Let’s take a quick look at three articles in today’s Washington Times and contrast the opinions of different people on President Bush’s upcoming nomination of someone to replace Justice O’Connor on the Supreme Court.
Let’s start with the Republicans.
Washington Times Headline: GOP chiefs predict court pick from right
State Republican leaders want President Bush to name a solid conservative to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and say they are more confident than ever that he will do just that….
“I’m hoping that he sticks with a solid conservative,” said Ron Carey, chairman of the Minnesota Republican Party.
“Republican activists in Minnesota are solidly conservative, and we would be disappointed if he nominated someone in the mode of O’Connor,” who was often a swing vote between the high court’s liberal and conservative blocs. “If he nominates a moderate, I think it’s going to discourage some of the party’s base.”…
The mood expressed by these state level party leaders is that President Bush should nominate a conservative, and not someone like O’Connor. After all, Bush won the election while campaigning on a platform that included nominating conservative judges.
I still recall the moment I decided to vote for Bush in the 2000 elections. I was torn between voting for Bush or for a third party candidate. But during one of the debates, Gore and Bush were asked what kind of judges they would appoint. Bush said he would appoint judges that believed in a strict interpretation of the Constitution and followed the original intent of our founding document. Gore said he would appoint judges that treated the Constitution as a “living breathing” document. In other words, Bush would appoint judges who believe that words have meaning, and Gore would appoint judges who would find in the Constitution the justification for whatever struck their fancy at the moment.
There are many things that then candidate Bush was proposing that I disagreed with, but I decided to vote for him because it is vitally important that we have judges who believe that words have meaning. I voted for Bush for that reason, and I expect him to keep his promise and appoint a conservative judge to the Supreme Court.
But not surprisingly, Democrats take a contrary view.
Headline Washington Times: Left’s list for high court seen as setup
Democrats are floating candidates who they consider acceptable Supreme Court nominees primarily to ensure that they can complain later about not “really” being consulted by President Bush when none are selected, according to conservatives.
They say the three Hispanic judges who Democratic leaders offered Mr. Bush in a private meeting earlier this week to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor are all non-starters….
Not so, say Democrats.
“It was an honest effort on the part of Democrats to suggest names that might be acceptable to both sides,” said Jim Manley, spokesman for Minority Leader Harry Reid.
Even though the Democrats lost both the Senate and the White House, they are dictating whom they feel the President should nominate. And their ideal nominee sure isn’t going to be a conservative.
Just for a moment, reverse the situation. If the Democrats controlled both the Senate and the White House, do you think for a moment they would consider what the minority thought of their ideal candidate?
And now to Pennsylvania’s own Senator, Arlen Specter. What does he think?
Headline Washington Times: Specter hopes for nominee similar to O’Connor
The chairman of the Senate panel that will oversee hearings on President Bush’s Supreme Court nominee said yesterday that he would like to see someone in the tradition of retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and perhaps someone with experience in politics….
But he said he would like to see a nominee who has experience outside the judiciary, which would rule out many of the candidates that Mr. Bush is said to be considering….
He said someone who has been in politics might be a good choice. Justice O’Connor had served in the Arizona legislature before being nominated by President Reagan….
Mr. Specter encouraged Mr. Bush not to bow to pressure from conservatives and instead try to preserve the existing ideological balance on the court — meaning that his nominee would be a moderate like Justice O’Connor.
Mr. Bush “stands in a position where he has to put a person on not where the president would be beholden to any group, no matter how much they contributed to his election, but something in the national interest,” Mr. Specter said.
“And when you have these very delicate questions, it’s helpful to the country to have somebody who is a swing vote, which maintains the balance,” he said.
Specter wants someone who is a politician (maybe a Senator who has prosecutorial experience?), who would follow Specter’s opinions on the issues rather than Bush’s. (I wonder if Senator Specter sees his own ideal nominee every morning when he looks in the mirror?)
So Senator Specter’s advice to President Bush is, don’t keep your word. Instead nominate someone that would offend the people who voted for you and nominate me (or someone who looks, acts, and thinks like me).
Now, here’s you homework assignment.
Whose views does Senator Specter more accurately reflect: the Democrats or the Republicans?
They have a name for politicians like Senator Specter: RINO – Republican In Name Only.
Why, oh why did President Bush and Senator Santorum ever campaign for Senator Specter and help him defeat Pat Toomey?
Q.41. Where is the moral law summarized?
A. The moral law is summarized in the ten commandments.
I’ve commented before that many Christians observe the novalogue (nine commandments) rather than the decalogue (ten commandments) by leaving out Sabbath observance (they don’t keep the Christian Sabbath of the Lord’s Day). But if the moral law is what God has revealed for man to obey and the moral law is summarized in the ten commandments, we can’t just decide to leave one out.
Are the ten commandments still in force for the Christian? Listen to what Jesus has to say:
Matthew 5:17-20
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Jesus goes on to give an examples of the “Law” and “commandments” that some might think he has “come to abolish”.
Matthew 5:21-26
21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. 23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25 Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison. 26 Truly, I say to you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny.
Jesus first example is the sixth commandment: “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13). He tells them that to completely fulfill this law you must not only refrain from killing people, you must do everything in your power to be reconciled to others.
Jesus follows with examples of the lust in relation to the seventh commandment: “You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14) and bearing false witness in relation to the ninth commandment: “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Exodus 20:16).
Jesus is telling us that His first coming does not abolish our observance of the ten commandments. Instead, He reveals to us how little we understand the commandments in the first place, and how much more they demand of us than we think.
We all have fallen far short of this standard, and as Jesus told us that “unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven”, we must all despair of being right with God based upon our own righteousness.
Our only hope is in the righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed to us through faith as He has borne the punishment for our sins (Romans 5:1-11).
I’m fixing a hole where the rain gets in….
I’m filling the cracks that run through the door….
I’m painting the room in a colorful way….
Headline Reuters: Beetles steal the show at Hong Kong Disneyland?
HONG KONG (Reuters) – Walt Disney Co. is busy replacing furniture at its hotel at the brand new Hong Kong Disneyland after many rooms became infested with beetles, a newspaper reported Thursday.
The Oriental Daily quoted unidentified sources as saying that the pests had gobbled their way into brand new beds and coffee tables in about 100 rooms at the hotel at Disney’s first theme park in China.
Washington is such a silly place. They go to Washington promising to work for the good of the country in general and their constituents in particular, but they end up just jockeying for position and personal or party advancement.
And so the latest hot topic is that Democrats think they have finally nailed their favorite boogie-man, Karl Rove. Quite frankly, I don’t have any interest in the games the two parties are playing, although I thought of mocking the way Senate leaders tried to strip each other of security clearances due to this little kerfluffel.
But this one statement by Newt Gingrich caught my eye.
Headline Washington Times: Rove was correcting ‘false’ charges
Republicans went on the offensive yesterday. Mr. Wilson “lied to the country about who got him the job,” former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said on NBC’s “Today” show. “The Senate intelligence committee is scathing about that.”
“The Senate intelligence committee is scathing about that”?
scathe:
-
To harm or injure, especially by fire.
-
To criticize or denounce severely; excoriate.
I guess the second meaning could be appropriate, although I haven’t heard the Senate intelligence committee denouncing Mr. Wilson. I tend to think Newt meant to say they were “seething“.
Semolina pilchard has a sparkler.
AP Photo:
Caption: “Fireworks illuminate the Eiffel Tower in Paris during Bastille Day celebration late Thursday, July 14, 2005. (AP Photo/Francois Mori)”
We can all learn a lesson from the Marx Brother’s movie, Duck Soup.
Ambassador Trentino of Sylvania: I did not come here to be insulted!
Rufus T. Firefly, President of Freedonia: That’s what you think.
Trentino: You swine!
Firefly: Come again?
Trentino: You worm!
Firefly: Once more?
Trentino: You upstart!
Firefly: That’s it. Touché!
[Firefly slaps Trentino with his glove.]
After an attempted reconciliation between Ambassador Trentino and Firefly, they have this exchange:
Firefly: It was silly of me to lose my temper on account of that little thing you called me.
Trentino: Little thing I called you? Why what did I call you?
Firefly: Gosh, I don’t even remember what it was.
[They all laugh]
Trentino: Well, do you mean “worm”?
Firefly: No, that wasn’t it.
Trentino: I know! “Swine!”
Firefly: Uh-uh. No, it was a seven-letter word.
Trentino: Oh yes! “Upstart.”
Firefly: That’s it! Upstart!
[Firefly again slaps Trentino with his glove]
Mrs. Teasdale: Please!
Trentino: Mrs. Teasdale, this man is impossible. This is an outrage. My course is clear. This means war.
Mrs. Teasdale: Ohh!
Trentino [turning to Firefly]: You runt!
Firefly: I still like upstart the best.
And so Freedonia and Sylvania are irrevocable committed to war. (As Firefly puts it, “It’s too late. I’ve already paid a month’s rent on the battlefield.”)
And so, we see that insults lead to a challenge, and finally to all out war. It is my advice to stop the cycle before it is too late.
And in the following case, it would be interplanetary war.
Headline Reuters: Planet with three suns challenges astronomers
Reuters Photo:
Caption: “A Siamese cat looks out at Arab Gulf tourists at Jordan Zoo near Amman July 13, 2005. Many Arab Gulf tourists visit Jordan during the peak of the summer season. REUTERS/Ali Jarekji”
Headline Washington Times: An All-Star rerun
DETROIT — If there’s anything fans back in Washington can say with certainty in the wake of baseball’s 76th All-Star Game, it is this: Game 1 of the 2005 World Series will not be at RFK Stadium.
Game 3? Check back in October to see if that impossible dream came true.
It will be the American League, however, that plays hosts to Game 1 of the Series for the fourth straight year following last night’s 7-5 win over the National League….
The Washington Nationals’ fans had to wait until the All Star game before they could confidently predict they wouldn’t host the first game of the World Series.
Before the first pitch of the opening game, Pittsburgh Pirates fans could tell you with full assurance that game one of the World Series wouldn’t be at PNC Park. And game 3 won’t be there either.
