The Fight is ON!...hopefully.

*Clears throat* *does best Michael Buffer voice*
Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, children of all ages...The M. Sheldon show PROUDLY presents...The battle of the CENTURY...SCOTUS '05!!!

Hot Diggidy Dog, we get to fight!!!-at least if our sources are right.
According to the Chicago Tribune, (which, I have to admit, I don't read, but found at Right on the Right:

WASHINGTON - Rebounding from the failed nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, President Bush is poised to select between two of the nation’s leading conservative federal appeals court judges - both experienced jurists with deep backgrounds in constitutional law - for what promises to be a bruising Senate confirmation battle.

With an announcement expected Sunday or Monday, administration officials have narrowed the focus to Judges Samuel Alito of New Jersey and Michael Luttig of Virginia, sources involved in the process said. Both have sterling legal qualifications and solid conservative credentials, and both would set off an explosive fight with Senate Democrats, who are demanding a more moderate nominee to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

Boy am I happy...but cautiously so, as this could be a mean spirited Halloween prank via the Tribune.
I, for one, am ready for the fight. On one hand, you have Samuel Alito. While I don't know a whole lot about him...many lawyers call him "Scalito". I love that. He is also QUITE QUALIFIED, more so than Roberts...light years ahead of Miers.
On the other, there's Michael Luttig. He we know alot about, and like. Alot.

According to some sources, the nominee will actually be Alito. So, Let's do some digging. According to Law.com:

Alito's résumé reads like a recipe for high court consideration -- beginning with undergrad studies at Princeton, perhaps the Ivy League's most welcoming home for conservatives seeking elite educations, and a law degree from Yale, the Bush family's sentimental favorite.

After a clerkship with a 3rd Circuit judge, Alito worked as a front-line federal prosecutor in New Jersey for four years.

But soon after President Ronald Reagan was elected, Alito joined the Office of the Solicitor General, staying for four years and helping to decide what position the administration would take in cases up for review by the Supreme Court.

That was followed by a three-year stint at Main Justice as a deputy assistant attorney general.

In 1987, at the age of 37, Alito was appointed U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, a post he held until he was tapped in 1990 by the first President Bush to join the 3rd Circuit.

On the hot-button issues, Alito has been consistently conservative.

In ACLU v. Schundler, Alito wrote the majority opinion holding that a city's holiday display that included a créche and a menorah did not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment because it also included secular symbols such as Frosty the Snowman and a banner promoting racial diversity.

On abortion, Alito was the lone dissenter in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which the 3rd Circuit struck down a Pennsylvania law that required women seeking abortions to inform their husbands.

Alito argued that the Pennsylvania law's restrictions should have been upheld.

"The Pennsylvania Legislature could have rationally believed," Alito wrote, "that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands' knowledge because of perceived problems -- such as economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands' previously expressed opposition -- that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion."

The case went on to the Supreme Court, resulting in a 6-3 decision that reaffirmed Roe v. Wade and struck down the spousal notification provision of the law. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, in his dissent, quoted Alito's underlying dissent and said he agreed with his reasoning.

In fact, over the years, Alito has been a frequent dissenter. And, unlike in Casey, he has sometimes been vindicated, when the Supreme Court reversed his colleagues and made his view the law.

In Homar v. Gilbert, Alito dissented from a ruling that a state university had violated a campus police officer's due process rights by suspending him without pay immediately after he was arrested on drug charges. The Supreme Court later agreed with Alito's view that no hearing was required because the criminal charges showed that the suspension was not baseless.

Perhaps Alito's most memorable dissent came in 1996 in Sheridan v. Dupont, a sex discrimination suit that forced the 3rd Circuit to tackle fundamental questions about the plaintiff's burden of proof.

The issue in Sheridan was whether a plaintiff in a sex discrimination case can survive summary judgment simply by casting doubt on the employer's proffer of legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the adverse employment decision.

More specifically, the question was how the 3rd Circuit should interpret the 1993 Supreme Court decision in St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, which held that once an employer offers legitimate reasons for its conduct, the presumption of discrimination is "rebutted" and "drops from the case."

