4th Circuit To Padilla: Stay Put!

In a unanimous opinion by mentioned-for-the-Supremes Judge Luttig, the Fourth Circuit reversed District Judge Floyd's restrictive decision that would have freed suspected dirty bomber Jose Padilla. Instead, the Circuit Court found that the Executive Branch has the authority:

to detain militarily a citizen of this country who is closely associated with al Qaeda, an entity with which the United States is at war; who took up arms on behalf of that enemy and against our country in a foreign combat zone of that war; and who thereafter traveled to the United States for the avowed purpose of further prosecuting that war on American soil, against American citizens and targets.

Interestingly, Judge Luttig's opinion -- like the Supreme Court ruling in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld -- relies on the Joint Resolution To Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Those Responsible For the Recent Attacks Launched Against the United States enacted by Congress, not the President's Article II powers.

(via Instapundit)

Photo Album

UPDATE: Photos gone, for now.

Huge slide-show (almost 200 images) of New Orleans before, during (including the "eye") and after Katrina.

(via Jonah Goldberg)

More:

The link's dead but, according to Combs Spouts Off , it may return.

Emergency Supplies

Les Jones and Countertop Chronicles are blogging about the contents of an emergency kit for your home. Homeland Security's recommendations are here. And Preacherman at The High Road discusses "lessons learned" from Katrina.

Gun Ban, Continued

UPDATE: below.

Second Amendment expert Dave Kopel looks at the New Orleans gun ban -- supposedly authorized under 14 Res. La. Stat. § 329.6 -- and concludes it's unlawful even under state law:

The emergency statute creates authority for "prohibiting" some things, and for "regulating" other things. The statute uses "prohibiting" in subsections (A)4, 5, and 9. The statute uses "regulating" in sections (A)3, 6, 7, and 8. Quite clearly the legislature meant to distinguish "prohibiting" authority from "regulating" authority. In the context of the statute, it is not plausible to claim that "prohibiting" means the same as "regulating."

"Prohibiting" authority applies to the sale of alcohol, presence on public streets, and the sale of goods or services at excessive prices. "Regulating" authority applies to firearms, flammable materials, and sound devices (such as megaphones). The "regulating" authority is undoubtedly broad. But it is not equivalent to "prohibiting." The statute does not authorize the New Orleans Police--abetted by the National Guard and the U.S. Marshalls--to break into homes, point guns at people, and confiscate every single private firearm--or every single private bullhorn or private cigarette lighter. . .

All police officers, National Guard troops, and U.S. Marshals take an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws. It appears that carrying out an illegal order to confiscate lawfully-owned firearms from homes would be inconsistent with the oath, contrary to sworn duty, and perhaps a criminal act.

Of course, beyond Louisiana law, there's something called the Second Amendment. . .

More:

The Doctor Is In:

While watching the anarchy in New Orleans, my wife turned to me a[nd] said, “I want to get a gun.” She expected my usual skepticism about her over-the-top paranoia. But she was serious, and I was shocked–I had always assumed she would never want a gun around. After first checking to make sure she wasn’t angry with me (she wasn’t), I responded, “So do I.” Her shock matched mine: we had both assumed the other would never agree to such an idea. I was, in fact, a bit startled at my own response–but there was at that moment no doubt about my conviction–nor is there now.

(via Instapundit, MaxedOutMama )

"Nobody Told Me" The Dog Ate My Homework

UPDATE: Mayor Nagin's decisionmaking and Enviro lobbying below.

From today's NY Times:

As criticism of the response to Hurricane Katrina has mounted, one of the most pointed questions has been why more troops were not available more quickly to restore order and offer aid. . . To seize control of the mission, Mr. Bush would have had to invoke the Insurrection Act, which allows the president in times of unrest to command active-duty forces into the states to perform law enforcement duties. But decision makers in Washington felt certain that Ms. Blanco would have resisted surrendering control, as Bush administration officials believe would have been required to deploy active-duty combat forces before law and order had been re-established.

While combat troops can conduct relief missions without the legal authority of the Insurrection Act, Pentagon and military officials say that no active-duty forces could have been sent into the chaos of New Orleans on Wednesday or Thursday without confronting law-and-order challenges.

