Fox News is reporting that Justice Sandra Day O’connor’s resignation is imminent. Brian Wilson is quoting three separate sources.

Update:
Eric at Red State, says it will be Garza who will be appointed. Krempasky at Confirm Them says it will come by noon.

Update:Fox News has the letter.

Update:
Bush will speak on TV shortly after 11:00 AM Eastern.

Update:
From SCOTUSblog, SOC Letter of Resignation:

“This is to inform you of my decision to retire from my position as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, effective upon the nomination and confirmation of my successor. It has been a great privilege indeed to have served as a member of the court for 24 terms. I will leave it with enormous respect for the integrity of the court and its role under our constitutional structure.”

Update:

Fox News says, no announcement of a nominee by Bush at 11:15 AM Eastern.

Confirm Them, is reporting from their sources, A Round Up Of Sources, the following:

• This morning John Cornyn was seen at the White House. He is rumored to have then had a private meeting with key staffers.
• Last my source told me this morning, Garza is still at the top of the list.
• As for Rehnquist? Several key players in the Senate were told by the White House that he was out this week. My source says the White House went into confusion mode over this. Everyone had expected Rehnquist.
• As for Gonzales. POTUS is POTUS and sources tell me that though the political calculus equates to suicide, POTUS still wants Gonzales.

The National Review Online wrote on June 28th, an article entitled, No to Justice Gonzales. Here is an excerpt:

“Finally, the president has to know (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

“Follow the path, Mr. Masoudi. Walk where the great men before you have walked.” Professor William Hundert, The Emperor’s Club, 2002

There is a whole host of writers and commentator’s speculating and offering opinions on who will be the next Associate Justice on The United States Supreme Court. Most are offering great advice based upon political objectives and achievements. There are some from the left who offer no advice at all, except to obstruct anyone who will not fit in their particular ideological system. There are those on the right who have worked tirelessly to arrive at this moment in our nation’s history. Today we want to look at some articles which have great relevance pertaining to the choice the President will soon make on who will replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

We begin with Nine Tips for Bush on the Supreme Court Vacancy, written by (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Why should conservatives oppose an appointment of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to the Supreme Court?

First, in a Texas Supreme Court case, In re Jane Doe, then Justice Priscilla Owen who dissented to the majority ruling, had the following to say concerning that opinion:

“…this Court has usurped the role of the trial court, reweighed the evidence, and drawn its own conclusions. The Court has forsaken any semblance of abiding by principles of appellate review.”

and she further stated:

“It is the Court who has acted irresponsibly in this case by summarily rendering judgment without careful consideration of the record, by manufacturing reasons to support its actions, and by ignoring the evidence that supports the trial court’s judgment.

* * * * *

I dissent from the Court’s judgment in this case and from the manner in which this appeal has been resolved. The Court has disregarded the (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

With the President’s admonishment to “tone down” the rhetoric, especially about his friend Attorney General Gonzales, the right has responded in kind.

Michelle Malkin writes succinctly in an article entitled, No, YOU “Tone It Down”, quoting Laura Ingraham, who said the following:

“In a slightly disturbing interview in USA TODAY, President Bush tells everyone to “tone down” the rhetoric. That’s funny, that’s what the Democrats are saying too. The President, in fact, needs conservatives to be mobilized, passionate, and strong in their support of his nominee–toning it down never helps the GOP. (see, e.g., the fights over Bolton, Estrada, and Bork.)”

Michelle has quite a take on the above words. Read the whole thing and the links.

Krempasky at Red State makes a compelling argument for President Bush not to nominate Attorney General Gonzales in, Demoralizing the base. He (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

As Prime Minister Tony Blair spoke for all of Great Britain today, he echoed the sentiments of the British people, and we join with them in their determination. The following is part of his speech:

“It is important that those engaged in terrorism realise that our determination to defend our values and our way of life is greater than their determination to cause death and destruction to innocent people in a desire to impose extremism on the world. Whatever they do, it is our determination that they will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear in this country and in other civilised nations throughout the world.”

The speech above reminds me of another British Prime Minister who was equally steeled to the task at hand. This is a portion of the Dunkirk Speech of Sir Winston Churchill:

“We shall defend our island whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender.”

May God keep and guide you on this terrible day.

Update [2005-7-8 17:20:42 by Erick]: at Red State “William Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the United States, has retired. A White House statement is forthcoming.”

Update 16:30 CDT:
Erick has added this caveat: “A very good source says this.”

Update 16:45 CDT:
Erick at Restate is calling it official.

