Here's a dire headline for Republicans from the New York Times:

In Ohio, Iraq Questions Shake Even Some of Bush's Faithful

Sounds like there'll be some bad news in there for the President, about him losing credibility among people who strongly supported him. Turns out though, that the only evidence the Times has of this is one, one, person who voted for President Bush who feels like there was no attempt to deceive, but who doesn't "like where this is coming down." The other people who say the news has affected them either did not vote for the President, or did not tell us who they voted for. As further "evidence" the article also points to a poll taken before the discussion of unreliable intellegence (not too sure about that characterization in any case), which is irrelevant to the headline unless compared to a poll taken after the discussion, and no such poll is included.

Not only is there a complete lack of evidence supporting the headline, there is, in fact, significant evidence that this discussion is NOT hurting the president. One voter said that she will not vote for Bush in 2004, but also said "There are always a lot of people involved in these things . . . . I don't blame him." The article also mentions the following:

In conversations here with nearly three dozen voters, the vast majority said they generally like President Bush and believe he is doing a good job. Many people said they remained convinced that Iraq posed a threat, even though no chemical or biological weapons have been found. And there was a broad consensus that the result of the war — the ousting of a brutal dictator — was good for Iraq as well as the United States.

It also reports that

Most people interviewed here said they did not pay much attention to either Mr. Bush's October appearance or State of the Union address.

and

To the chagrin of staunch Democrats here, the Washington debate about intelligence has received scant coverage in Cincinnati

I mean, for crying out loud, who wrote that Headline? It must have just been to grab attention, because, In Ohio, Iraq Questions Don't Much Matter, No Matter How Hard The Press Tries would have been more accurate.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 12:11 PM 0 comments

 
This quote is being passed around the Internet. Apparently, its true.

Nominated for quote of the year is the statement made by Representative Dick Armey, who when asked if he had been in President Clinton's place, would he have resigned?

He responded: "If I were in the President's place I would not have gotten a chance to resign. I would be laying in a pool of my own blood, hearing Mrs. Armey standing over me saying, "How do I reload this damn thing?"

- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 10:36 AM 0 comments

 
I'm a huge NASCAR fan, to the point that I buy Tide because they sponsor a car of a driver I don't really even like that much, but, really, this is just pandering. If you want to prove you're a NASCAR fan, and pick up some votes, follow NC Governor Mike Easely's example: Drive a racecar so hard you put it in the wall at Turn Two in Charlotte. Now THAT's a NASCAR fan, although Senator Graham's heart might not make it.

If you think this stuff isn't a big deal in N.C., please note this report on the 2002-03 term of the N.C. General Assembly:

NASCAR: Lawmakers passed a resolution to honor NASCAR; its pioneering families and drivers; and North Carolina motor racing in efforts to keep Winston Cup Racing in the state.

- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 9:40 AM 0 comments

 
I heard Al Sharpton speak at the Human Rights Campaign's Candidate's Forum last night. The New York Times is reporting that,

Of the nine Democratic presidential candidates, only the Rev. Al Sharpton and Representative Dennis J. Kucinich say they support gay marriage unambiguously.

What they don't mention is that Sharpton is a fabulous speaker. I can see how he has remained a powerful leader despite everything else. Maybe fabulous enough to win the nomination? Well, we can always hope, I guess.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 11:52 AM 0 comments

 
I really could have done without this news.

The Columbia astronauts lived for almost a minute after their final communication with mission control, well after signs that the craft was in serious trouble.

It must have been a miserable minute.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 11:39 AM 0 comments

 
Fox News reports this quote from Bob Graham:

"If the standard of impeachment that the Republicans set for Bill Clinton -- a personal, consensual relationship was the basis for impeachment, would not a president who knowingly deceived the American people about something as important as whether to go to war meet the standard of impeachment?"

I particularly love the characterization of the "personal, consensual relationship" between Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. Sounds so sweet doesn't it. How bout we think of a few other adjectives -- like adulterous for one.

That scratching sound you hear is Mr. Graham digging his own political grave.




- posted by Anonymous @ 3:57 PM 0 comments

 
This is a tempest in a tea kettle. Despite all the attention, this is it: In the State of the Union address, the President said , "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa".

Although the CIA apparently disageed with the assessment, everyone agrees that the statement was factually accurate - the Brits did make the claim - and could have been substantivly accurate - it was possible he sought uranium. In addition, the statement was not central to the President's point - that Iraq was dangerous. This sentence was only part of the evidence for part of his argument that Iraq was dangerous. In fact, while Iraq's nuclear program got one paragraph of attention in the State of the Union address, its chemical and biological weapons got four.

