The United States Supreme Court

I don’t intentionally try to be first, I just usually am. Nobody else is writing about the United States Supreme Court but me; I’ll remind everybody of this in time.

I’ve written it a hundred times, the two most important responsibilities of the President of the United States of America are to provide for national security and to appoint judges to the federal bench, which includes the U.S. Supreme Court.

I think the next President of the United States will appoint two Associate Justices in his first term (Sen. Clinton will not be the next President so no need for the “her/his” prior to term). This should be a 2008 Presidential campaign issue given the importance, but it is not . . . yet.

The Associate Justices leaving the bench before January 2013 will be Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Yes, they are the two oldest members of the Court but that’s not the sole reason for my prediction.

Starting with Justice Ginsberg, she was born March 15, 1933. Seventy-five is not old by Court standards, nor is 79, the age she’ll be at the end of the next President’s first term. I’m not researching it too deeply but I just recall an awful lot of four sentence news stories in my papers over the years mentioning some issue of the Justice’s health. Well, her frailty is going to catch up with her in the next four years and she’ll either retire or pass.

I think Justice John Paul Stevens is a scoundrel. I think he would have retired earlier if there was a Democrat in the White House. I think they will have to pry that black robe from his cold, dead hands before he allows another Republican appointee (you, know because, he is a Republican appointee and so are Justices Souter and Kennedy, so obviously there is a Republican litmus test for conservative idealogues, NOT!).

Justice Stevens was born April 20, 1920. Eighty-seven is starting to get pretty old by Court standards. There could be some prying.

My thoughts are otherwise.

Justice Stevens is going to do me the favor of highlighting what I’ve been writing about for years: the second most important responsibility of the President of the United States.

Justice Stevens is going to announce his retirement after the Democratic and Republican Presidential nominees are official and prior to the 2008 General Election. He is going to make his vacancy a 2008 Presidential campaign issue.

Justice Stevens will do this for two reasons. First, he cannot continue for four more years. He will not take the chance that a Republican will name his replacement. Second, he thinks the issue will help the Democratic nominee and the assistance just may be enough to get the Democratic nominee elected. I think there is science to the latter calculation. I think appointing a U.S. Supreme Court Justice pushes traditional Democratic issues down on the list of campaign issues but it doesn’t trump the one issue that is more important, national defense, and that the Republicans traditionally have the advantage. I do think a U.S. Supreme Court opening is an issue that will help the Democratic nominee with more VOTERS so I think an issue that gravitates to the top of all voters’ lists will help the Democratic Party nominee.

I will thank Justice Stevens for helping me highlight the importance of appointing U.S. Supreme Court Justices but his dirty trick will not work; Gov. Mitt Romney will still be the next President of the United States.

Might Justice Stevens announce a change in retirement plans on November 5, 2008 or shortly there after? He might.

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas.

Please remember our troops serving near and abroad.

President Bill Clinton's "Vivid and Painful Memories"

(A bit of housekeeping, please see my comment added to my December 19, 2007 post.)

I’m a compassionate man and I intend to make this post no more painful for the reader than it absolutely has to be; immediately below is just the relevant, first third of President Bill Clinton’s radio address to the Nation on June 8, 1996 (increase font, bold, italics mine for emphasis):

President Clinton: Good morning.

This morning I want to talk with you about a recent and disturbing rash of crimes that harkens back to a dark era in our Nation's history. Just 2 days ago, when the Matthews-Murkland Presbyterian Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, was burned to the ground, it became at least the 30th African-American church destroyed or damaged by suspicious fire in the South in the past 18 months. And over the past few months, Vice President Gore has talked with me about the pain and anguish these fires in his home State of Tennessee have caused. Tennessee, sadly, has experienced more of them than any other State in the country.

We do not now have evidence of a national conspiracy, but it is clear that racial hostility is the driving force behind a number of these incidents. This must stop.

It's hard to think of a more depraved act of violence than the destruction of a place of worship. In our country, during the fifties and sixties, black churches were burned to intimidate civil rights workers. I have vivid and painful memories of black churches being burned in my own State when I was a child (Blogger's Note: Naturally, this line was delivered with tears in his eyes, maybe even biting his lower lip, oh, the empathy!). In 1963 all Americans were outraged by the bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham that took the lives of four precious young children. We must never allow that to happen again . . . . (End of excerpt of President Clinton’s June 8, 1996 radio address to the Nation).

Now, as it has been written, only about two or three times because it was a Democratic President lying and grotesquely abusing the pain and suffering of black Americans and the liberal media didn’t want the American people to know of President Clinton’s lie, there is no record of any churches being burned in Arkansas when Bill Clinton was a child.

