In our earlier post about Senator Frist’s change of position on embryonic stem cell research, we said, “It seems to us this is more akin to donating the organs of a deceased person than some Mengelian atrocity.”

Charmaine Yoest disagrees, and offers a challenge to the analogy between using an embryo for research and organ donation.

Given that the embryos in question are in a freezer, and that they will be destroyed in either case, we remain unconvinced. It seems to us there are two real possibilities – the embryos will be destroyed, then incinerated, or the embryos will be destroyed, then used for research.

So the “destroyed” part is in the equation either way. The only remaining question at that point is whether those embryos, once destroyed (dead) will be incinerated or used for research. That’s why we see it as morally more akin to (though not, perhaps, exactly like) organ donation than infanticide.

Andrew McCarthy writes “Schumer Is Right” today on NRO.

Judge John G. Roberts Jr., or any nominee to the Supreme Court, should answer questions about important Supreme Court precedents. That includes, most prominently, Roe v. Wade. And the caterwauling to the contrary, most recently by Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.) and the RNC, is ill-conceived.

Earlier, we noted some related Roberts op-ed here.

The Republicans, despite being in the majority in Congress and controlling the White House, seem to be engaging in a pattern of strange timidity when it comes to their alleged principles.

When confronted with the “charge” that Roberts was a member of the conservative Federalist Society, Roberts backers quickly ran away from association with the group. Strange given that the group espouses the same sort of judicial philosophy the president claimed to support when he said he preferred judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas.

Similarly, when news reports noted that Roberts had written a brief as deputy solicitor general in 1991 which stated the opinion Roe v. Wade should be overturned, many quickly went into a sort of damage control mode, asserting that Roberts was simply acting on behalf of his “client” the first Bush Administration, not expressing his own views. The brief said, in part: “The court’s conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution.”

But isn’t that the mainstream Republican/conservative view in a nutshell? If so, why do Republicans so quickly run away from it like a schoolgirl who just saw a huge spider in the corner? At some point, Republicans should be willing, as McCarthy argues, to take questions about Roe, and defend their opposition to Roe, before the public. Similarly, they should not be so quick to run away from like-minded friends, such as those in the Federalist Society.

Conservatives are right about Roe, and right about the role of the judiciary. So what are they running away for?

Update: Mark Levin responds to McCarthy – “Schumer Is Wrong”

Ed at Captain’s Quarters agrees it’s a mistake to run away from the Federalist Society here.

David Limbaugh takes the Democrats to task for their assaults on the English language here or here.

To devout liberals like Leahy, Kennedy and Schumer, an activist Supreme Court judge is one who would roll back precedent established by rampant liberal judicial activism. They know “judicial activism” has a negative connotation, just like “liberal,” which they euphemize as “progressive,” so they simply turn it completely on its head, accusing its fiercest opponents — Scalia, Thomas, etc. — of being its practitioners.

We previously noted this sort of abuse of the language by Leahy and other Democrats here.

Senator Bill Frist, Republican majority leader, came out today in support of modifying the current policy, favored by the president, regarding embryonic stem cell research. The new bill, already passed in the House, would allow research on existing embryos that would otherwise be discarded.

We’ve always thought that Senator Frist’s latest position on embryonic stem cell research is the correct one. We agree that to create embryos for the purpose of doing research is morally problematic. But if the choice is between destroying embryos by discarding them or doing potentially beneficial research, in that case it seems the best option is to do the research. The embryos are destroyed either way, and there’s no benefit derived in simply discarding them. It seems to us this is more akin to donating the organs of a deceased person than some Mengelian atrocity. Most people, even those who are pro-life, wouldn’t have a moral problem with donating the kidneys or heart from a deceased baby, for example. It doesn’t make sense to give more moral consideration to a frozen embryo that’s set to be destroyed in any case.

While Frist’s sudden flip-flop causes a problem for the president, and has the look of political calculation, it looks like he’s right on the merits of the issue. (To clarify, we’re not saying Frist’s position is a result of political calculation, just that it may look that way to some.)

Senator Frist’s statement is here. Trey Jackson has the video here.

Somewhat worrying: Glenn Reynolds agrees.

Doug at Stones Cry Out definitely disagrees.

Paul at Power Line agrees.

Via The Corner – Jeff Jacoby, in his column for the Boston Globe, asks the important question:

THREE WEEKS before the London bombings of July 7, Britain’s Joint Terrorist Analysis Center advised policymakers that ”at present there is not a group with both the current intent and the capability to attack the UK.” That reassuring message from the country’s top intelligence and law enforcement officials, The New York Times reported last week, prompted the British government to lower its terror alert. Less than a month later, 52 people were murdered and 700 wounded when three subway trains and a bus were blown up in the worst act of terrorism the United Kingdom has experienced since the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988.

….

Which kind of intelligence failure is better “” the kind that badly understates a threat, such as the one in London, or the kind that overstates a threat, such as the insistent warnings before the invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein was armed with weapons of mass destruction?

Of course no intelligence failure is desirable. But even in the best intelligence services, they are sometimes inevitable.

