ROLL TIDE!!!
Tomorrow the Mighty Crimson Tide will apply a tsunami style smack down to the gators. Here’s to the ultimate victory of good over evil.

Don't be surprised if President Bush announces his choice to replace Justice O'Connor today, rather than next week.

I have a sinking feeling that Dubya is going to choose poorly.

Update: Erick Erickson has the latest.

From the Scalia/Breyer Debate at Harvard

The Harvard Crimson has this report on a recent on-campus discussion/debate between Justices Scalia and Breyer. The story includes this great zinger from Scalia:

Speaking to more than 400 people gathered in Ames Courtroom, the two justices—who often are at odds with each other in court opinions—locked horns most vigorously when discussing the role of foreign law in shaping legal decisions in the U.S., but also made time for informal discussion and jokes.

“What can a foreign decision possibly tell me about the meaning of a text adopted by an American legislature, or by the American people?” Scalia said. “Nothing at all.”

“I agree that if you believe in a living Constitution...then of course consult foreign law,” he continued. “Why not? I mean, consult a Ouija board.”

And this discussion re: Bush v. Gore:

During a question-and-answer session, one student asked the panel about the potential political pressures involved in the controversial Bush v. Gore case. Frankfurter Professor of Law Alan M. Dershowitz had suggested that he direct the question toward Scalia, he explained.

“He’s still mad at me, isn’t he?” Scalia retorted jokingly, before adding, more seriously, that he had not witnessed any justice take into account “political considerations” in deciding the case.
Breyer added that he had never seen any evidence of politics influencing a court decision. Even so, he said, ideological beliefs occasionally surface.

Scalia said that the politicization of the Supreme Court could be attributed to the emergence of a “judicial philosophy which says the Constitution is indeterminate.” “It will become unpoliticized, as it relatively used to be, as soon as we go back to saying the Constitution means what it says, and it means what it meant when it was adopted,” he said.

Mexican Panel forbids candidates from campaigning in the USA

Mexico's Federal Electoral Institute ruled last week that the same law granting Mexicans living abroad the right to vote in the 2006 presidential election also forbids contenders from traveling to the United States to campaign. Thus, none of the estimated 10 million Mexicans in the United States will get a chance to see candidates in person.

Because of the decision, the former Mexico City mayor canceled a meeting with Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa as well as an appearance at a popular Mexican Independence Day celebration in Huntington Park, Calif.

The Institute's decision is not what interests me. Whether Mexican law permits campaigning in the U.S. is not the issue. What is the issue is that foreign politicians want to canvass for votes in the United States. Because our leaders refuse to defend our southern border and enforce the immigration laws of the U.S., Mexican presidential candidates schedule campaign appearances in the United States as if the southwest was just another Mexican province. This state of affairs is unacceptable, yet our leaders continue to ignore the immigration issue.

Oh, by the way... Roberts Confirmed 78-22.

The Football Gods have showered their favor down upon me. I was just given (yes, for free)two tickets to the game in which Alabama will pulverize Florida. All hail gods of football!

C'mon, who's jealous?

Ann Coulter, brilliant as always:

Now Bush has Sandra Day O'Connor's seat to fill. For those conservatives confident that Bush won't betray them, let's review Bush's other ideas about what constitutes a good Republican.

In 2002, Bush backed liberal Richard Riordan in the Republican gubernatorial primary in California against conservative Bill Simon. This triggered a series of events that culminated in Arnold Schwarzenegger becoming the governor of California. But I don't think even liberals would claim Karl Rove had a plan for California voters to elect Democrat Gray Davis, erupt in a rage at him, and demand a recall election in which a famous Hollywood actor would enter the race and beat the sitting governor.

In 2004, Bush backed liberal Republican Arlen Specter over conservative Pat Toomey in the Republican Senate primary in Pennsylvania. Bush still lost Pennsylvania and, worst of all, Specter won. So that worked out well.

In 2004, Bush backed Mel Martinez for the open Senate seat in Florida and asked the magnificent Katherine Harris not to run against him, so she graciously bowed out. Martinez has since called on Bush to shut down Guantanamo. What's Spanish for "buyer's remorse"?

...Also this year, Bush is backing developmentally disabled Lincoln Chafee over the only Republican in the race, Stephen Laffey, Harvard MBA and mayor of Cranston, R.I. Chafee opposes Bush on taxes, Iraq, abortion and gay marriage. This man is literally too stupid to know he's a Democrat. If Chafee hadn't inherited hundreds of millions of dollars, he would be living in a shack tending weeds. In the last election, Chafee famously refused to vote for Bush, instead writing in Bush's father.

What is Bush getting out of this again? Is this the masterstroke of that Machiavellian genius Karl Rove?

Me: This is one of those times where I hope to God that Coulter is wrong, but it honestly, really, truly wouldn't surprise me all that much if Bush came out and nominated a left-wing nutjob to fill O'Connor's seat. He's that unpredictable sometimes...and, as she details, he's been known, more than once, to lack iron-clad loyalty to Reagan conservatives. For all other pissy comments, see Feddie's post below.

Alabama's Finest: Makin' us all proud to be from the Heart of Dixie

An Alabama state senator says the reason why the Gulf Coast is suffering from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita is because God is judging Americans in that region for sinful behavior.

