Sports. Right now, on the eve of October, all is right in the sports world, from a personal standpoint. My Raiders are undefeated, my A's have clinched the Western Division title and will be playing the Twins in the playoffs starting Tuesday. In college football, I follow Notre Dame and it looks like Ty Willingham has brought them back.

I like the A's chances of making it to the World Series -- but the Twins should not be underestimated -- neither should the Angels. In the senior circuit, it's hard to see anyone overcoming the D'backs dynamic duo. It's hard to believe the Rocket is still pitching -- I mean I saw him pitch to Bo Jax at Fenway back in 1986 -- several lifetimes ago.

Here's an interesting article about how the Raiders game could impact the ALDS.

Barring about 8 field goals from Jason Elam, my Blogger Bowl 2K3 team should finish the weekend undefeated. (This despite the fact that I benched Shaun Alexander -- in the first three weeks he netted me the grand total of 12 points -- the same as my TE Jeremy Shockey.)

Newsweek is young and blue. Time has a headache. Last week's Time cover story is still the better choice: Abraham the Patriarch.

Estrada 24/7. Much of this comes straight from Howard Bashman's incomparable appellate law blog. One of the most important pieces of testimony (not in a legal sense) comes from an e-mail from someone interviewed by the Estrada hit-squad looking for dirt. Please read this.

Law Professor Jeff Cooper would banish Miguel Estrada forwith, sua sponte, ipse dixit, post haste, hocus pocus. Kidding aside, it's a pretty argument for wanting to deny Estrada a seat on the bench. Usually law professors are a bit more erudite -- perhaps it's an off day for him -- he must've been flumoxed by a blonde 1L today and is in a bit of a mental funk. In any event, you need to get out of your coop a bit more, Jeff.

Last, I love Stuart Buck's suggested next Judicial nominee. What a great hearing that would make. I could never be a nominee for anything facing this committee -- It would take me all of, oh about 10 minutes before I was doing a Sam Kinison"Well at least I didn't have to CHEAT in law school you @*$%# moron. I never got DRUNK and KILLED anyone..." etc.

No, they're not all bad -- Senator Feinstein, although having a one-track mind on abortion, would probably be a fine judge -- and, well, there must be someone else on the Democratic side of the aisle who's also temperate and judicious. I just can't think of anyone else.

Hearing Update. Based on the tone of the questions so far, I'd guess that the Leahy gang has decided to tie the knot on this one. The tone of the questioning is markedly different than that of the McConnell hearing -- the committee resumes at 2:00.

I heard the questioning from Schumer, Leahy, Kennedy, and Feinstein and snatches of Kohl (I think). Schumer and Kennedy dwelt on the request for the committee for all attorney work product from the Soliciter General's office. This request has been opposed by every living former Soliciter General going back to Archie Cox under Kennedy. Frankly, this request is really unheard of and I'm surprised to see them pushing it so intently. Listening to the two of them yammer on I could see that this was nothing more than laying a pretextual foundation for rejecting Estrada.

Leahy has focused on Estrada's background, trying to say that he's wealthy, elitest, and speaks English well. Bizarre. Sen. Feinstein (D-Planned Parenthood) spent her period of questioning to extract pledges of fealty to the Most Holy Sacrament of Abortion on Demand. Kohl and Feinstein also spent a little time on the Lopez case -- striking down a federal law as being outside the commerce clause.

Feinstein and another Senator (don't recall) also raised a curious report as to whether Estrada dissuaded a person from seeking to clerk for Justice Kennedy because that person was "too liberal." Estrada denied this. In her questioning, Feinstein identified the source of this claim as coming from the Nation magazine and read the first paragraph aloud:

Perhaps the most damaging evidence against Estrada comes from two lawyers he interviewed for Supreme Court clerkships. Both were unwilling to be identified by name for fear of reprisals. The first told me: "Since I knew Miguel, I went to him to help me get a Supreme Court clerkship. I knew he was screening candidates for Justice Kennedy. Miguel told me, 'No way. You're way too liberal.' I felt he was definitely submitting me to an ideological litmus test, and I am a moderate Democrat. When I asked him why I was being ruled out without even an interview, Miguel told me his job was to prevent liberal clerks from being hired. He told me he was screening out liberals because a liberal clerk had influenced Justice Kennedy to side with the majority and write a pro-gay-rights decision in a case known as Romer v. Evans, which struck down a Colorado statute that discriminated against gays and lesbians."

I also interviewed a young law professor and former Justice Department attorney who told me a very similar story. "I was a clerk for an appeals court judge," the professor told me, "and my judge called Justice Kennedy recommending me for a clerkship with him. Justice Kennedy then called me and said I had made the first cut and would soon be called for an interview. I was then interviewed by Miguel Estrada and another lawyer. Estrada asked most of the questions. He asked me a lot of unfair, ideological questions, a lot about the death penalty, which I told him I thought was immoral. I felt I was being subjected to an ideological litmus test. Estrada was being obnoxious. He was acting like it was his job to weed out liberal influences on Justice Kennedy. I was never called back by anyone."

[BTW, the author of this article is Jack Newfield and this passage may be found here.] It should be surprising that two Democratic senators would rely on rank hearsay to smear a nominee -- but the rules have changed, haven't they?

The other interesting moment was when Estrada explained his meeting with three representatives from the PRLDEF -- he indicated that one was trying to get him to commit to prejudging cases in a way that s/he favored -- when Estrada failed to do so this individual said that they decided who was Hispanic enough and that he didn't meet the criteria -- something to which Estrada took offense at and told this person so.

Afternoon Update The hearing started a little late -- Estrada started the session by seeking to clarify his response on the question raised by the Nation article set forth above. It was pretty clear that Schumer and Estrada weren't communicating very clearly -- Estrada was seeking to clarify and Schumer was getting angry with him and has indicated he will come back to this matter on the second round for questioning.

Finally, Senator Hatch is raising the sane suggestion that Estrada be allowed to confront his accuser. Schumer is way out of line on this -- It's interesting that he and his cronies have been raising the issue of fairness of process and intimating that Estrada will not be fair, but yet they are unable to adhere to the basic priniciples of being allowed to confront his accuser. Schumer should be ashamed of running a "Star Chamber" proceeding -- the reference was raised just now by Hatch.

Hearing today. Later this morning, will start the hearings on a slate of Judicial candidates including Miguel Estrada (finally). This will be broadcast over the internet here.

Sports West. Down to the wire, the Jints are gaining on the D'backs and may actually overtake them for the lead. The A's may back into the AL West Division Title, if the Angels keep losing-- and the M's may be the Wild Card. I love Baseball.

Sports Report. The Rams, Jets, and Steelers, all play-off teams last year, are a combined 1-7, having been outscored 129-240. San Diego, Carolina and NO are 6-0, having outscored their opponents 233-115. The top ranked quarterback in the NFL is sitting on the Browns bench (Kelly Holcomb 111) (and is available in the blogger bowl waiver pool -- I cut him yesterday).

The A's magic number is 4.

And very sad news -- Pittsburgh Steelers Center Mike Webster passed away at age 50.

Pass This. It's time to pass the Sudan Peace Act -- sponsored by (from left to right) Sens. Harkin, Feingold, Lincoln, Cleland, Lieberman, Collins, Bunning, DeWine, Grassley, Brownback, Santorum, Sessions, among others. In the House by Sheila Jackson-Lee, Pelosi, Lantos to Armey, Wolf, Chris Smith and J.C. Watts.

Prelude to a Hanging. The WaPo has a lengthy profile of Miguel Estrada in today's paper. Although it continues in the tradition of pretending to be a balanced newsreport, it reads like a thinly veiled hit piece. Basically, according to a number of very left-wing Hispanic groups, notably the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund ("PRLDEF"), Estrada isn't Hispanic enough. [Please see also, John Rosenberg's comments here.]