After Hicks, the federal circuits split, with a few creating what came to be known as the "pretext-plus" standard, meaning plaintiffs must do more than merely cast doubt on an employer's explanation to have the case go forward.

In Sheridan, a 12-judge en banc panel rejected the pretext-plus theory, saying it was "within the province of the jury" to decide when discrimination had occurred.

Alito, the lone dissenter, argued that his colleagues were going too far by allowing plaintiffs to get their case to a jury whenever they managed to cast any doubt on the employer's version.

"If the majority had merely said that ... a defense motion for summary judgment or judgment as a matter of law must generally be denied, I would agree," Alito wrote.

But, he said, his colleagues had established a "blanket rule" against summary judgment that was legally "unsound."

All this sounds great to me. A strict Constructionist. A man of conviction. No forcibly short lists for the appointment (due to minority or female only considerations). Let's fight. It'll give the public the opportunity to see just how confrontational and mean-spirited the left can get. Let the MSM be proven wrong with all of their doom and gloom "GOP is Dying" stories. I can guarantee that I'll have more on this later.
Till then,
God Bless.
M. Sheldon

Murphy's Law...Rucksack edition.

To go along with the Hooah! Saturday theme I give you "Murphy's law of the Rucksack"

1. No matter how carefully you pack, a rucksack is always too small.
2. No matter how small, a rucksack is always too heavy.
3. No matter how heavy, a rucksack will never contain what you want.
4. No matter what you need, it's always at the bottom.


Just keep plugin' away, guys...just remember, someday, once you've retired, you'll get it all to fit. ;-)

Yesterday...

Today....

and Tomorrow!

Kindly linked at TMH's Bacon Bits

HOOAH!

Another pro-military post...Can't do enough of these.
Now, more than ever, we need you guys (in the military). Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, Guardsmen, Reservists, and Active Duty.
A little fun brought to you from my cousin Dave. When he first arrived in the Middle-East, it started raining. (laugh if you want, but I really didn't know it did that there.) And apparently, when it rains...it really rains.
The next day, in my e-mail, was a pic. I laughed till my sides hurt. In the pic was Dave and two Iraqis. They were all propped up on foot-lockers outside of their tents, in full camo, barefooted, holding fishing poles facing a small lake that had all but overtaken their camp. Images like that amaze me. You'll not see them anywhere else, but finding fun during a time of war is what stands out to me as what sets the military men and women apart from the rest of us.
True bravery is almost gone from the rest of the world. Yet every day we hear stories of the brave acts and deeds done by those in uniform. Truly, in this lowly writer's humble opinion, the world would be a better place if there were more like you.
A million thanks to each and every man and woman who bravely gets up each day to defend me and my family from our nation's enemies.


p.s. thanks to all who contributed last week.
kindly linked at: Stop the ACLU

Right Wingers Chill.

After reading on several right winger's blogs who they want to replace Miers as President Bush's nomination to the SCOTUS, I've came to one conclusion. CHILL OUT! This could prove to be real fun.
First we plant the idea into the (simple) minds of the left of a recess appointment. Once they start their convulsions (which you know they will), publicly start talking seriously about an actual "true conservative" to be the goal...maybe mention Ginsberg's alter-ego.
Then, the Pres should publicly meet with Pat Roberts, Roy Moore, and Alan Sears...in succession.
Instruct Scott McClellan to start sweating profusely with any mention of Karl Rove, and adamently deny (without provocation) that Rove or Frist are even on the list of potential candidates for the SCOTUS.
Frist should then leave a meeting with the President, obviously disgruntled mumbling something like: "grumble rumble Coulter, grumble rumble Pundit, grumble Skinny."
The next day, totally unannounced, Rush would quelsh (start) the "rumor" that he and G. Gordon Liddy are on the list..."as far as I know" he should say.
Liddy, of course should say: "If there's one thing I've learned, it's how to keep a secret."
The Left would then literally explode, and we could all drink punch and watch fireworks like it was July 4 all over again.
Don't get in a hurry, friends...sit back, relax for a few days, let the left work its self into a frenzy(those are always fun to watch), and give em a little more time to drink some Kos-brand Kool-aid.