"New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast have always been known for gambling, sin and wickedness," wrote Sen. Hank Erwin, R-Montevallo, in a column, according to the Birmingham News. "It is the kind of behavior that ultimately brings the judgment of God."

Me: And you guys thought Roy Moore was bad. Sheesh...!

Why I Don't Agree With Hunter About Baylor
I must part ways with Hunter on this one. Although I have great respect for Chancellor Sloan, I believe that the fissures in Baylor's infrastructure are so deep that his return would not remedy what ills the institution. Of course, none of this is an endorsement for the status quo. Nevertheless, at some point we have to get on with our lives, do good work, and stop worrying about things we can't control. Cast your bread upon the water, and don't cast your pearls before swine.

Dear Mr. President,

It's time to appoint an unabashed legal conservative to the Supreme Court (e.g., Judge William H. Pryor, Jr.). Judge John Roberts was a fine choice to replace Chief Justice Rehnquist, and I have no doubt that he will have a long, distinguished career. But the base needs (read: demands) that your next choice be someone who is unafraid to bear witness to the truth. This is not only a fight worth having, Mr. President, it is one we must have for the survival of the republic. For far too long, the Supreme Court has been on a lawless trajectory, and it's time to reverse course. There can be no more decisions like Lawrence v. Texas or Roper v. Simmons. It is time to take a stand. Be bold, Mr. President. Choose someone who is proud to be a member of the Federalist Society, and wholeheartedly embraces the ideals of that organization. Choose someone believes in judicial restraint, and the virtues of originalism, textualism, and federalism. You said repeatedly in two presidential campaigns that you would appoint judges/justices in the mold of Justices Scalia and Thomas. Well, you now have an opportunity to prove that those statements were more than just campaign rhetoric. It is time to pay up, Mr. President.

Honestly, I could care less if you spend a trillion dollars on a grant to study the migration patterns of the Leatherback Sea Turtle. But I--as well as many other conservatives--do care very deeply about the future composition of the Supreme Court; and if you fail to deliver the goods with this nomination, the Republican Party will pay dearly for your betrayal in the 2006 and 2008 elections.

I know things aren't going well for you right now, Mr. President, but it's time to cowboy up and nominate a true believer to the SCOTUS.

Baylor's Board of Regents looked at three finalists for the top job and essentially took a pass. No to Don Powell, head of the FDIC. No to interim pres. Bill Underwood (who withdrew). And apparently no to Linda Livingstone from the Pepperdine school of business. So, here we are back at square one. They made a neat troika of right (Powell), left (Underwood), and middle (Livingstone).

As a constant follower/commentator on the Baylor situation, I read the latest installments of Baylor Truth with great interest. The last two posts are particularly compelling. The first links to a Baylor students blog that chronicles the success of Robert Sloan's policies. The second carries the text of an email from a reader who offers a solution to the current leadership vaccuum: Bring Robert Sloan back to the president's office and admit his resignation was a matter of transitional board instability.

It's not such a far-fetched idea. Sloan is still on campus as the chancellor of the university. He's in his fifties and has years to give.

Another alternative would be to invest the chancellor's office with the presidential powers and make the president more of a chief of operations.

Being the top officer at Baylor during the implementation of an ambitious and ground-breaking vision is not going to be easy going for anyone. Asking a new person to come in and deal with a board that is divided, but improving may not be fair. Asking Robert Sloan to come back and finish what he started may be the only thing that is fair.

Smack Time: It's Thursday, and around here that means it's time to talk some college football smack. Here's a few picks (and for the record, I went 4-1 last week, blemished only by LSU sending in the women's volleyball team to play in the 4th quarter and giving the game to the *&$%# Vols).

Florida v. Bama: This is the big game of the week. Hoo boy. Will it be Leak and the spread offense or the Bama defense that shines. Always bet on defense. Bama 24, UF 13.

LSU v. MSU: It's bounce-back time for LSU, but they won't. It's my upset of the week - MSU pulls it off 35-21.

Ole Miss v. UT: I'm still not convinced that UT is that good, but they're good enough to beat Ole Miss (even with UGA looming next week). 28-6.

South Carolina v. Auburn: Spurrier continues to get the rude welcome-back to the SEC. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy. Auburn 45, USC 7.

MTSU v. Vanderbilt: It's not purely an SEC game, but Vanderbilt is the best college football story of the first half of the season. (Alas, they will also be the most tragic story of the second half, but Vanderbilt fans are used to that). VU 31, MTSU 6.

And since I understand that some people around here have an interest, let's just say that ND runs it up to 4-1 against Purdue.

(Update: yeah, made a little mistake on Bama/UF - the prediction stands; Meyer gets his first SEC loss...)

Anarchy and the UN: The latest from the CFD:

As Darfur descends into anarchy, the United Nations appears unable to do any more than express concerns and continue to ask the parties involved to cease their violent attacks.

After rebels attacked and took control of the town of Sheiria last week, the Sudanese army said it was prepared to retake the town, to which the rebels replied that they would "repulse anything from the Sudanese government's army."

