Here are a few highlights:

That we are discussing the next Supreme Court justice in terms of group “representation” is a sign of how far we have already strayed from the purpose of law and the weighty responsibility of appointing someone to sit for life on the highest court in the land.

That President Obama has made “empathy” with certain groups one of his criteria for choosing a Supreme Court nominee is a dangerous sign of how much further the Supreme Court may be pushed away from the rule of law and toward even more arbitrary judicial edicts to advance the agenda of the left and set it in legal concrete, immune from the democratic process.

And what about that notion that justice should be blind?

Would you want to go into court to appear before a judge with “empathy” for groups A, B and C, if you were a member of groups X, Y or Z? Nothing could be further from the rule of law. That would be bad news, even in a traffic court, much less in a court that has the last word on your rights under the Constitution of the United States.

Appoint enough Supreme Court justices with “empathy” for particular groups and you would have, for all practical purposes, repealed the 14th Amendment, which guarantees “equal protection of the laws” for all Americans.

We would have entered a strange new world, where everybody is equal but some are more equal than others. The very idea of the rule of law would become meaningless when it is replaced by the empathies of judges.

But why is it that people like me are so concerned?

In the American system of government, presidential term limits restrict how long any given resident of the White House can damage this country directly. But that does not limit how long, or how much, the people he appoints to the Supreme Court can continue to damage this country, for decades after the president who appointed them is long gone.

Justice John Paul Stevens virtually destroyed the Constitution’s restrictions on government officials’ ability to confiscate private property in his 2005 decision in the case of “Kelo v. New London”– 30 years after President Ford appointed him.

The solution to institutional discrimination is not discrimination in the other direction. Fairness and justice are not served when a pendulum of empathy swings from side to side. While President Obama tries to rip the blindfold off Lady Justice, the people should demand it be tightened ever more.

I had predicted a Supreme Court vacancy early in Obama’s term, but I was a bit surprised to see Souter go. It is highly likely that President Obama will get to appoint at least three Supreme Court Justices, who—depending on age—could affect the Court for the next 30-40 years. These are the spoils afforded the victor, and Republicans had better get the message that it is happening because they squandered their opportunities to govern as conservatives. The consequences always come.

Finally, though I prefer our system of government to all others on Earth, I am all the more thankful that in the coming Court of Judgment we will all be treated the same and that the Judge is Justice Himself.

Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy.

“Beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow.”
-Aesop

Barack Obama is our president-elect. As such, he has my respect, my prayers, and my hopes for leadership that is best for America. That said, his victory does not chage who he is. While many have been afraid of what Obama secretly is (you know all those emails about him secretly being a Muslim and/or the Anti-Christ), my concern is with what Mr. Obama overtly is. He is on the record saying things that I find repugnant. I, for one, will not be surprised when he begins to institute these policies.

I refuse to be a sore loser, and I certainly will not spew the venom toward Mr. Obama that many have directed toward President Bush. I will, however, remain conservative, and I will fight to have my ideals represented.

In other news, let’s remember well what got us here. My party has forsaken its core ideals. We have allowed power and money to corrupt our small-government, low-tax, freedom and liberty, good and clean government positions. Frankly, being in the minority is often good for my party in that it helps us refocus.

And as long as we’re being honest here, though I voted for the man, I am somewhat relieved that I don’t have to suffer through a moderate John McCain presidency. This election is what happens when we run a dud. Our primary process should be reformed to the point that a man or woman who truly represents the ideals of the party can rise to the nomination. I have my eyes open for an emerging star in our party over the next four years. Will it be Sarah Palin? We’ll see. As far as I am concerned, she is now the leader of our party.

And so, to President-Elect Obama and his supporters, I congratulate you on tonight’s win. Mr. Obama has made some big claims and promises, so let’s see him make good. I wish him well. Unlike the liberals, I cannot wish harm to my country so that we have good position for the next election.

Supreme Court vacancy announcement in 3, 2, 1…

“We elect our Presidents, be they Republican or Democrat, then start daring ‘em to make good.”
-Will Rogers

Update: Nothing so advances the cause of conservatism like a few years of liberalism in action.

And rest assured, no one knows what will happen tomorrow—no one. I have overheard conversations lately wherein I hear people who have yet to make up their mind. I tend to think that most of those who have not yet decided (for Obama) will cast their vote for McCain (Palin).

McCain/Palin will get my vote. Not because I am thrilled at McCain’s conservative credentials or because I am convinced he is walking excellence. Like many, I will vote for McCain because he’s not Obama…and because he had the good sense to choose Palin.

