Free Republic

Graham and DeWine are good to go on giving Circuit Court nominees an up or down vote. I think the GOP has always had the margin necessary to successfully terminate the improper use of cloture to deny nominees a vote in the Senate.

The GOP has shown commendable restraint in crafting prototype language for the Constitutional Option. My wish is that they would be more forthcoming with a basic education regarding the purpose of cloture for their constituents.

Using WPA-PSK/AES with MAC filtering is a "belt and suspenders" way of securing your network.

There is more than one way to obtain unauthorized access. For most home networks, it is sufficient to limit the machines that are authorized (e.g., via MAC limiting), without getting to the "user" level.

Encryption is necessary to make it more difficult for strangers to snoop on your broadcast keystrokes.

The problem with this article is that it plants the idea that data encryption instigated/required by the WAP will prevent unauthorized access.

Access control - not encryption - is useful for preventing unauthorized use of bandwidth.

A point obfuscated by the thrust of the article, and most of the comments on this thread.

By the way, WEP encryption is so lame as to be almost totally useless. Turn on WPA encryption instead.

Encryption of communications between the devices doesn't prevent the communication.

To limit the devices that can access your wireless network, ID each permitted device by its MAC.

However, my particular concern is that people here on FR are allowing themselves to be manipulated by the New York Times.

Ahhh - you'll drive yourself batty trying to correct shrill rhetoric here, or from the NYT ;-) Or from Focus on the Family for that matter.

GWB does a good job of expressing his criteria, and his moninee will be known in due course. Meanwhile, it is perfectly natural for the rhetoric to ratchet up.

Continued agitation about Gonzalez is playing into the spin put out by the Left (aka New York Times/Washington Post/Tim Russert/CNN etc.).

I haven't been paying real close attention, in that I haven't heard the supposed "shrill rhetoric instigated by the right wingers." But my thoought is that the left-leaning press is inclined to solicit comments if none are forthcoming, and then to paint whatever is said in the most shrill light possible.

In other words, the press can make hay ANY time a Christian-based group expresses ANY political view. That's just the way it is.

And now the press gets a bonus - it can write a story about how the GOP and the president are attacking right-wing Christian groups. Even your comment could be spun by a creative press as an attack against conservatives, by a GOP representative ...

Conservatives who foolishly thought Gonzalez was going to be the nominee have been going ballistic and trashing him in the press.

What was said that amounts to trashing?

If the Dems filibuster this nominee, then the GOP should not only abolish the filibuster as to judicial nominees, but should go back and revist the two judicial nominees that did not get in because of the McCain Muntiny.

Summary of Circuit Court Nominations

F = 7 subjected to failed cloture motions in 108th Congress
4 = "1 of 4" that DEMs offered to let GOP choose which 3 to dump
S = Positive mention in Specter's May 9, 2005 speech

M = MOU of 14 will not vote against cloture
m = MOU of 14 makes no promise regarding cloture
R = Post-MOU, Reid indicates desire to filibuster

C = Out of committee & on the Senate's Executive Calendar
U = Unanimous consent to debate - date TBD
D = Democrats offer to debate - date TBD
v = Debate and vote scheduled
V = Vote -on the nomination- concluded

       --S  --  C--  Boyle, Terrence W.       (4th Cir)
       ---  -R  ---  Haynes, William James II (4th Cir)
       F4S  M-  CUV  Owen, Priscilla          (5th Cir)
       F-S  --  CUV  Griffin, Richard A.      (6th Cir)
       F-S  --  CUV  McKeague, David W.       (6th Cir)
       --S  --  -D-  Neilson, Susan Bieke     (6th Cir)
       F--  mR  ---  Saad, Henry W.           (6th Cir)
       F4S  mR  C--  Myers, William Gerry III (9th Cir)
       F4S  M-  CUV  Pryor, William H.        (11th Cir)
       F4S  M-  CUV  Brown, Janice Rogers     (D.C. Cir)
       --S  --  CUV  Griffith, Thomas B.      (D.C. Cir)
       ---  -R  ---  Kavanaugh, Brett M.      (D.C. Cir)

