Right Side of the Rainbow

The anxious wait for the resignation of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist continues.

Maybe he will resign presently, and maybe he won't. (Except for him, who knows?) But if not, we can't blame the old guy for holding on. The U.S. Supreme Court, having gathered to itself breathtaking power, is now the most important organ of the Federal Government, and serving on it, especially as chief, is a Big Deal; accordingly, I can easily imagine Rehnquist deciding to stay in office until he's removed by the mortician. In his shoes, it's what I'd do.

Posted by Paul at 5:52 PM | Permalink

In light of the U.S. Supreme Court's abominable decision in Kelo, members of Congress are considering ways to stop local governments from taking the property of poor and middle class families and giving it to the rich.

But so far anyway, action on the Hill has been tepid. Today, for example, the House approved legislation "to bar federal transportation funds from being used to make improvements on lands seized via eminent domain for private development." That's nice, but inadequate. Let's hope Congress ends up passing something a lot stronger; a blanket prohibition on takings for economic development comes to mind.

Meanwhile, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, shows again why she's an intellectual nitwit:

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California says she is opposed to any legislation that would withhold federal dollars "for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court, no matter how opposed I am to that decision."

Did you bother to read the Court's opinion, ma'am? There's no question here of congressional "enforcement." The Court held, erroneously, that the Federal Constitution presents no bar to takings for economic development by local governments. It did not hold that such takings are required, or that Congress must fund them. In fact, the Court made clear that citizens upset by property takings should seek redress from the political branches of government.

If she insists on prattling in public, shouldn't Ms. Pelosi know this?

Posted by Paul at 4:46 PM | Permalink

Associated Press (via Yahoo News):

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The vast majority of suicide attackers in Iraq are thought to be foreigners -- mostly Saudis and other Gulf Arabs -- and the trend has become more pronounced this year with North Africans also streaming in to carry out deadly missions, U.S. and Iraqi officials say.

The bombers are recruited from Sunni communities, smuggled into Iraq from Syria after receiving religious indoctrination, and then quickly bundled into cars or strapped with explosive vests and sent to their deaths, the officials told The Associated Press.

Actually, as I noted here, according to a report in the Washington Post, every homicide car bomber in Iraq has been a foreigner. And, as the quote above indicates, they come by way, and with the help, of Syria.

How long until we make the Syrian government suffer the consequences of this?

Posted by Paul at 4:14 PM | Permalink

Wall Street Journal:

That goes especially for the 122 House Democrats -- Barney Frank, Rahm Emanuel and Charlie Rangel among them -- who last month supported a Congressional resolution calling for a timetable for withdrawal. This is a guarantee of defeat. These are the "Pottery Barn" Democrats, who claim to support the war effort on the premise that since the U.S. "broke" Iraq (rather than Saddam), the U.S. has to fix it -- even as they have nothing but criticism to offer.

So what's left? It's not as if there's no room to criticize the President's policy. Senator John McCain insists we need more troops on the ground, and while we think Mr. Bush convincingly rebutted that view in his speech, at least it's an argument worth having. A more serious criticism is the failure so far to inflict harsher penalties on Syria for its continued support for the insurgency.

On these and other points, the Democrats could contribute to a victory in Iraq. But that isn't going to happen until more of them, or even some of them, switch from the Pottery Barn to the Home Depot rule: You Can Do It, We Can Help.

Posted by Paul at 6:59 AM | Permalink

Associated Press (via Yahoo News):

SAVANNAH, Ga. - A quarter-century after they were taken captive in Iran, five former American hostages say they got an unexpected reminder of their 444-day ordeal in the bearded face of Iran's new president-elect.

Watching coverage of Iran's presidential election on television dredged up 25-year-old memories that prompted four of the former hostages to exchange e-mails. And those four realized they shared the same conclusion — the firm belief that President-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had been one of their Iranian captors.

Posted by Paul at 6:58 AM | Permalink

Posted by Paul at 1:00 AM | Permalink

Associated Press (via San Francisco Chronicle):

Gays and lesbians won a major legal victory Wednesday when the California Supreme Court let stand a new law granting registered domestic partners many of the same rights and protections of heterosexual marriage.

Without comment, the unanimous justices upheld appellate and trial court rulings that the sweeping measure does not conflict with a voter-approved initiative defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The domestic partner law, signed in 2003 by then-Gov. Gray Davis, represents the nation's most comprehensive recognition of gay domestic rights, short of the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts and civil unions in Vermont and Connecticut.

The law, which went into effect Jan. 1, grants registered couples virtually every spousal right available under state law except the ability to file joint income taxes.

Groups opposing the law said Wednesday they hope to qualify a ballot measure asking voters to overturn the justices, and perhaps to bar gay and lesbians from ever getting married in California.

Posted by Paul at 10:01 PM | Permalink

Neal Boortz:

Polls show the majority of Americans don't think the war was a success. This is a product of the relentless media brainwashing and historic revisionism. Iraq can't be called anything but a success. Overthrowing a regime in a country the size of Iraq and replacing it with a democratically elected one -- all inside of two years with less than 2,000 casualties? If you had asked the Pentagon before the war began if they would consider that a favorable outcome of the war, they surely would.

The president spent time last night saying what his supporters did not need to hear and what his critics did not believe. Whatever your view of the war, you already know why we invaded Iraq, don't you? And you already know whether the war to date is a success. So instead of revisiting the justifications for the war -- isn't it a little late for that now? -- and making vague pronouncements (e.g., "As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down;" operationally, what does that mean?), Mr. Bush should have articulated a specific plan for which the goal is our disengagement.

No one can doubt this president's commitment to victory. And no one can doubt our military's capacity to achieve it. We're left, then, only to understand the exact obstacles to the military component of victory, and therefore the withdrawal of American troops, and how the president plans to overcome them. Details would have been new and useful information, and they would have gone a long way toward reassuring an uneasy public.

