It’s not too early to be thinking about who will run on the Republican ticket in 2008. If you pay any attention to MSM outlets, one would think Senator Hillary Clinton has it all wrapped up, and is ready to move back in to the White House.

Two different perspectives today should peak our interest in the 2008 Presidental race even at this early date.

First, from the Wall Street Opinion Journal, an article written by Brendan Miniter entitled, The McCain Myth. We will only look at a very crucial part of the article which says the following:

“Now, however, the answer to the question is obvious: Conservatives can and do win elections for the Republican Party. What the McCain Myth ignores is that for now a majority of voters nationwide embrace conservative principles. Talk of being a “compassionate conservative” notwithstanding, it wasn’t maverick moderatism that (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

We found a story in the Washington Times, which we would like to relay to you here. The story is entitled, Empty table honors all U.S. MIAs, POWs. It is a great story, and it promotes what might be a new tradition in the US. It could be used to honor our fallen heroes in a way which will help our children remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice to insure our freedom and democracy today.

Our thanks to Bruce Smith, who originally wrote it for the Associated Press. Here is the story:

“MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C. — The table is set with a white tablecloth, a black napkin and white candle, and a plate with only a slice of lemon and salt. An empty chair leans against the table.

The tradition, little known to the general public, of setting an empty table (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Today, we want to continue our discourse on the “right to privacy” issue we have been exploring in our previous Saturday Evening Judicial Review Posts, which can be read by clicking on that category on your left. We have already noted how we got to the point where we are, and how that has been done by bits and pieces in both majority and minority opinions handed down by the SCOTUS in various cases up to the issue before us today.

Today we want to look at Roe v. Wade. We will only give a synopsis of how Roe became Constitutional law. If you want to know more concerning the influences which effected the minds and opinions of the Justices who supported this decision, you will need to purchase and read Men In Black written by Mark R. Levin. You can purchase the book by clicking (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Just like the writers at Red State, we too have a day job, and have to make a living for our family, so here are a couple of interesting links.

First, Hugh Hewitt has two great articles. The first is, A house on fire. Here is a part:

“Whether this was a blunder or a plan to recover from a blunder, we won’t know for years. Mr. McCain at first said he would “listen to the leadership” regarding judicial nomination procedure, only to suddenly, on an apparent impulse, declare to Chris Matthews that he would vote against ending the disfigured filibuster. The backlash against him was immediate and intense. Perhaps he thought he could undo the damage to his carefully planned political rehabilitation with a bold “compromise.” The result seems just the opposite. Not only is his political house on fire, so too is (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Peggy Noonan is at her finest in this piece in the Wall Street Opinion Journal, entitled, Mr. Narcissus Goes to Washington. This is just enough to make you go read the whole article:

“John McCain wryly reminded us not to miss A&E’s biography of his heroic Vietnam experience. Joe Lieberman referred to the group as “this band of brothers, and sisters.” But my favorite was Lindsey Graham, who said, “I know there will be folks ‘back home’ who will be angry, but that’s only because they’re not as sophisticated and high-minded as I am. Actually they’re rather stupid, which is why they’re not in the Senate and I am. But I have 3 1/2 years to charm them out of their narrow-minded resentments, and watch me, baby.”

Oh, excuse me, that’s not what he said. That’s only what he meant. It was the invisible scroll as (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Our thanks to Confirm Them for their editorial today, On the constitutionality of Senate Rule XXII:, which points to the John Jay Hooker Center for Election and Campaign Finance Reform.

Mr. Hooker wrote in an artical yesterday, entitled, Senator Frist is Right – Compromise is Wrong, where he makes a compelling case that judicial nominee filibustering is un-constitutional. This is what he wrote:

“Sen. Frist has every right, and indeed the duty, to see that every presidential nominee for the Federal bench at every level gets an up or down vote. That is the constitutional requirement, notwithstanding the fact that the Senate for 200 years has failed to acknowledge the constitutional requirement set out in Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2, which mandates that the Senate advise and consent with respect to all judicial nominees. The requirement is (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Time is running our for public comment to the FEC in their proposed rulemaking regarding the internet. The deadline is June 3, 2005.

If you are a blogger, blog reader, or a friend to blogs, you should make your opinion known to the FEC.

You may sign on to the 11 Principles for Online Freedom already written up with the Center for Democracy & Technology and the Institute for Politics, Technology, and The Internet. The address for their sign-up is Center for Democracy and Technology.

If you would like to write your own comments, you can find help and instruction from Red State.org, here, or from DailyKos.com, here.

Please visit the The Online Coalition and help them to educate the FEC.

What follows is the Oath of Office taken by every Senator prior to being seated in the Senate of the United States of America.

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

The source of the oath is taken from the Senate website found here.

These seven Republican Senators broke their oath of office and defied the constitution, when signing onto the “compromise deal”. The States they represent are in parentheses.

John McCain (AR)
John Warner (VA)
Mike DeWine (OH)
(Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Robert Novak has a commentary on Real Clear Politics this morning which backs our theory we published here, yesterday. His commentary, Senate’s Sham Debate outlines the following:

“Senators droned on last week, supposedly debating two female nominees for the U.S. appellate bench, but it was a sham. The real issue was the future makeup of the Supreme Court, which explains the audacious Democratic strategy of blocking President Bush’s choices for lower courts. The focus on the high court also has resulted in failure so far in seeking a negotiated settlement.”