But just as important to the administration were worries about the message that would have been sent by a president ousting a Southern governor of another party from command of her National Guard, according to administration, Pentagon and Justice Department officials.

"Can you imagine how it would have been perceived if a president of the United States of one party had pre-emptively taken from the female governor of another party the command and control of her forces, unless the security situation made it completely clear that she was unable to effectively execute her command authority and that lawlessness was the inevitable result?" asked one senior administration official, who spoke anonymously because the talks were confidential.

Officials in Louisiana agree that the governor would not have given up control over National Guard troops in her state as would have been required to send large numbers of active-duty soldiers into the area. But they also say they were desperate and would have welcomed assistance by active-duty soldiers.

"I need everything you have got," Ms. Blanco said she told Mr. Bush last Monday, after the storm hit.

In an interview, she acknowledged that she did not specify what sorts of soldiers. "Nobody told me that I had to request that," Ms. Blanco said. "I thought that I had requested everything they had. We were living in a war zone by then." . .

Aides to Ms. Blanco said she was prepared to accept the deployment of active-duty military officials in her state. But she and other state officials balked at giving up control of the Guard as Justice Department officials said would have been required by the Insurrection Act if those combat troops were to be sent in before order was restored.

More:

MaxedOutMama's pondered the issue and poses an astute question:

If you do believe that the Executive should have the power to invade states and supercede local authority on the basis that they were not doing a good enough job, where would you draw the line? Simply saying that lives are at stake is not good enough. Lives, many lives, are lost from traffic accidents, for example. Last year it was something like 40 or 50 thousand. Over the space of a decade it is very possible that an individual state could lose more lives to traffic accidents than to a storm such as Katrina. Should the president have the authority to demand at gunpoint that the locals change their traffic laws, eliminate traffic circles and lower speed limits? . .

The President couldn't have stopped the flooding. The state was probably in the best situation to decide what additional law enforcement actions were needed and how to get them in the city before the storm. . .

People need to stop and think hard before babbling about these matters. There will be a review in Congress. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. After the 2000 election Congress rushed to mandate electronic voting, and as a result we got uncheckable machines and long voting lines. Hasty legislation is usually bad legislation. Instead, question your local authorities about their plans. They will pass your concerns on to your state authorities. Eventually I believe that Katrina will result in Congress mandating more federal feedback and rating of state and local disaster planning, but it is a huge task which will have to be accomplished by publicizing failures so that citizens can exert pressure on their local and state governments.

More and More:

Let them eat cake:

Turns out, Nagin turned his nose up at the yellow buses, demanding more comfortable Greyhound coaches instead.

"I need 500 buses, man," he told [radio station] WWL. "One of the briefings we had they were talking about getting, you know, public school bus drivers to come down here and bus people out of here."

Nagin described his response:

I'm like - you've got to be kidding me. This is a natural disaster. Get every doggone Greyhound bus line in the country and get their asses moving to New Orleans.

While Nagin was waiting for his Greyhound fleet, Katrina's floodwaters swamped his school buses, rendering them unusable.

Environmental pressure groups share the blame, according to ORACULATIONS:

[D]on't forget the envirowhacks beginning but not ending with Save Our Wetlands (SOWL) who fought for years to stop the Army Corps of Engineers from building a lock device that would have stopped almost all flooding from the lake. SOWL as you will see if you link there are total nuts who believe everything bad about Bush and the GOP, allege that 9/11 was a U.S. plot, and other stuff. Professor Bainbridge has more including...get ready to crap...an LA Times piece that actually reveals the extent of the law suits stopping the improvements of levees and locks.

(via MaxedOutMama)

The Newest Suspect

Recovering from hurricane Katrina is tough enough--but try defending what's left of your home and your family from looters and rapists:

Waters were receding across this flood-beaten city today as police officers began confiscating weapons, including legally registered firearms, from civilians in preparation for a mass forced evacuation of the residents still living here.

No civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to carry pistols, shotguns or other firearms, said P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of police. "Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons," he said.

This is nuts--chaotic breakdown of law and order being when firearms are most needed. Especially given evidence of NOPD officers abandoning the city or joining the looters.

There aughta be a law! Wait a second: I'm pretty sure there is. Quick, phone the ACLU: an entire city's being stripped of Constitutional rights!