What, for example, is the plan for dealing with Syria? That country offers itself as a staging ground for foreign jihadists who then enter Iraq and create mayhem there. In fact, according to a report in the Washington Post, the U.S. Government is aware of no case in which a homicide car bomber in Iraq was an Iraqi. The bombers come to Iraq from elsewhere, and Syria plays a key role in getting them there:

Syria has been an important base and way station for these foreign fighters. Interviews with arrested "jihadis" and transcripts of interrogations obtained from Iraqi security and intelligence show that a typical jihadi's journey from his city in Syria, Jordan, Sudan, Yemen or any other Arab country until the moment he blows himself up goes something like this: After deciding that he wants to fight the Americans in Iraq, he contacts mosques in Damascus known for recruiting mujaheddin for the holy war in Iraq. Often these recruitment campaigns are funded by senior Syrian officials.

After deciding that a person is fit to conduct a "martyrdom operation," Syrian intelligence trains him on how to disguise his identity and how to handle explosives and ammunitions. Radical mullahs supplement this with heavy doses of hard-line religious teaching. The volunteer is then taken across the desert in eastern Syria, through the porous borders, into the Sunni triangle in Iraq, where he is housed by members of the former Baathist intelligence and security network. The second leg of the journey is to a safe house in Baghdad, where he is assigned a target to blow up or sent to certain areas to fight the Americans or the new Iraqi army and police forces.

Surely our Government knows, or can come to know, the location of these Syrian training bases. Accordingly, Mr. Bush should have told us last night what verifiable assurances he's received from the Syrian government that the bases will be closed promptly. If none, he should have told us when the bombing of the bases is scheduled to begin.

Specifics, Mr. President, specifics.

Posted by Paul at 6:37 PM | Permalink

At least in Judith Miller's case, I now have the answer to my question:

The United States Supreme Court declined [Monday] to hear the cases of two reporters facing up to 18 months in jail for refusing to testify about conversations with their confidential sources.

The case now returns to Federal District Court in Washington, where Judge Thomas F. Hogan will hear arguments on Wednesday about when and where the reporters, Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, will begin to serve their time.

Ms. Miller has said she will go to jail rather than testify. "Journalists simply cannot do their jobs without being able to commit to sources that they won't be identified," she said in a statement [Monday]. "Such protection is critical to the free flow of information in a democracy."

But as Professor Bainbridge notes, this might not be the best time for reporters to assert a need to keep sources confidential:

A newspaper investigation of a former columnist for The Sacramento Bee could not verify 43 sources she used in a sampling of 12 years of her work.

Diana Griego Erwin resigned May 11 as she came under scrutiny about the existence of people she quoted.

Posted by Paul at 6:59 AM | Permalink

Toronto Star:

OTTAWA -- After being fought in courtrooms, legislatures and street protests, one of the most turbulent debates in Canadian history was settled today in Parliament.

The House of Commons voted 158 to 133 to adopt controversial legislation that will make Canada the third country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage.

[...]

The same-sex marriage bill will become official once it receives approval in the Senate, likely within days.

Posted by Paul at 6:58 AM | Permalink

As it turns out, there are some things on which Democrats and Republicans can play patty cake after all:

WASHINGTON -- The House on Tuesday agreed to a $3,100 pay raise for Congress next year -- to $165,200 -- after defeating an effort to roll it back.

In a 263-152 vote, the House blocked a bid by Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, to force an up-or-down vote on the pay raise. Instead, lawmakers will automatically receive the raise ...

[...]

In a House riven by partisanship, raising members' pay is one of the few things Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., agree on.

The annual debate on the members' [pay raise] resembles kabuki theater: Both Democratic and Republican leaders guarantee sizable majorities of their members to block the effort, and they make sure there is not a clear-cut vote on the measure. None of the party campaign committees uses the pay-raise issue in campaigns.

"Each side put up their required quota" of votes, said Rep. Deborah Pryce of Ohio, the fourth-ranking Republican in the House.

Well, isn't that sweet? And it's honest. For Washington doublespeak, we turn to The Man:

"It's not a pay raise," said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas. "It's an adjustment so that they're not losing their purchasing power."

See whether your baron was part of the quota.

Posted by Paul at 6:57 AM | Permalink

President George W. Bush:

We live in freedom because every generation has produced patriots willing to serve a cause greater than themselves. Those who serve today are taking their rightful place among the greatest generations that have worn our Nation's uniform. When the history of this period is written, the liberation of Afghanistan and the liberation of Iraq will be remembered as great turning points in the story of freedom.

The full text of tonight's presidential address to the Nation is here. And you can reach the website Mr. Bush spoke of by clicking here.

If you'd like to thank our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan while also offering them a small kindness, please join me in sending coffee, cookies or both. You can include a personalized message with your shipment. (Please note: you'll be asked for a shipping address. But since you're ordering under the Coffee for Troops program, your shipment will go to the troops, not to you.)

Posted by Paul at 7:38 PM | Permalink

Allafrica.com:

HARARE (Zimbabwe) -- Police yesterday urged people with automatic weapons at their homes to surrender them at the nearest police station.

[...]

Police chief spokesperson Assistant Commissioner Wayne Bvudzijena urged the public to co-operate and did not give the reasons of the withdrawal.

"We would like to urge the people to fully co-operate with the police and those who will remain with these weapons would be contravening the law," he said.

Harare police spokesperson Inspector Jessie Banda said the firearm licences for such weapons had been withdrawn with immediate effect.

Ummm, hmmm.

When the government of a Marxist (and virulently anti-homosexual) dictator tells people to turn over their weapons, the proper response of freemen is, Molon Labe! (Pronounced mo-lone lah-veh; in English, "Come and get them!")

(Thanks to Kim du Toit.)

