Back HomeAboutContactLinksSearch this SiteSue Bob's Diary
September 30, 2004
Captain Ed over at Captains Quarter writes about “Kerry’s tantrum” over the timer lights located on the candidates’ podiums. Captain Ed writes:

Gee … will they stamp their feet and hold their breath until they turn blue as well? The Kerry campaign agreed to the timer lights and the provisos that the lights be visible to both the live audience and television viewers. Where else but the lecterns provide that viewpoint? Did the Kerry campaign expect that the cameras would be pointing downwards at the candidates’ feet?
Just when you think it’s impossible for the Kerry show to get more juvenile, their aides threaten to unilaterally dismantle a podium because they didn’t read the agreement they signed, or didn’t think the prerequisites through very well. It doesn’t build a great deal of confidence in the team that Kerry would bring to the White House, if elected.

I wrote in Comments:

Does Kerry have ADD or something?
A leader should be able to deal with distractions. A flashing light is nothing compared to the distractions he would have were “His Wussiness” to be actually elected President.
The name of this post should be “The Prince and the Pea”

You’ll remember that the “Princess and the Pea” is a child’s story by Hans Christian Anderson about a Prince who wanted to marry a “real Princess.” The Queen decided to test one of the candidates by placing a pea under a stack of twenty mattresses and twenty feather beds. The Princess when asked the next morning how she had slept replied:

‘Oh terribly bad!’ said the princess. ‘I have hardly closed my eyes the whole night! Heaven knows what was in the bed. I seemed to be lying upon some hard thing, and my whole body is black and blue this morning. It is terrible!’

Now, why a man would ever want to marry a woman this high-maintenance is beyond me, and this begs the question: Why would we ever want a man as high-maintenance as John F. Kerry to be our President?

In fact, as I write this post, Susan Estrich is on Fox’s Special Report with Brit Hume talking about the fact that Kerry just had to get a manicure before the debate. If that’s not “Princess and the Pea”- high maintenance, I don’t know what is. What? Is he afraid he’ll snag his podium with a hangnail?

Others have more ably described Kerry’s propensity for princely deportment. Howie Carr wrote about the Real John Kerry and his reputation for refusing to wait and, instead, barging ahead of people in line belligerently querying those who protest: “Do you know who I am?” Mark Steyn pokes fun at Kerry for his insistence on flying his hairdresser, Christophe, out to cut his hair when campaigning in the boonies.

Kerry’s preoccupation with the minutia of physical appearance and personal comfort is “Princely” but it sure isn’t “Presidential.”

By: Sue Bob @ 3:55 pm in: Uncategorized | Discussion (8)

September 28, 2004
I respond to the challenge to the blogosphere issued by Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy. Mr. Kerr posed three questions to which he asked that pro-war bloggers respond:

First, assuming that you were in favor of the invasion of Iraq at the time of the invasion, do you believe today that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea? Why/why not?

Second, what reaction do you have to the not-very-upbeat news coming of Iraq these days; such as the stories I link to above?

Third, what specific criteria do you recommend that we should use over the coming months and years to measure whether the Iraq invasion has been a success?

I respond as follows:

Do I believe today that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea?

I answer an unequivocal: Yes. The fact that we have found no stockpiles of WMD has zero affect on my conviction that we have done the right thing. You see, we are not involved in war confined only to Saddam, or leftover Baathists or Zarkawi or Al Queda. We are at war with all of them, but we are also at war with those we have assumed to be our allies, France, Germany and Russia. The war with the latter three is not direct as it is with the former three. It is a shadow war that predates our consciousness of it. In fact, we did not have any real awareness of it until we went to the U.N. to ask for support in toppling Saddam.

Even before we faced the obstruction of our three shadow enemies, I supported toppling the regime of Saddam. To me, it was inconceivable to have our soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and searching for the leaders of Al Queda with Saddam sitting like a malevolant spider ruffling and spinning his web throughout the region. Given the hostility he harbors for the United States, it seemed obvious to me that he would prove to be a “a friend to his enemy’s enemy” providing sanctuary to fleeing Al Queda operatives as we routed them in Afghanistan and God know what else. His affinity for terrorists was made all too palpable by his financial support for Palestinian homicide bombers. Indeed, the terrorist Zarkawi who rivals, if not eclipses, Bin Ladin in one-on-one savagery found his way to Saddam after the fall of the Taliban and before the toppling of the Saddam regime.

