The Sound of Lefty Heads Exploding

Gotta love it!

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS to us political junkies) handed the Bush administration, and the President himself, a resounding defeat today.

BDS sufferers, rejoice! Bushitler got smacked down by the Courts!

But, wait... the case dealt with the International Court of Justice (ICJ), long the darling of the left. And the SCOTUS ruling was that Bush could not, I say again, could not order the state of Texas to obey an ICJ order.

So a defeat of Bush is also a defeat for the legality of ICJ orders within the US.

In other words, to say that SCOTUS was wrong is to say that President Bush was right.

I can hear BDS sufferers crying into their pillows now.

Huckabee's Pardongate

It's not just Wayne Dumond... there appears to really be something there:

Over the course of more than a decade as governor, Huckabee granted over 1,000 commutations and pardons, and they’re currently being examined closely by journalists. The latest to draw national attention is a commutation of Eugene Fields, who had multiple drunk-driving convictions.

The question is if there was there a connection between his wife Glenda Fields’s five-figure political donations and Huckabee’s action. On April 14, 2004, then-Gov. Huckabee commuted the sentence of Mr. Fields — then a four-time driving-while-intoxicated offender — granting him early release from prison. Fields, a resident of the western Arkansas town of Van Buren, was a habitual offender. He had already been convicted of DWIs in 1996, 1998, and 2000, but his 2001 felony-DWI conviction resulted in the maximum six-year prison sentence and a $5,000 fine.

Read the whole thing... link is in the title, as usual.

What is it about Arkansas governors?

Romney's Judge Troubles

By now, the buzz is going around fast and furious about a Romney-appointed judge letting a killer go free with no bail after allegations that he'd assaulted two prison guards, and threatened former Governor Romney's life.

My own thoughts on this are that this should be a non-issue. Romney is no telepath nor fortune teller, he had no way of knowing that this judge would ever rule this way. His campaign spokesman says that the judge's record as a prosecutor showed that she would be "a law and order judge," so it really doesn't seem to be a slip on Mitt's part.

However, politics is largely about perception, so this will probably be a big problem for the Romney campaign. The term "Willie Horton" is already being heard in relation to this.

By the way, lest anyone think I am coming around to the Romney camp, think again... I just don't like seeing a campaign accused of something as idiotic as push-polling themselves, or criticized for not being prescient regarding what judges might do in the future.

Bottom line, I'm still behind Fred for the nomination. If he doesn't get it, well, we'll see what happens then.

Just for Fun

A prisoner in New Hampshire filed a complaint regarding the kosher food he receives in prison. The prisoner also included a hard boiled egg with the complaint.

The judge, one James R. Muirhead of the US District Court, issued the following ruling:

No fan I am
Of the egg at hand.
Just like no ham
On the kosher plan.
This egg will rot
I kid you not.
And stink it can
This egg at hand.
There will be no eggs at court
To prove a clog in your aort.
There will be no eggs accepted.
Objections all will be rejected.
From this day forth
This court will ban
hard-boiled eggs of any brand.
And if you should not understand
The meaning of the ban at hand
Then you should contact either Dan,
the Deputy Clerk, or my clerk Jan.

I do not like eggs in the file.
I do not like them in any style.
I will not take them fried or boiled.
I will not take them poached or broiled.
I will not take them soft or scrambled
Despite an argument well-rambled.
No fan I am
Of the egg at hand.
Destroy that egg!
Today! Today!
Today I say! Without delay!
SO ORDERED (with apologies to Dr. Seuss).

Now there's a judge who can write.

He'd Rather Reopen an Old Wound than Let it Heal

I almost couldn't believe my ears when I first heard this story on the radio today:

NEW YORK - Dan Rather filed a $70 million lawsuit against CBS and his former bosses Wednesday, claiming they made him a "scapegoat" for a discredited story about President Bush's military service during the Vietnam War.

The 75-year-old Rather, whose final months were clouded by controversy over the story, said the actions of the defendants damaged his reputation and cost him significant financial loss.

But wait, there's more!

In his lawsuit, Rather maintains that the story was true, but that if any aspect of the broadcast wasn't accurate, he was not responsible for the errors.

The story relied on four documents, supposedly written by Bush's commander in the Texas Air National Guard, the late Lt. Col. Jerry Killian. Critics questioned the documents' authenticity and suggested they were forged.

