TOPICAL GUIDE TO AMERICAN POLITICS
THE COURTS RETURN TO 110-100 TOPICAL GUIDE AMERICAN POLITICS
07/03/07 The President does something right, and puts the squash on jail time for "Scooter" Libby. As I reflect on it, the full pardon, at this time, would have deprived Libby of the opportunity to fully clear his name on appeal. The pardon option remains available in the future if the courts on their own prove incapable of correcting for themselves this outrageous miscarriage of justice and subversion of both the legal system and the political process by the Left. The fact of the matter is that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby is a true patriot. Help him out. Go to http://www.scooterlibby.com JES
06/29/07 “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,” quotes Chief Justice John Roberts. In a predictable 5/4 decision, the Supreme Court finally begins to unravel perhaps the original modern Liberal activist court decision from 1954: Brown s. Board of Education. The damage over the decades of this social engineering experiment has been, and is, incalculable. JES
06/20/07 It is time for the President to set aside all the excuses and to act immediately to pardon I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. I regard it as his constitutional responsibility to do so. The issue was the man's memory before a grand jury, adjudged criminally defective by a dumbed down jury and another out-of-control special persecutor, one Patrick Fitzgerald, empowered in the first place by another spineless Bush DOJ fish farmer. This sort of persecution is the legal cousin of "hate crime" law logic, which is to say, an investigation of ones brain. We were supposed to have defeated this kind of thinking with the end of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. In considering special persecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's behavior in this matter, I am struck by the parallels of legal and moral arrogance with one Durham County District Persecutor Mike Nifong of Duke University Lacrosse scandal fame. TV and the present day legal system are wreaking the nation. JES
04/18/07 Finally Conservatives are making progress on the abortion front. The Supreme Court sustains a challenge to the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act signed into law in 2003 by President Bush. Infanticide is unconstitutional: imagine that. JES
03/10/07 Should Scooter Libby be pardoned? Of course, and I would think that before the end of Bush's presidency that will have happened, if the court system itself has not already corrected the carnage of what can only be described as a political show trial. In recent years, out of control prosecutors, and prosecutions, have become all too fashionable. As for Dick Cheney, in a more sensible time he would be our next President, and ought to be. That, of course, is not in the cards. America, it seems, is too awash in self hatred, white guilt and narcistic self loathing to think sensibly about much of anything these days. The future price in blood and treasure will be enormous. I pray for my grandsons. JES
09/28/06 The difficulty with a Senate almost evenly divided along partisan lines, in the more subtle sense of Liberal v. Conservative, is the power of individual Senators, drunk with self-importance, to disrupt what is in the interest of the polity, especially dangerous in times of war. Dressed in apparently principled, but frequently self-serving rhetoric, and perhaps even believing it themselves, certain Senators seem not to be able to resist the temptation to stand on the tracks of history. So it is that a Senate, forced by a similarly puffed up Supreme Court decision to extend beyond recognition Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, is charged with the duty of fabricating a band-aid fix to the Court's transgression. Enter John McCain, and two wannabes, offering specious arguments irrelevant and counter-productive to the issue at hand. The issue at hand is the ability of American intelligence operatives to question and obtain information from captured terrorists without themselves being subject to prosecution by either the so-called International Court or Senator Dick Durbin and friends.
Finally, after weeks of political grandstanding, and an explanation by the President that in the face of an unsatisfactory product from Congress the relevant programs would grind to a halt, the Senate caves, having been thrown a couple of fish to ease the hurt. Operations at Guantanamo will continue in a fashion already much too comfortable for the guests. JES
01/31/06 Congratulations United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. JES
01/29/06 Expect Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. to be confirmed by the full Senate this week, including by a handful of Democrats who know better, as Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. United States Supreme Court. We still need a couple of more like him. God Bless America, and President George W. Bush. JES
01/14/05 After Alito, we need at least one more qualified Conservative on the bench. Then, perhaps, we can begin to see the signs of stare reversalis -- the Sohmer doctrine that unconstitutional mistakes need to be fixed. JES
01/12/06 The inquisition of Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. by the Senate Judiciary Committee is over, and Democrats have again exposed themselves for who they really are to the public at large. This is important, because it is events like this that shape the results of future elections, the consequences of which will continue to shape the courts. So what we have seen this past week is the contrast between a highly qualified, highly intelligent and judicially experienced nominee of integrity, and the ravings of a pack of wolves lead by Democrat Party Ethicists:
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-MA, The Swimmer and Senate expert on water-boarding,
Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-NY, who steals social security numbers for personal investigations,
Sen. Richard J. Durbin, D-IL, , Cheerleader for Lenin, Stalin and Pol Pot,
and Senator Joseph Biden, D-DE the plagiarist.
