Feddie "unmasked": Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Stephen Louis A. Dillard. I am 33 years old and originally from Nashville, Tennessee. I have been married for almost ten years now to my beautiful wife and we have two wonderful children (a seven year old son and a one month old daughter). I received a B.A. in History from Samford University and then my J.D. from the Mississippi College School of Law. I practiced law in Macon, Georgia for over five years before accepting an offer to serve as a law clerk to the Honorable Daniel A. Manion, a judge with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. During my clerkship, I lived in South Bend, Indiana (home of the Fighting Irish of Notre Dame), and traveled to Chicago for the sittings I was assigned to work on by the judge. I recently finished my clerkship, moved my family back to Macon, and will begin working for the law firm of James, Bates, Pope & Spivey on Tuesday in the position "of counsel." I served as the president of the Georgia Lawyers' Division of the Federalist Society from 1997 until 2001, and I have been asked to resume those duties now that my clerkship is over. There are other details as well, but I will share them at a later date. For now, I leave you with words from the prophet Kramer--which sum up my feelings about disclosing my true identity--"I'm out there Jerry, and I'm lovin' every minute of it!"

Oh, and for those of you who have been wondering what I look like, here's a pic of me with a man I greatly admire, Judge Kenneth W. Starr: starr.bmp

Re-thinking the Great Depression: The Labor Day Weekend seems an appropriate time to revisit this subject, which remains the touchstone for most explanations of how and why Americans got saddled with an enormous Federal government. The Depression is usually invoked as both the rationale for the massive growth of Federal power, and the prime justification for its continued existence. Lawrence Reed, president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy (a model state public policy institute), is the author of Great Myths of the Great Depression, available online here. Reed speaks the truth when he says, "Students today are often given a false account of the Great Depression of 1929-1941 that condemns free-market capitalism as the cause of, and government intervention the solution to, the economic hardships of the era." Reed's lengthy essay "debunks the conventional view and traces the central role that poor government policy played in fostering this legendary tragedy."

The difficulties brought on by the Depression are often held out by law professors and other proponents of the Leviathan state as having caused a huge change in public opinion as to the role of government, thus legitimizing FDR's New Deal and all the later accretions of the Federal government's size and power. (See, e.g., the life's work of Bruce Ackerman, including his multivolume treatise, We The People) But this reading of how the public viewed the Depression and its meaning for the U.S. Constitutional system is brought into very serious question by a recent law review article. Mr. Dooley and Mr. Gallup: Public Opinion and Constitutional Change in the 1930s, by Barry Cushman, was published in the Buffalo Law Review, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 7-101 (winter 2002) (no link available). Cushman mines the Gallup polling data for the 1930s, and concludes that "In short, the American people of the 1930s did desire the modification of some discrete areas of constitutional doctrine necessary to underwrite the particular social reforms they favored. But the data would not appear to support the claim that they demanded a revolution in constitutional law."

I close by asking the question one can often ask of particularly insightful research: Why did it take so long for someone to do the work that Cushman did?

Friend of Hitler dead at 93: See The Economist's obit for Diana Mosley, wife of 1930s British Fascist "leader" Oswald Mosley.

John Podhoretz seeks to explain "the most important political story of 2003" -- namely, "the rise of an ardent, passionate, angry and engaged left."

James Lileks has the answer to the North Koreans' threat to test a nuclear device in today's Bleat.

The identity of "Feddie" will be revealed sometime later today (after the close of business) or this weekend.

"A judge prejudged": This op-ed piece by Charles Krauthammer re: Bill Pryor's pending nomination to the Eleventh Circuit is a must read.

Still more on the Berkeley "conservatives are crazy" study: Hard to believe, but the authors of the study took to the pages of the Washington Post today to defend their work, prinicipally by accusing their critics of working from "a crude and outdated perception of psychological research." Maybe so. I can't make heads or tails of it, really, and so suggest that you read it for yourself if you care to.
Interestingly, the authors do not explain whether the Federal government funded their study, to the tune of $1.2 million, as Byron York alleged on The Corner back on August 1 (and noted on SA the same day). I don't have any further info on this. If you do, please let me know.

