So why aren't you're Democrat buddies in the House bringing impeachment articles up for debate in the house? I mean, the Republicans even voted for Rep. Kucinich's motion so that everyone could finally publically debate the issue on the floor of the House.
Why did the Democrats not take this golden opportunity to finally begin the impeachment process?
None of the cops were committing a crime here. Pay attention.
It's assenine to insult those who put themselves between you and a bullet, and who run into burning buildings to save you, even when you denigrate them and insult them.
Do you even pay attention? No one committed a crime here (except for potentially the moronic MIT broad).
So WHAT are you talking about? Did you read the story? Did you read the post I replied to? Hell, did you even read my post? Some ass makes a blanket statement that essentially all cops are stupid putzes, and you have your own moronic reply that I'm somehow all for letting cops commit crimes with no consequences? What complete and utter lack of logic are you using to come up with that conclusion?
JHFC. I have GOT to stop posting on this stupid site. I keep saying that, but then some crackpot posts something really stupid, and I can't help myself. Because it always leads to MORE inane posts by people that don't pay any attention to what's being written.
OK. I can not let this ignorance stand, lest others read this and believe it: Or how about the Muslim men that were asked to leave a flight because they spoke in Arabic?
I can only assume you are talking about the "Flying Imams" case at the Minneapolis airport here, because I know of NO ONE who has been thrown off a plane merely for speaking Arabic. So from here on out, I am talking about said "Flying Imams."
No one was tossed from a plane for speaking Arabic.
The six Imams were removed from the plane because: 1. They were speaking loudly, praising Osama Bin Laden 2. They were speaking loudly, praising Saddam Hussein and saying they would do anything to avenge him. This bit comes from another passenger on the plane who spoke Arabic, unrelated to the six imams, who was one of numerous passengers to alert the flight crew about said Imams suspicious behavior. 3. Two took seats in first class, for which they did not have tickets. Two took seats at the midplane exit doors, and two took seats at the rear of the plane. This seating arrangement--first class, mid-plane, and rear of the plane--fits a pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks. 4. Three of these Imams asked for seat belt extenders, even tho they were not overweight. Then, instead of putting them on, they placed them under their seats.
There are other details that fully justify these six Imams being removed from an airplane, but these are probably the most significant.
In short, the Flying Imams case had nothing to do with bigotry against Arabic speakers, or overreactions of passengers or authorities. It was a manufactured event so that Rep Ellison and CAIR could get some press time and show how "bigoted and racist" all those non-Muslim Americans are.
God, you're an idiot. Please do us all a favor and don't vote or reproduce. Do you even realize how many rules of engagement the US military has to avoid ANY civilian deaths? The only people who don't care about civilian deaths, and who actually go out of their way to kill civilians are the insurgents and Al-Qaida.
"[Y]ou've got to avoid killing civilians at all costs"? So what do you do when someone decides to build a car bomb, hop in the back seat, and force some innocent woman to drive the car into a school (or crowded market,or whatever)? Let the car go and explode? No. You destroy the car, accepting the one death instead of many more.
You know all those bombs that go off near schools, in markets, outside police stations, etc? Those are turning more people against al-qaida, etc. And most people, tho perhaps not you, realize that if you hide behind a civilian while fighting, if that civilian is killed, it is ultimately your fault.
Civilian casualties are a fact of war. At the US military does as much as possible to avoid them.
According to the rules of war (Geneva Conventions, etc), you can not use civilians as shields around military targets. You must also wear a uniform when fighting. Anyone not wearing a uniform may be executed. (You get POW treatment only as a soldier, not as a spy.) Nearly everyone in al-qaida (and incidentally, hizbollah) is eligible to be executed, yet we go out of our way to capture them and treat them humanely where possible. By all rights, we could go in and just destroy any apartment building where insurgents and terrorists are hiding. But we don't, do we? No. We wait until we can take out the bad guys, leaving as many innocent people unharmed as possible.
"[F]or every insurgent you kill, you're going to have two more ready to take his place." Huh? I thought killing civilians made more insurgents? So, really, for every insurgent you kill, there is at least one less able to kill you.
