Clintons 'too old' for Supreme Court?

   With apologies to Lewis Carroll, the news gets curiouser and curiouser.

   Since our last conversation, the following news stories have been brought to my attention by one source or another. Let's take a look, shall we?

   For starters, former President Bill Clinton said on "This Week" as quoted by UPI et. al., that he and Hillary (as in Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton) are too old to be considered as candidates for U.S. Supreme Court justices.

   Just how old is too old?

   Justice John Paul Stevens will be stepping down at age 90. Both Clintons are more than a quarter of a century his junior. Bill is 63 and Hill is 62. (Chief Justice John Roberts is 55.)

   One of many things Bill, an attorney, didn't bring up in this report is the minor detail that his law license was suspended for five years after he left office. And of course, there are a plethora of reasons why neither Clinton is fit for the Supreme Court. Presidential impeachment. Whitewater. TravelGate. Hot Pants and Diamond Jim. Web-Hub. Hugh Rodham, Bill's brother-in-law, who accepted about $400,000 to successfully push for presidential clemency for convicted drug dealer Carlos Vignali. Hillary, Red Bone and the futures market. (Search Hillary and Red Bone, see Washington Post). The current liquor tab in Hillary's office, etc.

   There are so many more reasons that neither Bill nor Hill should be considered for the High Court. Old age, however, is the least of them.

   And to suggest so is almost as comical as the Democrat PR machines complaining about Wall Street support of Republicans while Obama accepts almost $2.5 million in campaign cash from Goldman Sachs, CitiGroup and JPMorgan Chase.

  • A recent quote from The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer website really got my attention.

   "Democratic U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown, who served in the House (of Representatives) with (Ohio Gov. Ted) Strickland, says Strickland's focus on his constituents prepared him well to serve as governor. 'Ted is less about ideology and more about getting things done,' Brown said." I've known Ted for 20 years. I've always thought he's been more about ideology than anything else. Maybe I'm wrong. (That wouldn't be a first.)

   One of the most ideological votes I can recall from the Ohio governor was on House Resolution 1997, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. As a former Sixth District congressman, Ted voted against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, signed into law by former President Bush (Junior) recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of a crime of violence. The liberals had insisted that the Unborn Victims of Violence Act would be a step toward overturning the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. Turns out, it wasn't.

   As I was reminded of one of my columns from a few years back, "The only people who have anything to fear from this bill are criminals who engage in violence against pregnant women and their unborn children,"  said former Ohio Congressman Steve Chabot.

   Let me offer this hypothetical question: If your wife were pregnant, and a mugger assaulted her and killed your unborn child, would you see that as murder? Would you want that criminal punished to the full extent of the law? (I'm just an old Ridgerunner and you probably don't want my thoughts on this.)

   • Rep. David Daniels, R-Greenfield, was quoted in the Gallipolis Daily Tribune as saying that a problem with Extension expenses is that counties are becoming increasingly responsible for keeping it open and operational. He's right.

   "The extension office says the Ohio State University Extension Office," Daniels said. "This is Ohio State's best outreach program."

   And that's a crucial point: It is Ohio State's program.

   According to the Tribune, Daniels said at the beginning counties only needed to supply office space and office equipment for extension's use; but over the years, the counties have become responsible to help out with operational expenses. "I am a big supporter of extension; a big supporter of 4-H," Daniels told the newspaper. "But going into next year's budget, we have to push Ohio State to fund their program. It's their program."

   Daniels said the public needs to push OSU to fund extension. He doesn't say how the public is supposed to do that. (Perhaps through our state lawmakers?)

   Unfortunately for taxpayers, it seems there's little interest in pushing OSU to part with much of its $4.45 billion (yes, billion) in annual income. Instead, local taxpayers will be asked yet again to fund another government program ­ and that's not a knock on the program. The program isn't the problem.

   Ohio State University's failure to sufficiently fund it is.

   Rory Ryan is publisher and editor of The Highland County Press.