Harriet Miers Withdraws.

From cnn:

President Bush on Thursday accepted the withdrawal of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, according to a statement from the White House.

In the statement, Miers said her nomination presented a "burden for the White House."

From FoxNews:

Bush said he reluctantly accepted her decision to withdraw, after weeks of insisting that he did not want her to step down. He blamed her withdrawal on calls in the Senate for the release of internal White House documents that the administration has insisted were protected by executive privilege.

"It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House -- disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel," Bush said. "Harriet Miers' decision demonstrates her deep respect for this essential aspect of the constitutional separation of powers -- and confirms my deep respect and admiration for her."

You know that's why Brownback and camp asked for them. They know what exec. privilidge is, they wanted to send a message. For the first time in recent history, the Republican senators are listening to us, and the Pres is listening to them. How strange that took this long.
I was kind of hoping to see Miers go through the process and be rejected, though. Just to prove that the system worked.
Since the opportunity has presented its self, a few rules for consideration:
1)No litmus tests for future nominations. Screw race, sex, etc.
2)Demanding a Constitutional literalist is not a litmus test:P
3)For the love of God, don't defy what has been worked done over the last 30 or so years in the conservative movement. We're **this** close to winning.

Jayster's interview with Alan Sears!

Crossposted from

Stop the ACLU.

First of all, I want to thank you on behalf of Stop The ACLU, all of our contributors, and supporters. It is an honor to have this interview with you. We appreciate the Alliance Defense Fund does for America by fighting the ACLU, and protecting life, and liberty.

1 Could you tell us a brief summary of how ADF came about?

Enough was enough. Dismayed by years of the erosion of liberty through activist courts in1993, thirty-five leaders of various Christian ministries came together to discuss the growing legal threats to religious freedom, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family and the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) was born. ADF's purpose was to develop sufficient means to win - through training, strategy, coordination, and funding to support litigation. In just eleven short years, ADF has trained over 850 allied attorneys, 405 law students, and provided funding for over 1,500 cases, including twenty-six victories at the Unites States Supreme Court.

2. What inspired you to write your new book, The ACLU vs. America?

In December 2003, I appeared on the O'Reilly Factor to discuss the ACLU's legal attacks on the public celebration of Christmas. During that interview, Bill O'Reilly asked, tongue in cheek: "Isn't the ACLU an organization that started out with good beginnings, but has just gotten off track over the past decade?" There was no way to answer it in a 25-30 second sound bite. Craig Osten (my-co-author) and I pondered O'Reilly's question and realized that most Americans believe this myth that the ACLU had good roots. We knew that the truth had to be told: that the ACLU had a completely different agenda for America right from the start, an agenda that sought to legally undermine every American institution in order to reshape our nation as the ACLU and its founders saw fit.

3. What would you say to those people who say that just because the ACLU was founded on Communism does not mean that they still have communist goals?

Baldwin fastidiously claimed he was not a communist, and in fact, purged the ACLU board members who actually belonged to the party when Stalin and Hitler linked arms in 1939. Despite this, Baldwin had repeatedly expressed admiration for the Soviets and had many communist and socialist allies. In an interview a few years before his death, ACLU Founder Roger Baldwin said to Peggy Lamson (a former ACLU board member): "The Communists say, we don't care what the majority says, this minority is right, and if we can impose our will on the majority, we will do so." This type of self-image sums up the modern-day ACLU, which has demonstrated, time and time again, blatant disregard for the will of the people and the democratic process. For example, the ACLU has filed or supported lawsuit after lawsuit to either block public votes on constitutional amendments affirming traditional marriage, or to overturn the results (which have yet to be in the ACLU's favor). When Alaskan voters passed a constitutional amendment in 1998 affirming marriage as between one man and one woman, the ACLU's former executive director said: "Today's results prove that certain fundamental issues should not be left up to a majority vote."

