Teri O'Blog

Don't forget to join me today at the after party at the Ruck for The Troops in Plano. I'll be there around 12 noon, and I hope to meet you. For more information, please visit gibootcamp.com

It's a great opportunity to have some fun and help the people who protect our freedom, our fighting men and women in the U.S. military.

Can't wait to talk to you!

Best,
T

Hey there everyone,

I can’t believe I forgot to post a notice here about my new column at THE source for Illinois conservatives, the Illinois Leader. Thanks to them, not only for publishing my column “Fearing People of Faith, the Democrats, John Roberts and Religious Tests,” on Tuesday, July 26, 2005, but for adding the nice picture of Sir Thomas More to illustrate it. Nice touch, you guys!

You can find it here:

http://www.illinoisleader.com/news/newsview.asp?c=27401

Also, please don’t forget the Ruck for the Troops this Saturday, 8 am-12 noon in Plano. I will be attending and probably saying a few words at (I can’t help myself) the after-party, which starts at 12 noon.

Questions: Please contact SSG. Steve Stricker at (630)-212-2267 or visit gibootcamp.com. If you cal Steve, please let him know that you heard about the event from me.

I will be filling in for my good friend Deborah Rowe, 9 pm-12 midnight on the following days:
Wednesday, August 5
Thursday, August 6
Friday, August 7

I hope you can listen and even call me at 591-8900 to dish on the issues of the day.
Until Sunday (or Saturday if you make it out to Plano), stay as cool as ever!
Best,
T

Screwing UP, not down, (and other stuff from yesterday’s show)

Well, actually that screwing up thing never made it on the air, due to technical difficulties. I brought in a soundbite from my cousin Conan O’Brien’s show, featuring his band leader Max. Max castigated Jude Law, not for cheating on his hot fiancée, but for cheating with the dumpy (and less attractive) nanny. Funny stuff, but I wanted to make the point that I heard my friend Roe Conn make on his show last Wednesday. In fact, when I heard him say what I’m about to tell you, I thought to myself, “that’s exactly what I was thinking!” What he said was that one should never hire a hot nanny, or even a semi-hot nanny. Yes! You want someone who looks like Aunt Bea, or one of those nannies from “Supernanny” or “Nanny 9-11.” One more thing before we have all exhausted our patience with this dumb story, and it’s actually one with some important implications. If I’m not mistaken, didn’t the fiancée, the one who is named after a crayon, actually take up with Mr. Law while he was still married? If so, why is she surprised by her beloved’s infidelity? Oh, yes, I know Sienna. He cheated on her, but he’d never cheat on you. I know you’re only 23, but PULEEZE!

The links from yesterday’s show are up on my personal dot com, including the John Roberts stuff. More about him and Sen. Durbin’s appearance on “Meet the Press,” sound from which we were able to share with you yesterday, on my personal blog tomorrow.

Speaking of John Roberts, my column that I mentioned on the air yesterday, “Questions for Roberts,” is now up on one of Rush Limbaugh's favorite blogs, The American Thinker. You can find it here:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4672

Thanks again to Marc and Karen, former owner of that poor little puppy Lucky, for calling in yesterday. My heart goes out to them, and if this mope who has been charged actually killed Lucky, I hope he gets what’s coming to him. He appears to combine two very frightening and dangerous traits, stupidity (recall that he left his extortion message on the answering machine and the call was traced using caller ID) and an huge gaping hole where his empathy should be. Anyone this morally vacant that he could inflict so much pain on an innocent creature without any concern for the suffering he endured shouldn’t be walking around in a civilized society. You’ve got to wonder, though: who was running his brain surgery practice before he posted bond and was still incarcerated?

Thanks for listening! Please don’t forget the Ruck for the Troops this Saturday. I’ll remind you about that later in the week. Until then, stay as cool as ever!

The Roberts Nomination: Overall, A Good Choice

Would I have preferred J. Michael Luttig, Edith Jones or Janice Rogers Brown? Of course, but the more I think about the nomination of John Roberts, the more brilliant it seems to me. Here’s why.

The Schmooze Factor
John Roberts is known as one of the most affable, friendly, easy-going legal geniuses around. He has actually exhibited a sense of humor on more than one occasion. In one case involving the application of the Endangered Species Act, he questioned its application to protect the southwestern arroyo toad. The issue was whether the Act was constitutional by virtue of the Commerce Clause, and Roberts, questioning that idea wrote, “the hapless toad … for reasons of its own, lives its entire life in California.” Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, 323 F.3d 1062, 1064 (D.C. Cir. 2003).