The upsurge in violence forced thousands more out of the villages, swelling the ranks of the internally displaced that already numbers nearly 2 million.

As the violence was raging, even the UN's own Special Representative Jan Pronk, a man who tends to see everything in Sudan through rose-colored glasses, was forced to admit that the violence was spiraling out of control. He was joined by the US government, which stated that the "uptick in violence ... is of concern to us" and the UN's genocide advisor, Juan Mendez, who acknowledged that Khartoum had done little to disarm militias or end the "culture of impunity" that exists in Darfur.

Pronk went on to state that the UN must give the Sudanese government and rebels an ultimatum to compel them to reach some sort of peace agreement and even made the startling admission that, thus far, the UN has utterly failed to deal with Darfur

Pronk said that when the Darfur conflict began U.N. humanitarian officials agitated for the Security Council to take up the conflict, which it refused to do.

A "massive force" was needed [in 2003] then to guarantee security but instead several thousand African Union troops and monitors had to carry the burden. And now the council needed to plan for how to keep the peace in case a peace deal was signed.

Pronk was quoted elsewhere as saying

He said the war situation in Sudan was "everybody’s failure" and could have been avoided if the international community had acted quickly.

How could the present day situation have been avoided?

"I think there should have been intervention in 2003," Pronk said, adding that while the occurrence of genocide in the country was debatable, "There was mass slaughter of people. It needed humanitarian intervention."

Of course, the international community did not act quickly, nor are they acting quickly now.

In fact, while Darfur burned, the BBC reported that American and British intelligence officials, along with representatives of the UN, China and 12 African nations were in Khartoum discussing cooperation on counter-terrorism operations in the region.

Hosting the conference is part of a sustained diplomatic push by Sudan to shake off its pariah status ... When the opportunity for this second regional conference on counter-terrorism came up, Sudan competed for the right to host it ... The decision of the CIA to agree to come to Sudan shows the pragmatism of the intelligence community against the continuing political desire of America to punish Sudan for what has happened in Darfur.

Khartoum continues to work to "shake off its pariah status," with Sudanese Ambassador Khidir Haroun Ahmed publishing an op-ed in the Washington Times today claiming that "After two decades of brutal civil war, Sudan is emerging as a reminder that engagement, dialogue and intensive diplomacy can resolve seemingly intractable problems and permit a country to look to the future with optimism."

Meanwhile, the violence and anarchy Khartoum unleashed is now spilling over into neighboring Chad, a country that is already host to an estimated 200,000 refugees from Darfur

A group of unidentified armed men in military uniform crossed into Chad from Sudan early on Monday, killing 36 herders and stealing livestock, the Chadian government said.

The violence, in addition to threatening the people of Darfur, is also threatening the relief work that sustains them, as U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland noted yesterday

"If it (the violence) continues to escalate, we may not be able to sustain our operations for 2.5 million people requiring life-saving assistance," he said, adding: "In Darfur, it (aid distribution) could all end tomorrow. It is as serious as that."

As Eric Reeves never fails to remind us, in December 2004, Egeland warned that 100,000 people could die a month if humanitarian organizations are forced to suspend operations in Darfur.

Despite all of this, Pronk still managed to recently declare that progress was being made on implementing the Comprehensive Peace Agreement between the North and South and on efforts to reach peace in Darfur.

Such a statement is utterly feckless and shameful.

As Gerald Caplan, author of "Rwanda: The Preventable Genocide," wrote last week

But what we are learning from Darfur, which we never remotely imagined, is that even naming a genocide is an utterly inconsequential exercise in hot air ... despite the apparent concern of many western leaders, despite the pressure from elements of civil society, the catastrophe in Darfur is explicitly allowed to continue ... As always, everything takes precedence over the suffering and death of hundreds of thousands of distant, exotic others. It won't be the last time."

After two years, 400,000 deaths, and an estimated 3.5 million now entirely dependent on humanitarian aid, it must be stated that the UN and every one of its member nations have failed the people of Darfur and, in all likelihood, will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

More Tom DeLay and Ronnie Earle:
The Houston Chronicle's legal analyst (Mary Flood -- whose reports on the Enron Task Force and associated trials have been of high quality) talked to a bunch of professors and attorneys about whether there is any chance of DeLay being convicted.

All pretty much agree: Ronnie Earle will need a "smoking gun" in order to convict Tom DeLay.

From all I know about Earle and from talking to others who have an informed opinion on Earle, there's a consensus that Earle would bring an indictment even if he didn't have a "smoking gun." Earle appears to see himself as a crusader for justice, and most people think he is generally a good guy who means well.

But it's clear that politics has clouded his judgment in the past: his indictment of former Democrat Attorney General Jim Mattox was reaching (at best) and happened to come at a time when Mattox was about to face Earle's friend and current Congressman Lloyd Doggett in the 1984 Senate Democrat primary (note: Phil Gramm eventually won the seat, beating Doggett's campaign team of Jim Carville and Paul Begala.) Likewise, Earle also prosecuted Democrat Bob Bullock (then Comptroller, later Lt. Gov. under Bush) who was a intra-party political foe (Earle claims that Bullock conceded privately after Earle lost that he was "guilty as hell.")

