In his column today, Bob Novak hits a topic that everybody should be banging the drums on: all the unconfirmed judicial nominees still languishing. It absolutely astonishes me that Senate Republicans remain so stupid — and I do mean stupid, as in dumb, utterly without sense, lame-brained, moronic, idiotic — as to STILL not realize that judges are a winning issue for them. Whenever the topic is judges, the right wins. One reason is that — even though judicial conservatism isn’t really concerned with “results” — when the issues are put in political terms, the right is on the popular side of every issue that swirls around judgeships. On partial birth abortion, we win and they lose. On law and order, we win and they lose. On faith references in the public square, we win and they lose. We win on eminent domain. We win on judicially imposed homosexual “marriage.” And so on and so on: We win, we win, we win. Meanwhile, it is fundamentally unfair to the nominees to let them twist in the wind, and it is bad for the country to leave so many judgeships unfilled, especially ones where the caseload is so heavy as to constitute and official “judicial emergency.” And of course it is even worse to leave them unfilled when the prospect looms of having a Democratic president fill them instead. That’s why, if Frist doesn’t push these judges through — and if Specter doesn’t push them through, and if the White House doesn’t knock heads together to push them through — then the betrayal not just of the conservative movement, but of all political common sense, will be utter and complete and unforgivable. So c’mon, senators, get your heads out of your rearward nether regions and start confirming judges!!!!!!!
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
H/T to National Review Online