…who screamed at the “murder” of the noble Rachel Corrie, when something like this happens? Somehow, I don’t think that there will be any memorials set up for this and worshiped by the moonbats. Or protests of Caterpiller about it.

Kerry Country points out one of the potential effects of the SCOTUS ruling:

This has to be a godsend for towns and cities that have been stymied so far in their attempts to shut-down any businesses, corporations, or private groups of which they disapprove. Private gun ranges, airfields, RV tracts, hunting preserves, fishing resources, minority religious congregations, newspapers — all are now fair targets for seizure and closure “for the economic benefit of the people.”

I think they’re right. To hell with stare decisis (particularly in a 5-4 vote). This is a ruling that should be overturned, or at least narrowly restricted, as soon as we can replace at least one of the justices who voted in favor.

…yes, this decision is another blow to freedom, and property rights, and is another travesty by this court. At least Scalia voted the right way this time. This is one of the worst terms in my memory.

That’s a good thing, though as I recall, it wasn’t enough for Trent Lott.

More when I see an actual transcript of his lachrymose blatherings.

I will say, snarkily, that I assume that this apology is now (in the famous words of Ron Ziegler) inoperative?

[Update at 8 PM EDT]

OK, it’s a non-apology apology.

Here are the key words:

That’s a good thing, though as I recall, it wasn’t enough for Trent Lott.

More when I see an actual transcript of his lachrymose blatherings.

I will say, snarkily, that I assume that this apology is now (in the famous words of Ron Ziegler) inoperative?

[Update at 8 PM EDT]

OK, it’s a non-apology apology.

Here are the key words:

That’s a good thing, though as I recall, it wasn’t enough for Trent Lott.

More when I see an actual transcript of his lachrymose blatherings.

I will say, snarkily, that I assume that this apology is now (in the famous words of Ron Ziegler) inoperative?

[Update at 8 PM EDT]

OK, it’s a non-apology apology.

Here are the key words:

That’s what Andrew Sullivan says.

Let’s assume, just for the sake of the argument, that that’s the case. Why would we do that? What is the benefit, to the nation, or to the Bush administration, for failure in Iraq? Note, he didn’t say that the administration thought we didn’t need more troops, or that they did but that there were other reasons not to send them. No, the intent was to fail. Fully.

Is he now in Dick Durbin’s camp? Are we now just like Pol Pot…evil?

He’s been second in my blogroll for, literally, years. (Yes, yes, there’s a certain amount of inertia there, but still).

Is there any reason to take anything he writes seriously now? It will be fascinating to see if he responds to this, and apologizes (as Durbin should, but probably won’t). If he’ll say that he wasn’t thinking when he typed those words, and wants to clarify them, I’ll accept that. But if he meant it, I see no reason to even bother reading him any more. Or (more certainly) keep him at his current rank in my blogroll.

He’s jumped the Euphrates.

That’s what Andrew Sullivan says.

Let’s assume, just for the sake of the argument, that that’s the case. Why would we do that? What is the benefit, to the nation, or to the Bush administration, for failure in Iraq? Note, he didn’t say that the administration thought we didn’t need more troops, or that they did but that there were other reasons not to send them. No, the intent was to fail. Fully.

Is he now in Dick Durbin’s camp? Are we now just like Pol Pot…evil?

He’s been second in my blogroll for, literally, years. (Yes, yes, there’s a certain amount of inertia there, but still).

Is there any reason to take anything he writes seriously now? It will be fascinating to see if he responds to this, and apologizes (as Durbin should, but probably won’t). If he’ll say that he wasn’t thinking when he typed those words, and wants to clarify them, I’ll accept that. But if he meant it, I see no reason to even bother reading him any more. Or (more certainly) keep him at his current rank in my blogroll.

He’s jumped the Euphrates.

That’s what Andrew Sullivan says.

Let’s assume, just for the sake of the argument, that that’s the case. Why would we do that? What is the benefit, to the nation, or to the Bush administration, for failure in Iraq? Note, he didn’t say that the administration thought we didn’t need more troops, or that they did but that there were other reasons not to send them. No, the intent was to fail. Fully.

Is he now in Dick Durbin’s camp? Are we now just like Pol Pot…evil?

He’s been second in my blogroll for, literally, years. (Yes, yes, there’s a certain amount of inertia there, but still).

Is there any reason to take anything he writes seriously now? It will be fascinating to see if he responds to this, and apologizes (as Durbin should, but probably won’t). If he’ll say that he wasn’t thinking when he typed those words, and wants to clarify them, I’ll accept that. But if he meant it, I see no reason to even bother reading him any more. Or (more certainly) keep him at his current rank in my blogroll.

He’s jumped the Euphrates.

Bill Roggio has some good advice for Democrats who want to be taken more seriously on national security. Unfortunately for them (and for the prospect of a serious opposition to the Republicans), they’re probably constitutionally incapable of taking it right now. They’ll have to lose a few more elections first.