It is true that Earle has prosecuted significantly more Democrats than Republicans, by the numbers. However, most of the cases were not high-profile or particularly difficult. And, in fact, some of his prosecutions of Democrats reeked of politics.

It's quite possible that Earle doesn't have a "smoking gun" and knows he has only a minute chance of a conviction, but thinks that indicting DeLay is a just punishment (since DeLay has lost his leadership position, he may end up retiring rather than going to being a backbencher again. He might be able to regain his leadership position, but the chances of that fade with every passing day. General discussion by the WashPo on the topic.)

Here's the Chronicle:

Most legal experts looking at the conspiracy indictment of U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay said Wednesday that either an insider has turned against DeLay or the prosecutor may have gone too far.

"I can't imagine indicting a majority leader of the U.S. House of Representatives without having a smoking gun, and that means someone who flipped on DeLay," said Buck Wood, an Austin lawyer who filed a related civil lawsuit on behalf of Democratic congressional candidates. "He's got to have corroborating evidence, too, bills and things proving where DeLay was at key times."

...

University of Houston professor David Crump said the government is nevertheless going to have to show the jury, no matter how many Travis County Democrats are sitting on it, that DeLay did something to promote a campaign-fund transfer that was against the law.

"Yes, it's possible to have a conspiracy in which one conspirator didn't do anything but merely agreed. But I've never seen it happen in reality. The agreement can't be that passive or tacit," Crump said.

Related: Austin American-Statesman, AP reports.

UPDATE: Stephen Spruiell says:

The indictment centers around a money swap that took place between the Texans for a Republican Majority PAC (TRMPAC), to which DeLay has ties, and the Republican National State Elections Committee (RNSEC). TRMPAC sent $190,000 to RNSEC, and RNSEC then sent the same total amount in seven checks ranging from $20,000 to $40,000 to Texas House candidates in 2002. Travis County DA Ronnie Earle, a Democrat, calls this money laundering, because the money that TRMPAC sent to RNSEC came from corporations, which are barred from contributing to campaigns in Texas.

What you won't hear in the press is that A) This is a perfectly legal move, and B) the Democrats did the exact same thing. An Institute on Money in State Politics study reveals that on Oct. 31, 2002, the Texas Democratic Party did the same thing when it sent $75,000 to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and received $75,000 back from the DNC the very same day.

Here's what I wrote about this case last summer:

Just to put this $190,000 deal into perspective and demonstrate the petty, vindictive nature of this partisan investigation, the study also reveals that Democrats transferred a total of approximately $11 million dollars in soft money from its national parties to fund Texas campaigns in 2002, compared to $5.2 million transferred by Republicans.

Who?

JUDGE CONSUELO CALLAHAN
U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, appointed by
G.W. Bush, 55 years old
Sort of an out-of-nowhere pick, this would be!
Though the New York Times mentioned her on
9/20. A judge since 1992, serving on
California Superior and Appeals courts until
her elevation to the federal bench in 2003.


New World Man presents: My favorite candidate for the Supreme Court
brought to you by Quizilla


Yeah...ok. I guess the fact that I'd love it if the nominee were Hispanic and female swung it this way. I don't really know anything about her.

Honestly though, if I were W, I'd probably nominate McConnell, or, failing that, then Luttig. Roberts' intellect and resume set a very high bar.

I just re-watched David Blaine: Street Magic...
Anyone else seen this? Uhm, I think it's safe to conclude that he has sold his soul to the devil.

Fans of Ben Stein will be happy to learn that he is one of eight new columnists for Yahoo Finance. His "Common Sense" column is slated to run every other Monday. Charles Wheelan's "Naked Economist" (slight variation on the title of his book) will appear the first Wednesday of each month.

Whatever It Takes...is the title of Peggy Noonan's latest at Opinion Journal. Check it out...here's a taste:

George W. Bush, after five years in the presidency, does not intend to get sucker-punched by the Democrats over race and poverty. That was the driving force behind his Katrina speech last week. He is not going to play the part of the cranky accountant--"But where's the money going to come from?"--while the Democrats, in the middle of a national tragedy, swan around saying "Republicans don't care about black people," and "They're always tightwads with the poor."

In his Katrina policy the president is telling Democrats, "You can't possibly outspend me. Go ahead, try. By the time this is over Dennis Kucinich will be crying uncle, Bernie Sanders will be screaming about pork."

That's what's behind Mr. Bush's huge, comforting and boondogglish plan to spend $200 billion or $100 billion or whatever--"whatever it takes"--on Katrina's aftermath. And, I suppose, tomorrow's hurricane aftermath.

In the words of my colleague who passed this along, which you can interpret however you like, "The best statement about Bush II that I have seen." Hat tip: PS.

What future for American higher education? Two interesting essays, with different outlooks, from James Piereson and Victor Davis Hanson. Piereson provides an excellent history of American colleges and universities, from the Founding through the rise and dominance of the "liberal university" (as exemplified by the turn-of-the-20th-century "Wisconsin idea") and its eventual replacement by the "Left University" after 1965. Although Piereson pulls no punches in describing the current state of higher ed, he does hold out the hope that "the days of the left university are numbered, and that the leftist establishment will soon find itself resisting a new tide of change and reform." Hanson vigorously critiques the performance of four presidents of high-profile campuses -- Harvard, UC Santa Cruz, Colorado, and UC Berkeley -- and although he ends by saying that "it is time for Americans, if we are to ensure our privileged future, to re-examine our era's politicized university" I think it's fair to say that Hanson is not as optimistic about the possibility of serious reform as Piereson is. I suggest reading both essays.

