September 11, 2007

Jesus Survives Latest ACLU Attack

Filed under: ACLU,Democrats,Politics,Religion,Republicans,Trials/Lawsuits — acepundit @ 2:03 pm

I’ve been following this case for awhile and am pleased that the court didn’t give in to the ACLU’s ridiculous demand that a portrait of Jesus be taken off a wall inside a Louisiana courthouse:

A disputed portrait of Jesus Christ will remain at the Slidell city courthouse in Louisiana after a federal judge refused to grant a demand by the American Civil Liberties Union to have the painting removed.

The Jesus portrait, which had been on display in the courthouse for more than a decade, had spurred the ACLU to file a lawsuit claiming that the display violated the separation of church and state.

An interesting fact you won’t hear from others covering this story, especially those who sided with the ACLU, is that the judge who dismissed the case, Ivan Lemelle, is a President Clinton appointee.

Yet expect many to blame the ruling on President Bush’s efforts to Christianize the nation and drive the courts in a fundamentally conservative direction.


August 24, 2007

John Couey Sentenced to Die

Filed under: Capital Punishment,Democrats,Politics,Trials/Lawsuits — acepundit @ 3:40 pm

Whenever a high profile killer is sentenced to death I like to see how the folks at Democratic Underground handle it. While I don’t support capital punishment I will hardly feel sorry for the man who kidnapped, raped and killed a nine-year-old girl. Many Democrats feel the same way, but a great number are preparing for John Couey’s vigil. Call our system barbaric if you want to, but it gave him at least 24 chances; one for every burglary arrest on his record.

If any part of our criminal justice system needs an immediate overhaul it’s not the death penalty, it’s the lax treatment we afford to repeat offenders.

July 28, 2007

Fool Me Thrice

Filed under: Congress,Democrats,Elections,Republicans,Supreme Court — acepundit @ 12:58 pm

Senator Chuck Schumer, the high-ranking Democrat who sits on the judiciary committee, cannot believe how easily President Bush was able to fool him not once but twice with his two stellar picks for the Supreme Court: John Roberts and Sam Alito, and vows not to be fooled a third time.

Speaking to the American Constitution Society, Schumer all but promised that President Bush is done picking Supreme Court justices, telling the group he and his colleagues were “too easily impressed with the charm of Roberts and the erudition of Alito.”

Says Schumer, “I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee EXCEPT in extraordinary circumstances.”

Like when there’s a retirement? I don’t think the American public would pleased with a Senate that refused to act if presented with a vacancy more than a year before the next election.

ABC correspondent Jan Crawford certainly put it mildly when she wrote, “some of the liberal commentary on the Court since the justices packed up and left town has been almost breathtaking in its over-the-top hysteria.”

It also doesn’t help when the media is consistently wrong in its analysis of the last Supreme Court term. Just yesterday on his blog at the Washington Post, Paul Kane wrote about Schumer’s childish plan to give Bush the silent treatment should another retirement take place with erroneous information on what the Roberts court has done, saying, “The Roberts court overturned previous rulings on partial birth abortion and campaign finance reform.”

An all too familiar pattern. Certainly the Left has little to cheer about in regards to the recent Supreme Court decisions that didn’t turn out their way, but their predictable “sky is falling” rhetoric goes beyond the pale. Contrary to what you’re being told by the media and even respectable law professors, the Supreme Court did not reverse a bunch of precedents and send the country back 200 years.

The Court did not overturn any previous rulings on partial-birth abortion. Everyone swears it did but the Nebraska state law that banned the nasty procedure was scratched by the Supreme Court in 2000 and is still dead.

This year the Court simply upheld a federal law passed by Congress – you know, the branch that’s popularly elected by the people to write laws – outlawing partial-birth abortion in 2003. And it wasn’t exactly an ideological piece of legislation. The House passed it by a vote of 281-142 and the Senate by a comfortable margin of 64-34.

When it reached the Supreme Court on appeal, the nine justices had to decide whether to invalidate or uphold a fairly new and popular law supported by 345 members of Congress plus the president, to 176 members who opposed it.

For all the screaming liberals do about respecting precedent and not enacting it’s own ideological agenda, they come off mighty contradictory for assaulting the Court for upholding a four-year-old congressional law.

Campaign Finance is also alive, albeit weakened, but when the Supreme Court found it a violation of the Constitution to prohibit an advocacy group from running a televised campaign ad less than 60 days before an election, liberals went nuts.

It was a blow to students’ free speech rights, liberals argued, when the Supreme Court sided against a high school student who refused to take down a “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” banner at a school-sponsored event because the principal thought it violated the school’s policy against advocating drug use.