“I am reliably told that details are being worked out to give the Chief Justice an appropriate send off as the head of the third branch of American government. While the official announcement may be delayed to allow time to coordinate, I think the sources are most likely right and, despite my gut feeling that we’ve all bought into a Novak generated feeding frenzy, I’ll go with the sources, Novak, and Drudge and make it official.

William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the United States, has retired.”

Update 17:45 CDT:
Obviously no announcement will be coming tonight. Erick at Restate, has posted the following:

“Update [2005-7-8 18:1:28 by Erick]: Drudge has nixed the “tonight” part of his headline. The White House has put on a full lid. I’m saying nothing will come about tonight. Monday perhaps. I’m going home.”

Last week we wrote concerning the issue of “enemy combatants”, and the Supreme Court’s having afforded rights to terrorists that should be reserved only for citizens of the United States.

Today, we want to move into the area of individual liberties for our citizens. We have observed over the years, the encroachment on our individual rights and freedoms, and most have not understood the process whereby those freedoms have been lost. We want to give an example of how a single clause in the Constitution has been so eviscerated from it’s original intent, and twisted into something it was never intended to become, so as to facilitate the gradual evolution of socialism in our free enterprise society.

The commerce clause can be found in the United State Constitution under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, which states “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

There are two excellent reasons why President Bush should not nominate Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to be the next Associate Justice on the Supreme Court.

Reason number one, is that the Attorney General more than likely will turn out to be another Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. If you want an unbridled, uncensored, look at Justice O’Connor’s legacy, you should read, Reagan’s biggest mistake finally retires, by Ann Coulter. The article written for World Net Daily, is a no holds barred, down and dirty, hold nothing back, tell us how you really feel commentary on Justice O’Connor’s regime on the Supreme Court. The following is just a taste of what she has written:

“It’s often said that O’Connor’s problem is that she is not a judge, but a legislator. On the basis of her bright idea to replace 10 blindingly clear words in the Constitution (”Congress shall (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

What is originalism?

There is much confusion about what the differences are between originalism and activism when talking about Supreme Court nominees these days. With that in mind, we thought it might be a good idea to define what originalist actually means.

In our search for a definition, we discovered that Edward Whelan has written an article for the National Review Online, which asks the question, Are You an Originalist? We found the article to be quite interesting as well as educational. The following is his test to see if you are an originalist:

“Here’s my simple single-question multiple-choice test for whether you are an originalist:

Q. The Constitution provides, as one of the criteria to be eligible to become president, that a person must be a “natural born Citizen” (or, alternatively, in a provision that long ago ceased to apply to any (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Chief Presidential adviser Karl Rove was vindicated of disclosing the name of a covert CIA operative of which he has been accused by every MSM news outlet, every left-wing idealogue, and most of the Democrats in Congress. According to this story entitled, Rove Learned CIA Agent’s Name From Novak, it was Rove who learned the identity of the operative from reporters, not the other way around. Here is a portion:

“WASHINGTON (AP) - Chief presidential adviser Karl Rove testified to a grand jury that he talked with two journalists before they divulged the identity of an undercover CIA officer but that he originally learned about the operative from the news media and not government sources, according to a person briefed on the testimony.

The person, who works in the legal profession and spoke only on condition of anonymity because of grand jury secrecy, told The Associated Press that (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

As we continue in our theme of individual liberty from last week where we discussed the commerce clause, we want to focus today on free speech.

There is no concept of freedom dearer to the hearts of the American people than that of free speech. The Constitution states in the first amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

For our purposes today the first right in the Bill of Rights following the establishment clause states:

“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.”

Today we want to focus on one particular encroachment on this all important right that has recently been passed by both House and Senate, (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Michael Barone, one of the most astute political writers of our day, has written a commentary on Real Clear Politics today, Our Titus Oates. In the course of writing, he gives us a history lesson explaining who Titus Oates was, and how his name became so infamous. Read Barone’s entire article for the history of Titus Oates.

This ill begotten story which was perpetrated by the now known liar, former Ambassador Joe Wilson continues to be over blown, as the MSM continues to feed upon itself, and every Democrat who joins with them runs the risk of being associated with “our Titus Oates”.

The following are some of the assertions Michael Barone had to make today:

“Then, as the trials went on, it became clear that Oates’ detailed charges were all lies. His name became a synonym for liar. Lord Justice Scroggs, who (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

CBS Radio News, has just reported that the announcement for President Bush’s Supreme Court Nomination will be made tonight at 9:00 PM EDT. Fox News is now reporting the same.

President Bush has nominated to the Supreme Court, Judge John G. Roberts, Jr, currently serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The following are links to information on Judge Roberts.

Here is an article describing Judge Roberts, D.C. Circuit Judge Gets on Supreme Court Short List.

