World Forums

Who is Judge Charles pickering?

The legacy continues...

Today Dems fight Bush about his education reform!

Of course they do, Sur...

Dems to a school education is what a frost for oranges in Florida:)

Sur - 60s Democrats in the South were not the Democrats of today. Any surprise that when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act in 64, the South went Republican?

Republicans in the 60's are not the Republicans of today either.

So are we now supposed to believe that the Republicans were the blacks' best friends?

No but there is an ideology of majority totalitarianism in the democratic party. Which is the hallmark of the Scandinavian socialdemcrats, who just happens to have the most segregated societies in the western world.

It's not that they are racists per se, but an ideology that won't respect individual liberty will favour the majority against the minority population in the long run and thus create a "racist" society"

Glenn,

I agree about your second point, but I don't sense the ideology of "of majority totalitarianism." Recently we've had the PC police, but historically the Dems have reached to the left aside or behind. Today the parties are a blurr.

Why was this moved?

Bineaz/Leo

Speaking of PC, I went to Marshall Fields on State Street this weekend to show my daughter the windows. The theme was Snow White but the dwarves were referred to as "little men."

Little men? That's brave and much better than "vertically challenged men":)

LoL

Snow White, bien sur, was larger than life... :P

Surnami

There is still a place where those "southern Democrats" can be found today. It is called the Grand Ole Party, the Republican party.

Do you insist on hurting your own cause with such moronic arguments?

Stop having press conferences.

Bush has his second in just six weeks, ahead of first term form, and the soldiers on the front line get hit back with the biggest daily loss of the war.

Oh yeah I know.

The republicans then are the Dems now and the Dems now were the republicans then

BTW.

How about this inconvenient FACT that republicans voted in a bigger percentage FOR the civil rights act...

From a Pakistani, to all the Bush Haters:

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.as ... 2004_pg3_2

"As democracy is perfected, the office [of the President] represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

Henry Louis Mencken, Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

What was it that George Santayana said about history?

surnami wrote:Oh yeah I know.

The republicans then are the Dems now and the Dems now were the republicans then

BTW.

How about this inconvenient FACT that republicans voted in a bigger percentage FOR the civil rights act...

Well, of course! The Dixiecrats were Democrats then. They are Republican now. And you know how the Dixiecrats voted then and now. Without Dixiecrats though, Democrats would have voted FOR civil rights in much higher percentages than Republicans.

it appears, you still don't get it.

Professor Bainbridge

Slipping down the ladder of economic freedom
This is not good news:

For the first time in the 11 years that the Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal have been publishing the Index of Economic Freedom, the U.S. has dropped out of the top 10 freest economies in the world.

In 1998, the U.S. was the fifth freest economy in the world, in 2001 it was sixth, and today it sits at 12th, tied with Switzerland. ...

The Index scores economic freedom in 10 categories, ranging from fiscal burdens and government regulation to monetary and trade policy. The U.S., with its strong property rights, low inflation and competitive banking and finance laws, scores well in most. But worrying developments like Sarbanes-Oxley in the category of regulation and aggressive use of antidumping law in trade policy have kept it from keeping pace with the best performers in economic freedom.

Most alarming is the U.S.'s fiscal burden, which imposes high marginal tax rates for individuals and very high marginal corporate tax rates. In terms of corporate taxation as an element of economic freedom, the U.S. ranks a lowly 112th out of the 155 countries scored, and its top individual tax rate ranks only slightly better at 82nd. U.S. government expenditures as a share of GDP increased less in 2003 than in 2002, but the rise since 2001 is what explains the U.S.'s decline in score over the period.

The references to Sarbanes-Oxley strike home for me, not just because I'm a corporate lawyer by day, but also because most of my current research agenda involves evaluating proposals to extend SOX to add new restrictions on corporations. See, e.g., The Creeping Federalization of Corporate Law. As I emphasized in that essay, both economic and non-economic arguments against federal preemption of state corporation law. Competitive federalism promotes liberty as well as shareholder wealth. When firms may freely select among multiple competing regulators, oppressive regulation becomes impractical. If one regulator overreaches, firms will exit its jurisdiction and move to one that is more laissez-faire. In contrast, when there is but a single regulator, exit is no longer an option and an essential check on excessive regulation is lost.

