Jennifer Bryson at Public Discourse:

Healthy respect takes account of the diversity in Islam and focuses not on respecting an idea but on respecting the humanity of individuals. A new movie that opens in U.S. theaters today helps illustrate this precise point. [Read on.]

Jennifer S. Bryson is the director of the Witherspoon Institute’s Islam and Civil Society Project. 

From Cato's description:

President Obama on Wednesday answered questions on rising costs, taxing benefits, and many other issues during an ABC News special on health care reform, "Questions for the President: Prescription for America." Cato Institute scholars Michael D. Tanner and Michael F. Cannon respond to Obama's claims.

Christopher Tollefsen looks past the headlines and gives us something deeper to ponder:

Revelations about the infidelities of prominent social conservatives like South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford and Nevada Senator John Ensign have led many to mock advocates of public virtue who nonetheless succumb to personal vice. But what’s so bad about hypocrisy? [Read on.]

Christopher O. Tollefsen is Professor of Philosophy at the University of South Carolina and a senior fellow of the Witherspoon Institute.

Harold Koh [wikipedia page], a professor of international law and dean of the Yale Law School, has been nominated by Obama to be the State Department's top lawyer. His name has been mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee down the road.

Yesterday Koh was approved by the Senate 62-35, largely along partisan lines.

Unfortunately, Koh believes in a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, as well as universal access to abortion.

 Ed Whelan is an authority on Koh's legal thought, and has written for National Review's Bench Memos about Koh's view on same-sex marriage:

... Koh himself filed an amicus brief in Lawrence v. Texas that argued that international and foreign court decisions compelled the Supreme Court to strike down Texas’s ban on homosexual sodomy.  And Koh has also submitted an amicus brief (to the Connecticut supreme court) arguing that comparative precedents from foreign countries require recognition of a constitutional right to same-sex marriage:  “the principles of human dignity and autonomy that are the essence of the modern right-protecting democracy demand that civil marriage be available to all couples and that the equality of all citizens triumph over historical attitudes.”
 
What judicial transnationalism is really all about is depriving American citizens of their powers of representative government by selectively imposing on them the favored policies of Europe’s leftist elites.  Koh is correct that the next Supreme Court appointments will determine whether the Court continues on its misguided transnationalist course.  If Barack Obama is making those appointments, you can be sure that we’re going to be saddled with justices like Koh.

Ed Whelan has an extensive collection of posts on Koh online at the Ethics and Public Policy Center website. For Whelan on Koh's abortion stance, visit here and here.

More links:

• Koh, No? Critics Decry Obama Nominee for State Department Legal Adviser 
• Discover The Networks on Harold Koh
• Transnational Supporter of Abortion Advances to Top U.S. Legal Job (C-FAM)
• Global Kohordinate in May 4th National Review

[editorial note: Steven Lindsay was in the gallery during today's Supreme Court session, and has provided APP with this report.]

This morning the Supreme Court of the United States, during its final session before the annual summer recess, released its long-awaited opinion in Ricci v. DeStefano. The case dealt with a group of New Haven firefighters seeking promotions based on test scores that were later discarded by New Haven because the “results showed the tests to be discriminatory.”

The Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling that the tests had discriminated against minorities based on their race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Supreme Court reversed that decision. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the Court’s majority in the 5-4 case, held that, “a minimal standard could cause employers to discard the results of lawful and beneficial promotional examinations even where there is little if any evidence of disparate-impact discrimination.” This “de facto quota system” would then run counter to the clear purpose of Title VII.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, reading her dissent from the bench, asserted that the administration of both oral and written components yielded “significant racial disparities” among the test-takers. She also claimed that the white firefighters had “no vested right to promotion” and that the Court failed “to acknowledge the better tests used in other cities, which have yielded less racially skewed outcomes.”

It is of note that the Court refrained from deciding whether or not the disputed provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are constitutionally permitted by the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is also important to acknowledge that the Court’s decision in Ricci overturns the 2nd Circuit ruling of which Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor was a member of the majority.

As I mentioned earlier today, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor had the potential of being reversed by the current members of the Supreme Court once again ... and she was:

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.

New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results, the court said Monday in a 5-4 decision. The city said that it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities.

The ruling could alter employment practices nationwide, potentially limiting the circumstances in which employers can be held liable for decisions when there is no evidence of intentional discrimination against minorities. (AP)

Hopefully this decision will be an occassion to allow the Senate the time it needs to fully review her judicial record.

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor may be overturned again by the Supreme Court today:

 A closely watched discrimination lawsuit by white firefighters who say they have unfairly been denied promotions is one of three remaining Supreme Court cases awaiting resolution Monday.

The court intends to finish its work for the summer that day, Chief Justice John Roberts said. The court also will say goodbye to Justice David Souter who has announced he will retire "when the court rises for the summer recess."

Sonia Sotomayor, nominated to take Souter's place, was one of three appeals court judges who ruled that officials in New Haven, Conn., acted properly in throwing out firefighters' promotions exams because of racially skewed results.