(via Countertop Chronicles)

T-Minus 10 Minutes

Telesat Canada's Anik F1R satellite is scheduled to be launched from Baikonur at 5:55 pm. Video available here.

More:

Launch successful so far, ten minutes on, after third stage ignition, payload faring separation and Breeze M separation. Sorry for the geek moment, but it's my job.

Still More:

After 19 minutes, Breeze M first burn successful. Four more burns before geostationary orbit.

More X 3:

The Anik F1R bird includes a Lockheed Martin L-Band package that will:

provide more accurate navigation information with high integrity, in particular for the aviation community. The FAA WAAS system will provide GPS augmentation messages to two of Lockheed’s uplink earth stations, to be located within the United States. . . These augmentation messages contain error correction information that provides for differential correction of the GPS receive signals, resulting in more accurate GPS navigation information. This enhanced information will be used to improve aircraft navigation, automated farming, mining operations, and other applications that rely on precise position and navigation information.

Twofer

UPDATE: they've backed-off.

Ann Althouse highlights a new MoveOn.Org campaign that's both wrong-headed and hypocritical.

More:

MoveOn.Org said "never mind," according to USA Today:

A liberal interest group Thursday denied it ever planned to use televised images of poverty-stricken evacuees from Hurricane Katrina as part of a provocative, last-minute effort to divert federal Judge John Roberts' path to confirmation as chief justice.

MoveOn.org Political Action's advocacy director Ben Brandzel had laid out plans for such an ad to USA TODAY on Wednesday. But Thursday, the group's executive director said "we regret any misunderstanding that may have arisen because of anything that our staff member might have told USA TODAY's reporter."

"We have no plans, and have never had plans, to produce such an ad," Eli Pariser added.

The press release now neither mentions Roberts nor promises New Orleans visuals.

(via Moonbattery)

Truth in Advertising

WaPo columnist Richard Cohen invents the single most idiotic reason to oppose John Roberts:

I sometimes think the best thing that ever happened to me was, at the time, the worst: I flunked out of college. I did so for the usual reasons -- painfully bored with school and distracted by life itself -- and so I went to work for an insurance company while I plowed ahead at night school. From there I went into the Army, emerging with a storehouse of anecdotes. In retrospect, I learned more by failing than I ever would have by succeeding. I wish that John Roberts had a touch of my incompetence.

Instead, the nominee for chief justice of the United States punched every career ticket right on schedule. He was raised in affluence, educated in private schools, dispatched to Harvard and then to Harvard Law School. He clerked for a U.S. appellate judge (the storied Henry J. Friendly) and later for William H. Rehnquist, then an associate justice. Roberts worked in the Justice Department and then in the White House until moving on to Hogan & Hartson, one of Washington's most prestigious law firms; then he was principal deputy solicitor general, before moving to the bench, where he has served for only two years. His record is appallingly free of failure. . .

[W]hen it comes to civil rights, to women's rights, to workers' rights, to gay rights and to the plight of the poor, I would prefer that Roberts had had his moment of failure.

Cohen don't know much about history:

Back in 1970, President Richard Nixon nominated G. Harrold Carswell of Florida to the Supreme Court, fresh off the Senate’s rejection of South Carolina’s Clement Haynesworth, who was the first high-court nominee to be given the thumbs down since the 1930s.

A study done by Columbia Law School students found that Carswell, a Court of Appeals judge on the Fifth Circuit, had been reversed an outrageous 58 percent of the time during his years in his prior position as a federal district court judge. It was information like this that allowed his opponents to tag him as “mediocre.”

Nebraska Republican Sen. Roman Hruska then made his most famous dive into the history books with his famous “in defense of mediocrity” speech:

“Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers,” Hruska told reporters outside the Senate chamber. “They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they, and a little chance? We can’t have all Brandeises and Cardozos and Frankfurters and stuff like that there.” Despite such a ringing endorsement of a schmo for the nation’s highest court, the Senate voted down Carswell’s nomination 51-45, with 13 Republicans crossing the aisle.

First they complain about mediocrity, then they embrace it. Democrats: make up your minds! Shouldn't we employ a higher standard for Supreme Court nominations than the Washington Post applies to its editorial pages?

More:

American Thinker:

[W]ho would be Cohen’s ideal appointment to Chief Justice? How about Ted Kennedy? Let’s see, a dropout and plagiarist, alcoholic, skirt chaser and probable vehicular homicide driver? He has learned life's lessons.

If Cohen really believes this theory, then he should stop criticizing Bush policy in Iraq for its supposed mistakes. After all, we have had plenty of learning experiences there, and now are much better for it.

(via Betsy's Page)

More Res Ipsa Loquitur

UPDATE: photo and more below.

From a page 1 story in today's Washington Post:

Before Hurricane Katrina breached a levee on the New Orleans Industrial Canal, the Army Corps of Engineers had already launched a $748 million construction project at that very location. But the project had nothing to do with flood control. The Corps was building a huge new lock for the canal, an effort to accommodate steadily increasing barge traffic.

Except that barge traffic on the canal has been steadily decreasing.

In Katrina's wake, Louisiana politicians and other critics have complained about paltry funding for the Army Corps in general and Louisiana projects in particular. But over the five years of President Bush's administration, Louisiana has received far more money for Corps civil works projects than any other state, about $1.9 billion; California was a distant second with less than $1.4 billion, even though its population is more than seven times as large. . .

[O]verall, the Bush administration's funding requests for the key New Orleans flood-control projects for the past five years were slightly higher than the Clinton administration's for its past five years. Lt. Gen. Carl Strock, the chief of the Corps, has said that in any event, more money would not have prevented the drowning of the city, since its levees were designed to protect against a Category 3 storm, and the levees that failed were already completed projects. Strock has also said that the marsh-restoration project would not have done much to diminish Katrina's storm surge, which passed east of the coastal wetlands.

Read it all.

More:

Ramblings' Journal annotates a NASA photo dated August 31st:





Click photo to enlarge.

For comparison, this link shows New Orleans today (click on the "Katrina" button).

Problems in NO law enforcement had nothing to do with Iraq:

As of August 31 there were 3,748 Louisiana Army National Guardsmen and Army Reservists and 193 Air Guardsmen and Reservists on active duty throughout the world. The lion’s share of them, about 3,500, are with the 256th Infantry Brigade in Iraq. This leaves some 8,000 Guardsmen and an unknown number of Army Reservists available for disaster relief.

And it appears that the Louisiana state Homeland Security agency delayed Red Cross assistance because "we do not want to create a magnet for more people to come to the Superdome or convention center, we want to get them out."

More x 3:

Ian Schwartz has video: "State authorities told [the Salvation Army and Red Cross] that delivering food and water would impede evacuation efforts." And Gindy links to an ABC News story:

In New Orleans, those in peril and those in power have pointed the finger squarely at the federal government for the delayed relief effort.

But experts say when natural disasters strike, it is the primary responsibility of state and local governments — not the federal government — to respond.

New Orleans' own comprehensive emergency plan raises the specter of "having large numbers of people … stranded" and promises "the city … will utilize all available resources to quickly and safely evacuate threatened areas."

"Special arrangements will be made to evacuate persons unable to transport themselves," the plan states.

When Hurricane Katrina hit, however, that plan was not followed completely.

Instead of sending city buses to evacuate those who could not make it out on their own, people in New Orleans were told to go to the Superdome and the Convention Center, where no one provided sufficient sustenance or security.

As Alenda Lux says:

What is the President supposed to do? Keep a database on the school buses in every American city just in case the mayor is too incompetent to try and use them? It's worth noting that the feds suggested sending bus drivers into New Orleans to bus people out. Nagin's response: "you gotta be kidding me."

(via Protein Wisdom, RedState.Org, Instapundit)

The Man Be Keeping Me Down

New Orleans was destoyed by George Bush protecting rich white people, according to Daily Kos contritutors brenda and boingboing:

10:57 Raw transcript of comments by NOLA evacuee Clara Barthelemy: "The 17th street levee was bombed by the Army Corps of Engineers to save the more valuable real estate in the city... to keep the French Quarter protected, the ninth ward was sacrificed... people are afraid to speak out... everyone who was near there heard the bombings... they bombed seven times. That's why they didn't fix the levees... 20 feet of water. Gators. People dying in water. They let the parishes go, not the city center. Tourist trap was saved over human life. A six year old girl was raped in here.. 9 year old boy killed. A man in the shower beaten. No hot food. No help for elderly."