Professor Bainbridge

Slipping down the ladder of economic freedom
This is not good news:

For the first time in the 11 years that the Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal have been publishing the Index of Economic Freedom, the U.S. has dropped out of the top 10 freest economies in the world.

In 1998, the U.S. was the fifth freest economy in the world, in 2001 it was sixth, and today it sits at 12th, tied with Switzerland. ...

The Index scores economic freedom in 10 categories, ranging from fiscal burdens and government regulation to monetary and trade policy. The U.S., with its strong property rights, low inflation and competitive banking and finance laws, scores well in most. But worrying developments like Sarbanes-Oxley in the category of regulation and aggressive use of antidumping law in trade policy have kept it from keeping pace with the best performers in economic freedom.

Most alarming is the U.S.'s fiscal burden, which imposes high marginal tax rates for individuals and very high marginal corporate tax rates. In terms of corporate taxation as an element of economic freedom, the U.S. ranks a lowly 112th out of the 155 countries scored, and its top individual tax rate ranks only slightly better at 82nd. U.S. government expenditures as a share of GDP increased less in 2003 than in 2002, but the rise since 2001 is what explains the U.S.'s decline in score over the period.

The references to Sarbanes-Oxley strike home for me, not just because I'm a corporate lawyer by day, but also because most of my current research agenda involves evaluating proposals to extend SOX to add new restrictions on corporations. See, e.g., The Creeping Federalization of Corporate Law. As I emphasized in that essay, both economic and non-economic arguments against federal preemption of state corporation law. Competitive federalism promotes liberty as well as shareholder wealth. When firms may freely select among multiple competing regulators, oppressive regulation becomes impractical. If one regulator overreaches, firms will exit its jurisdiction and move to one that is more laissez-faire. In contrast, when there is but a single regulator, exit is no longer an option and an essential check on excessive regulation is lost.

Interesting reading:


http://www.techcentralstation.com/112904A.html

http://www.techcentralstation.com/010405A.html

Americanism—and Its Enemies

David Gelernter

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Archi ... 11901043_1

50 Civil Rights Groups Voice Concerns on Gonzales' Record

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0106-03.htm

WASHINGTON -- Expressing concerns about Attorney General-designate Alberto Gonzales' commitment to due process and the rule of law, a coalition of some 50 civil rights and labor groups called Wednesday for the Senate Judiciary Committee to conduct a "searching and thorough review" of the nominee's record and positions in confirmation hearings that begin Thursday.

In a three-page letter to Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, and the ranking Democrat, Patrick Leahy, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR) also urged the senators to "determine whether and to what extent Mr. Gonzales plans to continue the policies" adopted by outgoing Attorney General John Ashcroft whose record in office is "troubling," especially on matters relating to civil rights and liberties.

The letter urged "the Committee [to] determine whether Mr. Gonzales shares Mr. Ashcroft's extremist view--most recently expressed in comments made before the Federalist society--that federal judges 'can put at risk the very security of our nation' simply by exercising their responsibility to review the constitutional limits of administration powers in the campaign against terrorism." It was signed by leaders of the National Council of Churches, the AFL-CIO, and the National Council of Jewish Women, and dozens of other groups.

The letter was sent on the eve of scheduled hearings that are expected to focus mainly on Gonzales' role in the preparation and authorization of a series of memos on the Bush administration's policy on the detention, treatment and interrogation of prisoners captured by U.S. forces in the "war on terrorism."

In a lengthy investigative article published by the 'Washington Post' Wednesday, Gonzales, who served as President George W. Bush White House Counsel since 2001, is depicted as playing a somewhat passive role in the inter-agency process that led to the adoption of the most controversial policies.

They include the decision to exempt terrorist suspects from protections guaranteed by the 1949 Geneva Conventions; the authorization of interrogation methods that human rights experts consider abusive; and the assertion that the commander-in-chief authority of the president permitted him to override U.S. laws and the Constitution.

In the Post's account, Gonzales--whose previous experience was confined to issues of domestic law--is seen as relying heavily on a group of aggressive lawyers associated with the far right Federalist Society, particularly Vice President Dick Cheney counsel, David Addington, on national security issues.

