…into appropriate smithereens, by giving us a laundry list of reasons why most of it sucks, for me, you, and pretty much everyone but the energy, oil and gas companies. (Surprise!!!) Today’s Grist sums it up, and leads you directly to a bunch of ultra-cred sources, but in the meantime, here are a few of their more meaningful passages, just to get you going. (And yes, the highlights are mine.)

According to a report not released Wednesday by the U.S. EPA, loopholes in U.S. fuel-economy standards let automakers produce cars and trucks much less fuel-efficient than models 20 years ago. On Tuesday, the same day the long-debated energy bill emerged from congressional negotiations, EPA opted to keep the report to itself for another week. An agency spokesflack says it’s being reviewed for clarity and thoroughness, but some think the delay has a peculiar smell. Says the Sierra Club’s Daniel Becker, “Something’s fishy when the Bush administration delays a report showing no improvement in fuel economy until after passage of their energy bill, which fails to improve fuel economy.”

And who would believe, at this point, that Tom Delay is still doing dirty little things in dirty little backrooms? Not only Polianna, but Grist would:

Highly profitable dirty-power industries may be treated to even fatter bottom lines thanks to the energy bill that emerged this week from congressional conference committee. It would dedicate more than $8.5 billion in tax breaks over the next 10 years to oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear power, and electric utilities. Nukes alone would get $1.5 billion in direct subsidies, $2 billion in “risk insurance,” and loan guarantees for future new reactor construction. Says a nuke industry spokesflack, “This is a great bill.” After the bill was out of committee, Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) snuck in another lump o’ pork: a $1.5 billion fund designed to funnel taxpayer money to oil and gas companies, with some $1 billion of the fund to be administered by a private consortium composed largely of – you guessed it – oil and gas companies. Coincidentally (ahem), the likely consortium is based in DeLay’s home district in Sugar Land, Texas.

In an article at Yahoo News, which helps us visualize the feeding frenzy that the finishing touches on the bill apparently were, we find this gorgeous quote: “Lawmakers let go any financial inhibitions and started spending like a bunch of drunken sailors,” said Jill Lancelot, president of the watchdog organization Taxpayers for Common Sense. “This energy bill is filled to the brim with massive giveaways for mega-rich energy companies.”

The Apollo Alliance people (who rock) and other major enviro-orgs are trying to kick some ass on this. Apollo Alliance says they are heading up “…an effort to line up broad political support across constituencies by building coalitions of labor, environmentalists, urban leaders and business to help move state and urban agendas,” and they’ve already got great examples of how this approach is working in Pennsylvania and Washington. Also yesterday, nearly our entire pantheon of enviro-giants got together and wrote Congress a smart, succinct, in-your-face letter, neatly charting all the reasons this bill is just wrong, wrong, wrong. Check it all out here, and then come on back to our blog page and see what else is on the EPA’s mind these days. (Hint: unfortunately, it’s not cleaning up the environment. )

I think it’s obvious that the administration rushed the Roberts nomination to obfuscate the Rove/Plame scandal in the media (or at least factored this into the timing). Amidst all of this, I almost forgot about Tom DeLay. Hell, with the media spotlight distracted, he must be happier than a fox in a henhouse…

This just in from ThinkProgress (via TPM):

DeLay Still Up To Dirty Tricks

Tom DeLay thinks the federal treasury is his personal piggy bank. DeLay slipped “a $1.5 billion giveaway to the oil industry, Halliburton, and Sugar Land, Texas” into the energy bill.

But this isn’t a normal case of government pork. DeLay has completely dispensed with the democratic process. From a letter Rep. Henry Waxman just sent Speaker Dennis Hastert:

The provision was inserted into the energy legislation after the conference was closed, so members of the conference committee had no opportunity to consider or reject this measure.

The $1.5 billion won’t be administered by the government by a private consortium in DeLay’s district:

The subtitle appears to steer the administration of 75% of the $1.5 billion fund to a private consortium located in the district of Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Ordinarily, a large fund like this would be administered directly by the government.