The reappearance of this study in the media gives me an excuse to point out that the original Berkeley press release describing it reminded me of a very funny passage from Walker Percy's 1971 novel, "Love in the Ruins." The press release explains, helpfully, that "some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include

* Fear and aggression
* Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
* Uncertainty avoidance
* Need for cognitive closure
* Terror management [sic]"

Compare Percy's protagonist, a physician, who diagnoses the psychiatric disorders of his patients as follows:
"Conservatives have begun to fall victim to unseasonable rages, delusions of conspiracies, high blood pressure, and large-bowel complaints.
"Liberals are more apt to contract sexual impotence, morning terror, and a feeling of abstraction of the self from itself."
(If you've never read Love in the Ruins, you should pick it up. It's still in print in paperback, and it's terrific.)

Update: A reader email to NRO's Corner rips the Washington Post column to shreds.

What is the North Korean government up to now? Steven Den Beste offers a somewhat reassuring analysis of NK's nuclear sabre-rattling at the Beijing conference. His conclusion:

"This most recent move by the Kim government may be the one which finally convinces the leadership in Beijing that Kim is a luxury they can no longer afford. If so, then that will have been progress indeed."

Attention! The Bush Administration is trying to kill you! Yesterday the EPA issued a long-debated regulation dealing with the so-called "New Source Review" permitting program under the Clean Air Act. This does not sit well with N.Y. Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who immediately announced his intention to sue to block the implementation of the regs. His press release reads, in part,

"The result of the new rule will be millions of tons of additional air pollution annually. EPA's own studies show that this pollution kills thousands of Americans each year. This is simply unacceptable."

So, there.

Evangelical Christian leaders and Judge Moore: The subject of this article in the Washington Post, and this comment by R. Ponnuru on The Corner.

Michael Novak's wise counsel as to the war in Iraq, on NRO today.

Sorry, friends.
I have been sick as a dog -- still have the bronchitis going, but the worst part is an unbelievably sore throat -- so bad that I literally cannot swallow, talk, etc. So, I am reluctantly going to the doctor tomorrow. But I promise that I will make up for my absence in the coming days. Although partially felled by a bug, I have some good stories for ya.

A good friend who is a Lt. Col. in the Marine Corps just stopped by last night for dinner. He just got back from Iraq and oh the stories he told!

At any rate, I must retire for the evening and try to heal for the battles that loom ahead. Will write more tomorrow, I promise!

A war we are winning: A sobering, yet encouraging, assessment of what's happening in Iraq, from Austin Bay on StrategyPage. (Via InstaPundit.)

Good news re campus speech codes: On August 8, the head of the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at the U.S. Department of Education, Gerald Reynolds, sent a letter to universities nationwide, clarifying that "OCR's regulations and policies do not require or prescribe speech, conduct or harassment codes that impair the exercise of rights protected under the First Amendment." According to David Bernstein's analysis of the letter for CATO, this is indeed good news: "a private university . . . that seeks to suppress offensive speech will now have to justify its policies on their merits, and not hide behind purported OCR rules. And any public university that seeks to do the same will find itself on the losing end of a First Amendment lawsuit."
Update: For Terry Eastland's similar take on the letter, click here.

Is litigation weakening American culture? Back in April the Free Congress Foundation hosted a conference on "Restoring Responsibility -- Litigation, Victimization, and the Corruption of Culture." Recently posted on the FCF website are remarks delivered there by Senator McConnell (R.-Ky.) and Kevin McGuiness (scroll down to "What's New at Free Congress Foundation").

Cartoon 'o the day:



(tip 'o the hat to Palmetto Journal for the find)

Idiot of the day--Joseph Farrah: You sir, are a moron.

And this joker is a close second.

An open letter to Chief Justice Roy Moore's supporters:

My dear fellow Christians:

It is time for the circus to close. I understand that many of you are frustrated by a runaway federal judiciary that has strayed so far from the original meaning of the First Amendment (and indeed the entire federal Constitution) that it is hardly recognizable anymore (from reading Supreme Court precedent, that is). I share this sentiment wholeheartedly. Nevertheless, I am deeply saddened and disappointed by the manner in which many of you have expressed your frustration--by supporting Chief Justice Roy Moore's flagrant disregard of a federal court order. You cannot bemoan the lawlessness of the Supreme Court and then turn around and advocate lawlessness in the same breath. To do so is to mock the rule of law and to embrace anarchy.