A CBS review determined the story was neither fair nor accurate. CBS fired the story's producer and asked for the resignation of three executives because it could not authenticate documents used in the story, and Rather was forced out of the anchor chair he had occupied for 24 years.

Rather's lawsuit says he was forced to apologize, although "as defendants well knew, even if any aspect of the broadcast had not been accurate, which has never been established, Mr. Rather was not responsible for any such errors."

Now, I am not trying to claim that Rather was responsible, although I suspect he had a hand in it somewhere. Whether or not he did will probably come out at the trial... if there is one (more on that in a moment).

The big question is, why bring this up now, three years after the story, and two and a half years after he was fired?

The only thing I can come up with is that, with the Iraq news turning positive, the lefties are looking for any excuse they can to bash President Bush again. The question of why they chose this particular story is still open, and I could be wrong about the motive for the timing.

It's entirely possible that this could never make it to trial, as well... as soon as conservatives (such as your humble author) get hold of this and bring up all the evidence for it being a total fabrication, not to mention what CBS's lawyers dig up through discovery (which then gets released to the public), the lawsuit could be quietly withdrawn or thrown out of court. Heck, it could be withdrawn before it ever gets to the discovery phase, rather (no pun intended) than let all that embarrassing stuff on the bias in the media gets dug up and displayed before John Q. Voter.

It'll be interesting to watch this.

Craig Pleads Guilty

Another Republican is in trouble. Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) pled guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct in Minneapolis, receiving a fine and probation. The charge stems from alleged lewd behavior in an airport men's room.

Notwithstanding what I said about Gonzales earlier, Craig needs to be quietly but firmly pushed to resign. This sort of conduct--regardless of the gender of the other party or the orientation of Senator Craig or the other person--in public is completely unacceptable in a party that stands for family values. By pleading guilty, Craig has admitted that he did something wrong, not to mention illegal, and he needs to be gone.

Rule of Law in Iraq?

The article linked above is one of those that's hard to write a blurb that will make you want to read it, so I will let the author whet your appetite himself:

BAGHDAD - Because of my temporary and purposely broad role here as a rule of law advisor, I have the luxury of being able to think about the bigger picture (and indeed am occasionally specifically asked to do so).

For example, is it even right to talk about developing "rule of law"—as we understand that term—in Iraq? Does it not betray a Western bias, not in the politically correct sense, but in terms of political anthropology? And even if it is right, and what we should in theory be doing, is it realistic—in Iraq generally but especially under the current conditions of insurgency?

Go read the whole thing. It's really thought provoking.

Okay, one more quote:

Of course, where those local customs, traditions, and culture are wholly illiberal, universal principles must trump, because part of nation-building is fixing what's broken. Like the British general said in India:

'You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: When men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.'

Just had to include that one.

Pants Judge May Lose Job

Administrative Law Judge Roy L. Pearson Jr., the fellow who sued the D.C. dry cleaners for $54 million dollars for losing his pants, is in jeopardy of losing his job.

Judge Pearson was appointed as a District Administrative Law Judge in 2005 for an initial two year term. The city commission (Commission on Selection and Tenure of Administrative Law Judges) that reviews the sitting judges for reappointment for an additional ten year term has notified Judge Pearson he may not be reappointed. Pearson has the opportunity to file a rebuttal and then appear before the commission at the next meeting in September.

If he hasn't already started, the D.C. judge who sued his dry cleaners for $54 million -- and lost -- may want to begin looking for a new job.

The city commission that has been weighing the professional fate of Administrative Law Judge Roy L. Pearson Jr. has voted to formally notify Pearson that he may not be reappointed to the bench, according to a government source. [...]

Apparently, the judge's suing his dry cleaner is not his only transgression. His work as an administrative law judge had been questioned even before his much publicized trial this spring.

If and when Pearson appears before the commission's three voting members, he will likely face questions about far more than the lawsuit that made him the butt of jokes around the world and the target of the tort reform movement here at home. Concerns about his work as an administrative law judge preceded the publicity this spring about his lawsuit and the letter from the commission focuses on those concerns, only addressing the lawsuit briefly. [...]