Re: Delay
BTW, as Paul mentioned in the comments box - Roy Blunt (R-Mo) is replacing Delay, not Dreier. And, from what I know...Blunt's "good people."

re: Delay's counsel

DeLay's attorney for this matter is the famous Dick DeGuerin. DeGuerin is a Democrat -- although he's currently supporting independent Kinky Friedman in his run for governor -- but DeGuerin is very well-respected in Texas legal circles. DeGuerin also has stood up to Ronnie Earle before when Earle was playing politics: he represented Senator Hutchison when Earle bogusly indicted her.

re: DeLay

This is hardly unexpected. The buzz for the past few days was reaching a crescendo that the DeLay indictment was imminent. Moreover, given Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle's predilections and how easy it is to indict someone, most Texas folks have figured for a long time that DeLay would be indicted. [The Travis County District Attorney is given the state's Public Integrity Unit by the Texas Legislature.]

I tend to agree with Verity that the indictment will probably not be dismissed as a matter of law, though I wouldn't claim to be an expert in that area.

Ronnie Earle has a long history of indicting political opponents, whether Democrat or Republican. The most famous is when he indicted Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison on trumped-up charges shortly after her election, only to drop the charges just before trial. Earle has gone after Democrats too, but former Texas AG Jim Mattox and Texas Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock were not exactly political allies.

The trial court will be the 331st Judicial Criminal District Court, with Bob Perkins residing. Judge Perkins is elected as a Democrat. He is the same judge who has heard the other TRMPAC trials, and has been consistently unfriendly to the Republican defendants. I wouldn't count on the judge cutting DeLay and his co-defendants much slack.

Since DeLay will be in an unfriendly court, he'll likely want a jury as a finder of fact if the case gets that far, even though DeLay isn't a very sympathetic defendant.

In short: it's politics as usual from Ronnie Earle.

Proof positive that everyone has something to give back to the Katrina Victims...or take, or whatever:

A doctor has offered to perform free abortions on hurricane evacuees, saying it may be too dangerous for them to wait until they return home.

Me: Warms your heart, doesn't it?

Texas law does not require Delay to engage in an overt act. The Corner has a brief discussion about the Delay indictment, which posits (preliminarily) that it won't stand because it doesn't tie Delay to the illegal conduct. The indictment is available at Smoking Gun here. Note: Delay was indicted for violating Section 15.02 of the Texas Penal Code. That Section is available here.

It provides:

§ 15.02. CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY. (a) A person commits criminal conspiracy if, with intent that a felony be committed: (1) he agrees with one or more persons that they or one or more of them engage in conduct that would constitute the offense; and (2) he or one or more of them performs an overt act in pursuance of the agreement.

The indictment charges that "the defendants herein, with the intent that a felony be committed, did enter into an agreement with one or more of each other. . .that one or more of them would engage in conduct that would constitute the offense of knowingly making a political contribution in violation [of Election law]."

Section 15.02(1) only requires the alleged conspirator to agree with ONE other conspirator that ONE other member of the conspiracy will engage in conduct that constitutes a criminal offense. The indictment's language charges that the "defendants" (plural) "did enter into an agreement with one or more of each other," meaning all of the defendants, including Delay, agreed with one other person. And the indictment claims the agreement was for "one or more of them" to engage in conduct that would constitute the offense." Section 15.02(2) does not require Delay to undertake an overt act. Thus, the indictment's failure to note any overt act on Delay's behalf is irrelevant under Texas law.

The best argument Delay has in challenging the indictment is that it fails to give him sufficient notice as to whom he "enter[ed] into an agreement." I'll update this post once I research Texas law on this issue.

Update: My review of Texas case law leads me to believe that the indictment would satisfy the Texas requirement (and constitutional requirement) for "notice," even though it fails to identify which of the three co-conspirators Delay allegedly entered into an agreement.

Update II: A conspiracy indictment need not allege a successful underlying offense, i.e., a violation of Election law, but merely an agreement where the parties intended the underlying offense and an overt act by one. Intent may be hard to prove here. My point, however, is that I do not believe this indictment will be dismissed or quashed for failing to allege a crime or failing to put Delay on notice. Not condemning or stick up for Delay--I don't know the facts--although I have no doubt there are some horrible politics at play here. I'm merely noting the legal issues at play at THIS stage.

This is not good. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay Indicted:

A Texas grand jury on Wednesday charged Rep. Tom DeLay and two political associates with conspiracy in a campaign finance scheme, an indictment that could force him to step down as House majority leader.

DeLay attorney Steve Brittain said DeLay was accused of a criminal conspiracy (search) along with two associates, John Colyandro, former executive director of a Texas political action committee formed by DeLay, and Jim Ellis, who heads DeLay's national political committee.