Moreover, your criticism of Attorney General William H. Pryor Jr.'s actions in this case are entirely unwarranted and short sighted. To begin with, unlike Chief Justice Roy Moore, Attorney General Pryor is a man of honor and character. Like Moore, Pryor believes--as do I--that the Ten Commandments can be displayed on government property without running afoul of the First Amendment. What Pryor cannot countenance, however, is the Chief Justice willfully and flagrantly disobeying a federal court order with which he disagrees. To allow such an action to stand would undermine the authority of the entire judicial system; and that is simply unacceptable. If y'all are really serious about bringing about a restoration of the original meaning of the First Amendment, which would in turn allow the display of the Ten Commandments on government property, there are other--more productive--ways to channel your frustration and energy. First, work hard to ensure that President Bush is reelected to a second term. Second, offer support--financial or otherwise--to Republican candidates running for the U.S. Senate who will support the confirmation of the president's judicial nominees. Third, when a vacancy on the Supreme Court of the United States occurs, write President Bush and tell him to nominate a solid judicial conservative (originalist and textualist). Fourth, when federal judges seriously step out of line, write your congressmen and senators and tell them to initiate impeachment proceedings against them. There is a reason why many federal judges are so damn arrogant--nobody holds them accountable after they are confirmed and given life tenure.

Calling for Attorney General Pryor's resignation, however, is both foolish and shortsighted. Bill Pryor is one of us. But unlike Roy Moore (who is engaged in the worst kind of political grandstanding), Pryor is standing up for a principle larger than one constitutional issue--the rule of law. As he noted in a recent interview with Tony Snow of Fox News:

I share the frustrations of many citizens about some rulings of federal courts in the area of the First Amendment. But ultimately, what protects our freedom and our liberty in this country is that we're all governed by the rule of law. That means no person, including the chief justice of my state, is above the law. And at the end of the day, when courts have the opportunity to settle these controversies, we have to respect their rulings.

I could not have said it any better myself. We are a government of laws, not of men. Roy Moore is not our friend folks. He has damaged our cause more than any of you can imagine. From here on out, anyone who makes an originalist argument in support of displaying the Ten Commandments on government property will be tarred as a supporter of "that kook Moore."

Finally, it is ridiculous for anyone to suggest that Bill Pryor's actions in the Ten Commandments case are motivated by a desire to be confirmed to the Eleventh Circuit (see e.g., his response to the Supreme Court's decision in Stenberg as it related to Alabama's partial birth abortion statute). Bill Pryor is not naive. He knows--as does anyone else who isn't a political moron--that there is NOTHING he could possibly do to sway any of the Senate dems currently opposing him to support his nomination. Pryor is simply doing the right thing. And for that he should be applauded, not condemned.

Attention: Joe Bob Briggs fans: On NRO today, Andrew Stuttaford reviews Briggs's new book, Profoundly Disturbing: Shocking Movies That Changed History. I thought this was worth pointing out because the reference to it on the NRO home page ("Read the Zagat of the Z-movie") was not very clear -- at least, to me.

We pause to note that Will Baude, a contributor to Crescat Sententia and a friend of SA, is a guest blogger at Overlawyered this week.

A new kind of affirmative action: Mike Adams, a professor of criminal justice at the U. of North Carolina-Wilmington, has come up with a new approach to this old subject. (The column is worth reading just to see Adams's description of himself.)

More on Moore: After giving Chief Justice Roy Moore op-ed space yesterday, the Wall Street Journal today criticizes Moore's actions for

"doing more to raise money for the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State than advance the cause of religious liberty. In a worst-case scenario, his actions could result in a series of opinions broadly striking down public displays of the Ten Commandments. For the sake of preserving religious expression in public life, we hope he backs off and finds another battle to fight another day."

The Birmingham News editorial page offers yet another critique of the Chief Justice.

Furthermore: In a radio interview conducted by Jay Sekulow yesterday, the Rev. Pat Robertson criticized Moore, saying that Moore's tactics were

"designed to bring about a confrontation which was not necessary. As you say, had they requested the stay, they would have gotten an automatic stay. Then they would have had the chance to bring a legitimate appeal before the United States Supreme Court, it would have taken some time, and in that, they could have framed an argument that might well have won. But they didn't do it, and so they've left all of the, those of us like you and me, who want the Commandments up in public places, in a quandary, and I regret that this has been done. But I think people, you know like Jim Dobson and others, need to understand how judicial processes work - it's just a question not of principal, but of tactics. And the tactics used by Judge Moore have just not been well advised in my opinion."

Do Americans really value "diversity"? David Brooks looks at the demographic evidence in the September issue of the Atlantic Monthly.