Since winning at trial, the Chung's (the dry cleaner owners) have filed a petition with the court to recoup attorney costs from Pearson. Pearson has been granted an extension to respond to the Chung's motion.

Sounds to me like Judge Pearson is more combative than he is judicious. An order from the court for him to pay the Chung's attorney fees and the loss of his cherished administrative judgeship would be justice served in this case.

The Plame Still Flickers

Despite the celebration last week that the Plame suit against the Bush Administration (blogged about in Plame Suit Flames Out) being dismissed, the decision is being appealed to the DC Circuit Court.

Erwin Chemerinsky (professor of law at Duke University Law School) and John Eastman (Dean of Chapman University Law School) are regular guests on Hugh Hewitt's radio show - usually on Wednesday. Hugh refers to the pair as The Smart Guys. Today the issues were executive privilege and the Plame-Wilson suit. Erwin is one of the attorney's for the Plame's and argued the case in federal district court.

(from the transcript)

EC: I was, I was the lawyer who argued the case in federal district court. I continue to be the lawyer for Valerie Plame Wilson and Joe Wilson, and I will be involved in writing and arguing the case on appeal in the D.C. Circuit.

HH: And your grounds for appeal will be what?

EC: Well, the Privacy Act does not apply to the offices of the president and the vice president. That was conceded by all of the parties in this litigation, and the judge recognized it. And of course, at least as to Cheney, Libby and Rove, the Privacy Act provides no remedy. And our argument is a statute that doesn’t apply can’t be used to preclude a civil suit under the Constitution. Also, we have four Constitutional claims, a privacy claim, but also a 1st Amendment claim, an equal protection claim, and a due process claim. And our argument is that at most, the Privacy Act should preclude the privacy claim, but not the others.So, there's the basis for appealing the dismissal of the suit. When asked if he thought Richard Armitage had committed a crime, Chemerinsky said yes:

HH: But let me ask you, do you think Richard Armitage committed a crime?

EC: Yes.

Chemerinsky clings to the belief that Valerie Plame was a covert agent, stating that he knows for a fact that she held that designation:

HH: But it seems to me that…what’s obvious to all of us is that Fitzgerald concluded there was no crime in the revelation of Valerie Plame’s identity, because she was not covert, and it was not what the intent of the law was intended to do in this instance, and that therefore, Armitage wasn’t charged, because there was no crime, and that therefore, Libby didn’t commit a crime, and the Grand Jury ought never to have met, because he knew, Fitzgerald did, before the investigation even opened, that Armitage was a leaker, and he never charged him, therefore no charges and no Grand Jury should have happened.

EC: Some of what you said is just false, some I don’t know. First, there’s no doubt whatsoever that Valerie Plame was a covert operative. The attorney for the United States government said that in open court on May 17th, in the District of Columbia. So I don’t think we can dispute that she’s a covert agent. The United States government said that they would agree that at least for a certain period of time, she was a covert operative.

HH: Erwin, we certainly can dispute that, because it was not made in a context at when it could be challenged to an impartial observer. And of course, the United States government’s going to say that in that circumstance. I don’t believe it for a second, I’ve never been persuaded of that, and I think it is nonsense to ask my audience to take that on fact. It’s a disputed issue.

EC: I’ll tell you, I mean, you’ve known me a long time, whatever trust you have in me, I know as fact she was a covert operative.

From what I heard during the discussion and what I've read and heard previously on this matter, I'm still not convinced that Plame was a covert agent as defined by the law. What we do know is that the special prosecutor did not charge or indict anyone for revealing Plame's identity. That leads me to believe Fitzgerald didn't think she fit the definition of a covert agent or that anyone who revealed her identity didn't commit a crime as defined by the law.

Something else that I believe gets overlooked in this debate - someone revealing Plame's identity has to know she held the distinction of being a covert agent. Simply saying she works for the CIA reveals nothing except that she works at the CIA.

Erwin is a liberal, and that comes out clearly in most of the positions he takes week after week on judicial issues. He also doesn't like President Bush and I'm sure he'd love to be the attorney who helped to hang a crime on the President or someone in the Administration.

I still think they are tracking a cold trail, but maybe we'll still get to see Plame and Wilson cross examined in open court.

To read the rest of the interview, follow the transcript link above, or listen to the audio here (app. 30 minutes).

