Samuel Alito...

is the next contestant for the position of Associate Judge on the Supreme Court. It seems like President Bush has actually paid lip service to, you know, federalism, strict constructionism, whatever you want to call it. It's pretty much a victory for conservatives.

Of course, liberals are going to hate it.

The million dollar question is whether the Democrats are going to filibuster Alito's nomination when it reaches the Senate floor. I would have to say yes.

That's what everyone seems to expect. I would be shocked if Democrats let the nomnation go by without a filibuster. The far left has been gearing up for this battle for a long time now.

Also, here's a listing of Judge Alito's decisions on business law. Of course, I have no clue what those rulings mean, but all I know is that he looks to be a solid citizen with a good track record. Let's see how the Democrats take that.

Libertarians vs. Republicans

As I look at the past five years of the Bush administration and especially the actions of Republicans over the past two months, I can't help but be driven to the Libertarian camp. The thing is that there are a couple of things that I would have to reconcile to be a libertarian:

1. I like federalism. And I like the Consitution, especially the 10th Amendment. Of course, nobody ever mentions the 10th amendment because, God forbid, the feds would have to give up power. So while the federal government has no power over drugs, states sure can if they want it. Same with abortion and a million other things that the feds control right now, but can only very loosely be said to be constitutionally allowable.
   
2. That said, there are quite a few things that I wouldn't like to see become legalized. Like drug use, including marijuana, and abortion. But there's no federal role for regulation of those things.
   
3. Not to mention the non-push button topics, like ownership of the electromagnetic spectrum. Or even television broadcasts. If people don't want to see sex and violence, then don't watch those programs or channels. If you don't want your kid seeing them, then do some parenting.
   
4. Then there's religion, which is another place where I would definitely disagree with libertarians. My interpretation of the 1st Amendment is that it doesn't say that you can't say anything about religion in schools, or God forbid, mention the word God in public discourse at all. Instead, it's forbids the establishment of religion. Of course, it's possible that establishing monotheism is establishment of religion. Of course, it's also possible that ignoring God or religion is just another way of establihing the religion of atheism. But everyone ignores the other side of the coin. You either acknoledge a higher power (God, Allah, Buddha, whomever) or you don't. But don't expect me to believe that atheism isn't a religion of itself. Just mention evolution or the big bang to a scientist. They can't accept the concept of some kind of religious influence because their religion of atheism forbids it.
   
5. One last thing I disagree with libertarians on is monetary policy. Alot of economic libertarians believe that the Federal Reserve system is incompatable with libertarianism. Of course, managing money is one of the expressed powers of the federal government.

I'm sure there are other things that I would disagree with libertarians on, but the way that the Republican party is handling things right now, I'd much rather be a libertarian.

Unless George Allen is nominated for President. Or Jim DeMint.

Air America

While driving today, I got bored with the music on my XM radio, so I switch over to listening to some political stuff. First Laura Ingraham, then Air America.

Before going on about the obvious news of the day, I'd like to mention why Air America is doing so poorly as a start up.

Their radio personalities are horrible.

The woman I listened to at 3 PM was hysterical. And not in the haha funny that Al Franken was trying to come up with. Instead, it was almost like something that a conservative would try to parody. The woman, Randi Rhodes, thought that the announcement of Harriet Miers' withdrawal was a conspiracy to distract from the pressing issue of the pending indictments of Cheney, Rove, etc. Of course, that would be the case if in fact there were actual indictments announced. But they weren't. But according to Randi, the announcement must've been made today so that everyone wouldn't talk about the indictments. But that's alright. Who doesn't love the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy®©™?

The other problem was that the big beef with Air America was that they spent a solid hour talking about Iraq. Even with the news being about the Supreme Court, they can't stop talking about Iraq. Everything comes back to Iraq for the left in America. Which is fine with me. It distracts them from coming up with ways to screw up this country. Which is then left to the Republicans. Exhibits 1 and 2: Arlen Spector and Ted Stevens.

Oh yeah. Ted wants to introduce a $3 billion dollar subsidy for digital television converter boxes. And somehow these two are the chairs of the Senate Judiciary and Appropriations committees. Fantastic.

But I do like the fact that I live in a state where both Senators actually fight against pork and stand up for doing something good with tax monies. Here's the actual transcript from the Senate where you can see where both Senators DeMint and Graham vote for amendments to this year's transportation appropriations bill that would limit the amount of pork that goes to Alaska, and actually help Louisiana rebuild.