Thanks for the plug!: I just wanted to put up a quick post to thank Professor Jonathan H. Adler of National Review's "The Corner" for mentioning Southern Appeal today, and highlighting all of the new members of the SA team. It is always nice to be noticed, especially by NRO.

Is college for everyone? A contributor to the NAS Online Forum commits heresy today by answering the question in the negative, and then suggesting technical school as a superior alternative for many, many young people.

ATLA and the GOP: Overlawyered reports on the Association of Trial Lawyers of America's most recent outreach efforts directed at Republicans. (For example: "A trial lawyer/GOP caucus expects soon to have chairpersons in all fifty states.") Wonder why it took them so long to try something like this?

Judge Bork critiques "the public outcry over the Bush administration's measures to combat terrorism" on OpinionJournal today.

Rule of Law I've been asked quite a bit about Bill Pryor and the Ten Commandment case.
Here is one take on the situation that I think is a must read.

Chief Justice Moore suspended. "Ce-le-brate good times. Come on!": Hey gang. Feddie here; checking in from the road. I am currently in my 'ol stomping ground of Nashvegas visiting mum so she can see her granddaughter for the first time, and I couldn't miss the chance to post a brief comment on the news that Chief Justice Roy Moore has been suspended by the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission for refusing to obey a federal court order to remove his Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama Judicial Building rotunda (big smile on my face).

I note that Attorney General Bill Pryor has advised the media that the public corruption and white collar crime unit in his office will handle the prosecution of Moore, who cannot perform any judicial duties while disqualified. Pryor also stated that senior Associate Justice Gorman Houston will perform the chief justice's duties during Moore's suspension, and that the monument would be moved "very soon." Pryor was quoted as saying "I'm not happy we have to deal with these matters, but it is part of our duties and we will continue to do so."

You see folks, Attorney General Pryor understands what it means to uphold the rule of law (even when one doesn't like it). Moore, on the other hand, is nothing but a two bit televangelist in a robe with a messiah complex to boot. And Rev. Fallwell, with all due respect, you need to shut up. You and Pat Robertson have done some good things in the past, but you often harm the cause more than you help it by acting like jackasses on a consistent basis. Yes Moore is right about the constitutionality of the Ten Commandments monument, but that is beside the point. A federal court has ruled otherwise, and until and unless that court's order is overturned it must be obeyed and will be enforced. The rule of law must be respected and honored--especially by the chief justice of a state supreme court.

How did I miss this? Mark Steyn's observations on the death of Idi Amin (scroll down).

Staying the course: Don't overlook Victor Davis Hanson's fine essay, "Phase Three?", on NRO today. Subhead: "The enemy is growing desperate." Excerpt:

"Contrary to the latest round of punditry, the liberation of Iraq did not stir up a hornet's nest nor create ex nihilo these terrible alliances. No, they are natural expressions of the hatred manifested on 9/11 that will continue until either we or they are defeated."

Gone With The Wind

My favorite movie of all time. Matter of fact, growing up, my nickname was "Miss Scarlett" -- probably for a whole variety of reasons, but I'd like to just think it was for good reasons. Perhaps my favorite line in the movie is when Dr. Meade is chiding Aunt Pittypat for worrying about leaving Scarlett and Melanie without a chaperone as Atlanta is burning around them.

He looks ar Aunt Pitty and says, "Good God, woman, this is WAR not a garden party...."

Great line, dontcha think? Lots of applications for the political world, I'd say. At this point, friends, we have too much at stake to continue the dainty methodology of Marquis of Queensbury rules.

Agreed?

Good. Now that we have that straight, let's continue.

THE STRAIGHT SKINNY ON ROY MOORE: This is the Mobile Register's lead editorial today:

Commandments safe, despite Roy Moore

LET'S MAKE this perfectly clear: Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore is not a good friend to the Ten Commandments.

Oh, of course he reveres the Commandments. But he's the wrong kind of friend. He's the type who "supports" a friend so strongly that he encourages the friend into reckless situations.

If the chief justice really wanted to acknowledge the Ten Commandments in his courtroom, there may have been ways to do it that would have passed muster with the federal courts. Instead, he erected a monument so big, and offered such outlandish legal arguments for it, that he all but ensured that the federal courts would order it removed.