Posted by Paul at 4:56 PM | Permalink

Associated Press (via ABC News):

TORONTO -- Canada is set to become the third country to legalize gay marriage, with Parliament likely to pass landmark legislation Tuesday despite strong opposition from Conservatives and religious leaders.

Although gay marriage already is legal in seven provinces, the bill would grant all same-sex couples in Canada the same legal rights as those in traditional heterosexual unions. The Netherlands and Belgium already allow gay marriage.

The legislation, drafted by Prime Minister Paul Martin's minority government, needs at least 155 members of the House of Commons to gain a majority of the 308-seat House. While some of his Liberal lawmakers have said they will not back the legislation, enough allies in other parties have indicated they would support the bill when it comes to a vote.

There are an estimated 34,000 gay and lesbian couples in Canada, according to government statistics.

The vote is set for 8 p.m. EDT. Meanwhile, a cabinet minister, Joe Comuzzi, has resigned so that he can vote against the legislation. According to the Toronto Star,

Comuzzi visited the prime minister's Parliament Hill office to say he wanted to give up his cabinet job and become a Liberal backbencher.

Cabinet ministers are required to support the government legislation and face expulsion from the ministry for breaking ranks.

But as a backbencher, Comuzzi is at liberty to vote as he pleases.

The bill, C-38, is expected to pass, according to the Star.

(Link to Toronto Star requires registration.)

Posted by Paul at 4:35 PM | Permalink

Sen. John Cornyn, R-TX, has introduced a bill, S. 1313, in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Kelo. As I read it, the bill is quite limited in scope; it applies only to takings financed with federal money. Eugene Volokh, a law professor who can speak much more authoritatively than I, agrees. So while S. 1313 is a step in the right direction, it's inadequate.

Next in line, please ...

Posted by Paul at 3:51 PM | Permalink

My hope that this country will one day end its costly, liberty-trampling and counterproductive "war on drugs" is sustained by a simple truth: reality is a brutal master.

Posted by Paul at 6:56 PM | Permalink

Now what?

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court rejected appeals Monday from two journalists who have refused to testify before a grand jury about the leak of an undercover CIA officer's identity.

The cases asked the court to revisit an issue that it last dealt with more than 30 years ago -- whether reporters can be jailed or fined for refusing to identify their sources.

The justices' intervention had been sought by 34 states and many news groups, all arguing that confidentiality is important in news gathering.

Time magazine's Matthew Cooper and The New York Times' Judith Miller, who filed the appeals, face up to 18 months in jail for refusing to reveal sources as part of an investigation into who divulged the name of CIA officer Valerie Plame.

I have no opinion on whether reporters should have a federal privilege against disclosing the identity of their sources. Both sides make a compelling argument. On the one hand:

"Important information will be lost to the public if journalists cannot reliably promise anonymity to sources," news organizations including The Associated Press told justices in court papers.

And on the other:

"Local jurisdictions do not have responsibility for investigating crimes implicating national security, and reason and experience strongly counsel against adoption of an absolute reporter's privilege in the federal courts," according to U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.

But I am curious now to know what happens to Mr. Cooper and Ms. Miller. Will they go to jail, or will they relent?

Posted by Paul at 6:26 PM | Permalink

With most of today's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court devoted to its decisions on display of the Ten Commandments, you might have missed this:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that police cannot be sued for how they enforce restraining orders, ending a lawsuit by a Colorado woman who claimed police did not do enough to prevent her estranged husband from killing her three young daughters.

Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police enforcement of the court order against her husband, the court said in a 7-2 opinion.

City governments had feared that if the court ruled the other way, it would unleash a potentially devastating flood of cases that could bankrupt municipal governments.

Gonzales contended that police did not do enough to stop her estranged husband, who took the three daughters from the front yard of her home in June 1999 in violation of a restraining order.

Hours later Simon Gonzales died in a gun fight with officers outside a police station. The bodies of the three girls, ages 10, 9 and 7, were in his truck.

[...]

"The restraining orders are not worth anything unless police officers are willing to enforce them. They are just paper," said Brian Reichel, the attorney for Gonzales.

In other words, we cannot depend on the police to protect us, even if we have a court order. And when they fail to protect us or our families, we are without remedy.

Of course, the police have always been unlikely to be on hand at the moment we need them most. Today as ever, our safety is our own responsibility.

The Court's opinion in Castle Rock v. Gonzales is here.

Posted by Paul at 5:33 PM | Permalink

John Podhoretz at The Corner:

Has anybody ever advanced this radical opinion -- that the five justices in question may be intelligent and thoughtful people individually, but that together they form one blithering idiot?

Posted by Paul at 11:35 AM | Permalink

More whining from the left about "GOP attack[s]" on its "dissent."

Liberals remain at liberty to say anything they jolly well please, even if it's despicable. But that doesn't mean they're at liberty from the blowback. Karl Rove and Deb Pryce have the same First Amendment rights as Howard Dean and Dick Durbin.

If you can't take it, guys, don't dish it.

Posted by Paul at 6:59 AM | Permalink

Here, as promised, some random photos from yesterday's Houston Gay Pride Parade.

Regrettably, about half the photos I took were unusable. I did that half of my picture-taking with my Kodak Easy Share CX7330 in "sport mode," which is for subjects in motion. The parade entries were in motion. But the images are blurred to a degree I didn't think possible with a digital camera. Lesson learned.

Also, two pictures are covered by water spots; here and there, people were spraying water and it got on my lens.

Following several of the images, I've included descriptions or commentary.

I can remember the time, not even that long ago, when Houston's gay and lesbian cops stayed in the closet. Now they have an entry in the parade and hand out beads.

PLAG is the support group for parents with gay children. I hope the children of these parents know how blessed they are.

Back when I was working on my 2-year degree in mental health, I did an internship in a local shelter for runaway teens. Most runaways spend time on the streets and, unsurprisingly, develop a rough, beaten down look. Almost all of them are from dysfunctional or abusive homes and they're poorly socialized.

