SA's newest bloggers: I am pleased to announce that Southern Appeal has two new regular contributors, Brent A. Andrewsen and Mark M. Trapp, formerly of the fine blog "We win, they lose" (which will probably continue in some capacity). Both are fine fellows with first-rate intellects. I look forward to their contributions to the "cause."

David Frum's review of Al Franken's "Lies" is in the November issue of Commentary, and on the AEI website. Read it to learn the link between Franken's book and Bernard Lewis's most recent work.

Thanks to Andy over at Like a Blindman, who calls Southern Appeal "one of the leading right-wing blogs on the net," although he certainly did not intend it as a compliment (read the entire post).

Just for that, LAB gets added to SA's "libs" link list. :)

Zell Miller rules: Give 'em hell, Zell.

Professor Solum kindly keeps tally of our political quiz test results here.

I am no fan of Atrios, but this is sheer nonsense. Quit acting like such a freakin' baby, Luskin. Geez. I've been called a hell of a lot worse than a stalker.

I strongly encourage all of SA's readers to support Atrios on this one. Sometimes free speech can get a little rough, Mr. Luskin. Why don't take off your skirt, and accept the fisking Atrios gave you like a real man.

Make sure to stop and introduce yourself if any of you SA readers plan on attending the Federalist Society shin dig in D.C. this November. I will be there with bells on, and it would be great to meet some of y'all in person.

Except you, Taint. You freak me out a little.

Need a good laugh?: Check out the web site of the "Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice." What a joke. And I love the quote on the web site banner: "As a person of faith, I am pro-choice, pro-family planning, and pro-sexuality education." Puh-leaze!

Moore lawyers say removal may be "inevitable":: Yeah, it's tough to get a "fair trial" after you've willfully disobeyed a freakin' federal court order, eh fellas? Guess what? Here's something else that's inevitable--that the professional reputations of the nimrod lawyers representing Moore will be ruined by the time this circus is over (if not already). You jokers are done. Game over. Have fun speaking on the "black helicopter" lecture circuit, losers, because that crowd is the only audience left that won't laugh you out of a room.

Check out Victor Davis Hanson on "Why History Has No End."

Senator Zell Miller spoke eloquently on the Pickering and Brown nominations and the Democrats' assault on the judicial confirmation process generally on the floor of the U.S. Senate today.

Picking on Pickering
Let conservatives admit that one complaint about Judge Pickering is valid: A federal judge ordinarily should not badger prosecutors (repeatedly), much less try to go over their heads, to accept a lesser sentence than the one prescribed by law. That is not a judge's role. It was out of bounds. But one case (especially one of mercy) does not define a career. Morally, Pickering's position probably was correct, even if legally not so. And the charge (or insinuation) that his position was racially motivated is one of the vilest, most despicable acts of character assassination in a long line of such character assaults by Schumer/Kennedy/Leahy. The fact is, of course, that Pickering has a history of mercy for first-time offenders, including many black offenders. And Pickering's entire life is testament to his interest in racial reconciliation. That such vile insinuations were used to kill the nomination of a good man, one who (when nominated) was personally sponsored by the party's Senate leader, should be a call to arms for EVERY Republican senator. It's long past time for them to get tougher. It's long past time for the "nuclear option." It's long past time to shove a nomination down the throats of Kennedy and all his Landrieu/Bayh/Lincoln fellow travelers who claim to be moderate but then support the worst kinds of character assassination. In the names of Pickering and Pryor, Brown and Estrada, Kuhl and Holmes and, yes, Sessions, Bork and even Carswell, it's time for legislative war. We're right; the Left is wrong. The American people support our positions -- on the Pledge, on partial birth abortion, on criminal justice, on issue after issue after issue. Where is the press conference in the Oval Office with Miguel Estrada speaking for himself? Where is the five-minute video on the life of Janice Brown? Where are the paid ads with video clips from Bill Pryor's effective Senate Judiciary testimony? Far better for the White House to go all-out on this topic (and for the Senate GOP to go nuclear in support) than for it to waste time pushing a horribly designed, unaffordable, prescription drug program. Let's get a move on!!!!!

Have you ever wondered where the "mainstream" for which Democratic Senators show such solicitude in questioning Republican judicial nominees is located? Ann Coulter knows. (Hat tip to Kay Daly.)

DO NOT MISS Jonah Goldberg on NRO today. No hints, no excerpts. Just go read it.

"We take you now to Grovers Mill, New Jersey" Tonight is the 65th anniversary of Orson Welles's radio broadcast, "The War of the Worlds." You can listen to the show in either RealPlayer or MP3 formats here, or read the script here. There's an entire website devoted to the show here, and another essay about the public's reaction here.

By the way, I'm blogging from the road this afternoon. It's a beautiful day in Alabama, and I'll be out of pocket for the next couple of days. My postings here will be lighter than average.

Where does Feddie land on the political compass?: Right here. (Thanks to Plainsman for the link).

The Cowboy Way
I hope you all enjoy this.

It's been a busy time, friends and it's fixin' to get busier.
What Novak said earlier this week is true. He's got great sources apparently!
So, my friends, fellow lovers of liberty and all that is true and right and just, get ready for some fun. It's time to lock and load, saddle up and support the good guys.

As my good friend Chuck Muth of Citizen Outreach wrote to me this morning, "It reminds me of a quote from another great conservative Hollywood actor, Clint Eastwood, in "The Outlaw Josie Wales" movie: 'Now remember, when things look bad and it looks like you're not gonna make
it, then you gotta get mean. I mean plumb, mad-dog mean. 'Cause if you lose your head and you give up then you neither live nor win. That's just the way it is.'"

So it is, Chuck.

Roy Moore news 'o the day, courtesy of the indefatigable Howard Bashman.

"Senate Vote on Pickering Is a Matter of Timing": The L.A. Times, fair and balanced as always.

Update: My boy Adam White, showin' no love to the LAT.

"Court sets public access rules for Moore's trial": The B'ham News gives us the 411.

"Brown Gets Borked" From Opinion Journal:

Senator Durbin's attacks ultimately descended into something close to parody. He and other Democrats accused her of being insensitive to victims of rape, housing discrimination, age discrimination and even racial discrimination.
Judge Brown was born into a family of Alabama sharecroppers in 1949. She has personal experience with racial segregation and every other precept of Jim Crow America. The idea that she needs a lecture on discrimination from Mr. Durbin or anyone else in the all-white and mostly male Senate is absurd on its face.

Yep. Furthermore:

The White House and GOP Senators should be embarrassed to let Judge Brown get pounded the way she did last week while barely fighting back.
Senate liberals are in the process of filibustering a rainbow coalition of conservative judges that deserves to become a major Republican campaign issue: One black, one Hispanic, three women, two Southern whites and perhaps soon an Arab-American. Let's have a 2004 election debate over which party is really the enemy of diversity, intellectual and otherwise.

Right again.

Update: Bill Sjostrom, who knows a thing or two about Illinois politics, offers another perspective on Sen. Durbin's questioning.

Somehow overlooked yesterday: This Dan Mindus column for NRO, exposing the media tactics of some of those now pushing lawsuits against fast-food companies.

Top twenty movies from the past two decades: Well, seeing as everyone in the blogosphere is compiling their own lists, here's mine:

1. Gods and Generals
2. Braveheart
3. The Patriot
4. Henry V
5. Gettysburg
6. Rudy
7. LOTR, The Fellowship of the Ring
8. Two Towers
9. The Shawshank Redemption
10. The Princess Bride
11. Fight Club
12. Die Hard
13. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
14. Party Girl
15. Bull Durham
16. Ferris Bueller's Day Off
17. Good Will Hunting
18. Steel Magnolias
19. Out of Africa
20. Johnny Dangerously

(and The Passion whenever it comes out)

O.k., that's it. Although I must say that I feel a little odd posting about great movies without mentioning "Cool Hand Luke," "Song of the South," "Monty Python and the Holy Grail," and "Airplane" ("I speak jive").

The Southern Poverty Law Center's newest crusade focuses on an alleged tidal wave of hate crimes and racist speech currently engulfing America's colleges and universities. SPLC's "10 Ways to Fight Hate on Campus" tour kicked off yesterday. Here's SPLC's explanation:

Hate and bias are daily constants on campuses, if statistics the SPLC cites from the FBI, the U.S. Department of Education and watchdog and advocacy groups are any indication.

Every year, according to those statistics, more than a half-million college students are targets of bias-driven slurs or physical assaults. Each day, at least one hate crime occurs on a college campus.