Obviously, some public displays of the Commandments can pass muster. One such is in the U.S. Supreme Court itself. And just last week a federal court refused to order the removal of the Ten Commandments from a suburban Pennsylvania courthouse.

Context is important, as are the particular legal arguments used to justify a display. And so is a willingness to acknowledge that federal courts do indeed have jurisdiction over First Amendment issues.

In every particular, Chief Justice Moore chose the path most likely to garner national attention, yet least likely to keep the Ten Commandments in his courthouse.

For instance, Attorney General Bill Pryor was ready to argue that the Commandments themselves, in a historical context, do not unconstitutionally "establish" a religion. But the chief justice refused his assistance.

Instead, Mr. Moore argued quite explicitly that his self-selected display does have a specifically religious intent, in that (as he put it in a CBS interview) "This case is not about a monument, it's not about politics or religion, it's about the acknowledgment of God."

Furthermore, Mr. Moore argued that, in acting in his capacity as chief justice of Alabama, he was not subject to the edicts of federal courts. Legally, that's about the equivalent of a schoolchild sticking his tongue out at the principal.

Not only that, but Mr. Moore failed to meet legal deadlines in filing for a "stay" to the federal court order. The other eight justices of the state Supreme Court, assisted by Mr. Pryor, were thus left with no other choice, consistent with their oaths of office, than to direct that the monument be removed in accordance with the order.

Just as Chief Justice Moore has done, all of them have a sworn duty to the U.S. Constitution. By its own words, the Constitution is "the supreme Law of the Land .... and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

By defying his oath, sworn in God's name, to respect the due process of law under the U.S. Constitution, the state's chief justice has made a mockery of the Ten Commandments.

Attorney General Pryor put it best: "The rule of law means that no person, including the chief justice of Alabama, is above the law ... The rule of law means that we can work to change the law but not to defy court orders. The associate justices of Alabama today have done their duty."

And the biblical Commandments are none the worse for that duty being done.

Six questions to ask your child's social studies teacher The sad state of K-12 civics education is the subject of the "Taste" column on OpinionJournal today. It describes the admirable work of the Thomas Fordham Foundation in trying to recover this field from the multiculti/PC crowd, but for some reason doesn't provide a link to the Foundation's work in this area. Here it is (not that you couldn't have found it on your own . . .)

Fun with links

Got a funny story for you all. I was all of about 10 weeks pregnant when I testified before the House Judiciary Committee. So needless to say, I wasn't exactly at my best. Believe me, I had one eye on every trash can in the room in case what little breakfast I had force fed myself decided to make a return trip. I testified with John Eastman -- a remarkable law professor doing battle on the Left Coast, Todd Gaziano, a walking constitutional law encyclopedia from Heritage Foundation, and .........Ralph Neas, Son of Sata......no, wait, he's just the president of People for the American Way.

At any rate, I'm giving this testimony and answering questions and such and I'm here to tell you......Ralph Neas had THE WORST halitosis I have ever experienced. Those trash cans were looking mighty tempting......

Hard to believe, but former U.S. Representative Cynthia McKinney (D.-Ga.) has been tapped by Cornell University for one of its prestigious "Frank H.T. Rhodes Class of '56 University Professorships." According to the press release, the Rhodes Professorships, "designed to enrich the undergraduate experience at the university, are awarded for a period of one to five years, and appointees are considered full members of the Cornell faculty. During each year of their appointment, Rhodes professors will visit the campus for a minimum of two weeks." McKinney got the full five year appointment.
As did the other recipient of this high honor announced today, "investigative journalist" John Pilger, "a regular contributor to The Guardian, New Statesman, the Independent and Daily Mirror, as well as the BBC." At least the Cornellians who enroll in both their classes will be getting a consistent picture of the United States's role in the world today.
Cornell's 2003-04 undergraduate tuition is $28,754; the estimated total cost for a year's study is $40,274.
(Hat tip: Signifying Nothing.)

Good news from Mississippi: Patrick Carver is back in the saddle at the Ole Miss Conservative and has also joined Southern Conservatives. Faithful readers may remember that I wondered what his take was on the primary results in the Mississippi governor's race; you can find out here.
As if that weren't enough, Chris Lawrence is also back, Signifying Nothing.