In the absence of direct evidence that Saddam’s weapons were moved elsewhere, it is fair to make the argument that he was not stockpiling WMD’s. But what he was probably doing may have been even worse. The head of Saddam’s nuclear centrifuge program, Mahdi Obeide, in an opinion piece published in the New York Times, points out that the fact that Saddam was piling up so much money through the UN oil for food scam may have proven to be a huge disincentive to his reconstituting his weapons program. There is evidence that this money was being laundered by the same agents who launder Al Queda money, as well as actually being funneled to Al Queda. This places Saddam squarely in the camp of our terrorist enemies.

But what about our shadow enemies, France, Germany and Russia? Bill Gertz, in his excellent book, Treachery; How America’s Friends and Foes are Secretly Arming Our Enemies, reveals the perfidious motive behind the obstructionist actions of France, Germany and Russia prior to the invasion of Iraq. The fall of Saddam enabled our discovery of the extent to which these countries aided and armed Iraq right up to and during the invasion. In fact, according to Gertz, had Saddam not relied upon the promises of these three countries that they would successfully block a U.S. invasion by political maneuvering in the U.N., toppling his regime might have taken much longer. Saddam was simply taken by surprise.

And, according to Gertz, what was one of driving forces behind the mendacity of France, Germany and Russia?


Iraq has approximately 15% of the world’s known reserves, and anyone who thinks that it is not important for us to be in a good position to buy this oil is living in a fantasyland. Christopher Hitchens said yesterday in a piece published by Slate: “I have written before in this space that I think Bin Laden is probably dead, and I certainly think that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a far more ruthless and dangerous jihadist, who is trying to take a much more important country into the orbit of medieval fanaticism and misery.”

The reason that Iraq is a much more important country is, again: Oil.

My father, who is a retired petroleum engineer, commented on the anti-war demonstrator’s chants about No War for Oil by saying in a matter of fact way: “They damn sure better hope the war is for oil.”

He began his career in the 1950’s, almost twenty years after the peak of discovery of new fields in the U.S. which occurred in the 1930’s. During the 1970’s, U.S. oil production peaked and he began to work in secondary recovery operations. (extracting oil from “played-out” fields)

My father has many of the same fears about the future of cheap oil (which fueled the economic miracle of the twentieth century) as Dr. Colin Campbell, founder of Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas. It is Dr. Colin Campbell’s opinion that the day of cheap oil is almost over. He believes that peak production of oil for the world will be reached before 2010, and that the world is in for a huge and disruptive shock in the near future. Dr. Campbell’s theories are provocative and vigorously questioned by some. I argue that he has drunk too deeply from the Kool-Aid served up by the Greens and the be-sweatered Jimmy Carter given that he advocates such band aid solutions as car pooling and higher gas taxes It is also thought that he ignores the same factors of technology as did Malthus. That said, the truth is probably somewhere in between, and we will experience an uncomfortable degree of economic shock.

What is clear to me, is that we could not forever tolerate a huge percentage of the world’s oil being under the control of a hostile and brutal dictator with a decided affinity for terrorists and perfidious Frenchmen, Germans and Russians. Especially when the latter three were intent on circumventing sanctions to aid Saddam in rearming.

The bottom line is that leaving Saddam in power was not just bad for the War on Terror. It was also counter to U.S. (and Britain and Australia) interests in the larger geo-political competition against a Europe that clearly sees us as an economic enemy in the acquisition of the cheap oil required to maintain our standard of living.

The reasons for going to Iraq were a mixture of both the sublime and the material. To understand this and to protect our future and our children’s future requires the ability to face the whole truth.

Second, what reaction do I have to the not-very-upbeat news coming of Iraq these days

Given what I believe is at stake, my reaction is a stiffening of resolve that we must win. We have stirred a hornet’s nest in an effort to eradicate it. It is to be expected that, just as with hornets, the terrorists and other thugs are swarming and stinging more viciously in a last ditch effort to survive.

If we cut and run, we leave a vacuum to be filled, not only by Baathists, Terrorists and Iranian proxies, but also by the French, Germans and Russians, who have no compunction about dealing with monsters. We should plan to be there for many years.

Again, as Hitchens recognizes, Iraq is an important country. It is far more important to us than Bosnia and look how long we have been there. In this game, we cannot afford to default to Old Europe and the Russians

Third, what specific criteria do I recommend that we should use over the coming months and years to measure whether the Iraq invasion has been a success?