You see, Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr's. "crime" is that he personally is a Conservative, the danger of which is that he might rule on the law and the Constitution in the originalist sense, foregoing policy instruction and social engineering, the art form of Liberal activists. This leaves our Democrat ethicists, and the raving mob that supports them, apoplectic. It's all sort of fun to watch. The good Judge will be confirmed. We need a couple more like him. JES
11/06/05 The commencement of hearings on the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr appears to have been stalled off until January. The locus of political dickering is, of course, among members of the "gang of 14", pretending "moderation", in fact flaunting their own individual political feathers. As a matter of fact, in the long run, nothing would be healthier than to confront the filibuster issue now, regarding judges, and get the Senate's rules back into line with the originalist concept of the Constitution, which calls for a simple majority vote. Pending actual support of Alito with a vote of approval, which currently seems likely, we will be witnessing a tug-of-war on the part of individual members of the Senate Judiciary Committee as to Constitutional purity v. political advantage. What is likely to carry Judge Alito through are his own impeccable qualifications as a Judge. What is less clear now is resolution of the judicial filibuster issue. Perhaps too many on the Committee have a personal vested interest in the survival of the judicial filibuster power of the current rules to confront the issue, including the opportunity of personal grandstanding, ducking the matter, while still allowing a full Senate vote on the Judge. JES
11/01/05 The President nominates a first class candidate for the high court, Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr of the 3rd Circuit, a near perfect selection, and Democrats are grinding their teeth. Conservatives have hauled the President back on board, at least for now. Once again, it's High Noon at the DC Corral. JES
10/29/05 With the withdrawal from contention by Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, Conservatives have won a major strategic victory, not withstanding a little intramural squabble between Roman Catholics and evangelicals, intellectually disciplined Conservatives and intellectually mis-directed populists. It is now time to get behind the President with support for a properly qualified Conservative judge, or some so qualified. No animus toward Harriet Miers; she was just out of her league, as are those who continued to support her. Conservatives are now flexing their muscles, laying down political markers for the future, not only on the issue of the courts, but also on federal spending, immigration and the border, and on Republican Party discipline. What is really at issue is re-directing the old Republican habit of defaulting to the Left. JES
10/21/05 Regarding the Harriet Miers nomination for the Supreme Court. I am now convinced that this time Ann Coulter has it right. Hard evidence has emerged that Ms. Miers flirted with support for affirmative action as correct social policy, another Alberto R. Gonzales on the loose. It’s time for the White House to start over, and begin by listening to its outside political base. Now it needs that base to save itself. I am getting sick and tired of advancing nominees first qualified by the political correctness of their victimhood status. This is supposed to be a Conservative Administration. On domestic matters it is not. Mr. President, just what the hell is wrong with you? I must be blunt. Conservatives are less interested in “saving your Presidency” than we are in advancing Conservatism, and you are forcing our hand at making choices. JES
10/12/05 What seems to be unfolding in the battle over the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court is a contest within the Republican Party. The struggle by Conservatives to wrest control of the Party away from Liberal Republicans, aka RINOs, or coastal country club types, has been ongoing since 1964, with gradual accumulating success, a long story. It has nothing to do with Harriet Miers. It has to do with the application of the raw political power of a Conservative Heartland to prevail over the comfortable Coastal hypocrisy of a polite discomfort with the Left. The Mountain Observer has previously referred to George W. Bush as “tending Conservative”, which is to say that on certain issues he has it right, and on others he is too quick too sell out, either out of conviction, or expediency. It is largely over the question of conviction, or expediency that has always tended to make Conservatives nervous about the Bush family. George W Bush is no Ronald Reagan. Conservatives have generally supported him because neither is he Jimmy Carter, OJ Billyboy, John Kerry or Hillary Rodham, regarding issues of national security. So it is that the civil war for control of the Republican Party machinery has bubbled just below the surface, over the years, with occasional eruptions. In this protracted political war, Conservatives have won some battles and lost some battles, but in the long haul, Conservatives are winning, within the Republican Party, and with the American people.