Me: I say, despite the fact that this won't go to trial for possible more than a year, he should go ahead and step down and avoid the political circus....nevermind, Fox News just reported that he will. Good. (I forgot...it's a GOP rule)

Update: David Dreier is temporarily the new majority leader

Cindy Sheehan Exposed

Ouch. Take a look at John Gibson's take on Cindy Sheehan. A portion:

Cindy got in some trouble with her own anti-war folks this past weekend when she complained about TV coverage of the hurricanes. She wanted some face time for her anti-war protest. Here's what she said on a liberal Web site Saturday afternoon about 3:30 ET when Rita was just 12 hours on shore and peoples homes were smashed and water logged:

" ... It is a little wind and a little rain ... It is bad but there are other things going on in this country today ... and in the world!"

Her anti-war buddies didn't like that so much. One immediately wrote back:
"They've lost their homes, jobs and businesses and gone through fear and panic while you bask in your fan's adulation, party with your celebrity friends and play the star. Shame on you, you're jealous of media coverage of others' suffering. You've become a caricature and I no longer support you. I'm ashamed I ever did."

Cindy later posted another note on the Web site saying she was sorry for being misunderstood ... but she was frustrated that the media was no longer fixated on her ... or rather her war protest, her Bush protest, her ... well, her.

Four things that have to stop. NOW!: Just a few random things that have my knickers in a twist this Wednesday morning.

1: Websites that make you click on an item and place it in your shopping cart because the price is "just too low to show" otherwise. (I'm looking at you, Amazon, Best Buy and Circuit City.) I truly don't see the logic behind this. Do they really think somebody is going to click on the link to get the price, then figure they have to buy it now? "I've gone to all that trouble of clicking a link, so I guess I might as well buy that 19-inch TV for $750." Okay, that'll work if Barbra Streisand is shopping, but I'm sure she has a minion do that for her.

Here me now and understand me later. You have me on your website, trying to buy something. Every click, every step I have to take, moves me farther away from actually purchasing anything.

2: Websites that have a thumbnail description of an item or a brief synopsis of a news story, then a link that you can click to "Read More," only the "Read More page has maybe one pixel more information than the main page. What a great way to tick off your readers.

3: Companies that require extensive information in order to obtain a trial version of a program. (I'm looking at you, Sun, with your new Star Office 8.) For cryin' out loud, Microsoft doesn't require the Freightliner load of information you guys want. And since you're pitching Star Office as a better, cheaper replacement for Microsoft offerings, maybe you'd be smart to start out making the trial experience easier. If I try your product and like it, THEN I'll come back and give you all the information you need to sell it to me.

4. People who disagree with me. Admit it. In your heart, you know I'm right.

Baa, Baa Bayh Sheep

Pro-lifers used to have fun (of the pissed off sort) pointing to formerly anti-abortion Democrats who switched positions upon announcing presidential campaigns. You know, Edward Kennedy, Jesse Jackson, Al Gore . . .

Now, we can chart the same transformation when it comes to supporting presidential nominees.

Senator Evan Bayh (the "moderate" Democrat capable of winning in a GOP state like Indiana) has well-known presidential ambitions. Viewing the Dean-ization of the Democratic party, Bayh made the "principled" decision to vote against Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State and now is rejecting John Roberts for the Supreme Court.

One suspects Bayh may not have plans to run for Senate again in Indy-land, because this is not his usual position on the political spectrum. Looks like Bayh is making sure Kos and Company know he's already in the bag and is nobody's New Democrat.(HT: The New American Spectator Blog)

A couple of future SCOTUS cases to keep our eyes on and our fingers crossed:

The Supreme Court term begins next week, and justices on Tuesday released a list of about a dozen cases that will be reviewed. Among them were a new challenge to the 2002 federal law, known as "McCain-Feingold" for its chief Senate sponsors, and a test of strict contribution and spending limits in Vermont.

Judge Janice Rogers Brown and the Left's Insincere Call For "Balance"

Manuel Miranda's latest article in the Wall Street Journal is a good one. He supports my favorite -- Judge Janice Rogers Brown -- for O'Connor's seat, and in the process does a good job of exploding the Left's phony call for "balance" on the Court. Of course, that call only comes about when they are in the minority. A portion:

The call for balance is vapid given that a president is elected with the understanding that he will nominate someone to the Supreme Court in keeping with his judicial philosophy. George W. Bush made this a cornerstone of his campaigns. If a national election is not sufficient to gauge public opinion, a Gallup poll in July found that 70% of Americans want the high court either to be more conservative or to stay as conservative as they perceive it now to be. An Opinion Dynamics poll one week later asked this question: "When a Supreme Court justice retires, do you think the president has an obligation to replace the retiring justice with another justice with similar legal and political views?" An overwhelming 67% said no. The president is on sound footing if he leans to the right.

Not surprisingly, there is also a double standard. In 1993, when President Clinton needed to replace the retiring associate justice Byron White, a John Kennedy appointee who had been one of two dissenters in 1973 (together with Justice Rehnquist) on Roe v. Wade, no one called on him to maintain the "balance" of the court. He nominated the most pro-abortion feminist activist he could find. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was then confirmed by the Senate with a vote of 96-3.