I would measure success by trends and not specific “wins” or setbacks. If we see a positive trend of establishing representative government, repairing and protecting the infrastructure, and improving security, etc., then we are experiencing success. We cannot let nay Sayers make every setback grounds for declaring failure because that is simply not the way that the world works.


I reach the conclusion that going to Iraq and staying the course is in our interest. As well as protecting and achieving our interests, we must also leave a legacy of individual liberty, stability and friendship to the Iraqi people. Our competitors, the Baathists, terrorists, France, Germany and Russia do not couple their designs on Iraq with such noble motives. For our sake, and the sake of the Iraqis, our only exit strategy should be victory.

By: Sue Bob @ 8:43 pm in: Uncategorized | Discussion (4)

September 27, 2004
William Safire takes the media head on in a powerful opinion piece called The Kidnap Weapon. In that article he makes the case that the media is advancing the agenda of the terrorists to thwart Iraqi elections and drive out coalition forces by its sensationalist coverage of the kidnappings and beheadings. As Safire points out, the terrorists have become savvy to the far-reaching effects of televising frightened brutalized hostages being threatened with beheading as well as the actual beheadings. Mr. Safire points out the great harm such coverage causes:
For the psychological warriors, it is a win-win tactic. If the ransom is paid by a private contractor, the extorted cash buys rockets and mortars. If the ransom is paid by a government withdrawing its troops, the terrorist diplomatic victory dispirits the rest of the coalition. If the ransom is not paid, then the film of the hostages’ beheading strikes fear into the heart of the morbidly fascinated viewer.

Mr. Safire does not advocate a black-out of these reports. Instead, he criticizes the lurid showcasing of these atrocities being used by the media to report this type of story:
Sensationalism sells; on TV, “if it bleeds, it leads.” Audiences are surely drawn to tearful interviews with worried spouses and children. Bloggers get “hits” from posting the most gruesome pictures. Cable ratings rise by milking the pathos in the drama created by the Zarqawi network: first comes the kidnapping report; then televised pleas from the kneeling, doomed innocents; then coverage of marches and vigils to plead for the payment of ransom; finally, in one case out of four, the delivery of dismembered bodies and gleeful claim of blame.

He goes on to question and admonish the media:
Do we have to become conduits for this grisly, real-death kidnap choreography? We are obliged to report it, but we need not go along with the terrorist propagandists in milking the most horror out of it.

Safire is giving the media a lesson in journalistic ethics in this piece. Beldar discussed the journalistic ethics published by the Society of Professional Journalists in the context of Rathergate in this post. I think we should keep going back to these written ethics every time a media ethics issue arises. Media allowing itself to be used as a propaganda tool by Islamic savages certainly rises to the level of an ethics issue, although the Code of Ethics seems strangely bereft of admonitions against becoming a propaganda tool. The history of the Code is described at the bottom of the page as follows:

Sigma Delta Chi’s first Code of Ethics was borrowed from theAmerican Society of Newspaper Editors in 1926. In 1973, Sigma Delta Chiwrote its own code, which was revised in 1984, 1987 and 1996.

You would think that after witnessing the shameless co-opting of media for propaganda use by Hitler and the Soviet Union, the Society might have added a few words directly on that point. That said, there is a section of the Code regarding minimizing harm that I believe applies:

Minimize Harm

Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.
Journalists should:
  • Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
  • Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
  • Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
  • Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention.
  • Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.
  • Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
  • Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.
  • Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.
  • Balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the public’s right to be informed.

(emphasis added)

One of the most applicable parts is the admonition to “recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort” and that “pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.” There is no doubt in my mind that the media has become a willing tool of the terrorists out of thoughtless arrogance. One definition of “arrogance” is “that species of pride which consists in exorbitant claims of rank, dignity, estimation, or power.” There has been ample evidence coming to light, such as the Rathergate incident, that media views itself as a major power in the selection of the next U.S. President. In its quest to elect John Kerry, it thoughtlessly ignores the safety of the Iraqis who struggle to build a free Iraq. Instead, it engages in reckless fear mongering which serves no purpose other than providing talking points for John Kerry, whose use of these stories is even more mendacious.

Albert Schweitzer said: “Ethics is nothing else than reverence for life.” How appropriate his definition is in this context. Now more than ever, it is time that we hold the Media accountable to its own Code of Ethics.