-john
Re:Like the famous "Gore won Florida"?
on
Why Myths Persist
·
· Score: 1
First of all, stop using DailyKos for your information.
Second, everyone who was on that list was given a ballot and allowed to vote. (If I recall, they were given absentee ballots.) If it was determined that the exclude list was incorrect, then that vote was counted.
Third, when that felon list was created, race was -specifically- excluded. That was a requirement of the state. That was also part of the problem. If there was a white felon named Darren Johnson, when the black Darren Johnson showed up to vote, he was told he was on the felon list. But then he was given a ballot with which to vote. (Vice versa as well.) The ballot was put in a special box, which was then checked after the election. If it was determined he was not the felon Mr. Johnson, then the vote was tallied up with the rest.
Fourth, I like the way your racism shows itself by assuming that all/most felons are black. Nice.
Fifth, don't you even remember when Newsweek and a number of other newspapers and TV stations actually did further hand recounts after the election was over? In all but one instance, Bush still won Florida. The only instance in which Gore ended up with more votes was the situation where all heavily Democratic precincts were recounted, but Republican ones were not. Which, I might add, is what Al Gore was suing for, counter to state law, which required a state wide recount. While at the same time suing to have military absentee ballots thrown out.
I know all of this won't matter to you, since it will only reinforce your belief that the election was stolen.
I buy all my phones from Australia or Hong Kong -- unlocked and ready to roll. I currently run the HTC Trinity with a cooked WM6 rom, and I love it. $600 from Hong Kong.
So here's my question then: How does one go about picking a phone that you know is going to work on a US network? Or with a particular provider? (Hate Verizon all you want, personal experience shows they still have the best coverage in the areas I need it to work.)
And what kind of plan do you end up getting? Which cell-service provider?
The fact is that we're *this* close (holding thumb and forefinger a millimeter apart) to burning (well, hanging and pressing, actually) witches again in this country. The code words for "witches" these days are "terrorist," "paedophile," and "science teacher."
Personally, I am fully in favor of hanging terrorists and pedophiles.
Based on your "code words" for witch, I am gathering that you are in the lower half of that IQ level? I mean, you forgot to add the obvious murderers and rapists to your list.
Why haven't you distanced yourself from powerlineblog?
Why? Did someone there personally attack someone? Have they attacked someone's character based solely on their religion? Have they attacked someone for being Jewish? Or black? Or the wrong type of Christian?
Your lack of logic astounds me.
there's nothing wrong with blogs, you just need to filter what's there...so again I really don't understand your reasoning that criticizing people on kos somehow means that I can't quote anyone from ANY other blog.
Again, tho...READ!! Asking how someone's religion will affect their views/votes is NOT the same thing as asking specifically about someone's heritage/religion during a POLITICAL debate. I would have gotten pissed off too.
What have you got against Jewish people anyways?
And regarding kos v plb......try comparing the analysis on powerline with that on kos. Tell me which just sounds more logical. Even if you don't agree with it. Then read the Kos comments section. Prepare to be repulsed by the level of hatred there. (Or not, I guess.) Remember, kos' is the site where a kos diarist criticized the (ridiculously bad) court decision striking down the NSA program, who was then called every name in the book. Ah, diversity!
If Webb is such a wonderful character, why has Webb not distanced himself from the dailykos and other democrats who are making an issue of his Jewish heritage?
From a debate, local TV reporter Peggy Fox: It has been reported that your grandfather Felix, whom you were given your middle name for, was Jewish. Could you please tell us whether your forebears include Jews and, if so, at which point Jewish identity might have ended?
Where the hell does a "reporter" get off asking someone about their religion during a debate? What the hell does that have to do with anything?
"Our Constitution, for good reason, bans religious tests for public office. It may nonetheless be legitimate under some circumstances to ask a candidate how his or her religious views might affect decisions (as Mitt Romney no doubt will be asked many times). But what legitimate basis can there be for injecting the religion of a candidate's grandfather into a campaign? And if that is legitimate, what's next -- a question about whether a candidate's forebears include African-Americans?" (because Paul at powerlineblog.com has perhaps said it best.)
What's with the fixation on the English speakers? Is it not quite obvious (and let alone respectful) to learn the language of the country of your residence?
