ABC News reports that Edith Clement received a phone call from the White House saying that she would not be the Presidentâ€™s nominee. Hereâ€™s the link to the story.
I wonâ€™t pretend that I know who the Presidentâ€™s nominee will be to the Supreme Court. But I have been following the educated guesses of the pundits in the press. The scuttlebutt is that Bush will nominate a woman who is an originalist. Among those who might fit that description and who are likely candidates:
Edith Brown Clement
Janice Rogers Brown
Mary Anne Glendon
Lillian R. BeVier
John S. Shannon
Maura D. Corrigan
Justin Taylor has links to profiles of some of the ones on this list.
Be sure to tune in tonight at 9pm Eastern time (8pm Central) to hear President Bushâ€™s announcement of his nominee to the Supreme Court.
Buckle your seatbelts, this will be the political ride of 2005. Get set for the battle royal that will make Election 2004 look like childâ€™s play. Let the games begin!
â€œEverybody knows this is about what Watergate was about and Iran-Contra was about: bringing down a Republican president the left could not defeat at the ballot boxâ€ (source).
We have come full circle. This is precisely what the Democrats accused the Republicans of doing when Bill Clinton was impeached. Go figure.
Time magazine reporter, Matt Cooper on “Meet the Press,” July 17, 2004
Now Time magazineâ€™s Matt Cooper is outing Karl Rove as his source on the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame. In an article in the most recent issue of Time, â€œWhat I Told The Grand Jury,â€ Matt Cooper reports the following: â€œSo did Rove leak Plame’s name to me, or tell me she was covert? No. Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him? Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the ‘agency’ on ‘WMD’? Yesâ€ (source).
Whether Matt Cooperâ€™s testimony will lead to an indictment of Karl Rove remains to be seen. One thing, however, does seem to be clear at this point. Time magazine seems to have arrived at the conclusion that Rove is guilty. Not only do the articles in the current issue point in this direction, but Timeâ€™s cooperation with the investigation and their reporterâ€™s public airing of the whole matter on â€œMeet the Pressâ€ leave little doubt as to where they stand.
So much for impartial media coverage.
This is unbelievable. I wish this were a joke, but I think itâ€™s not. Go to the following web page and watch the streaming video titled â€œMrs. Benny Hinn’s moment of zen.â€ You will be tempted to laugh, but it is probably more appropriate to cry.
(HT: Justin Taylor).
The Drudge Report has a hilarious story about a recent MOVEON.ORG house party. Itâ€™s titled â€œInside a MoveOn Supreme Court House Party.â€ If you have a few minutes, donâ€™t pass this one up. Itâ€™s a gem.
Partisan hacks on the left would love to see Karl Rove, the â€œarchitectâ€ of President Bushâ€™s 2004 electoral triumph, take the fall for outing Valerie Plame as an undercover CIA operative. The investigation into who leaked what and when to which reporter has already landed The New York Timeâ€™s Judith Miller in jail for not giving up her source.
Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper also would have been jailed had not Karl Rove given him permission to name him as his source. Newsweekâ€™s Michael Isikoff reports today on the e-mails that reveal the conversations that took place between Rove and Cooper. Isikoffâ€™s conclusion is this: â€œNothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame’s name or knew she was a covert operativeâ€ (source).
Is the witch hunt over yet? Far from it. Rove is too juicy a target, and it is likely that weâ€™ll hear the left carping about his role in the leak no matter what the investigation turns up. I donâ€™t know where the investigation will end, but I think itâ€™s interesting that so many left-leaning pundits do.
Hat tip to Justin Taylor for bringing our attention to Tim Challiesâ€™ summary of Jim Ellif’s article: Southern Baptists: An Unregenerate Denomination. Challiesâ€™ summary and Ellifâ€™s article deal with the widely known fact that the membership roles of Southern Baptist churches are woefully inflated. Many Southern Baptists have simply grown accustomed to the fact that only about 37% of the names listed on their churchâ€™s role actually shows up regularly for worship.
This statistic reveals how far Baptists have drifted from their tradition as Baptists. Historically, Baptists have been a people who adhere to a regenerate church membership. That is, we believe that the only people who are allowed to be members of the church are those who profess and practice faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Eliffâ€™s statistic shows that about 63% of Southern Baptist church members do not in fact practice their faith by attending regular worship services.
Earlier this week, I listened to an interview with Paige Patterson in which he talked about how a pastor can get a church to practice church discipline when that church has never done so before. This can be an extremely difficult move for a pastor, but Patterson suggested that, after preaching about the meaning of membership, a pastor could begin by pursuing non-attending members. If the non-attending members either cannot be found or do not want to return to the fold, then they should be removed from the church membership roles. This is Pattersonâ€™s advice, and I agree that it is a good place to start.
There is much more to be said on this, and I refer the interested reader to the 9Marks website for resources on and teaching about church discipline within a Baptist context.
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor at his swearing-in ceremony at the Justice Department in February. -Doug Mills/The New York Times
The New York Times and the Washington Post report this morning that conservatives are rallying against the possible appointment of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to the Supreme Court to replace Sandra Day Oâ€™Connor. This is good news, and no doubt the president will get the message.