This is his Department of Justice Bio.

More information from Supreme Court Nomination Blog entitled, Potential Nominee Profile–Judge John G. Roberts.

Congratulations Mr. President for a job well done!

Update:

Hugh Hewitt calls it a “A home run for the president, the SCOTUS, and for the United States”.

While the “emanation of penumberas” (more later on what that means) from the “fever swamp” (as Hugh Hewitt would say) of the left get into full swing, we thought it might be a good time to review some of the opinions and briefs which Judicial Nominee John Roberts has written.

Most of the left are referring to this case, which is by the way, Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, as part of their reasoning to oppose a confirmation of Judge Roberts. Their argument is of course that Judge Roberts did not afford this 12 year old girl protection under the fourth and fifth amendments of the Constitution. The left has gotten used to the judiciary making up law when there is none to fit their pre-determined outcome. As a matter of course, it is now common practice for the left to challenge laws they (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

While the Senate is in the “advice and consent” phase of the John Roberts nomination to the Supreme Court, it might be worthwhile to look at how the process was approached in the recent past. We hear a lot from the left about questions which should be asked of the nominee, and some liberal Senators want memos from previous administrations to be made available. Our answer of course is to look at how the former Clinton administration handled their nominee, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and to look over her Senate confirmation hearings.

Hugh Hewitt, has a useful article on this subject, The Ginsburg Precedent where he wrote the following:

“Nothing has changed in 12 years, except that the president nominating the justice is George W. Bush and not Bill Clinton. The MSM will attempt to prop up the wild claims of Senators Leahy and Schumer about (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Patrick Ruffini is holding a straw poll of 5 candidates for the 2008 election. Cast your vote here, and see who is in the lead. The candidates are, George Allen, Rudy Giuliani, Bill Frist, John McCain, Mitt Romney.

Make your voice known by voting now. (HT to Hugh Hewitt)

It has often been said, “Once you lose your dream, you die”. We are wondering today as we read where the Shuttle Discovery Blasts Into Orbit once again, with cheering crowds wishing them on their way. Our thoughts turn to a book by Robert Heinlien, Have Spacesuit - Will Travel which we read as a young boy. The book is filled with the dreams of a young man wanting to travel in space, and it bacame the dream for many young people during the late fifties and sixties. We who grew up then, saw a part of our dream fulfilled when NASA launched Apollo 11 and landed Neil Armstrong and “Buzz” Aldrin on the moon in 1969. Read once again the words as NASA celebrated the thirtieth anniversary of that landing:

“On July 20, 1969, the human race accomplished its single greatest technological (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Ed Whelan over at Bench Memos has an optimistic view of the leftist strategy in an article entitled, Our Allies on the Left. He first outlines their possible strategies for obstructing the nomination of Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court, then demonstrates the one they adopted, which eventually will help conservatives. Here is a portion:

“The third course—whether it deserves the label of “strategy” is dubious—that the Democrats have in fact adopted is one of using document demands and other maneuvers to try to delay the Senate’s confirmation of Roberts, in the hope that ammunition to use against him will develop in the meantime. This strategy gives every promise of backfiring. Set aside for now whether the White House has adopted a coherent position on which documents from Roberts’s past service in the executive branch should be made available. It now appears that these (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

The Center For Individual Freedom has an excellent suggestion page for those want to help in getting Judge John Roberts confirmed to the Supreme Court. (HT to Confirm Them)

Their request is to, Send a letter of support for Judge Roberts’ Supreme Court nomination to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The following are their suggestions which should be implemented immediately:

“The White House and Senate leaders have repeatedly told CFIF that the most critical thing organizations and individuals can do to help with Judge Roberts’ nomination is to send letter of support to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

If you’re able to send a letter of support, it’s critical that the Judiciary Committee receive it as soon as possible.

Here are some basic instructions for preparing and sending your letters in order to make sure they are properly received:

1) Write a persuasive, professional letter (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

For our Judicial Review today, we want to revisit Roe v. Wade in relation to the confirmation of Judge John Roberts to the United States Supreme Court.

Ed Whelan, President of Ethics and Public Policy Center and contributer to Bench Memos has written the most lucid explanation of three possible positions on Roe v. Wade which we have found as of this date in, Abortion & Justice. For our purposes today, we are going to outline Mr. Whelan’s three positions, set forth his observations, and finish with our conclusions.
Here are Mr. Whelan’s three positions:

1. “The pro-abortion position. The first position is that the Constitution prohibits, to one degree or another, laws that protect the life of an unborn human being against her mother’s desire to have her killed.
2. The pro-life position. A second position is that the (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)