She once claimed that the Bill of Rights wasn't intended to be binding on the states to uphold. A radical idea that echoes "nullification," a favorite legal theory of the confederacy and revived later by segregationists.
This explains why the democrats are holding up the nominations. My personal favorite: The judge who campaigned for a sentence reduction for cross-burners. A regular pillar of the mainstream, eh?
So it is extreme to think somone got a disproportionate sentence for the crime they committed. I am sure it is a great idea to reduce sentence for drug users and sellers in your eyes.
The hearing for Janice Rogers Brown was the one I heard
She once claimed that the Bill of Rights wasn't intended to be binding on the states to uphold. A radical idea that echoes "nullification," a favorite legal theory of the confederacy and revived later by segregationists.
She would be historically correct. You really should read up on your history because it is obvious you don't get it. And you don't understand nullification either. Nullification is seperate fro secession. Nullification was the idea that a state could overule federal law but still remain in the union.
Democrats should have voted to confirm Miguel Estrada, a worthy nominee. But Estrada grew tired of the process and withdrew his name from consideration.
He waited for two years. It shows just how extreme Schumer, Leahy and their cabal are
But three other nominees blocked by the Democrats hold radical views that make them unfit for promotions to higher courts. Alabama Attorney General William Pryor, selected for the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (which hears cases out of Georgia) has opposed civil rights, women's rights and federal environmental protections; federal district Judge Charles Pickering, nominated for the 5th Circuit, mounted an unusual campaign to get a reduced sentence for one of the defendants in a cross-burning conviction -- and without notifying the lawyers on both sides; and Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, another 5th Circuit nominee, was criticized by her court colleagues for letting her personal anti-abortion views go beyond the letter of the law she was asked to construe.
So if you are going to believe the lies and be dishonest there is no point dealing with you. That is the problem with most liberals they are fundamentally dishonest. The facts are that the judges took reasonable and legally sound positions on those matters.
The Democrats also rightly object to California Justice Carolyn Kuhl, nominated for the 9th Circuit, who supported tax-exempt status for Bob Jones University while it was still segregated; and California Justice Janice Rogers Brown, nominated for the influential D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, who has said she's not sure the Bill of Rights should ever have been applied to the states. (Republicans hypocritically call Democrats opposition to Brown, who is African-American, "racist." In fact, she's opposed by civil rights organizations across the country, including the NAACP.)
The NAACP opposes brown because she is conservative and undermines their brand of racial politics. As for questioning the IRS about Bob Jones, I think you would have approved of Kuhl's actions and arguments had the organization been a liberal organization. She put forward reasonable legal issues on the matter. You perpetuate the pure dishonest rhetoric, Taraka. That is why liberals are despised and well they should be.
Fundamentally dishonest? So Charles Pickering DID NOT campaign for a reduced sentence for a cross-burner? Is that what you are saying? It's just a lie?
Do you think I could find original sources regarding the views of these judicial nominees? And if I did, and those sources supported the charge that these are extremist nominees, then what would you say?
Fundamentally dishonest? So Charles Pickering DID NOT campaign for a reduced sentence for a cross-burner? Is that what you are saying? It's just a lie?
The lie is that Pickering supports cross burning. That is what the extreme left wants people to believe. The fact is that Pickering thought the sentence was disproportionate to the crime.
Do you think I could find original sources regarding the views of these judicial nominees? And if I did, and those sources supported the charge that these are extremist nominees, then what would you say?
They are not extreme nominees. They have the blessing of the ABA.
House Democrats called for an average of $417.6 billion in new spending, nearly 13 times more than House Republicans ($32.3 billion). Annualized over 10 years this level of increases ($4.2 trillion) is over twice the size of the tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 combined ($1.7 trillion).
Old Hickory, Lincoln, Grover Cleveland, Wilson and FDR have all been victims of the same irrational hatreds and fear, but only the 1800 election really compares...(if you read up on it, that is.)
Maybe you should do some reading. Old Hickory was accused of being a bigamist and JQ Adams was accused of being a pimp. It is the same thing over and over and over. I don't really think that you can say one election is much worse or much better than another.
Conservatives don't believe in appointing conservative ideologues to the bench, but judges who will honor their constitutional role of interpreting, not making laws. Even if those laws run counter to their ideology, as strict constructionists they will strive to refrain from the temptation to overstep their constitutional authority and remake the laws to conform to their policy preferences. It is your liberal ilk, Senator, who can't seem to grasp this concept, or who just don't have the character to obey their oaths of office.