Quagmire humor: Former sportscaster Keith Olbermann now has an ostensibly serious nightly news program on MSNBC. Tonight, Olbermann read a brief story about the Japanese government's decision not to commit additional troops to Iraq -- or maybe it is going to leave Iraq sooner than planned. I wasn't clear on the story, really, because I was distracted by the large-screen graphic behind him that read, "Coalition of the Leaving." Get it? Get it ?? Now, friend, THAT'S satire!!

(Sometimes you can just feel the joy that some in the media clearly experience when the United States -- or is it just this Administration? -- is dealt a set-back.)

Two items of note regarding Bill Pryor:

Pryor is scheduled to appear on CNN tonight with Paula Zahn, at 8 PM eastern. (So that's where Paula ended up! She's changed schedules more than Arianna's changed policy positions!)

Pryor has also released the text of a 7-page letter explaining his position on numerous legal questions raised by Judge Moore's actions, which he wrote in response to a letter from a state legislator. It's online here.

Great piece from Nathan Diament

Arkansas Democrat Gazette

Thursday, August 21, 2003

Why ask about religion?

BY NATHAN J. DIAMENT
RELIGION NEWS SERVICE

In late July, a previously unspoken argument over whether or not some of President Bush’s nominees were being opposed on the grounds of their religious beliefs spilled out onto the floor of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The session was contentious with a great deal of finger-pointing, indignation and exasperation (and little discussion of the merits of the particular nominee before the committee—William Pryor, Alabama’s attorney general, whom Bush nominated for a federal judgeship.

The proximate cause was an advertisement sponsored by a private advocacy group dedicated to supporting the Bush nominees. The Committee for Justice ads charged Democrats were opposing Pryor because of his Catholicism and were, as depicted in the ad, hanging up a sign stating "Catholics need not apply."

Senators and editorialists declared this allegation to be beyond the pale of appropriate debate, but this dismissal, while appealing, is too quick and easy. If nothing else, one must wonder what is in the minds of those asserting this allegation of bias. If it has no basis in fact, accusing senators of bigotry is such a highly charged allegation that it will certainly backfire on its proponents and undercut their political goals.

There is a basis for this allegation.

It is a new catch phrase that has crept into the already overcharged questioning of candidates in the confirmation context —" deeply held personal beliefs. "

This catch phrase first arose in the context of the Judiciary Committee’s confirmation hearings for John Ashcroft as U.S. attorney general. Along with being a staunch political conservative, Ashcroft was known to be deeply religious. Liberal opposition groups, and the Democratic senators responsive to them, not only raised questions about Ashcroft’s record as governor and senator on a range of policy issues, but inquired whether in light of his" deeply held personal beliefs "he would be able to fulfill the responsibilities of his office and enforce laws that might conflict with those beliefs.

Many Americans with a traditionalist religious orientation—whether Orthodox Jewish, evangelical Protestant or orthodox Roman Catholic—pricked up our ears when this question was asked. When we raised our concerns to the senators lining up to oppose Ashcroft, they of course protested they would never stoop to such bigotry. The catch phrase seemed to have been retired for some time. It was not heard in the debates over the judicial nominations of Charles Pickering or Miguel Estrada or Priscilla Owen. They were critiqued along the usual ideological lines used in such battles.

But then came last year’s consideration of the judicial nomination of Professor Michael McConnell. McConnell was acknowledged to be a scholar of the first rank and deserving of confirmation. Among his prolific writings and advocacy efforts—mainly in support of pro-life causes and a more accommodationist approach to church-state issues—McConnell revealed himself to be deeply religious as well. And so the liberal advocacy groups, and their Senate partners, again deployed the question of whether as a judge McConnell could enforce laws conflicting with his" deeply held personal beliefs. "

McConnell was confirmed, it seems, only on the strength of his reputation among his liberal law professor colleagues. Now the catch phrase has been deployed with regard to William Pryor, a devout Catholic, and rumored to be raised regarding judicial nominee Leon Holmes from Arkansas, another openly devout Catholic. To those of us in the traditionalist religious communities there seems to be a disturbing pattern emerging.

• Nathan J. Diament is director of public policy for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America.

Bill Pryor and the rule of law:

Statement of Attorney General Bill Pryor Regarding the Order of the Alabama Supreme Court to Require the Judicial Building Manager to Comply with the Federal Injuction

Today the eight associate justices of the Supreme Court of Alabama unanimously entered an order to remove the Chief Justice's monument from the public area of the State Judicial Building. Specifically, the Supreme Court today ordered the Judicial Building Manager to comply with the federal injunction as soon as practicable. In the meantime, access to the State Judicial Building has been limited to persons with official court business.