There will be record turn-out tomorrow; relatively huge numbers of Americans will show up to vote. Incumbents and challengers alike will see their careers end. Incumbents and challengers alike will be thrust into power. The sheer number of voters has the capacity to make a mockery of all the polls leading up to the Poll. Possibilities: a squeaker or a landslide for either ticket. Who knows? Only time will tell.

But, as we prepare to vote for the man we will both revere and torture for the next four years, let’s consider what’s at stake.

Appointment Power
The President of the United States has, inherent to his position, the right to appoint a couple thousand positions. From his cabinet to obscure agencies, bureaus, and departments, with the stroke of a pen, the next president will replace the remains of the Bush administration with his people. Chief among the president’s appointments are Supreme Court justices. With the age of John Paul Stevens (88) and the poor health of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the two most liberal justices on the Court, it is very likely that we will see one or both of these individuals depart the Court in the next president’s term.

Predictions

If Obama wins, one of these justices announces his or her pending retirement before Obama is sworn in. Having a large Democrat majority in the Senate, Obama nominates someone truly scary to the Court—maybe even Bill or Hillary Clinton—and they will be confirmed. Shortly after the first confirmation, the other justice (of Stevens and Ginsburg) announces his or her retirement. The reasons for this are that it puts the choice of their replacements in a liberal president’s hands with confirmation by a liberal-controlled Senate.

If McCain wins, we’ll still see probably at least one departure and maybe two, though the second will probably depend on what they think of President McCain’s first selection. One will come in the first two years of the administration so as to have McCain’s promise of originalist justices tempered by the Democrat-controlled Senate. If the Senate succeeds in hampering McCain’s promise, the second vacancy will likely occur.

These two possible vacancies represent the first opportunity to shift the philosophy of the Supreme Court into the decidedly conservative, originalist realm in a good long time, and will likely not be repeated for a generation. If McCain is elected, there exists an opportunity to shift solidly liberal seats into the conservative, originalist (anti-judicial activism) column. If Obama is elected, these two seats remain unchanged philosophically for a long, long time. Obama’s election to the presidency will undo the many years of hard work by pro-lifers. It will be akin to a marathon runner tripping 10 yards from the finish line.

The Economy, Stupid
Any increase of taxes (even on those evil rich mean people who make $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $120,000 $42,000 a year) is utter stupidity—especially in economically trying times. Just ask Herbert Hoover. People may not believe in trickle-down Reaganomics, but they sure have enjoyed its playing out since the 1980s. Prosperity trickles down (you know, John Kennedy’s rising tide lifts all boats thing), but misery rolls down hill. Enjoy these days of low interest rates and low unemployment because Jimmy Carter’s misery index will look like the good ole days if President Obama and the liberal-controlled Congress begin to do what that have been slavering over: cutting defense spending, raising taxes, increasing entitlements, and federalizing everything from health care to tire pressure.

The War on Terror
We must have the will to win this war. I have had my share of disappointments with President Bush, but we must also give credit where credit is due. The man has protected this nation since we were hit by terrorists on 9/11. And while we’re giving credit where credit is due, let’s remember that, while many are longingly remembering the good ole Clinton days, 9/11 happened because President Clinton ignored the threat posed by radical Islam. That said, I am not one of those who can look back at the decision to liberate Iraq and mis-remember my position at the time. I was all for our going in. Collin Powell gave many reasons for our actions (more than just WMD (which, by the way, we have discovered)), and I was convinced then and remain convinced today that going into Iraq was the right thing to do. President Bush has had the will to do what he thought was right even if it made him unpopular. Neither of his presidential opponents would have. So, I thank him for what he did. My disappointments with President Bush have been on matters secondary to the war.

As for how our options in this election will handle the war, McCain wants to leave Iraq in victory and Obama wants to leave Iraq in a hurry. I’ve been amused by Democrats’ calls to send the military in anywhere in the world to ease pain, suffering, and genocide…except Iraq. If we want to win the war on terror, McCain’s the choice.

Other Random Predictions

• The mid-term elections in 2010 go massively to genuinely conservative Republicans.
• All kinds of things we should have been privy to about Barack Obama are made public if he wins the presidency and everyone decides they made a huge mistake. He is a one-termer.

Final Thoughts
Because of their positions on the above-stated issues, I have a sincere hope to see John McCain and Sarah Palin win tomorrow. They might; they might not.

