Goodwin Liu: Intemperate Defamer Extraordinaire

This hack really doesn't deserve to be a judge (via The Wall Street Journal):

Speaking of the nomination of now Chief Justice John Roberts, Mr. Liu opined that words like "'free enterprise,' 'private ownership of property,' and 'limited government'" are "code words for an ideological agenda hostile to environmental, workplace, and consumer protections."

On the nomination of now-Justice Samuel Alito, Professor Liu was even nastier. In a statement reminiscent of Ted Kennedy's slur against Robert Bork, Mr. Liu wrote that "Judge Alito's record envisions an America where police may shoot and kill an unarmed boy to stop him from running away with a stolen purse; where federal agents may point guns at ordinary citizens during a raid, even after no sign of resistance...where a black man may be sentenced to death by an all-white jury for killing a white man...and where police may search what a warrant permits, and then some."

Really, for Obama to nominate someone to the Federal judiciary who would make these sort of outrageous and reckless statements says something about the president's ability to evaluate character. But we kind of already knew that when he nominated the "Wise Latina" to the Supreme Court.

Democrats Have Absolutely No Sense of Self-Awareness

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy is bitching about Republicans allegedly "stonewalling" the confirmation hearings of unqualified ideological hacks like Goodwin Liu (who actually deserves to be filibustered). Leahy, of course, is ignoring the indisputable fact that Obama court nominees are getting hearings at a much faster rate than Bush nominees ever did. The craphead from Vermont (what is it with that state? - see, e.g., Howard Dean and Bernie Sanders) also doesn't seem to remember that he was instrumental in delaying the hearings of several Bush nominees, and voted to filibuster the nominations of Miguel Estrada and Samuel Alito.

So the only I thing I can take away from the hypocritical bloviations of Dems like Patrick Leahy is that they either have no sense of self-awareness, or they're counting on all of us to basically be stupid and not have a memory. Or perhaps it's a combination of both.

Goodwin Liu: Hypocritical Grievance Monger

Ed Whelan at Bench Memos lays out the obvious conclusions after providing remarks Liu once made about reparations for slavery (like a good liberal, he's all for them):

Let’s expose the game that Liu is playing. Just as Liu completely ignores the innocent victims of racial preferences when he urges the perpetual imposition of racial quotas as a remedy for “societal discrimination,” so he would make those who were not complicit in slavery pay the price of his grandiose reparations project. Moreover, he continues to use the term “segregated” so expansively that only the imposition of racial quotas will achieve the elimination of what he calls segregation.

Needless to say, Senate Republicans need to filibuster Liu's nomination.

Ewoks Crap Tribbles

Coffee Party = Democrat/Obama-bots Front Group

h/t Hot Air

Anti-Goodwin Liu

Obama has nominated Berkeley Law School professor Goodwin Liu to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. NRO's Bench Memos has important and illuminating background information about Liu, an intellectually underwhelming Left-wing hack, here, here and here.

Although it's probably expecting too much, my hope is that Senate Republicans come together and filibuster this joker, much as the Dems filibustered Miguel Estrada into abandoning his nomination by Bush to the DC Court of Appeals. Of course, unlike Estrada, filibustering Liu here would be justified given Liu's stated judicial philosophy and less than impressive credentials in the legal profession.

Update: Ed Whelan at Bench Memos easily smacks down a couple of Kool-Aid drinking pro-Liu bloggers.

Meghan McCain

Is it really that far from the truth?



Update: I am, of course, assuming the woman in the video is not really Meghan McCain.

Before Tim Tebow

Several members of the 1986 Super Bowl Champion New York Giants, which included current CBS Sports announcer Phil Simms, expressly spoke out against abortion in this video produced by American Life League. This actually went beyond what Tim Tebow does in the Focus on the Family ad that will run during this Sunday's Super Bowl. Pretty awesome. h/t Kathleen McKinley

Obama Channels His Inner Frank Drebin

I guess I know what he meant to say, but still...

h/t The Anchoress

Roe vs. Wade Dissent

Hardly ever mentioned on the matter of Roe vs. Wade are the dissenting opinions that were filed by Justices White and Rehnquist. Of the two, Justice White's definitely had a lot more "oomph" to it as illustrated by the following excerpt:

As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but in my view its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.

The Court apparently values the convenience of the pregnant woman more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries. Whether or not I might agree with that marshaling of values, I can in no event join the Court's judgment because I find no constitutional warrant for imposing such an order of priorities on the people and legislatures of the States. In a sensitive area such as this, involving as it does issues over which reasonable men may easily and heatedly differ, I cannot accept the Court's exercise of its clear power of choice by interposing a constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human life and by investing women and doctors with the constitutionally protected right to exterminate it. This issue, for the most part, should be left with the people and to the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs.

Where Justice White is wrong, of course, is the assumption that only one's values can determine whether the unborn is a human life. It is only under such an assumption that the last sentence of the above excerpt can be made.

Mao Ornaments?!

Marriage Centrally Involves Commitment to Self-Sacrifice

That's my understanding of it, and I think it transcends both religion and culture. What do you think? Seems to me if more people believed this about marriage before they got married, there would be a whole lot less divorces in our society.