I have filed a certified copy of the order with the Clerk of the U. S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. I am hopeful that these actions will remove any risk that State officials will be ordered to pay fines for contempt of court from taxpayer funds. In my judgment, the taxpayers of Alabama should not be penalized for the refusal of the Chief Justice to obey the orders of the federal courts. This moment in our history is already one of financial crisis for our State government and especially our court system.

Although I continue to believe that the Ten Commandments are the cornerstone of our legal heritage and can be displayed constitutionally as they are in the building of the Supreme Court of the United States, this controversy is no longer one involving a debate in the federal courts. The Supreme Court of Alabama has now spoken and ordered compliance with the federal injunction. Under our Constitution, federal and state courts must respect the orders of each other.

Today is a day to be proud of the eight associate justices of the Supreme Court of Alabama. They have been faithful to the rule of law. There has been a lot of talk about the rule of law in recent days. The rule of law means that no person, including the Chief Justice of Alabama, is above the law. The rule of law means that when courts resolve disputes, after all appeals and arguments, we all must obey the orders of those courts even when we disagree with those orders. The rule of law means that we can work to change the law but not to defy court orders.

The associate justices of Alabama today have done their duty. As Attorney General, I applaud them, I congratulate them, and I thank them.

We applaud you, Attorney General Pryor. I only hope that we can call you Judge Pryor one day in the near future.

Heaven help me.

As you all will quickly learn, I am the ultimate anti-feminist. I learned many years ago that my great-grandmother was absolutely correct when she wisely said, "Never ever SINK to the level of equality."

Having said that, it pains me to say that I actually agree with this column written by -- gasp -- Susan Estrich.

But Susan is exactly right. Arianna Huffington has gone completely around the bend. And she has sacrificed her children, apparently, in the process.

As devoted as I am to the cause, my children and my husband come first. Guess I'm kinda silly that way.

But several years ago, while standing over the grave of my mother, staring at her headstone that said "Wife and Mother", I had an epiphany. My headstone is not going to read "Kay Daly wrote really great press releases" or "Kay Daly could organize one heck of a coalition." It is going to say "Wife and Mother." So I had better live up to that moniker and realize that all things here on earth are temporal. My legacy is my children.

Wish Arianna knew that for the sake of her kids.

On the move: I am getting ready to say my farewells to co-clerks, secretaries, CSOs, and the judge before heading back down South. I will try to check in some from the road, but for now I will leave y'all in the quite capable hands of my co-bloggers. For those of you so inclined, please throw up a prayer that my family will make it to Georgia safely. Thanks, and God Bless.

Go Fred!

Doing the Fred Thompson happy dance at the moment.....on tonight's episode of "Law and Order", the distinguished former Senator from TN gives a little constitutional law lesson on Roe v. Wade and the myth of the right to privacy. Jaw-droppingly awesome.

I wonder how something so conservative actually made it into a Hollywood script?

Southern Baptist leader "dismayed at the prospect of a judge defying a court order" So said Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, addressing Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's conduct in this story posted Monday on the SBC's website. Read the whole thing.

Oh what a tangled web they weave...

You just gotta love the Left. Check out this article.

From the clever little name of this organization to the people who are playing a role in it to the very concept itself.....well, I am just speechless at the stupidity.

We're winning!

Do you know how I know we are winning the battle of judicial nominations? It's simple, really. Whenever the Left starts the intimidation tactics, clearly they are on defense. Here are just four examples:

-- Leo Terrell, a black Democrat attorney, very vocally supports Carolyn Kuhl for the 9th Circuit. The NAACP fires him.

-- The Rushmore Family Policy Council runs ads against Daschle's obstruction of judicial nominees. Daschle's buddy, Senator Max Baucus, calls for an IRS audit of the Rushmore Family Policy Council.

-- A think tank out west (which shall remain nameless because they have been successfully intimidated...) writes one little ol' op-ed supporting a particular judicial nominee and decrying a certain Senator's obstruction tactics. That certain Senator calls up one of their major donors and scuttles their funding.

-- PFAW (People for the American Way....cough cough...sorry, had a hairball there....) commissions a poll that shows that no one really cares about judges. These results are designed to discourage fundraising and media coverage. Funny, every poll I've seen recently shows that indeed, people care a great deal about the obstruction of judges.