So in the matter of Harriet Miers, it appears that a broad consensus of Conservatives have determined the need, and the political ability, to face down the President on the issue of her nomination. (Conservatives have lost patience on a list of issues.) Conservatives would prefer to take on the “gang of 14”, and all congressional Liberals, with a more judicially experienced and hardened Conservative, and the Mountain Observer certainly agrees and supports this effort. From this perspective, Conservatives view themselves as representing most Americans concerning the shape of the Court to come. At stake is the political set up going into 2006 and 2008, with George W. not a candidate. It is High Noon at the DC Corral. The Mountain Observer can make no predictions, at this time, about how this dust up over the Miers nomination will resolve itself specifically, but I do agree that Conservatives are correct in aggressively laying down their markers looking forward. In the strategic sense, Conservatives will win, what ever happens, and Liberals in both Parties, and the Press, will lose. JES
10/04/05 Yesterday, the President nominated Harriet Miers of Dallas, TX, to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court. I don’t know quite what to make of this. Perhaps, in the President’s judgment, he cannot trust Senate Republicans at this time to carry the political freight of approval in the Judiciary Committee of a well advertised Conservative. It’s called the McCain factor. This does not mean that Harriet Miers is not a Conservative. It means that no one knows. Even if one is to accept the premise that the President thinks so, there remains the question of her qualifications to execute a Conservative perspective on the Bench, which is to say that the role of judges is to rule on the law, not create it. Now if one voted for the President, that vote implies trust in his judgment. The difficulty here is that from a Conservative perspective his judgment has sometimes lapsed on domestic issues. You see, it is the one major criticism of the President by the Mountain Observer is that he tends too often to be a nice guy. So it is that he let Ted Kennedy write his education bill, he coddles OJ Billyboy, tolerates Congressional largess and is unwilling to confront his friend Vicente Fox. So it is that Conservatives have never fully trusted him on domestic issues. This nomination may cause a long simmering back room dispute to surface to public awareness. On the political Right this is a frustration that will continue until there is a clear Senate majority of 60 dependable votes. So who is Harriet Miers? Has the ghost of Justice David H. Souter scared the President straight, or has the ghost of Newt Gingrich scared him silly? Or has he made a brilliant move? As of the moment, nobody knows. JES
09/22/05 The Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday approves the nomination of federal Judge John G. Roberts Jr. to the post of chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Democrat’s base is enraged. JES
09/06/05 Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist passed on at home 09/03/05, of thyroid cancer. This development has propelled a switch of Judge John Roberts to the President’s choice for the top post, a good and timely move, and re-opening the post to be filled with the retirement of Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Perhaps time to roll out Janis Rogers Brown. JES
08/03/05 When the Senate returns to "work" after its summer recess, it will take up the issue of confirming Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court. Expect to see a display of Liberal mental illness. For example, do not be surprised to hear that the good Judge, if confirmed, will pose a threat to toads and trees. It is a sign of the times that certain folks are more concerned about such things than they are about such American founding principles as a citizen's right to life. JES
07/23/05 Re: The President's nomination of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. to the Supreme Court, and Objections raised by Ann Coulter. Ms. Coulter, your concern is well understood by every reasonable Conservative, and one must acknowledge the possibility that time might prove you right, but I would guess not. While the Mountain Observer would have preferred a more ideologically forthright Conservative candidate (such as Janice Rogers Brown, or even yourself), I think we have to allow for the fact that we are witnessing a very elaborate game of political chess, and acknowledge that the President and Karl Rove are very good at this. The strategy for accomplishing success with this nomination has to be taken in context with additional opportunities that are probable and or possible through 2007. To begin with, it now appears safe to say that the current nominee, from our perspective, is clearly an improvement over Judge Sandra Day O'Connor. In addition, he is squeaky clean (the source of your suspicions), setting up the Gang of 14 for a test of their filibuster "agreement". Should the Dems be so foolish as to exercise the "exception" option of this agreement, they open up a perfect opportunity to scuttle the whole thing (the 7 GOP members of this group will split among themselves; we only need 2) and the filibuster rule itself for judicial nominees. If the Dems can find enough sense to see the writing on the wall, they will let this one pass, Roberts will be confirmed, and we will realize a marginal improvement in our position on the Court. In the current situation it would be to our benefit for the Dems to go stupid.
