Nowhere is political rhetoric more shameless — or more dangerous — than in the pious names that politicians give to the legislation they pass. Perhaps the most egregious example is the so-called "Indian Child Welfare Act," which callously sacrifices the welfare of Indian children.

Whenever we think we have five votes for the Constitution on anything, at least one of the "conservative" justices may be counted on to go into the tank.  Did we really think it would be different with Georgiebird's (Bush the Lesser’s) first pick for the high court sitting as chief justice?

So this time it wasn't Justice Kennedy. And both "Diva" David Souter and Slippery Sandra (and rarely Cassandra) Day O'Connor are gone. So Roberts did the ignoble deed.

If there were a Hall of Fame for political rhetoric, the phrase "social justice" would deserve a prominent place there. It has the prime virtue of political catchwords: It means many different things to many different people.

It should be just a matter of time before Holder is no longer our nation’s top law-enforcement officer. While the list of unconstitutional excesses by this Administration is longer than both of my arms, Holder’s bungling mismanagement of the Fast and Furious crisis, followed by his outright defiance of Congress, is reason enough to color him gone.

When Ronald Reagan became president in 1981, he tried to abolish the Department of Education, which had been established in 1979 by his predecessor, liberal Democrat Jimmy Carter. Walter Mondale, Carter’s vice president, had obtained the backing of the National Education Association by promising them a cabinet-level Department of Education, which the NEA had strongly advocated.

Conservatives had persuaded candidate Reagan to abolish the department when elected. But Reagan’s agreement to accept George H.W. Bush as his vice president indicated that as president he would cooperate with the liberal-leaning Republican establishment. As a member of the Skull and Bones secret Order, Bush could turn the entire secret society either for or against Reagan.

But why would Reagan choose Terrel Bell for Secretary of Education, who opposed his objective to abolish the Department of Education? It simply indicates that the controllers of American education had the upper hand in that choice.