Thomas Jefferson said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” In the same sense, the cause of conservatism must be refreshed from time to time by defeat when those who take the moniker of Conservative forsake its ideals. Frankly, if the Republican Party is going to be the conservative party, it had better learn to govern conservatively. That means low and fair taxes, limited and restrained government, judicial restraint and originalism, increased liberty, freedom, and personal responsibility, and a respect for natural law. Inasmuch as Republicans choose not to be conservatives, they deserve to be defeated and replaced with persons committed to conservative ideals and with the backbone to believe them, live them, teach them, and fight for them. I don’t ever want to vote for a candidate who tells me how well they can negotiate with the other party. I want candidates who are committed to defeating the tired, old, failed philosophy of the other party.

We’ll see how this election goes.

What we do know is this: Jesus Christ is King of Kings and Lord of Lords regardless of who resides on Pennsylvania Avenue in the Capitol City. Christianity flourished under Nero, and it can flourish under the worst the world can throw at us now. To be brutally honest, a little persecution can sometimes be good for genuine faith. As Christian citizens, we can never give up the fight for influence in the political realm, but we must recommit ourselves to the personal salvation of lost souls. When God changes hearts, He changes motives and ideals. People with changed hearts, motives, and ideals tend to elect better representatives. We look forward to the Government of Christ, of which there will be no end. And we’re thankful that there will always be an end to the government we elect here below.

…an issue McCain has asked me to help his campaign with — the federal judiciary — is one that disturbs voters to the point of having enormous electoral possibilities. The federal judiciary is the Democratic Party’s vehicle of choice to enact policies that could never see the light of day if they were required to go through the democratic process. And that party now talks about electing a supermajority in the Congress that, along with the most liberal president in our lifetime, would allow them to change the face of America without enacting one piece of legislation — a change that would take us a generation to rectify, if we ever could.

McCain has chosen to make this issue a priority because he thinks the public worries about a Supreme Court lost to liberalism for our lifetime, and that it cares about the appointment of federal judges who will follow the law and the Constitution and not remake it along the lines of their own policy preferences. (emphasis added)

I’m thrilled that Fred! is aiding the McCain campaign (and McCain administration) with this huge task. The judiciary is one of the highest ranking issues in this election. President Bush has done an excellent job with his Supreme Court nominees, with the exception of the Harriet Myers fiasco. He recovered well, and we got an excellent Justice out of it.

The appointment power of the president cannot be misunderestimated. With a closely divided Court, the next President can make an extremely long-term impact on the nation and the world (not to mention the impact other federal courts nominees will have). Very little from a president’s term lives on as a legacy with as much permanence as his or her Supreme Court picks. The Court is currently composed of some good, mediocre, and awful Justices.The current roster (and who nominated them).

• C. J. John Roberts (G. W. Bush)
• J. John Paul Stevens (Ford)
• J. Antonin Scalia (Reagan)
• J. Anthony Kennedy (Reagan)
• J. David Souter (G. H. W. Bush)
• J. Clarence Thomas (G. H. W. Bush)
• J. Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Clinton)
• J. Stephen Breyer (Clinton)
• J. Samuel Alito (G. W. Bush)

Those appointed by Democrats – Ginsburg and Breyer, both by Clinton – have been disasters. Some appointed by Republican presidents – Stevens, Kennedy, Souter – have been huge disappointments, too. Great justices – Scalia, Thomas, Alito – were all appointed by Republicans. In sum: you’re guaranteed a disaster with Democrat picks or you take a gamble with a Republican pick. The next president will likely get to choose two justices. Stevens is 88. Ginsburg is not well. Those are two of the most liberal justices the Court has ever seen. I cannot hand the choice of their successors to B. Obama. I trust McCain to make better choices, and if Palin succeeds him, we’re really set!

(In closing, I also note that it’s convenient for some of us that our own policy preferences line up with the law and Constitution – see Fred’s last paragraph above.)

The best way to get a feel for the errors made in a decision by the liberal half of the court is the read Scalia’s dissent. It proves helpful today, too. You can read it here (scroll way down, begins on page 110). For now, I give you just his conclusion:

The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today. I dissent.

The plurality opinion of the Court (7-2) ruled that lethal injection is allowable. Ginsburg and Souter filed a dissenting opinion.

Anyway, the ruling clears the way for states — including Oklahoma — who use lethal injection to get back to processing death row inmates and scheduling executions. I previously commented on this issue when Oklahoma AG Drew Edmondson ordered a halt to executions pending the Supremes’ decision.

