From Fox News: Fast Facts: John G. Roberts.

EXPERIENCE
— on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit since June 2003.
— one of President Bush’s least contentious picks for the bench.
— former Rehnquist clerk, Roberts was associate counsel to President Reagan from 1982-86 and then served in the first Bush administration, arguing cases before the Supreme Court from 1989-93.
— during the Clinton administration, became a highly sought-after private lawyer in Supreme Court cases, representing clients such as the National Collegiate Athletic Association in a discrimination case, and carmaker Toyota in winning limits on a disabled workers claims.
— had been in line to join the appeals court in 1992, but nomination during the first Bush administration died in a Democratic-controlled Senate.
— 146 members of the D.C. Bar signed a letter urging his confirmation, including officials from the Clinton administration.
EDUCATION
— received his undergraduate and law degrees from Harvard.
PERSONAL
— 50 years old
— native of Buffalo, N.Y.

You can bet that the long knives will be out for Mr. Roberts. The Democrats will grill him like a cheese sandwich. Let’s hope he can take the heat and make it through intact.

The Loony Left Wing strikes again. MoveOn Sees Conspiracy in Roberts Timing.
Just like the DNC President Howard Dean thinks that Tom DeLay should go to jail without a trial, MoveOn thinks Karl Rove should be fired and go to jail, even when Rove has committed no crime. Even when there is no evidence that a crime has been committed by anybody, let alone Rove.
Now the Moonbats are accusing the Bush administration of doing exactly what their darling Clinton did: Do something newsworthy to get something embarrassing off the front pages. In President Clintons case, it was launching a few cruise missiles into Iraq to get Monica Lewinsky and her stained dress off the front pages.
Too bad that isn’t the case here. It just so happens that there is a real vacancy in the SCOTUS, and President Bush is trying to fill that spot before the SCOTUS convenes on the first Monday of October.
One of these days MoveOn and their ilk might get it right.
But I wouldn’t count on it.

I have been following Michael Newdow and his crusade to eliminate the “Under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance since I started this blog. Well, here is another step. A Judge has thrown out a large portion of his case, limiting the case to just the pledge in the school. Newdow cannot challenge the pledge itself. Judge Will Throw Out Parts of Newdow’s Pledge Case.
In the wake of the SCOTUS decision to punt, this is the only possible thing the judge could have done. By limiting the question to a yes/no possibility to if the Pledge belongs in the schools at all, it is a pretty good chance that Newdow will go down in flames.
Good for him. It is a bad thing for one person to have the power to control over the entire country like this. If he doesn’t like “Under God” in the pledge, then he can just shut up when it comes to those two words. I don’t care if he’s offended by them, there’s lots of things that offend me, but I realize we are a country of freedoms and I must let other people express their freedoms, as long as it doesn’t directly affect me.

Here you go. Bad Research Leads to Bad Law.
This article goes into how bad scientific practices make it into law. When one-third of “hard science” (medicine, physics, etc.) studies can be called into question, what about the “soft sciences” where it is largely interpretation of the data that determines the outcome?

This is not a mere academic matter. Inaccurate studies become entrenched in laws that govern our daily lives. Using VAWA [Violence Against Women Act] as an example again, the Act incorrectly assumes that women, and not men, are the victims of domestic violence, and it has been influential in denying men access to shelters. This denial often extends to the older male children of women who seek assistance.

The act also calls for more studies, a perpetuating act.
When three soft science researchers can look at the same data and come up with three different conclusions, all based on their judgment and agendas, we should not be making law based on these studies. But that is exactly what is happening today, especially with Liberal causes.

It may surprise people, however, to hear that I don’t think political agendas are inevitable within the soft sciences. Even on controversial subjects like rape, it is possible to find interesting studies in which researchers sincerely pursue solid data.
But you have to go back a few decades. In his book from the ’70s, “Men who Rape: The Psychology of the Offender,” Nicholas Groth offered a theory that sounds almost jarring to today’s ears. He wrote, “One of the most basic observations one can make regarding men who rape is that not all such offenders are alike.” That is, a drunken boyfriend who rapes because he does not hear the “no” being uttered should not be placed in the same research category as a back alley rapist who leaves his victim physically crippled for life.
A rape researcher could not make that statement today on a college campus. He would be fired, bludgeoned into silence, or his funding would be yanked. There is now only one acceptable view of rape; it is an act of power. There is only one research category of rapist: the oppressor.

Has it been that long when soft science had the ethics to get to the truth of things, and not conform with some Political Correctness whiner?
We’re in more trouble than I thought.

This is important to me, as I spent 6 years in Hawai’i, and my wife is Hawai’ian. Hawaiians Grapple With Self-Government Bill.
I don’t see this as a good thing. First of all, there are very few “real” Hawai’ians left, and they already live on their own island, living like their ancestors. To surrender up to 40 percent of the land is going to cause problems in the real estate market.
And on top of that, just look at what happened when we segregated the Indians. Look at the problems they have, and tell me it’s a good idea to split the islands in half, especially when a majority of people don’t want it to happen.
This is going to be a bad idea, but then again Liberals are well known for implementing bad ideas. And Hawai’i is a very Liberal state.