BoldlyRide

WorldNetDaily: Life just got a little cheaper: "The trade in dead babies came to light when border guards stopped a train entering Russia from Ukraine last month and arrested a man involved in smuggling 25 frozen remains in two vacuum flasks."

BBC NEWS | Health | Doctors' kitchen knives ban call: "A century later, forks and blunt-ended table knives were introduced in the UK in an effort to reduce injuries during arguments in public eating houses. "

Doesn't sound like the conduct of proper gentlemen to me. Is it time to start an NKA (national knife association)?

CBC British Columbia - Grizzly kills wolf at Grouse sanctuary: "'It happened very suddenly, sort of out of the blue. We're not exactly sure what prompted this aggressive behaviour between the two species, but needless to say it ended very sadly for one of our grey wolves.' "
The first paragraph of the article and the fact that they are wild animals answers the question.

HughHewitt.com: "there has been a great softening of dislike for me."

Darth Vader's words following the destruction of the Jedi? Richard III? Robespierre? No. Here's a hint: Can you name that speaker in seven senate guesses or less?

See Hewitt to verify your answer.

HughHewitt.com: "MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS "

I would note that the memorandum is binding only on the signatories -- and while the signatories are a distinct minority, the wound they have caused, though not so wide as a church door nor so deep as a well, tis enough. I understand that there are seven moderate republicans and five moderate democrats who are the collaborators. There has been a great deal of rhetoric from both sides of the aisle about a minority holding the majority hostage. Here an undisputed minority of 12 wield power over more than twice their number.

While I am not surprised by the actions of the 5 democrats, the defection by the 7 "moderate" republicans is unforgiveable. It is apparent that "moderate" is a synonym for unprincipled, spineless dupes -- see also useful idiots. These 7 contemporary JarJar Binks think that they have saved the republic by a policy of limited appeasement to buy judicial peace in our time (my apologies to Neville Chamberlain). Instead, they have driven victory from the field and trampled the Constitution beneath their stumbling feet.

Here is the list of the despicable 7 and their 5 democratic counterparts:


Ben Nelson (D-NE) John McCain (R-AZ)

Mike DeWine (R-OH) John Warner (R-VA)

Robert Byrd (D-WV)

Susan Collins (R-ME) Mary Landrieu ( D-LA)

Mark Pryor ( D-AR) Olympia Snowe (R-ME)

Judd Gregg (R-NH) Ken Salazar

Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)

ClayCalhoun.com: "But, they can't accept that in order to govern they must have a majority. "

More on the judicial confirmations or lack thereof.

bestdestiny: "It begs the question: how much would the total cost be to relocate the U.N. headquarters to Brussels or Geneva? If they have to build a new building anyway, why not do it somewhere else? I'd be pretty happy to spend $1.2 billion, if, at the end of it, Kofi and his Gang of Incompetents were off of our shores."

I can that see I need to link this blog too.

FOXNews.com - U.S. & World - Cops Clear Idaho 'Person of Interest': "? Investigators cleared a man they called a 'person of interest' in the bloody murders of three people and the disappearance of two children after the man passed a lie detector test. "

Lie detector tests -- I routinely advise my clients not to take them. The cops only ask for one when they don't have any real evidence. I have no faith in lie detectors and failing the test will only make the cops try harder to link them to the crime. But if they don't take the test, the cops harass them for a while and then move on. Such is my limited experience with the issue. Does anyone advise taking the lie detector test? What situations?

A while back I promised to post a piece on automotive repair -- but couldn't find it. Well, I have found it and, quite frankly, it is tripe. But I stumbled on this piece which I enjoyed writing. So, as a change from the law and politics usually found here, in the words of that band of comic British idiots, "And now for something completely different:"


