Alito: Cream of the Crop as the Senate Well Knows
The President has obviously chosen based on objective merit. Judge Alito is the best, in terms of legal credentials, judicial experience, intellectual ability, fairmindedness, and faithfulness to the Constitution and the role of the Court as a neutral and nonpolitical branch of government.
I've seen firsthand, in arguing before him on the Third Circuit, that he's a thoughtful, careful, and hardworking judge. He asks excellent questions that show he really understands the details of your case and the new issues it presents ? but never to show off his brilliance or to hear himself talk. He has a quiet manner that is very respectful of the litigants before him and of the law he is serving.
I think all Americans would agree: we want our Constitution and our court disputes in the hands of the smartest, most neutral, and most experienced jurists in our country. The Democrat-controlled Senate recognized these qualities in Judge Alito when it unanimously confirmed him to the Court of Appeals.
It is absurd, given his record and the Senate's history with him, for any Democrat to suggest that Judge Alito is somehow now worthy of being filibustered to block him from the Supreme Court.
Wendy Long
National Review
http://bench.nationalreview.com/archives/081301.asp
--
Innocence Lost
Is American Girl a Pro-Abortion Company?
On Christmas morning, untold numbers of girls will rip open packages hoping to find an American Girl doll. The lucky ones will receive a prized possession of modern childhood, a little figurine to dress, comb, hug, and otherwise dote upon. Because these dolls are so loved, there aren't many companies with a more wholesome image than American Girl.
So why is this popular dollmaker now giving money to a group that supports abortion rights?
That's what a growing number of consumers want to know. Since 1986, they've bought more than 11 million American Girl dolls. They've also purchased more than 105 million "character books" that teach lessons about history, patriotism, and family values. Yet none of this has inoculated the company against a problem that began in September, when American Girl launched its "I CAN" program. According to a press release, this endeavor helps girls "tell the world they are capable of anything they set their minds to." They are encouraged to buy $1 plastic bracelets and sign pledge cards that declare, "I can be myself, follow my dreams, and always do my best. I can reach for the stars, lend a hand to others, and be a good friend. I can make a difference! I promise to try."
Nobody on this side of the He-Man Woman Haters Club has an issue with that kind of rhetoric, of course. A central feature of the "I CAN" campaign, however, is American Girl's financial support of Girls Inc., a non-profit group that endorses abortion rights. American Girl has pledged $50,000 to the group, in addition to 70 cents for every "I CAN" bracelet it sells.
On its website, Girls Inc. calls itself "a national nonprofit youth organization dedicated to inspiring all girls to be strong, smart, and bold." Its "major programs" include "math and science education, pregnancy and drug abuse prevention, media literacy, economic literacy, adolescent health, violence prevention, and sports participation."
Girls Inc. is based it New York, but it also has an office in Washington, D.C., where it lobbies for something called the Girls' Bill of Rights. This document has six planks. Here's the fourth: "Girls have the right to accept and appreciate their bodies." Although Girls Inc. says that "family is the primary source of information about sex," it also declares that "girls need and have a right to ... convenient access to safe, effective methods of contraception." Girls Inc. goes on to proclaim its support for "a woman's freedom of choice, a constitutional right established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 in Roe vs. Wade."
John J. Miller
National Review
http://www.nationalreview.com/miller/miller200510310822.asp
--
Internet Rules
The Miers Denouement Shows the Power of the New Media
Establishment figures on both sides [of the Supreme Court battles] tend to focus on the symptom of rancorous nomination fights rather than the underlying cause: a judiciary that too often short-circuits democratic debate and directs ideological heat on itself. Sen. John Warner of Virginia, a Republican, huffs that Ms. Miers was "denied due process." Former Attorney General Richard Thornburgh, a Republican, laments that the Miers controversy empowered "the bloggers and pundits far beyond the president and the Senate, which should be the ones that decide on the suitability" of a nominee.
While only a small minority of Americans read political blogs, they tend to attract high-profile readers in media and politics with nonstop access to a computer. Such people influence the influencers. "The Internet processed all the arguments for Miers in record time and rejected them," says Rich Lowry, editor of National Review. "A few days before the Miers withdrawal her supporters had nothing left to say."
Liberals, who were largely bystanders during the conservative family feud over Ms. Miers, are now stepping forward to tar her critics as Grand Inquisitors. "The radical right wing of the Republican Party drove this woman's nomination right out of town," thundered Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. Juan Williams, a National Public Radio and Fox News analyst, compared her critics to "a far-right Donner party. They're eating their own."
In fact, the conservative critique of the Miers nomination contained almost none of the bitter invective that characterized the liberal assault on Robert Bork in 1987. Back then, Sen. Ted Kennedy set the tone of the attacks within two hours of Mr. Bork's nomination, when he charged that "Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, and rogue police would break down citizens' doors in midnight raids."
In contrast, Miers critics routinely stipulated she was a good corporate litigator, a path-breaking legal talent and a good person. They emphasized two basic points: She didn't have the background for such an important appointment, and her judicial philosophy, when not unknown, was incoherent. It was the White House that suggested her opponents might be operating from "sexist" or "elitist" motives and that a knowledge of constitutional law wasn't a prerequisite for service on the high court.
John Fund
Opinion Journal
http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110007480
--
Sleep Tied to Weight Loss
If you want to lose fat, getting the right amount of sleep each night might be just as crucial to shedding excess pounds as diet and regular exercise.
Research presented at a Canadian conference on obesity last week shows a strong link between lack of sleep and increased fat, as well as an increased risk of several life-threatening diseases.
The research reveals that body-chemical changes caused by lack of sleep lead to weight gain and that disruption of normal sleep patterns can destroy the body's ability to regulate appetite.
People are averaging nearly two hours less sleep each night than they did 40 years ago, said Esra Tasali of the University of Chicago.
Researchers in Chicago studied metabolic changes in healthy young adults.
The adults were divided into three groups. One group had daily sleep restricted to four hours, the second group was allowed a normal eight hours, while the third group was granted an extended sleep period of 12 hours.
The Washington Times
