Judge Samuel Alito - "Stealth Candidate"?

"Stealth Candidates", by Stephen Skellmeyer (The Fifth Column):

Judge Alito’s record has come forward with a lot more detail in a lot less time. Within just a few hours of his nomination, many people began to be concerned about his abortion decisions. In three cases out of four, he came down on the wrong side.

Two of my seven brothers and sisters are lawyers. As a result, I am not as concerned about these decisions as some have been. I am not saying there is no cause for concern, just that the reason for concern is not necessarily as clear-cut as one might think. . . .

It is an interesting post. I'm curious what others think.

Ailing GM Mirrors Ailing Democratic Party

I sit today in the Michigan birthplace of General Motors, the ailing mammoth corporation that teeters on the edge of bankruptcy due to saddling itself with bloated union benefits and with poor quality products. You have probably heard these past few days in the media the old saying "What is good for GM is good for the nation," a saying which goes back at least to the nineteen fifties. It used to be also said in so many words--back in the days of the Great Depression and World War II--that what was good for the Democratic Party of FDR and Truman was good for the nation. Those days are gone for both GM and the Democratic Party. The nation has embraced their competitors and left them behind.

Ailing GM mirrors the mortally ill Democratic Party. Both are held hostage by special interest groups whose patrons focus on extracting more and more benefits for their particular group regardless of the long-term effect on themselves and on the larger entity. Both are managed by comfortable elitists who are out of touch with the forces shaping the real world. Both are fearful of needed radical change in past ways of doing business. If ailing GM is a model of corporate sclerosis, then the Democratic Party is the analogue model of political sclerosis. The paternalistic, collective bargaining corporate model of GM is finished. So is the paternalistic, special interest patron-client model of the Democratic Party.

What does the sclerotic Democratic Party offer? Preserving the "right" of abortion on demand in nationwide court-imposed uniformity, advancing the agenda of gay activism, creating and expanding government programs to maintain inner city dependency and mediocrity, and, most evident in these past few weeks, freezing America into a new isolationism that surrenders the offensive in the war on terror to Islamic radicals. Out of the jaws of victory against Islamic radicalism in Iraq, the Democrats are determined to snatch defeat. In place of victory, the Democrats offer the nation more funds and programs for "first responders." In other words, the Democratic strategy on terror is to be ready for the next attack. The Bush strategy is to preempt the next attack by going to the source of this scourge in a Middle East too long dominated by bizarre, megalomaniac tyrants. A democratic Iraq is worth a million "first responders."

GM has taken much the same tack toward its foreign car-making competitors: don't take the offensive, just defend what you already have. That passivity is a recipe for failure. In many facets of life, most of us have learned that the path to success lies in taking the offensive continuously. For Christians, St. Paul remains the great model of success: always pushing forward to new frontiers, always finding a way around new obstacles and threats, always resourceful in the face of adversaries and competitors, a master tactician and strategist who never stood still. Those--like GM and the Democratic Party--who simply want to preserve their turf and become comfortable with mediocrity are a dead end. Most Americans are not interested in a dead end street.

Victim Mentality

One of the great cultural and psychological divides that we encounter in life is that between the victim mentality and the opportunity mentality. We have had in the past few months a flood of events manifesting the victim mentality in all its disillusionment. First, we had the real flood in New Orleans due to Katrina. There you saw the first of the great victim stories of the year: local and state officials failed to evacuate tens of thousands of the most vulnerable, plus you had others who could have evacuated but irrationally decided not to do so. And so when a natural catastrophe, a catastrophe that every New Orleanian expected sooner or later, finally struck, we got calls blaming the federal government--a sterling manifestation of the tiresome victim mentality. Then recently we had a Latin American summit in Argentina in which thousands demonstrated with placards bearing the image of the murderous Che Guevara and shouting antique leftist slogans. Again, the victim mentality: blame Uncle Sam for a dysfunctional culture and society (note that I speak as a Hispanic who is indeed proud of the best of his culture but refuses to engage in convenient denial). Finally, we had mostly Moslem gangs in scores of French cities and towns destroying their own neighborhoods. They are stuck in a stagnant society that does not accept them and instead of migrating to a better place or pursuing peaceful avenues, their solution is to hang around street corners waiting to burn cars at nightfall. Finally, closer to home, we just had the ever-shrinking city of Detroit re-elect as mayor a politician whose clownish style has further tarnished a deeply stricken city. Instead of making a new start, the voters irrationally kept the clown. My only guess for this act is that the majority of the voters thought all of Detroit's problems would be solved by someone else, not by the mayor. So no harm in keeping the same charlatan.

What we see in common in all of these situations is the engrained expectation--whether in New Orleans, Argentina, French ghettoes, or some post-industrial American cities--that someone else far away is responsible for their plight and that they and their local leaders, whether political, religious, or cultural, are certainly not to blame. And so they wait for someone else far away to solve their problems for them. No surprise: the problems continue unabated. Now, in New Orleans, the recovery is stalled in uncertainty and bickering because of the same lack of leadership that magnified the natural disaster from the very beginning. In Latin America, a new demagogue in Venezuela makes for a good show as poverty expands. In France, the dithering politicians literally have no idea of what to do. In Detroit, the prognosis is going from bad to worse, with a possible GM bankruptcy on the horizon.

The Christian response is different: Christ transforms the individual. The alcoholic stops drinking, the male impregnating women at will becomes responsible (so do the women), the drug user or compulsive gambler stops destroying himself and his family. Instead, the transformed Christian begins to think, to pray, to read and takes responsibility for himself and his family, instead of trusting in government rescue. He believes that God is ultimately in control and that God grants him opportunities for good if only the Christian has eyes to see those opportunites. He recognizes, as St. Paul commanded, that he who does not work, should not eat. He looks to serve, not to party non-stop or to exploit others or to burn and loot. With that transformation of the individual, families, neighborhoods, cities, and even nations also undergo eventual transformation. No longer victims: they are the blessed, even if poor or hungry. They are blessed and expect God to bless them each day. They become what they expect. And so the transformed Christian becomes the object of God's blessings and opportunities; while the victim, at best, waits and waits for some politician or party or government or radical to bail him out. The victim will wait for a very long time. But some prefer to wait, even when the kingdom is near.

The answer my friend is Blouin in the wind

Democrat Mike Blouin, known for his anti-abortion views, told The Associated Press that if he is elected governor, he will not support any new restrictions on abortion.

The abortion issue has taken on a higher profile in the 2006 Iowa gubernatorial campaign because of the recent nominations to the Supreme Court. President Bush's conservative nominees fueled speculation that the 1973 decision could be overturned.

"Regardless of the U.S. Supreme Court's future actions regarding Roe v. Wade, I would not sign any legislation to further restrict or expand access to abortion in Iowa," said Blouin, the state's former economic development director and a former congressman from eastern Iowa.

While Blouin said his beliefs are "at the very heart of who I am as a person, I also understand that our laws must be acceptable to and enforceable within society."

Among the five current Democrats seeking their party's gubernatorial nomination, Blouin was the only one to hold anti-abortion views. The others are pro-choice, though they have in the past supported minor restrictions.

This is just so tiring an mind-numbing. Exactly how would signing a bill put forward by the democratically elected legislature be not acceptable within society? Or that he is basically saying that he would veto any legislation the put restrictions on abortion be in any way in accord with "at the very heart of who I am as a person."

"I believe from the very core of my being in a culture of life - the dignity of all life," said Blouin.

But I will do nothing about protecting the dignity of life. But at least some people are pleased.

Judy Rutledge, of Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa, found Blouin's position interesting: "It might help some with the issue. I've never heard him make that statement before."

The reaction from anti-abortion forces was swift and predictable.

That's funny I thought the action from Planned Parenthood was swift and predictable. But then again what is wrong with predictability or swiftness in answering? Do we really expect pro-life groups to come out in favor of pro-abortion positions or for pro-abortion types to come out against abortion?

"As a Democrat and a Catholic, my position on this issue has been consistent throughout my life in public service," he said. [Source]

Faith without work is dead except I guess if you have a consistent position.

Sen. Lieberman Gets It Right on Iraq War

RealClearPolitics.com has the text of Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman's remarks today on the Iraq War at this link. Let's see if the rest of the Democratic Party takes the high road outlined by Sen. Lieberman or continues to undermine the troops in the field. America is watching to see if the Democrats can be trusted to fight the war on terror. So far, except for a few like Sen. Lieberman, the Democratic Party as a whole has miserably failed the test.

A very good sign

Alito rejected abortion as a right

Catholic Governor Fails to act like a Catholic AGAIN

This is nothing new with Gov Doyle. Just keeping track here in CPS.