Last updated, June 21, 2005

Owen: Cloture passed 81-18 on May 24. Confirmed 55-43 on May 25.
Brown: Cloture passed 65-32 on June 7. Confirmed 56-43 on June 8.
Pryor: Cloture passed 67-32 on June 8. Confirmed 53-45 on June 9.
Griffin: Confirmed 95-0 on June 9.
McKeague: Confirmed 96-0 on June 9.
Griffith: Confirmed 73-24 on June 14.
Myers: Out of Committee on March 17.
Boyle: Out of Committee on June 16.

Additional source material

• List of Nominations in the 109th Congress Judiciary Committee
• Senate Executive Calendar (changes each business day)
• Specter's Speech of May 9, 2005 (109th Congress - Pages S4632 - S4636)
• Senators' Memorandum of Understanding - May 23, 2005
• Reid's agreement of May 24, 2005 (S5857)
• AP Report Reid wants to filibuster Haynes & Kavanaugh - May 28, 2005
• Fox News Report Reid will filibuster Saad & Myers - May 29, 2005
• Boyle was nominated to 4th Cir. in 1991 too, by GHWB

I think there is a chance that there will be amino acids (or at the very least organic molecules) identified in the spectrum.

The remains of the recently vaporized inhabitants.

*bump* -- Great article, thanks.

as opposed to Supreme Court justices who DO get to "make new law"? Kinda shows his mindset doesn't it?

*bump*

My thought exactly. If Biden had his way, SCOTUS would make ALL but the administrative laws, so Congress would not have the burden or accountability of being involved in messy social decision making.

Fineswine: "The Senate will be out during the month of August...."

Assuming they do, all pending nominations are returned to the president.

RULE XXXI
EXECUTIVE SESSION - PROCEEDINGS ON NOMINATIONS

...

6. Nominations neither confirmed nor rejected during the session at which they are made shall not be acted upon at any succeeding session without being again made to the Senate by the President; and if the Senate shall adjourn or take a recess for more than thirty days, all nominations pending and not finally acted upon at the time of taking such adjournment or recess shall be returned by the Secretary to the President, and shall not again be considered unless they shall again be made to the Senate by the President.

http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule31.htm

A number of nominations are potentially caught up in that. Bolton, Myers (9th Circuit), and Boyle (4th Circuit) are all on the Senate's Executive Calendar now. That is, those nominations are out of committee (Myers since March 17th, Boyle since June 16th). Frist can show some backbone by bringing any one of these three up for consideration. My speculation is close to worthless; but I will form an opinion based on Frist's action (or inaction) regarding the Myers nomination.

There are an additional 4 Circuit Court Nominations in the Judiciary Committee at this moment. They are Haynes, Nielson, Saad, and Kavanaugh.

Arlen just dissed Swimmer BIG Time..The chemo must be working..he's growing BALLS.

ROTFL! I can't stand to watch these programs, and very much appreciate the running commentary. And your comment is icing on that cake.

Have a great weekend, reminded what a powerful force INDEPENDENCE is, and what a great gift a minority of colonists gave to America - government turned on its head, the people in charge.

Maybe one day we'll get it back.

I saw him on TV and was pretty shocked. Hope he continues on to a full recovery.

He looks okay "bald," but his health is a reminder of the temporal nature of all of us. I too pray for him to have a full recovery and healthy life.

Specter is on chemotherapy

11:16 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. A short time ago I had a warm conversation with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has decided to retire from the Supreme Court of the United States. America is proud of Justice O'Connor's distinguished service and I'm proud to know her. Today, she has the gratitude of her fellow citizens, and she and John and their family have our respect and good wishes.