I have a long-time friend who is an attorney and is originally from Honduras, as is Estrada, and I asked if he had read the article. He had -- he was pretty incensed about it. First, he was pretty ticked off about PRLDEF being the arbiter of who is and is not Hispanic. According to the article and the comments of the PRLDEF, it is intimated that if you come from a background that is not a typical "wetback" stereotype -- i.e. an illegal who's back is wet from swiming the Rio Grande -- then you aren't a wetback. My friend points out that Puerto Ricans are U.S. Citizens, so how do they know what it's like to be an immigrant in the U.S.

Some other claims and statements in the article that are wrong:

---*--- "His father, Jesus Maria Estrada, who died in 1997, was a prominent . . . lawyer. . ." My friend is about a decade older (or more) than Estrada. My friend, whom I will identify as "Juan" (as in John Doe, so this is not his real name) was the son of a Honduran attorney -- in fact, he was the youngest son and his father went blind and brought Juan to work with him as a young boy and brought him to court to be his eyes. Juan said that he never heard of Jesus Estrada -- never heard of Estrada. Later, Juan went to the University in Honduras and then worked for the government in the diplomatic corps and learned the prominent families and said that he never heard of Estrada. Of course, even if Estrada was from a prominent family, would that be a crime or bar to office? It hasn't been in the case of Senators Kennedy, Dodd, Rockefeller, et al.

---*--- Estrada attened school at "the San Francisco Institute, an elite Catholic academy in a residential area of Tegucigalpa known as Country Club. . ." Teguciagalpa is the capital of Honduras and is also the area that Juan is from. The San Francisco Institute is a Catholic school run by Franciscans -- an order known for simplicity. He said that the idea this is an elite school is laughable. I should like to add that, as above, if it were an elite school -- should politicians who send their kids to Sidwell Friends, Cathedral, Georgetown Day, etc. go throwing stones? Second -- the appellation "Country Club" is wrong -- he said the school is next to a private community center called the country club, but that all it is is a community swimming pool -- no golf course or bar -- Juan doesn't remember if there are tennis courts there or any other facilities, but he doubts it.

---*--- The article notes that "Paul Bender, a liberal Clinton administration political appointee who served as principal deputy solicitor general" opined that Estrada ". . .lacks the judgment and is too much of an ideologue to be an appeals court judge," But after making this assertion has not thrown anymore mud. Opps, could it be that the reason for this is that Estrada supervisor Bender actually gave Estrada an "outstanding" recommendation on his performance review.

---*--- Last, and this is an extremely important consideration, the borking of Estrada is a terrible move for the Democrats and their left-wing masters. The WaPo notes

But Democrats must proceed gingerly with Estrada to avoid the risk of offending Hispanic voters themselves. For the Democrats to vote him down on ideological grounds, absent solid evidence he is unfit for the court, "would be a huge mistake -- it'll backfire on them," says Brent Wilkes, executive director of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), which has endorsed Estrada.

Juan, normally as calm and courteous a man as you can find (befitting someone from the diplomatic corps) was irate about the Democrat's treatment of Estrada to date. He said that he is fed up with them and this is a final straw for him. The last time I saw Juan this angry was when Pete Wilson was campaigning for a Proposition that Juan and many other moderate Hispanics thought was anti-Hispanic and anti-immigrant.

Congratulations to Ben and Caroline on your very recent engagement. One of the coolest things, IMO, that Ben writes about is going to ask his intended's Father for his Daughter's hand in marriage. That is the thing that I regret not doing.

One of the most beautiful things written about marriage is from the opening of a wedding ceremony:

The union of husband and wife in heart, body, and mind is intended by God for their mutual joy; for the help and comfort given one another in prosperity and adversity; and, when it is God's will, for the procreation of children and their nurture in the knowledge and love of the Lord. Therefore marriage is not to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly, but reverently, deliberately, and in accordance with the purposes for which it was instituted by God.

I pray for you two that this will be a truly blessed time of preparation.

Speechless. Actually, I just haven't had much to say lately -- been consumed with homeschooling and babies. Some good friends of our just had twins (we're they're children's guardians). Today we stood up for Joshua Richard Andrew Putz as one of his three sets of Godparents. It was a beautiful day.

