4th Circuit Court Moving to the Middle

Some of the US circuit courts have distinct ideological flavors; the 9th has always been the ultra-liberal court, and until recently the 4th has been a more conservative one (and one that often hears cases involved with detainees and the War on Terror). Unfortunately, as the Washington Post chronicles, that may soon change. Of the fifteen seats, Republicans and Democrats both hold five - and the remaining five are vacant. It should go without saying that this isn't a reassuring development, that while Bush has been slow to provide nominations for those vacancies, it's unlikely that a Democratic president will be so lax. It should also go without saying that five nominees chosen by the same party have the potential to alter the ideological temperament of a court for years if not decades to come. This may be the endgame quietly sought by Senate Democrats as they have stonewalled so many Bush appointees over the last few years, and if so it appears to be working.

Many have called Bush's appointees to the Supreme Court his greatest legacy, but he will tarnish that legacy if he allows lower courts to drift away from conservative principles.
(h/t Bench Memos)

When Will Democrats Lash Out?

Yesterday's troubled markets (which, many analysts believe, will continue for a while) is partially the product of two prominent Democratic bogeymen: those "evil" sub-prime lenders and globalization. The mortgages offered by those sub-prime lenders have essentially been bundled and transformed into securities, sold around the world and thus transferring their risk around the world. This is why BNP Paribas halted withdrawals from a trio of funds yesterday, claiming that because of upheaval on the US credit market, they couldn't properly value the funds.

I haven't exactly scoured the web looking for it just yet, but I imagine that some Democrats will connect these dots and start brandishing their pitchforks in the near future. What they can do about it remains to be seen.

Lessons Learned Too Well

Ion Pacepa was head of Romanian intelligence until he fled to the United States in 1978. In today's Journal, he notes that Democratic bashing of the president has its inglorious roots in Soviet practice. Certainly worthwhile.

Book Review: An Army at Dawn

Over the years, I've read extensively about the Second World War from all sides, but especially from our own American perspective. As such, I was rather familiar with America's first act in the European Theater of Operations, Operation Torch, the invasion of North Africa in November of 1942. This of course led to months of brutal fighting, before all Axis forces on the southern Mediterranean littoral were defeated in May of the following year. But even with all of my reading, I'd never encountered so magisterial a chronicle of those brutal months as Rick Atkinson's An Army at Dawn: The War in North Africa , 1942-1943.

Even with the widespread popularity of the war, thanks to prolific and gifted authors such as the late Stephen Ambrose and individual efforts such as Brokaw's Greatest Generation and Bradley's Flags of Our Fathers, I feel that I wasn't alone in my relative ignorance of this first campaign, unique in the annals of the war. I think this ignorance stems largely from the same success of authors such as Ambrose, whose focus was almost exclusively on the last eleven months of the war, from Normandy to the Elbe. Atkinson, a former writer for the Post, has thus performed a great service in producing a tome both incredibly insightful and nuanced without losing sight of the overarching strategic campaign, all spun in eminently readable prose that often borders on the lyrical.

And it's certainly a story worth telling. Because of that same bias that limits the reading public's understanding of the conflict to its final phase, we often unknowingly digest a fallacious story of an American Leviathan, inexorably freeing Europe and crushing Nazism. Atkinson paints a radically different picture, one in which US troops were woefully inadequate and leadership too often incompetent. Operation Torch could have been a disaster in the mold of Dieppe had the landings been opposed by the Germans; instead Vichy French forces put up an inconsistent resistance that varied from the spirited to the nonexistent. But even once firmly ashore, green troops and officers made poor decisions and failed to exploit opportunities, lengthening the campaign by months and forcing troops to endure brutal fighting in horrific weather and over inhospitable terrain. Meanwhile at the highest levels of command, things were hardly improved as US and British generals, in stark contrast to the warm relations between the "cousins" so often depicted, were mutually distrustful, with the British having little regard for the Americans' martial abilities. These unfortunate elements fed into unnecessary carnage, most notably the bloodbath at Kasserine Pass (perhaps the best-known battle of the North African theater thanks to its cameo in Patton).

