You gotta love this. Ever since President Bush picked John Roberts for the Supreme Court, the buzz in liberal circles and mainstream media outlets (but I repeat myself) has been largely focused on his work on conservative causes for the Reagan Administration and his anti-abortion footnote on behalf of the first President Bush, stating that Roe v. Wade was “wrongly decided.” These examples of Roberts’s work with conservative clients have been repeated over and over, like they’re a really big deal. But now, faced with evidence that Roberts did pro bono work for a gay-rights cause, the Los Angeles Times concludes:

Roberts’ work on behalf of gay rights activists, whose cause is anathema to many conservatives, appears to illustrate his allegiance to the credo of the legal profession: to zealously represent the interests of the client, whoever it might be.

Aha! So when Roberts was “zealously representing the interests” of conservative clients, that meant he was a conservative… but when his client work indicates liberal tendencies, it’s just client work, nothing more. LOL!

(Off-topic for a moment: on a semantic level, the above-quoted sentence contains a wonderful example of a technique commonly employed by biased writers: the use of third-person phraseology to express an opinion in an apparently neutral fashion. In this case, the phrase is “appears to illustrate.” The question one must ask, of course, is, “appears that way to whom?” And the answer, obviously, is: the writer!)

Anyway… it strikes me initially that, if anything, the fact that Roberts would choose a gay-rights cause as the venue for his pro bono work — rather than, say, working for an anti-abortion group like the one his wife belongs to — would seem to tell us more about him than anything he might have said on behalf of a paying client. Now, whether it tells us that he supports gay rights, or merely that he’s a shrewd political posturer, is another question. :) But either way, I’m not sure this particular piece of client work can be dismissed so easily — and I’m quite certain it can’t be dismissed with a straight face by anyone who is unwilling to dismiss that 1991 Roe footnote.

P.S. In fairness to the Times, this story did run on Page 1, so they obviously think it bears some significance. Regardless, I still find the sentence I quoted very amusing, in light of the surrounding context.

The L.A. Times has an update on the anti-Souter eminent domain effort in New Hampshire. But, what’s a “ligthning rod”?

Kudos to Ariel Sharon for telling it like it is, after a renegade Israeli soldier executed four Israeli Arabs:

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon condemned the attack, calling it “a reprehensible act of a bloodthirsty Jewish terrorist who sought to attack innocent Israeli citizens.”

“This terrorist event was a deliberate attempt to harm the fabric of relations among all Israeli citizens,” Sharon said in a statement issued by his office. …

“The entire State of Israel, regardless of race, religion or sex, strongly condemns this act of terrorism.

“The government is determined to protect the lives of Israel’s citizens, from all ethnic communities and sectors; I have instructed the security services to accord the highest priority to investigating this terrorist attack.”

If only the Palestinian government would respond so vigorously whenever one of its citizens commits a terrorist act.

Unconfirmed reports say the terrorist who committed this particular atrocity was killed by an angry mob. I hope his death was painful.

I knew that British parliamentary gadfly George Galloway was an asshole, but I didn’t realize until now that he’s completely batsh*t insane.

Seriously… suicide bombers are “martyrs,” the West is “raping” the Muslim world, and Arab nations that cooperate with America and Britain are “collaborators”? Jerusalem is under the thumb of “foreigners”? The “imperialist countries” of the West “need to be cured,” whereas the society that’s producing the terrorists doesn’t?

Jeez! This sort of rhetoric makes Michael Moore look like Joe Lieberman! (And that ain’t easy, folks! :)

What the hell is wrong with this guy? And what were the people who elected him to Parliament thinking? They call us dumb?

It’s no surprise that the New York chapter of the ACLU is suing New York City for the random subway searches. But it is somewhat surprising that one of the plaintiffs is a lifelong Republican, and another is a 9/11 survivor. Love ‘em or hate ‘em, you gotta give the NYCLU credit for finding those people.

P.S. Of course, New York is a rather big city. You can find anyone to say anything, if you look hard enough. But at least the NYCLU is sufficiently non-tonedeaf to realize that having plaintiffs like that would, you know, help.

Remember all the angry liberals who said they’d move to Canada if Bush was re-elected? Well, it turns out they didn’t. I’m shocked.