According to the Post, Gonzales even went along with their suggestions that State Department attorneys and career military lawyers--who are known to disagree on key issues, such as compliance with the Geneva Conventions--be excluded from critical inter-agency meetings.

In the view of many of the administration's critics, the resulting decisions not only deviated sharply from traditional U.S. practice and laws, but they also resulted eventually in the notorious abuses at Iraq Abu Ghraib prison, as well as other cases of abuse--and even torture--in Afghanistan and the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Some retired military officers and veterans have contended that the policies also undermined the "war on terror" by alienating public opinion abroad, and even put at risk U.S. soldiers who may fall into the hands of enemy forces.

"We want American service members who are captured to be protected from torture under international and U.S. laws," said Charles Sheehan-Miles, executive director of Veterans for Common Sense and a 1991 Gulf War veteran. Mr Sheehan-Miles--and some 3,500 veterans and military family members--signed a letter released here Wednesday, opposing Gonzales' confirmation.

"Under the arguments put forth by Alberto Gonzales, our own servicemen and women would be subject to torture and we would have no recourse to the Geneva Conventions," he told reporters.

Given the gravity of harm caused by the policies and the fact that only low level soldiers have so far been punished for known abuses, a number of groups, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First, and the American Bar Association, have repeatedly called on the administration to back the creation of an independent commission of inquiry to investigate all aspects of U.S. detention and interrogation policies, including their formulation.

In a statement Wednesday, the Amnesty's U.S. section (AIUSA) called on Gonzales to explicitly endorse such a commission in his testimony. "Pronouncements of his opposition to torture will ring hollow if not accompanied by a commitment to ensure that no one escapes accountability for ordering or approving the infliction of torture," said AIUSA director, William Schulz.

While the civil rights groups said Gonzales' decisions and recommendations on the treatment of detainees should indeed be a major focus of the hearings, they also expressed concern about his involvement in shaping the overall civil rights record of the administration--and especially the Justice Department alleged failure to fully enforce laws against racial profiling, sex discrimination and other measures to ensure equal rights.

In addition, the groups encouraged the Committee to question Gonzales closely on his position on what they called "harsh and ineffective anti-immigrant policies imposed in recent years that deny due process and infringe on basic rights against detention without charge."

The roundup, detention, and deportation of hundreds of male immigrants from the Arab world and South Asia carried out by the federal government after the September 11 terrorist attacks--as well as detentions and surveillance measures authorized by the USA Patriot Act--have been widely condemned by human rights and immigrant activists.

In its letter, LCCR also expressed concern that the administration had failed to disclose to the Committee a number of critical documents requested by the lawmakers that would shed more light on Gonzales' involvement in shaping policy in the "war against terrorism."

"All of the these documents should be disclosed and reviewed by the Committee before the confirmation hearings, and the President should waive any purported claims of privilege for these documents," the letter stated.

Other signatories to the letter include the International League for Human Rights, the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, the American Civil Liberties Union , Citizens for Global Solutions, and the Open Society Policy Center.

'The ugliest American'

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.ph ... ed&order=0

After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, nearly every nation in the world -- rich and poor, big and small, former ally and former foe -- came rushing to America's side. At few times in modern history have so many disparate peoples rallied behind one nation, this spirit of unity captured by the headline that appeared in Le Monde , France's largest daily newspaper, on Sept. 12: "We Are All Americans Now."

And yet that global goodwill vanished almost as swiftly as those four jets pierced America's bubble of invincibility. Now, three years later, the situation is completely reversed: Nearly every nation in the world has replaced goodwill with ill will, deep distrust if not outright fear and loathing.

The reason for this reversal of fortune is obvious: The Ugliest American resides in the people's house on Pennsylvania Avenue. Whether we like it or not, whether it's fair, whether it squares with any of our own feelings, George W. Bush is America's face around the world. He's our Nike swoosh, our golden arches, our Ugly American brand. Never was this more apparent than in the wake (literally) of the tsunami that has, at last count, killed nearly 150,000 people in south Asia.