But the left is so reliant on its balance argument that when Republican senators, and this writer, pointed out that Justice Ginsburg had posited that prostitution was constitutionally protected and that the age of consent should be lowered to 12, the same people who have distorted the records of Bush judicial nominees echoed in outrage and obfuscation. The problem is that it's true.

In papers Ms. Ginsburg wrote while she worked for the ACLU, she argued against criminalized prostitution and said that it was "arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions." In lawyer-speak that means that she, at least, tended to think prostitution fell under the constitutional right to privacy. She did not say "some would argue" or that it was "arguably not within the zone of privacy." And if arguably Mrs. Ginsburg did not aim, as her defenders say, to lower the age of consent, she was guilty of sloppy lawyering when she recommended that a statutory-rape law that had the consent age at 16 be replaced by a proposal that had it at 12.

But that is not all. The woman nominated to replace Roe's leading dissenter, Byron White, was not only pro-abortion, she wrote that the federal government should be constitutionally required to subsidize elective abortions. She urged coed prisons; criticized the Boy and Girl Scouts for perpetuating "gender" stereotypes; and suggested that "Parents Day" might replace Mother's and Father's day. Ms. Ginsburg had also opined that a law restricting the rights of bigamists "is of questionable constitutionality since it appears to encroach impermissibly upon private relationships."

Of course, when they confirmed Justice Ginsburg, liberals did not worry about balance. Actually, if not for their double standard, one might think that they had no standards at all.

Hail to the Chief! World Series wins or not, this guy is the best in the business:

The best manager in baseball has never had a best seller written about him. Has never hosted "Saturday Night Live." Has never been spotted hanging out with John Fogerty, Hugh Jackman, Huey Lewis, Lorraine Bracco or Kermit the Frog.

No, for the best manager in baseball, it's enough just to show up every year and inspire Wilson Betemit to play like Eric Chavez, and Jorge Sosa to pitch like Pedro Martinez.

And win, of course. Every single year

...Any minute now, somehow or other, the Braves are going to clinch their 14th division title in a row. Even in a year in which they've used 17 rookies, 13 of whom had never before appeared in a single big-league box score.

Even in a year in which the manager has had to write the name of at least one rookie on his lineup card every day since May 28.

Even in a year in which the Braves had to waste 142 at-bats on Raul Mondesi.

Did it stop them? Did it matter? Does it ever matter to Bobby Cox?

...You can argue that that's because the Braves are the best organization in sports. Or because they're the luckiest team in sports. Or because they've always had a Cy Young or three on the premises to bail them out when they needed bailing.

But we would argue that the biggest reason is the manager, Robert J. Cox.

The best manager in baseball.

Me: To the best manager in baseball...here, here.

The Oxford University Press has launched OUPblog wherein the Press's authors "provide daily commentary on nearly every subject under the sun." Just FYI, really.

On my first visit to the blog, I was steered to an economics blog I had not previously known of. Dear Economist is the work of Tim Harford, who "answers readers' personal problems with the tools of Adam Smith" in his column in the Financial Times.

Geena Davis joined Al Michaels and John Madden in the booth for yet another silly interruption of the game action last night as ABC attempted to created synergy for Commander in Chief, its new drama about a female president. I got news for you, ABC. The viewers of MNF are not the viewers of a Geena Davis drama.

Anyway, Louis Wittig has a very interesting review of the series pilot at National Review Online. The series is yet another recapitulation of liberal wet dreams about federal power in the hands of a right- (or should I say left-) thinking person. First, we had The American President. Then, The West Wing. Now, The Commander in Chief.

Here's the most interesting part of the review:

Liberals are serious about human rights in this world too. Working out a subplot, Allen’s aides keep reminding her about the Nigeria situation: In accordance with sharia, Nigeria is about to put a woman to death for committing adultery. Allen is concerned.

Throughout, Allen is shown confidently ordering around generals and positioning aircraft carriers (see, this is why stereotypes are bad).

And as Commander limps through its 38th minute, she brings the Nigerian ambassador to a Joint Chiefs’ meeting and proceeds to illustrate how the Marines will storm his country if the woman isn’t released immediately.

“I can’t believe the U.S.A. would take such a unilateral action,” the ambassador mumbles.“If you think I’m going to sit by while a woman is executed, tortured, for having sex, you’re sorely mistaken,” retorts Allen. Dare I think it? You go girl.

Dude, did she even go ask the UN?

And the award for "Best Description of Ainge's Intercepted Pass Last Night" goes too...Jeff!!!

I must give credit to UT. After Ainge threw that "Uncle Rico" underhand pass to avoid the safety, only to have it picked off for a touchdown, I thought the Vols were done.

Me: For those that have seen and savored Napoleon Dynamite, this indeed is the perfect description. The only thing that would have made it better is if Ainge would have shrugged his shoulders immediately afterward...

Speech. Speech. Speech.

To the Dakotas: Joel Kotkin suggests redirecting development away from the Gulf Coast and toward, say, the Dakotas. It seems rational, except this: why would anyone in their right mind leave the pretty beaches, warm weather, and good food for the barren, cold wastes of the northern high plains? Or, more importantly, who in their right mind would have their children grow up sounding like a character from the movie Fargo?