There is a secret war being waged in my household. Not the quick and dirty skirmishes
between children and parents with the various combinations of alliance that are harder to keep
track of than Iraqi warheads, but a genuine no quarter, clandestine, bloody clumps of hair and
broken teeth, take-no-prisoners, Terminator-persistent, war of the knife. There can be no
compromise and the conflict must ultimately have but one victor and one vanquished who will tell
no tales.
What can be the source of ruination of my household bliss? What satan-spawned demon
crys “havoc” and looses the dogs of war upon my domicile? What wrathful dragon has pierced
the sacred precincts of my threshhold to breathe destruction in our midst? What reign of terror
has usurped the throne of my abode? The cause of this domestic apocolypse: My daughter has
brought home a balloon. She went to a party and to every tot in attendance was tendered a tiny
tethered tuft of air: Evil on a string. The horrible that parades about my habitation wears a dopey, yellow, smiley face upon one side and a James Carville-like glare radiates from the sheen of the
opposite chrome hemisphere.
My daughter quite happily brought home the bagged bit of wind and escorted it into our
home. She’s quite fond of balloons in general and I am certain she knows the animosity that exists between me and her little inflated friends.
Our feud--and that word is really insufficient to describe the depth of our rancor--goes back many years to my young and tender days. As a child these helium-filled djinn first betrayed
me, promising hours of fun and games, bobbing on my command, only to escape when my attention was diverted. My grip would relax and in a flash the fickle fiend would depart, ascending into the depths of the overhead sea. I would stand and watch it, tearfully, until at last it disappeared, rollicking on the winds. Later, I learned to keep a tight grasp on the tether and never to release it except within the confines of my room. Yet the things would not cooperate in captivity. By the next morning, the balloon that had earlier probed about the ceiling for escape, would stand near the floor, barely holding up half the length of its string. Finally, it would deplete into a pathetic puckered patch of plastic, mocking my attempts to master it, leaving me only its decaying corpse.
The new balloons my daughter brings home are not the mere rubber envelopes of my youth. They are demonic combinations of metalic fabric imprisoning sentient vapors. They never flee from my daughter’s hand but faithfully follow her home. If allowed to die without assistance, they fight to the last, never admitting defeat. These balloons long ago forsook any attempts to escape; their sole purpose is to torment me. Their broad shiny surface reflects light into my eyes. They lurk about darkened doorways to frighten and surprise. They wedge themselves between the ceiling and the fan. They roam about the house as if they are kings, riding every breeze and waft of air, flaunting both their resilience and mastery of my domain. With age their tactics are more subtle. They love to hover just about that plane between my vision and that box which enrages, bores, or delights, the television, gleefully floating, even gloating, in front of the screen when my attention is most focused upon the scene.
In their death throes they still torment,
waiting silently upon the stairways to cause a scare, trip or stumble. But they give their worst
while still in their prime. They possess my daughter and annihilate my time. She loves to run
about the house, circling through the livingroom, kitchen, dining room and office with one of
more of the beastly bladders in tow. This is no silent process. She must yell and scream as her
rapid footfalls add to the clatter. The other kids yell at her and grab at the balloons so the
clammer rises higher. The attention only incites her more as she gallops under the spell of the
floating orbs. At last, by force, she has to be parted from the ethereal bouys and then she will
scream and stomp and curse me for ruining her fun. She will slam a door or two and fling herself
upon her bed. The balloons remain to scrutinize the devestation they have wrought.
In my daughter’s view the only thing worse than taking the balloons away from her is the
destruction of her cherished puffy pouches. If they pop while she plays with them--a rarity with
these new models--she doesn’t mind. If anyone else exorcises the demons, she screams and moans like a bag of cats on a trampoline. Thus the necessity for the clandestine nature of the war against the balloons. Only when my daughter is out of sight and she has found a new distraction of such significance that she will not recall that she ever possessed a balloon is it safe to take the fight back to those fluttering bags of flatulence. They seem to know when their protectoress has forsaken them and they melt into the household like a walking-stick insect in a twig pile. They quickly withdraw into rooms that I do not frequent, lurking in the children’s bathroom or finding their way into my son’s closet. Their attempt to hibernate out the winter of my daughter’s distraction proves futile. The memory of their vicious antics distresses me more than the beating of any tell-tale heart. I am only too pleased, once my daughter is out, to track down the vile zepplins and plunge sharp-pointies in fits of clandestine balloonicide.

FOXNews.com - Politics - Moderate Senators Seek Filibuster Deal: "Democrats already have prevented final votes on 10 of Bush's first-term appeals court nominees, and have threatened to do the same this year to seven the president has renominated, including Owen and Brown. The Senate has approved 208 Bush judicial nominees, including 35 appeals court judges.
Just a majority of senators present are needed to approve a nominee once a vote is called in the Senate, and only 50 if the vice president, who breaks ties, votes in favor of a nominee.
Frist also could prevail with 50 votes supporting his move to rule filibusters out of order when used to block a confirmation vote because the Republicans have Vice President Dick Cheney to break a tie."

The Democrats continue to hold American justice hostage to radical left wing special interests. The filibuster of judicial nominees must be ended and go to the up or down vote the Constitution mandates.

I found this through Hewitt's site. The quote is from Raplog: ", review of The Dead Poet's Society. I thought the movie a complete waste of time and film and here is why as stated by Raplog: .. "carpe diem is a doctrine of despair. It eliminates hope for the future because it renounces faith in what is eternal. ".

Actor Macaulay Culkin, 24, calls child molestation allegations "absolutely ridiculous".

Stooping to blog about that famous basketball player (reference to an Al Gore speak)? No. It just reminded me of a couple things.

I was in court and one of the motions before mine dealt with a child molestation case. The defendant in that case wanted to bring in children who had regular close contact with him who would say, like the Home Alone boy, "Hey, he never molested me." -- That particular hard nosed judge would have none of it -- she said lack of molestation of the other kids is irrelevant to the charge of molestation of this particular kid. So would the prosecutor have been able to get in the opposite evidence, if it existed -- that he had molested other kids?

Anyway, it reminds of one case I had in front of that judge. Fortunately, we ended up with a substitute judge on the day of trial -- fortunate because at trial my client brings a notebook of sorts that I've never seen before and which belonged to the chief complaining witness in the felony case. Naturally, the prosecutor (who really seems to be a great guy and quietly pointed out a misunderstanding I had about the status of one of the jurors during peremptory challenges) explodes when I bring up the notebook which contains a particularly relevant and devastating statement of the complaining witness. Although the notebook never came into evidence, we did get to question the witness about the statement. I doubt whether that other judge would have allowed it; I doubt it very much. That prosecutor is a judge now and takes it in stride when I kid him about how glad I am that now I can deal with reasonable prosecutors.