What an opportunity for a real American leader! What a chance, when so many innocent people had suffered -- so many Muslims, too -- to deflate the ticking time bomb of terrorist recruitment efforts. Imagine the reaction throughout the billion-plus populace of the Muslim world had Bush flown to the area, heading a flotilla of cargo planes with food, medicine and hope. Four measly planes, let's say, and what a public relations coup that would have been! Al Jazeera would have been back-pedaling furiously on its newscasts, moderate Muslim leaders would have rushed to the front to grab this olive branch ... wait a minute ... I was dreaming of a time when we had real leaders. What was I thinking? We're stuck aboard this aircraft carrier for four more years with the Ugliest American.

So, where was George when the tsunamis hit? Oh, he spent the day pedaling his bicycle around his fake ranch like Pee Wee Herman. He could not be bothered to attend to an international crisis, not unless it involved oil. Finally, he took a break long enough to pledge, via his White House posse, a measly $15 million to the rescue effort -- one quarter of the cost of his coronation, er, inauguration on Jan. 20. Bush claimed he could adequately "monitor" the situation from his ranch (read: "I'll set out on the back porch and watch Fox News while I'm drinkin' my iced tea. I ain't givin' up my vacation for a buncha Third Worlders, especially if they ain't got any oil.").

Sadly, as I followed the news of the breaking events on the the Internet, a poll posted by America Online found that 72 percent of the respondents agreed that Bush's $15 million was an "adequate response." Putting aside politics and religion and corporate spin, isn't it about time the American people looked in the mirror and asked: How did we become so mean and ugly so soon? Are we really built in Bush's image?

Because this $15 million was America's first response, and it came belatedly and begrudgingly, any followup efforts and funds, no matter how great (at last count, Bush has been guilt-tripped into upping the ante to $350 million), can't erase that clank that Bush's initial actions sounded around the world. And yet it was in keeping with his character. The only other major crisis during his presidency came on Sept. 11, and what did he do then? He sat, glued to his chair, reading My Pet Goat , then flew quickly as far away as he could get from Washington, D.C. The leadership vacuum he left was filled by Mayor Giuliani, who helped the nation get through the agony of the next week.

Because, after the tsunami hit, action was so slow in coming -- and, yes, because he basks in world adulation -- former Pres. Bill Clinton tried to pull a Giuliani by calling for an international effort spearheaded by America. Because he -- despite all his other psychological baggage -- possesses the instincts of a real leader, Clinton correctly sensed the opportunity that this crisis provided. But Bush, sensing he was being upstaged, turned this disaster into a pissing contest. He did it in his typically craven way, too. He had his spokesman release the statement: "The president wanted to be fully briefed on our efforts. He didn't want to make a symbolic statement about 'We feel your pain.' He believes actions speak louder than words."

Alas, the truth.

Boxer signs electoral challenge — Democrats to force debate on Ohio results

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.ph ... ed&order=0

A small group of Democrats agreed Thursday to force House and Senate debates on Election Day problems in Ohio before letting Congress certify President Bush's election over Sen. John Kerry in November.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., signed a challenge mounted by House Democrats to Ohio's 20 electoral votes, which put Bush over the top. By law, a challenge signed by members of the House and Senate requires both chambers to meet separately for up to two hours to consider it. Lawmakers are allowed to speak for no more than five minutes each.



While Bush's victory is not in jeopardy, the Democratic challenge will force Congress to interrupt tallying the Electoral College vote that was scheduled to begin at 1 p.m. EST Thursday. It would be only the second time since 1877 that the House and Senate were forced into separate meetings to consider electoral votes.

CBS fired four employees -- including "60 Minutes" producer Mary Mapes -- after an independent investigation into a report about Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard found that "basic journalistic steps were not carried out in a manner consistent with accurate and fair reporting."

Why does the Religious Right ignore civil liberties issues?
by Chuck Baldwin

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.ph ... ed&order=0

For all the worthwhile endeavors the Religious Right has championed over the last two decades, it has foolishly ignored issues relating to civil liberties. This is very curious indeed. In fact, it is more than curious; it is downright dangerous!

It seems that the Religious Right has a huge blind spot when it comes to the importance of constitutional government and personal liberties. And that is a monumental understatement! Civil liberties issues do not even appear on the Religious Right's radar screen. Why is this true?



America's Founding Fathers (most of whom were Christians) were strong proponents of personal freedoms. In fact, our entire system of law is predicated upon the belief that rights come from God and that it is the responsibility of government to protect those rights.

So strong was the support for individual liberties that without the trenchant prohibitions against governmental abridgement of personal freedoms contained in the Bill of Rights, the original colonies would never have adopted the US Constitution. Even with those safeguards, there was still sizeable opposition to ratification of the Constitution within the sundry states of Colonial America.

By today's standards, the fear of governmental abuse of power by America's founders would be considered paranoia. However, it was the founders' distrust of government that gave this nation the legal underpinnings to produce the freest country on earth.

It seems that if the Religious Right has its way, though, civil liberties would cease to exist in America. To the detriment of our freedoms and even to our very way of life, the sacred principles contained in the Bill of Rights are repeatedly and routinely ignored by the Religious Right. Why is this true?

Why did we not hear conservative Christian leaders speak out against the federal government's massacre of Branch Davidians outside Waco, Texas, or the murder of Randy Weaver's wife by federal agents near Ruby Ridge, Idaho?

Why is it that we never hear national spokesmen for the Religious Right speaking out against an egregiously unconstitutional Patriot Act, or the Orwellian Department of Homeland Security, or the creation of a SS-style position of National Intelligence Director?

The sad truth is, Americans have lost more constitutional protections of personal freedoms under President George W. Bush than under any president in modern memory. And the Religious Right is either totally oblivious to this reality or party to it. How can this be?

Does not the Religious Right understand that without allegiance to our Constitution and Bill of Rights, all politicians, even those that profess to be Christians, become tyrants? Do our national Christian leaders not comprehend that when freedoms are lost to some, they are lost to all? Do they really not understand that when they allow politicians to dismantle constitutional government, they are forging the chains that will be placed around their own necks?

For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Religious Right ignores civil liberties issues. However, I do understand this: Americans are quickly losing their liberties, and, by its silence and inaction, the Religious Right is equally to blame

10 years later, GOP hypocrites ignore their very own 'Contract with America' - House GOP seen straying from pledges in 'Contract'
by Rick Klein

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.ph ... ed&order=0

They stormed into Congress a decade ago, a fresh-faced band of Republican candidates brandishing a Contract with America that promised balanced budgets, "citizen legislators" who would serve and return to the private sector, and a restored trust in the nation's elected leaders as the GOP took control of the House for the first time in 40 years.

But after 10 years of Republican control of the House, members of the majority party appear to have strayed from some of the promises that got them there. The nation is running up record budget deficits, term-limit pledges are being jettisoned, and House Republicans voted last week to weaken the ethics-enforcement process in Congress.



Now, the Contract with America is relevant again -- as a reference point for growing disagreements among Republicans about how far they have strayed from their core principles.

The items from the contract that have fallen by the wayside have been cited repeatedly in recent days and months by Republicans frustrated by the gap between their leaders' rhetoric and reality. Voices are emerging from within the Republican Party to return the GOP to the simple planks of the contract that helped the party gain power in the House.

"The first thing we were asked to do [in Congress] was to raise the ethical standards, and the first thing that this new [2005] freshman class was asked to do was to lower the standards," said Representative Zach Wamp of Tennessee, who was one of 73 newly elected Republican House members who took office in January 1995.

"There clearly are some areas where we've gone astray," Wamp said. "But the movement is alive. There's a great second wind among reformers."

Last week, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's leadership team sought to sharply limit the number of ethics investigations of House members in a move widely seen as an effort to protect House majority leader Tom DeLay, whose fund-raising practices have drawn legal scrutiny. But facing outrage from Wamp and other rank-and-file Republicans, Hastert retreated and agreed to reinstate a policy that would force representatives who are indicted to leave their leadership posts.

In addition, a conservative advocacy group, the Club for Growth, last year began targeting moderate Republicans in primary campaigns, with a particular eye toward restoring fiscal responsibility. Pat Toomey, who gave up his House seat to challenge Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania in the primary last year, said the biggest disappointment of the GOP control of Congress is that so many Republicans have acted like the Democrats they once sharply criticized for their free-spending ways.