4. I have read in your book that the ACLU filed a brief in favor of legalizing child pornography. When I wrote about this, many people wanted solid proof. Where can one see in the record how the ACLU defended this?

There are several examples. The files at the U.S. Supreme Court are a good starting point. In 1983, the ACLU submitted a friend of the court brief in the case of New York v. Ferber, arguing that the distribution of child pornography is protected by the First Amendment. The ACLU Policy Guide states: "The ACLU believes that the First Amendment protects the dissemination of all forms of communication. The ACLU opposes on First Amendment grounds, laws that restrict the production and distribution of any printed and visual materials even when some of the producers of those materials are punishable under criminal law." ( i.e. child pornography).

In the mid-1980s, when I serving as the Director of the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography, the then-legislative counsel of the ACLU testified that it was the ACLU's position that once child pornography was produced, there should be no government restriction on its sale and distribution.

5. Recently a judge in California ruled that the Mt. Soledad cross was unconstitutional despite the majority of San Diego voters supported keeping the cross. What are your thoughts on judicial activism in America today? Should judges be using international law in interpreting the Constitution?

In his biography by Peggy Lamson, Roger Baldwin said: "I placed my faith in the courts…" What he meant by that was that he knew the ACLU could not achieve its aims through state and federal legislatures or by taking their case to the people. He knew that the courts would be the most useful method of imposing the ACLU's agenda on the people. The outgrowth of that strategy is the judicial activism we see today, where the ACLU and its allies are using the courts to deny the expressed will of the people and to impose new laws via judicial fiat. In the Mt. Soledad case, the ACLU attorney James McElroy expressed his disdain for the majority when he said after the vote: "It still doesn't mean a damn thing. Voters should have never voted on it."

ADF believes that judges should interpret the Constitution as written and consistent with its original meaning. It is not an "evolving document" with emanations from penumbras as judicial activists' state.

As far as international law, this is just another example of how the ACLU has tried to change the rules to get their way. They came to the realization that the Constitution can only be stretched in so many ways, that they are eventually going to reach a limit with how far they can advance their agenda with domestic laws and courts alone!

I think Chief Justice John Roberts said it quite eloquently during his confirmation hearing when asked about international law. He said: "Looking at foreign law for support is like looking out over a crowd and picking out your friends. Foreign law, you can find anything you want. If you don't find it in the decisions of France or Italy, it's in the decisions of Somalia or Japan or Indonesia or wherever." He went on to state that international law was a misuse of legal precedent and we would wholeheartedly agree.

Nevertheless, the ACLU, along with its former counsel Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, have been the biggest proponents of using international law as precedent to undermine our national sovereignty, which millions have sacrificed and died to defend and preserve.

6. What do you find is the biggest threat to liberty in our society today? How can we counter this?

The biggest threat to liberty today is the agenda of advocates of homosexual behavior, which Craig Osten and I detail in our previous book, The Homosexual Agenda: The Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today. The ACLU has helped develop much of this agenda and has worked very closely with these advocates. The ultimate goal of many homosexual activists is to progressively silence and punish any dissenting viewpoints when it comes to homosexual behavior. In places such as Sweden and Canada, people with sincere religious objections to homosexual behavior are facing fines, loss of employment, and even imprisonment for expressing their views.

How can we counter this? First of all, we can show up. When ADF and its allies have shown up against legal advocates of homosexual behavior in the courtroom, with the training, strategy, and coordination to win, we've been successful in defeating the agenda of homosexual advocates, including same-sex "marriage."

Secondly, it will take resources. The ACLU and its allies, including radical advocates of homosexual behavior, have tremendous financial resources at their disposal. The ACLU Foundation has $175 million in assets. The Gill Foundation, whose mission is to push the homosexual agenda, has spent millions of dollars to achieve its aims. The Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal and Defense and Education Fund, and Planned Parenthood, all have massive amounts of funds, including millions from corporate America, to spend.

