May 22, 2013 | 3 comments
May 22, 2013 | 2 comments
May 19, 2013 | 3 comments
May 19, 2013 | 1 comment
May 16, 2013 | 4 comments
Cornyn is asking the right questions, this time about “inherent physiological differences.” He is homing in on the right topic. He is trying to hold her feet to the fire. Then… ARRGGGHHH…. he fails to hit the obvious last follow-up, which is to absolutely insist on her discussing the “physiological” differences in judging. He said HE was struggling to understand her (bizarre and implausible) distinctions, but did not ask the ultimate follow-up that put HER on the spot. He let her wriggle of the hook. He’s doing a pretty good job, but not a great one — on several of the areas where she is most vulnerable. Likewise, he asked about her embrace of the “indefinite” nature of the law… but didn’t, quite, adequately follow up.
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