James, you and Michael Gerson have touched on the tension between social and legal conservatives. In broad strokes these groups are after different things which sometimes coincide and sometimes not. Social conservatives want an outcome certain, such as reversal of Roe. Legal conservatives want to get away from judges who seek policy objectives and re-establish the normative rule that judges judge and legislators legislate. We saw the conflict between the two with Harriet Miers. Many social conservatives were, at least initially, willing to give her a shot on the theory she would “get it right” on abortion and other issues. Legal conservatives were horrified and became more so when President Bush offered assurance she would in essence be loyal to his views. In the end, an excellent jurist, Alito, satisfied both groups. Legal conservatives will argue that at the end of the day social conservatives’ goals are best served by re-instating the separation between law making and judging and sending social policy back to the representative branch where social conservatives have been remarkably successful in making their case to the voters.
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.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
H/T to National Review Online