The Republican attorney general for Virginia, Judith Jagdmann doesn’t like the Supreme Court’s ruling on the death penalty.

“It is unfortunate that five justices of the United States Supreme Court substituted their judgment for the will of the people of Virginia.”

I wonder if she was chagrin when the Supreme Court substituted its judgement for the will of the people of Florida.

If politicians don’t like the criticism they hear from citizens, the solution seems to be to sue them.

Michael Moore’s movie “Fahrenheit 911” has fallen off the radar. It didn’t help elect John Kerry, and even many liberals are put off by the guy’s self-righteousness. (I’m not among them.)

But George Mason University is paying a price for Moore’s fame. Last year, GMU rescinded an invitation to Moore to speak on the campus after his $35,000 fee was revealed and criticized by Del. Dick Black (R- Sterling) [Disclosure]. Black wasn’t objecting to the fee as much as the fact that Moore was going to speak on the campus. The fee was just a convenient excuse, in my opinion. GMU immediately announced http://commonwealthcommonsense.typepad.com/commonwealthcommonsense/2004/10/moore_censored_.html that Moore was uninvited. There was talk that Moore might come anyway or that another group would pay his bill, but none did and he didn’t come. GMU said it was about money, not censorship.

But the national honor society Phi Beta Kappa isn’t buying that. Today, it was revealed that the national honor society rejected GMU’s application for a campus chapter. Little was reported about the aftermath of GMU’s decision, although we now learn reporters missed the furor, or decided against reporting it

In the weeks after the cancellation, the American Association of University Professors sent George Mason a sharply worded letter that accused administrators of canceling the speech to “placate members of the state legislature.” Faculty members questioned [GMU President Alan] Merten about the incident during a faculty senate meeting.

Several professors, including James T. Bennett, faculty senate chairman and economics professor, said they are disheartened that one result of the controversy is that the university will go at least another three years without a Phi Beta Kappa chapter.

Bennett said most of his colleagues felt “very strongly” that $35,000, to be paid by the state, was too much to pay for a speaker and that Moore should not have been invited to speak on the state school’s dime. Still, he said, he and many other professors felt that once the invitation had been extended, the university should have stuck by it.

“We really don’t look good in the academic community,” Bennett said. “This gives the appearance of some outside meddling in the university.”

Provost Peter Stearns acknowledged that the university “fumbled a bit” by offering and then rescinding an invitation but said Moore would have been welcome if he had appeared for a small stipend or if the event had been funded with private money. He said he thinks Phi Beta Kappa rushed to an unfair judgment in a misguided effort to defend academic freedom.

“I thought this was seizing on a complex single event as a comment on faculty governance and commitment to freedom of speech, and I was disappointed,” Stearns said.

[The GMU professor who led the application process Marion] Deshmukh declined to provide copies of letters sent to the university from Phi Beta Kappa, but she read some portions to a reporter. One letter from the organization asked about media reports that a Virginia legislator had “influenced your president” to cancel a speaking event. Phi Beta Kappa officials also wrote that the incident “renewed concerns about governance problems” at the university.

Ultimately, Phi Beta Kappa decided not to visit the university and rejected a request by about 40 Phi Beta Kappa faculty members to reconsider, Deshmukh said. She said she was frustrated that society officials did not come to campus to question students and professors about the incident.

“We vehemently denied that academic freedom was impinged. The fee was the issue,” Deshmukh said. “If they had come and talked to us and walked around campus and not just closed the debate . . . I think they would have found mostly the reaction was this guy is charging a lot of money that would be better spent elsewhere.”

But what we still, six months later, do not know is what fees GMU has paid to other speakers. Are there conservative speakers who’ve been paid to speak? And how much?

I’ve sent an email to GMU President Alan Merten asking that GMU reveal fees paid to all speakers over the past 10 years. If anyone else cares to, his email address is amerten@gmu.edu. [Editor’s Note: The preceding sentence was edited for clarity and format.]

The Supreme Court ruled this morning that the death penalty for people under the age of 18 when they committed their crime is “unconstitutionally cruel.”

The 5-4 decision may prompt greater discussion of the death penalty in the Virginia races for governor and delegates in November. Virginia is one of 19 states that allows for the killing of convicted murders who were juveniles when their crimes were committed.

One of the GOP candidates for governor, Jerry Kilgore, has been trying to make the death penalty an issue, as likely Democratic nominee Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine is morally opposed to the death penalty but has promised to uphold it because it is legal.

Coincidentally, Marc Fisher of The Washington Post, has a column today that outlines Kaine’s challenge. Kilgore seems willing to wage his campaign by attacking Kaine’s faith. As a Catholic who adheres to the church’s position, Kaine opposes capital punishment.

The issue points to the contradiction of Kilgore’s attack. He wants his faith to guide his politics but criticizes Kaine when he does the same.

“Faith does shape my views on public policy, from prayer in school to other issues,” Kilgore says. “I don’t believe in gay adoption — it’s a faith issue for me.”

Kaine responds that “I think life is sacred, whether it’s abortion or the death penalty.” He immediately adds that “I’m going to take an oath and fulfill my office.” Meaning he will not delay executions or use the clemency power unless he is persuaded that a convict is actually innocent.

Kaine’s attempt to thread a politically acceptable path between his core beliefs and his proposed policies creates a huge opening for Kilgore. What does Kaine really believe, Kilgore will ask. If those are his true beliefs, shouldn’t he govern accordingly? If he’s willing to shelve his core values, what does that say about his character?

It’s a fair question, but maybe it also provides an opportunity for Kaine to attack Kilgore. If Kilgore wants to attack Kaine for his religious beliefs, Kaine can’t be criticized for painting Kilgore as intolerant of other religions, especially Catholicism.