Don’t underestimate the power of likeability and sense of humor. I don’t deny that Robert Bork’s nomination was torpedoed by the Left’s disinformation campaign and the failure of Bork’s supporters to respond quickly and effectively. Still, I’ve always thought that if Judge Bork’s personality had shined as brightly as his intellect, it might have made a difference.
The only three senators who voted against Roberts in the Judiciary committee when he was up for the D.C. circuit were Kennedy, Schumer, and, yes (OF COURSE!) Durbin. That’s got to make you feel better about him.

The Youth Factor
He’s only 50 years old, which means he could be on the court for 30 years plus. That spells major impact, and positions him to step into Justice Rehnquist’s shoes when the time comes.

Do the Math

As in this equation: The Court – O’Connor + Roberts = a more originalist Supreme Court

Speaking of Justice Rehnquist, remember we are not replacing a conservative with a conservative. We are replacing a “swing” (read pragmatic, legislator in a black robe) vote with a solid conservative.

Here’s one you’ll like even better. The Court (post-Roberts confirmation) – Rehnquist + Edith Jones (or Janice Rogers Brown or J. Michael Luttig) = a Supreme Court that actually supports the U.S. Constitution, or comes a lot closer to the one we have now

When the time comes to replace Justice Rehnquist, we will already have moved the Court in the right direction, and that’s even BEFORE we’ve replaced a conservative who is stepping down.

I won’t mention the likely retirement of Justice Stevens or the probably one of Justice Ginsberg. There’s been enough excitement for one day.

Sure, he’s a Harvard man, but we shouldn’t hold that against him, not that it doesn’t give me some pause, but in the overall scheme of things, O’Connor for Roberts leaves us better off. Now, fasten your seatbelts and get ready to hear a lot of hysterical raving from Eddie Haskell and his left-wing interest group taskmasters about things like a 12 year-old handcuffed for eating a French fry on a subway train, Ken Starr and a footnote about Roe v. Wade in 1991. It should be entertaining to watch Schumer’s sneering contempt and Durbin’s struggles to keep up with someone way out of his intellectual league (recall his unsuccessful and pathetic attempts to understand Janice Rogers Brown’s responses to his idiotic and pointless questions). In the end, he will be confirmed and we can move on to the next nominee, that long-awaited genuine originalist conservative along the lines of Judge Scalia.

Mr. President, Please Don’t Court Disaster!

I’ve made no secret of that fact that if I could choose the person to replace Sandra Day O’Connor, my choice would be Janice Rogers Brown, the brilliant jurist recently confirmed to the D.C. Circuit as part of the “judicial compromise” (or do you say sellout? I know I do.) Julian Bond calls her the “female Clarence Thomas,” and the left despises her for telling the truth about the New Deal (“the triumph of our socialist revolution” in which “private property was a major casualty”) and writing of public assistance that “theft is theft even when the government approves of the thievery,” so what’s not to like? The buzz today suggests that my girl Janice is not on the short list, damn it, although no one really knows. Has anyone called Karl Rove, that notorious leaker, to try to get the jump on this one?

Like many of you, I considered the 2004 election to be about two major issues: the war on terror, and the composition of the federal courts. Let’s be clear. This decision is as serious as a heart attack. We could have had Robert Bork. We got Anthony Kennedy. We could have had Edith Jones (see below). We got David Souter. That says it all.

With the understanding that all the speculation may be completely off base and that the president may surprise everyone, here’s my take on some of the supposed leading contenders.

A Threshold Note:
Before I talk about the following three nominees, let me say at the outset that I couldn’t disagree more with those who say that we need to replace Sandra Day O’Connor with a woman. The president needs to nominate a qualified, conservative originalist PERIOD. Leave the p.c. groupthink baloney to the moonbats on the Left!

The Two Edith’s
Edith Brown (Joy) Clement (5th Circuit)
This 57-year-old woman scares me a little because of her Souter-like lack of obvious judicial philosophy. Not much of a paper trail here, although that doesn’t stop some liberals, including the New Republic’s Jeffrey Rosen from calling her “an enthusiastic supporter of the Constitution in Exile,” and “an appealing stealth candidate” for conservatives. She says that Roe v. Wade is settled law, which could mean that she could never vote to overrule it. It could also mean “I am an appellate court judge so I have to follow Supreme Court precedents. Of course, once I get on the Supreme Court, it’s a new ballgame.” No one knows for sure. In any case, the libs are already objecting to her, which is no surprise.

