December 5, 2002
Civil disobedience, free speech, Christian-phobia and the courts

National Review's Rod Dreher wrote a good backgrounder on the case of NOW v. Scheidler. It's a good read. While I'm pro-life, I'm stridently opposed to violence at abortion clinics. My definition of violence for this case is rather broad. I would include: shooting doctors or clinic employees; stalking the same; bombing clinics; defacing clinic […]

Read More
December 1, 2002
Free speech, history and the courts

If you haven't read it, check out George Will's latest column on the Incumbent Protection Act, aka McCain-Feingold. Will points out that the purpose of McCain-Feingold, in the very words of its supporters, was to prevent negative ads run against them -- not to prevent the appearance of corruption. The NRA was one of the […]

Read More
November 26, 2002
Good news for free speech

A federal judge has allowed one of those "corrupting" issue advocacy ads to go on the air in time for a federal special election in Hawaii. This is good news for free speech -- and likely an indication of rough waters ahead for the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. The most surprising thing? Hawaii is […]

Read More
November 13, 2002
That's a good idea

National Review Online's Jay Nordlinger's "Impromptus" column has this little item: I’m a little confused by something I read: ?Iran’s hard-line judiciary today sentenced an outspoken reform activist to death, 8 years in jail, 74 lashes, and a 10-year ban from teaching.? So, what’s the deal here? The execution comes after the eight years in […]

Read More
November 12, 2002
Sin of omission

Wednesday's New York Times has an article on Senate confirmations of Bush's judicial nominations now that Republican control of the chamber is imminent. The Democrat-controlled committee, along with the Times' editorial page, has come out against many of Bush's appeals court nominees (including those who have been rated well-qualified by the American Bar Association), because […]

Read More
October 7, 2002
New Jersey Fiasco update

The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear the GOP's appeal regarding the last-minute substitution of Frank Lautenberg for Robert Toricelli. I'm not surprised, this isn't the sort of fiasco that the court would want to get involved in. But there are some other interesting notes on this whole debacle. First, the Washington Post has […]

Read More
October 2, 2002
Laws? We don't need no stinkin' laws

The New Jersey State Supreme Court, following in the footsteps of its counterpart in Florida, has displayed an inability to deal with Arabic numerals. The court today decided that the number 51 doesn't really exist -- at least in state's election law. The judges decided to shut their eyelids tight, stick their fingers in their […]

Read More
September 29, 2002
Judging Judges

A hint to all newspaper editorial pages: If Eric Alterman thinks that you're doing a great job, then you've gone way too far to the left. This should be a wake-up call for the New York Times, but is likely to fall on deaf ears. In a Sunday editorial, the Times came out against Bush […]

Read More
September 26, 2002
The conservatives are coming, the conservatives are coming

New York Times columnist Bob Herbert is sounding the alarm over President Bush's nomination of conservatives to the federal appeals court. Is this supposed to come as some big surprise? Elections have consequences. The Senate Judiciary Committee is considering two more of President Bush's appeals court nominees -- Michael McConnell to the 10th Circuit, based […]

Read More
September 10, 2002
A return to sanity and an omen of things to come?

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which previously brought you that atheist hit "The Pledge of Allegiance is Unconstitutional," has ruled that a public school near Seattle violated a student's rights by refusing to give her Bible club the same rights and privileges granted other student groups. The ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court […]

Read More

Actually, no serious person is sure what the conservative majority will do here. That's common in these politically charged cases. Meanwhile, literally nobody doubts what the *Democrat-appointed* justices will do. So who is "deeply partisan" again?

Doing some research and checked out @TheDispatchFC front page. It turns out the answer to every single one of these is "No." But one doesn't have that simple explanation on the main page. Why?

Load More...


December 2021



pencil linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram