It Was Only A Matter Of Time....

Whether the predominant interest groups on the left would actively seek to defeat the nomination of Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court was never a question of if but when. Ralph Neas answered that question Wednesday when he announced People for the American Way’s opposition to the Roberts nomination in a harsh condemnation of the judge and his likely role on the Supreme Court.

Mr. Neas’ bit of invective ("I didn’t think that anybody could be to the right of William Bradford Reynolds, Robert Bork, and Ted Olson, but Roberts managed it") should serve as a stern reminder to any conservative that the left, or the far left at least, has every intention of employing the same scorched-earth tactics that became infamous during the Bork and Thomas confirmation process, no matter how unfounded they are. Yes Judge Roberts’ ascension to the Supreme Court is all but guaranteed and no Democrats no longer have the numbers in the Senate to pull off the same character assassination that succeeded in Judge Bork’s nomination and nearly succeeded in Justice Thomas’. But what they can do, and probably will do, is denigrate Judge Robert’s integrity and character, further diminishing the integrity of a process that has already been diminished far too much in the past two decades. Conservatives and Republicans need to be prepared to refute such inflammatory tactics and keep the record straight. Mr. Neas and company shouldn’t be allowed to get away with crying wolf any more.

Hat Tip: Sean Higgins

The Iraqi Constitution

A draft constitution has been submitted to the Iraqi Parliament with a vote being postponed a few days in order to settle some remaining reservations on the part of Sunni factions involved in the process. Though some alterations may still be made there are a few aspects of the draft that are important and deserve mention.

First off, the draft constitution sets up a federalist system of government with a decentralized national government and a substantial degree of autonomy for the separate provinces and regions. Very important, for given Iraq’s diverse and pluralistic regions, and it’s tragic recent experience with centralized government, a federalist system will be a necessity in insuring the new Iraq’s survival and success.

Also included is a proper balance between the role of Islam and minority rights. Islam is "the religion of the state" and "a main source for legislation", an acknowledgment to be expected in a predominantly Islamic nation and entirely acceptable so long as the rights of religious minorities are guaranteed. They are: "This constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and guarantees all religious rights of all persons in the freedom of belief and religious practice." As Paul Mirengoff has pointed out, the fact that Islam is "a main source for legislation" and not "the main source" is indicative of the actual role Islam will play in Iraq’s governance.

Most importantly, the draft institutionalizes all the hallmarks of a stable, peaceful, legitimate, and successful democracy. Those hallmarks, which distinguish a stable and peaceful democracy from the other forms of government, include religious freedom, sovereignty residing with the people, civil control of the military, judicial review, the peaceful transfer of power, etc. That the elected representatives of the Iraqi people included all of these in their draft constitution dismisses any notion that Iraq specifically, and the region as a whole, is ill-prepared or in-conducive to democracy.

Note: The document quoted in this piece is a rough translation provided by The Washington Post and sources close to the drafting process, according to the Post, have verified that it is an accurate representation of the actual draft.

Hat Tip: Paul Mirengoff, Michael Ledeen, The Washington Post

The Transfer Of Gaza

Israeli military posts and settlements are, as we speak, being dismantled and withdrawn from the Gaza Strip. The questions remaining are 1) should Israel be vacating Gaza in the first place? and 2) if so is this the right moment and situation to be doing so?

The answer to the first is probably yes. Gaza was originally and traditionally Palestinian territory and it would probably be prudent to return it to them.

The answer to question two however is no, this is neither the right moment in time nor, and maybe most importantly, the right situation to transfer Gaza to the Palestinians.

----------

As part of the roadmap to peace, Palestinian dismantling of the terrorist apparatus is a pre-requisite for receiving any territory from the Israelis and, eventually, an independent state. This has not happened. Either by a lack of power or a lack of will PA President Mahmoud Abbas has been able to achieve little else other than meaningless cease-fires that do nothing to achieve the necessary defeat of terror.

Yet for some unexplained reason the transfer of Gaza goes ahead as planned. As it stands now, Gaza is being transferred not to a pacified Palestinian society but to one as infested with terror as ever. Instead of land for peace, Israel is ceding land for nothing in return but the status quo. And what does this achieve? If the PA receives land for nothing than what impetus will they have to defeat the terrorist elements within their society? A pacified Palestinian society assuming control of Gaza is in everyone’s best interest, but unilateral concessions and adherence to the peace-process of this sort only insures that this won’t happen, for now a jubilant Hamas has another base in which to launch further terror against Israel.

