·:[ The (vast) Right Wing Conspiracy ]:·
• • • • •

Katie Holmes has converted to Scientology.

If only she were a better actress (read: hotter) I might bemoan that the former Catholic is now a member of a brain-washing cult of institutional murder.

Claudio

Slow news day. Congrats to the best of the newest members of my two favorite NBAa teams:

Bobcats

Sean May
Raymond Felton

Knicks

Quentin Richardson
Frye Channing

Too lazy to bother congratulating the other draft picks or to link to pages for these players. You should know all of them already (except for Channing - big white dude to play center).

Claudio

…that’s just wrong.

But funny.

Claudio

Scrappleface hits the nail on the head:

Court Allows 10 Commandments on Seized Land
by Scott Ott

(2005-06-27) — In a pair of rulings on the constitutionality of the 10 Commandments on government property, the Supreme Court today said the commandments may be displayed on public land if that property has been seized from private owners for ‘public purposes’ under eminent domain.

The 5-4 decision comes on the heels of last week’s court declaration that so-called “private” property is actually government land temporarily under private management until its eventual seizure.

In a second ruling handed down today, the Supreme Court banned the 10 commandments from appearing in courtrooms unless the following disclaimer is included: “Display of this historically-significant collection of laws shall not be construed as an endorsement of the God who may, or may not, have spoken them, nor of the existence of such a God, nor of the legality of the laws. Citizens may observe and obey these commandments at their own risk. Please consult your family attorney before embarking on any law-abiding regimen.”

Claudio

Scalia’s dissent (joined in full by Rehnquist, Thomas and in part by Kennedy) in the Kentucky Ten Commandments case.

Highlight:

Nothing stands behind the Court’s assertion that governmental affirmation of the society’s belief in God is unconstitutional except the Court’s own say-so, citing as support only the unsubstantiated say-so of earlier Courts going back no farther than the mid-20th century.

Lots of fun.

Claudio

I had this big, angry rant on the SCOTUS Kelso v New London case, but I see that everyone else has gotten their posts in first, so I am kind of deflated.

I will say this: this court decision is very wrong and we haven’t even scratched the surface of its “power” yet. I am no enemy of Walmart or “development” but I do not think that the government (local, federal, or otherwise) should have the power to give away someone else’s private property to a developer (that has probably already bought off the politicians) for a “fair price”.

If a developer wants to give people market price for their land thats one thing, but you know that is not going to happen when the government gets involved.

*Important point (possibly): Is anyone as not-shocked as I am over that fact that most bloggers (and probably most Americans) are so distrusting of their elected officials that they automatically equate this ruling with giving more power to people that are paying off politicians? Do we really hold elected officials in such low regard? Like I said, that sentiment really does not surprise me at all.

I don’t know what is making me angrier: the government taking private property and handing it over to private developers who will make a fortune and cut out the landowners from the profits OR the fact that the government is so intent on screwing over its citizens (remember…those people that put them into office?) to find new, fun sources of tax revenue to spend.

*Last point: How long will it take for this case to be used by one political party to give to developers some private property that is (was?) owned by citizens that voted against them?

Eminent domain: the new gerrymandering!

–Pat

On the occasion of the NBA Finals Game 7 (Go Heat!), and my ongoing row with some chap in the comments section regarding my post on Sen. Robert “Kill-those-Darkies” Byrd, I thought this post in order. From the always funny Ace of Spades.

Top Ten All-Time Basketball Greats, According to Senator Robert Byrd

In special reverse order — starting at 1, ending at 10 — because that’s the way they used to do it back in the old days.

1. Larry Bird

2. Jerry West

3. Bill Walton

4. Kevin McHale

5. Bill Lambeer

6. Danny Ainge

7. “Salami” from The White Shadow

8. Kurt Rambis (Oooohhhh, Rambis!!!)

9. Wayne Gretzky (started J.V. in high school)

Eight-way tie:

10. Michael Jordan
10. Julius Erving
10. Magic Johnson
10. Kareem Abdul-Jabaar
10. Wilt Chamberlain
10. Shaquille O’Neal
10. Bill Russell
10. The “Dorff” character from Dorff on Basketball

Note: Jason Kidd was not ranked, owing to the good Senator’s request for “additional information.”

LOL,
Claudio

Good analysis.

Claudio

Many conservatives, including folks over at the National Review’s Bench Memos, De Novo, and some notables at the Weekly Standard, are up-in-arms about the potential nomination of Alberto Gonzales. The most hilarious creation of this Gonzales-gonzo-scare has to be the phrase, “Gonzales is Spanish for Souter.” Clever. Always the contrarian, I would love to see AG2 make it to the Supreme Court.