Contrast this with the liberal media feeding-frenzy over Gov. Mitt Romney’s figurative statement that he “saw” his father, Gov. George Romney, march with Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Yesterday, my (news)paper, the Boston Globe, did a front page hatchet job on Gov. Mitt Romney. Though, buried in the story, there is substantial evidence that Gov. George Romney was an avid supporter of the civil rights movement (gubernatorial declarations, participation in marches, etc.).

On December 14, 2007 I repeated my February 14, 2007 prediction that Gov. Mitt Romney will be the next President of the United States. The media attacks on Gov. Romney this week seem to buttress my prediction: attack the Republican most likely to succeed in November 2008.

You would think the liberal media would have chosen something of more substance than their feigned outrage in this fabricated offense.

My letter:

Editor,

And yet, no web search I try can produce a Boston Globe front page story critical of President Clinton’s self-aggrandizing claim of “vivid . . . memories” of churches burning in Arkansas, which I think really should be offensive to everyone since there is no record of a church ever being burned in Arkansas during President Clinton’s childhood.

Please provide the web link near my letter if such a front page story regarding Clinton's lie exists; I’d be curious to compare the tone of each story.

If no such story exists, please state such aside my letter so your readers know. (End of letter.)

Webb and Tester Support War!
(What of the 2006 "mandate" to end war?)

Shortly after the elections of 2006, I was the very first person to declare that the elections were not a referendum on the war in Iraq; please see my posts of November 9, 2006 and December 16, 2006.

Between those two posts, on November 15, 2006, I wrote, " . . . Or, Democrats control the U.S. Senate because of 7,200 votes in the U.S. Senate race in my birth-state, the Mother of Presidents, Virginia. Or, Democrats control the U.S. Senate because of 2,900!! votes in the U.S. Senate race in Montana . . . . "

As we all now know, the media were incorrectly telling us that Sens. James Webb (VA) and John Tester (MT) won their Senate races because of their anti-war platform.

Well, last night, both Senators voted an additional $71 billion in war funding without requiring a surrender date in Iraq.

Readers of ZACKlyRight know that neither Sen. Webb nor Sen. Tester is worried about re-election in 2012 because of their vote last night.

President Mitt Romney

I apologize in advance if this is not the tightest post I’ve ever produced; my intention is to be on record at the expense of fully explaining myself; if anyone needs any clarification, please ask and I'll answer.

Today, Friday, December 14, I was a caller on a local talk radio show. The host is Mr. Jay Severin of 96.9 WTKK. He’s a nationally recognized personality; he was on the Mr. J. Don Imus show either this morning or yesterday morning.

Anyway, the opinion I shared on the radio today is the basis of this post.

I am standing by my much earlier prediction that the next President of the United States of America is going to be Gov. Mitt Romney (R, MA and MI).

Before we get to why I think Gov. Romney will be the next President, let me also add that who ever the Republicans nominate will definitely beat who ever the Democrats nominate. Anyone quoting any “national” poll that shows a Democrat beating a Republican in a hypothetical match-up is wasting their time; if we had a national election those polls might mean something to me on December 14, 2007. We don’t so they don’t.

The reason why Gov. Romney is going to get the Republican nomination, and therefore be elected President, is because he will gain the most as we move through the primary process and the second and third tier candidates start to lose their support (the bold is my original idea; I have not read or heard anyone else say this; it's what makes me ZACKlyRight).

For example, Rep. Duncan Hunter is my guy. He, unfortunately, will be the next person to drop out of the race; he’s just looking for a reason to tell his supporters that he’s dropping his bid. This will come a day or two after the New Hampshire primary. Well, all of Rep. Hunter’s supporters are now going to have to find a new candidate. I think Gov. Romney will get more of Rep. Hunter’s supporters than anyone else.

And the process will continue.

Rep. Paul and Sen. Thompson and one or two of the others will remain on the ballot for the entire primary season but the supporters of all of these candidates living in yet-to-be-had-primary-states will start to look for a replacement candidate as soon as they recognize their guy is not going to get the nomination. I think Gov. Romney will benefit the most as each candidate loses their base; I think Gov. Romney is the most believable and attractive conservative in the group. Ask yourself, who turns out to vote in Republican primaries? Mayor Giuliani supporters? I don’t think so.

In descending order, the order that supporters of the major candidates will bail on their first choice is:
6. Sen. Fred Thompson
5. Rep. Ron Paul (he should be before Sen. Thompson in the real world but his supporters are probably the most dedicated of all the candidate’s supporters so they’ll be a little slow in accepting reality)
4. Sen. John McCain

This will leave three major candidates deep into the nominating process: Gov. Mike Huckabee, Mayor Giuliani and the Nominee.