Thirdly, Americans need to become educated on the threats to liberty, and that is why we wrote the ACLU book, as well as our previous book on the homosexual agenda, to awaken the majority of Americans who still respect the values of life, liberty, and family that made our nation great.

7. Is it possible to reform the ACLU? Can they be changed, or is countering them the only option?

It's not a public company and is controlled by a private board. It's tough to "reform" an organization that had a very different agenda for America right from the beginning. In addition, they have had eighty years to build the legal precedents that they have used to advance their agenda, and even if the ACLU went out of existence today, those precedents would still be in place. Therefore, it is going to take a long-term, strategic effort to reverse those legal precedents, and put new ones in place that affirm religious freedom, the sanctity of life, marriage and the family.

8. What is your strategy in fighting the ACLU? Are there other ways people can get involved?

ADF has a four-fold plan to fight and eventually defeat the ACLU. That plan is training, coordination, funding, and direct litigation. Our goals include training at least 5,000 allied attorneys over the next ten years to take on the ACLU and its allies and building an in-house attorney mentoring program - to train and equip the next generation of attorneys. But you train all the attorneys you want, and if they do not have a coordinated plan of action, it is not going to make much of a difference. That is why ADF focuses on strategic coordination to make sure that we are working in unity towards a common goal of reversing the legal damage inflicted by the ACLU and its allies on our nation, rather than working against each other. Thirdly, we make sure that when our allied attorneys show up in court to take on the ACLU, that they have the necessary financial resources to win. ADF has funded over 1,500 grants for legal cases and projects in just eleven years. Finally, ADF wants to grow litigators, lawyers on our staff who are actively involved in defending religious freedom, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

9. Currently there is legislation in the House by Congressman Hostetler that is asking to reform the attorney's fees act in the Civil Rights Act to not apply in Establishment Clause cases. Does ADF support this?

We talk about the need to reform this in our book, as it has become a financial cash cow for the ACLU and one of their weapons in their campaign of fear, intimidation, and disinformation to force public officials to bow to their agenda. While ADF does not delve into legislative issues, we hope this effort by the congressman passes to fix this loophole which the ACLU has exploited for years to bully towns and municipalities into compliance.

10. Do you support grassroots efforts like Stop The ACLU.Com and Stop The ACLU.Org in informing the people of the ACLU's actions and other civil liberties groups? How can we motivate others to get involved? What would your advice be in helping our organization's success?

ADF is thankful for any efforts that raise awareness of the ACLU's dangerous agenda for America and encourages citizens to get involved in combating it. I believe that the American people are increasingly rejecting the ACLU's agenda as more and more of it is brought into the light. Keep on doing what you are doing, highlighting the ACLU's most recent outrageous statements and positions, and I am sure your efforts will be successful.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please register at Our Portal, or email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 115 blogs already onboard.

Influx of arms into Lebanon.

Apparently, somebody in Syria don't know who they're screwing with.
Arms are being sent into Lebanon from Syria in support of the rebel Palistinians. No wonder the Lebanese Gov't is having so much trouble keeping down the pro-Syria forces. The Palistinians of the world are really starting to p*ss me off.
Again, I'm not a racist man, so if there are any "Pali's" out there who are willing to publicly denounce the actions of Hammas, the PLO, etc. you've got a forum here.
If the Syrians think that they can even try to undo what has been done in the middle east, I truly feel sorry for them the day after the bombs start dropping.
But really, can we really blame Syria for not controling what is moving out of it's country if we cant even control what comes into ours...but that's for another post.
-M. Sheldon

Sooo much to talk about.

Okay, the new President of Iran is calling for the destruction of Israel and all who recognize Israel as a state, the Iraqis voted in a Constitution, and the UN has been covering up the assasination of Rafik Hariri.
Enough of that nonsense, lets talk about Harriet Miers.
Truth be told, among the big names on the right side of the bloggosphere, this seems to be the norm right now.
Not here.
Among my sparadic posts (sorry, been real busy) I will only post on Miers if she's actually in the news. With something substancial, that is.
So, that's my vow to you, the reader.
Expect to read more on the stories above as soon as I can work up something on them.