There was barely enough time yesterday to post Thursday’s News Stand, so I omitted the commentary. However, a few of the articles merit mention and further comment.
Foremost was the Richmond Times-Dispatch article that quoted our president, Victoria Cobb, about the incredibly important ruling from the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld Virginia’s law banning partial birth infanticide. The Washington Post and Daily Press also reported on this most significant judicial decision.
The court’s 6-5 vote puts into focus the maxim that elections matter. The 4th Circuit once was the country’s most reliably conservative (i.e., constitutionally sound) court. But a retirement or two, a feel good appointment of liberal Judge Roger Gregory by President George W. Bush in the first days of his presidency (when he was all about “reaching out”) — and enthusiastically supported by then-Senator George Allen — followed by his inability to overcome a liberal Senate blockade of subsequent appointments, has made for a closely divided court. Think President Obama will nominate a conservative to this court? Not a chance — and he will have plenty of them. The court has a few vacancies.
The one confirmation to the 4th Circuit won by President Bush was that of Judge Steven Agee. A former delegate and Virginia Supreme Court Justice, who once ran for the Republican nomination for attorney general as a “moderate,” he was a compromise choice of Democrat Senator Jim Webb and President Bush after his original choices were shot down by the new Democrat majority in 2007. Thankfully, Judge Agee voted in the majority.
Here’s the breakdown of the vote (click here for the opinions):
Majority: Judge Niemeyer, who wrote the opinion, in which Chief Judge Williams and Judges Wilkinson, Shedd, Duncan, and Agee joined. Judge Wilkinson wrote a separate concurring opinion (see exerpt here).
Minority: Judge Michael, who wrote the dissent, in which Judges Motz, Traxler, King, and Gregory joined.
In other news, a political shocker: Delegate Kristin Amundson (D-44, Fairfax) surprised everyone with a post-re-nomination withdrawal. Even though the 44th usually goes blue, Republican Jay McConnville is proving to be a solid candidate. Furthermore, a lefty independent is in the mix. With its success in recent Northern Virginia special elections, could this be a surprise GOP pickup?
Finally, the Washington Post, of all papers, has followed up on Republican complaints about Governor Tim Kaine’s lack of travel and expenses transparency while working his second job as Democrat National Committee Chairman. While he initially said he would only perform those duties on nights and weekends, the Post uncovered that seven of nine days he has travelled, and reported, are weekdays. The governor also previously said anyone who wants to know where he’s been only has to ask. People have, through FOIA requests, and no answers are forthcoming. Also, he now says the DNC will pick up the costs of his security detail. But why were we taxpayers ever paying for these political trips?
Why would you have a blog post called Yesterday’s News? You’re missing the POINT of blogging, and social media. My gut reaction is to immediately skip anything titled YESTERDAYS NEWS because I read it YESTERDAY.
Mainline Mom -
Thanks for reading the post and responding, as difficult for you as it appeared to be.
First, any headline writer, whether in print or online media, tries to make it eye-catching, so apparently, that worked on you. Just because a headline says something doesn’t necessarily mean the article or commentary literally will reflect the headline.
In the case of “Yesterday’s News” it was and wasn’t: It was an obvious play at a cliche but the post itself was about issues that, although in mainstream media headlines the day before, are universal and affect us in very significant ways. One day of headlines doesn’t mean these issues will go away.
Secondly, and this dovetails: I think you completely misunderstand “social media.” One advantage bloggers have is to look at issues seriously, and not fleetingly as the MSM does when the next non-relevent big story hits. We are a policy blog that encourages citizen engagement and activism. We try to provide information so people who believe in traditional values can have an informed conscious on how to take action and how to direct their activism. If you read the post you would know, without too much mental exercise, that the issues were of serious content and merit discussion not just the day of, but for a very long time, especially the seminal issue of our age — the protection of innocent life. With your logic, there is no need to discuss this issue because it is old news. That’s what liberals would have us believe.
Thirdly, if you did read the post, you would see that I discussed an angle not posited in too many other circles — the breakdown of the vote of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, the future of that court and the link to the opinion. I’m not sure how many other Virginia political blogs covered it. The MSM gave it very litle coverage given the gravity of the issue. (If the ruling went the other way, I’m sure the MSM would have celebrated it.)
Finally, despite your claim that I don’t understand new media, June is about to be yet another great month on this blog for unique visitors. So, we must be doing something well, despite your concern. But we’re glad you’re a visitor and hope you continue to read and comment on our posts often.
Steve,
The Admin
[...] couple of weeks ago, we explained why the vote of the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold Virginia’s ban o…. It was a 6-5 vote from what is — or was — considered the most constitutionally sound appeals [...]