And every minute, a college student somewhere sees or hears racist, sexist, homophobic or otherwise biased words or images, the SPLC notes. (emphasis mine)

Zell Miller Endorses Bush: Wow.

"Democrats Don’t CARE": So what else is new.

Nerd alert!: I bought a dictionary stand for my law office today to hold this mama. If I had any lingering doubts that my inner frat boy flame has extinguished, they have all but evaporated now.

The Mobile Register editorial page provides this perspective on the current developments in the Moore/Ten Commandments saga.

Andrew Sullivan is a twit: I know it's not polite to engage in name calling, but in this case I think it is indeed appropriate. Look Sully, we get that your gay. Good for you. Live long and prosper (and I mean that sincerely). But don't expect the Catholic Church to approve of or sanction your chosen lifestyle. You may not like the structure or the teachings of the Church, but they are what they are. Either accept and attempt to adhere to them, or move on. The Catholic Church is not a debating club. It is Christ's Church, and its teachings on homosexuality are clear and unequivocal.

Bold, bold, and more bold!: I am not quite sure why a large portion of the blog has suddenly changed from normal text to bold. If anyone can explain this apparent Blogger bug, please shoot me an email. Thanks!

"Drug price controls will quite literally kill people," explains Richard Rahn, in the Washington Times.

Be sure to read Dorothy Rabinowitz on the Democratic Presidential debates, "The 90-Minute Hate" (bonus points for catching the literary allusion): "It is hard to recall any time in memory when we heard as extreme a level of assaultive oratory as the one directed Sunday at the administration, and the president in particular, from candidates for the nation's highest office."

He's "going off the rails on a crazy train": The saga of Chief Justice Roy Moore continues--

"Judge denies Moore's motions" (B'ham News)

"Court of Judiciary members refuse to stepdown from Moore case" (Montgomery Independent)

Various Roy Moore motions were denied today by the Court of the Judiciary, according to this AP story.

The case for Justice Starr (Alternative title: "Why President Bush should put another white guy on the Supreme Court"):

With the 2004 presidential campaign in full swing, and Senate Democrats and Republicans locking horns over several of President Bush's more conservative judicial nominations, legal pundits have, for the most part, ceased speculating on who might (or should) fill the next vacancy on the Supreme Court.

Assuming that President Bush is re-elected, I believe he should, without hesitation or apology, nominate Kenneth W. Starr to be the next justice on the Supreme Court of the United States.

I know, I know, he can't be confirmed, right? So what. I am honestly sick and tired of Republicans sucking on the nipple of defeatism before a battle has even been waged. Indeed, even when conservatives do choose to fight on the judicial nomination front we often do so by hiding behind the skin color or gender of the nominee in question. This is a standard tactic of the dems, and I sure as hell have no desire to emulate that crowd of n'er do wells.

Here's the bottom line. Ken Starr is unquestionably the most qualified person out there to serve as a Supreme Court justice. Consider the following Starr resume line items:

(1) graduate of George Washington (undergrad), Brown (master's), and Duke (highest honors, Order of the Coif);

(2) judicial clerk for David W. Dyer, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit;

(3) judicial clerk to Chief Justice Warren E. Burger of the Supreme Court of the United States;

(4) counselor and chief of staff to U.S. Attorney General William French Smith;

(5) appointed to United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit at age 37 (youngest ever at that time);

(6) solicitor general of the United States (argued 25 cases during his tenure as SG);

(7) independent counsel (charged with investigating whether President Bill Clinton and his wife engaged in criminal conduct through their involvement in a failed real estate transaction known as "Whitewater").

Judge Starr has also worked for two prestigious law firms (Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and Kirkland & Ellis), written numerous scholarly books and articles, argued a slew of cases before the Supreme Court since his tenure as SG, and immersed himself in numerous charitable endeavors. He is, quite simply, the best this nation has to offer.

And perhaps most important of all, Ken Starr stood up for the rule of law under the most hostile circumstances imaginable. He held a rogue president accountable for his actions, and in the process all but sacrificed his greatest ambition: a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States. And therein lies the rub. If conservatives are unwilling to stand up for a man like Ken Starr, then what kind of message are we sending out to the troops? Republicans and conservatives of all stripes ought to write President Bush and encourage him to nominate Ken Starr to the Supreme Court. If the dems want to Bork him, let them do so. And we will then send up another person who shares Judge Starr's commitment to the rule of law, and another, and another. Until one of them gets confirmed. The time for compromising is over, and a Starr nomination will let the dems know that in spades.