Wisconsin Lawmakers Send Fetal Abortion Pain Bill to
Catholic[?] Governor Doyle

Madison, WI (LifeNews.com) -- Wisconsin lawmakers on Tuesday approved a measure that would require abortion practitioners to tell women considering an abortion after 20 weeks that it would cause her baby severe pain. Despite its approval, Governor Jim Doyle plans to veto the measure. Lawmakers passed Assembly Bill 321 by a 61-34 margin after intense debate. Under the measure, women would receive the fetal pain information and be allowed to have anesthesia administered to the baby before the abortion. Pro-life groups strongly supported the measure and hope it will persuade women to opt against an abortion. "Some of us want people to know so they think before they do something that they will regret for the rest of their life," said Republican Assembly Speaker John Gard, according to an Associated Press report. "I don't think it's too much to ask." Doyle, a pro-abortion Democrat, has previously vetoed a measure that would have banned all forms of human cloning. Doyle spokesman Dan Leistikow said the governor would veto this pro-life measure as well. Read the complete story.

Tim Kaine again

The more I hear about him the more I hope Tim Kaine loses next week.

Terri Schiavo's Estranged Husband Endorses Virginia Governor Candidate

Richmond, VA (LifeNews.com) -- He lives in Florida, but Terri Schiavo's estranged husband, the man who won approval from the courts to euthanize her last spring, has endorsed a candidate for governor in Virginia. Michael Schiavo wants Virginia residents to back Democrat Tim Kaine over Republican Jerry Kilgore next week.

Schiavo said he based his endorsement not on a meeting with either candidate. Instead, he made it based upon hearing their responses to a question in an October debate about whether they would intervene in familial disputes about lifesaving medical treatment, such as the legal battle he fought against Terri's family.

"I have seen firsthand what can happen when a governor disagrees with a single citizen," Schiavo said in a statement distributed by a Democratic political consulting firm.

"In Florida, Gov. Jeb Bush abused the power of his office in an attempt to replace my personal family decisions with his own opinions and political grandstanding," he added.

Governor Bush signed Terri's Law approved by the state legislature to authorize him to ask doctors to reinsert Terri's feeding tube and prevent the euthanasia death.

During the debate, Kilgore, who enjoys the backing of pro-life groups, said he would not "agree to the forced starvation of any individual if that individual hasn't had a say."

"I don't think governors should use their PR grandstanding to intervene in these cases," Kaine replied, according to an AP report. He said he supports the courts ending disputes like the one involving Terri.

Derek Newton, manager of the Miami-based November Group that released the statement told the Associated Press Michael wanted it released because he intends to get involved in politics.

"Michael issued the statement because he is interested in getting more involved in the political process," Newton said.

Neither campaign responded to requests for comment.

More on the Catholic Leadership Conference

From Deal Hudson's newletter, The Window:

Catholic Leaders Speak Out on Public Policy

Over 100 Catholic leaders from over 22 states, Canada, the Virgin Islands, and Austria, representing 60 organizations, unanimously endorsed statements on pro-life politicians, marriage, and internet pornography.

These leaders, meeting at the Catholic Leadership Conference in Phoenix on Oct 27-28, affirmed the obligation of Catholic voters to support pro-life candidates, oppose gay marriage, and seek better protection for our children against pornography on the internet.

The Catholic Leadership conference, now in its eighth year, meets annually to encourage cooperation among Catholic apostolates. Those attending included Karl Keating, president of Catholic Answers; Judie Brown, president of American Life League; Fr. Terence Henry, O.P., president of the Franciscan University of Steubenville, and Tom Monaghan, founder of Ave Maria University. Bishops Thomas J. Olmstead of Phoenix, Arizona and Robert F. Vasa of Baker, Oregon celebrated Mass for CLC members.

Meeting in Phoenix, the CLC issued these statements to assist and enable Catholic leaders faithful to the Magisterium to "go on the record in support of our Bishops and our Church in matters of public policy," said steering committee member Paul Henkels of Philadelphia, PA.

The "Statement on Political Action" was adopted unanimously after two days of discussion. Most of the debate centered on the "incrementalism" in political action. Coleen Parro, president of Republicans for Life, insisted that any mention of incrementalism should not be interpreted as an invitation to "compromise our principles." Thus the last sentence of the CLC statement reads, "The ultimate political goal for Catholics must be the achievement of public policies and laws that result in the legal protection of all innocent human life and that promote the dignity of each human person without exception and compromise"

The draft of the CLC marriage statement was written by well-known columnist Maggie Gallagher who is also president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy. (The final version will be released shortly.) The draft contains a pointed rejection of the homosexual marriage initiative that began last year when the Massachusetts Supreme Court ordered the Massachusetts legislature to legalize same-sex marriage. "Marriage is not a conservative or liberal idea, the plaything of passing ideologies. Marriage is a fundamental human idea, a universal human social institution that exists in virtually every known human society."

The discussion on internet pornography was led by Curtis Martin, president of FOCUS, a Denver-based apostolate to Catholic college students. The CLC statement urges parents to take charge of their children's access to the internet: "The Internet must be parented: parents have the duty and right to extend their parental influence over their children's Internet use."

Another panelist, Ken Ferguson, a former film producer for National Geographic, announced a new project that will provide technology to concerned parents who want to delete offensive scenes from all cable television stations (more on that story in a later Window).

As the conference ended, several conference attendees remarked to me that they hoped public statements by the CLC can help to offset the inaccurate portrayal of the Catholic Church so often found in the media. "The media needs to hear from Catholic leaders who support Church teaching so they will realize the Fr. Richard McBriens of the world cannot speak for the Church," said Paul Henkels.

Next year's Catholic Leadership Conference will be held Oct 25-26 in Denver, Colorado. For further information on CLC you can contact Liz Kenny clcconference@aol.com. And watch out for their new web site that will be announced in The Window.

Elections 2006

From Priests for Life Nov/Dec newsletter:

We are only a year away from critically important elections for the United States Senate, and other offices, that impact the abortion battle. Pro-abortion forces have lost more and more elections in the last several cycles. Next year will be no different, provided we all do our part.

All issues that impact human life are critically important. But that is not to say they are all equal. Pope John Paul II wrote the following in his 1988 apostolic exhortation, The Vocation and the Mission of the Lay Faithful in the Church and in the World (Christifideles Laici): "The common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights -- for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture -- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition of all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination" (n. 38).

Many in the Church ignore these words and continue to claim that the linkage of all the issues means the equality of all the issues. But linkage is not equality; it is linkage. The right to education depends upon the right to life. If you take the right to education away, the person is still alive. If you take the right to life away, both are gone: the person is no longer alive, and can no longer be educated. The same is true of rights to health care, housing, voting, employment, wages, a clean environment -- and, in fact, everything else.

Life itself is the foundation.

No public official who fails to protect the right to life belongs in public office. This is a message we will echo and re-echo throughout the coming year, and we urge you to do the same.

Fr. Neuhaus on Judge Alito

Fr. Richard J. Neuhaus weighs in on the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court (First Things "On The Square" Nov. 2, 2005):

I’ve been telling reporters who call that a Catholic judge is obliged to rule according to the Constitution, not the teachings of the Church. At least one reader is distressed by my reported statement that a Catholic judge who ruled on the basis of the Church’s teaching would be violating the Church’s teaching. Did I really say that? And, if so, how do I square that with the argument that religion should not be excluded from law and public life?

Yes, I said that, and it squares quite nicely. A judge is solemnly pledged to uphold the Constitution. With very few exceptions, this comes down to determining whether a specific law is constitutional. The judge’s moral duty—whether he be Catholic, Protestant, or atheist—is to make that determination honestly, conscientiously, and in light of the facts of the case before him. No matter how restrained and modest may be a judge’s understanding of his task, there are instances when moral judgment comes into play. His decision will then be influenced by natural law, which is not a peculiarly Catholic doctrine. The Catholic Church has been a defender of natural law, but an understanding of natural law is firmly grounded in the American founding, and therefore part of the original understanding of the Constitution. It is, for example, a matter of natural justice, and not a peculiar teaching of the Catholic Church, that it is always wrong deliberately to kill an innocent human being.

We have four Catholic justices, and may soon have five. They are justices not because they are Catholic but because they are—with the exception of Kennedy—originalists. They know they are not legislators. Legislators are free to bring any consideration they wish—philosophical, theological, ideological, whatever—to bear on their decisions. Judges are not. The vigorous reassertion of this understanding holds high promise for remedying the judicial usurpation of politics.

Democrat Chaos

Sometimes you just can't help but give a straightforward political analysis, although I try to approach issues primarily from a specifically Catholic perspective. But, Catholics, like the classical humanists, can truly say that "nothing human is alien to me." Catholics are literally "catholic" in our interests. So here is my political analysis of the Democrat chaos that resulted in yesterday's invocation of a little-used parliamentary rule to force the U.S. Senate into a closed session so Democrats could literally shout more about the Iraq War.

1.) Does this surprise invocation of a rarely used Senate rule mean the Democrats see no filibuster against Alito? If there is any logic to Democratic thinking, you would think that this move signals that they won't filibuster Alito. Here's why. If they filibuster Alito, the Republicans will then invoke their own controversial Senate parliamentary procedure to put an end to the filibuster--it's called the "nuclear option." By playing the hardball parliamentary tactic yesterday, the Democrats have given the Republicans the perfect cover and incentive to ending any Alito filibuster with the so-called "nuclear option" that cuts off any filibuster by majority vote.