Hastert and DeLay need to explain themselves immediately. No member of Congress who takes taxpayer dollars seriously should vote for the energy bill until this matter is resolved.

In this period of tense positioning before John Roberts’ confirmation hearings, the most critical point of debate is what questions senators will or will not be able to demand Roberts to answer. In his 2003 hearings before being appointed to the D.C. Circuit, Roberts proved a master of the dodge:

Thank you, Senator, and I appreciate the opportunity to address the question again. I want to be responsive, but at the same time, I think it is important that I avoid doing anything that is going to be harmful to the Federal courts as an institution. I did get a copy of Professor Gillers’ letter [that the question didn’t violate judicial ethics] just before the start of the hearing and looked at it, and I think it is important you said that other [Republican] Senators have asked these kinds of questions. One of the things I did in preparing for this hearing was go back and look at Justice Ginsburg’s hearings. And she on numerous occasions said it would not be proper for her to comment on particular Supreme Court precedents. She was asked by Senators on both sides of the aisle, and she said she was religiously adhering to that guidance because she thought it would be harmful to the Supreme Court for nominees to answer those kinds of questions. Now, let me just explain briefly why I answered–

Senator SCHUMER. Give me an example of one of the questions that she refused to answer. Are they similar to these or were they more specific?

Mr. ROBERTS. They were more specific in that they identified particular cases.

Senator SCHUMER. Exactly.

Mr. ROBERTS. I don’t see a principled distinction. It seemed to me if you are able to say I disagree with this binding Supreme Court precedent and here is why, I don’t see how that would prevent anybody from then saying, all right, well, what about this one? And you are going to have your list of ten cases you want to know about, and Chairman Hatch is going to have his list of ten cases. And the reason Justice Ginsburg gave for—I don’t know about technically whether it violates an ethical standard or not, but the reason that she thought it was inappropriate to answer that question is because it is an effort to obtain a forecast or a hint about how a judge will rule on a particular case.

And so on. This line of questioning about questioning continued for some time, with the dodges becoming more and more complex, until Orrin Hatch (R-UT), then judiciary chair, had to intervene:

Now, look, I have a lot of respect for Senator Schumer. We are good friends. He is a smart lawyer. He is very sincere. He comes to these meetings and he asks questions. Most of them, I believe, are very intelligent questions. Some, I totally disagree with. Some, I think, are dumb-ass questions, between you and me. I am not kidding you.
[Laughter.]
Chairman HATCH. I mean, as much as I love and respect you, I just think that is true.

Senator SCHUMER. Would the Senator like to revise and extend his remarks?

Chairman HATCH. No. I am going to keep it exactly the way it is. I mean, I hate to say it. I feel badly saying it, between you and me, but I do know dumb-ass questions when I see dumb-ass questions.
[Laughter.]

The question that all the questioning was about, by the way, was to “identify three Supreme Court cases of which you are critical” and that haven’t been reversed. Roberts’ written response was that answering such a question would be an effort “to find out how [he] would decide a particular case.”

But that’s not right. Of course the entire process is to try to get a sense of how a judge would decide future cases in general — by whatever metric you prefer — but there are no particular cases involved. An example of a particular case would be one that’s floating around in lower courts, involving real plaintiffs, defendants, facts, etc. The particular case of, for example, Roe is ancient history. The Constitutional principles established in it are not, and they are certainly fair and vital topics of questioning.

And it’s interesting that Roberts, whose stark and professional vapidity in the 2003 hearings had him leading senators down the rabbit hole of what is a question, what kinds of questions can be asked, etc. — it’s interesting that his example was Justice Ginsburg.

As the National Women’s Law Center reports, Ginsburg actually answered a hell of a lot. (Via ACS Blog.)