This is all much ado about nothing. Despite what the press wants, this is not the Gulf of Tonkin.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 10:08 AM 0 comments

 
Lance Armstrong takes the Yellow Jersey. Take that Frenchies.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 9:38 AM 0 comments

 
Heard the Solicitor General review the current Supreme Court term at a Federalist Society Meeting. There were several interesting things about the lunch, which I'll blog about as I find the time. For now, I'll just say that Federalist Society members are mad at O'Connor. There were several pointed barbs thrown her direction by the emcee (though not, I should say, by the SG who, though critical of some of the Court's decisions was very professional). And, if you agree with their views, you can see why. Its not quite the O'Connor Court, but she was in the majority in almost all the 5-4 and 6-3 votes, including the big federalism case, Nevada v. Hibbs, the homosexual sex case, Lawrence v. Texas, and she wrote the affirmative action case, Grutter v. Michigan. Not a very conservative record.

And, here's a bonus factoid: the previous big affirmative action decision, Bakke was decided in 1978, 25 years ago. Justice O'Connor's opinion in Grutter expresses her hope that affirmative action to create a "critical mass" of diversity will be unnecessary in 25 years. Is that an accident?
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 5:08 PM 0 comments

 
As a friend just pointed out, if this happens, and nothing big happens with the economy or terrorism, Bush can spend the entire election season on his porch at his ranch an win a second term.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 4:45 PM 0 comments

 
As interesting look at the debate within the democratic party.

One school of thought says that former president Bill Clinton, by supporting welfare reform, the death penalty and deficit-cutting economics, had set the stage for Democrats to reclaim their status as America's majority party.
* * *
The left looks at the same result and sees things quite differently: Gore won the popular vote with his populist, environmentalist campaign, and would have been elected easily if he had been stronger on those themes.

From my perspective, the President of the Democratic Leadership Counsel has the right approach for the Dems:

Clinton's "New Democrat" approach was "the most successful political and governing strategy in our lifetime. We shouldn't even be having this argument over basic party principles."

Go George McGove . . . er . . I mean, Howard Dean!
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 10:38 AM 0 comments

 
This article from The Atlantic Monthly is a fascinating look inside Clarence Thomas's opinion on race relations. I highly recommend it in light of his dissent in Grutter.

To [his grandfather], Clarence became a racial symbol. On vacations his grandfather would take him to the local NAACP meetings and have him read his grades aloud: "He thought I was living proof that black people were as good as white people."

- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 10:23 AM 0 comments

 
If I had any reservations about calling Ted Nugent my hero before reading this interview, they're all gone now.
- posted by Anonymous @ 10:29 PM 0 comments

 
We have just joined North State Blogs, a community of North Carolina affiliated blogs. There are rules to follow, but it should be pretty darn easy for this group to follow them. Especially the one about Krispy Kreme.

As a special bonus, our membership got us blogrolled on Is That Legal?, which gets mentioned regularly on the Volokh Conspiracy, which gets mentioned regularly on Instapundit. So we're, like, almost best friends with Glenn Reynolds now.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 2:54 PM 0 comments

 
Howard Kurtz summarizes the media's take on John Edwards, who I still think is the Democrat most likely to beat Bush. I am, however, a bit skeptical of Edward's strategy of positioning himself as the "normal-guy-just-like-you-and-me" candidate by pushing corporate accountability. He is after all a remarkably wealthy trial lawyer. I know other candidates are wealthy, and I know Edwards made his money himself, but his career as a plaintiff's lawyer won't help him when he talks about taking responsibility for your actions. Lots of "normal-guys-just-like-you-and-me" think plaintiffs lawyers encourage the antithesis of personal responsibility.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 2:30 PM 0 comments

 
Food for thought.

From [the 1930s to today], the best single way to predict whether a country or movement will threaten America or the world has been by noticing whether it threatens the Jews. There must be a reason Nazism, Communism, and now Baathism and Bin Ladenism all have had one thing in common.

- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 5:19 PM 0 comments

 
The Supreme Court's contribution to college admissions. For reasons I'll talk about soon (I hope), this cartoon hits the Grutter nail on the head.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 5:02 PM 0 comments

 
This is an argument that has some merit to it. Despite what the tort lawyers will soon be telling us, this

Left to his own devices, the denizen of hamburger restaurants would eat fresh carrots and brown rice, his natural choices. He wouldn't want the horrible muck provided by fast food chains and processed food companies.

is totally false.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 10:08 AM 0 comments

 
Ewwwwww! So much for the idea of hot Norwegian chicks.