The city says it decided not to use the test scores to determine promotions because it might have been vulnerable to claims the exam had a "disparate impact" on minorities in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The white firefighters said the decision violated the same law's prohibition on intentional discrimination. (AP)

Over the weekend, Mitch McConnell said "the Senate needs more time to review the record of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor after new material surfaced from her time with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund." The new material totals over 300 boxes worth.

The Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund boxes are important because the early findings from Sotomayor's activity for that organization suggest extreme views on abortion. As a Washington Times editorial said: " ... in the case Ohio v. Akron Center, the fund wrote that it "opposes any efforts to overturn or in any way restrict the rights recognized in Roe v. Wade."

New on Public Discourse today:

"The philosophical debate about abortion has reached a welcome level of clarity. The pro-life movement must capitalize on recent gains in public policy and opinion by equipping their grass-roots supporters with winsome arguments and effective strategies to continue to cultivate a culture of life." [Read on.]

Micah Watson is Director of the Center for Politics & Religion and Assistant Professor of Political Science at Union University in Jackson, Tennessee.

Our founder Robert George is on the air with Hugh Hewitt right now so here are a few links to learn more about the American Principles Project.

To start, please subscribe to our blog RSS feed and follow us on Twitter. We're also on Facebook!

You are welcome to support our efforts, join our mailing list, and browse through the website for our first papers on the topics of economics, founding principles, national security etc.

Also, Hugh asked about the situation in Iran. Robert George was interviewed on this topic over the weekend in the Philadelphia Inquirer - the APP blog provided excerpts and a link the original story here.

And finally, for the more action-oriented among you, our sister c-4 organization American Principles in Action has a petition running currently: http://www.keepgitmoopen.com. Please sign it now!

Over the weekend in the Nevada Review-Journal, Sherman Frederick explains his defection to the Republic Party. I present his reasons not as an endorsement or criticism of either party, but rather to point out the ideological differences between the two, as Frederick sees it:

The only institution positioned to stop the progression of the Obama welfare state is the Republican Party, coupled with independent-minded Americans like me.

Second, the popular myth that the Democratic Party is the party of tolerance and big-tent ideas is spectacularly false.

A fiscal conservative such as myself is treated by Obamaniacs like a ringing cell phone in church. "Shhhh!" they say. The only debate among Democrats is how fast and how deeply to run up the national debt. Any Democrat who questions deficit spending or a limit to federal power is simply not invited to the party.

And finally, I have reservations about abortion. Now, I know that there are many Democrats who call themselves "pro life."

But being a "pro life" Democrat doesn't mean you're "anti-abortion." It means that you are "abortion tolerant." The rationalization goes like this: "Abortion is the law of the land. Abortion is wrong. But abortion must be supported and expanded."

It's hardly an intellectually honest position, but all "pro life" Democratic office holders must toe that line. The moral dilemma is further compounded by the Democratic Party ethic that taxpayer money must be used to fund abortion, here and abroad.

Robert George, founder of APP, was interviewed last Wednesday by Kevin Ferris in the Philadelphia Inquirer about the Iranian crisis, what the US should do, and what we can learn from these events:

This could be a time of lamentations and despair for conservatives. They are out of power. Much derided in the punditry. Largely ignored on policy.

Or it could be a moment of opportunity, says Robert P. George, founder of the new American Principles Project.

"This is a time of reflection for the conservative movement," George said in a recent interview. "And this is a good time to repair to first principles."

[snip]

George points to the protests in Iran over the election that allegedly gave President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a landslide win over challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi.

As of Wednesday morning, George was concerned that the president wasn't doing enough to support the protesters and had limited his remarks to the election results.

"We have every reason to think this is much deeper than one stolen election," George said. "It's the oppression of people, of women, of religious minorities and Muslims themselves who want to claim the freedom that is rightfully theirs against a tyranny that has held power for many decades."

If Americans believe in the central truths of their founding documents - i.e., that not just Americans, but all, are created equal - then those truths, George says, apply "to Iranians, and Saudis, and the Chinese, and the people of North Korea."

"Our principles tell us to be concerned about liberty and safety and the rights of people abroad," George said. "We cannot be the world's policeman, I understand that. And there are issues of prudence that limit what we can do. . . .

"But we should signal to the Iranians that we are on their side, and help in any way we can."

Speaking out forcefully and truthfully might offend Iran's ruling clerics and its incumbent president, but that is a risk worth taking.

George goes on to recall the example of Ronald Reagan and his use of the term "evil empire" to describe the Soviet Union, which was criticized at the time as "belligerent and unnecessarily provocative", but for political prisoners, was seen as a ray of hope. The conclusion of the interview:

Stand up for principles. Speak aloud the truth that will burn inside the heart of each and every one of us. Good advice for despairing conservatives, or a president.

Via Hot Air, the Associated Press reports:

WASHINGTON – Legislation to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan this year is on its way to President Barack Obama, but it provides no money for closing the Guantanamo detainee prison and sets tough restrictions on the transfer of its inmates.

The $106 billion emergency war bill is not all for war fighting. It includes many unrelated items, including a "cash for clunkers" incentive to swap gas guzzlers for more fuel-efficient vehicles; and funds for UN peacekeeping, air service to rural communities, Gulf Coast housing for hurricane victims and the response to a flu pandemic.