Here’s Justice Ginsburg’s response to then-Senator Hank Brown’s question about the constitutional underpinnings of the right to choose:

“[Y]ou asked me about my thinking about equal protection versus individual autonomy, and my answer to you is it is both. This is something central to a woman’s life, to her dignity. It is a decision that she must make for herself. And when government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices.”

And here’s her answer to a question by Senator Leahy about whether there’s a constitutional right to privacy:

“There is a constitutional right to privacy which consists I think of at least two distinguishable parts. One is the privacy expressed most vividly in the Fourth Amendment, that is the government shall not break into my home or my office, without a warrant, based on probable cause, the government shall leave me alone. The other is the notion of personal autonomy, the government shall not make my decisions for me, I shall make, as an individual, uninhibited, uncontrolled by my government, the decisions that affect my life’s course.”

Indeed, the Judiciary Committee’s report on the Ginsburg nomination concluded that “the committee knows far more about Judge Ginsburg’s views on reproductive rights than it has known about any previous nominee’s. Judge Ginsburg’s record and testimony suggest both a broad commitment to reproductive freedoms and a deep appreciation of the equality and autonomy values underlying them.”

Roberts has said he again intends to study previous confirmation hearings before answering senators’ written questions — we encourage him to revisit the Ginsburg hearing and try to at least match her level of candor and honesty.

The Bush administration has finally found an environmental problem it recognizes and is committed to correcting—public relations. The New York Times reported last week that “The Office of Research and Development at the Environmental Protection Agency is seeking outside public relations consultants, to be paid up to $5 million over five years, to polish its Web site, organize focus groups on how to buff the office’s image and ghostwrite articles ‘for publication in scholarly journals and magazines.’” So apparently, the Bush administration thinks the problem with its environmental record is public misconception, not, say, its fondness for arsenic in drinking water.

According to the Times:

Three similar contracts – one of which was abandoned, the agency said – and the broader $5 million proposal were provided to The New York Times by the environmental group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. Its director, Jeff Ruch, said he had received them from an agency employee who believed that research money was being inappropriately diverted to a public relations campaign.

“The idea that they would take limited science dollars and spend them on P.R. is not only ill advised, it’s just plain stupid,” Mr. Ruch said in an interview.

Given the President’s penchant for delaying action on topics like global warming, by citing the need for further study, this allocation of resources seems especially ironic. More ironic still is that these contracts were signed after the disclosure that the Administration was paying columnists for articles touting its policies—and after President Bush, in January, publicly renounced the habit. On the positive side, though, Armstrong Williams’ company should be back in business shortly.

File under media love affair with Roberts: a strange comparison from the Moonie Times:

Judge Roberts’ wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, also is an attorney. From 1995 to 1999, she was an executive vice president for Feminists for Life, a 33-year-old pro-life group based in the District. She still serves as legal counsel for the FFL board.

“She’s a brilliant attorney and we’re very proud of her service to Feminists for Life,” FFL President Serrin Foster said. “She’s smart. There’s a very Kennedyesque feeling when you look at them and their kids.”

I wonder if that’s a backhanded compliment or what. Via Volokh.

There are certainly a few things in John Roberts short career as a judge to be concerned about — notably the notion, advanced in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, that the president or his deputies can abscond with someone (a U.S. citizen, perhaps) and put him or her before a special military kangaroo court; and the kind of Constitution-in-Exile “libertarian” view in his opinion to “reconsider” something as settled as the Endangered Species Act. We’ll certainly be writing about those soon.

But the dictatorial executive and the broken-arm legislature are not ideas that get the “base” — the vocal one — excited. No, your Perkinses and Dobsons are obsessed with one issue, abortion, plus a few hors d’oeuvre like gays, church-and-state, etc., and they believe Bush made a pact with them to nominate someone who would overturn Roe and allow the institution of their Moralist state.

And they seem pretty happy.

Roberts has shown strong conservative credentials with indications that he will not uphold Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that decriminalized abortion. Roberts coauthored a 1990 legal brief that stated, “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.”
– Operation Rescue

It seems to us that a justice who will not use his power to redefine traditional marriage, strike under God from the Pledge of Allegiance, and undermine private property rights is well within the mainstream of American public opinion and legal thought.
– C. Boydon Gray, Committee for Justice

The nomination of Judge John G. Roberts is an answer to the prayers of millions of Americans.
– Rev. Rob Schenck, National Clergy Council

We are believing that President Bush kept his campaign promise today when he nominated John Roberts to the Supreme Court. We are trusting that Judge Roberts is in the mold of Supreme Court justices who President Bush promised to appoint to the Supreme Court: such as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
– Roberta Combs, Christian Coalition

That’s exactly the kind of judge I want to appear before when I bring my case to the Supreme Court for the third time later this year. … I don’t just have a personal interest in this nomination. John C. Roberts would help to stem the tide of judicial activism that has brought ruin to our country. I encourage all advocates for life to strongly support his nomination.
– Joe Scheidler, Pro-Life Action League

President Bush is to be commended for keeping his promise to the American people by selecting such an impartial, accomplished jurist to fill this crucial seat on the high court.
– James Dobson, Focus on the Family

It’s true that Roberts hasn’t ruled on abortion in his short time as D.C. Circuit judge. But while Deputy Solicitor General under the first Bush, he had quite a bit to say while arguing in front of the Supreme Court. In his brief on behalf of the government’s gag-rule against clinic doctors mentioning family planning, Roberts wrote: “We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled … . [T]he Court’s conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion … find[s] no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution.”

As many point out, including Roberts himself in his recent circuit-court confirmation hearing, he was in some sense arguing on behalf of a “client.” Certainly this should give us caution in rushing to judgment — and liberals have been a little too cautious so far — but for two things. First, this is no ordinary “client” — as Robert Bork has pointed out regarding his time in that office, “A government attorney is sworn to uphold the Constitution.” Second, the case being argued did not directly consider Roe itself — it was about whether doctors receiving federal funds could talk about abortion at all. If you’re trying to convince the Court that this gag rule is consistent with Roe, why would you undermine that logic by presupposing Roe is wrong?

The right wing has certainly made clear that John Roberts fits their bill. I think we can safely agree that he’s their man.

After years of predictable responses in presidential debates, we all know by now that “litmus tests” for judicial nominees are verboten. At the same time, we all know both parties look at several factors to gauge how a nominee would judge on hot issues.

But perhaps we didn’t know that such questioning amounts to “religious discrimination.” As Ray Flynn, former mayor of Boston and Clinton’s ambassador to the Vatican, now current spokesman for Schiavo group Catholics for the Common Good, warns:

It is time for Catholics to get ready to fight de facto religious discrimination during the upcoming Supreme Court confirmation proceedings. An abortion litmus test, called for by some Senate leaders and special interest groups, would leave faithful Catholics out. Catholics for the Common Good and I are launching a national campaign to educate Catholics and ask them to prepare to mobilize if religious discrimination rears its ugly head.

Of course, things rings a little hollow. As we wrote this week, the religious right has been preemptively piling on Alberto Gonzales — a loyal conservative apparatchik — for allegedly being soft on abortion, or rather not having already proven himself to be the kind of person who would vote down Roe.

As is always obvious when somebody decries “litmus tests,” he really does want a “litmus test,” as long as it fits his definition of “commitment to apply the Constitution as written.”

The press release continues:

“A number of faithful Catholics and other Christians already have been openly opposed in the confirmation process for their ‘deeply held religious beliefs’ including people like William Pryor, Leon Holmes, Carolyn Kuhl, and Henry Saad.” added CCG member and San Francisco attorney, Penny Preovolos. “Nominees should be considered on their qualifications and their commitment to apply the Constitution as written”
…
“Catholics for the Common Good is calling on Senators to respect the Constitution, which states, ‘no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States,’” said [CCG Chairman Bill] May. “Stop demanding an abortion litmus test on judicial nominees which is de facto religious discrimination and would exclude people faithful to the doctrine of their churches.”