"A lot of people get into elected office, and suddenly they're not so fond of limiting government," said Toomey, who narrowly lost his challenge and is now president of the Club for Growth. "The same thing happens with both parties, unfortunately."

The Contract with America had some dazzling successes. Nine of the 10 bills in the contract passed the House in 1995, with only term limits going down in defeat. The Republican Congress worked with President Clinton to pass a bill overhauling welfare. In 1998, the federal budget was balanced for the first time in nearly 30 years, and Republicans have not given up control of the House since they took it over in 1995.

The contract ushered in a sea change in congressional politics, with a stunning gain of 54 seats. House Speaker Newt Gingrich's emergence forced a reordering of the priorities for much of the Clinton administration, and, for a time, the growth of government was curbed.

"It did a lot to turn around the trend line toward ever more and more government," said Michael Franc, a vice president of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, who served as an aide to House majority leader Dick Armey of Texas in the mid-1990s.

But the movement lost steam, particularly after a government shutdown in late 1995 and early 1996 that proved to be a public-relations disaster for Republicans. Democrats chipped away at the Republican majority in the House in 1996 and 1998, and GOP lawmakers started worrying more about their own jobs than about the ideals they espoused when first elected, Franc said.

"After three years or so, they went from revolutionaries to members of a committee or a state's delegation," he said. "They shifted their senses of identity, and it became a lot easier for them to say, 'Well we have to get this project.' They lost their way with respect to the size and scope of government."

Term-limit pledges were abandoned, most famously by George R. Nethercutt Jr., who had promised to serve only six years in Congress. He became a poster child for term limits in his 1994 upset of then-House Speaker Thomas S. Foley, a 30-year veteran, but Nethercutt nonetheless ran for fourth and fifth terms before giving up his seat to run for the Senate last year. At least seven Republican House members who had pledged to leave Congress after the current term are gearing up for reelection, according to US Term Limits, a watchdog group.

On spending, the contract called for a balanced budget, but Republicans have failed to produce anything close to that in recent years. This year's deficit is estimated to exceed $400 billion, and even President Bush's goal to halve the deficit within five years is widely viewed as unrealistic.

Republicans defend the spending by noting the need for increased security and defense funding after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"We got it done, and then came 9/11, and suddenly nothing was the same," said Representative J. D. Hayworth of Arizona, a Republican member of the freshman class of 1995. "Can we do a better job? Sure. But we should not be blind to the fact that we are a nation at war, that we do have serious items on the national agenda."

But Congress has passed huge tax cuts in the changed security climate, draining hundreds of billions of dollars from the Treasury without cutting spending accordingly. In addition, the House in recent years has approved huge new expenditures, including $170 billion in farm subsidies and $375 billion in transportation programs. Two years ago, Republican leaders pushed through a prescription drug benefit under Medicare that is expected to cost at least $500 billion over 10 years, making it the biggest expansion since the program was created during Lyndon Johnson's presidency in 1965.

"For Republicans, it's become clear that big tax cuts are much more of a priority than a balanced budget," said Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan group that advocates fiscal restraint. "They're happy that they got the tax cuts. Now what you hear are a lot of excuses about deficits."

On internal House matters, where Republicans promised to "restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected representatives," Gingrich and his allies railed against Democratic abuses of power. And most observers contend that the depiction of the Democrats as a complacent, and possibly corrupt, bureaucracy contributed to their defeat.

But the current majority leader, DeLay of Texas, was formally upbraided by the Ethics Committee three times last year for his bare-knuckle political tactics. Republicans kept the Medicare prescription drug vote open for an unprecedented three hours as they twisted arms to garner the necessary votes.

Meanwhile, Republicans have altered House rules to limit debate and increased the number of bills presented to members without allowing any changes -- a practice for which the GOP excoriated the Democrats in 1994.

"It's exactly the abuse of authority and process that Republicans criticized the Democrats for doing when they were in power," said Thomas J. Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a conservative advocacy organization. "There is a certain arrogance of power, and some Republicans convince themselves that because they have the right views, their methodology will always be correct."