I am curious...what is your take on illegal Mexicans coming into the US and not learning English? What do you think about US schools teaching kids who don't speak English in Spanish (as they do in CA)?
I'm hoping you will say, they should learn English....but, this being slashdot, I'm not holding my breath.
Most of our members have came from slashdot through my sig link, so I guess that helped us get members that were above average in terms of writing and discussion skills.
Tell me, what kind of judge would a Democrat president appoint? Answer: a liberal one. Knowing what Ginsberg has said, and knowing that liberals consistently look at foreign laws when "interpreting" the Constitution, I can practically guarantee that a liberal court will rule that "first to file" is "constitutional," because "that's how the rest of the world does it."
So if you don't want to see first to file upheld by the supreme court, you can not support the appointment of liberal judges. Which means that you can't want a liberal democrat in the White House, or Democrats controlling the Senate.
Or more generally, harkening back to your initial post, if you want to see judges actually uphold the constitution, and not create new laws, then you can not support a Democrat in the white house. If you want to see judges actually uphold the constitution, even when--especially when--a ruling would lessen their power, then you cannot support a Democrat in the white house.
And btw, "son," you need some reality lessons. Again, Rebublicans have NOT been issuing rulings from the supreme court. Judges have. The problem is the liberal judges, regardless of which President appointed them. Souter's party is irrelevant. He is still a liberal. THAT is the problem. (Also, the fact that he became more liberal the longer he sat on the court.)
As an aside, consider that slavery and separate-but-equal were upheld by liberal courts. Even a cursory reading of the Constitution can tell you that ownership of one of your equals is not in the Constitution. Yet enough judges "found" the right to own slaves in there--just like they've found the right to take private property and give it to someone else.
Remember, "son," that when regular people talk about conservative judges, they are referring to how they interpret the US Constitution. Political party has nothing to do with it. You need to learn to separate the two.
-john
p.s. Notice how that scourge of liberalism, Clarance Thomas, dissented on the Kelo ruling? The conservative judges all dissented on that one. Direct your anger over that case at liberals, not conservatives.
Uh...I specifically mentioned the Kelo ruling....and Souter, while indeed nominated by a Republican, is still a liberal judge. And since the SCOTUS is supposed to be a-political, republican judges have NOT been issuing those rulings. Mostly liberal (or certainly left leaning) judges have.
And that is the problem.
And the fact that ginsberg was confirmed by a 93-3 vote only means that, until somewhat recently, republicans have been a bunch of wienerheads. (Or at least more so than they currently are.)
Fortunately, we've had talk radio and blogs recently to counter the largely liberal slant of CBS, NBC, BBC. Without them, Harriet Miers may very well be sitting on the supreme court. The Meirs nomination only showed that Bush was treating his base (conservatives) the same way Democrats have been treating blacks (a large part of their base) for years, with utter contempt and complete disregard.
-john
p.s. True, the transcontinental RR and intersates fall under interstate commerce. But most of the crap that gets tacked onto those bills does not, and it's pure pork. and yes, in this case, republicans deserve just as much blame as the democrats. ie: The in-famous bridge to nowhere in alaska.
I learned through my history classes and especially current events not to count on the constitution shooting down unjust laws.
More to the point, you can not rely on liberal judges to shoot down unjust laws, or rather unconstitutional laws. Unjust is sometimes a matter of opinion.
Just look at the Kelo decision: what is plainly unconstitutional to nearly everyone in the US, is somehow OK to a handful of arrogant, liberal judges.
Ginsberg has even gone so far as to say that she will look at foreign laws and trends before deciding a case. Which, I shouldn't need to say, violates her oath to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States.
So, to summarize, if you want to see judges actually strike down unconstitutional laws, vote Republican. Because (generally) the judges they appoint will at least read the constitution before deciding a law. Liberal judges (like Ginsberg) will ignore the constitution if foreign law or "world opinion" differs.
