And now, in my finest Emily Litella voice...

Nevermind.

Although she was on the side of the angels in Kelo, she lost me when she insisted on using some foreign precedents.

This country declared independence from Great Britain on July 4, 1776. Since that date, no foreign law should ever be considered as precedent in an American court. Such use, to my mind, is a violation of the justice's oath of office and should be cause for impeachment, if not arrest and trial for treason.

Heck, even the conservative justices think British law is OK to use as precedential material.

"The Feeney-Goodlatte resolution is in tune with Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice William Rehnquist who hold that judges should look only to U.S. and British colonial precedents, such as Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, to interpret the U.S. Constitution"

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4506232

American Law incorporates the British Common Law. we're a British nation.

None of the grownups I know has any respect for Bush, and now I can explain why in 25 words or less. Listening to his prepared remarks, I heard him say, 'I take my responsibility seriously.'

I cannot imagine any other president (or wannabe) saying that.

Bart and Ali are each partly right. Foreigh law is not precedent and pre-Revolutionary British cases and commentaries may be used to interpret the original intent of the words of the Constitution.

What I think Bart is geting at, and if I interpret his words correctly, I strongly agree, is that we must not look to other countries' law to glean "evolving standards of decency" or some other penumbral emantations to find levers with which to twist our constitution to suit the judges' preference.

Our ways are not the ways of other countries, and their ways are not our ways. That Europe may be on another path with respect to capital punishment, abortion, homosexuality, gun control, or church-state relations is of no moment to how our constitution is to be construed.

Harry:

Did you think you'd live long enough to see one who does?

Janice is the perfect replacement. The country will back her as readily as Californians have. It'll be suicide for the Dems.

Deepest gratitude to Ms. O'Conner for her very entertaining Consitution as Balloon Sculpture act for the past quarter century. Am told the Fathers gave her a rolling ovation.

Of course, if we get a conservative, it will become Justice Kennedy's Constitution.

Tell me again why I should care about what Harry's friends "think"? (or is that "feel"?) Especially on a subject , "Bush", on which I've never before cared what they thought and a on subject in which they've shown nothing but closed-mindeness.

Because Harry cares about nothing else?

If Janice Rogers Brown is nominated for Justice O'Connor's seat and is confirmed by the Senate without filibuster, I will give $1000.00 in OJ's name to the official McCain for President committee.

Harry:

Ever read Russell Baker's essay about serious v. solemn? Most Presidents are full of solemn (FDR, Nixon, Carter, Clinton). They are mostly phonies because they don't know genuine.

Every President in my lifetime has said he takes his responsibilities seriously, either in an inaugural speech, in a nomination speech, at a convention, at Normandy, at the UN, and lots of other places. It's standard fare - your comment doesn't make any sense.

David:

How about to the OJ shouldn't have to leave the cabana" fund?

You could have topped that off by auctioning your services to those chicks with the snake.

David, please anything but that. Save your money for the lean years, the famine years brought on by global warming or wolves in the sewers, or mad cows, or ...

I wonder, will this announcement mean Bush is more likely or less likely to give Bolton an interim appointment?

It looks like we'll have a merry summer this year.

I still don't get Harry's orignal statement. I have gone thru life thinking all Presidents took their responsibilities seriously. (OK maybe not Clinton, Kennedy, or Harding when they had their attention diverted momentarily by other interests) Just call me naive I guess.

Never read that one, jim.

The point, h-man, which I shouldn't have to make to grownups, is that you don't have to say you're serious if you are. In fact, you wouldn't say it unless you thought there were doubts.

It isn't as between serious and solemn. It's between being serious and pretending to be serious.

ah, so it wasn't a serious point, just bitchiness.

I think Harry's just making an analogous point to one this weblog frequently hits on – the Democratic Party stalwarts defending their patriotism.

So Bush has convinced all the grownups he's not serious, by claiming he is; and Harry's convinced just about everyone he's a putz, without ever using the word. I'd call that a good day's work.

AOG:

It's a bit of boilerplate in the middle of a statement someone else wrote. What does it have to do with an imagined defense of his seriousness generally?

OJ: I don't expect there to ever be an official McCain for President committee.

ask saddam or mullah omar if bush is serious. ask the 50m people now freed from tyranny. the unserious person here is harry.

Harry:

Perhaps he has to reassure people because there's a general tendency among his opponents to assume he's not serious at all. That perception has seeped into the zeitgeist.

That was either a boilerplate line, or an attempt to refute a silly stereotype.