.

Did I say I hate the ‘process’ of travel?

This is just plain silly.

University of Florida employees have to pledge that they’re having sex with their domestic partners before qualifying for benefits under a new health care plan at the university.

The partners of homosexual and heterosexual employees are eligible for coverage under UF’s plan, which will take effect in February. The enrollment process began this month, and some employees have expressed concern about an affidavit that requires a pledge of sexual activity.

Fielding questions about the pledge at a Faculty Senate meeting Thursday, UF’s vice president of human resources said he’s heard concerns about the affidavit, though overall feedback about the plan has been positive.

“I would say 95 percent of the affidavit is fine,” Kyle Cavanaugh said in an interview after the meeting.

In addition to declaring joint financial obligations, prospective enrollees must “have been in a non-platonic relationship for the preceding 12 months,” according to the affidavit.

Marylou Behnke, a UF senator, told Cavanaugh she found the requirement “offensive.”

As a member of the Senate, representing faculty in UF’s College of Medicine, Behnke said she was compelled to learn more about UF’s plan. She said she was taken aback to find that employees would be required to swear to prior sexual activity, a standard not applied to married couples covered by UF’s primary health care plan.

“Are you going to police it?” Behnke asked Cavanaugh.

Cavanaugh said he had no plans to personally enforce the sex pledge. The “non-platonic” clause is “increasingly standard” in domestic partnership plans, Cavanaugh said. The clause is one of several methods used to legally ensure that an employer is only obligated to cover employees in a committed relationship, not longtime roommates.

See what I mean? Silly bureaucratic crap.

The MSM is making hay out of pictures that have been discovered showing President Bush standing next to Jack Abramoff. Of course, the Democrats will attempt to make this into some kind of smoking gun. You can just about guarantee the photos showing up in a campaign ad.

I say, So What.

Although President Bush says he doesn’t recall meeting convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the two have reportedly turned up in photos together.

Both Washingtonian and Time magazines have reported the existence of about a half-dozen photos showing the two together.

Time reported on its Web site Sunday that its staff members have seen at least six photos featuring Bush and Abramoff, who has pleaded guilty to federal charges stemming from his lobbying practices and has pledged to cooperate with investigators. They appeared to have been taken at White House functions, according to the reports.

The White House has acknowledged that Abramoff attended some events at the Executive Mansion, and spokeswoman Dana Perino said Sunday it’s not surprising that the two would have met.

“The president has taken tens upon thousands of pictures at such events,” Perino said.

Exactly, which is why there is no ‘there’, there with this story.

The Republicans can play a game of quid pro quo here. I’m sure there are quite a few pairing Hillary with some character of ill repute. Not that it would matter though. The MSM would ignore any story like that (at least they have so far).

The Abramoff matter is no doubt a serious one, and it deserves investigation. But the Democrats should stop trying to attach everything to this president. It’s a waste of time, especially when they would be better off formulating ideas and plans for running the country. That’ll win elections. There surely must be some Democrats who remember what it’s like to run an issue driven campaign.

<crickets>

Or, maybe not.

So far (2nd Quarter, 9:56) we look really good. Lots of ball game left to go though, so anything can happen.

For those of you who are not from the Pacific Northwest, and I’d imagine that’s most of you out there, you can’t possibly understand how important this game is. You see, the Seahawks have never gone to the Super Bowl. Like, never. In fact, they’ve always blown it in the playoffs, so the fact that they’re one win away from the Big Show is an act of God, pure and simple.

I’m not counting my chickens (uh, hawks) until their hatched, so I’ll update this post at the conclusion of the game.

UPDATE: Yea! We win, and we’re going to the Super Bowl! First time in franchise history. How sweet it is!

A majority of Australians would like to sever constitutional ties with Great Britain if Prince Charles becomes King.

Now there’s a real confidence booster!

The poll published in The Weekend Australian found 46 percent of Australians believed Australia should become a republic, while 34 percent wanted the British monarch to remain Australia’s head of state.

But if Charles, the first in line for the throne, replaced his mother Queen Elizabeth II, who turns 80 in April, support for a republic would rise to 52 percent and opposition would slide to 29 percent, the poll said.

A referendum to make Australia a republic with a president replacing the British monarch as head of state was defeated in 1999.

Charles’ popularity has suffered since he divorced Princess Diana, who blamed his current wife, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, for ruining their marriage. Diana died in a car crash in Paris in 1997.

All together now – Looooooosssserrrr!

I knew there was a reason to like Australia.