But one day a well-dressed, well-groomed and well-mannered young man came into the office. He was 17 and from an upper-middle class home. He had come out to his parents as gay; they had kicked him out of the house. His initial response was normative for a kid of his background. Using his parents' credit card, he checked into a swanky hotel. But when the parents discovered what he had done, they canceled the card. Cashless, creditless and not knowing what else to do, he came to the shelter.

Before I met that young man, I didn't really believe that there were parents who actually disowned their gay children. I believe it now.

An entry for the Q Television Network.

Gay cowboys.

Two statements, both of which are controversial in some quarters.

The boys from the Bunnies on the Bayou.

This is what's known as bad drag.

Collecting beads was popular with many.

This is Ray Hill of Houston v. Hill, a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court case. The case presented the question whether a citizen may verbally challenge the police -- as in Mr. Hill's query to a Houston officer of "Why don't you pick on somebody your own size?" -- without fear of arrest. Mr. Hill won.

A cop with beads. Tasked with keeping people behind the barricades, he was jovial and personable. The Houston gay community's relationship with the police has come a long, long way from the days when Ray Hill first talked back to them.

Adorable.

Posted by Paul at 4:26 PM | Permalink

Posted by Paul at 7:14 AM | Permalink

Today's Houston Gay Pride Parade is, I believe, still the only nighttime gay pride parade anywhere in North America. It's also Houston's largest annual parade of any kind.

I live three blocks from the parade route and I can see from my back window -- I'm on the second story of a condo building -- that preparations for this evening's production are underway in earnest. The police are barricading streets to vehicular traffic, the people are walking them and the neighbors are barbecuing. Here in my gay-dominated complex, the atmosphere is quite festive, especially around the pool where bare chested 20-somethings are exhibiting the beautiful bodies bestowed upon them by Providence and the 24 Hour Fitness Club.

The air is filled with smoke from the pit, the sounds of high energy music and the shrieks of children running and playing. The place is alive.

Tomorrow, pictures.

Relatedly, the Houston Chronicle reports today on the battle plan of opponents to a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, which Texans will vote on in November. The goal is not to defeat the measure statewide -- there's no chance of that -- but rather to defeat it in Houston and hold the statewide "yes" total to under 70%. That strikes me as realistic -- and smart. For as even the amendment's sponsor, Rep. Warren Chisum, concedes, "I won't think we've done a good job unless we win by a large margin, anything over 70 percent."

Very well then. I look forward to your disappointment, sir.

Posted by Paul at 2:42 PM | Permalink

From a reader at The Corner:

The quickest way to reverse Kelo is to find some conservative town in Utah somewhere to shut down an abortion clinic in order to make room for a Wal-Mart. Also, that would be the most fun way to get Kelo reversed.

(Thanks to Blogs for Bush.)

Posted by Paul at 12:53 PM | Permalink

Posted by Paul at 12:28 PM | Permalink

U.S. News & World Report:

Who's funding the insurgents in Iraq? The list of suspects is long: ex-Baathists, foreign jihadists, and angry Sunnis, to name a few. Now add to that roster hard-core Euroleftists.

Turns out that far-left groups in western Europe are carrying on a campaign dubbed Ten Euros for the Resistance, offering aid and comfort to the car bombers, kidnappers, and snipers trying to destabilize the fledgling Iraq government. In the words of one Italian website, Iraq Libero (Free Iraq), the funds are meant for those fighting the occupanti imperialisti. The groups are an odd collection, made up largely of Marxists and Maoists, sprinkled with an array of Arab emigres and aging, old-school fascists, according to Lorenzo Vidino, an analyst on European terrorism based at The Investigative Project in Washington, D.C. "It's the old anticapitalist, anti-U.S., anti-Israel crowd," says Vidino, who has been to their gatherings, where he saw activists from Austria, Denmark, Germany, and Italy. "The glue that binds them together is anti-Americanism." The groups are working on an October conference to further support "the Iraqi Resistance." A key goal is to expand backing for the insurgents from the fringe left to the broader antiwar and antiglobalization movements.

I wonder whether the men in black are booking any additional flights from Europe to Egypt ...

(Thanks to Vodkapundit.)

Posted by Paul at 9:43 PM | Permalink

In Texas, a man's vehicle is the modern equivalent of his horse, which makes stealing it inadvisable:

HOUSTON -- A suspected car thief is in critical condition this morning after the owner of a vehicle being stolen opened fire on the suspect.

The shooting happened just before 5 a.m. in the parking lot of an apartment complex in the 9600 block of Homestead.

Police said the owner of a vehicle came outside to find a tow truck removing his vehicle from the parking lot, and fired on the two occupants of the wrecker.

The man driving the tow truck was struck in the head by a shot and is in critical condition. The second suspect fled, apparently uninjured, police said.

The tow truck the men were using to steal the car had been stolen earlier, police said.

Posted by Paul at 6:24 PM | Permalink

When Karl Rove implies that liberals are candy ass pansies, his rhetoric is "divisive." (Oh God, are there divisions among us? Say it ain't so, Dorothy!) But when Howard Dean says he "hates" the "white, Christian" Republicans, his rhetoric is only "inartful." And when Dick Durbin compares U.S. soldiers to Nazis, his rhetoric is only "frank."

Let David Corn of the left-wing The Nation -- who, by the way, writes in complete sincerity -- provide your end-of-week belly laugh.

(Incidentally, wouldn't you think that the Washington editor of a political publication would have enough snap to know when he's being played?)

Posted by Paul at 5:31 PM | Permalink

In a comment to this post, "viciousmongoose" asks of the Supreme Court's holding in Kelo:

Do you think that Congress will write and pass a federal law outlawing these property thefts?

It's an excellent question and one for which I do not know the answer. I know only what I think Congress should do, to wit: pursuant to Gonzales v. Raich, Congress should pass a statute prohibiting intrastate takings for economic development as an exercise of its authority under the Commerce Clause. After all, if Congress can reach the intrastate cultivation and use of noncommercial marijuana, surely it can reach intrastate commercial transactions where, as here, the transactions pose a threat to a national market, namely housing.

Others have called for Congress to pass and submit to the states for ratification a constitutional amendment prohibiting takings for economic development. This, too, Congress should do. But it takes a lot less time to pass a federal statute than it does to enact a constitutional amendment. And as soon as the statute is on the books, Susette Kelo -- and the thousands of others in her situation -- can get into federal court and seek injunctive relief.

Perhaps I'm off base here, and I invite comment on this approach from the several lawyers who read this site. (As ya'll know, I'm not a lawyer.) But I believe the Raich Court's expansive understanding of the Commerce Clause makes my suggestion worth a shot. At a minimum, it raises an interesting federal question.

Meanwhile, for my fellow Texans, I have a good idea of not only what the Texas Legislature should do but also of what it will do:

Texas' cultural commitment to private property rights surfaced quickly Thursday as a state legislator moved to blunt the impact of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that local governments may seize land for private development.

Hours after the court's 5-4 ruling came down, Rep. Frank Corte Jr., R-San Antonio, said he would seek "to defend the rights of property owners in Texas" by proposing a state constitutional amendment limiting local powers of eminent domain, or condemnation.

Houston Mayor Bill White [D] and Harris County Judge Robert Eckels [R] offered assurances that the city and county do not intend to condemn land for private development projects.

Posted by Paul at 3:54 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

Vice President Cheney concedes the obvious:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Vice President Dick Cheney left open the possibility Thursday that President Bush would sign a bill to overhaul Social Security without his embattled proposal for personal accounts financed from payroll taxes.

Disappointing, isn't it?

But where one door closes, another opens. Here's a proposal with the potential to promote fiscal discipline in Congress and expose Democratic hypocrisy:

Republican Reps. Jim McCrery of Louisiana, Clay Shaw of Florida, Sam Johnson of Texas and Paul Ryan of Wisconsin announced they were drafting a bill that would wall off the surplus payroll tax revenues Social Security is slated to receive until 2017. They propose transforming government bonds which the government places in Parkersburg, W.Va., as the money is spent on other government programs into personal IOUs for each of the 110 million Americans who pay taxes into the program.

As the Wall Street Journal noted yesterday, "this calls the bluff of Democrats who claim to be the sole protectors of the Social Security trust fund but have done nothing to stop depleting it. Do they want to protect it or not?"

Posted by Paul at 6:58 AM | Permalink

(Editorial cartoon courtesy of Cox & Forkum.)

Posted by Paul at 10:57 PM | Permalink

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor:

... the Court today significantly expands the meaning of public use. It holds that the sovereign may take private property currently put to ordinary private use, and give it over for new, ordinary private use, so long as the new use is predicted to generate some secondary benefit for the public such as increased tax revenue, more jobs, maybe even aesthetic pleasure. But nearly any lawful use of real private property can be said to generate some incidental benefit to the public. Thus, if predicted (or even guaranteed) positive side-effects are enough to render transfer from one private party to another constitutional, then the words "for public use" do not realistically exclude any takings, and thus do not exert any constraint on the eminent domain power.

[...]

The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.

[...]

Today nearly all real property is susceptible to condemnation on the Court's theory. In the prescient words of a dissenter from the infamous decision in Poletown, "[n]ow that we have authorized local legislative bodies to decide that a different commercial or industrial use of property will produce greater public benefits than its present use, no homeowner's, merchant's or manufacturer's property, however productive or valuable to its owner, is immune from condemnation for the benefit of other private interests that will put it to a 'higher use.'" This is why economic development takings "seriously jeopardiz[e] the security of all private property ownership."

Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result. "[T]hat alone is a just government," wrote James Madison, "which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own." (Link)

(Citations omitted.)

Posted by Paul at 5:05 PM | Permalink

Supreme Court hands down Kelo decision -- homeowners lose:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A divided Supreme Court ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth conflicts with individual property rights.

Thursday's 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.

UPDATE -- The Court's opinion, by Justice John Paul Stevens, is here; Justice O'Connor's dissent is here.

More later.

UPDATE II -- Reaction:

The Supreme Court has rendered its verdict in Kelo v. New London, and the widely-expected result has come to pass: a 5-4 loss for property rights. As Raich taught us that growing pot in your backyard for personal consumption is "interstate commerce," Kelo informs us that taking people's homes to hand over to private developers building an office complex is a "public use."

You do wonder: Now that the "liberal" justices on the court have sided with the drug warriors against cancer patients, and with a plan to rob people of their homes for the benefit of wealthy developers, will some court-watchers on the left begin to question the wisdom of having let economic freedom become the red-headed stepchild of modern jurisprudence? (Julian Sanchez at Hit & Run)

Under the headline "Court Appointments Matter," DJ Drummond at Polipundit writes:

Because the United States Supreme Court has just decided that your city council can throw you off your own land, in order to accomodate luxury hotels and exclusive clubs.

Do not ever, ever, vote for a liberal Democrat or fake Republican again. Your home may depend on it.

Note, however, that the fifth -- and decisive -- vote in this case came from Justice Anthony Kennedy, appointed by President Ronald Reagan. Surely DJ would not assert that President Reagan was a "fake Republican."

Note also that while the Kelo Court would indeed permit a city to take your land for luxury hotels and exclusive clubs, that wasn't all to the case here. Rather, as Justice Thomas noted in dissent, Kelo is "a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation ..." Bend over, bitches. Corporate America is going to bang you some more. (EDITED: bold words added, for clarity.)

