Did The Foiled Terror Plot Make Senator Graham Smarter?
The good news is that the terrorist plot to explode over the Atlantic Ocean airplanes flying from Great Britain to the United States was foiled, primarily thanks to the way Great Britain balances the conflicting demands of security and civil liberty during the War on Terror. The British understand that protecting themselves from terrorists trying to terminate their right to life is more important than protecting their "rights" not to be surveilled on the basis of reasonable suspicion or to have the government not known what books they borrow at a library. The bad news is that the United States has not positioned itself as well as Great Britain to deal with the terrorist threat.
The good news is that the terrorist plot to explode over the Atlantic Ocean airplanes flying from Great Britain to the United States was foiled, primarily thanks to the way Great Britain balances the conflicting demands of security and civil liberty during the War on Terror. The British understand that protecting themselves from terrorists trying to terminate their right to life†is more important than protecting their "rights" not to surveilled on the basis of reasonable suspicion or to have the government not known what books they borrow at a library.
The bad news is that the United States has not positioned itself as well as Great Britain to deal with the terrorist threat.
The question is whether, as a result of the studying the way the foiled terrorism plot was foiled,†Senator Lindsay Graham, Republican of South Carolina, will have an epiphany and realize that his unjustified vendetta against William J. Haynes, President Bush's nominee for seat of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, is leading him toward the ignominy of being a one-term United States Senator from South Carolina (Senators Strom Thurmond and Ernest "Fritz" Hollings served for scores of years) instead of the first South Carolinian to become President of the United States.
After Congress adjourned for its summer recess, the Senate quietly returned Mr. Haynes' nomination to the White House.
As a candidate, Senator Lindsay Graham, Republican of South Carolina pledged to support up-or-down votes for judicial nominees.† As a Senator, he's broken that pledge according to James Rosen, a writer for the McClatchy newspapers in South Carolina.
Mr. Rosen: "If the defeat of a high-profile judicial nominee were probed like a homicide investigation, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Grahamís fingerprints would be on the gun.
Senator Graham should urge the renomination of Mr. Haynes in September, stop denying the up-or-down votes judicial nominees deserve and he pledged to support and start doing what he was elected to do.
As the United States Defense Department's general counsel, Mr. Haynes helped craft the Bush administrationís legal rationale for aggressive detainee interrogation techniques used by United States†military and intelligence forces.
Senator Graham used the Haynes nomination to pander to the Left.† He expressed strong concerns about Haynesí fitness for the appellate court.
Senator Graham's position: ďTo say the least, I have serious reservations about his nomination.† This is not about being conservative. Itís about being held accountable for what happened on your watch.Ē
Senator, it's about keeping faith with your constituents and giving judicial nominees an up-or-down vote, as they deserve.† The Constitution provides for confirmation by a simple majority, not a super majority.† Judicial filibuster, whether loud, soft or silent,†is not what the people who wrote and ratified the United States Constitution, expected from United States Senators.
Senator, you made a monumental mistake by becoming a member of the "Gang of Fourteen."† Judicial nominees are supposed to be approved or rejected by the entire Senate, not a cabal consisting on less that one-seventh of the whole presuming to decide for the whole Senate.
Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member.
Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. He wrote on the Pentagon Papers case for the Review and obscenity law for The Catholic Lawyer and edited the Law Review's commentary on significant developments in New York law.
The day after graduating, Gaynor joined the Fulton firm, where he focused on litigation and corporate law. In 1997 Gaynor and Emily Bass formed Gaynor & Bass and then conducted a general legal practice, emphasizing litigation, and represented corporations, individuals and a New York City labor union. Notably, Gaynor & Bass prevailed in the Second Circuit in a seminal copyright infringement case, Tasini v. New York Times, against newspaper and magazine publishers and Lexis-Nexis. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, 7 to 2, holding that the copyrights of freelance writers had been infringed when their work was put online without permission or compensation.
Gaynor currently contributes regularly to www.MichNews.com, www.RenewAmerica.com, www.WebCommentary.com, www.PostChronicle.com and www.therealitycheck.org and has contributed to many other websites. He has written extensively on political and religious issues, notably the Terry Schiavo case, the Duke "no rape" case, ACORN and canon law, and appeared as a guest on television and radio. He was acknowledged in Until Proven Innocent, by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson, and Culture of Corruption, by Michelle Malkin. He appeared on "Your World With Cavuto" to promote an eBay boycott that he initiated and "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" (EWTN) to discuss the legal implications of the Schiavo case. On October 22, 2008, Gaynor was the first to report that The New York Times had killed an Obama/ACORN expose on which a Times reporter had been working with ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief.