All right, for all you anxiously awaiting my response to Alito’s nomination, here it is: WOOOOHOOOO!!! Bush came through on his campaign promises. He remembered who put him in the position of nominating SCOTUS justices. He may really step in it from time to time, but he really knows how to recover.

As for some of the reaction, let’s look at what was said by that soft-spoken, soft-headed Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.):

"The nomination of Judge Alito requires an especially long, hard look by the Senate because of what happened last week to Harriet Miers. Conservative activists forced Miers to withdraw from consideration for this same Supreme Court seat because she was not radical enough for them. Now the Senate needs to find out if the man replacing Miers is too radical for the American people."

Here’s a question Harry: If she is so weak willed that she cannot withstand harsh scrutiny by us crazy right-wing Christian conservative zealots, according to your inane words above, during a relatively short confirmation process, what makes you thing that she has the moral fortitude to rightly divide out justice for Americans for the rest of her life on the highest court in the land? Oh wait, maybe you wanted someone who was that weak willed. Maybe you wanted someone that the liberal justices could lead down their primrose path. Sorry to disappoint ya, bud. Now you know how I feel since I have been disappointed in you as long as I have had an awareness of who you are.

After hearing some of my congregation attended a revival service last night (not skipped church  ) in which it is reported that the speaker clearly preached heresy (that means preaching lies about God), it does my heart good that the folks who went were able to recognize–and reject–that! I am very thankful that my friends are so familiar with the genuine that they can spot the counterfeit. I am not claiming credit for this. These folks have had good parents and good pastors before I ever entered the scene. But exposing the true and real so that no one will be duped by the false has been and continues to be my aim when I am in the pulpit. I am so glad to know these folks, and I am glad to know that they, like the Bereans, tested what they heard by the Word of God. Way to go, folks! You make my little heart proud.

What great news we got this morning! First, let me say that I am ecstatic that Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination–apparently following the Krauthammer exit strategy to the letter.

Second, l wish to state my admiration for Harriet Miers. She is, no doubt, a wonderful Christian woman. That I believe being a wonderful Christian woman, by itself, does not qualify a person to sit on the Supreme Court is not an insult. I know lots of wonderful, Christian persons…who are not qualified to be on SCOTUS. Heck, I am a [wonderful?] Chrstian person, and I am not qualified. But, as the wonderful person she is, she took one for the team. Looking out at the political landscape, she became aware that her nomination was causing great damage to her side of the camp, so she withdrew. Not a bad judgment; not bad at all. Thanks, Harriet. We all owe you one.

Lastly, Mr. Bush, we all understand you are human and can make a mistake. Please, sir, do better next time.

Any and all movie reviewers who said Elizabethtown was no good are morons. This completes my statement.

I usually don’t need any help looking like an idiot, but I got some yesterday.

I rarely use the post office anymore. We have the ability to print our own postage, so I usually do it at home. I do this mainly because the workers at our post office are so rude–you know, reinforcing the typical federal employee stereotype and everything. There are a couple great folks there, but there are a couple of real doozies. Another reason we print our postage at home is that we mail such large numbers of items at a time that I really hate to have to stand at the counter and take up so much time while others are waiting. However, yesterday, I had to send a couple certified letters, and I didn’t have the forms at home to use with online postage, so I just ran by the P.O.

I hit the P.O. about 3 PM, and true to form, only two of the five windows were open, and there was a line of victims customers a mile long. I grabbed my certified mail forms and used the counter at the back of the line to begin filling them out. In comes a lady and just walks past me to cut in line. I just grabbed my forms, walked around the lady, and continued to fill them out. The lady just kind of looked around at the long line and left.

As I continued with my forms, I could see out of the corner of my eye another person come in and walk behind me. The person also walked past me and cut in line then said, "Is this the end of the line?" Without even looking over, I began to say, "Actually, I’m the end of the line." I turned to look over in mid-sentence and saw that this was an elderly lady walking with a cane. I added that she could keep my place. She said she would give me back my spot, and before I could insist she keep it, she walked past me to the back of the line. Then, a guy two spots ahead of us told her she could go ahead of him, while glaring at me like I was a total loser. I have to be honest, that kind of made me mad. And, honestly, I wanted to tell the guy that he was welcome to let anyone he wanted in line if he wanted to take their space at the end of the line, but rather than cause a scene and act as a jerk (rather than just be thought one), I didn’t say anything, though I could feel the wrath of everyone in line. Not to be outdone by Mr. Nice Guy, another gentleman at the head of the line offered the lady his place, which she took (again without Mr. Nicer Guy going to the back of the line). Well, the lady really emphasized her dependence on the cane as she took her place at the head of the line. To make things as embarrassing as possible to me, her daughter (or whoever was with her) went to both Mr. Nice Guy and Mr. Nicer Guy and loudly thanked them for giving up their places (which they didn’t really do because the just let her cut in front of them).

Within a couple moments, the lady was called to a window for help. On her walk to the window, I noticed that she seemed much steadier on her feet than before. Once there, she bought 100 stamps, which we all know are $37.00. At this time, she procedes to dig in her purse for her checkbook and a pen and meticulously write out her check, asking several times how much it was. Once done, she took her stamps and headed for the door.

So, my question for you all is this: Am I a total insensitive jerk?

Would it make a difference if I told you that I have given up my space in numerous grocery and other lines over the years, and in fact would have given up my space this time had she not just assumed should could take my space because she wanted it?

Further, am I even more evil because I think Mr. Nice Guy and Mr. Nicer Guy should have gone to the back of the line when they gave her their places? I would appreciate your comments.

Oh by the way, there is one more tidbit of info that might help to inform your opinion. Once she paid for her stamps and left, she left her previously much-needed cane hanging off the edge of the postal counter. Somehow she managed to make it out to her daughter’s car un-aided. I wonder how that could have happened? The daughter eventually came back in to retrieve the essential device.

Peggy Noonan deftly points out the error of the White House attacking us conservatives:

It was the ignorant verbal lurch of a K Street behemoth [lobbyists] who has perhaps forgotten that conservatives are not merely a bloc, a part of the base, a group that must be handled, but individuals who are and have been in it for serious reasons, for the long haul, and often at considerable sacrifice. They don’t deserve to be patronized by people they’ve long strained to defend.  (Emphasis added)

Withdraw This Nominee

By choosing a nominee suggested by Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid and well known only to himself, the president has ducked a fight on the most important domestic question dividing liberals from conservatives: the principles by which one should read and interpret the Constitution. For a presidency marked by a courageous willingness to think and do big things, this nomination is a sorry retreat into smallness.

One thing that seems to have greatly perplexed the media this last week is that conservatives are going both ways on the Miers nomination. They cannot fathom that some conservatives dare to disagree with President Bush. Or that some evangelicals disagree with James Dobson. And it goes on and on. You see, honest debate is something that is neither recognized or valued on the left. Liberals (read Democrats) flock together, no matter what. No matter how insane everyone knows the latest comment from Ted Kennedy or Howard Dean or Charlie Rangel is, liberals cannot find it in themselves to say it and repudiate the speaker. They glad hand and "good-ole-boy" one another to a fault.

When it comes down to it, Americans appreciate honesty. They appreciate genuineness more than party identity. I think that is why Americans are patently conservative, even if not Republican. And I am a Republican only because it purports to be the modern home of conservatives. However, that is in danger if we on the right adopt the Kool-Aid-drinking mindset of the left. I do not have to support President Bush’s pick for the SCOTUS if it offends my values and beliefs. I do not have to take one for the team. Those of us conservatives who are opposed to the Miers selection should continue to have a place at the table. After all, it is us who gave Dubya the table in the first place. Yet, he continues to neglect and belittle our efforts.

You may know that I am a Peggy Noonan fan. Her latest column is perfect…until the end. In it she points out that Bush could have made a selection that would have unified the conservatives:

A fractious and sparring base would have come together arm in arm to fight for something all believe in: the beginning of the end of command-and-control liberalism on the U.S. Supreme Court. Senate Democrats, forced to confront a serious and principled conservative of known stature, would have damaged themselves in the fight. If in the end President Bush lost, he’d lose while advancing a cause that is right and doing serious damage to the other side. Then he could come back to win with the next nominee. And if he won he’d have won, rousing his base and reminding them why they’re Republicans.