I sort of agree with your final statement, tho if judges had actually interpreted the constitution rather than ignoring it over the last 50 or so years, I think legislatively we'd be a lot better off, because eventually people would get quite angry at legislators (and executives) who consistently pass (and sign) unconstitutional legislation: Which would include Social Security, Medicare, welfare, abortion (yes, people, even abortion), massive "transportation" bills, etc. Remember that 10th Amendment*? It's not there for show. You can actually trace the huge amount of influence money has on current politics to the advent of modern liberalism, since that was when government suddenly became the solution to all our problems, and everything suddenly fell under the guise of "interstate commerce." So now we're stuck with a massive "dependent class" who think they are entitled to all sorts of wasteful government spending, and therefore actually think that there should be NO limits on what government can do. That's bad.
-john
* For those who don't know, it says that any government functions not specifically assigned to the federal government, and left up to the states. The ignoring of this amendment is why we have a massive, corrupt federal bureaucracy.
Slashdot Mirror
a) What a crappy poll.
It doesn't mention CowbowNeal AT ALL!!
b) File it right next to MSNBC.
-john
Really? They've broken the law numerous times?
Sounds serious.
So why aren't you're Democrat buddies in the House bringing impeachment articles up for debate in the house? I mean, the Republicans even voted for Rep. Kucinich's motion so that everyone could finally publically debate the issue on the floor of the House.
Why did the Democrats not take this golden opportunity to finally begin the impeachment process?
-john
From the Weekly Standard website:
"While the roll calls are not yet available, it seems there were plenty of Democrats who voted to go forward with impeachment when they thought it would fail, who suddenly voted against impeachment when it mattered."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/11/dems_outmaneuvered_on_impeachm.asp
Stop that.
I read smatterings of logic and intelligence in your post.
This is slashdot.
We will have none of that here.
Now be off with you.
-john
None of the cops were committing a crime here. Pay attention.
It's assenine to insult those who put themselves between you and a bullet, and who run into burning buildings to save you, even when you denigrate them and insult them.
Do you even pay attention? No one committed a crime here (except for potentially the moronic MIT broad).
So WHAT are you talking about? Did you read the story? Did you read the post I replied to? Hell, did you even read my post? Some ass makes a blanket statement that essentially all cops are stupid putzes, and you have your own moronic reply that I'm somehow all for letting cops commit crimes with no consequences? What complete and utter lack of logic are you using to come up with that conclusion?
JHFC. I have GOT to stop posting on this stupid site. I keep saying that, but then some crackpot posts something really stupid, and I can't help myself. Because it always leads to MORE inane posts by people that don't pay any attention to what's being written.
-john
Is there anyone on slashdot who is over 12 years old?
Just curious.
Actually, it wouldn't surprise me to hear that it was mentioned in everyone's morning briefing.
Now, it would definately surprise me if this MIT chick knew about it.
It is quite possible the security staff were on heightened alert.
-john
"narrow minded cops"
Way to show your appreciation for all those people who daily put their lives on the line for your sorry ass.
They were doing their jobs, and doing them correctly.
-john
Actually, wearing that shirt to the airport while holding a chunk of Play-doh pretty much confirms her status as a moron.
OK. I can not let this ignorance stand, lest others read this and believe it:
Or how about the Muslim men that were asked to leave a flight because they spoke in Arabic?
I can only assume you are talking about the "Flying Imams" case at the Minneapolis airport here, because I know of NO ONE who has been thrown off a plane merely for speaking Arabic. So from here on out, I am talking about said "Flying Imams."
No one was tossed from a plane for speaking Arabic.
The six Imams were removed from the plane because:
1. They were speaking loudly, praising Osama Bin Laden
2. They were speaking loudly, praising Saddam Hussein and saying they would do anything to avenge him. This bit comes from another passenger on the plane who spoke Arabic, unrelated to the six imams, who was one of numerous passengers to alert the flight crew about said Imams suspicious behavior.
3. Two took seats in first class, for which they did not have tickets. Two took seats at the midplane exit doors, and two took seats at the rear of the plane. This seating arrangement--first class, mid-plane, and rear of the plane--fits a pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks.
4. Three of these Imams asked for seat belt extenders, even tho they were not overweight. Then, instead of putting them on, they placed them under their seats.
There are other details that fully justify these six Imams being removed from an airplane, but these are probably the most significant.