HughHewitt.com: "Senator Schumer has the credibility of a carnival barker "

Just can't argue with that. On second thought, the statement is an obvious and uncalled for insult of carnival barkers.

Right Wing Nut House: Politics served up with a smile... And a stilletto.: "It may be a large part of the Bush legacy that he be reviled as an American devil in the capitals of western Europe, a caricature of an American cowboy whose fast on the draw foreign policy and plain unvarnished speaking style grated on the ears of the sophisticates in the salons and drawing rooms of old, tired, elitist continental society.
But there will always be the Bush legacy in Georgia and other newly freed nations where he?ll be seen as freedom?s prophet, carrying the Good News of liberty and democracy to every corner of the earth.
Not a bad legacy at that."

The whole post is good. And the bonus at the nuthouse is the excellent summary of the TV show 24 for those of us who missed it.

As the discussion and blogging on Bush's judicial nominees continues, See Hugh Hewitt for example, these thoughts from Levin's book continue to be relevant:

pp. 177-183: Shocking democratic memorandum reveal that radical leftist groups are setting the agenda on the confirmation of judges.

p. 188: [F]ilibustering judical nominees in unconstitutional because the framers assigned specific duties and powers to the president and the senate regarding judicial nominations."

As noted by Hamilton in the Federalist # 66, the Senate has no power but to ratify or reject.

Kerry maintainin ghigh public profile - The Washington Times: Nation/Politics - May 05, 2005: "From Mr. Kerry's standpoint, said spokesman David Wade, the campaign fight goes on.
'He's going to continue to fight for the principles of the campaign,' said Mr. Wade, who was also a campaign spokesman. 'It's very clear that when an incumbent president wins by the smallest margin an incumbent president has ever won an election by, it's perfectly clear Americans want some changes in government.' "

Funny, I thought a desire for change would have been indicated by something, oh, I don't know, like maybe the incumbent losing. But he'll Kerry on fighting on those losing principles.

" Mr. Kerry has become a leading figure against Mr. Bush's nominees, including recently rallying Rhode Islanders from among his 3-million-person e-mail list to lobby that state's Republican senator to vote against Mr. Bush's pick for ambassador to the United Nations.
Ron Faucheux, a political analyst, said there's a risk in taking such a public stand.
'The problem he has from the general public's standpoint is any time he opposes a Bush appointment or a Bush policy, a lot of people will see that as sour grapes, as opposed to standing up courageously, like other Democrats would get credit for,' Mr. Faucheux said."

That obstructionist whining is "courageous?" Sorry, I just didn't realize the democrat's manipulation of the process and partisan mudslinging could be conceived as courageous. You would think they were standing up to tanks in Tianenmen Square, and of course President Bush is driving them.

"Mr. Wade said Mr. Kerry's decision is clear.
'John Kerry is who he's been his entire public life -- he's a fighter, and he's someone who doesn't lick his wounds and go away,' he said. "

That's right. He is who he's been -- that gives Kerry a lot to chose from because who he is varies depending on who he's talking to. He is right, Kerry won't go away -- he just makes up a new story and repeats it with such fervor that it must be true and history magically changes to reflect the new truth.

This from the homepage of CULT OF SCALIA: It could have been written during the most recent term of the court, but it wasn't:
"[W]hen a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean. Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting)."

More material from Levin's excellent book.

In my last post I mentioned that the foreign nations to whom some justices of the SCOTUS have shown a proclivity to turn for guidance are not federal systems. Today I came across an apt passage in Levin's book in which he quotes Steven Calabresi, law professor at Northwest University School of Law:

"There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that is more important or that has done more to promote peace, prospertiy, and freedom than the federal structure of that great document. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that should absorb more completely the attention of the U.S. Court." p. 132.

My experience has been that detractors of federalism are prone to argue that the federal system makes for the "balkanization" of rights -- as if it is somehow immoral to have different standards, practices or laws from state to state. I think that is what is part of what makes America great. If I don't like the laws in one state, I can move to another where the things I find important are granted more favorable treatment under the law. Why should a small western desert town be governed by the same rules and regulations as New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles? What is the point of having 50 different state constitutions if the 9 lawyers in robes are going to decree that they all must mean the same thing, or are meaningless because of national standards? It violates the very foundation of the Constitution.

Levin follows Calabresi's quote with the same point one of my law professor's liked to make: "Unfortunately federalism has absorbed the attention of the Supreme Court only to the extent of overruling it." p. 132.

Levin states that because the SCOTUS has given such expansive meaning to the commerce clause, "government has become increasingly centralized, and the economy is lurching toward socialism." p. 131.

He says that the cost of compliance with regulatory burdens in the United States exceeds the economic output of many nations, including Canada and Mexico. p. 140.

I can still remember my outrage at the Wickard case in Conlaw. That first semester, it seemed like the Constitution was nothing more than the commerce clause and the national bootheel in the face of states and localities.