Congressman warning reported by Raymond Arroyo:
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments in a case concerning whether a cross on federal park land in California which memorializes World War I veterans violates the U.S. Constitution. One congressman warned that the case could have an enormous “ripple effect” on memorials across the country including Arlington Cemetery.
Pope Benedict XVI inaugurates a special Year of the Priest starting on the Solemnity of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
H/T Deacon Greg
Allah Pundit has this good news and newsworthy tidbit:
Palin, who emerged as a leading voice in the Republican Party after Arizona Sen. John McCain picked her as his running mate in the contest against Obama, is thought to be considering a run for president in 2012. Auburn residents welcomed her to the podium at City Hall with a chant of “Run, Sarah, run!”…
Palin rode the mile-long parade route in a red convertible, getting out to walk about 100 yards while carrying small U.S. and Alaska state flags in each hand. Spectators yelled out “Welcome, Sarah” and “Thanks for coming” as Palin waved back.
Local resident Chris Stone, with his wife and three children, said he didn’t care for Palin’s politics but didn’t want to miss the chance to see her in person.
“You can see by the turnout, she’s become a personality and a historical figure,” said Stone, who voted for Obama. “I know all these people aren’t Republicans. This is a chance to see someone who has had a big impact on history.”
Hot Air on Sotomayor including Rush and response:
The context of the quote still leaves it in the ranks of racism or reverse racism:
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.
However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.
AllahPundit is waiting for answers:
I’m looking forward to hearing whether she thinks any of the white men on the Court currently aren’t devoting the “time and effort” needed to neutralize their white-male-ness, and to whether she’s devoted any of her own to understanding the “experiences” of people who aren’t female and Latino.
I hope Dick Cheney keeps the pressure on Obama. He’s a Lone Ranger with silver bullets hitting their mark.
AllahPundit writes of Cheney:
Dour though his Darth Cheney persona may be, he projects gravitas and speaks with understated eloquence. He’s bound to persuade at least a few fencesitters.
The Pundit points to Toby Harnden in Telegraph.co.uk who notes Cheney’s 10 punches:
1. “I’ve heard occasional speculation that I’m a different man after 9/11. I wouldn’t say that, but I’ll freely admit that watching a coordinated, devastating attack on our country from an underground bunker at the White House can affect how you view your responsibilities.”
Anyone who was in New York or Washington on 9/11 (I was here in DC) was profoundly affected and most Americans understand this. Obama was, as far as I can tell, in Chicago. His response – he was then a mere state senator for liberal Hyde Park – was startlingly hand-wringing and out of step with how most Americans were feeling. This statement by Cheney reminds people of the tough decisions he and Bush had to make – ones that Obama has not yet faced.
2. “The first attack on the World Trade Center was treated as a law- enforcement problem, with everything handled after the fact: arrests, indictments, convictions, prison sentences, case closed.”
This was the pre-9/11 mindset, much criticised after the attacks. Many sense that this is the approach Obama is increasingly taking.
3. “By presidential decision last month, we saw the selective release of documents relating to enhanced interrogations. This is held up as a bold exercise in open government, honoring the public’s right to know. We’re informed as well that there was much agonizing over this decision. Yet somehow, when the soul searching was done and the veil was lifted on the policies of the Bush administration, the public was given less than half the truth.”
The release of the documents was a nakedly political move by Obama and Cheney called him on it. This passage from Obama’s speech today came across as completely disingenuous: “I did not do this because I disagreed with the enhanced interrogation techniques that those memos authorized, and I didn’t release the documents because I rejected their legal rationales — although I do on both counts. I released the memos because the existence of that approach to interrogation was already widely known, the Bush Administration had acknowledged its existence, and I had already banned those methods.”
Read the full article here.
AllahPundit Update:
Update: In hindsight, wasn’t it awfully stupid of The One to rush out a national security speech to try to preempt Cheney? If he’d kept quiet, this still would have been a hit on righty blogs and Fox News but nowhere else. By jumping in, he created the sensational “terror duel” storyline that’s forcing the media to magnify this. At the very least, he should have waited a week or so and then given his speech as a rebuttal to Cheney’s. For someone so message-savvy, he crapped the bed this time.
Be Holy! 