That’s the rub, isn’t it — we all want to know how the nominee will “apply the Constitution as written.” Most Americans, for example, want to keep Roe, meaning they think applying “the Constitution as written” includes at least some personal autonomy for women. Whereas Ambassador Flynn would “apply” such rights away.

It’s certainly creative, though, to call this a “religious test” or “de facto religious discrimination.” That innovative argument-ender is the natural result of combining religion, politics, judicial philosophy, etc. into one — the Party of God is inarguable.

We aren’t the only ones to catch the Rehnquist retirement rumor mill bug. Flip Benham of “Operation Save America” just put out a press release entitled “The Republican Fix is On” [sic]:

Note well that to the surprise of all, Sandra Day O’Connor was the first to retire from the Supreme Court. In truth her retirement was a well-choreographed maneuver. It tested the waters to find out how the conservative base would react to the nomination of Alberto R. Gonzales. The reaction was not good. But, with the retirement of William Rehnquist, the way is now paved for Alberto Gonzales to be nominated by President Bush to fill one of the vacancies on the Supreme Court.

Pretty Slick! President Bush is now able to appease both sides of the aisle. This is what he did so well as governor of Texas. He appeases his conservative base by giving it a strong conservative voice (strict constructionist) to replace Rehnquist, while placating the Democrats by giving them Alberto R. Gonzales.
…
Sure the Democrats will howl ‘foul’ over any nomination the President places before them. That’s what they do best. But all that howling will be tongue in cheek. For they know they will have preserved the Supreme Court of the United States of America to continue promoting abortion, homosexuality, and removing every vestige of Christianity from the public arena.

Reminiscent isn’t it, of what Senator Minority Leader Reid did when he snatched victory out of the jaws of defeat by backing down the Republican majority over the filibuster fiasco? He howled before the cameras at how much the Democrats had given up to maintain the collegiality and integrity of the Senate and then laughed all the way to his home in the pit of hell.

When will we Christians learn that we cannot depend upon Republicans to fight our Lord’s battles!

Let’s make this absolutely clear. Gonzales is unacceptable. We’ll have more on this later, but briefly: Our objection to him stems from his track record in the Texas death-penalty mill, his memos on torture and the dictatorial president, and the resultant disgrace in Guantanamo, Bagram, Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. Right wingers’ objection is an offhand comment on stare decesis — and the notion that he somehow hasn’t yet proven his ideologue credentials.

From Kos:

The big DC rumor is that Rehnquist will announce his retirement tomorrow between 10-11 a.m. ET.

If that happens, would Bush split the difference – Gonzales and some winger to pacify the Dobson brigades?

Gonzales being liberal is bunk and red herring. They’ll use that to claim moderation and compromise, and then they’ll get an arch-conservative, and another nominee to his right confirmed. Any bets on the fillibuster/nuclear option showdown?

We’re still in the long weekend of Sandra Day O’Conner’s retirement, and already the so-called compromise is dead, according to some eager reporters.

In the Washington Post, Charles Babbington and Susan Schmidt write that Democrats are “in a bind":

Democrats’ hopes of blocking a staunchly conservative Supreme Court nominee on ideological grounds could be seriously undermined by the six-week-old bipartisan deal on judicial nominees, key senators said yesterday. …

The pact, signed by seven Democrats and seven Republicans, says a judicial nominee will be filibustered only under “extraordinary circumstances.” Key members of the group said yesterday that a nominee’s philosophical views cannot amount to “extraordinary circumstances” and that therefore a filibuster can be justified only on questions of personal ethics or character. …

Yesterday, key players suggested the seven Democrats will automatically be in default if they contend a nominee’s ideological views constitute “extraordinary circumstances” that would justify a filibuster.