Sen. Allen predicts showdown will end in ‘nuclear option’ in a Washington Times article written by James G. Lakely and Charles Hurt.

Confirm Them has all the latest on the filibuster, here.

As we have written here before, filibustering is about power, control of the legal system, and governing by minority. We as the majority have rights as well, and it is time for the majority to exercise those rights.

Please contact your Senators and these wobblers today!

Here are their names and contact information:

Sen. Lincoln Chafee (RI) 202-224-2921
Sen. Susan Collins (ME) 202-224-2523
Sen. Mike DeWine (OH) 202-224-2315
Sen. John McCain (AZ) 202-224-2235
Sen. Olympia Snowe (ME) 202-224-5344
Sen. John Sununu (NH) 202-224-2841
Sen. John Warner (VA) 202-224-2023
Sen. Chuck Hagel (NE) 202-224-4224
Sen. George Voinovich (OH) 202-224-3353

The Senate switchboard number is 202-225-3121. E-Mail and other contact information can be found here.

As we continue to wait for what could be one of the most historic votes ever taken in the United States Senate, it would be a good idea to review what some in the past have said concerning the Senate’s role of advice and consent. If Senate Democrats continue to insist on “minority” rule, Senate Republicans are poised to force on option to enforce majority rule, that would restore constitutionality to the process involving judicial nominees.

During the debate for ratifying the Constitution in the State of Virginia, James Monroe had the following to say concerning the appointment of judicial nominees by the President of the United States. Along with the President’s role, he enumerates the Senate’s role in advice and consent. Here is the excerpt from the debate held on June 10, 1788:

“He is to nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Senator Elizabeth Dole, writes these words via the Washington Times, in an op-ed piece entitled, Nominees deserve better. Here is the excerpt:

“Resorting to half-truths and invective to advance a political objective — the establishment of a new 60-vote supermajority requirement for the confirmation of federal judges — is deeply unfair to those who have spent a lifetime building reputations for fairness and intellectual probity.”

She further writes the following:

“While the Democrats cannot plausibly justify overturning more than 200 years of Senate tradition by filibustering the president’s judicial nominees, let’s also remember it is equally unacceptable to treat these nominees as political pinatas to further this aim.
Justices Owen and Brown, and Judge Boyle have earned their reputations as common-sense jurists who apply the law fairly and impartially. Attacking their good names will not diminish the simple fact that they (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

While we wait for the Senate to finally finish debate on the two current judicial nominees before them, we should take a look at how it is progressing.

On the one hand, Red State is reporting here that Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., has finally gotten the fence post pulled out, and is now supporting Senate Majority Leader Frist’s effort to end judicial nominee filibustering. Here is the excerpt:

“Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., for weeks said he was undecided on whether to back a move by Frist, if it comes. Wednesday, he officially rejected signing on to a compromise.

“I believe that all of the president’s nominees deserve an up or down vote,” Hagel said, quoted by spokesman Mike Buttry. “The agreement that has been proposed calls for three of the president’s nominees not to get a vote. I could not agree to that. That is (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Bellicose is the word to describe what is currently happening on the Senate Floor with the pronouncements being made by Senate Democrats. Their desperate attempt to hold onto their tyrannical minority obstructionism is not only unconstitutional, it is wrong. The accusations being made against the Republican Majority, and Judicial Nominees Owen and Brown are no longer an attempt to debate the qualifications of the nominees, but a smear campaign against them personally, and each Republican Senator who supports the option to end nominee filibusters.

The whole idea of filibustering judicial nominees is a ploy to govern by minority rule in a nation where the majority is granted the constitutional right to govern. The same avenue of tyrannical minority rule is the chosen vehicle of Liberal Democrats through activist judges in the courts. Thus the sparks, outbursts, tantrums, and vehement blustering are spewing forth in the futile hope of hanging (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

The “paper of record”, the New York Times, has pronounced a detonation of the “constitutional – nuclear – Byrd” option to take place tomorrow. In an article published today entitled, Senate Leaders Break Off Talks on Judicial Nominees, Carl Hulse states the following:

“Dr. Frist and Mr. Reid have been exploring similar approaches in proposals and counterproposals over a few weeks. Dr. Frist now intends to advance two nominees, two state Supreme Court justices, Priscilla R. Owen of Texas and Janice Rogers Brown of California, on Wednesday.”

CBS News also indicates the showdown is imminent. Their article is here.

Finally, Radio Blogger thinks it will happen tomorrow as well if the Times story above is true. See his comments here.

If the day of reckoning has finally come and you have not made your opinions known to your Senators. DUH! (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

We are going to start off with an editorial published in the Wall Street Opinion Journal today entitled, How We Got Here: Why Republicans can’t let the judicial filibuster succeed. The writer’s main point is as follows:

“As for Republicans who want to preserve the option of filibustering a future nominee, it’d be just as wrong for them to do so. And Democrats willing to use the filibuster to block judges would not have any qualms about using the nuclear option themselves to kill a filibuster in the future. Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer believe in the “whatever it takes” school of politics.

This is at its core a political fight, and elections ought to mean something. Republicans have gained Senate seats in two consecutive elections in which judicial nominations were among the most important issues, including against the Senate Minority Leader. The one Democrat from (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)