[conservatism_IS_compassion]

"March for Justice" worked great the first time.

The actual point is the confirmation of judges who are not enamored of their own vision of what the law should be - and not willing to call that "justice." What we insist on is justice understood as the rule of law - we insist on a democratic republic in which the judges enforce the laws as written - with the actual intent of the ratifiers of the Constitution as amended being the only rationale for deviating from the law as passed by constitutionally legitimate legislators.

IMHO it should be a

March for Law.

[Congressman Billybob]

I've made my arrangements and will be there. I'm preparing a fire-breathing speech against the five "imperial" Justices for the Rally. One question: will there be, and shouldn't there be, some kind of demonstration with appropriate placards, on the steps of the Supreme Court itself?

I gather that we cannot get a permit to hold the Rally and have the speeches right there. But the right to picket on the open sidewalk, with the facade of the Court as a photographic backdrop is, I understand, basic and available. This could occupy perhaps 20 minutes between the formal Rally and the visits to the Senatorial offices. (In the afternoon, the sun angle will be perfect for photography of that.)

Just a suggestion.

Lastly, I've already lined up the opportunity to speak live on the air to Jerry Agar in Kansas City in the morning, and to Sean Hannity in the afternoon.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "Condi Rice & Pierce Flanigan's Father's Hat"