Lileks skewered Dean in his syndicated column of last week, which I just found online.

If you are (or were) a geography/civics nerd, have I got a website for you: NationMaster.com is "a massive central data source and a handy way to graphically compare nations. Using [it], you can generate maps and graphs with ease on all kinds of statistics." (Hat tip: The Corner.)

Papers from a recent tribute to Milton & Rose Friedman are available on the Dallas Fed's website. Authors include Jim Gwartney, Richard Stroup, Terry Anderson, Tyler Cowen, and Pete Boettke.

Jesus Christ Celebrates 33rd Anniversary as God Incarnate--But Critics Wonder Whether His Legacy Will be Ruined: Mark Shea does it again.

Pope requests ban on cloning in all its forms: Here are the details, courtesy of the Catholic Exchange.

Another Thomas Sowell column on the Brown nomination: Click here for the latest.

Borking Brown: That's the way the folks at WorldNetDaily characterize the dems' treatment of Justice Janice Rogers Brown's nomination to the D.C. Circuit.

Protection From Pornography Week: You can read President Bush's declaration at this link.

Pryor related links 'o the day:

"Filibusters passe, way needed to end judge logjam, Frist says" (PHXNews.com)

"Republicans May ‘Go Nuclear’ Against Senate Filibusters" (CBN News)

"Pryor: Reject motion to disqualify him" (B'ham News)

Attorney General Bill Pryor asked the state Court of the Judiciary on Monday to block renewed efforts to disqualify him from prosecuting suspended Chief Justice Roy Moore on ethics charges.

"Republicans Prepare for Battle Over Judicial Nominees" (CNSNews.com)

Senate Republicans plan to begin actively fighting this week for several of President Bush's stalled judicial nominees in an effort to turn up the heat on Democrats who oppose their confirmations.

Today is the 100th anniversary of the birth of Evelyn Waugh, making it "the holy Ramadan of the Anglophilic right," in the estimation of the New Criterion's blog, which collects links to many essays on Waugh, here. Their link to Mark Steyn is incorrect, however. The correct link is here; Steyn also recommends "Doubting Hall: A Guided Tour Around the Works of Evelyn Waugh."

All is right with the world: SA's wonderful blog designer (and soon to be rock star), Maystar, has fixed our permalinks. She also changed the template so that y'all may now email each of us at our respective email addresses. And it's all for you, the loyal SA reader. Thanks for continuing to visit our humble little blog, which, btw, is now averaging close to 300 visits a day. We've come a long way, baby.

Pryor links 'o interest:

"Pryor fights Moore's latest attempt to remove him from ethics case" (AP)

"GOP goes on offensive on judges" (Chi-town Sun-Times)

Yet another reason to read Crescat Sententia on a daily basis: Sara Butler, who brings serious heat in this most excellent post.

Judge Howard J. Bashman, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit?: I am all for it. Although I would miss his blawg quite a bit.

Truly random thoughts: Well, I'm back. Things have been a tad hectic of late. My firm had a meeting on Friday over at the Idle Hour (i.e., blue blood) Country Club here in Macon, which I actually enjoyed quite a bit. To say that I am pleased with my new firm would be an understatement. The partners truly have a vision for where they want the firm to go, and I am glad to play a part in helping them get there. Later that evening, the lawyers and their spouses had dinner at a five star restaurant here in town. Once again, very nice and very appreciated by all.

On Saturday, all of the lawyers in the firm took a stretch limo (Cadillac Escalade) to the UGA v. UAB game in Athens, which was surprisingly close. Oh yeah, we were cold pimpin' (no hydraulics though--sigh). My only complaint is that the reception on my portable t.v. in Athens was horrendous, and I was relegated to having my wife give me the play by play on ND's heart breaking loss to BC from my cell phone. I appreciated her effort, but I would have preferred to watch it play out. In any event, we all got home safe and sound. Exhausted, I went home, ordered a pizza, and watched the Alabama-Tennessee overtime thriller. Sorry professor, I was pulling for the Vols.

On Sunday, I did a whole lot of nothing and enjoyed myself immensely. I paid the price today though. I had an application for interlocutory appeal due (to the Georgia Court of Appeals). I am fairly pleased with the work product (especially given the time constraints--ten day time period), but another day would have been nice.