The study found seven per cent of people in Norway changed their underwear only once a week.

- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 10:00 AM 0 comments

 
I spent July 4th with Willie Nelson at his two day concert event. It was tremendous. He's absolutely the best songwriter of our time. I also saw some other great musicians, including Merle Haggard, Toby Keith, and this guy named Pat Greene, who was a pleasant surprise.

The two most noteworthy events, however, were the performance of The Dead (the non-Jerry Garcia Grateful Dead) and the appearance of Dennis Kucinich. As for The Dead, it was interesting to see how well all the guys in cowboy hats treated all the dudes with dreadlocks and the chicks with flowers in their hair. It's a testament to Willie's influence. You could just see the cowboys thinking, "Well, normally, I'd beat the hell out of that dude for dancin' like that, but, if Willie wants 'em here, they must be all right."

As for Mr. Kucinich, Willie introduced him to the crowd just before he played. That's a pretty good little spot for Dennis, and I'm sure he picked up some votes. However, I couldn't help but laugh at this irony: The last song before Kucinich was introduced was Toby Keith's anthem to America's armed forces, Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue. The chorus, for those of you who don't know, is this:

And Uncle Sam put your name at the top his list,
and the statue of liberty started shaking her fist,
and the eagle will fly and there’s gonna be hell
When you hear mother freedom start ringing her bell
and it will feel like the whole wide world is raining down on you.

Ahh brought to your courtesy of the red, white, and blue.

The crowd went bananas. Suprisingly, Kucinich didn't mention his plan to create a Department of Peace.

No word from Willie on whether the irony was intentional.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 9:57 AM 0 comments

 
This is not, I repeat, not from the Onion.

Lightning Strikes Preacher Who Asked For Sign

Ronnie Cheney [, an eye witness] called the incident "awesome, just awesome!"

- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 12:59 PM 0 comments

 
The Exciting Conclusion.

Here's my bottom line on Lawrence. If its right, its right for the same reasons that Brown v. Board of Education was right. That is, it will be judged by how well it has anticipated the rising acceptance of a disfavored minority. Brown is not considered a great opinion because its legal reasoning was so compelling, but because it stood up for a principle that now, 50 years later, we think is fundamental: discrimination on the basis of race is wrong.

Lawrence will not be classified as a great opinion because of its legal reasoning. For reasons that I mentioned below, I find its legal reasoning unpersuasive. It fails to clearly specify the doctrinal test it used, or explain the application of that test, and it supports its discovery in the Due Process Clause of a liberty interest in private sexual conduct with cases that address different doctrinal categories without adequate explanation.

I also disagree with Lawrence because it posits a role for the judiciary that, long term, is harmful to democracy. The effect in this case, is that the opinion cuts off a national discussion about the equality of homosexuals - an important debate that the proponents of homosexual rights were winning - and replaces it with a discussion about Constitutional structure, history, the role of the Court, and future confirmation fights. That's a much less helpful discussion because it educates people about the judiciary, not the rights of their fellow citizens.

Having said that, though, if the court is going to use poor legal reasoning to reach beyond its role to make a nationwide social policy decision, at least they did it in a way I agree with. So, for that reason, I hope Lawrence is, at least, never demonized.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 6:24 PM 0 comments

 
Jeffery Rosen at The New Republic has some interesting criticisms of Lawrence.

I must say, among journalists covering SCOTUS, Rosen seems to be among the most thoughtful.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 9:31 AM 0 comments

 
Just a word on the political implications of Lawrence and Grutter. It seems like both sides have been trying to whip their base into a frenzy with judicial issues - threats to liberty, unjust filibusters, etc. These recent opinions have got to help the Republican arguments, and put a pretty serious dent in the Democratic pitch.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 9:10 AM 0 comments

 
Phyrric Dissent?

Scalia may have won his battles, but lost the war in Lawrence v. Texas. Most of his points seem right:

(1) Overruling Bowers with Lawrence because the public has turned against it seems inconsistent with upholding (part of) Roe in Casey because the public has turned against it.

(2) It does seem difficult to say that private, consensual, sexual conduct is a fundamental right in light of the long history of sodomy laws, even if they weren't enforced. And that means that the "liberty of person both in its spatial and more trancendent dimensions" (majority 1) doesn't include a fundamental right to sodomy, homosexual or otherwise.