And so on. Aren’t you curious who these “key senators/ members/ players” are? These mysterious “members” aren’t revealed until paragraph seven of the article. There are two named, and they are no surprise: Lindsey Graham (R-SC), the Gingrich conservative wheeler-dealer extraordinaire, and Ben Nelson (D-NE), pathetically trying to keep his seat in ‘06.

“Based on what we’ve done in the past with Brown, Pryor and Owen,” Graham said, “ideological attacks are not an ‘extraordinary circumstance.’ To me, it would have to be a character problem, an ethics problem, some allegation about the qualifications of the person, not an ideological bent.”

Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.), a leader of the seven Democratic signers, largely concurred. Nelson “would agree that ideology is not an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ unless you get to the extreme of either side,” his spokesman, David DiMartino, said in an interview.

Graham’s statement is no surprise — the “compromise” gave a pass to those three extremists (although it rejected two others—go figure!), opening the door to someone suggesting that those three constitute the gold standard. All it takes to establish that dubious claim are two intrepid reporters.

As for Nelson — although I have no confidence in his courage in this matter, it appears that his statement is not the same at all. It’s not “extraordinary,” he says, unless it’s “extreme.” We’re back where we started.

And now for a little math lesson. Forty-five senators attend the Democratic caucus, and there are 55 Republicans. In order to defeat a filibuster, Republicans need 60 votes — i.e., 5 Democrats. Ben Nelson makes 1 Democrat, so they’re still four short. In order to sieze control by fiat using the nuclear option, Republicans need 50 votes and control of the capitol police. Since seven Republicans signed on to the anti-nuclear “compromise,” Bill Frist needs two of them plus all the others. Graham makes one, so they’re still one short — and there are some non-"Gang of 14″ Republicans who are wary of that tactic (such as Arlen Specter). (Just to clarify, Ben Nelson might indeed vote to end a filibuster — but he wouldn’t go for the nuclear option.) So these “key players” aren’t so key after all.

Another interesting fact about this Post article: While these eager reporters go into great depth about what Republicans say “extraordinary circumstances” are, they never mention the second part of the deal — that the president needs to consult with the senate on his selection. An example of consultation by a president who wasn’t looking for a fight would be the way Clinton treated Orrin Hatch, then ranking minority member of Judiciary. (See this account from Hatch’s autobiography, via ThinkProgress.)

That was the front page of the Washington Post. The conservative rag Washington Times has this to say:

Senate Democrats said yesterday that they will demand to know the political views of any nominee President Bush names to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

“I think the number one thing that I am interested in are the nominee’s views,” Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat and Senate Judiciary Committee member, said yesterday on ABC’s “This Week.”

Such questions will ensure acrimonious confirmation hearings and conservatives have long argued that such questions – political “litmus tests,” they call them – are improper and undermine the independence of the federal judiciary. …

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, defended his 1987 decision to attack then-federal Judge Robert H. Bork based on his political views, including the famous “Robert Bork’s America” speech on the Senate floor. And he said he would do the same thing if Mr. Bush sends an similarly conservative nominee to replace Justice O’Connor.

“When the president sent Robert Bork to the Senate Judiciary Committee for nomination … it was very clear that he was selected primarily because of his judicial philosophy,” Mr. Kennedy said on ABC. “They made it, really, an issue there, and it became the issue before the Judiciary Committee and the country.”

And so on. The trick here is to insert the word “political” every place you describe what Democrats are going to ask the nominee about. Maybe Ted Kennedy wants to know the recipe for muffins — in the parlance of the Moonie Times, those are political muffins! Outrage!

In reality, of course, the question is not about politics. I can guarantee you that whoever the nominee will be, he or she will be a Republican. The question is what they bring in to deciding cases — their judicial philosophy. It’s not about prejudging future cases, but about whether the nominee would rewrite settled law. Leave it to Republican Judiciary chair Arlen Specter to describe the difference (from the Post article):

Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) … on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” said: “I wouldn’t say, ‘Are you going to uphold Roe?’ But I would ask a nominee . . . ‘When you have a decision which has been in effect for decades, and people have come to rely upon it, what kind of circumstances, how extraordinary must they be’ ” to try to overturn it?

