VOLuntarilyConservative

There are a few great young scholars that have come out of Harvard Law (like Austin Bramwell). Among them is Ben Shapiro, who Ann Coulter pushed as a Supreme Court nominee when President Bush was looking to fill a vacancy on the Court.

Ben is in a unique situation because he has some experience with Elena Kagen, the ghost-like vapor with no real qualifications that President Obama has nominated to the Supreme Court. And, to listen to Ben and his tale of Kagen's blundering in Harvard's erroneous stand against the United States Military, what we do know should lead us to believe that Kagen has no place on the Supreme Court.

Now, Kagen told the Senate Judiciary Committee that she would be a model of impartiality and would act with deference to Congress. Of course, her lies before the Senate are as meaningless as Obama's campaign promises. Don't believe me? Obama's first SCOTUS nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, stated at her confirmation hearing that she saw situations where the individual right to bear arms existed. This was contrary to her prior opinions (as stated by Cato Institute Fellow David Kopel in his report to the Senate Judiciary Committee) and, today, to her vote with the minority in today's decision in McDonald v. Chicago.

It's interesting that the Right sees the problems with Kagen, just as they did with Harriet Miers. Yet, the Left - those who supposedly think for themselves and question authority - seem to march in lockstep with Obama's edict that Kagen is deserving of a lifetime appointment to the federal bench. They figure that if she's good enough for Obama, then she's good enough for them. Of course, if they keep putting forth intellectual lightweights as SCOTUS nominees, we will all suffer when the unfortunate day comes when Sotomayor or Kagen authors an opinion that actually manipulates a fundamental right.

It's interesting reading, for sure. The whole Kagen discussion probably amounts to nothing, because Senate Republicans don't have the cojones to band together and keep the unqualified nominee off of the bench. It doesn't make her more qualified, however, and we all need to realize that sooner rather than later.

Labels: President Obama, SCOTUS, U.S. Senate

Given all that Ted Kennedy has been through in his life - some voluntarily, some not - I find it hard to believe that he won't find a way to beat brain cancer, too.

Even from the other side of the aisle, our prayers are with the Kennedy's during this time of need.

Labels: Democrats, U.S. Senate

Labels: U.S. Senate

Save the GOP has the scoop that Rep. Roger Wicker has been tabbed by Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour to replace the retired Trent Lott in the U.S. Senate until November's special election.

Save the GOP provides the following ratings on Wicker:

• 0% rating from NARAL indicating a staunchly pro-life voting record
• 97% rating fro US COC indicating a pro-business voting record
• 17% rating from the NEA which means they don’t like him and that is a good thing
• 100% rating from Christian Coalition
• 33% rating from CATO which indicates a mixed record on trade issues
• A+ rating from NRA
• 100% rating from FAIR which means he is awesome on cracking down on illegal immigration
• 0% rating from AFL-CIO
• 59% rating from National Taxpayers Union which is a “satisfactory” rating based on their scale

Doesn't sound too bad when you look at it that way. (A 0% rating by the NEA would have been better - LOL.) Wicker appears to be solidly pro-life, pro-gun, and anti-illegal immigration. Those are all great. However, like Save the GOP, I have a few worries when it comes to expanding government bureaucracy. There's nothing conservative about that.

Overall, though, not a bad pick for Mississippi's new Senator.

Labels: 2008 Senate Races, U.S. Senate

Sharon Cobb, liberal trooper that she is, has been up all night liveblogging the Senate's "debate" of the measure to withdraw the troops from Iraq. Anyone who has liveblogged an event (and I have done several) will respect Sharon's efforts.

It's a good read. Even though Sharon and I are basically in agreement on our troops in Iraq (my position has been and currently is that we should have removed Hussein and then come home, so we are in agreement that our troops should not be in Iraq at this time), you do need to read her comments with a bit of a filter. She really doesn't like those Senators who would vote to keep our troops in Iraq.

My position is a bit different because I come from the perspective that we were in a no-win situation from the beginning. Come home and the region potentially explodes into a regional turf war. Stay, become an occupying force, and lose thousands of troops with no real endgame. Both of those options are losers, so I can't fault someone with an opposing loser viewpoint just because they chose the loser viewpoint different from my loser viewpoint.

The Senate should vote on the measure some time this morning. I predict that it will fail in a vote closer than most pundits expect. Of course, it's practically moot anyway, as the bill awaits certain veto from President Bush.

Let's be honest - this is political posturing by the Democrats as the presidential campaign gears up. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Labels: Iraq, Liveblogging, U.S. Senate

The Senate seems hell-bent on destroying this country, so the Upper Chamber will be debating on how best to do so today.