Edith Hollan Jones (5th Circuit)
If you are going to pick an Edith, this is one, IMO. When I consider that she was the alternate choice to David Souter, I get sick to my stomach. Unlike the other Edith, she is obviously a stanch, reliable conservative who doesn’t look susceptible to Anthony Kennedy-like “growth.” Selecting Judge Jones would send the libs up the wall because of statements like this, in a case involving abortion: "[t]hat the Court's constitutional decision making leaves our nation in a position of willful blindness to evolving knowledge should trouble any dispassionate observer not only about the abortion decisions, but about a number of other areas in which the Court unhesitatingly steps into the realm of social policy under the guise of constitutional adjudication." McCorvey v. Hill, 385 F.3d 846 (5th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 1387 (2005). She also dissented from a decision that applied the Endangered Species Act to protect the rights of a rare bug against the right to build a shopping mall. Finally, she is a firm supporter of the death penalty.

Priscilla Owen (5th circuit)
Recently confirmed in the Gang of 14’s sellout compromise. She must be a good judge because she drives Nan Aron nuts. Her opinion in a Texas abortion case was hideously mischaracterized by liberal activists. What a surprise, huh?

J. Michael Luttig (4th Circuit)
He’s 51, and highly regarded by conservatives for his correct understanding of federalism and the need to reign in federal power. That’s a refreshing point of view, no? Especially in view of decisions like that recent Kelo abomination. Other things I like about this guy: he clerked for Antonin Scalia, he attended Washington and Lee and the University of Virginia Law School. That background subjects a person less to the malignant attitudes of the liberal elites that result in disasters like Anthony Kennedy.

John Roberts (D.C. Circuit)
The problem with this guy is that he went to Harvard undergrad and Harvard Law, and I think we know where that leads (see previous paragraph.) Also, he practiced law in D.C., so you know he got used to schmoozing with the Georgetown social set. He might find the need to charm these beautiful people irresistible, which is a very scary thought.


Emilio Garza (5th circuit)
If the president wants to nominate a Hispanic, an idea that I think is ridiculous and even offensive—once again, must we always engage in this p.c. group think? ---this guy is a better choice than Alberto Gonzales. As I noted on the air when the Attorney General’s name was first floated, there is a possibility that he would have to recuse himself from cases that involve matters in which he has been a party (war on terror, etc.) Plus, like many conservatives, I am not convinced that Judge Gonzales a reliable originalist voice.

Samuel Alito, Jr. (3rd circuit)
He’s 55, and sometimes called “Scalito,” I like this guy’s judicial philosophy. He dissented from the decision to strike down the Pennsylvania spousal notification provision, which was eventually appealed to the Supreme Court. The result was the Casey decision that upheld Roe. I love the fact that he dissented from a case upholding the constitutionality of a federal law banning machine guns, which was based on a narrow reading of the Commerce Clause. (Cue the 2nd amendment update theme music!)


Bottom Line
My thought is that the libs are going to try to demonize any nominee to the right of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, so President Bush should pull the trigger on a genuine conservative like Edith Jones. I would also be happy with J. Michael Luttig or Sam Alito. I need to know more about Garza. I am a little hinky about Edith Clement because of the lack of an obvious conservative philosophy.

Whatever you do, Mr. President, don’t try to be conciliatory with the liberals! That’s like trying to appease the terrorists. They view those good-hearted attempts to make nice as evidence of weakness that they can exploit, and they will be rewarded with a swift kick in the gut.

What are your thoughts? Please e-mail them to me at teri@teriobrien.com, and include the reference line “Supreme Court Choice” in the reference line. We’ll discuss this one on Sunday.

Three Stupid Things the Ignorant or Partisan Say About the Supreme Court

Liberal democrats, in a panic because the rise of alternative media has exposed them for the elitist, anti-democracy bunch that they are, have spent the last few weeks engaged in a desperate disinformation campaign. No, I don’t mean the “Seinfeld” story (that is, a story about nothing) of the year, the so-called “Karl Rove Investigation,” although of course, that, too, is yet another hilarious example of the libs’ m.o.; that is, construct a false story out of whole cloth, then repeat it incessantly and hope that no one will notice that you are (1) basing your whole understanding on fantasy and (2) failing to include the actual relevant facts. Nothing says more about the MSM (mainstream media), their motives, and their lack of credibility than the fact that continue to pretend that Joseph Wilson is anything other than a pathological serial liar, a narcissistic complete stranger to the truth, and a partisan hack. Don’t they know that we know those things? Who are they going to interview next—Baghdad Bob?