More Repression. Christianity Today has published its story on-line with respect to the repression and persecution of Christians in Viet Nam. It's clear the Axis of evil runs through this country.

From the Diamond. My number two daughter played in her first softball game last night. It was a game under the lights and she was the lead off batter. She got a hit her first time up (well, in this league, nearly everyone gets a hit -- or at least makes contact -- no strike-outs). She played second and had a great time.

Try Homeschooling. The NY Times has a whiny piece by CNBC producer William Sorensen asking if he is a Dad or a tutor? Specifically, he's ticked off that he has to actually be involved with his kids' schoolwork. It's not fair, "[o]ur parents never helped with homework. They sipped gimlets or watched Walter Cronkite while we toiled away in our bedrooms, conjugating verbs."

He's wrong about that -- my parents and the parents of almost all my friends always helped with homework. [Now, before you think that was just an isolated community, please be advised that I went to nine different schools my last 10 years of schooling.] Like it or not, Mr. Sorensen, the parents of any child are that child's primary educators. Anyway, if you don't like what the school is doing, start your own. Homeschooling isn't less difficult than helping with homework, but it can be much more focused and directed than the busy-work that passes for homework.

See also, this note regarding IM writing.

Vigil. Here is a link for the Vigil for Sudan. My daughter is actively participating in a worship dance team that has been preparing a dance of prayer for the vigil -- very moving. If you can't participate in the Vigil in DC, please spend sometime praying for Sudan and consider working with your local fellowship for special prayer.

Here is a good explanation of why the Body is holding this vigil at this time.

2-0. It's a good week, both my Raiders and my fantasy team the Asylum (Ohio) Idiots are undefeated. Frankly, I should've been squashed like a bug -- starting Marcus Robinson at WR (0 catches). I was fortunate to bet on Drew Bledsoe who devoured the Minnesota secondary, giving me 36 points. Actually, my inspired pick of the day was a move I made late Friday night. I have Pittsburgh as my starting D and I realized I just didn't need anymore conflicting loyalties (my fantasy opponent had both Tim Brown and SeaBass), so I went looking for another Defense. Carolina was available, had just held the Ravens to 7 and was playing the Lie-downs. In the end, they scored a TD off an interception giving me 20 points. Those two alone gave me more than the Commish's Pirates. Of course, the other reason I won my last game was that Priest Holmes had an off day -- all of which allowed me a one point squeaker.

I'm coming after you baggy slims.

Valedictory. This past week, the outgoing bishop of Canterbury gave his final address -- sort of a "state of the Anglican union" speech -- and what a wonderful speech it is. He looks for inspiration from the Roman Catholics, quoting from Gaudium et Spes, the Second Vatican Council's Pastoral Constitution on The Church in the Modern World, and from the great Baptist missionary William Carey.

Of particular interest, the Bishop notes the possibility (probability, in my opinion) of schism in the Anglican Communion:

In short, my concern is that our Communion is being steadily undermined by dioceses and individual bishops taking unilateral action, usually (but not always) in matters to do with sexuality; and as a result steadily driving us towards serious fragmentation and the real possibility of two (or, more likely, many more) distinct Anglican bodies emerging. This erosion of communion through the adoption of 'local options' has been going for some thirty years but in my opinion is reaching crisis proportions today.

He addresses a number of particular situation, ranging from the Third World Missionary bishops operating in the US to New Westminster and the deposition of Fr. Moyer.

All-in-all, it's a very thoughtful, very earnest message from a man who obviously is committed to following his Lord and Saviour. I will be sorry to see him go.