I pointed out then as I do now that Oklahoma law specifically states two failsafe options in case lethal injection is ruled cruel and unusual punishment (see my previous post, linked above).

First, we revert to electrocution. If electrocution is cruel and unusual, we revert to firing squad. These are both moot points now, though, as lethal injection gets the nod from the Court.

As for the decision of the Court, as usual, the best, most well-reasoned, and originalist analysis of the case at hand comes from the concurring opinion of Justices Thomas and Scalia:

JUSTICE THOMAS, joined by JUSTICE SCALIA, concluded that the plurality’s
formulation of the governing standard finds no support in the
original understanding of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments
Clause or in this Court’s previous method-of-execution cases; casts
constitutional doubt on long-accepted methods of execution; and injects
the Court into matters it has no institutional capacity to resolve.
The historical practices leading to the Clause’s inclusion in the Bill of
Rights, the views of early commentators on the Constitution, and this
Court’s cases, see, e.g., Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U. S. 130, 135–136, all
demonstrate that an execution method violates the Eighth Amendment
only if it is deliberately designed to inflict pain. Judged under
that standard, this is an easy case: Because it is undisputed that
Kentucky adopted its lethal injection protocol in an effort to make
capital punishment more humane, not to add elements of terror,
pain, or disgrace to the death penalty, petitioners’ challenge must
fail. Pp. 1–15. (Opinion Syllabus, emphasis added).

Monday, March 17, Freedom of Information Oklahoma awarded the Oklahoma Supreme Court its inaugural Black Hole award for its new rules.

The justices received the award for roadblocking freedom of information by establishing new rules addressing content on the Internet.

[Original Post Below]

Today begins what is known as Sunshine Week. From the Sunshine Week website:

Sunshine Week is a national initiative to open a dialogue about the importance of open government and freedom of information. Participants include print, broadcast and online news media, civic groups, libraries, non-profits, schools and others interested in the public’s right to know.

Sunshine Week is led by the American Society of Newspaper Editors and is funded primarily by a challenge grant from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation of Miami.

Though spearheaded by journalists, Sunshine Week is about the public’s right to know what its government is doing, and why. Sunshine Week seeks to enlighten and empower people to play an active role in their government at all levels, and to give them access to information that makes their lives better and their communities stronger.

Sunshine Week is a non-partisan initiative whose supporters are conservative, liberal and everything in between.

If you live in Oklahoma, and have been awake the last week, you are sure to have heard by now that the Oklahoma Supreme Court has issued new rules ordering the redaction of some personal information from court filings (which most folks, myself included, don’t object to, though it might be well for us to revisit just what information should be redacted at a later time) and eliminating the availability of court filings online. This was regarded by the WynnBlog, journalists, bloggers, politicians, and even some members of the Supreme Court as huge blow for public records and open government.

Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice Marion Opala did not even vote (for or against) in the new rules decision. Knowing Opala to be a great supporter of First Amendment rights, I wondered why he had not participated. The answer seems to indicate his continued disdain for the rest of the Court:

Five justices voted for the rules. Two agreed with part of the policy and disagreed with the rest. Justice Steven Taylor voted against the new policy and Opala chose not to vote even though he opposes it.

“I decided not to participate in that brouhaha because I’ve been in enough controversies with the court,” Opala said.

(You may remember Opala as the justice who sued the rest of the Supremes because they changed their long-standing rules of order to deny him the position of Chief Justice. He succeeded in the district court, but the federal court, saying it had no power to remedy the situation, remanded the case and ordered the district court to dismiss it with prejudice, and the U.S. Supremes refused to hear Opala’s appeal. I think it goes without saying that there is likely a little tension between Opala and his colleagues.)

Opala was also quoted in the NewsOK article as saying:

“How can you keep public records from public knowledge?”… “I don’t understand how anybody who is a lawyer can say that a government can ration, censor or screen public records from the public. There’s just no way.”

In a NewsOK.com Sunshine Week interview with Oklahoma Attorney Drew Edmondson, with whom I have more than a few differences, the AG stated that he believes the new rules go too far, and that he agrees more with the dissent than the majority opinion. Interestingly, that appears to be an opinion he shares with his brother, Vice Chief Justice of the Oklahoma Supreme Court, James Edmondson, who joined in Justice Yvonne Kauger’s opinion concurring in part (redaction) and dissenting in part (online access). In pertinent part, the article states:

[Bryan Dean, NewsOK staff writer]: Are you troubled by the state Supreme Court’s recent decision to take many court records off the Internet and limit identifying information in court documents?

[Drew Edmondson]: I would tend to agree more with the dissent than the majority. I’ve read the rules that have been handed down. I think some of them are prudent in an effort to avoid identity theft. Some of them may have gone too far. The section which deals with Internet access says at the end that this may be subject to further review, and it doesn’t go into effect until June. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the Supreme Court didn’t take a second look at that particular provision. It’s hard to justify a record that is otherwise open that anyone can go down to the courthouse and see not being available on the Internet. I don’t see the rationale for that and I think the court would be well-advised to take another look at it.

The article quoting Opala further states that the Court is welcoming public comment:

The chief justice also is welcoming public comments. Comments can be e-mailed to Michael Evans, the administrative director of the courts, at michael.evans@oscn.net.

So fire up those email clients and let the court know what you think about this drastic new change. But, don’t hold your breath for changes. The article concludes with Opala responding as to whether the Court will actually revisit the rule change:

“It’s difficult to predict. At times, they dig in when there is a public outcry,” he said. “To me, it was shocking that they took the position to begin with. In the face of the First Amendment, there just isn’t any question.”

I know five justices who look pretty tempting as “No” votes on the Oklahoma judiciary retention ballot later this year.

—————————————

For more open records info, visit:

• Freedom of Information Oklahoma
• Sunshine Week Website
• NewsOK.com’s Right to Know Page (lots of great links for Oklahoma)

“…review options for dealing with the wasteful spending in the omnibus bill.”

After a bit of review, it appears that there is good news for the American taxpayer.

“What Mr. Bush knows, and Congress doesn’t want the taxpayers to know, is that the vast majority of the offending earmarks–the ones that aren’t part of the actual budget law and were instead ‘air-dropped’ into the committee report–aren’t legally binding. A Dec. 18 legal analysis by the Congressional Research Service found that most of the committee reports have not been formally passed by both houses and ‘presented’ to the President for signing, and thus have not become law. ‘President Bush could ignore the 90% of earmarks that never make it to the floor of the House or Senate for a vote,’ says Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, who has read the CRS report. ‘He doesn’t need a line-item veto.’”

Which is good, since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the line-item veto in 1996, thanks to presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani. Don’t get me wrong; I am all for the line-item veto. But it cannot and will not happen unless we amend the Constitution. Inasmuch as it isn’t a current possibility, the next best thing is for the president simply not to spend the money. It’s too much to hope they would refund it to the taxpayers, I know, but at least maybe this way worthier things would be funded.

“Federal agencies would still be obligated to spend the dollars appropriated by Congress. But they could use the money higher priorities that would benefit all taxpayers, rather than on favors for special interests or political donors. For example, the $700,000 for a bike trail in Minneapolis could be used to rebuild the collapsed bridge in that city and to strengthen others. In addition, under such an executive order, future earmarks would likely have to go through committee hearings and would receive much greater scrutiny and publicity than they do now.”

And it’s always good to see Oklahoma’s Tom Coburn is fighting the good fight, as he comments on the long-term, money-transcending costs of earmarks:

“‘They are a gateway drug on the road to spending addiction,’ says Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.”

President Bush has a huge opportunity to force Congress off taxpayers’ backs (just a little):

“…[Heritage Foundation] director of congressional relations Mike Franc, pointed out in Human Events last week that Mr. Bush faces much the same kind of decision that Ronald Reagan did in 1981 when the air traffic controllers union struck the federal government. Reagan boldly fired all the controllers, “setting a standard for decisiveness and principled action that paid dividends” later on.

I, for one, say, “Fire the earmarks!”

What did strike me are Opala’s remarks:

“I fell victim to the statistics,” he said. “I knew all along that my chances would be microscopic.”

I think it’s a very sad commentary on our justice system when “statistics” and the “luck of the draw” determine whether a case is reviewed by SCOTUS or not. If a member of the Oklahoma Supreme Court can’t get meaningful review of bad decision in the federal courts, what chance does Joe Blow?

It’s the best system in the world, but it sure is disappointing sometimes.

In part, his letter to the paper states:

"From watching too many episodes of the Sopranos, your staff seems to have acquired the belief that any Sicilian gesture is obscene _ especially when made by an ‘Italian jurist.’ (I am, by the way, an American jurist.)" 

Don’t you all ever get tired of a total bias in the media. I mean, here was an out-and-out lie being reported in a major paper and linked on Drudge. When the truth comes out, we again discover it is a story "created" by one reporter’s ignorance and/or malevolence. This is getting very old.