I'm quite certain as things ratchet up again in the fall, that we will undoubtedly see similar, if not more ominous tactics deployed by these folks.

I say "Bring it on!!!!"

Don't miss Ralph Peters' take on the Baghdad bombing in today's N.Y. Post. He writes with gusto.

Welcome (from Kay R. Daly): Feddie, Michael, it is an honor to join Southern Appeal!

For those of you following the judicial nominations battle, our friend Tom Jipping has published a terrific report on cloture votes and filibusters.

The study analyzes the voting record of current U.S. Senators on all motions to invoke cloture, or end debate, on judicial nominations and reveals the following:

· 88.35% of the votes for judicial nomination filibusters come from Democrats;

· Democrats pursue nearly five times as many filibusters, with three times the support, as Republicans;

· 98.11% of the votes to filibuster Republican nominations come from Democrats, while 55.1% of the votes to filibuster Democrat nominations come from Republicans;

· 95% of the 40 Senators who have never voted for a judicial nomination filibuster are Republicans, 5% are Democrats;

· The 10 current Senators who backed filibuster reform in 1995 now support judicial nomination filibusters 65.7% of the time;

· Democrats vote for judicial nomination filibusters an average of 64.9% of the time, Republicans 2.6% of the time.


An electronic version of the study is available on the Center for Individual Freedom Foundation’s website.

Phyllis Schlafly pulls no punches re the appearance of the American Constitution Society, in her recent column, "Justice Ginsburg would put a dress on the Lone Ranger." (Hat tip: AtlanticBlog.)

Also from AtlanticBlog: Professor Sjostrom's 50 favorite movies.

Five days until SA's first birthday: I know it's hard to believe, but time does indeed fly by rather quickly.

A handy guide to higher ed blogs by King Banaian was posted to the National Association of Scholars Online Forum on July 24. You'll have to scroll down manually; the link for that particular entry doesn't seem to work. Banaian is a co-author of SCSU Scholars, a lively blog on higher ed topics based at Saint Cloud State University (MN).

Leave of absence and a new guest blogger--Kay R. Daly!: Hey gang. I apologize for the light posting of late, but I am in the process of wrapping up my clerkship and preparing for the big move back down South (Georgia). I leave for God's Country on Friday afternoon, and will be--for the most part--out of pocket until September 2, when I will resume posting and reveal my true identity (I know that many of you are waiting with bated breath for that day, so mark it on your calendars folks). Until that time, I have a real treat for SA's readers. Kay R. Daly, the spokesperson for the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary, has agreed to guest blog here at SA in my absence. This past January, Kay was awarded the 30th Annual CPAC Ronald Reagan Award by the Conservative Political Action. I think the accompanying press release sums up nicely the significant contributions Kay Daly has made to "the cause," noting:

Kay Daly more than exemplifies the relentless spirit of a selfless conservative . . . . [She] is an integral part of the grassroots effort in supporting President Bush's judicial nominees by overseeing the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary, but is equally important to our conservative movement by attending countless meetings, conferences, and Congressional hearings in defense of our shared conservative ideals . . . . Kay Daly claims to be a "housewife from Arlington," but the truth of the matter is that our conservative movement wouldn't be what it is without her resiliency, diligence and dedication to the conservative cause. She more than embodies those virtues upon which the Ronald Reagan award was founded and the conservative cause is a better, more unified and effective movement with her . . . .

Kay is also a frequent contributor to National Review (see here, here, and here), and Southern Appeal is honored to have her as a guest blogger here at our humble little blog for as long as she is inclined to stay.

Welcome aboard, Kay!

Sturm und drang in Knoxville: On August 8 John Shumaker, the president of the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, resigned in the face of mounting criticism of his spending habits and other charges of unethical behavior having to do with "no-bid" contracts. The Memphis Commercial Appeal has been all over the story, including this jaw-dropping report on the audit of Shumaker's spending. The lack of effective oversight on the part of the university's Trustees in this case is being discussed and should be dealt with, but since UT is a public university and the controversy is now morphing into a political question, optimism on this point would probably be misplaced. And all of this is not meant to suggest that the UT Trustees were unique in their, well, relaxed attitude toward their responsibilities. (Thanks to my Mom for pointing out these stories.)
Update: For information on how trustees can make a contribution to the conservation of traditional standards in higher ed, see the website of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA).

HRC's ACS speech: A transcript is (finally) available, here. More on this later.