Jim

I'm a little surprised it took them this long to file. It will be an interesting case to follow.

I'm just saying that the authorized use of force by a soldier in a time of war cannot, by definition, be murder.

Murder is usually defined as an unlawful killing.

No worries. It's all in the capable hands of the international community which, if given half a chance, could have made the Iraq invasion entirely unnecessary. All America has to sit back and let the master diplomats from the EU do their thing.

That we should disband the politics forums?

What law was violated? Typical of what? Neanderthal right wingers who disagree with you? Hypotheticals, by definition, ask that certain facts be assumed. It is a device used to try to strip away the clutter and get to the guts of an issue. If you will, please assume my hypothetical is realistic. Osama is there waiting for us and that we can’t capture him alive. Assume the only possibility is to lob a cruise missle at his haven killing not only the complicit adults but also innocent children being used as a shield. Would you push the button? If you don’t want to analyze the question, just "don't wanna go there," no worries; however, I promise to diligently and honestly answer any counter hypothetical you wish to pose.

Spin? Sounds to me as if you believe anyone failing to give an immediate and negative response is disingenuous.

Oh, hell, might as well get this out there since it is primarily what the confirmation hearing was about (and since I love to stir up controversy). 1. Will Roe be reversed? 2. Should Roe be reversed? 3. If Roe is reversed, should state legislatures restrict the woman's right to choose an abortion and/or right to take human life? 4. If so, what sort of statute would you push to enact in your state? My answers would be: 1. Probably so. 2. I'm torn. Roe is weak & fuzzy legally and we have paid a price by removing the issue from the legislative sphere. We've never had the discussion in a meaningful way since Roe was decided. Judicial fiat has removed this topic from the legislative process and the position of the two camps has become increasingly polarized precisely because there is no consequence to all of this talk. Requiring state legislatures to deal with the issue would force compromises and a discussion of the issue. We will have other issues which call on society to make decisions about what it means to be human (e.g. genetic modification, cloning, etc) and right now we do not have the consensus on this issue which we might. I do not have strong feelings about when human life begins or, for that matter, what even constitutes "human life." I reject any religious concept in this discussion, although, strangely, I do not recall hearing a pro-lifers quote any specific scripture as to exactly when a soul enters the body. A fetus is "human" and it is "life" however we mean much more when we put those two words together. Societies have an interest in defining and protecting innocent human life and those societies erring on the side of protecting life are usually better places to live. We may never have a definitive answer to the question of the status of the fetus, not because we won't be able to define it more precisely medically but the issue requires us to define human life and then articulate why it is precious. All of the standards we can imagine - intelligence, consciousness, viability, etc, - do not work well outside of the womb. In the face of this inherent uncertainty, I do not see how either side can be dogmatic. I have a very hard time dictating to a woman what she should do with a fetus that is inside of her body (I won't say the fetus is "her body" because this begs the question). In the face of this uncertainty my deference would be to the individual involved. OTOH, I'm not so certain about this issue that I'd be completely appalled if the courts stopped allowing us to duck the question. I certainly think the question is close enough that we can require accurate information about the process given to minors and that parents be notified. Overall, I prefer to keep the uneasy truce that exists. Although I was never impressed with the legal reasoning of Roe, I would defer to the precedent. I do not view Roe as similar to a Dred Scott type of case where the result was so clearly wrong that it should be unraveled after a long history of reaffirmation. 3&4. Not directly; however, I don't have a huge problem with parental notification requirements and the like.

You have to admit there was deep irony seeing Alito questioned about integrity and credibility by a man who, while married, drove himself and a single young woman into a lake late at night, escaped the car, left the scene and the woman to drown and was somehow too shocked to report the accident. Oh yes, and he wasn't drinking. If he had ever paid a meaningful price for this crime, it would be one thing but this issue will never go away and I can't believe the democrats let Kennedy act as their attack dog on Alito. I can't believe he named the dog in his new children's book "splash." Was he trying to be funny? I loved the looks Alito's wife gave Kennedy after she composed herself. If looks could kill.... Except for my visceral reaction to Teddy and continued surprise that the Dems put him out front, I wasn't too shocked by the posturing on both sides. I was somewhat surprised on how lame the democratic attack on Alito turned out. I have a better chance dunking on Shaq....

I just read the opinion and think I would have won this bet. The first issue addressed by Alito was "the degree of technical precision that should be demanded in determining whether a warrant adequately incorporates an attached application or affidavit." The second issue was whether a reasonable officer could have believed that the warrant did confer the authority to search so that qualified immunity should have been granted. Alito's review of both of these issues seems quite reasonable. A lawsuit is probably one of the most apt illustrations of the maxim "you can't judge a book by its cover." Judge Alito wrote a library of such books and it it is remarkable that the left has only found a few such covers where the decision seems superficially unreasonable.

The Democratic questioning was inept.

This is something reasonable minds can differ. It has to do with political outlook which is why it pays to win presidential elections.

I guess in fairness, I should let Teddy speak in his own defense. Nationally Televised Speech of Edward M. Kennedy, July 25, 1969: "This morning I entered a plea of guilty to the charge of leaving the scene of an accident. . . . "Nor was I driving under the influence of liquor. . . "I regard as indefensible the fact that I did not report the accident to the policy immediately.. . . "All kinds of scrambled thoughts . . . were reflected in the various inexplicable, inconsistent, and inconclusive things I said and did, including. . .whether some awful curse did actually hang over all the Kennedys, . . .whether there was some justifiable reason for me to doubt what has happened and to delay my report, whether somehow the awful weight of this incredible incident might, in some way, pass from my shoulders. "In the morning, with my mind somewhat more lucid, I made an effort to call a family legal advisor. . . . "Thank you and good night." http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/tedkennedychappaquiddick.htm Kind of puts Alito's college CAPer in perspective, doesn't it?

Let's see if I can stir up some controversy. My take is that Alito has done an excellent job and will do just fine in the Supremes. Some of the democratic questioning has been intellectually dishonest but no more than was to be expected. Fortunately, the only clever tactic they have used is to ask questions the know Alito can't ethically answer (e.g. FISA) and then posture about a predictable lack of response. It does border on the surreal to see Ted Kennedy lecturing anyone about credibility but Teddy has never lacked nerve. Jay Leno joked the other night about him writing a story for kids about a dog named "splash." You just have to laugh... I should start a poll on whether whether Teddy or Howard Dean consistently does the Republican party more favors. I honestly don't know how I'd vote on that one. Kerry would be in the running if he was at all relevant.

If anything, the Iraq invasion makes the threat of military action against Iran credible (just as it did for Libya). It may turn out that nothing would have detered Iran but it will help the international community's leverage. If I were Bush, I would be pressuring the international community big time. They were contending they could have solved Iraq if we'd just given them another 12 years. We don't have 12 years to deal with this issue but any solution here will have to be international.