In short, the Flying Imams case had nothing to do with bigotry against Arabic speakers, or overreactions of passengers or authorities. It was a manufactured event so that Rep Ellison and CAIR could get some press time and show how "bigoted and racist" all those non-Muslim Americans are.
Best still-active link I can find at the moment:
Wall Street Journal: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009348
-john
God, you're an idiot. Please do us all a favor and don't vote or reproduce. Do you even realize how many rules of engagement the US military has to avoid ANY civilian deaths? The only people who don't care about civilian deaths, and who actually go out of their way to kill civilians are the insurgents and Al-Qaida.
"[Y]ou've got to avoid killing civilians at all costs"? So what do you do when someone decides to build a car bomb, hop in the back seat, and force some innocent woman to drive the car into a school (or crowded market,or whatever)? Let the car go and explode? No. You destroy the car, accepting the one death instead of many more.
You know all those bombs that go off near schools, in markets, outside police stations, etc? Those are turning more people against al-qaida, etc. And most people, tho perhaps not you, realize that if you hide behind a civilian while fighting, if that civilian is killed, it is ultimately your fault.
Civilian casualties are a fact of war. At the US military does as much as possible to avoid them.
According to the rules of war (Geneva Conventions, etc), you can not use civilians as shields around military targets. You must also wear a uniform when fighting. Anyone not wearing a uniform may be executed. (You get POW treatment only as a soldier, not as a spy.) Nearly everyone in al-qaida (and incidentally, hizbollah) is eligible to be executed, yet we go out of our way to capture them and treat them humanely where possible. By all rights, we could go in and just destroy any apartment building where insurgents and terrorists are hiding. But we don't, do we? No. We wait until we can take out the bad guys, leaving as many innocent people unharmed as possible.
"[F]or every insurgent you kill, you're going to have two more ready to take his place." Huh? I thought killing civilians made more insurgents? So, really, for every insurgent you kill, there is at least one less able to kill you.
-john
First of all, stop using DailyKos for your information.
Second, everyone who was on that list was given a ballot and allowed to vote. (If I recall, they were given absentee ballots.) If it was determined that the exclude list was incorrect, then that vote was counted.
Third, when that felon list was created, race was -specifically- excluded. That was a requirement of the state. That was also part of the problem. If there was a white felon named Darren Johnson, when the black Darren Johnson showed up to vote, he was told he was on the felon list. But then he was given a ballot with which to vote. (Vice versa as well.) The ballot was put in a special box, which was then checked after the election. If it was determined he was not the felon Mr. Johnson, then the vote was tallied up with the rest.
Fourth, I like the way your racism shows itself by assuming that all/most felons are black. Nice.
Fifth, don't you even remember when Newsweek and a number of other newspapers and TV stations actually did further hand recounts after the election was over? In all but one instance, Bush still won Florida. The only instance in which Gore ended up with more votes was the situation where all heavily Democratic precincts were recounted, but Republican ones were not. Which, I might add, is what Al Gore was suing for, counter to state law, which required a state wide recount. While at the same time suing to have military absentee ballots thrown out.
I know all of this won't matter to you, since it will only reinforce your belief that the election was stolen.
-john
I buy all my phones from Australia or Hong Kong -- unlocked and ready to roll. I currently run the HTC Trinity with a cooked WM6 rom, and I love it. $600 from Hong Kong.
So here's my question then: How does one go about picking a phone that you know is going to work on a US network? Or with a particular provider? (Hate Verizon all you want, personal experience shows they still have the best coverage in the areas I need it to work.)
And what kind of plan do you end up getting? Which cell-service provider?
Any tips on this? A good FAQ type site?
-john
The fact is that we're *this* close (holding thumb and forefinger a millimeter apart) to burning (well, hanging and pressing, actually) witches again in this country. The code words for "witches" these days are "terrorist," "paedophile," and "science teacher."
Personally, I am fully in favor of hanging terrorists and pedophiles.
This would be a good thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica's_Law
Based on your "code words" for witch, I am gathering that you are in the lower half of that IQ level? I mean, you forgot to add the obvious murderers and rapists to your list.
Who the heck modded this "insightful"?
-john
Why haven't you distanced yourself from powerlineblog?
Why? Did someone there personally attack someone? Have they attacked someone's character based solely on their religion? Have they attacked someone for being Jewish? Or black? Or the wrong type of Christian?
Your lack of logic astounds me.
there's nothing wrong with blogs, you just need to filter what's there...so again I really don't understand your reasoning that criticizing people on kos somehow means that I can't quote anyone from ANY other blog.
Again, tho...READ!! Asking how someone's religion will affect their views/votes is NOT the same thing as asking specifically about someone's heritage/religion during a POLITICAL debate. I would have gotten pissed off too.
What have you got against Jewish people anyways?
And regarding kos v plb......try comparing the analysis on powerline with that on kos. Tell me which just sounds more logical. Even if you don't agree with it. Then read the Kos comments section. Prepare to be repulsed by the level of hatred there. (Or not, I guess.) Remember, kos' is the site where a kos diarist criticized the (ridiculously bad) court decision striking down the NSA program, who was then called every name in the book. Ah, diversity!
Huh?
What 12-year-old modded "Punish killing by killing! Go hypocrisy!" Insightful?
Good lord. I have REALLY got to stop reading the comments section on slashdot. I've already stopped visiting digg. Is slashdot next?
So he must be stopped!!
If Webb is such a wonderful character, why has Webb not distanced himself from the dailykos and other democrats who are making an issue of his Jewish heritage?
From a debate, local TV reporter Peggy Fox:
It has been reported that your grandfather Felix, whom you were given your middle name for, was Jewish. Could you please tell us whether your forebears include Jews and, if so, at which point Jewish identity might have ended?
Where the hell does a "reporter" get off asking someone about their religion during a debate? What the hell does that have to do with anything?
"Our Constitution, for good reason, bans religious tests for public office. It may nonetheless be legitimate under some circumstances to ask a candidate how his or her religious views might affect decisions (as Mitt Romney no doubt will be asked many times). But what legitimate basis can there be for injecting the religion of a candidate's grandfather into a campaign? And if that is legitimate, what's next -- a question about whether a candidate's forebears include African-Americans?" (because Paul at powerlineblog.com has perhaps said it best.)
I see you are trying to do the same thing.
-john
What's with the fixation on the English speakers? Is it not quite obvious (and let alone respectful) to learn the language of the country of your residence?
I am curious...what is your take on illegal Mexicans coming into the US and not learning English? What do you think about US schools teaching kids who don't speak English in Spanish (as they do in CA)?
I'm hoping you will say, they should learn English....but, this being slashdot, I'm not holding my breath.
-john
Most of our members have came from slashdot through my sig link, so I guess that helped us get members that were above average in terms of writing and discussion skills.
WOO-HOO!!
OMG!! RAOTHLMFAO!!!
Now I have chocolate milk all over my monitor!
Thanks for brightening my day!
-john
making yourself look to be more and more of an ass
WOW!
ALMOST an intelligent post! You came so close, yet you had to resort to name calling. (And yes, that does reflect on everything else you say.)
Too bad.
I really need to stop posting on this site. Too many 12 year olds.
-john
p.s. when a foreign law and the constitution are opposed to each other, the Constitution should win. THAT's the problem with people like ginsberg.
twist your words?
I did no such thing.
Tell me, what kind of judge would a Democrat president appoint? Answer: a liberal one. Knowing what Ginsberg has said, and knowing that liberals consistently look at foreign laws when "interpreting" the Constitution, I can practically guarantee that a liberal court will rule that "first to file" is "constitutional," because "that's how the rest of the world does it."
So if you don't want to see first to file upheld by the supreme court, you can not support the appointment of liberal judges. Which means that you can't want a liberal democrat in the White House, or Democrats controlling the Senate.
Or more generally, harkening back to your initial post, if you want to see judges actually uphold the constitution, and not create new laws, then you can not support a Democrat in the white house. If you want to see judges actually uphold the constitution, even when--especially when--a ruling would lessen their power, then you cannot support a Democrat in the white house.
And btw, "son," you need some reality lessons. Again, Rebublicans have NOT been issuing rulings from the supreme court. Judges have. The problem is the liberal judges, regardless of which President appointed them. Souter's party is irrelevant. He is still a liberal. THAT is the problem. (Also, the fact that he became more liberal the longer he sat on the court.)
As an aside, consider that slavery and separate-but-equal were upheld by liberal courts. Even a cursory reading of the Constitution can tell you that ownership of one of your equals is not in the Constitution. Yet enough judges "found" the right to own slaves in there--just like they've found the right to take private property and give it to someone else.
Remember, "son," that when regular people talk about conservative judges, they are referring to how they interpret the US Constitution. Political party has nothing to do with it. You need to learn to separate the two.
-john
p.s. Notice how that scourge of liberalism, Clarance Thomas, dissented on the Kelo ruling? The conservative judges all dissented on that one. Direct your anger over that case at liberals, not conservatives.
Uh...I specifically mentioned the Kelo ruling....and Souter, while indeed nominated by a Republican, is still a liberal judge. And since the SCOTUS is supposed to be a-political, republican judges have NOT been issuing those rulings. Mostly liberal (or certainly left leaning) judges have.
And that is the problem.
And the fact that ginsberg was confirmed by a 93-3 vote only means that, until somewhat recently, republicans have been a bunch of wienerheads. (Or at least more so than they currently are.)
Fortunately, we've had talk radio and blogs recently to counter the largely liberal slant of CBS, NBC, BBC. Without them, Harriet Miers may very well be sitting on the supreme court. The Meirs nomination only showed that Bush was treating his base (conservatives) the same way Democrats have been treating blacks (a large part of their base) for years, with utter contempt and complete disregard.
-john
p.s. True, the transcontinental RR and intersates fall under interstate commerce. But most of the crap that gets tacked onto those bills does not, and it's pure pork. and yes, in this case, republicans deserve just as much blame as the democrats. ie: The in-famous bridge to nowhere in alaska.
I learned through my history classes and especially current events not to count on the constitution shooting down unjust laws.
More to the point, you can not rely on liberal judges to shoot down unjust laws, or rather unconstitutional laws. Unjust is sometimes a matter of opinion.
Just look at the Kelo decision: what is plainly unconstitutional to nearly everyone in the US, is somehow OK to a handful of arrogant, liberal judges.
Ginsberg has even gone so far as to say that she will look at foreign laws and trends before deciding a case. Which, I shouldn't need to say, violates her oath to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States.
So, to summarize, if you want to see judges actually strike down unconstitutional laws, vote Republican. Because (generally) the judges they appoint will at least read the constitution before deciding a law. Liberal judges (like Ginsberg) will ignore the constitution if foreign law or "world opinion" differs.
I sort of agree with your final statement, tho if judges had actually interpreted the constitution rather than ignoring it over the last 50 or so years, I think legislatively we'd be a lot better off, because eventually people would get quite angry at legislators (and executives) who consistently pass (and sign) unconstitutional legislation: Which would include Social Security, Medicare, welfare, abortion (yes, people, even abortion), massive "transportation" bills, etc. Remember that 10th Amendment*? It's not there for show. You can actually trace the huge amount of influence money has on current politics to the advent of modern liberalism, since that was when government suddenly became the solution to all our problems, and everything suddenly fell under the guise of "interstate commerce." So now we're stuck with a massive "dependent class" who think they are entitled to all sorts of wasteful government spending, and therefore actually think that there should be NO limits on what government can do. That's bad.
-john
* For those who don't know, it says that any government functions not specifically assigned to the federal government, and left up to the states. The ignoring of this amendment is why we have a massive, corrupt federal bureaucracy.
Let the BDS posts begin:- bush-derangement-syndrome.html= 9173d romea uthammer/2003/12/05/160406.html
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2005/11/lets-discuss
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Derangement_Syn
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/charleskr
You guys really need to grow up and start thinking.
waiting for the flamebait mod from a lib...
-john
and you don't have the decency/intelligence/grace to admit that this is a legal program.
- bush-derangement-syndrome.html
dammit...I'm sick of all the people on slashdot suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome.
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2005/11/lets-discuss
-john
Plame working for the CIA wasn't a secret, you fool!!
sheesh.
even the times admits this is a legal program. And SCOTUS has upheld this type of program numerous times.
get over yourself.
better yet....go educate yourself.
-john