A while back, I had a post, "George Bush, liberal darling" stating that liberals should like George Bush for his vast expansion of federal spending. I received many outraged emails, and many links from outraged liberal bloggers, protesting that liberals don't like Big Government for its own sake, but rather support using the institution of government for wise, liberal ends. I accept that that these protestations were sincere. But consider the lineup in Raich and Kelo. Then consider the legal gymnastics it takes to consider local medical pot part of "interstate commerce," and to consider taking people's home and giving them to Pfizer a "public use" in the face of two hundred years of precedent that A to B transfers are illegitimate; and the fact that "liberal ends" were certainly not involved in Raich, nor in Kelo (see Justice Thomas's dissent); and consider that the liberal Justices are not exactly shy about invalidating laws when it strikes their fancy. I think a good argument can be made that the more liberal Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court do indeed support Big Government for its own sake. (David Bernstein at The Volokh Conspiracy)

The localities are still required to pay "a just price" when one of these takings occurs, but the price even a willing seller would be able to get from his property just took a huge hit. All a developer has to do now is make a lowball offer and threaten to involve a bought-and-paid-for politician to take the property away if the owner doesn't acquiesce. (Will Collier at Vodkapundit)

So much for private property rights. Kennedy and Souter voted with the majority, proving once again just how essential it is that Bush pick somebody reliably - and permanently - conservative when there's an opening. (Professor Bainbridge)

This is breeding ground for a revolution. (Blogs of War)

Are you kidding me? Are you fucking kidding me?! Is there any locale in the entire US where a county wouldn't receive more revenue from a shopping center or store than from property taxes?

Fuck these money-grubbing elected officials who sanction activity such as this, and fuck everyone who says "It's okay". It's NOT okay. (Physics Geek)

You and I no longer own homes. We occupy them. We pay the bank every month for the privilege of living there as long as the government wants to let us.

In the ruling handed down today, the court ruled that the town of New London, CT could exercise eminent domain and take homes and business from citizens and turn the land over to private developers to build a river-front hotel, a health club and offices.

The Court has ruled that "economic development" qualifies as a public use. Economic development for who? For the homeowner who has worked and paid the mortgage month after month? Or for the developer who gets property he couldn't get on the open market because the owners didn't want to sell their homes?

What is to stop a developer from telling the city that if they take your home and give it to them, they can increase its economic value to the city. Not your right to your property. You no longer have that. (Stephen Macklin at Hold the Mayo)

Everyone and their brother is blogging about this abomination, Kelo v. City of New London (2005).

[...]

If you aren't a property owner, consider this analogy: you believe that you labor is worth $10 per hour. You aren't prepared to work for less. A corporation decides that your labor is essential to what they are doing, but they aren't prepared to pay you $10 per hour--so they have the government draft you, and pay you a private's wages--and assign you to work for that corporation, arguing that the corporation's products would enhance the overall economy. You would properly recognize that you had been enslaved.

[...]

Here the liberals had a pretty clear example of a too cozy relationship between corporations with political influence and a local government. Rather than recognize and deplore the sleazy history of the precedents on this, and take the side of the individual against a wealthy and well-connected corporation, the liberals chose to violate the original intent of the Fifth Amendment, so as to preserve governmental power. (Clayton Cramer)

Posted by Paul at 9:56 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

Wall Street Journal:

The conventional Beltway wisdom says Social Security reform is dead, thanks to near-unanimous Democratic opposition. Well, not so fast. Republican reformers are introducing a new plan to invest Social Security surplus funds into personal accounts that has the potential to shake up the debate.

Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan and South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint are calling for legislation to bring an immediate halt to the ongoing political raid on the surplus payroll taxes collected by Social Security. Congress now spends that cash on current programs--from cotton subsidies, to defense, to the Dr. Seuss Museum. Every day that Congress fails to act, another $200 million is spent rather than being saved for future retirement. Daniel Patrick Moynihan once called this "thievery," and if corporate America were engaged in this type of accounting fraud Eliot Spitzer would be hauling CEOs to jail.

Instead of spending this retirement money, the reformers would allow individual workers to divert every surplus Social Security dollar--from now until the extra cash runs out in 2016--into personal retirement accounts. For the record, we endorsed this idea some months ago, so we're glad to see it gaining steam. Here's how it would work ...

Relatedly, the Washington Post has this report.

Posted by Paul at 8:02 AM | Permalink

William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard:

There will be a Supreme Court resignation within the next week. But it will be Justice O'Connor, not Chief Justice Rehnquist.

Posted by Paul at 12:29 AM | Permalink

Associated Press (via Yahoo News):

NEW YORK - Speaking in a Manhattan ballroom just a few miles north of ground zero, Karl Rove said on Wednesday night that the Democratic party did not understand the consequences of the Sept. 11 attacks.

"Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," Rove said. "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."

[...]

"Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said we will defeat our enemies. Liberals saw what happened to us and said we must understand our enemies."

Well, speaking as one, I can tell you that conservatives also want to understand our terrorist enemies. We want to understand that they're dead.

Posted by Paul at 12:01 AM | Permalink

From The Blue State Conservatives on the media's annointing of John McCain (D-AZ) as the 2008 GOP frontrunner:

It all sounds well and good, I guess, except for one thing: Republicans tend to nominate Republicans to run for President.

Indeed.

I have a better chance of being the Republican nominee in 2008 than John McCain does. It ain't happening.

Posted by Paul at 6:55 PM | Permalink

Posted by Paul at 6:31 PM | Permalink

BBC News:

Police in Ecuador say they have broken up an international drugs ring which was raising money for the Islamic militant group Hezbollah.

The authorities have declined to give details of the gang's alleged links with the group, but say it was sending Hezbollah up to 70% of its profits.

Ecuadorean officials say the drugs network was run by a Lebanese restaurant owner in the capital, Quito.

Officials are hailing it as a success in both the war on drugs and on terror.