Since some of the president’s potential nominees are quite radical — meaning they subscribe to specific, absolutist view of how to interpret the Constitution, and they wouldn’t hesitate to, for example, strike down labor laws, Social Security, etc. as unconstitutional by their philosophy — it’s quite necessary to inquire about their precious philosophy. It could well determine the future of the country in dramatic ways.

In yesterday’s New York Times, Jeff Rosen explains a few of these diverse “conservativisms” and what to look for in a “conservative” nominee.

Returning to the Washington Times article, at least reporter Charles Hurt saw fit to mention consultation:

As far as consultation is concerned, Mr. Bush appears to be off on the right foot, according to Sen. Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.

“I’ve advised the president,” he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I won’t go into the details of the private conversation, but parts of things I’ve said publicly before: Get somebody who will unite the country, not divide the country.”

But on CNN yesterday, Judge Bork said that the president should not aim for political compromise.

“If Bush does that, he will, I think, have neglected his duty,” he said. “His duty is to find somebody who will make a fine judge, not someone who is a compromise candidate with Teddy Kennedy.”

That, along with quotes like this from the “base,” sums up the extent of Bush’s planned consultation: Listen, ignore.

Three eager-beaver reporters, in two conservative newspapers, in one desperate city. It’s going to be a long summer here.

Take a look at this taxpayer-funded sex ed material from Louisiana, courtesy of the
ACLU:

The condom’s biggest flaw is that those using it to prevent the conception of another human being are offending God. God intends that sexual intercourse should take place only between a man married to a woman. If people follow God’s plan for human sexuality there would be no problem with sexually transmitted diseases. Furthermore, each and every act of marital intercourse must be both unitive and open to procreation. Any action, including condom use, which has as its purpose to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil.

Should we be concerned about this? According to David Holman in the American Spectator (pictured here abstaining at the “Am Spec Pig Roast,") it’s no concern when our public schools tell teens that condoms will send them to hell. On the contrary, his beef is with those of us who advocate comprehensive education (as we did last week in our debunker on AIDS) — we are anti-abstinence:

A decade ago, Elders’s version of sex education embarrassed Bill Clinton enough that he had to show her the door. But now his ousted Surgeon General would make a fine spokeswoman for the anti-abstinence education movement, which is gaining speed, thanks to the ACLU, PBS, and the Playboy Foundation.

The ACLU last week launched a new website, Take Issue, Take Charge, urging local activists to promote “reproductive freedom” and oppose abstinence education. …

The recent excitement of anti-abstinence activists is likely the result of increased funding for abstinence education. …

In fact, groups like the ACLU do not oppose teaching children that abstaining from sex is a completely effective way to prevent both pregnancy and VD.

The problem is so-called abstinence-only education — i.e., don’t teach anything else, and often enough, actively discourage condom use and other safer-sex practices. Federal money is going toward censorship of vital education that works:

Currently, there are three federal programs dedicated to funding abstinence-only education. Each requires eligible programs to censor critical information that teens—who are or become sexually active—need to protect themselves from STIs and pregnancy.

To receive funds under any of the federal programs, grantees must offer curricula that have as their “exclusive purpose” teaching the benefits of abstinence. In addition, recipients of federal funds may not provide a participating adolescent with any information that is inconsistent with these and similar messages in the same setting as the abstinence program. Consequently, recipients of abstinence-only dollars may not advocate contraceptive use or teach contraceptive methods except to emphasize their failure rates.

So how did “pro-abstinence and pro-education” become “anti-abstinence"? As with the Ten Commandments and the alleged “hostility” toward Christianity, culture warriors recognize anything but total and exclusive submission to their positions as “hostility,” being “against.” They want courthouses and public schools to promote their views and reject all others. The way they talk, anything less is a loss for them — but as they gain more control over the branches of government, the real loser may be pluralistic democracy itself.