Souther Baptist theologian--and one of my favorite bloggers--Albert Mohler, highlights an article from two academics who, though apparently on the Left themselves, do somewhat acknowledge what many conservatives have said for years--many justices, once on the SCOTUS, tend to drift leftward.
They were right to be concerned. While there have been a number of relatively reliable conservative justices over the years--Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Rehnquist being prime examples--and some important right-shifting exceptions--notably Felix Frankfurter, appointed by Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Byron White, appointed by John F. Kennedy--the tendency in recent decades to drift leftward has been strong enough to gain both popular and scholarly attention. Indeed, Larry J. Sabato, the director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, has suggested that about one quarter of confirmed nominees over the last half century have wound up "evolving from conservative to moderate or liberal."
Mark Levin is blogging now. He says so much more concisely what I never tire of saying: If you want to tarnish a party or movement as "racist," the historically accurate target is the Democrat Party:
We knew it was coming; that is, the attempt to impugn Sam Alito by using the race card against him. You see, it’s a given in Washington, New York, Hollywood, and other liberal enclaves that conservatives are, by nature and philosophy, racist. And conservative presidents, as a matter of course, nominate racists to the bench — Bob Bork, Clarence Thomas (even though he is black, but that didn’t matter), Charles Pickering, Bill Pryor, and, now, Sam Alito. They’ve all been targeted this way.
Ironically, the party that defended slavery in the 19th century and segregation for much of the 20th century is the Democrat party. The governors who stood in schoolhouse doorways were all Democrats. The segregationist senators who filibustered the 1964 and 1965 Civil Rights Acts were all Democrats. The party that elected former Klansman Bob Byrd as its leader in the Senate for a decade was the Democrat party.
Bush is trying to convince [sic] sceptical Americans that his strategy for Iraq will work even as the U.S. death toll continues to mount nearly three years after the invasion to oust President Saddam Hussein.
Now, wait a second. I see this all the time and I'm getting tired of it.
Never heard of it until I just tried to coin it, but it's what James Risen, the New York Times "star" reporter who broke the NSA "eavesdropping" story believes.
Risen: Well, I–I think that during a period from about 2000–from 9/11 through the beginning of the gulf–the war in Iraq, I think what happened was you–we–the checks and balances that normally keep American foreign policy and national security policy towards the center kind of broke down. And you had more of a radicalization of American foreign policy in which the–the–the career professionals were not really given a chance to kind of forge a consensus within the administration. And so you had the–the–the principles–Rumsfeld, Cheney and Tenet and Rice and many others–who were meeting constantly, setting policy and really never allowed the people who understand–the experts who understand the region to have much of a say. (quotation take from Michael Barone's blog)
In short, elected officials are on a very, very short leash, answerable not to their constituents, but to career (read "unelected") bureaucrats who understand issues better than those elected to oversee disposition of those same issues.
One of my favorite conservative pundits, Debbie Schlussel, jabs another of my favs, Laura Ingraham, in a post about the effects of urban sprawl on surrounding ecology. Despite Debbie's misgivings about Laura (she puts "conservative" in quotes when speaking of Laura), I find Laura's show to be one of the best on the radio and her to be reliably conservative on most any topic. I don't think anyone perfectly fulfills any person's idea of what a "true" conservative is.
You have GOT to be kidding me. We have reached the point of utter madness in the judicial confirmation process:
When it comes to abortion and voting rights, Zelizer said, "If he is too hostile, if he's too confrontational, if he fails to convey the sense that he's evolved on these issues since the 1980s, there is a chance that Democrats will see this as reason to filibuster," he said. (Yahoo News!)
Somebody must have changed the "advise and consent" powers of the Congress while I was napping.