I’m talking about another current liberal propaganda campaign, specifically, their attempt to peddle several notions that are idiotic and completely at odds with the constitutional framework our Founding Fathers designed.

(1) The function of a Supreme Court nominee is to “bring the country together.”

That theory must be in one of those mysterious penumbras that only liberals can see in the Constitution, and like the other debris they see floating around in there, this idea has absolutely nothing to do with constitutional law. As if: as if our country is some big dysfunctional family and the new justice is supposed to be our understanding, sympathetic counselor. I don’t think so. Nor is he or she supposed to be Miss Congeniality or the winner of the National Honor Society Good Citizen Award. I realize that Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden spew this sort of pap to appear reasonable and conciliatory when they have no intention of “coming together” over one of the president’s judicial nominees. (No, I take that back. If the president nominates one of the current leadership of the ACLU or one of the judges on the Massachusetts’s Supreme Court who decided that for several thousand years we’ve all been confused about the meaning of the term “marriage,” they’d be more than happy to hold hands and sing Kumbaya.) Regardless, it’s beyond stupid and quite annoying to have to hear such foolish drivel on such an important issue.

(2) The Supreme Court justices must “represent” Americans

Here’s another hare-brained idea that I’ve heard from some of the chorus of ignoramuses (or should that be ignorami?) who can’t seem to suppress the irresistible impulse to talk about matters WAY beyond their knowledge or intelligence. I know that liberals don’t get the Constitution, so I’ll speak slowly. The leg-is-la-ture, you know the elected representatives, are the ones who represent Americans. That’s not that hard to understand, is it? I concede that it’s a hard pill to swallow for those who seek to impose their elitist, minority views on the rest of us, but that’s the way it is.

(3) We need a “pragmatic, moderate” judge on the Supreme Court

I can find no better way to demonstrate how stupid and unconstitutional this notion is than to quote Judge Scalia, who pointedly asked:
"What in the world is a moderate judge? What is a moderate interpretation of the Constitution? Halfway between what it really says and what you'd like it to say?"

Precisely. The libs are hoping that the new justice will have O’Connor’s philosophy of fashioning practical results, especially on social issues. (Recall that “affirmative action is ok for—oh, say, 25 years” thing from the Michigan decision.) That’s great for legislators. For judges? Not so much. It’s the reason that libs kept saying things like “the nominee doesn’t have to be a judge, necessarily.” Oh sure—they are hoping for someone without a firm judicial philosophy. Can you say Earl Warren?

So, who do I hope that the president will nominate? That will be the subject of our next post, which will appear sometime before 8 pm CDT. Stay tuned.

The Choice is Obvious

At 9:30 a.m (CDT)., immediately after learning of the retirement of Sandra Day O’Connor, I went into the husband’s office and said “OK! Now the president can make my dream come true and nominate my favorite of the “extremist” “out of mainstream” (right, Barack Obama?) judges that were the subject of the Gang of 14’s “compromise” (or do you say sellout?). Yes, none of that the brilliant woman who—horror of horrors—wants to take jurisprudence back to—are you sitting down?—the Constitution as written, not as seen in the wet dream of some elitist, Ivy League liberal, Janice Rogers Brown. Regular listeners to my program will recall that way back in 2003 when I witnessed the embarrassing spectacle (as it turned out, one one is a series of embarrassing spectacles involving our senior senator) of the Pudgy Huckster aka Eddie Haskell, DICK Durbin trying to discuss constitutional law with this dignified, intelligent justice of the California Supreme, I became a big fan. I also noted that watching her try to explain the Lochner decision to him reminded me of trying to explain to my dog why she can’t have another Milk-Bone, the disparity in I.Q. and understanding being about the same. Once this former ambulance chaser became a senator, all of sudden, intoxicated with power, he didn't realize how pathetic and ridiculous he appeared, I'm quite sure.
Let’s get to it, Mr. President. Then when the Chief Justice steps down, please make Clarence Thomas CJ and appoint Miguel Estrada to fill his seat. That’s all I want for Christmas.