George Allen is hosed.

UPDATE: Hmmmm. Sabato seems to be backing off his statements. This is murkier than it appeared yesterday.

Amazing. Some Jewish doctors in New York State don’t work on Saturdays — because it’s their Sabbath. And the local NAACP is suing them, claiming that closing on Saturdays “stifle[s the NAACP’s] efforts towards the equality, diversity, and religious freedom to encourage tolerance in our society.” (See the 16th paragraph of the complaint.)

Eugene Volokh has the jaw-dropping details.

As incredible as it may seem, the guy appearing in this video is being asked to the White House, where he will meet President George W. Bush.

I join Ace’s readers in expressing this heartfelt statement: Get a haircut, hippie!

If Al Qaeda can get its leaders elected somewhere, it may become legal to finance them, if a jury believes the financiers are supporting Al Qaeda’s political activities. After all, this is a defense available to financiers of Hamas, now that Hamas has won a majority in the Palestinian Arab parliament.

Howard Kurtz implies that Clinton was right when he accused Chris Wallace of one-sided questioning:

“It set me off on such a tear because you didn’t formulate it in an honest way and you people ask me questions you don’t ask the other side,” Clinton said.

“Sir, that is not true,” Wallace replied.

Asked about Clinton’s complaint, a Fox spokeswoman pointed to Wallace’s interview two weeks ago with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Wallace pressed her about the lack of prewar ties between Osama bin Laden and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, but he did not ask about U.S. efforts against bin Laden before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Kurtz’s clear implication is that Clinton was right — Wallace never put the tough questions to Bush’s aides about Bush’s pre-9/11 failures.

But, as I noted yesterday, Chris Wallace has put the same tough questions to Donald Rumsfeld that he put to President Clinton. Wallace asked Donald Rumsfeld on the March 28, 2004 episode of Fox News Sunday:

I understand this is 20/20 hindsight, it’s more than an individual manhunt. I mean — what you ended up doing in the end was going after al Qaeda where it lived. . . . pre-9/11 should you have been thinking more about that?

. . . .

What do you make of his [Richard Clarke’s] basic charge that pre-9/11 that this government, the Bush administration largely ignored the threat from al Qaeda?

. . . .

Mr. Secretary, it sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority.

This is remarkably similar to what Wallace asked Clinton in yesterday’s interview:

[H]indsight is 20 20 . . . but the question is why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?

I realize that Kurtz didn’t get this spoon-fed to him by the Fox spokeswoman. But he could have seen it on Instapundit, Power Line, Michelle Malkin, Kausfiles, Hot Air, or any number of other blogs.

I have written Kurtz about this.

How about it, Howie? Will you correct your false implication?

I mentioned to you the other day that Slate‘s Timothy Noah had incorrectly accused Pope Benedict of altering his speech after the fact to include language distancing himself from a controversial viewpoint on Islam. I noted that Stuart Buck had proven conclusively that the distancing language was in Benedict’s original, and encouraged you to write Slate/Noah to seek a correction. I don’t know if any of you did, but someone apparently did. The correction has been issued (see here and here). Thanks again to Stuart Buck for noting this.

Orin Kerr gently takes apart David Savage’s op-ed criticizing John Roberts, so I don’t have to.

Memo to Savage: if an umpire calls a strike in a big game, and changes the course of baseball history, it’s still a “modest” decision as long as it was really a strike.

I look forward to Savage op-eds telling us how “modest” decisions like Roe v. Wade were. Or decisions like the one that outlawed the juvenile death penalty. I could go on and on.

Unlike those decisions, at least Roberts’s decisions have the virtue of being correct and having a firm foundation in the law, rather than merely in the judge’s personal policy preference.

UPDATE: Matthew J. Franck whups Savage good.

It appears that, like me, Eugene Volokh disagrees with the recent Ninth Circuit decision allowing a library to exclude “religious services” from activities allowed in a library’s public meeting room:

Here’s the key excerpt from near the start of Judge Karlton’s concurrence in Faith Center Church v. Glover, a case in which the majority concludes (based on a more plausible argument, though one I think is still ultimately mistaken) that a library may exclude “religious worship” from a policy that opens library rooms broadly to “meetings, programs, or activities of educational, cultural, or community interest”:

Since Prof. Volokh is a genuine First Amendment scholar, I take some solace in his opinion.

Jules Crittenden at the Boston Herald has quoted our own Darleen on the Bilal Hussein affair. Nice going, Darleen.