The legislative branch writes the law, and the judicial branch interprets what they have written. When an appellate court interprets the law, said court is rendering an opinion as to what the law means. By their very function the higher courts "make law" -- it's unavoidable, and it's their job.
Even if those laws run counter to their ideology, as strict constructionists they will strive to refrain from the temptation to overstep their constitutional authority and remake the laws to conform to their policy preferences.
Jethro, compare and contrast Bush v. Gore and the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution.
The legislative branch writes the law, and the judicial branch interprets what they have written. When an appellate court interprets the law, said court is rendering an opinion as to what the law means. By their very function the higher courts "make law" -- it's unavoidable, and it's their job.
Apparently you don't have a clue about what you are writing. Court's are not suppose to "make" law. They are supposed to interpret it and they are supposed to interpret it based on what the legislature meant and based upon the U.S. and state constitution in historical context. But don't you believe that it would be a blatant violation of the separation of powers doctrine if the courts actually made law?
Jethro, compare and contrast Bush v. Gore and the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution.
You apparently disregard the specific provisions of Article II Section 1 paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Bush v. Gore was decided on an an interpretation of Article II Section 1 paragraph 2 in light of the 14th amendment and federal statute. But as you should know the 10th amendment means virtually nothing anymore. The provisions of the 14th have superseded the 10th to a large degree.
Court's are not suppose to "make" law. They are supposed to interpret it and they are supposed to interpret it based on what the legislature meant and based upon the U.S. and state constitution in historical context.
And when they do so, in effect they make law, by determining what the law means. Try thinking instead of copying and pasting.
And when they do so, in effect they make law, by determining what the law means. Try thinking instead of copying and pasting.
That IS NOT making law. I see you simply ignore the separation of powers issue. But if we follow the road you apparently approve of, why even have a legislature? I mean if the courts can rule that black is white there would be no point in having a legislature.
As a matter of fact just a couple weeks ago, he claimed that History had nothing to do with the decisions that the court makes. NOTHING. I have no idea what you are referring to.
Glad to see that he at least realizes that the Court MUST take into account the changes in our society over time, as we express ourselves in the laws we make. If that is true why the hell do we need a legislature,you damn fool? It is the legislature job to "express ourselves in the laws we make." I mean why bother with a legislature if the court can change the law based on its view of society? It is no wonder we have such problems because its idiots like you that do not comprehend how the system is supposed to work.
For those of you who get your news from the WashingtonPostNewYorkTimesCBSetc., here is a summary of those three now half-famous memos: 1) Democrats on the Senate Intelligence committee had drafted plans to use and misconstrue classified intelligence data to politically undercut the president of the United States ("pulling the trigger" closer to the election); (2) The CIA and other intelligence offices of the government have identified 10 years of contacts between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden -- thus tending to dramatically justify our war against Iraq and contradicting one of the major Democratic Party criticisms of President Bush's Iraq policy; and 3) Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee were working closely with outside groups to block judicial appointments for the purpose of ethnic bigotry and unethical manipulation of court proceedings. In Senator Durbin's case, the memo advised that Miguel Estrada be blocked, as he is "especially dangerous because he is Latino." In Senator Kennedy's case, the memo advised to stall Judge Gibbons' appointment so she couldn't get on the bench in time to decide the pending Michigan affirmative action case. The memo questioned "the propriety" of such tactics, but nonetheless advised it. She was confirmed just two months after the landmark case in question.
At the bottom of the Tony Blankley page, there's an ad for the Ann Coulter Talking Action Figure. Doesn't seem to be too lifelike, though -- no Adam's apple, and the knees don't bend.
Re: the "dramatic new information" regarding Saddam and Al-Qaida, the Department of Defense, those linguini-spined liberals, has thisto say:
DoD Statement on News Reports of Al Qaeda and Iraq Connections
News reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate.  A letter was sent to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Oct. 27, 2003, from Douglas J. Feith, under secretary of defense for policy, in response to follow-up questions from his July 10 testimony.  One of the questions posed by the committee asked the department to provide the reports from the intelligence community to which he referred in his testimony before the committee. These reports dealt with the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.  The letter to the committee included a classified annex containing a list and description of the requested reports, so that the committee could obtain the reports from the relevant members of the intelligence community.  The items listed in the classified annex were either raw reports or products of the CIA, the National Security Agency or, in one case, the Defense Intelligence Agency. The provision of the classified annex to the Intelligence Committee was cleared by other agencies and done with the permission of the intelligence community. The selection of the documents was made by DoD to respond to the committee’s question. The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and it drew no conclusions.  Individuals who leak or purport to leak classified information are doing serious harm to national security; such activity is deplorable and may be illegal.
