Hiether and Yon

A CODA ON THE APPOINTMENT OF THE JUDICIARY

The "Dems" have done a great job, both in the majority and minority, of stopping President Bush's judicial appointments. This is true especially in the levels of appointment below the Supreme Court.

The tactic of using the artificial filibuster has gone unchallenged. I say artificial because it is a mere threat - it seldom if ever makes it to an actual action of such.
The only reason that I can think of for the Republican's while in the majority not to challenge would be a fear that they would soon be back in the minority and need the tactic themselves. I remember as a kid on the school yard, two kids in an altercation and one drawing a line with his foot with the warning "Don't step over this
line". It's a case of put up or shut up. The Republicans shut up.

Also during the Senate "inquisitions" on Roberts and Alito the term "original intent" was often thrown out. I want to make some of my own observations and opinions - of which I have many- known. First, when one writes something down isn't this his or her original intent? If it wasn't why would you write it. Obviously the Constitution was a consensus, often the result of compromise, of the group assembled. However, most of the mover's and shakers of the Constitutional Convention also were prolific writers or were quoted by those like Madison, who were astute and precise note takers. Thus we really do know much of the original intent of the founders. A recent lecturer on the Constitution said that since the founders inserted a method to change the Constitution, that it showed they didn't expect the document as it was to remain inviolate. For those who adopt the idea that the Constitution is a "living document" I would ask the following question. If the founders knew that there would need to be changes over time and they provided a basis for an orderly and democratic method to do so, why has it been so seldom used. Rather than an appointed Supreme Court taking it upon themselves to change it with their opinions, why haven't they thrown it back to the mechanism included by the founders? For the age of the country we have very few amendments.

The simple truth is that liberals want to rewrite the Constitution to suit their on liberal concepts of what the country is, and ought to be. If they want change let them go the amendment route in place. The path was intentionally made difficult so that changes made would be well thought out and significant enough to survive the ordeal. This would limit spur of the moment and changes with limited support. If its faults are so great that amendments won't do it, there is a procedure for a constitutional convention to draft a new one.

The Bear Revisited

In February I expounded on the return of the "Russian Bear". Since that time the evidence continues to grow that Mr. Putin has set Russia on a course that is not to our advantage.

Our press has been so busy with the vilification of George Bush that they have little time to raise their heads from their collective posteriors and see what's going on in the world. The British newspapers, in my case the Financial Times, takes this a little more seriously in light of the recent exchange of words over the extradition of the ex-Soviet agent who poisoned Anatoly Litvinenko .

Putin has raised serious objections to our placing a missile defense system in Poland and Czechoslovakia. What would be his objection if he wasn't going to commit to offensive action against that country. Does he think that Poland would attack Russia. Does Poland have any offensive weapons that would threaten them? You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that what they want is to leave open the door to intimidation of their neighbors - like they did in the twenties and like they did at the end of WWII.

Their position has been bolstered by the high prices and demand for raw material such as oil, gas and minerals, which they have an abundance of . Recently they have used gas and oil as a lever to extract concession from their neighbors.

There is no democracy in the national history of Russia. From the Moscovites to the Mongols, to the Czars and on to the Communists, the country has never been free. Added to this is the paranoia of being a vast country more or less isolated from significant neighbors, and you add fuel to the fire.

The one thing they do understand is strength. This is why the US must return at least to the two party agreement that our arguments and disagreements in at the shore and that we stand united against those who would destroy us - be it Islam or be it Russian.