Plame Suit Flames Out

Valerie Plame's lawsuit against members of the Bush Administration was dismissed today by John D. Bates, United States District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

A federal judge dismissed former CIA operative Valerie Plame's lawsuit against members of the Bush administration Thursday, eliminating one of the last courtroom remnants of the leak scandal.

The only thing Plame got right in her lawsuit was the inclusion of Richard Armitage as a defendant. One of the many odd things about this whole affair has been the distinct absence of Armitage in the accusations of culpable names in the supposed leak of Plame's covert status.

Bates dismissed the case against all defendants: Cheney, White House political adviser Karl Rove, former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.

Judge Bates is a Bush 43 appointment to the court. I suspect, if the left holds true to form, charges will fly that the judge is a Bush toady. Judge Bates is also the judge who dismissed Congress's lawsuit by the Comptroller to force Vice President Cheney to reveal information about his energy task force. However, Plame's lawyer had known from the beginning they were facing an uphill battle with the suit.

Plame's attorneys had said the lawsuit would be an uphill battle. Public officials are normally immune from such lawsuits filed in connection with their jobs.

In a way, I'm disappointed this will not go to trial. I was looking forward to Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame being put on the stand in public, under oath, and being cross examined by a good defense attorney. It would have been interesting to see how they resolved their conflicting testimony during Congressional hearings with their public statements and reporting by the driveby media.

Plame-Wilson's fifteen minutes of fame are over. Time to retire to their new digs in New Mexico.

Pardoning an Administration Member Convicted of Perjury

Amid all the kerfuffle about President Bush commuting the sentence of Scooter Libby, one fact has been missed over and over.

It's not the first time a President has pardoned a member of his Administration convicted of perjury.

In 2001, as he was leaving office, President William Jefferson Clinton pardoned Henry Cisneros, who had been his Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Cisneros had been convicted of giving false information to the FBI (essentially perjury).

So, the next time your lefty friends complain about Bush's pardon, bring up Henry Cisneros and ask what they think about that.

Reaction to Scooter

Ya know, it's been illuminating to watch the reaction to Scooter Libby's sentence being commuted by President Bush. I've been doing some ruminating, and here's what I've come up with:

The main reason the left is soooooo exercised about this is because they can't do a thing about it, and they know it.

President Bush, as President, has the legal authority to issue pardons and commute sentences. That part of the Constitution did not end when Mr. Clinton vacated the Oval Office--though some on the left clearly think it should have. Therefore, they can't possibly impeach him on that.

The lefties are also unable to vote against Mr. Bush, because he's not running again. That also makes his approval rating (which is based on polls, which are notoriously easy to skew--which is why I don't ever post about polls) pretty much a moot point--it's not like he has to woo the voters any more.

So, they have two options. They can take it like adults, accept that something happened that they don't like, and move on (heh... irony of ironies there), or they can throw temper tantrums like 3-year-olds.

I think it's clear which they have chosen.

Libby's Prison Sentence Commuted

President Bush finally did the right thing.

WASHINGTON — President Bush commuted the sentence of former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby on Monday, sparing him from a 2 1/2-year prison term that Bush said was excessive.

Bush's move came hours after a federal appeals panel ruled Libby could not delay his prison term in the CIA leak case. That meant Libby was likely to have to report to prison soon and put new pressure on the president, who had been sidestepping calls by Libby's allies to pardon the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.

"I respect the jury's verdict," Bush said in a statement. "But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison."

Bush left intact a $250,000 fine and two years probation for Libby, and Bush said his action still "leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby."

Good for him. However, if Dubya thinks this buys him absolution for the immigration fiasco, he'd better think again.

Oh, and those aren't early 4th of July fireworks you're hearing. That's the sound of lefty heads exploding.

DeLay Completely Cleared of Charges

The Houston Chronicle reports:

AUSTIN — The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals today refused to reinstate criminal conspiracy charges against former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and two co-defendants.

DeLay, R-Sugar Land, and political consultants Jim Ellis and John Colyandro were accused of conspiring to violate state election laws in the 2002 elections for the Texas House. But lower courts threw out the indictment on grounds that conspiracy to violate the election code was not a crime until 2003,

A majority of the Court of Criminal Appeals agreed.