3. Gov. Mike Huckabee will be the second to last to drop out of contention; he will have ridden his conservative evangelical appeal as far as he could; he just won’t be able to convince those voters deciding on national security that he’s the guy.

Of Mayor Giuliani and Gov. Romney, Gov. Romney is clearly the more conservative of the two and he will be the nominee of the Republican Party.

I can see no path to the nomination for anyone other than Gov. Romney or Mayor Giuliani (I’m not hedging, I’m just noting the only way I can be wrong about Gov. Romney).

Either one of these candidates will defeat the Democratic Party’s nominee, even if Vice President Al Gore enters the fray to “save” his Party and he wins the nomination.

Dopey Questions by the Boston Globe

Today, the Boston Globe devoted almost its entire editorial page to the top three Democratic candidates for President so each could answer a question.

Sen. Barack Obama was asked, Have the baby boomers got it wrong?

Sen. John Edwards was asked, What did you learn from your loss in '04?

And, Sen. Hillary Clinton was asked, What difference would it make if a woman is President?

My letter:

Editor,

Instead of the three incredibly stupid questions the Boston Globe asked and allowed the top three Democratic candidates to answer, the Boston Globe could have asked any of the the following more helpful questions (One provocative question, December 12, A23):

To Sen. Barack Obama: Did you vote for former Ku Klux Klan member, Sen. Robert C. Byrd, to be President Pro Tempore of the Senate; did you take any positive action to keep Sen. Byrd from this post, why or why not?

To Sen. John Edwards: During a town hall meeting, you promised a questioner (we can play the videotape for you if you need proof of your promise) that you would look into the Bush Administration's involvement in bringing down World Trade Center Building #7, did you keep your promise and if so, what did you learn?

To Senator Hillary Clinton: If elected, would you fire Gen. David Petraeus? Or, did your husband cherry-pick intelligence information to justify his cruise-missile attack on Iraq beginning December 16, 1998 claiming that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program was a clear and present danger to the security of the United States? (End of letter.)

History to Remember President George W. Bush as “Great”

I’m not very good at flagging my own posts for easy cross-reference and I’m not going to invest the time to find the post for proof here, but I know I’ve written it before that I think the two most important responsibilities of the President of the United States are to provide for the Country’s national security and to appoint Federal judges.

I read the hate-filled rhetoric of the liberal extremists and for the life of me I do not understand their empty-phrased criticisms of President Bush.

“Assault on the Constitution.” What, signing statements? Please. There are remedies for Congress to curtail signing statements if they had the will. Specifically, Congress can address any latitude the President reserves for the Office of the Presidency (which means if Sen. Clinton is elected she’ll benefit from President Bush’s efforts to strengthen the Office . . . which is quite different than trying to line your own pockets while in the White House) in legislation. No, that would be too logical for the cowards in Congress; better to demagogue. Oh, President Bush didn’t invent signing statements, he’s just used them more often than his predecessors. No word from the critics at which number you cross the “assault” line.

“Assault on the Constitution.” What the terrorists being detained at Gitmo? They are not citizens of the United States, the U.S. Constitution does not apply to them. And, Congress has legislated the military tribunals that cover these 310 terrorists so I’m not sure how the “assault” demagoguery only attaches to the President.

“Assault on the Constitution.” What the electronic surveillance of terrorists? Again, Congress was informed of everything the President did and has now legislated everything the President and the Executive Branch of government can do to keep us safe. Not sure how the “assault” demagoguery only attaches to the President.

Earlier this week, a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) was partially declassified and the NIE stated “with high confidence” that Iraq had stopped pursuing its nuclear weapons program in 2003. The liberal extremists have portrayed this extraordinary development as some kind of black-eye on the Bush Administration. Huh? Iran stopped pursuing weapons of mass destruction and President Bush is being criticized?! From where I sit a combination of sticks and carrots (mostly sticks) must have concerned Iran enough that they chose to cease. The hate-Bush crowd is spinning the NIE news as, “see, we don’t need a military strike against Iran.” Yeah, the credible threat of force may have induced Iran to stop its program; that’s how it works . . . at least that’s what Sen. Hillary Clinton keeps using as her explanation for her 2002 vote for war in Iraq.

Just below, on November 1, 2007, I also addressed nuclear weapons proliferation; please re-read that post. I closed that post by writing that with Libya disarmed and North Korea on the path to dismantling its program, there was “one to go”. Well, President Bush appears to have gotten the “one”. Of course, we do not know if Iran has resumed its weapons program since 2003; I’m sure the Bush Administration will stay on top of this possibility; they seem to be focused like a laser beam on the issue of nuclear weapons proliferation.

