A blogger at RedState.org claiming to have multiple sources in the White House claims that Rehnquist still intends to retire before the next Supreme Court term.
You no doubt have seen the recent Doonesbury cartoon mocking bloggers, featuring a semi-employed loser/blogger named “Slamz88.”
A commenter at Nick Stewart’s blog asks whether the “88” at the end of the blogger’s moniker is a coincidence — given that it is a well-known code used by white supremacists for “Heil Hitler.”
Or, given that the moniker begins with “Slamz,” maybe he is saying that the blogger “slams” bigotry — and is therefore an intrepid enemy of racial prejudice. Who eats cat food. Yeah, that’s it.
P.S. Maybe it means he’s a piano player?
I just watched highlights of the Pink Floyd reunion here.
Good stuff. But I don’t think the producers knew that Rick Wright is a member of the band.
I’m told that the L.A. Times will be issuing a correction tomorrow of their editorial that claimed Justice O’Connor was in the majority in every 5-4 decision last term. (I told you about this on Saturday, in this post.)
They will also be issuing a correction soon (perhaps tomorrow) regarding the identity of the Sheriff’s Deputy who received an Award of Valor along with recently murdered Sheriff’s Deputy Jerry Ortiz. (As I first told you here, the actual recipient was Tim Brennan, not Colin Orpe.)
I’m also told that my complaint about the paper’s misstatement regarding the effect of the Three Strikes Law has been passed along to the editors of the L.A. Times Magazine. (The piece, which has already seen several corrections, incorrectly stated that the Three Strikes Law provides for life without the possibility of parole. I first told you about that in this post.)
UPDATE 7-6-05: The representation about the O’Connor correction running today turns out to have been inaccurate, so far as I can tell.
Professor Bainbridge continues to be pleased with the Republican capitulation on the nuclear option. His latest evidence is set forth in this post:
Hmmm. I wouldn’t place a lot of stock in the ravings of this particular freaking-out liberal, who is so hard-left that he thinks the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales would be a triumph for right-wingers:
Truthfully, I think Bush is going to nominate Gonzales, which would be sort of unremarkable under these circumstances if it weren’t for all the executions and the war crimes. Of course the crazies are all saying he’s too liberal — and they’ll probably succeed in convincing the dips–t gang of 14 that they got Bush to nominate a moderate.
I’m not comforted by the idea that Alberto Gonzales will be nominated and confirmed, even if it might upset some fringe leftist who thinks Gonzales is responsible for “all the executions and the war crimes” — whatever that means.
But let’s assume that we should take comfort in the nervousness of those on the radical left. What’s making them nervous? Clearly, part of it is the prospect that, even under the deal, the nuclear option is still on the table. For example, the Washington Post article that had our leftist friend so upset says:
Under the “Gang of 14” accord, the seven Republican signers agreed to deny Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) the votes he needed to carry out his threat to bar judicial filibusters by changing Senate rules. The seven are implicitly released from the deal if the Democratic signers renege on their end. Yesterday, key players suggested the seven Democrats will automatically be in default if they contend a nominee’s ideological views constitute “extraordinary circumstances” that would justify a filibuster.
The only reason the pact has any teeth is because a Democrat filibuster that violates the deal arguably frees Republican signatories to employ the nuclear option. But Professor Bainbridge doesn’t want them to — even if the Democrats filibuster under non-extraordinary circumstances. As I understand Bainbridge’s position, he wants to maintain the filibuster for the future, and he wouldn’t employ the nuclear option even if the Democrats were to initiate a filibuster that clearly violated the deal’s terms.
If the Republicans in the Gang of 14 were to adopt Professor Bainbridge’s position, our “freaking-out liberal” friend would be resting much easier. The one thing that most upsets our leftist friend — and that gives me any hope — is the fact that the nuclear option is still on the table.
UPDATE: I stand corrected on one point: our fringe leftist friend claims to eagerly await the deployment of the nuclear option. I remain skeptical that President Bush is going to be able to push through any genuine conservatives without the Senate’s having to resort to the nukes. I guess we’ll see, won’t we?