Skip to main content

RedState.com: Your Dramatic Overreaction Of The Day

Pejman Yousefzadeh reacted to Andrew Sullivan's post about the controversy regarding Dr. James Dobson, and the thank you note he received from Judge Alito.
I really have no brief for James Dobson, but this is absurd. Unless you are the kind of person who sees a wink-wink-nudge-nudge-say-no-more element in just about every bit of human interaction, it's hard to see what the big deal is regarding the fact that Alito was polite. It doesn't signify a desire to engage in any kind of quid pro quo, and if Sullivan actually does think that Alito's letter is enough to demonstrate his supposed lack of independence, well, let's all thank goodness this hanging judge of a blogger isn't a real judge in the court system. And I say this as someone who believes Sullivan to be quite intelligent and eloquent on a number of issues.

Noting, perhaps, that he is on thin ice with this kind of innuendo and anxious to shore up a weak position, Sullivan protests that his suspicions are somehow well-founded. Why? Because Dobson read Alito's letter on the radio! Because writing a thank-you letter constitutes "associating with overtly political entities"! (Query: Was Andrew Sullivan upset that Justice Alito attended the State of the Union, where "overtly political entities" were in abundance?) And finally because "there is more than just a hint of a constitutional quo for a political quid in the letter," and Sullivan "hoped [Alito's] jurisprudence would not amount to a carte blanche for whatever the Christianists demand. The letter suggests otherwise." How this is the case, we do not know and Sullivan does not tell us. I guess we are just supposed to take his word for it.
Adam C also commented on reactions from Taranto:
Now, Alito's defenders will doubtless point to Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution, which stipulates that federal judges "shall hold their offices during good behaviour." Surely, they will argue, sending a thank-you note qualifies as "good behaviour."...

Luckily, there is a way Alito can defuse the scandal. All he has to do is send a note to Sullivan thanking him for his endorsement. Then, when he casts a vote against same-sex marriage, Sullivan's pet issue, it will be clear that there is in fact no quo.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Podcast: Talking GOP Debate and No Child Left Behind

Click here to listen to the MP3 audio of the discussion between Michel Martin, Stephen Henderson and myself on the GOP debate, and Bush's push for No Child Left Behind. The segment on the new gospel music competition reality show is a great segment -- check it out as well. Tell Me More, October 12, 2007 · This week, GOP presidential contenders met for a debate in Dearborn, Michigan. Meanwhile, President Bush was stumping for reauthorization of the education bill, "No Child Left Behind." In this week's Political Chat, hear insights from political blogger Josue Sierra and Stephen Henderson, Deputy Editorial Page Editor at the Detroit Free Press.

You can listen on the NPR website right here.


Related Posts:
- On Air: Talking GOP Debate and No Child Left Behind
- GOP Economy Debate


Other Posts of Interest:
- Conference for Minority Journalists of Faith Cross posted at:
http://josue.townhall.com/g/539550d0-6e62-45a9-b375-f9d534488f25

Communism: Good Money for the "El Viejo"

I guess Fidel Castro is doing ok. Forbes lists Castro as one of the richest in the world, right up there with the Queen of England. I bet he didn't like the attention. It was hard to figure it out, but it seems they managed to throw some numbers together.
In the past, we have relied on a percentage of Cuba's gross domestic product to estimate Fidel Castro's fortune. This year we have used more traditional valuation methods, comparing state-owned assets Castro is assumed to control with comparable publicly traded companies. A reasonable discount was then applied to compensate for the obvious disclosure issues.

Victory for Life -- Court backs military on abortion coverage

Great news being reported on the Chicago Tribune. Surprisingly, a decision was handed down in favor of life. I find the quote facinating. These days, one could hardly believe such statement would come from a judge--a federal one of all things.
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA -- A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that military medical benefits should cover abortions only when a mother's life is at risk.

The 3-0 ruling by a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals came in the case of a Navy sailor's wife whose fetus had a fatal birth defect. She had an abortion five months into her pregnancy.

She filed a lawsuit claiming an armed forces health plan owed her $3,000 for the procedure. The government argued that refusing to cover such services "furthers the government's interest in protecting human life in general and promoting respect for life."Tags: , , ,