It would have been interesting, had the Court recognized such free speech rights that trample school policy, to see what else students could get away with. At least now we know a student who shows up at school with a swastika on his t-shirt probably wouldn’t get the support of the Supreme Court.

So Chucky has spoken. Will we witness the greatest showdown ever to take place in the Senate? It’s a fight in which at least one senator from New York is willing to participate.

July 27, 2007

YouTube Circus Awaits GOP

Filed under: Democrats,Elections,Republicans — acepundit @ 6:14 pm

The Democrats already did it and now the GOP will have its chance to field “questions” from YouTube submitters that would likely embarrass any serious journalist. Opinion is split in Republican circles as to whether they should agree to it. Michelle Malkin thinks it would be a great opportunity for a Republican to call out any bias CNN/YouTube tries to practice, but it looks like the front runners are hesitant to appear.

And if you’re Rudy Giuliani or the top poller in either party it would be in your best interest to avoid as many debates as possible until securing the party nomination. You can’t win in these kinds of debates, only lose, and allow the next challenger to pass you by catastrophically imploding on stage.

If the Republicans do agree to appear on YouTube I probably won’t watch it as I didn’t watch any of the previous debates. To me they’re about as authentic as John Edwards’ hair.

July 20, 2007

Is that the Imperial March I Hear?

Filed under: Democrats,Elections,Politics,Republicans,War — acepundit @ 6:06 pm

Jamie reports on the inaugural ceremony:

US President George W. Bush will undergo a “routine colonoscopy” at the Camp David retreat on Saturday, temporarily ceding his powers to Vice President Dick Cheney, the White House said Friday. Cheney raised his hand and promised not to wipe out Muslims and promote Halliburton employees as a new Middle Eastern race of people.

Meanwhile readers of The Corner are breaking out the champagne:

Readers are really into Cheney being president for awhile. Suggestions for Acting President Cheney include

Bomb Iran.
Commute the sentences of those border agents.
Fire Mike Chertoff.
Tell Harry Reid to … well, you know…
Pardon Scooter.

I wouldn’t mind seeing two and four being done tomorrow, but with pressure now even coming from the Democrats to have Compean and Ramos freed (an easy campaign issue winner), it’s going to happen before Bush leaves office – whether it be before or after his colonoscopy.

July 18, 2007

Three Cheers for Senator Feinstein

Filed under: Congress,Democrats,Politics,Republicans,Trials/Lawsuits — acepundit @ 10:53 pm

That’s right. I’m showing love for Senator Dianne Feinstein. It’s the first and probably last time for the Democratic senator but she should be commended for trying to free Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. In the wake of Scooter Libby’s commuted sentence, President Bush really has no choice in the matter:

WASHINGTON — Sens. John Cornyn and Dianne Feinstein on Wednesday joined the ranks of lawmakers urging President Bush to release two Border Patrol agents sentenced to more than a decade in prison each for wounding a Mexican drug courier.

A group of Republican House members also has called on Bush to commute the sentences or pardon Compean and Ramos, echoing the demands of predominantly conservative grassroots advocacy organizations that are rallying behind the two agents. Pressure for the agents’ release escalated after Bush commuted the sentence of convicted former vice presidential aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby.

Ramos and Compean were sentenced to 11 and 12 years in prison respectively after they were convicted on more than a half-dozen charges in the shooting of Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila on Feb. 17, 2005. Aldrete-Davila was shot in the buttocks as he fled from the agents after abandoning a van loaded with marijuana. He escaped across the border but later re-emerged as the key witness against the two agents.

Feinstein and Cornyn challenged the prosecutor’s decision to include a firearms charge that mandated a 10-year minimum sentence. The firearms offense was unnecessary, the senators said in their letter to Bush, since prosecutors lodged 12 charges against the agents, some of which were dropped by the jury.

It is without question that the two agents screwed up by failing to report the shooting, but that’s not why they’re doing more time in prison than most child sex offenders. The prosecutor nailed them on gun crimes that carry mandatory sentences.

Border Patrol agents are required to carry firearms due to the nature of their jobs. In this case the two agents used them when they thought it was necessary because they thought the drug runner had a weapon of his own. They may be guilty of violating policy, but they certainly shouldn’t be put on par with felons who wantonly use firearms to commit violent crimes, and that’s exactly what the prosecutor has done.

July 17, 2007

And Speaking of Hillary and the Court

Filed under: Democrats,Politics,Supreme Court — acepundit @ 10:34 pm

The two leading Democratic candidates took their typical potshots at the two newest justices with plenty of ambiguous rhetoric about “turning the clock back on civil rights” left for future appearances.