Thus Atkinson suggests that the final, overwhelming Allied victory - a quarter-million prisoners taken, several of the most storied German formations utterly destroyed, Rommel's fighting spirit broken - was almost in spite of itself. Sheer weight of numbers, an American ability to make good losses of men and materiel in the face of German shortages, played a significant role in that outcome. But so too did the fact that the same uncertain soldiers who blundered ashore on November 8th were by the end hardened veterans, capable of beating the Germans at their own game, though even then commanders too often flung the lives of their men away.

Also of note are those commanders that Atkinson brings to life. He skillfully depicts Eisenhower's evolution through the campaign, beginning with a commander few Americans would recognize as the victorious Ike; he also confirms the common conceptions of others, especially Montgomery (arrogant and insufferable) and Patton (vainglorious).

Thankfully, Atkinson didn't craft An Army at Dawn as a stand-alone work. Rather, it's the first of a trilogy he calls the Liberation Trilogy. The second volume, The Day of Battle: The War in Sicily and Italy, 1943-1944, is due out this autumn; I for one am eagerly anticipating its release.

Searching for Lost Puppies Is Morally Corrupt

Or so say the Iranians. Of course this is the same country who, in a classic case of projection, accused the Israelis of having a "horrific human rights record." Things like arresting kids looking for the lost family pet, you mean?

More Arlen Specter

Two recent themes (that Arlen Specter may not be as crazy as once thought, and that nothing in Washington really dies) converge: Arlen Specter says immigration still has 'momentum.' Enough, he thinks, to pass a measure legalizing illegals without giving them citizenship. I couldn't disagree more vehemently - whatever momentum immigration as an issue maintains is in the opposite direction: at a minimum, Americans want the border secured before anything more is even discussed. Why Congress hasn't gotten the message (and $3 billion more in funding for that purpose is only a step in the right direction) is beyond me.

More Fox = More Conservatives?

That's the suggestion of some new research cited by Brendan Nyhan. It's not exactly a seismic shift, but it's no doubt enough to rile the Left. What amuses me is that the researchers have also authored a chapter in a forthcoming volume entitled "The Political Impact of Media Bias." Thus perpetrating the myth that only Fox is biased, and that the rest of the media is so well balanced.

Too bad we can't do some people the benefit of taking away NBC/CBS/ABC/MSNBC/CNN and studying what that does to their voting patterns (and their brain waves).

Feinstein's Vote for Justice?

As I'd previously noted, Democratic opposition to judicial nominee Leslie Southwick was appearing both absurd and insurmountable; it didn't look like the impeccably-credentialed Iraq veteran would ever make it to the Senate floor, that Democrats would keep him bottled in Judiciary.

Then Dianne Feinstein did something inexplicable: she voted honestly, refusing to kowtow to the loons in her party. And boy oh boy, the loons are angry - especially the members of the Congressional Black Caucus. The bloggers over at Bench Memos have sampled some of the venom, including one pundit who slanderously labeled Southwick both "archconservative" and "neoconfederate." BM also highlights an interesting article from the SF Chronicle, which reports the threats of retaliation from Feinstein's left (hard as it is to believe that such a place exists).

So let's review: a judge with impeccable credentials (including the highest marks from the left-leaning ABA) squeaks through the Judiciary Committee on a largely party-line vote, despite strident opposition from a coalition of left-wing interest groups. I think we call that obstructionism. Now my question is this: how many Democratic Senators will bow to that pressure and try and scuttle this nomination? Will they be dumb enough to filibuster? Do they understand that by no stretch of the imagination (and their reality is more fantastical than anything else) can Southwick be maligned as a judicial extremist? This'll be interesting to watch. It's also endlessly amusing that Democrats continue to fuel the flames of judiciary battles, one of the few topics which still excites the Republican base.