Schadenfreude, Thy Name is Allen

Some of CCM's 3 readers may remember the case of Claude Allen. Having been a player in the Virginia state government (if memory serves, he ran their welfare department), Allen became DepSec of the US Department of HHS when George W. Bush took (and I do mean took) office in 2001. In 2003, Allen was nominated to sit on the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. Back then, Democrats ran the Senate, and his nomination never got a vote.

During the period between Allen's nomination and his nomination's eventual lapse, Allen's GOP supporters made some noise about how Democrats were opposing Allen because he was black rather than because of his judicial qualifications, temperament, etc. [Update: an informed source has explained to me that the initial opposition to Allen among Senate Dems was due to a dispute over which states should get 4th Circuit seats---Allen is from Virginia, whereas Maryland's Democratic senators wanted a Maryland native appointed. I don't know how much of the later opposition was substantive. My understanding is that such disputes are not uncommon.] For instance, Peter Kirstanow wrote on NRO that

Special vituperation, however, seems to be reserved for minority nominees suspected of being pro-life. Estrada, Rogers Brown, Claude Allen, and Levanski Smith were/are among these apostates. Pro-life minority nominees represent the perfect storm for Left-leaning opposition groups: non-conformist role models from the Left’s most reliable voting blocs who may one day be in a position to reconsider Roe v. Wade. Better to filibuster them than to have a televised debate on the Senate floor that might raise interesting and useful questions concerning the merits of monolithic minority support for one party or an unyielding defense of Roe.

And here's what C. Boyden Gray, who's been leading the charge for activist, axe-grinding Bush nominees in the most ad hominem of ways, had to say about Allen on July 7, 2004:

Claude Allen promises not to advance a political agenda from the federal bench he has been nominated to, but to be the type of judge who buttresses the foundation of American government — by applying the rule of law however he finds it. President Bush, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, could do much worse than Allen. By the grace of democratic principles overriding a minority in the Senate, let us hope they do not have to.

"The type of judge who...appl[ies] the rule of law however he finds it."

Turns out he applies the "possesion is nine-tenths of the" rule of law on all sorts of things he finds:

When Claude Allen, President Bush's longtime domestic-policy adviser, resigned suddenly on Feb. 9, it baffled administration critics and fans. The White House claimed that Allen was leaving to spend more time with his family....

News today may shed light on the mystery of Allen's resignation. According to the Montgomery County Police Department, Allen was arrested yesterday and charged in a felony theft and a felony theft scheme. According to a department press release, Allen conducted approximately 25 fraudulent "refunds" in Target and Hecht's stores in Maryland. On Jan. 2, a Target employee apprehended Allen after observing him receive a refund for merchandise he had not purchased. Target then contacted the Montgomery County Police. According to a source familiar with the case, Target and the police had been observing Allen since October 2005.

See this Slate article for more.

Can't help but notice that as recently as February 9, 2006, Andrew T. Hyman, blogging at ConfirmThem, wrote

Rumor has it that Milan Smith is the leading prospect to succeed Judge Tashima in the Ninth Circuit. Regarding a successor for Judge Murnaghan in the Fourth Circuit, I hope that UVA Law Professor Caleb Nelson will be considered, as well as Claude Allen who was previously nominated for that seat.

I wonder if Mr. Hyman is still hoping....I also wonder if Boyden Gray still thinks Claude Allen is the right sort of Judge for America. You know, private property rights and all---usually kind of a key factor for the sorts of charming, well-dressed millionaire supporters of President Bush whom Robert Novak likes to lionize.

Novak Should Quit the Day Job

For unintentional comedic achievement, you just have to admire yesterday's Robert Novak column. I don't have the time to go through all the laugh lines, but the best might be this one:

Although he is the target of relentless assaults from Democrats, Bush dreams of replicating in chilly Washington the warmer political climate of Austin.

Riiiiiiggghhhht: Try as he might, George W. Bush just doesn't seem to be able to convince those mean old Democrats to join him in forging a bipartisan approach to solving America's problems together. So naive, that political peacemaker George.

Ok, I can't help it. Here's another:

So, why would the President think Rubin would help him? Perhaps Bush was naive and misled by superficial impressions. Rubin, now chairman of Citigroup, is a handsome, well-dressed, soft-spoken, charming multi-millionaire whom Bush might have mistaken for one of his rich Republican friends from Texas.

Got that? "Rich Republican Bush friend from Texas"="handsome, well-dressed, soft-spoken, charming multi-millionaire".

No wonder that man of the people, George W. Bush, was fooled by Robert Rubin....he didn't look like one of those facially scarred street ruffians who can't string together a sentence in proper English.

Ken Lay, Bob Rubin....hard to tell them apart I guess.

Save us from our own legislation!

For sheer hypocritical chutzpah, it's hard to beat this letter to the editor publlished in the March 9 NYT:

To the Editor:

Re "Scant Drop Seen in Abortions if Parents Are Told" (front page, March 6):

The story is not whether statistics document a drop in teenage abortions after passage of parental involvement laws.

The real story revealed in your article is that abortion-clinic workers have witnessed parents threatening physical violence against their pregnant teenage daughters if the girls do not agree to an abortion.

Surveys of women having abortions find that 6 to 8 percent report their reason for aborting is that their parents want them to.

So much for reproductive rights and freedom of choice.

Perhaps we need a new round of state laws protecting teenagers who are coerced into abortion by their parents. Now that would be a story!

Carrie Gordon Earll
Director, Issue Analysis
Focus on the Family
Colorado Springs, March 6, 2006

Here it is, a bit more briefly:

1. We want laws to force teens to tell their parents that they're pregnant if they want to be able to get an abortion---because parents have a right to know and make decisions about their children's medical choices!
   
   
2. We get those laws.
   
   
3. We find out that some parents want their daughters to get an abortion!
   
   
4. We certainly don't conclude that our law is working as planned. No, we propose a new law that prevents parents whose choices differ from our own from realizing those choices!
   
   
5. Summary: when our law works as intended but in the wrong direction, demand a new law to make sure that our original law's effects are prevented from occurring!

At least South Dakota's legislature is intellectually honest.

Note: For the record, I do not think that parents should be allowed to force their children to have undesired abortions. Just as I do not think that religious extremists and their allies should be allowed to force women to carry pregnancies to term.

Update: Ok, I admit "briefly" is probably inapt. So how about "honestly"?