Sandra Day O'Connor joined the nation's highest court in 1981 as the first woman ever appointed to that position. Throughout her tenure she has been a discerning and conscientious judge, and a public servant of complete integrity. Justice O'Connor's great intellect, wisdom and personal decency have won her the esteem of her colleagues and our country.

Under the Constitution, I am responsible for nominating a successor to Justice O'Connor. I take this responsibility seriously. I will be deliberate and thorough in this process. I have directed my staff, in cooperation with the Department of Justice, to compile information and recommend for my review potential nominees who meet a high standard of legal ability, judgment and integrity and who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our country.

As well, I will continue to consult, as will my advisors, with members of the United States Senate. The nation deserves, and I will select, a Supreme Court Justice that Americans can be proud of. The nation also deserves a dignified process of confirmation in the United States Senate, characterized by fair treatment, a fair hearing and a fair vote. I will choose a nominee in a timely manner so that the hearing and the vote can be completed before the new Supreme Court term begins.

Today, however, is a day to honor the contributions of a fine citizen and a great patriot. Many years ago, Sandra Day O'Connor chose the path of public service, and she served with distinction as a legislator and a judge in Arizona before joining the Supreme Court. When President Ronald Reagan appointed Justice O'Connor 24 years ago, Americans had high expectations of her -- and she has surpassed those expectations in the performance of her duties.

This great lady, born in El Paso, Texas, rose above the obstacles of an earlier time and became one of the most admired Americans of our time. She leaves an outstanding record of service to the United States and our nation is deeply grateful.

Thank you.

END 11:18 A.M. EDT

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050701-1.html

11:16 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. A short time ago I had a warm conversation with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has decided to retire from the Supreme Court of the United States. America is proud of Justice O'Connor's distinguished service and I'm proud to know her. Today, she has the gratitude of her fellow citizens, and she and John and their family have our respect and good wishes.

Sandra Day O'Connor joined the nation's highest court in 1981 as the first woman ever appointed to that position. Throughout her tenure she has been a discerning and conscientious judge, and a public servant of complete integrity. Justice O'Connor's great intellect, wisdom and personal decency have won her the esteem of her colleagues and our country.

Under the Constitution, I am responsible for nominating a successor to Justice O'Connor. I take this responsibility seriously. I will be deliberate and thorough in this process. I have directed my staff, in cooperation with the Department of Justice, to compile information and recommend for my review potential nominees who meet a high standard of legal ability, judgment and integrity and who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our country.

As well, I will continue to consult, as will my advisors, with members of the United States Senate. The nation deserves, and I will select, a Supreme Court Justice that Americans can be proud of. The nation also deserves a dignified process of confirmation in the United States Senate, characterized by fair treatment, a fair hearing and a fair vote. I will choose a nominee in a timely manner so that the hearing and the vote can be completed before the new Supreme Court term begins.

Today, however, is a day to honor the contributions of a fine citizen and a great patriot. Many years ago, Sandra Day O'Connor chose the path of public service, and she served with distinction as a legislator and a judge in Arizona before joining the Supreme Court. When President Ronald Reagan appointed Justice O'Connor 24 years ago, Americans had high expectations of her -- and she has surpassed those expectations in the performance of her duties.

This great lady, born in El Paso, Texas, rose above the obstacles of an earlier time and became one of the most admired Americans of our time. She leaves an outstanding record of service to the United States and our nation is deeply grateful.

Thank you.

END 11:18 A.M. EDT

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050701-1.html

I think Bush will nominate John Cornyn ...

I like Cornyn; Sessions too.

Her retirement village should be condemned, and siezed.

I don't like O'Connor as a jurist, but mostly because of her opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and similarly weak "logic."

But in the recent [New London] takings case, she wrote the dissent that noted the risks inherent in a broad interpretation of the phrase "public use."

I wonder how many last straws postings we are going to see?

As many as you want to see.

FWIW, I find them, and the responses to them, to be generally useless blather.

Bush to talk at 11:15 EDT. Most cable channels will cover it.