The American Spectator

THE BUSH 43 METHOD
Re: W. James Antle, III.’s John Paul Stevens Republicans:

Picking conservative justices for the Supreme Court seems more like a crap shoot or judicial Russian roulette than a thoughtful process. Trying to discern how a jurist will rule, once appointed for life, is not an easy thing. That is why it is important a nominee be carefully scrutinized before getting the nod. But even that may not be enough. The appointment of John Paul Stevens proves even a center-right jurist can be seduced by the siren song of the left once on the bench for life. “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

The really amazing thing is that Ronald Reagan, a movement conservative, appointed 2 moderate “swing” justices that were reliably unreliable. Of course, considering Reagan’s record of securing amnesty and citizenship for millions of illegals, routinely making deals with Democrats in Congress, expanding the Federal bureaucracy (creating the Department of Veteran Affairs and growing the Departments of Education and Energy) and raising Federal taxes 7 times in 8 years, the appointments of O’Connor and Kennedy are not altogether shocking. Had Reagan not thrown away his first appointment on Sandra Day O’Connor, merely to get into the history books as appointing the first woman to the highest court in the land (PC before PC), Robert Bork would now be using his massive intellect to protect the Constitution from liberals and libertarians.

Thankfully, President George W. Bush, unlike his Republican predecessors, understood the importance of the court and appointed two sterling jurists to the Supreme Court (Roberts and Alito). In fact, unlike Reagan or his father, Bush 43 consistently appointed conservatives to the Federal bench. And it should be Bush 43 the next Republican President looks to when appointing judges. He or she should eschew the Reagan-Bush 41 model of bowing to the liberal/Democrat media in appointing “non-controversial” types who always disappoint.

While Obama may avoid a fight with a moderate appointment I would hope the majority of Republicans would vote NO. It doesn’t matter who Obama appoints, because they’ll be a Democrat and that means under the robes either a wild eyed radical (Ginsburg) or thick dullard (Sotomayor).
— Michael Tomlinson
Jacksonville, North Carolina

APPALLED
Re: Jay D. Homnick’s Distort Reform:

George Orwell would be appalled by Obama’s health care logic. Or maybe he would just be double non-plussed.
— I.M. Kessel

That articulate political firebrand of the Virginia House of Burgesses once said, “Give me logic, or give me death panels!” Quite a forward looking fellow, he was.
— Mike Showalter
Austin, Texas

THE RAG
Re: Daniel Oliver’s The Curious Incident at the New York Times:

It is also curious that almost EVERY story about child molestation or abuse by priests involved boys. Well…duh! What does that tell one? Surely there are more heterosexual priests out there than gay ones, but where are the reports of rampant abuse of female children eh? It would seem therefore, at the very least, among the catholic clergy, that gays ARE more likely to molest children. As an aside, I was an altar boy in the fifties and no priest EVER made a move on me nor did I ever hear of any. Maybe it was because that the church was stricter then on letting gays become priests. Of course the NYT, that rag, would never note anything negative about gays, never!
— Gary

This is the first article that I have read that explicitly says that the church recognizes the problem is due to homosexuality and is now screening homosexuals from the priesthood. This is common sense and should have been the immediate response to this tragedy. Why, before now, haven’t church leaders and church defenders pointed out forcefully that the problem is overwhelmingly due to homosexual priests and their defenders and that the solution is to ban homosexuals from any position of authority in the church. This includes removal of all current known homosexuals from these positions. Unless the church, like Mr. Oliver, attacks the problem honestly and directly, it will not go away.
— William

ECON 101
Re: Philip Klein’s The Man with the Plan:

Wonderful summary of Econ 101 for the average bear. We get it.

And men (I don’t use that term loosely) like Paul Ryan need to carry this into the endzone quick-time as the 2-minute warning has just sounded.

I am going to read this to my children at lunch (aged 10 thru 23 — homeschooled and proud of it). You’re never too young to understand  the value of industry or money, certainly not the paradigm being  championed by our current president, both in word and in deed.