Clinton says she would “appoint well-qualified judges who really respect the Constitution,” and Barack Obama opined, “we need somebody who’s got the empathy to recognize what it’s like to be a young teen-aged mom,” he said.

What Obama is suggesting sounds not so much like an impartial judge for the Supreme Court but some spiky-haired kid on his laptop at Starbucks or in line at a Reel Big Fish concert. They, are like, totally down with authority and The Man.

A Judicial Branch With a Hint of Olive

Filed under: Democrats,Elections,Politics,Republicans,Supreme Court — acepundit @ 4:30 pm

Rudy Giuliani’s recently assembled cast of judicial advisors can only be described as an all-star lineup that would crush MLB’s best American League roster accustomed to beating up National League lightweights.

“America’s mayor” made a campaign promise to appoint the right kind of judges to the federal bench, and has just taken a huge step toward fulfilling it by surrounding himself with advisors who’d make great judges themselves…ones who aren’t judges already.

Social conservatives who are afraid of the next liberal Republican president desperately need to be aware that the worst eight-year presidency can be completely vindicated by just one Supreme Court selection.

Just one.

One pick.

One 50-year-old selection like John Roberts to replace the aging dinosaur John Paul Stevens to secure the proper direction for our federal jurisprudence for at least another half century.

But Republicans are looking at the short term. A recent poll found that nearly a quarter of Republicans are unwilling to back any of the leading candidates because they’re looking for the next Ronald Reagan.

Well the next Reagan isn’t an option for 2008, and with what President Bush has done to the image of the Republican party as a middle-of-the-road moderate, America isn’t hungry for someone more ideological.

And besides, the great Ronald Reagan was the president who gave us Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy. Bush Sr. gave us David Souter. Bush Jr. tried to give us Harriet Miers.

A president’s political philosophy is just not a reliable indicator of judicial appointments, and regardless of what Giuliani’s positions may be there is no reason to believe he’s lying when he says he will appoint “strict constructionists” to the bench as president, something he didn’t promise before he became mayor of New York and made moderate appointments. When he wasn’t surrounded by members of the Federalist Society.

If elected he can show up to his inauguration in drag and do whatever else conservatives fear about him, but three things will be guaranteed:

1. Replacing John Paul Stevens with another young John Roberts would pay off in dividends so great that no liberal Giuliani agenda would be able to spoil them.

2. Replacing a second liberal (leaving only two left) with a solid Supreme Court pick would safeguard the Constitution from judicial activism so long that your grandchildren will benefit.

3. Hillary Clinton won’t be the president.

July 7, 2007

Impeaching the President

A survey conducted by the American Research Group of a random sample of Americans found that 45 percent support the impeachment of President Bush, with 46 percent opposed, and a 54-40 split in favor when it comes to Darth Cheney – when asked:

Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush/Vice President Dick Cheney?

The phone survey, while appearing to have been conducted appropriately and professionally, has one major flaw in its design that prevents me from putting too much weight into it. It takes for granted that the respondents all understood the constitutional grounds for impeachment. In order to impeach the president he has to be found guilty of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” by the House of Representatives. The Senate must then vote to remove him from office by a two-thirds majority vote.

If any of the respondents in the survey said they supported impeachment just because they believe Bush is an ineffective or incompetent leader then the numbers are inflated.

Remember that before the Iraq War the president was enjoying high-altitude approval ratings and even helped his party win seats in the 2002 and 2004 elections on the road to complete GOP dominance. It is that issue alone that has turned so many against him. And while I certainly believe Bush and his cohorts have badly mishandled the ongoing occupation, I don’t think we should be talking about impeachment, especially when very few congressional Democrats believe it’s worth the effort.

July 4, 2007

Prius Power

Filed under: Democrats,Interesting News,Trials/Lawsuits — acepundit @ 5:38 pm

Happy 4th everybody. It’s raining miserably here but the skies should clear up in time for the ‘works later tonight. And now for your funny news story of the day:

LAGUNA NIGUEL, Calif. – Al Gore’s son was arrested early Wednesday on suspicion of possessing marijuana and prescription drugs after deputies pulled him over for speeding, authorities said.

Al Gore III, 24, was driving a blue Toyota Prius about 100 mph on the San Diego Freeway when he was pulled over at about 2:15 a.m., Sheriff’s Department spokesman Jim Amormino said.

The deputies said they smelled marijuana and searched the car, Amormino said. They found less than an ounce of marijuana along with Xanax, Valium, Vicodin and Adderall, which is used for attention deficit disorder, he said.

Good to know that when the son of the world’s most popular environmentalist is burning rubber down the streets of California his emissions are doing minimal damage to the ozone layer.

Next Page »

Blog at