Professionals don’t hide their biases.

August 22, 2006

According to Judicial Watch (Hat Tip: CQ) Judge Taylor was a major player in an organization which donated 45,000 to the plaintiff in the case. Now I understand that judges can’t be removed for having ideological views, but for some reason we say that jurors can’t. Lawyers don’t even have to spend one of their precious challenges to remove a juror who donated to the NRA in a gun case or to the KKK in a hate-crimes case. If you think opinions aren’t allowed in cases then be consistent. Get judges who don’t follow the news at all and only allow them to serve. Judge Taylor was not ethically over the line. In fact, she only revealed herself to generally agree with the ACLU a fact which was made obvious by her decision. A similar distinction seems to be made with journalists and bloggers. News from the internet is denounced as biased and unprofessional while the journalists who are overwhelmingly Democrats are as pure as the newly fallen snow. I have recently been looking at the Amar and Hirsch book on the Constitution. Although I disagree with most of the analysis, their section on the jury seems dead-on; except for some extreme bias (relative of party) unrelated to the issues no jury member should be kept off for any reason and especially they shouldn’t be kept off for no reason or because they belong to the wrong demographic.

Advertisements

Are we more secure now?

August 13, 2006

According to most Democrats we apparently are not more safe. The proof they give is that these terrorists were within a few days of bombing these planes. Of course it doesn’t seem politic for the Republicans to argue and say that it really wasn’t that close. The picture presented is of a terrorist cell which is found out and busted within a few days just in the ‘tada’ nick of time. The reality is far different. Pretty soon after the London train bombings the police got a tip from a Muslim (reason #538 why this shouldn’t become a war on Islam) who wanted to save lives. The intelligence in Britain knew about this plot for a long time and tried to get more connections. The chances for this plan to suceed were at zero for a whole year. They decided that they had got as much of the group of conspirators as possible. To put it in another way, if they had tried this plan a month earlier they still would have failed. This strikes me as an intelligence sucess rather than a failure. It also demonstrates that terror can only be stopped by proactive action. Any terrorist can kill around ten people if we just wait for them to attack. Killing the money and the leaders swiftly and efficiently is the only way we can win.

The New York Times would no doubt disapprove about the surveillance which caught the plot, but it seems that they have lied about far more than the President about the U.S. wiretapping as Captain’s Quarters reports. It seems that they were ready to run this story right before the election as 2004’s DUI story. However, the New York Times wasn’t stupid enough to think that this wouldn’t help Bush at the polls tremendously.

As to the issue of security I would say that the answer is a definitive yes. Their hasn’t been a major attack on American soil since 9/11 and the terrorists are caught in a killing field in Iraq.