For those of you who are wondering, in Georgia we have a three step process for filing a discretionary interlocutory appeal: (1) obtain a Certificate of Immediate Review from the trial court that ruled against you (which is entirely within in its discretion to grant); (2) file an application for interlocutory appeal with the Georgia Court of Appeals or Supreme Court of Georgia (depending on the nature of the case) within ten days from the date the trial court issues the certificate; and (3) if the appellate court chooses to grant your application, file a notice of appeal (I believe within ten days from the date of the order granting the application). It is a cumbersome process, but I understand the reason for making it that way.

One other interesting tid bit for you Georgia practitioners. Are y'all aware that Georgia has no formal motion to reconsider in the civil practice act (i.e., nothing comparable to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e))? I find that somewhat odd. There is a common law right to file a MFR though, but there is apparently no time limit for doing so. Weird, huh? But I digress. I should be posting about more interesting stuff tomorrow. Until then.

For more on the Harvard study of college students' political views noted here on Saturday: See this Knight-Ridder story and three PDF files provided by the Harvard Institute of Politics: a press release, a summary of findings, and the "topline data" (whatever that may be).

John Hart Ely, R.I.P. The University of Miami Law School's announcement is here.

"The power of vacuousness" David Brooks can turn a phrase, can't he?

Dramatic proof that 9/11 did not "change everything": In his NRO column today, Byron York examines the results of a poll conducted recently "by Democratic strategist Stanley Greenberg." The poll

focused on Democrats who take part in the nominating process in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. And, Iraq aside, what it found was that Democrats, at least those who are most active in politics, simply don't care about terrorism.

That is, these voters ranked "terrorism" and "homeland security" as last or next-to-last on their ranking of issues they care about. The other results are just as astonishing, to me at least. What are these people thinking?

For a round-up of positive blogger commentary on Judge Brown, see this post on InstaPundit. Plus, Kay Daly points us to Robert Novak's column today, wherein he alleges that the Republican leader in the Senate has finally run out of patience:

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, frustrated by the audacious campaign of Democrats blocking judicial confirmations, begins a counter-offensive this week. He will start by returning to one of President Bush's nominees generally given up for dead. The effort will accelerate throughout this congressional session into mid-November, with one roll-call vote after another.

Our permalinks are on the blink again, according to How Appealing. Look, it's one thing to realize that How Appealing is the ultimate legal blog, hands down, but it's quite another to learn something about one's own site from checking with the omniscient Mr. Bashman.

Eyewitness confirmation of Medicare blimp: Last Thursday, Best of the Web reported that the federal gov't was going to spend $600K on a blimp that will float above various sporting events, advertising the Medicare program. (Perhaps you've heard of it? Health care coverage for seniors, costs billions of dollars a year?) BotW also reported that the blimp was to make its first apperance above the Alabama-Tennessee game.
Well, I was in Bryant-Denny Stadium yesterday, and saw the blimp with my own eyes. The sign on its side says, simply, 1-800-MEDICARE. It hovered enigmatically over the stadium the entire game, which took five overtime periods. Final score: Tennessee 51, Alabama 43. (Oh, the humanity!)
Not surprisingly, the opinion of the people sitting around me was that the blimp was an absurd waste of taxpayer money.

College students support President Bush more strongly than the general population. That's the implication of a recent poll conducted by Harvard U.'s Institute of Politics, and reported in yesterday's Washington Post. The President's approval rating in the Harvard poll was 61%; his rating in the most recent Post-ABC poll was only 53%.

The only Republican Senator who voted against cloture regarding the Class Action Fairness Act is the subject of a strong editorial in today's Mobile Register.

NRA v. ATLA: Predictions and an explanation, from OpinionJournal.

Gulf War II: The Market Evidence Did the U.S. invasion of Iraq produce positive or negative effects on the economies of the Middle East? Jerry Boyer collects stock market evidence in this fascinating column on Tech Central Station. (Hat tip: Best of the Web.)

Not clear on the concept: From a story in The Darmouth Online on the ideology of college professors, we learn from Ivy Schweitzer, professor of English, why there is no problem with one-sidedness at that particular Ivy League institution:

"I think we have a very open forum for faculty to speak, from all sides of the political spectrum," said Schweitzer. "Is the general atmosphere here 'liberal?' Yes, because we are a liberal arts institution, and liberal arts education is supposed to produce 'liberal' attitudes that encourage forward thinking ideas about inclusion, equality and innovation."