First it was the f***ing balloons. Then it was f***ing Bush. And now, it’s Bob Novak cussing on CNN:

BOB NOVAK WALKS OFF CNN LIVE ‘THAT IS BULL*HIT’… Was on with Carville talking Katherine Harris make-up… Host Ed Henry ended segment by telling viewers he had told Novak in advance he would ask him about the CIA leak case. Henry said CNN hoped to get Novak to answer such questions in future… DEVELOPING…

(Source: Drudge, obviously.)

UPDATE: “CNN spokeswoman: ‘Bob Novak’s behavior on CNN today was inexcusable and unacceptable. Mr. Novak has apologized to CNN, and CNN apologizes to its viewers for his language and actions. We’ve asked Mr. Novak to take some time off’…. DEVELOPING…”

UPDATE 2: Media Matters has video and a more complete explanation of what happened:

While discussing Rep. Katherine Harris’s (R-FL) plan to run for a Senate seat against Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), Novak told Carville, “Just let me finish what I’m going to say, James, please. I know you hate to hear me.” Carville said to host Ed Henry, describing Novak: “He’s gotta show these right-wingers that he’s got backbone, you know. The Wall Street Journal editorial page is watching you. Show ‘em you’re tough.”

Novak responded: “Well, I think that’s bullsh*t, and I hate that.” He then said to Henry, “Just let it go.” As Henry asked Carville a question, Novak walked off the set.

After the segment ended, Henry apologized to viewers for Novak’s leaving the set “a little early,” adding: “I had told him in advance that we were going to ask him about the CIA leak case. He was not here for me to be able to ask him about that. Hopefully, we’ll be able to ask him about that in the future.”

UPDATE 3: CNN’s request that Novak “take some time off” is now being called an indefinite suspension. [Note to fellow Democrats: okay, so we didn’t get Rove… but we got Novak! That’s something, right? :) -ed.]

Wonkette calls Novak the “Douchebag Diva,” but also asks, “who hasn’t wanted to tell Carville he’s full of sh*t?” Heh.

Captain Ed wonders what Carville was so upset about:

Maybe Bob Novak has had a bad year, but after watching this video twice, I fail to see what got him so riled up. Carville interrupting him? Novak has done too much of that in his career to get sensitive about that now. Carville’s needling about showing backbone by standing up to him for interrupting hardly seemed anything more than a playful jab, especially considering what Carville can do when he wants to be mean.

Maybe Novak should think about retirement from television soon. If he can’t behave any better than this, the choice may soon be made for him. He simply has no excuse for his language nor his thin-skinned attitude, and he owes CNN and Ed Henry an apology, if not Carville as well.

It’s been exactly four weeks since the July 7 atrocity in London, and exactly two weeks since the failed copy-cat attack on July 21. So the Brits are understandably nervous today — especially after the release of a new Al Qaeda tape promising more attacks.

It seems President Bush doesn’t like this namby-pamby “global struggle against violent extremism” business. It’s a war on terror, says the commander-in-chief.

Scientists in South Korea have cloned a dog. Its name is “Snuppy.”

I’ve heard of Texans being backwards, but upside-down?

:)

This post is dedicated to Justin (seen here flipping the bird at Sarah). Hehe.

Seriously.

It’s a civil forfeiture case:

United States v. Undetermined Amount of U.S. Currency, 376 F.3d 260 (4th Cir. 2004)

LOL!

…until Becky and I get married! :) Last week we finally reserved our D.J., and just now, I booked our flights to and from Maui for our honeymoon. (Non-stop from Phoenix to Kahului: 6 hours and 42 minutes!)

Speaking of airline tickets, if anyone has any trips planned between mid-August and mid-December, book your tickets today or tomorrow! There appears to be an airfare war happening at the moment, but the sales end on Thursday.

Today’s Washington Post article about John Roberts’s thoughts on the role of judges includes, among many far more important things, the following tidbit of interest to NDLSers:

He said that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales interviewed him April 1, and that he met on May 3 with Bush confidants including Cheney, Gonzales, Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr., Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, White House counsel Harriet Miers and I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Cheney’s chief of staff. Roberts said he was interviewed separately by Miers on May 23. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor announced on July 1 her decision to retire. Roberts said he had a telephone interview with Miers and deputy counsel William K. Kelley on July 8 and was interviewed by Bush on July 15, with Miers present. He said none questioned him about his views on any case or legal issue.

That’s not surprising, of course — we knew Professor Kelley was involved in the vetting process, which led me to jokingly speculate that perhaps he’d be the nominee — but it’s still cool to read it in print. That guy was my professor! :)