Officials can hail it however they like. But Dr. Steven Taylor of Poliblog is spot on:

Given that resources are finite, one wonders as to the wisdom of the grand expenditures devoted to the [war on drugs] when not only does that mean that those resources are not necessarily contributing to the [war on terror], but that, in fact, that drug war logic leads to the radically inflated prices of substances such as heroin and cocaine, which, in turn help fund political violence. Rather than these two "wars" working in concert, the argument can be made that the War on Drugs actually hampers the War on Terror by making illicit drugs an amazingly profitable funding source. This is especially troubling when we note that the actual success of the [war on drugs] is questionable.

According to the BBC, "Ecuadorean police say that each drugs shipment was worth $1m and that up to 70% of the profits went to the Islamic militant group Hezbollah." Ask yourself: would you sit passively while you lost that kind of money, or would you find a way to re-open the supply line?

Posted by Paul at 4:18 PM | Permalink

"... the most expensive case in the Justice Dept.'s history."

(Thanks to Southern Appeal.)

Posted by Paul at 11:00 AM | Permalink

Chicago Tribune:

WASHINGTON -- Stepping up preparations for the possible retirement of Chief Justice William Rehnquist -- perhaps as early as next week -- the White House has narrowed its list to a handful of federal appeals court judges and has conducted interviews with leading contenders, a senior administration official said Tuesday.

Senior White House officials and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales have interviewed top candidates and briefed President Bush, but the president has not made a decision, said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

[...]

The White House has focused on several nominees with established conservative records: Judges J. Michael Luttig and J. Harvie Wilkinson of the Richmond, Va.-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit and Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. of the Philadelphia-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit.

The official said the administration also has considered a number of judges President Bush has nominated to the federal appeals courts, including: John G. Roberts, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Michael McConnell, of the Denver-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, and William Pryor, of the Atlanta-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.

Of those nominees, Luttig, Alito and Roberts have emerged as the leading contenders, sources close to the White House said. But Wilkinson remains very much in consideration, the administration official said.

Reportedly, Mr. Gonzales is also a possible nominee. But James Joyner at Outside the Beltway makes a cogent case for holding the attorney general in abeyance:

Gonzales makes no sense as a Chief Justice appointment. He's the worst of all worlds: a bruising confirmation battle plus a weakening of Bush's ideological position on the Court.

[...]

If Bush is set on appointing Gonzales, it would be more appropriate to wait for the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor or John Paul Stevens. While they're both Republican appointees, they're both significantly to the left of Rehnquist. Putting Gonzales into one of those slots, especially Stevens', would be an upgrade.

(Thanks to How Appealing.)

Posted by Paul at 6:59 AM | Permalink

(Weyant cartoon; thanks to Social Security Choice.)

Posted by Paul at 6:58 AM | Permalink

Associated Press (via Yahoo News):

His voice quaking and tears welling in his eyes, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate also apologized to any soldiers who felt insulted by his remarks.

Posted by Paul at 7:15 PM | Permalink

"Cellphones take up driver attention, study finds" -- Reuters headline

Posted by Paul at 5:44 PM | Permalink

Associated Press (via Yahoo News):

WASHINGTON -- President Bush encouraged a Republican senator on Tuesday to offer Social Security legislation that would not include private investment accounts. The White House said the president still was committed to allowing workers to invest part of their Social Security taxes.

Bush's nod to Utah Sen. Bob Bennett's plan comes as public polls show that most Americans do not support the president's handling of the Social Security issue.

Well of course most Americans don't support the president's handling of Social Security reform. I don't support his handling of it either, even though I support his call for personal accounts. After all, political schizophrenia is hardly commendable:

"This in no way should be interpreted to mean that the president is backing off of personal accounts," White House spokesman Trent Duffy said. "He is not."

Then why signal support for legislation that doesn't include them?

Posted by Paul at 5:24 PM | Permalink

Posted by Paul at 5:15 PM | Permalink

Posted by Paul at 4:19 PM | Permalink

Associated Press (via Yahoo News):

Light sweet crude for July delivery climbed 90 cents to settle at $59.37 a barrel, a record close on the New York Mercantile Exchange, where oil futures have been traded since 1983.

[...]

Another development brokers were watching on Monday was the threat of a strike by oil workers in Norway, the world's third-largest exporter. A strike could begin as soon as Wednesday because of a salary dispute, potentially slicing the country's daily output of 3 million barrels by a third.

"If you take off 1 million barrels a day in this market, it's going to get ugly," said oil broker Tom Bentz of BNP Paribas Commodity Futures in New York. "Let's just hope it doesn't happen."

While Nymex oil futures are more than 56 percent higher than a year ago, they are still below the inflation-adjusted high above $90 a barrel set in 1980.

Posted by Paul at 6:59 AM | Permalink

It is, I know, way too early to make predictions for the next presidential election. But just for fun, let's assume that this poll is right and that this article is also right. If so, Republicans could have a Giuliani/Hutchison ticket in 2008.

Kay Bailey Hutchison, the senior senator from Texas, announced Friday that she would not challenge Gov. Rick Perry's re-election bid and would instead seek a third term in the U.S. Senate.

Dallas Morning News:

... fear of losing or the prospect of raising money for a $50 million primary weren't an issue ... Internal campaign polling showed the senator beating Mr. Perry, and the Hutchison campaign was confident she could match the governor's fundraising.

Either office would position Ms. Hutchison for a spot on the national ticket in 2008. Analysts said that while there was risk in making the governor's race, re-election [as senator] would be virtually guaranteed. That could make Ms. Hutchison an attractive choice for vice president.

(CORRECTED: I have fixed the hyperlink to the poll. My apologies.)

Posted by Paul at 6:58 AM | Permalink

As I wrote here, I think the fight for Social Security reform -- or at least for personal accounts -- is lost for now. But after the 2006 midterms, who knows? In the meantime, see how much Democratic obstructionism -- and Republican timidity -- may cost you.