If the process is to succeed than Israel, and for that matter the free world, must demand Palestinian reciprocity. The Palestinians will get their land, but only in return for the dismantling of the terrorist groups that currently thrive within their society. Failure to do so will only result in the continued murder of innocent Israelis and the continued misery of the Palestinian people.

You cannot reward terror and complacency, for when you do all you get in return is more of each.

Judge Roberts

A simple word of comfort to any liberal who might be terrified and a word of caution to any conservative who might be ecstatic at the news that John Roberts called abortion a "tragedy" during his time in the Reagan Administration....his personal views don’t matter. His brief tenure on the D.C. Court of Appeals has demonstrated that, if nothing else, he has the judicial integrity to keep his personal beliefs and prejudices out of the legal deliberative process. Judge Roberts is a jurist who will faithfully and impartially follow the law, whether that leads him in a direction which concur with his personal views or not.

If he truly does believe abortion is a "tragedy" then great, so do I. If he doesn’t that’s fine too. The one and only thing I care about is that he recognizes that his role on the federal judiciary is a limited one and that matters of policy creation and execution belong to the elected branches responsive and responsible to the American people. If he does, and of this I am confident, than his tenure on the U.S. Supreme Court will bring to that body what it too often lacks nowadays—judicial modesty.

Washington State '06 Senate Race

New polling numbers were released by Strategic Vision yesterday on the state of public opinion here in Washington State. In regards to the upcoming Senate race in ‘06, Sen. Maria Cantwell has a very soft 47% approval rating. Further, if the election were held today, Sen. Cantwell would defeat SAFECO CEO Mike McGavick, the only Republican to announce an interest in the race so far, 46-38%.

That the senator is ahead by only eight points against a virtual unknown at this early juncture, and is under fifty percent in both approval and in the horse-race numbers, should be of a concern to her. If McGavick does officially enter the race, and barring any significant primary challenge builds some name recognition and credibility with state voters, he will be able to put some pressure on the senator and her underwhelming first term record. Like Sen. Cantwell in 2000, McGavick is wealthy enough to personally fund his campaign as well.

None of this means that we should be writing Sen. Cantwell’s obituary quite yet though, for she is still an incumbent Democratic senator in a reliably left-of-center state. Resentment against the Democrats does exist over last year’s gubernatorial election, but I anticipate that being more of a problem for Governor Gregoire in ‘08 than Sen. Cantwell in ‘06. If I had to, I’d still put money on Sen. Cantwell winning reelection with around fifty percent of the vote. She is the undisputed favorite and it is going to take a heck of an effort by McGavick and state Republicans to unseat her.

Hat Tip: Stefan Sharkansky, Alexander K. McClure

Federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban

As I have made clear, and more importantly, as the constitution makes clear, the practice of abortion is neither constitutional nor unconstitutional. It is not mentioned, and thus, through the 10th Amendment, regulatory authority over it belongs to the states and the people, not the Federal Government.

Therefore I concur with the 8th Circuit’s ruling invalidating the federal partial-birth abortion ban, albeit for the exact opposite reason.

Faithful to Supreme Court precedent, the Circuit struck down the statute in question due to the absence of any health exception for the mother. Puzzling, for having thoroughly read through the constitution I have failed to find any health exception clause or amendment that would invalidate a federal or state statute prohibiting any form of abortion not containing said exception. Either the Supreme Court is handing down decisions based on a different version of the constitution (which they have taken upon themselves to write) or they are distorting the actual constitution ratified and amended by the people—– probably both.

The actual reason the federal partial-birth abortion ban is unconstitutional is simple— it exceeds congress’ regulatory authority. Article II, Section 8 of the constitution specifically enumerates congress’ powers, which include the power to assume debt, regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the states, coin money, provide for an army and a national defense, establish rules for naturalization, etc. Clearly absent is any authorization or sanction of the powers exercised by congress with the partial-birth abortion ban.

Further, if it is unconstitutional for the congress or the federal government to invalidate state laws prohibiting abortion, which it is, than it must also be unconstitutional for the congress to introduce nationalized limits or prohibitions, which may or may not reflect the desires of an individual state, on the practice as well. There is no question that the federal ban on partial-birth abortion is a good law and the right thing to do. However the legal question the Court must answer is not whether the right call was made, but instead who gets to make the call. The answer to this is simple—each state and the people therein have the sole authority to make the call, not the congress or the Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court is at all committed to the constitution than they will reaffirm the 8th Circuit’s judgment on these grounds.

Hat Tip: Terry Eastland