(Hat tip: Arma Virumque.)

Lots to do: I've got a lot of firm stuff going on today and tomorrow, so I am going to rely on the good professor, Quin, and Kay to keep y'all up to date on all of the news that's fit to blog. I'll be back in action by Sunday. Until then, keep on keepin' on.

Oh, and by the way, what Quin said. Fob James is a freakin' liar and a first class jerk to boot.

Fob James lies
How's that for being blunt with the truth? Alabama's former governor and lifelong nincompoop, Fob James, has now joined suspended Justice Roy Moore in asking that AG Bill Pryor be removed from the legal ethics case against Moore. Fob, until now best known for an on-stage imitation of a monkey, with assorted hoots and underarm scratching, while denigrating the theory of evolution, now claims that he never would have appointed Bill Pryor as AG to replace Jeff Sessions if Pryor did not firmly believe in the right of state judges to ignore misguided rulings from the federal courts. He says Pryor only recently changed his view on this subject. But Fob lies. It is a matter of VERY public record that when Fob himself came close to advocating interposition, regarding a school prayer case, Pryor as AG took a very strong stand AGAINST Fob's position. Even then, while agreeing that some student-led prayer was acceptable, Pryor was opposing Fob's position that schools could just ignore the federal courts. Here's just one editorial on that 1998 issue that we ran in the Mobile Register. It proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Fob is lying now in his characterization of Pryor's positions:
Fob's defiance mocks prudent legal reasoning Thursday, May 7, 1998
Edition: AM, Section: A, Page 14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOB JAMES has embarrassed Alabama again. In a brief on a school prayer case before the U.S. Supreme Court, the governor took what was at least an arguable position and turned it into nothing short of outlandish.
Indeed, Gov. James' legal arguments are clearly aimed more at swaying home-state voters than at convincing Supreme Court justices. In doing so, he hurt the case of the sincere Alabamians with whom he presumably is trying to curry favor, and insulted the intelligence of everyone in the state.

Here's the meat of the governor's argument: ``In the absence of this court's acceptance of constitutional limitations, other constitutional officials owe no `deference' to the decisions of this court.''

Translated, this means that every public official in the United States is free to interpret the constitution for himself. That way lies anarchy.

In effect, Fob James is dusting off the long-discredited theory of ``nullification'' pushed by Vice President John C. Calhoun in the first part of the 19th century and even expanding it. John Calhoun argued, unconvincingly, that states could ``nullify'' any federal law they believed to be unconstitutional and now Mr. James would extend that right to individual public officials who claim to be acting for their states.

His argument is a farce.

This is not to say that the Supreme Court doesn't sometimes exceed its bounds. But the Constitution provides a remedy for that circumstance, albeit one that's far too rarely used. The remedy is for Congress to limit the court's jurisdiction, which it can do at almost any time if it musters enough will and votes.

But having Congress exercise its right to limit the Supreme Court is a far cry from a state governor asserting some bizarre right to ignore the court. Yes, states do have rights rights that arguably have been usurped too often by both Congress and the Supreme Court. The cure for that problem, though, lies in the ballot box.

Sadly, Gov. James' demagoguery poisons the air so much that it may choke out the reasoned legal arguments for allowing more religious expression in public schools.

Fortunately for Alabama, the state's official case was laid out far more rationally by Attorney General Bill Pryor. Rather than a reckless attack on the Supreme Court, the AG's case sticks to legal doctrines that, while arguable, are at least defensible. Mr. Pryor contended that the lower court had gone too far when it not only forbad the public establishment of religion but also prohibited private religious expression in schools.

``The injunction,'' Mr. Pryor wrote, ``prohibits the DeKalb County defendants from even `permitting' the religious expression of students.''

For instance: ``Students may be allowed to select and read over the school public address system excerpts from secular literature, secular self-help or inspirational books, and secular works expressing love, admiration, or thanksgiving; however, students may not read excerpts from Scripture or other religious writings of the students' own choosing.''

Now that's an effective argument. It may not sway the court, but at least it has, yes, a prayer of success.

Gov. James' arguments, on the other hand, will surely be smitten down, as well he knows. By making those arguments, he's not trying to win a case; he's trying to win re-election. His brief, therefore, was made in bad faith.

EDITORIAL

My daughter's first doll--will be this one.

I've got to start her off on the "right" foot, you know.