Below is the link to a Boston Globe editorial on the news Iran ceased pursuing nuclear weapons in 2003; please read it at your leisure and/or trust that my reference to it in my letter below is accurate.

This was my letter to the editor in response:

Editor,

Boy, the Editorial Board of the Boston Globe sure is tough to impress (The new intelligence on Iran, editorial, December 5).

In December 1998, President Clinton warned of Saddam Hussein, "And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."

During the 2004 Presidential debates, Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA) said that nuclear weapons proliferation was the single biggest national security threat to the United States.

Yesterday, we learned that the United States intelligence community believes there is a very high probability that Iran ceased pursuing its covert nuclear weapons program in 2003.

So, on President Bush's watch, all four rogue nations with nuclear weapons programs at various stages of development, Libya, Iraq, Iran and North Korea, have either been completely disarmed (Libya and Iraq), have halted their program (Iran) or have agreed to halt their program with a framework in place to dismantle (North Korea).

And the Editorial Board can only criticize President Bush? This is indeed curious.

If Sen. Kerry was correct in his debate claim, the Boston Globe should be suggesting President Bush replace a president on Mt. Rushmore instead of criticizing the President for diplomacy tactics that apparently worked in the Iran instance.

Recall, it is Sen. Clinton (D, NY) who is running around the Country explaining that her 2002 vote for war in Iraq was only intended to strengthen the President's negotiating hand by letting Iraq know the President had a credible threat of force. (End of letter.)

Please know my interpretation of the Iran development is not shared by the smart people at the Wall Street Journal. I’m not going to go out of my way to produce their interpretation, but if anyone wants to read another somewhat critical piece of President Bush, they’ve got one, too (December 8).


The link to the Boston Globe editorial (the first paragraph is all you really need to read):

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2007/12/05/the_new_intelligence_on_iran/

Finally, when I voted for President Bush in 2000 and 2004, I did so for two primary reasons: I trusted him the most on national security (boy has he delivered!) and I trusted him the most on appointing Federal judges (he was the only candidate who vocally campaigned on this hot-button issue of mine). Well, in addition to all the appellate court appointments, President Bush put John Roberts and Samuel Alito on the U.S. Supreme Court. President Bush could not have done better than these two appointments in my eyes (well, I was a big fan of Miguel Estrada and Emilio Garza but Senate Democrats were not; as I’ve also written before, it appears Senate Democrats have a peculiar discomfort with Hispanic-sounding names; recall the abuse Ms. Linda Chavez suffered in her failed attempt to become President Bush’s Labor Secretary).

Because of President Bush’s success in protecting America and Americans and the impact his two U.S. Supreme Court justices will have on constitutional law (and the positive impact this will have, and already has had, on the lives of Americans – born and unborn), President Bush will be remembered as a great President.

Can't See the Nuclear Weapons Program Through the Hate

Lost on the hate-Bush crowd is that Iran actually had a nuclear weapons program to cease pursuing.

World AIDS Day 2007

Before I get to today’s post, if you missed my prior post recognizing Medal of Honor recipient, Mr. Jefferson DeBlanc, please take the time to read that post.

Today is World AIDS Day 2007. If there is a global topic that I am fairly ill-prepared to write about, the global fight against the AIDS/HIV catastrophe could certainly make a short list (I cannot be an expert on everything). Accordingly, my intention with this post is more to share facts than express an opinion, which I’ll still do in my own special way.

As a fiscal conservative, I’m reflexively reluctant to support any new federal government spending program. Yesterday, President Bush re-doubled his previously re-doubled commitment to fund his, President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. Specifically, the President is now calling for a total U.S. commitment to combat AIDS/HIV in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean of $60 billion. My reflexive reluctance aside, I express no opinion on this increased spending.

Rather than cutting and pasting the President’s remarks yesterday announcing his increased commitment and an accompanying White House Fact Sheet, I simply post the links below; please review them at your leisure.

I am moved to write about this topic today, if ever so briefly, because my (news)paper, the Boston Globe, had a lead editorial recognizing the catastrophe/day and a guest editorial recognizing the catastrophe/day. Predictably, neither piece mentioned the unprecedented commitment by President Bush and his challenge to a Democratic Congress; this surprises me not, for the obvious reasons: the commitment should be overwhelmingly heralded by two staunchly liberal communities, the gay and lesbian community and the African-American community.

It is an election year, after all.

I leave my observation here.

(And, please no comments suggesting that the President is "pandering". He knows he and his Party will not benefit at the polls with this commitment . . . see the lack of recognition from the liberal media . . . so, there must be some other reason that motivates the President . . . I suggest it is a noble one.)

President Bush’ Statement:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/11/20071130-4.html

White House Fact Sheet:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/11/20071130.html