(3) Sexual morality does seem to be a legitimate state interest, as obscenity laws and laws against adult incest show.

But, somehow, his dissent lacks the typical Scalia punch, and I think its because its aggressiveness overpowers its argument:

(1) Scalia's stare decisis argument seems more angry about Casey than Lawrence, when Lawrence, not Casey is at issue. He says, for example, that Lawrence has "exposed Casey's extraordinary deference to precendent for the result-oriented expedient that it is." (7). This attack is even more out of place because it was O'Connor who wrote Casey, and she didn't join the majority in Lawrence.

(2) Scalia makes very clear that the majority did not rule that homosexual sodomy is a fundamental right, yet he spends 4 1/2 pages (10-14) establishing that it is not.

(3) Well, as for (3), he's got a pretty good point. But, if (3) is a good point, why, then, not lead with it? And why not use (3)'s less is more philosophy throughout?

(4) (bonus point!) Why is it necessary to refer to the right in Roe as "the right to abort an unborn child"? (11). Roe after all, is (mostly) the law of the land, and it can be adequately described as a right to have an abortion.

The structure isn't as direct as we're used to, and the rhetoric is hotter than usual, creating an impression that Scalia's stance is more personal preference than neutral application of the law. That's a shame, because once you get past the rhetoric, Scalia points out adequate legal reasons to dissent from the majority position.

- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 2:54 PM 0 comments

 
Is Love now a four letter word?

Kennedy's majority seems to try to say love is a protected liberty interest without actually having to say it. He hints at in in the introduction:

The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and transcendent dimensions.(1)

Then again in the most important part of the opinion, when he explains why the Bowers decision addressed the wrong issue, he comes right up to the cliff and turns back:

To say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse.(6)

When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring.(6)

As a matter of political philosophy, the idea that who we love, and the attendant physical manifestations of that love, are beyond the power of the government to regulate (so long as they don't harm others), is very attractive. On the other hand, Justice Thomas does have a point. I don't see it in the Constitution.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 12:42 PM 0 comments

 
Ok, I decided I couldn't leave my aside in the post below just hanging out there. It turns out that a majority of American's consider homosexuality an acceptable lifestyle, 54% to 43%. So say Gallup on May 7, 2003. So much for standing up for the minority.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 10:31 AM 0 comments

 
Having now read Lawrence v. Texas I have lots of thoughts, which I'll be putting up in no particular order througout the day. Here's the first one: Is Justice Kennedy trying to be Chief Justice Warren in Brown v. Board?

Here's why I ask that. Both opinions are very short on the kind of detailed doctrinal analysis that is characteristic of most SCOTUS opinions. Brown famously so, and Lawrence follows that lead. For example, as Justice Scalia's dissent points out, the opinion elides a lot of doctrinal differences between the Right to Privacy holding in Griswold v. Connecticut (which is based on penumbras of specific constitutional amendments in the Bill of Rights), the Equal Protection holding in Eisenstadt v. Baird (which is based on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment), and the Substantive Due Process claim in Roe v. Wade (which is based on the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment). As a result, when the Court claims that these opinions reveal that "the state of the law . . . when the Court considered Bowers v. Hardwick [was that] the reasoning of Griswold could not be confined to the protection of married adults," (p5) its not clear what the relevant reasoning of Griswold was. There were lots of different reasons in those opinions.

Now, there are some really smart guys up there working for Justice Kennedy, and Justice Kennedy is no dim bulb himself. That chambers knows how to do detailed doctrinal argument, but they didn't. They made broad, general points about well known cases. The opinion also spent a lot of time -- in fact, most of the opinion -- discussing the history of homosexual sodomy law, our evolving standards of decency, and the harms sodomy laws inflict upon homosexuals.

Brown does exactly the same thing, and my guess is that the similarity is no accident. Kennedy wrote Lawrence like Brown for the same reason Warren wrote Brown like he did: so that every person in America could read it and understand it. Lawrence, like Brown is a political statement that discrimination against a minority group by a benighted minority (more on that later) will simply not be tolerated by the Court. That's why the Court ignored O'Connor's suggestion in her concurrence, and took the extraordinary step of avoiding a way to decide this case without overruling Bowers. Bowers "demean[ed] the lives of homosexual persons" (p 15), and the Court would stand for it no longer.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 10:10 AM 0 comments