But, again, Bush appears as if he is not equal to the task. Whoever is advising him here (are you listeing Karl?) is advising amiss.

Noonan goes on with her observation about the supposed reluctance on the part of the right to fall in line with Bush’s pick:

The headline lately is that conservatives are stiffing the president. They’re in uproar over Ms. Miers, in rebellion over spending, critical over cronyism. But the real story continues to be that the president feels so free to stiff conservatives. The White House is not full of stupid people. They knew conservatives would be disappointed that the president chose his lawyer for the high court. They knew conservatives would eventually awaken over spending. They knew someone would tag them on putting friends in high places. They knew conservatives would not like the big-government impulses revealed in the response to Hurricane Katrina. The headline is not that this White House endlessly bows to the right but that it is not at all afraid of the right. Why? This strikes me as the most interesting question.

Here are some maybes. Maybe the president has simply concluded he has no more elections to face and no longer needs his own troops to wage the ground war and contribute money. Maybe with no more elections to face he’s indulging a desire to show them who’s boss. Maybe he has concluded he has a deep and unwavering strain of support within the party that, come what may, will stick with him no matter what. Maybe he isn’t all that conservative a fellow, or at least all that conservative in the old, usual ways, and has been waiting for someone to notice. Maybe he has decided the era of hoping for small government is over. Maybe he is a big-government Republican who has a shrewder and more deeply informed sense of the right than his father did, but who ultimately sees the right not as a thing he is of but a thing he must appease, defy, please or manipulate. Maybe after five years he is fully revealing himself. Maybe he is unveiling a new path that he has not fully articulated–he’ll call the shots from his gut and leave the commentary to the eggheads. Maybe he’s totally blowing it with his base, and in so doing endangering the present meaning and future prospects of his party.

Some great insights by Peggy, until she concludes:

I find myself lately not passionately supporting or opposing any particular nominee. But I’d give a great deal to see Supreme Court justices term-limited. They should be picked not for life but for a specific term of specific length, and then be released back into the community. This would involve amending the Constitution.

And there we differ. The wisdom that exuded from the Founders and their careful crafting of our foundational documents is nothing short of God-given. If there is any real tragedy in America is is that the Constitution has been amended too much. I am not talking about human rights issues. The Bill of Rights is essential and added by those same Founders. If it had been properly applied to all men, many later amendments would not have been necessary. But the amendments we don’t need are things like prohibitian of alcohol (as evidenced by its repeal), direct election of US Senators, the income tax, etc. The Founders crafted a government that was perpetually sustainable by a series of checks and balances. And so, if we want the Judiciary to behave, the answer is not term limits. The Founders rightly recognized that elected Supreme Court Justices would politicize the court. As bad as we may think it is now, a more political temporary court would be abysmal. Very simply, we should employ the Constitutional check on its power.

I was going to go on with more about this, but I think I will stop. I will give $10 to the first commenter who correctly posts what the constitutional check on the Judiciary’s power is. After that, I will post more.

See ya.

Republican Senators Should Not Rally Around Their President

Pat has a particularly astute column. Exerpts:

That she is a woman, a good lawyer, a trusted friend of the Bush family, a born-again Republican and Evangelical Christian is not enough.  That Dr. James Dobson has been secretly assured by Karl Rove she is pro-life is not enough.  After all, we have a president who professes to be “pro-life,” yet cannot bring himself to say that Roe v. Wade was an abomination he hopes will go the way of Dred Scott.

***

Yet now we are told by the White House Harriet Miers is an ideal candidate because she “has no paper trial.”  But what does that mean, other than that Miers has never declared herself with courage and conviction on any of the great issues from 1965 to 2005.

***

There are today third-generation conservatives who have bravely defended their beliefs in hostile law schools, clerked for Supreme Court justices, paid their dues in the White House or the Department of Justice, joined the Federalist Society, advanced by excellence and merit to federal judgeships.  The message of the Miers appointment to this generation is: You made a mistake.  You left a “paper trail.”  Is this the message we want to send to the next generation: Don’t let anybody know where you stand on gay rights, affirmative action, or Roe v. Wade?