Now this of course is conditional. I agree that under no circumstances should Bush trade AG2 for Rehnquist. That would be a disaster, effectively returning the court to 1973 (as Ramesh notes, given AG2’s stance on Roe). Indeed, Gonzales may be a bit too wishy-washy on social issues for the conservative base. This is a lifetime appointment we are talking about.

BUT,

What if the Weekly Standard scenario does unfold, and we get AG2 for Justice O’ Connor. That wouldn’t be a bad swap, and it would still allow Bush to appoint a real conservative (i.e. Luttig) to replace Rehnquist.

This brings us to the question of political capital. One of the major strikes against AG2 is the ridiculous amount of political capital it will cost Bush in order to get him confirmed. Bush will have to fend off critics on the left who will reignite the Geneva Convention debate, which will prove especially ugly given the recent push to shut down Gitmo. On the right, Bush will have to convince his social-conservative base (to whom he promised strict constructionists) that AG2 is conservative enough to merit a lifetime appointment, and to convince them to trust that they will not get Soutered otra vez.

But what if Bush can fend off the fiends and get AG2 on the SCOTUS? What are the implications of such a historic move? We’re talking about the first-ever Hispanic (eh) Supreme Court justice. Dems will have Thurgood Marshall, and the GOP Alberto Gonzales. As the amount of Hispanic voters continues to grow, it will be incumbent upon the GOP to take the strides necessary to lock this bloc up. Alberto Gonzales is well-respected in the Hispanic community, even securing the support of (by no means GOP-leaning) Hispanic groups like La Raza. The future effect of this move could help solidify a Republican majority in a potentially tumultous 2006 and beyond. The GOP is in danger of losing the Senate majority next time around (subtract Santorum, Chafee, Burns, and Frist’s seat from the majority), and being able to court more Hispanics with evidence of outreach and respect for the power of the new bloc could be just what we need to hold on to power. Sorry for being so Machiavellian here, but one must do what one must do lol.

Some might argue that there are more conservative Hispanic judges out there. They could potentially serve the same function as a Justice Gonzales. However, the problem with them is precisely that they are conservative. They are less likely to have the amount of support within the community that AG2 enjoys, and they will more probably be seen as GOP tools. This will surely backfire.

Plus, going back to political capital, what does Bush need all this political capital for, anyway? It doesn’t look like he will get his way on Social Security. He doesn’t need much for Iraq, because he has done most of what he has wanted to do there already. As was noted by Kristol, what more could he ask for in a legacy than a Gonzales Court?

If Rehnquist retires on Monday, as is expected, I would expect to see Luttig nominated. If O’ Connor retires any time soon, I would like to see AG2.

Claudio

…that AG2 is actually going to replace Justice O’Connor and eventually be made Chief Justice…

(1) There will be a Supreme Court resignation within the next week. But it will be Justice O’Connor, not Chief Justice Rehnquist. There are several tea-leaf-like suggestions that O’Connor may be stepping down, including the fact that she has apparently arranged to spend much more time in Arizona beginning this fall. There are also recent intimations that Chief Justice Rehnquist may not resign. This would be consistent with Justice O’Connor having confided her plan to step down to the chief a while ago. Rehnquist probably believes that it wouldn’t be good for the Court to have two resignations at once, so he would presumably stay on for as long as his health permits, and/or until after Justice O’Connor’s replacement is confirmed.

(2) President Bush will appoint Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to replace O’Connor. Bush certainly wants to put Gonzales on the Supreme Court. Presidents usually find a way to do what they want to do.

And his aides will have an argument to make to conservatives (like me) who would be unhappy with a Gonzales pick: Bush would not, after all, be replacing a conservative stalwart like Rehnquist with Gonzales. Gonzales would be taking O’Connor’s seat, and Gonzales is likely to be as conservative as, or even more conservative than, O’Connor. Indeed, Karl Rove will continue, Gonzales is as conservative a nominee to replace O’Connor as one could find who could overcome a threatened Democratic filibuster. Bush aides will also assure us privately that when Rehnquist does step down, Bush will nominate a strong conservative as his replacement. They might not tell us that nominee would be as an associate justice, for Bush would plan to then promote Gonzales to chief justice–thus creating a “Gonzales Court,” a truly distinctive Bush legacy.

Good idea, but can he get all that goodness confirmed?

Claudio