2.) The entire Democratic strategy on display yesterday is based on the false idea that the administration lied or manipulated information unethically to facilitate the Iraq War. There is no evidence of that at all. It is undeniable that all the major intelligence agencies here and abroad believed that Saddam Hussein had WMD before the Iraq War. But paranoid conspiracy theorists--in other words, the Democrats--are unpersuadable. Today's Los Angeles Times has a commentary that once again points out that the Democrats are in fantasy land, just like the famed Ambassador Wilson of the CIA leak case. The analysis in the L.A. Times commentary dovetails with my Oct. 29th post in Catholic Analysis on the prosecutorial abuse of discretion by the special counsel who prosecutes allegedly false but in reality immaterial statements in an admittedly non-criminal context.

Samuel Alito: "A Penance Well Served"

Sometimes you can test the merit of a political candidate by the ranting of the opposition -- in this case, note the reaction of MoveOn.Org:

. . . This morning, with his administration growing weaker by the day, President Bush caved to pressure from the radical fringe of the Republican Party and nominated Samuel Alito to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. Alito is a notoriously right-wing judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. He has consistently ruled to strip basic protections from workers, women, minorities and the disabled in favor of unchecked power for corporations and special interests. . . .

With one stroke, President Bush reunites his conservative base and has liberal pundits frothing at the mouth. Here's a roundup of further reaction from both sides of the political spectrum:

• It's Samuel Alito! - As expected, Michelle Malkin provides a good roundup of blogwide reaction to the nomination.

• Stephen Dillard sings for joy (literally) at the nomination of Alito.

• The Democrats are already circulating some Atolito talking points that Chris Matthews -- in a rare moment of journalistic honesty -- calls "a pretty disgusting document".

• Notice anything different about THIS nomination? - Matthew Heidt (Froggy Ruminations compiles the reactions of the Dems, adding:

  Slick move of the day goes to the President for having nominated a candidate from the home state and judicial circuit of Judicial Committee Chairman Specter. This puts the squishy pro-abortion Republican in the position of having to consider the ramifications of punching out a fellow Pennsylvanian while attempting to reconcile that conflict with his fawning NARAL buddies. Touche', Mr. President!

  (Barenucklepolitics.com also charts the demonizing of Alito by liberal bloggers).

• Ed Brayton (In the Agora) has some good advice:

  I'm sure more will come out on Alito over the next couple weeks. I make the same caution I made with Roberts, which is that you should not believe anything an interest group on either side says about his rulings or writings without looking it up for yourself. Court rulings often involve very narrow technical grounds which are easy to distort and make it sound as though the judge just wantonly came out against good and for evil.

• On a similar note, from Powerline:

  Judge Sam Alito has served on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals for 15 years, so he has an extensive record as an appellate judge. This distinguishes him not only from Harriet Miers, but also from John Roberts, whose brief tenure on the Court of Appeals produced only a handful of opinions. Over the coming weeks, Alito's many published opinions will be fodder for endless speculation as to how he might rule on various issues as a Supreme Court justice. So I thought it might be helpful for our non-lawyer readers to say a few words about the context in which discussion of Alito's judicial record will take place. . . .

• Pejman Yousefzadeh @ RedState.Org calls President Bush's choice The Anti-Miers:

  Judge Samuel Alito is everything that Harriet Miers is not. He brings extensive judicial experience--the most of any Supreme Court nominee in nearly 70 years--to the table. He has a clearly developed sense and theory of jurisprudence and Constitutional interpretation. Both Alito and Miers are intelligent but Alito is steeped in the work and skill sets that a Supreme Court Justice needs to bring to his/her work. He is an outstanding nominee and conservatives who were dismayed and outraged over the Miers nomination are and should be delighted over the Alito nomination in equal proportion.

  Of course, it is clear that a fight will be waged over this nomination. This fight should be welcomed . . .

  And describes the sometimes painful cost of Originalism, Strict Constructionism And Intellectual Honesty, as typified in one of Alito's decisions.

• A Catholic Majority on the Supreme Court? -- questions of history and assimilation at David Bernstein's The Volokh Conspiracy.

• No longer calling for Bush's head, Mark Shea is sated, and The Weekly Standard, conveying the sentiments of thousands, says "That's More Like It!"
  

• Go In Peace Mr. President, Your Sin Has Been Forgiven - Greg Mockeridge at Cooperatores Veritatis applauds the President's humility before correction. A good penance, indeed.

• Finally, to close on a note of amusement, Stephen Dillard @ Southern Appeal explains "Top ten changes a Catholic Majority would make to the Supreme Court".