I am never moving again. Never, I say!

In case you were wondering, that's why I haven't posted anything for a few days.

I hope to be back in the swing of things soon.

Privacy Debate Continues

Should the federal government be able to collect DNA from every person they arrest or detain?

Suspects arrested or detained by federal authorities could be forced to provide samples of their DNA that would be recorded in a central database under a provision of a Senate bill to expand government collection of personal data.

The controversial measure was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee last week and is supported by the White House, but has not gone to the floor for a vote. It goes beyond current law, which allows federal authorities to collect and record samples of DNA only from those convicted of crimes. Source

Unfortunately, I am swamped and do not have time to do in-depth research at this moment. Does anyone here have more information regarding this provision?

Tenn. 30 - LSU 27: Did I call it...or did I call it?

Yep. I think I called it.

Re: Don Adams, R.I.P.: As Michael notes in the post below, Get Smart star Don Adams has passed away. However, most of us who were kids in the '80s knew him as the voice of Inspector Gadget which was (and is) one of my favorite cartoon shows.

Let Us Now Praise Famous Men is revisited in the September 19 issue of Fortune, online here. From the opening paragraph:

Still angry after all these years at how a writer and a photographer on assignment for this magazine moved into his house when he was just a boy, 4 years old (he remembers the day), and stayed for weeks, and while the family was working in the fields, snooped around in dresser drawers and under beds, and took notes, and took pictures, and shared what they had taken with all the world. James Agee and Walker Evans gave us a lasting image of the Depression; Charles Burroughs and his family got squat. "We never even got one of the damn books," he says. "They should have had enough respect to come back afterwards. I know I would have. At least send a copy of the book."

Read the whole thing. Note well the sentiments of Andrew Burroughs, of the Hale County High class of '06.

(If you're not familiar with the book, click here, then here. If you're not familiar with the Biblical source of the book's title, click here.)

Don Adams, R.I.P. The star of the mid-60s cult TV hit, Get Smart, died yesterday, aged 82. Cathy Seipp has this tribute. For a couple of MP3 files, click here.

A sad, but touching, back story to Notre Dame's victory over Washington.

Cool: The American Spectator will be starting a group blog tomorrow.

I've Seen Hell: You know what it looks like? It's a discount fabric store where you have to keep up with two hungry, tired children under the age of four for hours while your wife asks you whether you like this fabric or that one. That was my Saturday. As the saying goes, never again...

Katrina and the legal system: Phelps Dunbar, a large New Orleans-based law firm, is publishing a newsletter "to inform and advise our clients and friends of legal issues and information related to Hurricane Katrina and the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast." The September 23 issue of "After Katrina Legal News" is online here. Included is this rundown of Katrina Lawsuits:

The first of what is expected to be a multitude of lawsuits relating to Hurricane Katrina have been filed. The Attorney General of Mississippi has sued numerous insurance companies in state court seeking to void exclusions in property casualty insurance policies. Private class action law suits have been filed in Louisiana seeking declaratory judgment that damages caused by waters entering New Orleans because of breaches in the levee system are covered by homeowner insurance policies. A federal class action suit has been filed against oil and gas pipeline companies and oil and gas exploration companies for damages caused to Louisiana's wetlands by the creation of pipeline and access canals, which allegedly contributed to destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina. Class action suits have been filed against oil companies and oil well operators relating to some of the 44 reported oil spills caused by the storm, including five spills classified by the Coast Guard as "major" (over 100,000 gallons), and four spills classified as "medium" (10,000 to 100,000 gallons).

Martin Grace has some thoughts on the suit brought by the Mississippi AG, here and here.

Update: The Wall Street Journal editorial page calls the Mississippi case a "Category 5 Lawsuit." For more, check out the Katrina-related links page on the website of the Mississippi AG's Office.

Me v. Douglas Laycock on the Legal Affairs Debate Club: Is Teaching Intelligent Design Illegal?. I am honored to participate in an online debate with University of Texas law professor, Doug Laycock. He's an outstanding scholar in the jurisprudence of the religion clauses.

My initial salvo was just published online here. Professor Laycock's reply will follow. We will go back forth four times throughout the week. If you are interested in following this, be sure to check back every day.

Number 15.5! I averaged the two polls. Roll Tide!
Florida sucks. Their ranking is inflated...as is Notre Dame's and LSU's.

Oh, and Tenn. wins tonight in a nail-biter, clearing the way for an undefeated SEC run for Bama. (Back me up Joel.) Bring on the week of talking smack...

As Jackie Childs might say, this is egregious, outrageous, irresponsible: Remember all the stories of pillaging and murder and death and destruction and famine and male-pattern baldness and so on that took place at the Superdome? Those stories were about 99.999999% folderol. Unmitigated folderol at that.

After five days managing near-riots, medical horrors and unspeakable living conditions inside the Superdome, Louisiana National Guard Col. Thomas Beron prepared to hand over the dead to representatives of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Following days of internationally reported killings, rapes and gang violence inside the Dome, the doctor from FEMA - Beron doesn't remember his name - came prepared for a grisly scene: He b