….

If intelligence failures are inevitable “” and in a world of human fallibility, they are “” we are better off worrying too much about our enemies and taking steps to defeat them than worrying too little and being caught, unready, when they attack. Worrying too much led the United States and Britain to topple a brutal tyrant. Worrying too little led to 9/11 and 7/7.

This is the crux of the matter that faced President Bush before the invasion of Iraq – Given imperfect intelligence information, should he have given Saddam Hussein the benefit of the doubt, or assumed the worst? It’s important to remember here that Saddam invested a great deal of money and manpower to hide his actions. So it’s understandable that our intel agencies had imperfect information.

But when you’re the president, and the CIA Director says, as reported by Bob Woodward, that the case against Saddam is “a slam dunk”, you must act.

An honest evaluation leads to the conclusion that the president acted reasonably given the information he had at the time. Do those on the left who constantly repeat the “Bush Lied!” mantra not understand this? Or do they simply place their narrow partisan interests ahead of the interests of U.S. national security? They should be pressed to answer Jacoby’s question – do they want the president to worry too much about people like Saddam Hussein, or too little?

There’s a referendum vote today in San Diego, CA to preserve the Mt. Soledad Cross. It’s the ACLU/secularist crowd against American history and heritage. We side with America. Hopefully, the good people of San Diego will turn out to save the cross.

Michelle Malkin has more.

Update: The people of San Diego voted to preserve the cross. The forces of secularism vow to fight on.

Edward Whelan shows Justice Ginsburg’s extreme views, and says the Democrats shouldn’t have a double standard when they question John Roberts.

Dennis Prager “thanks” the Palestinians and the left for bringing the world suicide bombings.

David Limbaugh says “Let Judge Roberts answer the questions”

Thomas Sowell on “Judge’s Views”:

The idea that conservative judges will vote for conservative policies and liberal judges for liberal policies is the antithesis of what a judge is supposed to do. While some judges in fact vote largely on the basis of their own ideology or policy preferences, that is neither what they are supposed to do nor what all judges have done.

All that and more recent opinion is linked ever on the AFJ Home Page. Check it out.

And for lots more good stuff, check out the Mudville Gazette’s Dawn Patrol, every day.

And a note, via ConfirmThem, that the Democrats have a double standard when it comes to judicial philosophy and respect for precedents.

Update: Todd Zywicki at The Volokh Conspiracy discusses the question of overturning Roe as a precedent.

Via Michelle Malkin, the AP reports:

Actress and activist Jane Fonda says she intends to take a cross-country bus tour to call for an end to U.S. military operations in Iraq.

“I can’t go into any detail except to say that it’s going to be pretty exciting,” she said.

Fonda said her anti-war tour in March will use a bus that runs on “vegetable oil.” She will be joined by families of Iraq war veterans and her daughter.

They plan to return to the Santa Fe area, where she was promoting her book, “My Life So Far” on Saturday.

Prompted by a question from the audience, Fonda said war veterans that she has met on a nationwide book tour have encouraged her to break her silence on the Iraq war.

“I’ve decided I’m coming out,” she said.

A shocking development. The war is over now folks. Imagine the multitudes of veterans who not only support Jane Fonda, but showed up at her book signings and demanded she break her silence. The line must’ve been out the door.

La Shawn Barber has a challenge for Fonda.

Via Yahoo News:

CAIRO, Egypt – A series of explosions, including at least four car bombs, struck the Red Sea resort of Sham el-Sheik early Saturday, hitting several hotels packed with European and Egyptian tourists and killing at least 45 people in the deadliest attack in Egypt in nearly a decade.

This terrible attack, like the recent bombings in London, was obviously provoked by Egypt’s invasion of Iraq… Oh, wait, never mind.

It must be Karl Rove’s fault then.

Michelle malkin has a roundup here.

Mario Cuomo writes today in USA Today:

Most political analysts believe that President Bush, by nominating Judge John Roberts, seeks to put on the Supreme Court a justice who will help achieve significant changes in laws through judicial decisions that the political branches of our government have failed to deliver. That would include limitations on abortion and the separation of church and state.

We don’t know what planet Cuomo has been living on, but here in America, the political branches of our government have not failed to deliver, they’ve been prohibited from delivering because of activist judges liberals like Cuomo support. Democratic legislative bodies have been prevented from considering almost any limitations on abortion. Democratic legislative bodies have been prohibited from addressing where the lines between religion and government should be drawn. All because people like Cuomo want unelected judges, rather than elected legislators, to make such decisions.

Cuomo continues his walk through Bizarro world:

The genius of the Constitution includes its guarantee of all our most basic rights even if a majority of voters is tempted to deny them. That’s why more than a year after the Constitution was enacted, in 1787, the Convention of the States added the Bill of Rights, insisting that no matter how large a majority had elected them, no president or Congress could impair a citizen’s right to be religious or to speak freely even against the government, or to peacefully assemble or to petition the government, or in any other way deny the enumerated rights that belong to even the slimmest minority of us.

….

