Here's my quick thought on the election of Pope Benedict XVI. As I was discussing with Mr. Korean Air Force guy at the dry cleaners earlier today, I believe that this pope is intended to be a transitional pope. While he has strongly expressed very conservative views on a number of issues, at 78 he is really too old to create much of a legacy for himself. He is there to protect the legacy of John Paul II -- he will continue JPII's policies for the next 5-10 years, and then he'll die and we'll have a new pope. The pope after Benedict XVI will be the one that has the greater impact on the direction of the church.

Of course, now that the prophesy of St. Malachy looks like it's right once again in predicting the election of Benedict XVI, (some folks interpreted the prophesy to mean that this pope would be a Benedictine), the next pope (predicted by St. Malachy to be called "Peter the Roman") will be the last pope, so all hell is (literally) going to break loose anyhow.

It seems these days that the level of contempt that the hardcore conservatives are showing towards the federal judiciary is at a level not seen since the civil rights era. And it's rising.

Some of the well-documented slurs that Cons such as DeLay and Cornyn have been throwing around are tame in comparison to what's coming out from a number of prominent Cons that are not household names.

Andrew Sullivan in his blog here quotes a WaPo snippet from attorney and author Edwin Veira at a recent conference where he endorses Stalin's solution for taking care of trouble-makers -- death solves all problems; no troublemaker, no problem.

I think I've identified a concern here that some of the prominent commentators have missed: while these veiled threats on the judiciary are reprehensible, any attorney that makes them is likely violating his/her relevant code of professional conduct, as well as the ethics of the legal profession.

ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.2(a) -- A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory officer or public legal officer, or of a candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal office.

Ethical Canon 8-6 requires "lawyers to endeavor to prevent political considerations from outweighing judicial fitness in the selection of judges. ... Adjudicatory officials, not being wholly free to defend themselves, are entitled to receive the support of the bar against unjust criticism. While a lawyer as a citizen has a right to criticize such officials publicly, he should be certain of the merit of his complaint, use appropriate language, and avoid petty criticisms, for unrestrained and intemperate statements tend to lessen public confidence in our legal system. Criticisms motivated by reasons other than a desire to improve the legal system are not justified."

While threats against the judiciary are not expressly forbidden, such threats are so fundamentally injurious to the administration of justice that they need not even be stated.

I read somewhere today that Tom DeLay attended the funeral of Pope John Paul II.

I guess even the anti-Christ sees merit in having his lackeys scout out the opponents ...