By the way, I remind my gay and lesbian readers that under the Social Security system, your companion gets nothing when you die, no matter how long the two of you have been together. But under the president's proposal, you could leave to him or her the balance of your nest egg. Wouldn't you like to do that?

(Thanks to Patrick Ruffini.)

(BUMPED TO TOP)

Posted by Paul at 4:41 PM | Permalink

Now available as t-shirt:

U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (June 14, 2005):

During the operations since September 11th, the military has apprehended thousands of enemy combatants, and several hundred were determined to be particularly dangerous and valuable from an intelligence perspective.

There was no existing set of procedures or facilities to detain these enemies in Afghanistan or elsewhere. After extensive discussions with his senior advisers, the president decided that they were not entitled for formal prisoner of war status under the Geneva Conventions and that they were certainly not criminal defendants in the traditional law enforcement sense. Indeed, faced with this new situation, the president ordered that detained combatants be treated humanely under the laws of war. The detention facility at Guantanamo Bay was established for the simple reason that the United States needed a safe and secure location to detain and interrogate enemy combatants. It was the best option available.

The Department of Defense, working through the National Security Council interagency process, established procedures that would provide appropriate legal process to these detainees, procedures that go beyond what is required even under the Geneva Conventions. These included combatant status review tribunals to confirm that, in fact, each individual is, in fact, an unlawful enemy combatant. Every detainee currently at Guantanamo has received such a hearing. As a result, some 38 individuals were released.

(Thanks to Michelle Malkin.)

Posted by Paul at 4:40 PM | Permalink

Posted by Paul at 3:44 PM | Permalink

CNN:

KARABILA, Iraq -- The joint U.S.-Iraqi Operation Spear continued Saturday as Marines, sailors and Iraqi security forces fought insurgents in Karabila, near the Syrian border. The most intense fighting was concentrated in the center of town, where enemy fighters were holed up in a bunker complex.

Marines also found four people who appeared to have been taken captive and beaten.

Jane Arraf, CNN's senior Baghdad correspondent, is embedded with U.S. troops taking part in the mission. She spoke with CNN anchor Betty Nguyen by phone during the pitched battle.

ARRAF: What I see in front of me is absolutely heartbreaking. It's two of four hostages who are being taken away, rescued. They were rescued this morning. They're Iraqi, and they were found in this complex that Marines first thought was a car-bomb factory. In fact, they did find what they believe was a potential car bomb or suicide car bomb.

But inside this complex, they found something even more sinister -- four Iraqis who were handcuffed, their hands and feet bound with steel cuffs. They're now being taken away for medical treatment, one being borne away on a stretcher.

The man in intense pain that they're trying to get into a vehicle, has been tortured, he says, and has all the marks of being tortured with electricity. His back is crisscrossed with welts. The other man is even ... in worse shape. Their crime was to be part of the border police.

The Marines came in here this morning, rescued them. The battle is still raging around us. I don't know if you can hear the gunfire, but this is a major offensive to get rid of insurgents and foreign fighters in this city near the Syrian border....

... Two young men say they don't know why they were seized. They say they didn't hear the voices of their captors, only people whispering in their ear that they were going to be killed.

But we have just watched the two who were most badly treated be carried out of here for medical equipment, one of them on a stretcher, an older man who worked for the border police, along with his colleague. ... the Marines showed us the room where he says he was hung by his feet, his head dipped in water and then tortured with electric shocks repeatedly.

Don't expect any denunciation of this from Dick Durbin et al; they have to keep their venom on tap for Americans.

(Thanks to Jason at Iraq Now.)

Posted by Paul at 5:54 PM | Permalink

Posted by Paul at 4:58 PM | Permalink

Tomorrow, West Virginia University Press will publish the memoir of Sen. Robert Bryd (D-WV). From the Washington Post, under the headline "A senator's shame:"

The 770-page book is the latest in a long series of attempts by the 87-year-old Democratic patriarch to try to explain an event early in his life that threatens to define him nearly as much as his achievements in the Senate. In it, Byrd says he viewed the Klan as a useful platform from which to launch his political career. He described it essentially as a fraternal group of elites -- doctors, lawyers, clergy, judges and other "upstanding people" who at no time engaged in or preached violence against blacks, Jews or Catholics, who historically were targets of the Klan.

His latest account is consistent with others he has offered over the years that tend to minimize his direct involvement with the Klan and explain it as a youthful indiscretion. "My only explanation for the entire episode is that I was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision -- a jejune and immature outlook -- seeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions," Byrd wrote.

While Byrd provides the most detailed description of his early involvement with the Klan, conceding that he reflected "the fears and prejudices I had heard throughout my boyhood," the account is not complete. He does not acknowledge the full length of time he spent as a Klan organizer and advocate. Nor does he make any mention of a particularly incendiary letter he wrote in 1945 complaining about efforts to integrate the military ...

[...]

Byrd said in the Dec. 11, 1945, letter -- which would not become public for 42 more years with the publication of a book on blacks in the military during World War II by author Graham Smith -- that he would never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side. Byrd added that, "Rather I should die a thousand times, and see old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels." [emphasis added]

The senator claims he quit the Klan in early 1943. But if so, two years later he still hadn't quit it views, as the letter above demonstrates. Perhaps it's only coincidence that Mr. Bryd voted against the confirmations of Clarence Thomas and Janice Rogers Brown, both black.

Even before today's Post article, a poll of West Virginia voters had Mr. Bryd leading Republican U.S. Rep. Shelley Moore Capito by only 3 points in a hypothetical match. And as Gerry at Daily Thoughts notes, the Post has now "complicated" the senator's re-election bid.

In 2004, Mr. Bush won West Virginia by 13 points.

If Ms. Capito decides to run against Mr. Byrd, who turns 88 next year, I say mark this seat as a probable GOP pick up.

Posted by Paul at 3:38 PM | Permalink

Now available as bumper sticker ...

(Thanks to