DeLay, Ellis and Colyandro were charged with plotting to funnel illegal corporate campaign contributions to several Republican House candidates in 2002, when the GOP gained its first House majority of modern times.

The three also were charged with money laundering, but a trial on those charges has been held up pending a resolution of the conspiracy charges.

DeLay's attorney, Dick DeGuerin, said he was pleased with the ruling but sorry that it took so long and resulted in DeLay's resignation from Congress, where he represented Houston's southwest suburbs for more than 20 years.

"Ronnie Earle indicted Tom DeLay for a crime that didn't exist, wasn't on the books," DeGuerin said.

Think this will make it onto the newscasts of ABCCBSCNNNBCPBS? Doubt it.

This was a political smear-job from the get-go, and it's sad that it actually accomplished at least part of its goals: getting DeLay out of Congress. However, vindication still has to feel good to Mr. DeLay.

Libby Gets 30 Months

Lewis "Scooter" Libby has just been sentenced to 30 months in jail.

Expect an immediate appeal.

Will update with reactions from the blogosphere as other activities permit.

Update the First: Sticky Notes has a pretty good comparison.

Update the Second: Let's take a wander through some online journals of conservative thought and see what they think. IMPORTANT NOTE-- this is by no means an exhaustive list, nor is it intended to be. The statements made are correct as of 14:00 PDT, things may change later.

Human Events: silence.

National Review Online: "We said it in March, when I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby became the only person convicted of any crime in the CIA-leak investigation, and we’ll say it again now that he has been sentenced to two and a half years in prison: President Bush should pardon Libby, and do it now."

OpinionJournal.com (otherwise known as the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal): silence.

The American Spectator: silence.

The Weekly Standard: "So much for loyalty, or decency, or courage. For President Bush, loyalty is apparently a one-way street; decency is something he's for as long as he doesn't have to take any risks in its behalf; and courage--well, that's nowhere to be seen. Many of us used to respect President Bush. Can one respect him still?"

Democrats and the Culture of Corruption, Part II

Looks like the Democrats are about to have their own culture of corruption exposed a little bit more.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., was indicted Monday on federal charges of racketeering, soliciting bribes and money-laundering in a long- running bribery investigation into business deals he tried to broker in Africa.

The indictment handed up in federal court in Alexandria., Va., Monday is 94 pages long and lists 16 alleged violations of federal law that could keep Jefferson in prison for up to 235 years. He is charged with racketeering, soliciting bribes, wire fraud, money-laundering, obstruction of justice, conspiracy and violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

Jefferson is accused of soliciting bribes for himself and his family, and also for bribing a Nigerian official.

Watch ABCCBSCNNNBCPBS clam up on this story.

SCOTUS: No Appeals from Gitmo Detainees

Just off the wires:

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday from Guantanamo detainees who want challenge their five-year-long confinement in court, a victory for the Bush administration's legal strategy in its fight against terrorism.

The victory may be only temporary, however. The high court twice previously has extended legal protections to prisoners at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. These individuals were seized as potential terrorists following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and only 10 have been charged with a crime.

Despite the earlier rulings, none of the roughly 385 detainees has yet had a hearing in a civilian court challenging his detention because the administration has moved aggressively to limit the legal rights of prisoners it has labeled as enemy combatants.

A federal appeals court in Washington in February upheld a key provision of a law enacted last year that strips federal courts of their ability to hear such challenges.

At issue is whether prisoners held at Guantanamo have a right to habeas corpus review, a basic tenet of the Constitution that protects people from unlawful imprisonment.

Okay, let's take this apart piece by piece so that people can understand what this AP reporter apparently doesn't.

The people held in Gitmo are not, I say again, not American citizens. Therefore, the Constitution does not apply to them in any way, shape, manner, or form. Period. Full stop.

The earlier rulings referenced said that the proper legal framework had not been set up for the military commissions that were in use. So, Congress voted in the proper legal framework, thus eliminating the problem. The Supreme Court recognized this, and is now ruling in accordance with the law legally passed by Congress.

I know, it is a sad day for lefties, they won't get to see President Bush hauled into court in chains to face the righteous indignation of the terrorists he's been trying to keep from their holy duty of killing American infidels.

For the rule of law, however, it is a very good day.

Hat Tip: BlackFive.