Test Post From iGoogle

Hey, I might actually start blogging again if I can ever tear myself away from Facebook.

Phantom Evil

Conservative blogger Kathy Shaidle recently described swine flu as the Loch Ness Monster of diseases. I'd similarly say the same thing about enhanced interrogation of terrorists, e.g., waterboarding, with respect to anti-"torture" moralists in the Catholic blogosphere.

Is Torture Always Evil to the Catholic Church?

Here is the sole entry that I can find in the Catechism that expressly says anything about torture:

2297 Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that something like waterboarding is always torture, regardless of how it is administered (we, the U.S., apparently give prior assurrance to the person being waterboarded that he will not be allowed to drown, though he might feel that way).  Even with this presumption, I'm at a complete loss as to how the above from the Catechism is in any way run afoul or violated if the purpose of waterboarding a terrorist is to extract detailed information about an attack that said terrorist has threatened to be imminent, e.g., Khalid Shaikh Muhammed and the L.A. Library Tower.  Because we're talking about a future event that has been promised to occur, the information being sought from the terrorist cannot be logically regarded as a confession. 

Seems to me that Catholic opponents to interrogation by pain infliction are going to have to come up with a better argument than an assertion that the Church has declared torture to be an intrinsic evil, regardless of circumstance.  It just isn't true, as underscored by a plain reading of the above quoted passage from the Catechism. 

Update: Tom McKenna refutes the dubious claim that Pope John Paul II declared "torture" to be intrinsically evil in the encyclical letter Veritatis Splendor.

Stop the Bad Faith Argument

It's to be expected of the mindless Liberal Left, but I'm seeing far too many otherwise thoughtful conservatives, particularly those who are Catholic, haphazardly throwing around the word "torture" to describe CIA interrogation techniques, e.g., waterboarding, which entail an infliction of pain to the person being interrogated. Even more annoying is how these opponents to interrogation by pain infliction try to support their position by comparing it to the intrinisic evil of abortion.  

The ridiculousness of comparing an admittedly extreme interrogation technique like waterboarding to abortion is perfectly illustrated in this 2006 Catholic Answers piece by Fr. Brian Harrison. If waterboarding is morally comparable to anything, at least from the standpoint of the Catholic faith, it would be to something like capital punishment or the death penalty. Opponents to interrogation by pain infliction who throw around the "torture" label in a preemptive attempt to cut off debate would be well advised to remember this, lest they want to be regarded as making an unserious, bad faith argument.

I'm Still Blogging

Just doing it in 140 wordscharacters or less, and in the right hand sidebar.

The Incoherent Ravings of a Prop. 8 Opponent (Answer the Question!)

Starting last night and going into part of today, I got into a running "debate" on Twitter with an anti-Proposition 8 advocate who goes by the username @joconor. Suffice it to say, @joconor, like so many leftist ideologues, wasn't much interested in fact or reason as he kept repeating the fallacies that Prop. 8 expressly discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and actually forces people to do things on penalty of legal sanction or prosecution. Emblematic of @joconor's penchant for mindlessly filtering everything through an ideological prism, or maybe @joconor just can't read, is his repeated non-responsive answers to my partly rhetorical questions of whether he would support enacting laws which protect bald people from discrimination (bald folk, after all, don't choose to be or go bald):

Me: Well, God mad me bald (ed: my somewhat flippant response to @joconor's unsubstantiated assertion that God makes gay people gay). Should I have legal rights given to me, by judicial fiat, on that basis?!

@joconor: You should not not be excluded from civil rights on the basis of being bald.

Me: You didn't answer the question. Should there be a law granting legal protection on the basis of baldness?

@joconor: I would not support a law discriminating on the basis of baldness anymore than i would sexual orientation.

I swear, it was like talking to someone who didn't understand English.

Update: I included a parenthetical to the title of this post in order to more accurately reflect what it's about.

Update 2: A clear dipsh!t who thinks "logic" consists of unsubstantiated assertions and disregard of fact and reason.

The Path which Led a Protestant Lawyer to the Catholic Church

I'm sure I must have been told who the first governor of California was when I was in grade school many moons ago, but I only just discovered that Peter Hardeman Burnett was a Catholic convert. He even wrote a book about it, which you can read/download for free here. (h/t)

Notre Dame May Have Finally Decided to Stop Being Catholic

I am a big USC football fan, and so I was a little disappointed to learn yesterday that Manti Te'o, a highly recruited and prized high school football player from Hawaii, decided to play for Notre Dame and not USC. This disappointment, however, is infinitely minor in comparison to my disappointment with Notre Dame, and the seeming primacy of importance it places on football over its Catholic identity and foundation.

Because he is Mormon, Manti Te'o may very well be taking a leave of absence from Notre Dame after his freshman year in order to embark on a religious mission; a mission which entails proselytizing a Mormon faith that the Catholic Church does not deem to be theologically Christian. Should Te'o leave on a mission and be allowed to later return on full scholarship, I just don't see how Notre Dame can escape the charge that it effectively supported the proselytizing of a non-Catholic/Christian religion. Of course, maybe Notre Dame just doesn't want to be Catholic anymore.