Are you ready for a hanging? On Wednesday, September 18, 2002, the Leahy Lynch mob has it's next "hearing" set. It will be doing University of Utah law professor Michael W. McConnell. Yes, that's right "doing" as in "we do process 'em." All the usual assasins are out, stoking up the lynch mob: Nan Aron, president of the left wing Alliance for Justice ("his extensive writings show a hostility to firmly established constitutional rights, such as the right to choose"), Ralph G. Neas, president of the liberal People for the American Way ("McConnell may be the most dangerous Bush administration judicial nominee yet"), NARAL, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Unlike Owen or some of the other nominees, I do know McConnell quite well (that is, I am familiar with his work and career) and I believe he may be one of the brightest lights on the horizon -- despite the fact that he is regarded as conservative-leaning, he possesses such intellect and integrity so that he should not be opposed by anyone. The fact that those four aforementioned groups do so show that they are truly out of the mainstream of the legal culture. In fact, this shows that they are not only out of the mainstream, they're out of the riverbank, out of the valley, over the mountain, off the continent, off terra firma, dwelling on the dark-side of the moon.

In fact, McConnell does have a lot of support from collegues who know him, yet find themselves on the opposite end of the political spectrum. Among those supporting McConnell are Harvard law professor Laurence H. Tribe, University of Chicago's Cass R. Sunstein, Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar, and Walter E. Dellinger, III, a former Clinton administration lawyer and Duke law professor. Indeed, you can access a letter signed by over 300 law professors supporting McConnell here.

The Los Angeles Times has note about what it calls "Perhaps the most remarkable letter of support" from Elena Kagan, another Harvard law professor.

Clinton nominated her in 1999 to the U.S. appeals court in Washington, but Senate Republicans killed her nomination without even giving her a hearing.

In a Sept. 10 letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), she urged that McConnell, a former colleague at the University of Chicago Law School, be confirmed.

"I never knew Michael to be anything other than thoughtful, open-minded and even-handed in his approach to legal questions," she wrote. "There is no part of Michael that is activist or extremist. I do not believe he ever would bend the law to get a political result."

You know, it seems to me that that is really the bottom line -- the acid test for a judicial nominee. Will the nominee bend the law to get a political result? When I listened to the Senate Judiciary Committee's vote on Pricilla Owen, there was a lot of Sturm und Drang, but no substance as to why the senators specifically opposed Owen. We heard Schumer saying she was a right-winger, but where was the evidence? We heard Feinstein give rank hearsay testimony as her justification for rejection:

"I have never voted against a woman before. I have met Priscilla Owen, and I like her very much. But a consumer attorney from Texas told me that there is not a single consumer-rights attorney in the state who feels he'd get a fair shake in her courtroom."

[for a great smackdown of DiFi with respect to this vapid statement, see this by the law student who writes "a mad tea-party".]Under the advise and consent role, the Senate has a duty -- make that each individual Senator who refuses to consent to a nominee has a duty to advise the President why he or she is withholding his or her consent. The burden is on the Leahy Lynch mob to show why McConnell should not be confirmed. Can they meet this burden -- no. There is no reason why Michael McConnell should not be confirmed to sit on the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.

More. From Catholic University Dean Douglas W. Kmiec an essay in Tuesday's LA Times.

Cover Watch. Newsweek blames America for Saddam, but Time has the confessions of an al-Qaeda terrorist.

Word of God. The Bible is considered by many to be the word of God -- yet it contains many words of men. The Psalms is a book of praise and songs which, at times set forth clearly divine words and at others the full range of human emotions. Psalm 137 is one of those Psalms, especially verses 8-9:

O Babylon, you will be destroyed.
Happy is the one who pays you back
for what you have done to us.
Happy is the one who takes your babies
and smashes them against the rocks!

I know exactly how this writer felt -- watching the 911 documentary on CBS last Wednesday after the President's speech, especially hearing the bodies of the jumpers smashing on the roof. These verses percolated up from my gut. . .

Yet, as Christians, we have a duty to love and pray for our enemies. So how does that square? Our natural instincts will still be there -- to deny they exist would be wrong -- dash those babies. Yet to leave it there would be wrong. Therefore, we must affirmatively follow Christ's command to love and pray for our enemies.

The ultimate form of love is to transform our enemies -- which the love of God is able to do. This does not mean that our society -- our state -- must yield to evil -- to capitulate or appease it. No, the State does have a proper role of wielding the sword against those who do evil so "that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness"