A glimpse at a possible Supreme Court nominee: Michael McConnell.

I'm intrigued by the some of the names being bandied about by Supreme Court watchers as possible replacements for Chief Justice Rehnquist or Sandra Day O'Connor or John Paul Stevens (the three most believe are most likely to retire soon). One name that keeps popping up is Judge Michael McConnell of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver and a University of Utah law professor.

McConnell opposed Roe v. Wade because, as he states in a 1998 Wall Street Journal op-ed piece, "The reasoning of Roe is an embarrassment to those who take constitutional law seriously." The Supreme Court "brought great discredit on itself by overturning state laws regulating abortion without any persuasive basis in constitutional text or logic."

McConnell believes that the court's first mistake was finding a right of privacy in the Constitution. "But the right of privacy is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution," McConnell wrote. "Various judges, according to the Court, had found 'at least the roots of that right' in the First Amendment, in the 'penumbras of the Bill of Rights,' in the Ninth Amendment or in the 'concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment.' This vague statement is tantamount to confessing the court did not much care where in the Constitution this supposed right might be found. All that mattered was it be 'broad enough' to encompass abortion."

But McConnell is no partisan conservative. He's an intellectual conservative who holds some opinions that clash with mainstream Republican beliefs. For example, in Bush v. Gore, McConnell felt that the Supreme Court should have given Florida more time to do a proper recount.

McConnell also opposed the impeachment of President Clinton writing that, "The inviolability of elections may be the most important constitutional principle that we wave. The best test of whether presidential misconduct rises to the level of impeachment is whether members of his own party are willing to join in the motion."

McConnell's reasons for not supporting the Bush v. Gore decision and the impeachment of President Clinton I find valid even though I disagree with him. When I look at McConnell's legal views overall, I find him to be a strict constitutional contructionist not swayed by partisanship nor beholden to any politcal party. While conservative, it's important to note that he's not a demagogue. While some Republicans and conservatives are wary of McConnell turning into another Justice Souter if appointed to the Supreme Court, I don't think that's likely. I believe McConnell would make a fine Supreme Court justice.

Most miss the point of the anti-flag burning ammendment.

The ammendment is about giving congress the right to decide whether or not to ban flag burning. The Supreme Court over-stepped their bounds when they handed down their decision in '89 and many in congress simply wants to correct this mistake. Congress should be making the laws, not the courts. This is the constitutional, correct thing to do. I seriously doubt that flag-burning will be banned. Besides, if it is, we are only talking about a fine for desecrating the flag. This whole thing is not about banning flag burning. It's about restoring congress's constitutional duty. It's amazing to me that people think this ammendment will ban flag burning. It won't. It gives congress the right to decide if flag burning should be banned. Get the difference? Good. Now go away. You're bothering me.

Supreme Court nominees.

More rambling from the senior blowhard from Massachussetts:

"It is ridiculous for some to claim the founders would not have wanted consultation," said Senator Kennedy on the Senate floor. "Before any person can be appointed, we have to consider what's best for the whole country ... No president can avoid the requirement of advice and consent," he said. The Democrats desperately want President Bush to consult with them on Supreme Court nominees.

First of all, since when do Democrats like Kennedy consider what is best for the country?

Screw 'em.

The President has no obligation to consult the minority opposing party on his nominations. Do you think for one minute that a Democratic president would consult senate Republicans if they (the Republicans) were the minority? Hell no. And a Democratic president should not have to. Advise and consent simply is the process of an up or down vote. Nothing more. Yet Democratic senators are crying about :sniff, sniff: being left out. Boo-hoo.

Screw 'em.

The president should have the right to have his nominees voted on without the threat of a filibuster or other dishonorable tactics loved by Democrats. There is no guarantee that some of President's Bush's nominees will be approved by the senate in a straight up vote. There are some Republicans who will not like some of the president's nominees while there will likely be a few Democrats who do like most, if not all, of President Bush's nominees. Just let the president--any president--submit who he wants. Then the senate can have hearings and vote. That's the way it has always been done with Supreme Court nominees and that's the way it should still be done.