Lawmakers sent Obama, who wants to close the prison, not one but two messages Thursday to prove they don't like the idea.

Robert George, founder of APP, was in Grand Rapids MI on June 17th at Acton Summer University to present the evening program on the topic of "The American Founding and Natural Law." Earlier in the day he sat down with the Kresta in the Afternoon radio program for their live show and a wide-ranging discussion. You may watch the video here.

David Novak, published in Public Discourse today:

Same-sex marriage fundamentally alters the idea of marriage, expands government control of marriage, and ignores a child’s right to a mother and father.

The question of whether or not there should be same-sex “marriage” has stirred passions and launched debate across the nation. But this debate raises a larger question: why is there an institution called “marriage” at all in a secular society? That is, why should a secular state recognize and structure, even encourage, human associations that have traditionally been called “marriages”? Furthermore, if a secular state does institute marriage, how can that state deny equal access to that institution to any normal couple, physically and mentally, who wants access to it, who wants to be married?  [Read on.]

David Novak is the J. Richard and Dorothy Shiff Chair of Jewish Studies as Professor of the Study of Religion and Professor of Philosophy at the University of Toronto. 

Dan Gilgoff at USNews & World Report on the activity of Obama surrogates:

 "... in a little-noticed move, the White House dispatched its top openly gay official yesterday to reaffirm the president's commitment to a broad gay rights agenda—including repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, which prevents the federal government from recognizing gay marriages and allows states to ignore marriage licenses granted to gay couples in other states. That agenda also includes repealing "don't ask, don't tell" in the military."

And yesterday the same commitment to repealing DOMA was made from the Oval Office itself.

The statement "Wrongs that We Intend to Right Today":

This evening the President signed a memorandum expanding federal benefits for the same-sex partners of Foreign Service and executive branch government employees. In his remarks before signing the memorandum, he said that this was a first step: "We've got more work to do to ensure that government treats all its citizens equally; to fight injustice and intolerance in all its forms; and to bring about that more perfect union.  I'm committed to these efforts, and I pledge to work tirelessly on behalf of these issues in the months and years to come."

Particularly in Obama's statement:

"But this Presidential Memorandum is just a start. Unfortunately, my Administration is not authorized by existing Federal law to provide same-sex couples with the full range of benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. That's why I stand by my long-standing commitment to work with Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. It's discriminatory, it interferes with States' rights, and it's time we overturned it."

Samuel Gregg over at Public Discourse:

"At a moment of increased government involvement in the economy, the solution we need might be a more independent central bank."

Politicians are not known for behaving unpredictably. When they do, it is usually for a reason. Thus when Germany’s Chancellor, Angela Merkel, publicly criticized three of the world’s leading central banks—the U.S. Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank (ECB), and the Bank of England—in a June 2 speech in Berlin, journalists and policy-makers around the world looked up and took notice.  [Read on.]

I believe Dr. Gregg is at Acton University 2009 this week. You can follow along on their twitter acount. Gregg recently wrote on government mortgage relief for APP here.

From their press release:

"The first $500,000 raised will be used to fund a primary challenger to any GOP state senator in New York who votes for gay marriage."
Brian Brown, NOM Executive Director

(Albany, NY) - On the heels of the chaos in Albany which has thrown the future of marriage into doubt, the National Organization for Marriage announced today the formation of a state political action committee, NOM PAC New York, which will allow NOM to engage in New York state legislative races. [More from the press release here.]

This extensive campaign in New York is already underway. See how you can get involved here, and watch one of their videos below:

 

By Jennifer Rubin at Pajamas Media:

Perhaps no part of the Obama administration’s planned Defense Department budget makes less sense than its effort to slash $1.2B from missile defense programs for FY 2010.

In light of the recent behavior of North Korea and the reminder that we face the prospect of a nuclear-armed revolutionary Islamic state in Iran, a group of Republican congressmen on the House Armed Services Committee on Tuesday offered a series of amendments seeking to reverse the proposed cuts.

Sources on the Committee tell Pajamas Media that the Committee Democrats blocked the amendments — seemingly unaware that earlier in the day Obama had deemed North Korea’s nuclear ambitions to be a “grave threat” or that administration officials were reporting that North Korea could have an ICBM capable of reaching the U.S. west coast within five years.

A double standard:

This is the triumph of bean-counting over common sense. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has been given his budget number by the White House and the president’s Democratic allies in Congress are doing everything possible to adhere to the White House’s edicts, regardless of the ramifications for national security.

Of course, no such fiscal discipline is applied to domestic programs.

Allahpundit with a revealing comparison:

[Obama] was “shocked and outraged” by the murder of George Tiller, [but] the most he can muster here for mass beatings and cold-blooded killings across Iran is that he’s “troubled.” Make of it what you will.

It is similarly disconcerting to see an American President remaining silent about an oppressed people who are attempting to secure for themselves the fruits of fair, representative democracy.

The latest findings:

Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004. The 21% calling themselves liberal is in line with findings throughout this decade, but is up from the 1990s. (Gallup)

What do you think are factors contributing to these recent survey findings?