By: Sue Bob @ 7:40 pm in: Uncategorized | Discussion (2)

September 26, 2004

Hat Tip: Beldar
The Flinch Posted by Hello

By: Sue Bob @ 7:27 pm in: Uncategorized | Discussion (0)

Powerline posts a hilarious photo of John Kerry flinching as he catches a football during a trumped-up-for-the-media game of touch football on the Esplanade in Boston. In the post, Hindrocket theorizes that Kerry is “trying to live up to his image of John Kennedy.” I agree. I would emphasize the word trying. John F. Kennedy effortlessly projected the masculinity of a “man’s man” through imagery such as family touch-football games at the compound. Kerry comes off looking like the guy on the playground who was always chosen last.

According to Joshua Chaffin at the Financial Times Online, Kerry and Bush are both portraying themselves as sportsmen to “connect with the bass fishermen and deer hunters who have replaced soccer moms as this wartime election’s prized demographic.”

As Powerline points out, Kerry has been attempting this in a very silly and counter-productive manner.

The article by Joshua Chaffin, Kerry A Windsurfer in a Land of Hunters, demonstrates just how counterproductive. According to Chaffin, Kennedy played up the family touch-football games, but hid the fact he played golf.

I think he did this for two reasons: First, football is a team sport requiring team members to sublimate individual desires to the greater good of the team. Second, golf, at the time, was a self-indulgent rich man’s sport requiring expensive equipment and club memberships. Successful participation on a team seems adult— playing with expensive toys seems juvenile and pointless.

Bush learned this lesson the hard way during his failed Congressional run in 1978. I was in law school out in Lubbock, Texas when he ran and I remember a Bush T.V. ad portraying Bush jogging. I thought nothing of it, being on a University campus surrounded by young students. It was years later that I learned what hard working adults in the district thought of this ad. Kent Hance, Bush’s successful opponent in that race, participated in a documentary about Bush a few years ago. He said that people in West Texas thought the ad was downright weird. Farmers from Muleshoe, Texas simply couldn’t understand why a grown man would put on a pair of shorts and expensive running shoes and run around the streets. To these people, physical exertion should have some productive end result like a plowed field.

Bush is now smart enough to be photographed doing things like fixing fences on his ranch. The imagery is of a hard-working, productive adult. Next to that, Kerry’s penchant for the French-invented sport of kite-sailing or cycling in spandex shorts seems silly and juvenile, with no point other than the inducement of a momentary adrenaline “high” at great monetary expense.

By: Sue Bob @ 7:49 am in: Uncategorized | Discussion (3)

September 25, 2004

I finally received and watched my copy of Stolen Honor, the documentary created by Carlton Sherwood. I usually don’t cry during movies, but I experienced some definite eye-watering during this one. The movie features testimony by brave men who were POW’s during John Kerry’s treacherous Senate testimony. These men truly possess courage and it shows. I came away with the deepest respect for them. John Kerry is merely a holograph compared to them.

The documentary expands on the facts contained in Unfit for Command chronicling Kerry’s testimony and, especially, his two trips to Paris to meet with the enemy. This, by far, was the most disturbing part of the book to me. Here is a man who ate with, slept near and was on the same team as men who were still in danger in Vietnam. The safety of his “Band of Brothers” and the safety of American POW’s were obviously trumped in Kerry’s mind by his ambition to become a political force.

This poses the question of whether or not John Kerry has the capacity for compassion and empathy for individual human beings. Expressing compassion for groups is insufficient. As Paul Johnson chronicles in his excellent book, Intellectuals, there have been plenty of influential people who have championed groups of people such as the poor. After spending a day engaged in such “championing”, these men would return to their homes to neglect and brutalize their friends and families. The most disgusting example brought to light in Intellectuals is Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Robespierre called Rousseau: “…the one man who, through the loftiness of his soul and the grandeur of his character, showed himself worthy of the role of teacher of mankind.” Meanwhile, Rousseau was dumping his newborn children on the steps of the State Orphanage. Given the conditions of the orphanage, he was knowingly abandoning them to an almost certain death. Rather than experiencing shame for his actions, he “formulated” a theory of education to be later embraced by totalitarian governments. His children were not “real people” to him. They were mere constructs to be used in his writings.

I recalled this chapter from Intellectuals while I was watching Stolen Honor because of one particular scene. It was a scene that features Joan Baez standing in front of American POW’s in Vietnam singing Joe Hill. I fast-forwarded to the scene multiple times in abhorrent disbelief.

Joan Baez is a woman who fancies herself to be committed to “nonviolence, peace, and the human dignity of all people.” One would assume that she is committed to these ideals because she cares about individual people. As far as I am concerned she failed the most important test of that assumption that she has or ever will face. She stood there singing an insipid song in her beautiful, angelic voice while confronted with real people who happened to be her own countrymen trapped in hellish circumstances that she was obliviously making worse. What was she thinking?! Was she thinking about the men themselves and what they were going through? Or, were these brave men merely cardboard characters populating the background of a personal drama starring herself as a gentle, loving, peaceful and righteous person. If this is any indication, the POWs plight did not seem to register with her. So here she was, seemingly unfazed in the presence of other human beings in obvious distress, who wouldn’t look her in the eye and who were in the hands of our enemy.

John Kerry obviously viewed his fellow serviceman in the same manner. He created his own little drama starring himself explaining to U.S. Senators, in round and melodic tones almost as pleasing as Joan Baez’s voice, how his fellow servicemen were akin to the barbarous armies of “Jingus” Khan. While purporting to be doing this on behalf of American Soldiers so that none of them would be the “last man to die for a mistake”, he caused immeasurable harm to real people experiencing the hell of combat and POW camps.

There is, I am sure, some psychological explanation for this failure to have real awareness of and empathy for actual human beings. The explanation is beyond me. I don’t really care to know. I simply want to have the ability to discern people like this and to prevent them from having any power over me.

This is one important reason explaining why I will vote for George Bush instead of John Kerry. I don’t care to be one of the characters in John Kerry’s self-aggrandizing drama about being President of the United States.

By: Sue Bob @ 7:40 pm in: Uncategorized | Discussion (2)

Stones-Cry-Out comments on this article by UCLA law professor, Eugene Volokh that is also linked by Instapundit. The article concerns the recent bill passed by the House of Representatives which would remove jurisdiction from Federal Courts regarding the Pledge of Allegiance: “No court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, the Pledge of Allegiance . . . or its recitation.” About that action and Professor Volokh’s criticisms of it, Rick at Stones-Cry-Out writes the following:

And perhaps the House’s action yesterday was not wise as
suggested by Volokh. But, I wish I could talk to that
professor one more time, if not to just gloat a bit. Well
maybe that’s wrong.

It’s an interesting Constitutional question and I’d like
to learn more. I’m curious if the Congress ever used Article
III, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution to check a Judicial
Branch that it felt was out of control? If so, I wonder what
circumstances lead to that action….

I’m no lawyer (yet), so I’m not in any place to argue whether
the House is right, or if Volokh is right. Regardless, I still
think it was a bold move by Congress. What say the Smart Guys?

One of Rick’s commentors answers that question via a history published by the Washington Times. Yes, Congress has used the Article to check the Judicial Branch.

This history is also discussed in the book, The Supremacists: The Tyranny Of Judges And How To Stop It by Phyllis Schlafly. I recently read this book and found it extremely informative and useful because it not only chronicles the rise of judicial activism, it also articulates a plan for combatting it. The book is clearly written for the lay person as opposed to the attorney. To me, this does not diminish the value of the book at all. In fact, it accomplishes one of what I believe should be a purpose of the blogosphere: the demystification of the legal system. It is my opinion that whereas lawyers should be preservers of representative government and individual liberty, we have instead become High Priests mystifying the “masses” with legalese and self-righteous pontifications in order to retain status and power (and the money that comes with same) As Ms. Schlafly (who is a lawyer) states in her book: “We must stop the judicial supremacists who have been systematically dismantling the architecture of our unique, three-branch constitutional republic and replacing it with an Imperial Judiciary. Since the legal community has a vested interest in the status quo, this task must be undertaken by grassroots Americans. (emphasis added) We must raise a mighty demand that Congress do its duty.”

Ms. Schlafly suggests ten steps to combat the “Imperial Judiciary”. One of the steps concerns the topic of this post, the legislation of exceptions to court jurisdiction. Professor Volohk does not dispute the position taken by Ms. Schlafly that Congress has the power to so limit jurisdiction. Rather, he debates the efficacy of doing so with respect to the “under God” phrase in the Pledge of allegiance. (I cannot discern whether he thinks “jurisdiction-stripping” is bad in all circumstances) It is his opinion that the law “might have the perverse effect of jeopardizing the “under God” rather than preserving it.” He reasons that state supreme courts may hold the phrase to be unconstitutional under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and that other state supreme courts may follow suit by relying on the precedents set by the former because “courts throughout the country tend to try to interpret the U.S. Constitution consistently with the decisions of other courts.” Thus, his conclusion is that the states would accomplish the outlawing of the words “under God” in the Pledge. He also believes that the U.S. Supreme Court will uphold the phrase and that recourse to the Court is the safer bet. I’d like to discuss both of those points and ask Professor Volohk a few questions.

I am not a constitutional lawyer (although I am a lawyer) like Professor Volohk, so I don’t know upon what evidence he bases his opinion that the states would follow each other in outlawing the phrase. It does sound reasonable on its face. However, I believe that if the Texas Supreme Court ever had the audacity to hold the phrase “under God” to be unconstitutional based on the opinion of say, the Californian Supreme Court or the Massachusetts Supreme Court, the Texas Justices would be “ridden out on a rail” the next day.

The Texas Justices are directly elected. Many jurist and lawyers are critical of the election of judges because it injects “politics” into the judiciary. Years ago, 60 Minutes actually did an expose on Texas Judges suggesting that the system is corrupt because of campaign contributions by Plaintiff’s Personal Injury Lawyers and/or Insurance Companies (in a follow up) I, personally, prefer the system of electing judges at the state level, regardless of the risk of money “corrupting” the system. I like the fact that the citizenry can get rid of a judge who is arrogant or corrupt or a rabid ideologue. In fact, who is more dangerous, a “Good ole Boy” who likes money, and therefore can be reasoned with, or an ideologue like Ruth Bader Ginsberg who has the bench for life and upon whom the general citizenry has little influence? I digress and this is a debate for another day.

Let’s get back to Professor Volohk’s argument that removing the courts’ jurisdiction regarding the Pledge of Allegiance may jeopardize the phrase “under God” because of the actions of state supreme courts. Phyllis Schafly addresses this issue of state supreme court activism in the context of the Defense of Marriage Act. She supports Congressional legislation preventing Court action on both the Pledge of Allegiance and on the Defense of Marriage Act. Acknowledging the actions of the Massachusetts’s Supreme Court with regard to same-sex-marriage, Ms. Schlafly admits that the DOMA will not prevent state supreme courts from allowing the issuance of same-sex-marriage licenses, “but it would mean that the federal government would not have to recognize those licenses and that the federal courts could not be used to force other states to recognize them.” (Page 125) She goes on to assert, “Massachusetts may yet figure out a way to deal with its own judicial supremacists.” Since the The Supremacists went to press, it appears that Massachusetts is working on doing just that.

So, I would pose the following question to Professor Volohk on this point: If state supreme courts do jeopardize the phrase “under God” with activist rulings, why can’t state legislatures rein in those courts with constitutional amendments and/or limitations on the jurisdiction of those courts?

Finally, Professor Volohk performs a risk/benefit analysis on this instance of jurisdiction-stripping. It is his conclusion that it is safer to leave this particular decision in the hands the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that “most commentators assume, based on the opinions and oral arguments in the earlier Pledge case, that if the Supreme Court faced the issue again (without the procedural problem that caused the Justices to dismiss the earlier case), they would uphold the words, rather than striking them down.” Again, I defer to Professor Volohk’s greater knowledge of these cases, the commentaries and of constitutional law in general.

However, I agree with Ms. Schlafly that it is imperative to directly confront and face down these Judicial Supremacists now. Federal Courts are more and more rapidly eroding our system of self-government by their decisions on the Pledge, marriage, taxation and other topics. Furthermore, I have more confidence than does Professor Volohk in the ability of the citizens of individual states to influence their own representative bodies and to stop the Judicial Supremacists on their own state courts. So, I would ask Professor Volohk: How would you battle Judicial Supremacy and on what issue would you begin the fight?

Limiting jurisdiction of Federal Courts is not unusual. I am a health care lawyer who represents long-term care providers such as nursing homes in actions that the State and Federal governments take against them. Although, actions by these governments can deprive my clients of property (money), their due process rights are abbreviated at the behest of Congress in return for allowing these providers to participate in the scheme. Therefore, they have very limited recourse to State or Federal courts in these disputes.

Because I believe that Judicial Supremacists are undermining our representative form of government, I have no problem with the concept of limiting jurisdiction of the courts–and I believe that doing so is constitutional. So, I say, why not start confronting them with “jurisdiction-stripping” of their ability to rule on the Pledge issue? Although I am not diminishing the importance of the words “under God”, isn’t this a better issue to begin with than marriage? Why not make this issue the “point man” before deploying the rest of the troops in the battle against the increasingly “Imperial” Judiciary?

By: Sue Bob @ 2:30 pm in: Uncategorized | Discussion (4)