Next in context, consider the issue of the Chief Justice. To begin with, I refer you to my comments on 07/05/05 (this letter, see below), expressing a theory which continues to be viable. When this issue will come to life remains to be seen, but it is only reasonable to expect it will happen before the end of 2007. At that point, a decision will have to be made as to whether or not to advance a current Associate Justice to the position of Chief Justice, or whether to go straight in from the outside. Too much to speculate about at this time, except that how the current confirmation process plays out might be significant in the strategy, again referring to my comments on 07/05/05.
Finally, there is the distinct possibility that 1 or 2 more current Associate Justices will choose to take the retirement dive before the end of 2007. So we are witnessing a complex political struggle, which for the Far Left is a game of life or death, and so far, so good. However, at the earliest opportunity, it will be necessary to kill the filibuster rule on judicial nominations. How much easier this would be if all the GOP Senators had balls; too many don't. It is necessary to quote the Secretary of Defense: "--you go to war with the Army you've got." Ms. Coulter, I love you. JES
07/20/05 Yesterday the President announced his nomination of John G. Roberts Jr., 5th District appeals court judge, to the Supreme Court. Today, in reviewing comments and information from a variety of well informed sources, it would appear that the President has hit a long ball right out of the park. Needless to say, that dastardly Karl Rove must be responsible for plotting this criminal venture against the American people. The problem for Liberals is that lots of evidence suggests that the American people, by a widening margin, are demanding exactly the type of judge on the Supreme Court that Judge John G. Roberts Jr. appears to be: A strict Constitutional originalist, inclined to interpret the law, and not create it. The man appears to have impeccable credentials, and Liberals will find it difficult to explain to the public at large any negative votes JES
07/05/05 On re-building the Supreme Court. The mainstream punditry expresses confusion over who has, and who has not, retired from the Court. The Mountain Observer has a theory concerning what may be going on. Chief Justice Rehnquist certainly is eligible to retire, but he has not, yet. Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announces her retirement, not really a surprise to anybody who has been paying attention. I suspect that the Chief Justice, noticing the recent behavior in Congress over the confirmation of judges to various Courts of Appeal, and the politics surrounding the filibuster, has wisely concluded that to place two Supreme Court confirmation requirements before Congress at the same time might result in a political compromise not healthy for the Court. That is to say, to trade a Lib for a Conservative, when the focus ought to be on judicial qualification. Going by his record on the bench, one might even surmise that the Chief Justice would personally prefer the elevation of judges who are consistently focused on reading the Constitution, and ruling on the law, a novel notion in this modern day. So I suspect a calculation. Let Congress take on the matter of confirming the President's nominee to replace the Associate Justice. Once confirmed, next up, Rehnquist. We shall see. JES
07/01/05 Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announces her retirement. Hurray! Now what will the President do? Pray not Gonzales. JES
06/30/05 The United States Supreme Court ends its term with a series of appalling decisions, most recently on the subject of the 10 Commandments in and around Courtrooms. More accurately, in this particular matter, rather than a decision, we find equivocation suggesting intellectual guilt. I am encouraged that the transgressions of this bunch of judicial pretenders, and their acolytes in Congress, are becoming so apparent that public pressure for reform, or what ever it takes, are within sight. This nonsense cannot be allowed to continue. JES
06/23/05 In a 5/4 decision, the usual suspects in lock-step, the Supreme Court has managed to disable the 5th Amendment's clear protection of private property from a public taking for other than public use. Mom and Pop, and houses of worship, are now clear targets of the big box developments and secular hatred. The Republic cannot survive destruction of the the primacy of private property, the foundation of civil rights. At some point a majority of the electorate will recognize the depth of the problem, perhaps too late for other than direct popular action. Conservatives are uncomfortable with the implications, but best understand the malady, and the necessary corrections, and it will need to start with the Courts. JES
06/08/05 Today the Senate confirmed California judge Janice Rogers Brown for the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia by a vote of 56 to 43, an enormous victory for Conservatives. A real judge has been advanced, and the sham "deal" over filibusters by Senate "moderates" will now proceed to collapse as a continued procession of real judges continue to march through the process if Bill Frist has pulled his pants on. The "deal" will collapse because, when cornered, Democrats, under current Senate rules, will run right straight back to the filibuster for cover. To fix this problem, it will be necessary for Republicans to re-align the Senate rules to conform with the Constitution. The Constitution specifies certain instances requiring a super majority vote, and approval of a President's nomination of judges is not on the list. Having been allowed the opportunity to offer their "advice", the next step is to execute their "consent", with an up or down vote by the entire chamber. That is what the Constitution says. Democrats are all exercised about a peculiar extra-constitutional claim of "checks and balances", attempting to graft on to the American system the logic of proportional representation, very French, don't you know. Those exercised about the minority status of Democrats should be reminded that, under the Constitution, the remedy for this horror is for Democrats to win elections. You commielibs need to understand that the route to power is winning elections, and right now you are not doing so well. Those who win elections, exercise power. That's the way it works.