Despite that history, in his first few years, President Bush appeared to go out of his way to select federal court candidates who favor ending or curtailing abortion rights, and support other political objectives that have not been accomplished by the political branches of government but might yet be done by the judiciary.

After mentioning our “enumerated rights” Cuomo seamlessly jumps to consideration of a “right” that is not enumerated anywhere in the Constitution: abortion. Then he drops in an absolute falsehood – that a court decision overturning Roe vs. Wade would result in “ending or curtailing abortion rights.” That is untrue. If the Supreme Court overturns Roe, the regulation of abortion will return to the demcoratic process, through our legislative bodies. Overturning Roe would not require any legislative body to restrict abortion in any way.

He has things exactly backwards. It is liberals like Cuomo who, because they cannot accomplish their policy aims via the democratic process, use the courts to force them through instead. The most recent glaring proof of this is the fight over same-sex “marriage”. Everywhere redefining marriage has been considered democratically, whether by legislatures or by initiative, it has been soundly rejected by the people of this country. It has only succeeded in liberal Massachusetts, by judicial fiat.

The only remaining question is whether Cuomo is being entirely disingenuous or if he really believes any of the nonsense he wrote.

Update: Rick at Stones Cry Out notes another example of a liberal attempting to invert reality to snow the public. Creating law out of thin air leads to “settled law”, and it would be “activist” to return to the actual written words of the Constitution. Up is down, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, and those on the left are now the strict constructionists who want to keep politics out of the courts. Unbelievable.

The role of the courts in a nutshell, from Charmaine Yoest, yesterday on NRO:

How much further do we want to solidify the idea in the popular consciousness that the Supreme Court is some sort of super legislature? Once while appearing as a panelist on Politically Incorrect, we got into a debate about a legal issue, and one of the Hollywood guests blurted out angrily: “But the Supreme Court is supposed to represent us!”

Well, no, actually, that would be Congress. This is the problem; we seem to have a fundamental confusion about what it is the various branches of government are supposed to do. Senators, congressman “” the people who get elected every few years, and have to be accountable to their constituents “” they are the ones who represent the people. Judges on the Supreme Court “” the ones with lifetime tenure “” they are the ones who are supposed to interpret the Constitution.

And from NRO’s Editors today:

Our own view is that the chief qualification for a justice is a commitment to the rule of law. The rule of law entails predictable, because rule-bound, judicial decisions. It entails respect for the intentions of the sovereign people who ratified the Constitution and who ratified the amendments to it: If what they ratified needs to be changed, change should occur through a lawful process of amendment rather than judicial revision. It entails some respect for precedent, but does not confuse the stability of the Court’s jurisprudence with fidelity to the Constitution.

Too often the debate over the judiciary turns into a fight over whether abortion should remain legal. Conservatives too often allow the discussion to get framed that way. But whether abortion should be legal or illegal is a separate issue from the proper role of the courts. In fact, if Roe v. Wade is overturned, it is likely that abortion would remain legal in most places just as it is today.

The central question is how issues such as the regulation of abortion, the definition of marriage, etc., are decided in a democratic society. Liberals have been touting recent polls that show a strong majority of Americans oppose overturning Roe. But those who tout such polls merely demonstrate their ignorance of the proper role of the courts. As Charmaine Yoest said above, the courts are not meant to be a representative body, that’s what legislative bodies are for.

The nomination of John Roberts to be a new justice of the Supreme Court is an opportunity to educate the American people about the proper role of the courts, and not simply to make the whole argument over one’s views on the abortion issue.

President Bush today on the PATRIOT Act (via The Corner):

I want you to hear what Senator Dianne Feinstein, of California, said the other day. She said, “We have scrubbed the area and have no reported abuses.” She was speaking about the Patriot Act. I want you to remember that the next time you hear someone make an unfair criticism of this important, good law. The Patriot Act hasn’t diminished American liberties; it has helped to defend American liberties. Over the past three-and-a-half years, our law enforcement and intelligence personnel have put the Patriot Act to effective use. In other words, it’s working, because we’ve got good people using the tools within the Patriot Act. They’ve used the law to break up terrorist cells in New York and Oregon and Virginia and Florida. We prosecuted terrorist operatives and supporters from California to Texas and New Jersey to Illinois, North Carolina and Ohio. In other words, we’re making progress. It’s one thing to have the tools; it’s another thing to use them effectively within the guidelines of the United States Constitution. The Patriot Act has accomplished exactly what it was designed to do. The problem is, at the end of this year 16 critical provisions of the Patriot Act are scheduled to expire. All 16 provisions are practical, effective and constitutional, and they are vital to defending our freedom. This week, the House of Representatives will vote on legislation to renew the Patriot Act. As we saw in London, the terrorists are still active and they are still plotting to take innocent life. So my message to the Congress is clear: This is no time to let our guard down, and no time to roll back good laws. The Patriot Act is expected to expire, but the terrorist threats will not expire. I expect, and the American people expect, the United States Congress and the United States Senate to renew the Patriot Act, without weakening our ability to fight terror, and they need to get that bill to my desk soon.

The entire speech is here.