And surf over to The Anchoress for similar stupidity.

(via LGF)

RINO QOTW

From Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, in today's Washington Post :

With O'Connor's pending departure, the court would be left with one woman, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and one minority, Clarence Thomas. "Two women are, I think, a minimum," Specter said, though he added he does not favor a quota.

(via Best of the Web)

The Justice Behind Door Number 2

Erick at RedState makes the case that Edith Clement is off the table (whew!), that Janice Rogers Brown is "not happening" (darn!) and that Alberto Gonzales "took himself out of the running" (whew again!). Erick thinks the 5th Circuit's Edith Jones is possible, but unlikely, and vaults Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit) to near the top. No word on my favorite, Michael McConnell, now a 10th Circuit judge, or Emilio Garza, another 5th Circuit jurist.

Despite the unlikelihood of further judicial interviews, Erick doesn't expect a quick announcement, "What does seem sure is that . . . the President does want to see John Roberts on the bench before naming O'Connor's replacement." The good news: according to Lyle Denniston, "Senate leaders expect final Senate action in time for Roberts to join the Court by formal opening day of the new Term, Monday, Oct. 3."

A Tale of Two States

UPDATE: important info below.

Mississippi's Governor is Republican Haley Barbour. A Washington insider since the Reagan Administration, Barbour returned to his home state in 2003, winning in his first attempt at elective office.

Democrat Kathleen Babineaux Blanco is Governor of Louisiana. Originally from Coteau, and then Lafayette, she frequently touts her Cajun roots. Blanco served two terms as Lieutenant Governor before becoming the state's first female chief executive elected, like Barbour, in 2003.

I despise the blame-game. But it's unavoidable: the MSM doesn't conceal its "blame Bush" agenda. So one can't escape the bickering.

I recognize hurricane Katrina wasn't an equal opportunity destroyer--it hit Louisiana square-on; Mississippi escaped dead-center. But there's another difference, says Washington Times Editor in Chief Wesley Pruden:

[T]he governor, Kathleen Blanco, resisted early pleas to declare martial law, and her dithering opened the way for looters, rapists and killers to make New Orleans an unholy hell. Gov. Haley Barbour did not hesitate in neighboring Mississippi, and looters, rapists and killers have not turned the streets of Gulfport and Biloxi into killing fields.

Not good. But I remained unconvinced--until Louisiana relief ran afoul of state medical licensing:

Volunteer physicians are pouring in to care for the sick, but red tape is keeping hundreds of others from caring for Hurricane Katrina survivors while health problems rise.

Among the doctors stymied from helping out are 100 surgeons and paramedics in a state-of-the-art mobile hospital, developed with millions of tax dollars for just such emergencies, marooned in rural Mississippi. . .

Dr. Jeffrey Guy, a trauma surgeon at Vanderbilt University who has been in contact with the mobile hospital doctors, told The Associated Press in a telephone interview, "There are entire hospitals that are contacting me, saying, 'We need to take on patients," ' but they can't get through the bureaucracy.

"The crime of this story is, you've got millions of dollars in assets and it's not deployed," he said. "We mount a better response in a Third World country."

Mississippi, by contrast, welcomed out-of-state doctors "with open arms."

Disaster relief is primarily a state, not Federal responsibility. So far, the response from Democrat run Louisiana and New Orleans is no way to run a railroad--much less a recovery. I've heard few complaints from Mississippi.

Barbour in '08 anyone? Liberals are worried (caution: language).

More:

Why didn't I see this before? Federal disaster relief is conditioned on a specific statutory process (42 U.S.C. § 5191):

All requests for a declaration by the President that an emergency exists shall be made by the Governor of the affected State. Such a request shall be based on a finding that the situation is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the State and the affected local governments and that Federal assistance is necessary. As a part of such request, and as a prerequisite to emergency assistance under this chapter, the Governor shall take appropriate action under State law and direct execution of the State's emergency plan. . . Based upon such Governor's request, the President may declare that an emergency exists.

This is from Louisiana's 2005 State Emergency Operations Plan (page 3):

State assistance will supplement local efforts and federal assistance will supplement State and local efforts when it is clearly demonstrated that it is beyond local and State capability to cope with the emergency/disaster.

And this is on page VI-1 of the 2000 Southeast Louisiana Hurricane Evacuation and Sheltering Plan:

1. Residents who have no means of transportation will be directed to the staging areas.

2. Transportation vehicles will be pre-positioned to transport residents to shelters.

Compare this, from the Washington Post:

The administration sought unified control over all local police and state National Guard units reporting to the governor. Louisiana officials rejected the request after talks throughout the night, concerned that such a move would be comparable to a federal declaration of martial law. . .

Louisiana did not reach out to a multi-state mutual aid compact for assistance until Wednesday, three state and federal officials said.

And this famous photo of pre-positioning, New Orleans style:





(source: Junkyard Blog)

Res Ipsa Loquitur.

Still More:

NY Girl beat me to the punch--and to the title.

More x 3:

This is one stupid Governor:

As floodwaters caused by Hurricane Katrina began to slowly recede with the ruined city's first pumps returning to operation, Nagin late Tuesday authorized law enforcement officers to force the evacuation of the estimated 10,000 residents who refuse to heed orders to leave.

But in a Wednesday interview with FOX News, Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco said she had not signed off on the decision.

"The mayor certainly has ordered that but the governor, and that would be me, would have to enforce it or implement it. We are trying to determine whether there is an absolute justification for that," she told FOX News.

"I think the most important thing driving that decision would be the possibility of disease. If indeed the disease problem is evident, is inevitable, we'll have to move to the next stage," she said.

And developments suggest that "next stage" may come soon. Floodwaters in New Orleans contain bacteria associated with sewage that are at least 10 times higher than acceptable safety levels, making direct contact by rescue workers and remaining residents dangerous, the first government tests confirmed Wednesday.

More x 4:

The NY Times is skeptical about Barbour. And Alenda Lux says the skepticism suggests Barbour's right.

(via SC&A, MaxedOutMama, and [added] Free Republic via LGF)

Why Did You Come To New Orleans? For the Waters.1

UPDATE: below.

The blame game has escalated to absurd heights. Yet we can retire, permanently, the delusional, utopian and baseless "Bush is to blame for Katrina's devastation" media-spread mantra. That school of thought is rapidly sinking. Excellent timeline here.

Still, National Review has an interesting suggestion.

More:

Jonah Goldberg:

[Randall] Robinson belongs to the growing ranks of Bush haters and race industrialists who see nothing wrong with saying the worst thing possible about Bush — or about America under his “rule” — because the benefit of the doubt must always be given to any allegation which ascribes the maximum evil to Bush. Robinson wrote “No-one” had come to help the blacks of New Orleans even as it was obvious that perhaps the largest domestic rescue and recovery operation in American history was already well underway.

Rightwing Nuthouse agrees:

The Democrats seemed poised to blame the natural disaster on Bush and the Republicans regardless of what the facts are. If that’s the case and if the left’s allies in the press succeed in spinning the story that way, the Republicans are in trouble in 2006.

Still More:

Another excellent timeline.
_________________

¹ See Casablanca (1942):

Captain Renault: What in heaven's name brought you to Casablanca?
Rick: My health. I came to Casablanca for the waters.
Captain Renault: The waters? What waters? We're in the desert.
Rick: I was misinformed.

(via SC&A, twice, Kobayashi Maru, LGF, The Intellectual Activist, The Corner, twice, Chrenkoff, and [added] North American Patriot)

Pleased

UPDATE: below.

I'm happy I called the Roberts-for-Chief meme early and accurately. Given that Rehnquist's funeral is Wednesday, the Roberts hearings likely will be moved to Thursday. Ann Althouse is optimistic:

Roberts is going to inspire us with the look of crisp decisiveness at those hearings. So I'm picturing the Democratic Senators making their points, staking out their positions in a solid, impressive way, without consuming an exasperating amount of time and accepting their defeat with decent grace and a pragmatic appeal for support in the next election.

"And I am Marie of Romania."¹ Still, Roberts's confirmation should be simple and swift.