Six Meat Buffet has the links to all of the blogs covering the illegal immigration bill in the Senate, including the text of the amendments and liveblogging by some of the big-dog blogs like Malkin and Captain's Quarters.

This bill does deserve this kind of coverage, for the societal impact is enormous and the political impact - the beginning of a one-party system of government, for starters - is seismic.

Labels: Immigration, U.S. Senate

Call your U.S. Senator today and let them know that you will remember how they vote on this attempt by President Bush to give amnesty to criminal immigrants.

I know I will.

MORE: If you are in Tennessee, here are the numbers you need to know:

Lamar Alexander
D.C. Office - 202-224-4944
Knoxville - 865-545-4253
Nashville - 615-736-5129
Tri-Cities - 423-325-6240

Bob Corker
D.C. Office - 202-224-3344
Knoxville - 865-637-4180
Nashville - 615-279-8125
Tri-Cities - 423-323-1252

Labels: Immigration, U.S. Senate

"Seven times President Bush has nominated a southern white male to the appeals courts, and seven times Senate Democrats have tried to block the nomination. Worse yet, each of the seven have been subjected to a campaign of personal destruction. With one exception – Fourth Circuit nominee William Haynes – the attacks focus on charges that the nominee is insensitive to the rights of minorities, women, gays, and/or the disabled. Democrats and their allies cynically play to the stereotype that southerners are racist or otherwise bigoted."

- Committee for Justice Executive Director Curt Levey

Labels: Democrats, Law, U.S. Senate

Wyoming GOP officials announced that the public will be involved in the process to select a replacement for the late Senator Craig Thomas, saying that the process would be "as open as the Western sky."

"We want the confidence of Wyoming's people, so this is how we're going to do it," Republican Party Chairman Fred Parady said.

What a novel concept - one that is superior to the one certain government officials used by following their own hair-brained (and patently illegal) scheme.

I certainly hope that Lynne Cheney doesn't throw her hat in the ring. Nothing would stink more of impropriety at the federal level than the wife of an Executive officeholder serving in the Upper Chamber of the Legislature.

Labels: Knox County Politics, U.S. Senate

Thank goodness. Now I can quit watching C-SPAN2.

I'm not sure what was the funniest part yesterday - Christopher Dodd trying to persuade his colleagues that allowing for the relatives of those who are here illegally to become American citizens won't increase the number of unskilled immigrants in the country, or Harry Reid chastising President Bush for the Senate Majority Leader's failure to deliver on getting this bill through.

Actually, they're both tragic, not funny.

But it wasn't just the Democrats who were making idiotic remarks.

From the "Who do you trust - me or your lyin' eyes" department:

"I am getting calls, but I would say to my constituents: Do you have no faith in me after 35 years that I am just going to buy a pig in a poke here, or be for something that is bad?"

Yeah, that little snippet was from Senator Trent Lott, Republican Senator from Mississippi. When I read something like that, I say a little prayer that the good people of the State of Mississippi can somehow find the resolve to send a man home from D.C. who has obviously been there too long.

And don't get me started on Lindsey Graham. I'm surprised that Strom Thurmond doesn't rise out of his grave and make Graham start behaving like the conservative that he was once.

A telling week, that's for sure. And the best part is that no legislation was passed that would have granted amnesty to criminals. Maybe we can act on this issue someday with a plan that would work, but I would rather have no plan passed now than pass the wrong plan.

Labels: Immigration, U.S. Senate

By one vote, an amendment was added in the wee hours of the night that might threaten the viability of Bush's plan to grant amnesty to over 12 million illegal aliens in the United States.

Kudos to those senators who spent all of yesterday trying to tack a poison pill amendment on the bill and secure its failure (and the GOP's existence as a party of relevance).

If you have time today, call your senators and ask them to vote against this treacherous bill.

Labels: Immigration, U.S. Senate

A.C., Sharon Cobb, and a host of others drooled over Jim Webb's Democratic rebuttal in posts authored yesterday. Perhaps they heard something that I did not. Whereas the President seemed conciliatory in tone, Senator Webb seemed combative and as what the American public has traditionally thought of Democrats when they fail to control all three branches of the U.S. government - whiners.

This is closer to what I heard from Webb:

Thus, to keep our promise for a new course in Iraq, we will continue to oppose whatever this president says. Whatever course he says, ours will continue to be anywhere between 120 and 240 degrees in the other direction. First, we will offer a non-binding resolution to oppose sending more troops. As my colleague Senator Levin has noted, “the worst thing” of all that could happen here would be the failure of this symbolic act, so let’s hope we can at least agree on something meaningless.

Second, we will continue to harp endlessly about whatever happens.

Read the whole interpreted Webb response at One Free Korea. (Hat tip: Instapundit)

Labels: U.S. Senate