But to some members of the Contract with America freshman class, there were hopeful signs in the fact that House leaders retreated on their proposal to water down ethics rules. They successfully made the case that all members of Congress have an obligation to a high standard of conduct, Hayworth said.

"They came back to their senses. We returned to our moorings, to our foundations," he said. "Those of us who remain are more committed to the reform agenda that brought us here. Now we have a good dose of know-how to see those things through."

That's one focus of a Contract with America reunion this weekend in Arizona, where about half of the GOP lawmakers who came to Congress in 1995 will reminisce and strategize along with the contract's principal architect, Gingrich, who resigned from the House to avoid being ousted from the speakership six years ago.

Many of the members of the class of 1995 have moved on to governorships, Senate seats, or into the private sector, but most of the 30 still in the House are committed to the principles that got them there, Wamp said.

:o :o :o :o :o

Wonderful picture, Comandante Dan:)

Born November 28, 1953; 51 years old.

• Earned a bachelor's degree from Harvard University, 1975; law degree from Harvard University, 1978. Clerked for the late Supreme Court Justice William Brennan from 1979 to 1980.

• Hired to prosecute mob and corruption cases by Manhattan's then-U.S. Attorney Rudolph Giuliani in 1980. In 1986, as head of the prosecution in the "Mafia Commission" case, won the conviction of top bosses of La Cosa Nostra on charges including murder, extortion and racketeering.

• As New Jersey's U.S. attorney from 1990 to 1994, among other high-profile cases handled the stock-fraud trial of "Crazy" Eddie Antar and the kidnappers and killers of Exxon executive Sidney Reso.

• Was tapped by New York Sen. Alfonse D'Amato to be Senate Republicans' chief counsel for the Whitewater investigation; probed the suicide of Clinton aide Vince Foster.

• From 2003 to the present, served as judge on the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals; led the Justice Department's criminal division from 2001 to 2003.


Source: Associated Press

Birthday

Richard Allen Posner was born on this date in 1939, which makes him 66 years old today. Happy birthday, Judge Posner! I, for one, hope that you ascend to the United States Supreme Court. Compared to several current justices, you're a whippersnapper. You should have been elevated years ago. Our jurisprudence is poorer for your absence.

Addendum: The average age of the current justices is 70.2 years. Justice John Paul Stevens is 84. William Rehnquist is 80. Sandra Day O'Connor is 74. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 71. Anthony Kennedy is 68. Antonin Scalia is 68. Stephen Breyer is 66. David Souter is 65. Clarence Thomas is 56.

posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson

Eugene

I think those allegations against the religious right are well founded. (At least as far as the presidency of Bush is concerned; as for previous events, Davidians etc, I really don't know enough to make a judgment.) I'm glad that there are still conservative Christians in America who can see the political reality instead of defending the government and even Fox News (!) on all accounts.

Unfortunately, America is split in two like no country in Europe (as anyone who has ever followed your argument with Leonid knows ). Both parties think they are absolutely right and the other is absolutely wrong. And in the process, both make great mistakes. As for the right, well, the article pretty much says it. And the left isn't better either, as their idea of "religious freedom" is dangerous as well. Most of the lawsuits of, say, the ACLU against even the mentioning of certain Christianity-related things are far-off, and if all of them were successful, religious freedom would cease to exist. Those people are so afraid of being influenced by Christianity that they believe the only way to protect them is to influence Christian the very same way they don't want to be influenced. Know what I mean? Well, I wouldn't be surprised if not (no offense implied).

In both cases, right or left, fear leads to the demand for the restriction of rights. That's the main problem: fear and mistrust. Meantime, it's a good thing that America has a system of checks and balances (at least Dems should be glad that a two-third majority in both chambers of Congress is required to appoint new Supreme Court judges, right?)

"Unfortunately, America is split in two like no country in Europe"

Right, it would be better to have a national "consensus", Soviet, Nazi, Chinese and Saudi style. That really would be fortunate:)

Damn, I could have anticipated this raection!

Well, no, a "national consensus" was not what I meant. But still, it would be better for America if people from both sides of the political spectrum were a little more rational and cooperative and a little less partisan.