Beyond the chest-beating, this is the best possible outcome for the rule of law and for America. Roberts is the perfect Chief: brilliant and conservative, sure, but more importantly, friendly and affable. Roberts will be a Chief devoted to principle but capable of compromise--while recognizing that not every compromise is a surrender. Rehnquist-era jurisprudence was incremental.² Roberts will be more bold, without appearing radical. In the best of all possible worlds, Chief Justice Roberts will return Constitutional law to its roots in a fashion that, while not slowing MSM/lefty outrage, gives loony "living Constitution" advocates little ammunition.

More:

John Hawkins at Right Wing News compiles vile reactions from the DU moonbats.
_____________________

¹ MaxedOutMama's collected reactions from the lunatics at DU and Kos.

² Full disclosure: Cliff Sloan, author of the above-linked Op-Ed, formerly was a partner at my law firm.

Welcome Right Wing News Readers

I just noticed John Hawkins was kind enough to direct some readers here this holiday weekend. In addition to the posts listed on the upper right side-bar, here's some suggested reading:

• Supreme Court:
  Liberals Loony Logic About John Roberts
  Rehnquist, RIP
  Impeach Justice Kennedy



• Gaza pull-out:
  Take One
  Take Two
  Justice in Gaza and West Bank



• Iraq:
  Justified Without WMDs
  Birth of a Good Constitution
  Recruitment and Reenlistment Facts



• Foreign policy:
  Aiding Africa
  The Global Warming Myth
  The Doomsayer's Myth



• The Bush Administration:
  Katrina's Foolish Blame-Game
  Failed Multi-Culti
  Rove Told the Truth
  Joseph Wilson Lied
  Twenty Leftist Lies
  Privatize the Shuttle and Space Station



• Debating religion and morals in US law:
  Part I
  Part II
  Part III



• Economics:
  Poverty Isn't Permanent
  Health Insurance Gaps Are Ephemeral

The Court: What Now?

UPDATED below 7am and 10:30am.

The death of Chief Justice Rehnquist late Saturday is bad news for America and a minor crisis for the Bush Administration. Already smarting from (unfair) criticism over Federal assistance after hurricane Katrina, the President's facing another controversial decision squarely in the media magnifying glass. But, if anything, the Rehnquist vacancy poses an even greater challenge to left-wing Democrats.

But before the politics, a moment for the man and his legacy. Rehnquist was a smart and capable Jurist and an excellent administrator. Though no Scalia-like scholar, the chief also wasn't a Scalia-like polarizer, as Tom Goldstein observed months ago:

William Rehnquist has devoted most of his professional life to public service and a commitment to the rule of law. . . With no responsible exception that I know if, the Chief is respected admired by every person associated with the Court, regardless of ideology. He has been the Court's leader for two decades, most recently guiding it through events like the discovery of anthrax in the Court's mail, cases like Bush v. Gore that put the Court at the center of a national political firestorm, and (although it involved him individually rather than the Court as an institution) the impeachment proceedings for President Clinton. More broadly, the Chief has also been the leader of the federal judiciary as a whole, defending it against attacks from both right and left. The country could only hope that a nominee to take his seat would display many of the Chief's characteristics and skills.

Though the chief was unquestionably conservative, he preferred consensus to lonely principle--as best shown by his majority opinion declining to overturn the need for so-called Miranda warnings because the case had "become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture." Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000).

Rehnquist's loyalty to the institution of the Court was legendary, which makes his determination not to quit despite terminal thyroid cancer an all too human exception. A Supreme Court spokeswoman said the Chief "continued to perform his duties on the court until a precipitous decline in his health the last couple of days."

So what now? Bush must choose another Justice from the same list of candidates; no additional interviews should be required. Though Senate hearings on Judge Roberts were to start Tuesday, they'll likely be postponed. Bush must quickly decide whether to withdraw Roberts and re-nominate him as Chief Justice. Despite some risks, he should, and I predict he will, filling the additional associate justice slot later. Because Justice O'Connor's retirement is effective upon replacement, this would allow the Court to start the October term without a vacancy (thus avoiding 4-4 ties on important upcoming cases).¹ As for the future nominee, 10th Circuit Judge Michael McConnell is the best bet, trailed by Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit), Emilio Garza (5th Circuit) and Edith Jones (5th Circuit).

Leftist opponents of the administration face an even tougher choice. Without evidence, much less smoking gun, they've gone "all-in" opposing Roberts. But suddenly, Roberts looks to be the less controversial nomination, even for Chief: almost all remaining candidates are more conservative or at least carry a larger paper trail. The left's already depleted their anti-Supreme Court nomination fund -- wasted on Roberts -- leaving them low on cash, if not a boy-who-cried-wolf, for round 2.

Rehnquist's passing is sad. Still the bottom line is clear: At least two Supreme Court seats will be filled by the George W. Bush administration. The alternative -- chosen by, say, the Hillary Clinton administration -- would be far worse.

MORE:

A DU nutcase named Spazito already floated a Rehnquist conspiracy theory: "Bet he died days ago and they are just announcing it now to try and take the heat off bush. One man has died, well guess what, thousands have died and more are still dying." Not to be outdone, Kos poster "All My Neighbors are NeoCons" says: "Amen! That was the first thing that I thought was "Holy f*ck...they killed Renquist [sic]." Also on Kos, someone called "fritoy911" speculates: "Could it be rove orderd [sic] his death to distract the press from those dieing [sic] in new orleans?" And Article II, Section 2, cl. 2 somehow escaped the attention of Rob on AMERICAblog:

A bi-partisan, bi-cameral Congressional committee should convene immediately and create a list of consensus candidates from which the President should, if he has any shred of decency and dignity left, choose. Multiple choice from a list of QUALIFIED candidates is all that this President is capable of handling.

Back on planet earth, appreciation and prediction. The first from Wendy Long at NRO:

The chief instilled a high tone of collegiality and respect at the Court, even in this period when the justices were deeply and bitterly divided over fundamental issues. My former boss, Justice Clarence Thomas, used to remark how wonderful it was that the justices could engage in sharp constitutional debates while still maintaining civility and real friendship, largely because the chief's example reminded them that they were part of an institution of American government much greater than themselves. Chief Justice Rehnquist's ability to set this tone for the deeply divided Court is even more remarkable when contrasted with the incivility that has taken hold in another deeply divided institution across the street — the U.S. Senate.

Rossputin blog fires-up a crystal ball:

The political implications of this situation, having two Supreme Court vacancies simultaneously, will whip radicals (environmental, racial, sexual, economic) and collectivists of all sorts into a frenzy of paranoia which will make the Roberts process so far look positively tame. It might even make what happened to Robert Bork look civilized. . .

In order to prevent such a fiasco (which the Democrats probably want as fund-raising motivation), President Bush should refuse to nominate someone to fill the Chief Justice position until Judge Roberts is confirmed.

The other reason to have some hope that the process will not become a national embarrassment is that Justice Rehnquist was such a conservative Judge. Even more than with Justice O'Connor, this means that Bush's likely very conservative choice to fill the Rehnquist vacancy will have little effect on the net balance on the court. If it were Justice Stevens or Ginsburg who were being replaced, the fight would probably be substantially more brutal than replacing Justice Rehnquist will be.

Yet, I do not see much chance of Senators Feinstein, Kennedy, Leahy and the other members of the left wing of the Democratic party behaving any way other than reprehensibly through this process. In fact, the Democrats will probably become even more aggressive against Judge Roberts for this same reason...they know that another conservative nomination is coming down the pike.

Still More:

Kathryn Jean Lopez and Ann Althouse speculate about Roberts-for-Chief; in comments, and on his website, Beldar says it's "fairly unlikely."

More x 3:

The wolves at the National Organization for Women are howling:

Make no mistake. The passing of Chief Justice William Rehnquist creates a crisis unlike any in my 30-plus years in the women's movement. While we send condolences to Justice Rehnquist's family, this is a crisis for our movement and we must act now.

This second vacancy creates double jeopardy for women. We are now in the fight of our lives, but it's a fight we've won before and we will win again. Senators must oppose every nominee who opposes our rights, for as long as it takes — and we must demand no less.

More x 4:

I'm debating the "Roberts for Chief" notion with Bill Dyer (the man behind the Beldar curtain) in comments on Ann Althouse's blog.

_____________________

¹ An abortion case, Planned Parenthood of Northern New England v. Ayotte (docket 04-1144), is scheduled to be argued November 30th.

(via The Corner and LGF)