Meanwhile, in the matter of Judge Brown, Democrats have demonstrated the utter hypocrisy of their claim of concern for minorities. Janice Rogers Brown has no need of preferential assistance, and would detest its application. She is who she is on the basis of personal merit and accomplishment, race and gender unrelated and incidental. Others of her assigned victim status are, perhaps, watching all this with interest. She has "earned her own stripes", and we Conservatives want her on the bench. That is all. JES
05/16/05 The Courts dispense with the executive and legislative branches, which willingly accede, which is to say that the law evaporates, to be replaced by court decree. The message is that with the disappearance of the law, we are all free to get away with whatever we can, undiscovered by judges. All this, of course, fits perfectly with the creed of intellectual and moral relativism, the rubber Constitution, abortion, affirmative action, and the moral equivalency of Christians, thugs and dictators. Harvard should be proud of itself. Meanwhile, it should be remembered that as an unintended consequence, "nice people" cause wars, civil or otherwise. JES
03/24/05 So it has come to pass that on this date the US Courts have thrown down the gauntlet with respect to their relationship with the Congress and the President, and incidentally ordering the death of Terri Schiavo in the process. The recent Schiavo legislation, passed by Congress and signed by the President, did not require or demand a specific result in the Schiavo case, but rather directed a review of matters of due process, with good cause, and incidentally implied the need to stabilize Schiavo's medical condition until such time as a proper review had been completed. There were, and are, compelling reasons for such a review, no doubt to be conducted now by private sector investigators.
There is not a general awareness yet of the historical significance of what is going on here. There are those who have thought my rhetoric in the Mission Statement for this website was a "bit over the top". Go read it again. The Mountain Observer has been right on target for years. I care not a wit about congratulations; I care about thoughtful Americans starting to get really thoughtful. I would suggest to you that this country is hurtling headlong toward a major rendezvous with destiny. The ghosts of 1803, and the Federal income tax, are hurtling straight at you. JES
03/17/05 I really like Antonin Scalia's distinction between Constitutional "orIginialism" vs. Constitutional "strick construction"; both important and intelligent. JES
03/13/05 Returning to Terri Schiavo. There are those who wonder about Michael Schiavo and his stubborn refusal to surrender legal jurisdiction of his wife to her parents. Some have speculated that he is engaged in a principled defense of what he considers Terri's wish to not live under such circumstances, shared only between the two of them, without documentation. Perhaps, but I think a preponderance of hard evidence points in another direction. I suspect that Michael Schiavo's greatest fear in life is the possibility that Terri might not only continue to live, but that she might also recover sufficiently to tell her side of the story. I think those who wonder at his refusal to entertain huge bribes for his release of Terri are naive in their understanding of this whole case. The court battle continues in Terri Schiavo's battle for life. We watch intently to see if there is a judge in Florida willing to order her murder. I also think there may be constitutional grounds for Jeb Bush, as Governor, to step in and physically remove Terri from the jurisdiction of the court if, at the end, that is the only option left. That gets into another matter discussed elsewhere on this website, and perhaps weighs on Jeb's fitness for higher office. You see, the Mountain Observer does not accept the proposition that any Court necessarily has the final say. It goes back to 1803. Stay tuned. www.terrisfight.org www.LifeNews.com JES
MO 05 01 We have more to be concerned about with the Chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee of Arlen Specter. The Mountain Observer considers him to be a snake in the grass. What we need in the federal court system is a lot less stare decisis (the Arlen Specter principle that precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts), and a lot more stare reversal (the Sohmer principle that a lot of unconstitutional mistakes need to be fixed). JES
RETURN TO 110-100 TOPICAL GUIDE AMERICAN POLITICS
FMOWEB 110-101 TOPICAL GUIDE AMERICAN POLITICS THE COURTS