Patterico's Pontifications


So What?

Filed under: Judiciary — Patterico @ 10:17 pm

I was going to write a post about the silly AP/Ipsos poll and the AP story based on it. I really was. But NRO’s Matthew J. Franck beat me to it and wrote the exact post I was going to write.

Here’s the difference. My post was going to be (and still is) titled “So What?” His is titled “And This Tells Us What, Exactly?”

Close enough.

Review of Winterreise/The Sorrows of Young Werther

Filed under: Music — Patterico @ 9:02 pm

Last night we saw Winterreise/The Sorrows of Young Werther, given by the Long Beach Opera at the Edison Theater in Long Beach. It was a staged version of the Schubert song cycle, based on a set of poems by Wilhelm Mueller, interwoven with readings from Goethe’s novel The Sorrows of Young Werther.

The idea of mixing the two works was bold, and for the most part, it worked very well.


Treo 650 Problem

Filed under: Gadgets — Patterico @ 11:36 am

Last night, my Treo 650 started rebooting each and every single time I tried to access the Web with it.

It’s happened about 20 times in a row now.

Anyone have any solutions?

Invitation to Critics of Priscilla Owen

Filed under: Judiciary — Patterico @ 11:22 am

Anyone who opposes the nomination of Priscilla Owen may explain why in the comments to this post. I am doing this because I have been engaged in a debate with some folks at Kevin Drum’s site, and someone suggested that we were straying off-topic. Rather than debate that point, I have decided to open this thread.

Please follow these simple rules:

1. Pick a specific opinion of hers that you are criticizing. It’s fine to pick more than one, but no generalizations, please.

2. If a Web link is available for the opinion(s) (they are often available on FindLaw), please provide it/them.

3. Read it before you criticize it.

4. Give us your own arguments, not just a link to the People for the American Way site, or to some other blog. Take the time to tell us in your own words what Owen did wrong in the opinion.

I can’t emphasize this point enough. I encourage you to provide links for your sources, of course — but don’t use that as an excuse to avoid independent argument. If you expect us to engage your arguments, show us that you have thought out the issues yourself.

5. Civil and respectful comments only, please — on both sides.

Go to it! I’ll link this post at the post on Drum’s site so as to attract some of the left-leaners who might have criticisms of Owen.

UPDATE: Hellloooooooo??? Anyone there??

UPDATE x2: I have thrown the invitation open here and here as well. I’m trying, I really am. If you can think of another good place to seek out leftists willing to follow my rules (a key point), let me know.

UPDATE x3: Someone on Drum’s site is accusing me of trying to squelch debate on supposed ethical violations of Owen’s. If you can’t come up with an opinion to criticize, feel free to go to the ethical violations, but try to follow the rules to the extent possible/applicable.

In other words, I am not going to be very impressed by a link to Joe Conason article, any more than a liberal would be impressed if I proved my point with a link to an Ann Coulter article. I’ll be much more impressed by an argument that addresses issues like these:

Why is Owen worse on this score than any other judge who has to run for elective office, including other members of the Texas Supreme Court?

How were her opinions supposedly influenced by campaign contributions?

Which opinions?

Was she the swing vote in those opinions?

Did any litigant ever ask her to recuse herself?

Were her actions illegal or demonstrably unethical?


A rant by Joe Conason that fails to address such issues is worthless to me.

Dissent in the Ranks of L.A. Times Editors on Judicial Filibusters

Filed under: Dog Trainer,Judiciary — Patterico @ 10:14 am

Aha! I knew that someone on the L.A. Times editorial board was annoyed that the editors had taken a stance against judicial filibusters. And here is the proof.

I’d like to see Judy Dugan, the author of today’s dissenting editorial, try to back up this claim:

Consider the current circumstances. President Bush’s controversial nominations — Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla R. Owen, William H. Pryor Jr. among them — were made with a political constituency in mind. These judges are friendly to a deeper union of church and state. Well to the right of even their conservative colleagues, they satisfy anti-abortion, anti-homosexual, anti-regulatory absolutists.

Well, Ms. Dugan, at least you got Priscilla Owen’s name right. Your editorial board is improving on that front, since the disgraceful editorial (did you write it?) that inanely referred to “Patricia Owen’s tortured opinions opposing abortion.”

But correctly stating her name, while an improvement, isn’t enough. I’d like to see you correctly state her record as well. Name a single opinion of hers that is anti-abortion or anti-homosexual. Just one. And no, dissents that opine that minors may have abortions — but must first notify their parents — are not “anti-abortion.” They are simply pro-parental involvement.

Your own paper recently wrote a portrait of Owen titled Judge Seen as Conservative, Fair. Did you read it? It said:

The 50-year-old jurist, who also teaches Sunday school, comes across as a mainstream conservative.

Yet you say that Owen is “[w]ell to the right of even [her] conservative colleagues.” So the profile of Owen, by the famously liberal David Savage, was inaccurate? What are your facts to back up that claim? Or do you not even read your own paper??

I’ll give you this: at least you had the guts to sign your name to this piece. I wish all editorials were signed. But if you can’t back up your claims with facts, forgive us if we choose to ignore your feverish ranting about the supposed far-right nature of Bush nominees like the highly qualified and fair Priscilla Owen.

BenedictBlog on Bob Schieffer

Filed under: Judiciary,Media Bias — Patterico @ 8:43 am

BenedictBlog has this interesting account of an interview his local radio station did with Bob Schieffer. To nobody’s great surprise, Schieffer revealed that he has a leftist view of the filibuster controversy.

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0641 secs.