Senator Durbin is a traitor.

Senator Dick Durbin is a traitor to the United States of America. He should resign. I don't want an apology (it would be meaningless from human filth like Durbin), I want him forced from his position by he fellow senators.

Tuesday, on the senate floor, Senator Dick "Turbin" Durbin said the following:

On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold. ... On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor.

If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime – Pol Pot or others – that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

Boo-hoo, Durbin, you big fat baby, so it was a bit cold or perhaps a tad hot. And rap music was being played. But you think that's analogous to what the Nazis did?!? You're scum, Durbin, you're not much better than a Nazi yourself. If it was up to me, you'd be tried, convicted and sentenced to life in prison for using language that will likely get Americans killed. Under the law, you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater; you cannot yell "American soldiers are Nazis" in a world that wants to see America destroyed. Your words incite are enemies and give aid and comfort to those who would destroy America (no, no, I'm not talking about your Democratic colleagues, I'm talking terrorists). You may as well join the terrorists since you are one by proxy anyway, you piece of crap.

If you had any decency whatsoever, you'd resign. I'd write more but I'd regret it: I'm not human scum like you.

Isn't the Democratic party a wonderful, loving, open-minded organization? Howard Dean hates Republicans, Senator Byrd compares senate Republicans to Nazis and now this nonsense.

Bill Russell is no Kareem nor Wilt.

There are certain absurdities sports fans and the sports media hold on to and won't let go no matter how illogical those viewpoints are. On the eve of the NBA finals, it's perhaps appropriate to point out some of the absurd notions that permeate NBA fandom and media:

Absurd notion #1 - Bill Russell is the greatest center in NBA history. While certainly Russell is one of the greatest, virtually the only argument Russell fans can put up as to why he's the greatest is the number of championship teams Russell was on (eleven). These fans fail to note that there are many factors as to why some teams win championships and some teams don't. To lay it all on one player is idiotic. Do I really need to point out who Russell had around him on those Celtic championship teams? Early on, when Russell was new to the league, the Celtics already had the seasoned backcourt of Bob Cousy and Bill Sharman and forward Tom Heinsohn--all three Hall-of-Famers. Those three were instrumental in helping Russell win his first few NBA titles. Cousy and Sharman retired soon into the Celtics dynasty but Sam Jones and K.C. Jones stepped up and the Celtics hardly missed a beat. And then there was John Havlicek--one of the best players in NBA history--and the Celtics continued their eleven-titles-in-thirteen-years championship run. Certainly Russell deserves a place among the NBA's greatest centers but his stats, his dominance just don't hold up to the Big Two: Wilt Chamberlain and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.

Compare the dominance and offensive capabilities of Russell to Wilt and Kareem and Russell just doesn't hold up. Russell averaged eighteen points a game in his best offensive year and has a career average of fifteen points per game! Compare that to Wilt's career average of thirty PPG--including a season where he averaged fifty (fifty!) PPG--and Kareem's career average of almost twenty-five PPG and it isn't even a contest. Yes, Russell was dominant on defense but then so were Wilt and Kareem. Sure, Russell was great rebounder but Wilt was his equal on the boards. Kareem wasn't the rebounder Russell was but then Russell only shot forty-four percent from the field (an embarassing average for a center)! No wonder Russell racked up the rebounds! And, of course, Kareem had the most dangerous shot in basketball history--the skyhook. Russell never had a shot.

So stop ranking Russell number one. The number of championships he has means nothing except that he was surrounded by other great players. When it comes to the number-one slot, it belongs to Kareem or Wilt.

I'll attack the purveyors of absurd notion #2 later this week. Utah Jazz fans, look out.

Leftists are stealing the site of World Trade Center.

Through the efforts of the American left, the World Trade Center memorial is about to become the International Freedom Center which will say little or nothing about the heroic efforts of the police, firefighters and rescue workers who sacrificed their lives. Nor will this so-called Freedom Center be a memorial to those murdered on 9/11. Instead, the Freedom Center will become a "tribute to freedom around the globe in a post-9/11 world". This means, of course, that nearly every exhibit will include a good dose of America bashing. The IFC's own mission-statement includes this load of crap:

MISSION AND VISION

The International Freedom Center - a multi-dimensional cultural institution combining history, education and engagement – will be an integral part of humanity’s response to September 11. Rising from the hallowed ground of the World Trade Center site, it will serve as the complement, and its building as the gateway, to the World Trade Center Memorial, playing a leading role in the Memorial’s mission to “strengthen our resolve to preserve freedom, and inspire an end to hatred, ignorance, and intolerance.”

This is so wrong on so many levels. And guess who is behind this nonsense? Far-left Columbia professors, a group headed by the ACLU and George Soros. Anti-Americans all. I encourage all clear-thinking Americans to rally and put a stop to this absurdity. The WTC memorial should only be about the heroes and victims of 9/11. It should not be used as soapbox for the left--or the right, for that matter. The memorial should belong to all Americans. Please contact your representatives in congress--because this is being partially funded by your tax dollars--to put a stop to this atrocity.

Amnesty International protects terrorists.

I'm a bit late on this story, but here goes:

Recently, Amnesty International compared the military prison at Guantanamo Bay to the Soviet Gulag. The left is infamous for making outrageous comparisons but this one really is absurd. Thousands upon thousands of ordinary Soviet citizens were murdered in the Soviet Gulag while Gitmo houses a few hundred terrorists. This Gitmo/Gulag comparison is simply idiotic. Amnesty International is a worthless organization that clearly has an anti-American agenda and to further that agenda, they ignore real human rights abuses. The Executive Director of Amnesty International, William Schulz, even admitted that Amnesty's accusations of human rights abuses at Gitmo are imagined when he said that they "didn't know for sure" if the military was running a gulag. So these accusations come out of left field. This admission by Schulz shouldn't come as a shock, really, since the left is truth-challenged when it comes to just about everything. If Amnesty International was really interested in human rights, they'd go after the the racially-motivated abuses by Muslim Arabs in Darfur where women are gang-raped and murdered everyday by members of the religion of peace. Where is Amnesty International on this one? They're more worried about what U.S. military prison guards at Gitmo may have done to terrorists than they are about what terrorists do to innocent women and children. Large-scale gang rape and murder just isn't a priority to Amnesty International. Protecting terrorists is.

Mark Felt isn't a hero.

Am I the only one sickened by the media lionizing Mark Felt aka "Deep Throat"?

There are some serious questions that need to be asked about Mark Felt and Watergate. For example, if Felt was really interested in bringing the Nixon administration to justice, why did he circumvent a legitimate FBI investigation? The fact that Felt went to two reporters suggests justice wasn't his motive. More like revenge. Remember, upon J. Edgar Hoover's death, Nixon passed over Felt for the FBI's number one job. It should also be noted that Felt did many of the same things (i.e. illegal break-ins) he accused the president of. In fact, Felt was convicted for illegal activities including illegal break-ins. This guy didn't care about justice. He had an axe to grind and conspired with Woodward and Bernstein to remove President Nixon. It was a coup d'tat. Going back to the 1950s, the media disliked Nixon intensely. After all, Nixon went after all those commie buddies the media had--including Alger Hiss. Felt and Woodard/Bernstein used eachother to take down a man they hated (albeit for different reasons). It's that simple. To lionize this rat is disgusting. And hippocritical to boot. Remember how Linda Tripp was treated by the media? She did the same thing Felt did but the media destroyed her (rightly so but Felt should suffer the same fate). But wait! The difference is, of course, that Nixon was a Republican and Clinton wasn't. I'm certainly not saying Nixon was a school-boy. I consider Nixon to be one of the worst presidents in U.S. history and I feel he deserved to be taken down--but not by an illegal coup. It should have happened through an FBI investigation and, subsequently, through the House and Senate of the United States. It should have happened properly and legally. As it is, Felt is as bad as Nixon--worse, really, because Nixon eventually came clean. Felt lied to everyone for thirty years. He should be hated and despised, not lionized.