Of course, these amendments were soundly defeated, as pork lives on.

So we'll see how things turn out with Harriet Miers and spending and such. But I'd have to say that most of us conservatives are happy with this.

Harriet Miers and the Budget

Now that there's a brewhaha over Harriet Miers' nomination, there hasn't been a peep out of fiscal conservatives over the Bush plan to spend the nation into oblivion. And there hasn't been any talk of moving the Medicare drug giveaway back a year either.

Because that was really going to happen, moving the Medicare drug giveaway. Nice to see that fiscal conservatives get thrown to the woodchipper yet again.

Is it 2008 yet?

(BTW, this isn't my opus on fiscal conservativism and the Mike Pence stuff. It's just something that I had thought of just this instant.)

Harriet Miers

What kind of political blog would this be without my two cents on the recent choice of Harriet Miers for Associate Justice on the US Supreme Court?

A unique one.

Well, I have about two cents of opinion on her nomination, so we'll see how this turns out.

First of all, pretty much most of the conservative, non-Bush hacks have panned this nomination as an opportunity lost, pandering, alienating the conservative base, yadda, yadda, yadda. There are really three areas where this will hurt Bush and the Republicans.

1) Bush cronyism. Most of the news outlets have been calling Miers one of Bush's "inner circle". That's not good in the wake of the Michael Brown FEMA shenanigans. Now, he's nominating a close friend. Sure, that means that Bush has a good idea of what Miers is capable of, but she doesn't have anything substantiative to back it up with. Supposedly, Bush liked the idea that John Roberts really didn't have any policy faux pas for the Democrats to bash Roberts over the head with. So he went with someone who also didn't have anything controversial to say on anything. Which leads to...

2) Bush taking the easy road. This is different from Bush taking the high road. That would've meant nominating someone with a solid conservative record for everyone to see, including the insane left.

At this point, since whoever Bush was going to nominate would've been the "swing vote," Democrats are going to fight this thing tooth and nail NO MATTER WHAT. So Bush was going to fight a battle no matter what. Why not stick with your principles and nominate someone with a track record? I'll tell you why...

Bush is not a leader.

He is a Republican and is a better leader than anyone currently in the Democratic Party. But that's a low standard to set. But that doesn't make him a true flag-bearer. Fact of the matter is that he's been using the Bill Clinton playbook for 5 years now and that's not going to change. Although, Bush is not saying that he's concerned about his legacy, he should be. He's going to nominate 2 people to the Supreme Court, which will have alot more to say on the future of America than most of things he has done this term (Iraq, Afghanistan, No Child Left Behind). Of course, there's the massive debt that he will be leaving behind, but apparently Americans aren't supposed to care about that.

Anyway, it's more than likely that Republicans are going to be very dissapointed with the end result of the second Bush presidency. Conservatives are probably going to be even more dissapointed with how things turned out. But onto my third reason why this pick is a flop.

3) Harriet Miers is a bureaucrat lawyer. She's basically a litigation lawyer who's "experience" is running the Texas State Bar and being an advisor to the Bush White House.

First of all, litigation lawyers are pretty much the bottom of the legal barrel. They're ambulance chasers, but Harriet Miers hasn't even done that. Instead, she's been a bureaucrat. I don't even know if she's seen the inside of a courtroom. She's like Tom Cruise's character in "A Few Good Men."

The major problem I have with this is that it appears that she has no opinion on anything constitutional. She appears to have no experience with consitutional matters. This means that, despite what anyone tells you, there is no basis for how she is going to act on the bench. This uncertainty is not good for conservatives. However, it's like father, like son. Bush II is just repeating the same mistakes of Bush I.

Which means that she's an opportunist, a hack. She's donated money to both political parties, and switched only when the Democrats were on the outs in Texas. Apparently, she's only gotten to where she is now by knowing the right people, and being a woman. Although the Consitution gives no qualifications for Supreme Court Justices, I'm sure that if there were some, Miers would not meet them.

So we have a litgation lawyer who's a political insider with no constitutional background. Not good, but does that mean that she is going to be confirmed by the Senate? I would hope not, but the political reality is that Bush will probably twist enough Senator arms to get her confirmed. He doesn't want another Bork on his hands.

I have really bad vibes about her appointment, the more I think about it. But the President has made his bed, now he must lay in it.