For months, pro-marriage activists have expected a negative decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court. The closeness of the vote, 4 to 3, was the only real surprise. But more surprises are coming, for as Boston College political science professor Alan Wolfe told The New York Times, the decision "is exactly the right kind of material for a backlash."
The Massachusetts Supreme Court's 4-3 decision sanctioning - mandating - homosexual marriage is but the latest in a long line of cultural assaults, large and small. From random recall:
In a campaign to redefine the abnormal as normal, the expropriation of the word "gay" for behavior of a sort eminently sad. Religious denominations roiled over issues of homosexuals in the clergy and the blessing of same-sex unions. Devastation of the Catholic Church by pederasty and (principally) homosexual predation. In New York, the nation's first school for homosexual youth - the city-funded Harvey Milk High.
"Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom." Justice Anthony Kennedy
While true it certainly isn't the role of the judicary to make these determinations.
I wonder which administration provided more weapons to Iraq, than any other adminstration? I also wonder how many of our soldiers have been killed b y thopse same weapons, you know, the ones WE gave them?
It is obvious that he didn't. I doubt if he could have understood the link if he had. If I read the link correctly it doesn't appear that there were any deliveries during Bush I's term.
the government, sure...but take a look at all the private U.S. businesses whom did business with them with the blessing of their friends Reagan and Bush. You will see a different picture of where Iraq was getting their weapons.
I love that you consider the US Constitution "platitudes." Charming.
At conception there is a human being becuase it is an essential stage in the life of all people.
So the lawyer who was arguing a few weeks ago that an eight-months-pregnant woman should not be deported because her unborn child was already an American citizen under the Laci Peterson Law was correct? The courts disagreed with you.
the government, sure...but take a look at all the private U.S. businesses whom did business with them with the blessing of their friends Reagan and Bush. You will see a different picture of where Iraq was getting their weapons.
Yeah, Iraq was buying tanks off the back of a boosters truck.
fuck tanks....we are talking chemical and biological weapons...
Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.
Classified US Defense Department documents also seen by the Sunday Herald show that Britain sold Iraq the drug pralidoxine, an antidote to nerve gas, in March 1992, after the end of the Gulf war. Pralidoxine can be reverse engineered to create nerve gas.
The Senate committee's reports on 'US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq', undertaken in 1992 in the wake of the Gulf war, give the date and destination of all US exports. The reports show, for example, that on May 2, 1986, two batches of bacillus anthracis -- the micro-organism that causes anthrax -- were shipped to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education, along with two batches of the bacterium clostridium botulinum, the agent that causes deadly botulism poisoning.
One batch each of salmonella and E coli were shipped to the Iraqi State Company for Drug Industries on August 31, 1987. Other shipments went from the US to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission on July 11, 1988; the Department of Biology at the University of Basrah in November 1989; the Department of Microbiology at Baghdad University in June 1985; the Ministry of Health in April 1985 and Officers' City, a military complex in Baghdad, in March and April 1986.
The shipments to Iraq went on even after Saddam Hussein ordered the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja, in which at least 5000 men, women and children died. The atrocity, which shocked the world, took place in March 1988, but a month later the components and materials of weapons of mass destruction were continuing to arrive in Baghdad from the US.
The Senate report also makes clear that: 'The United States provided the government of Iraq with 'dual use' licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological and missile-system programs.'
This assistance, according to the report, included 'chemical warfare-agent precursors, chemical warfare-agent production facility plans and technical drawings, chemical warfare filling equipment, biological warfare-related materials, missile fabrication equipment and missile system guidance equipment'.
Donald Riegle, then chairman of the committee, said: 'UN inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs.'
Riegle added that, between January 1985 and August 1990, the 'executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq.I think that is a devastating record'. Â Â
but you say other countries were selling them guns and tanks?
but you say other countries were selling them guns and tanks?
Yes.
And anti-aircraft guns. And jets. And SAM's....
Most notably France & Russia. You know, the ones that didn't want to go to war in Iraq?
Anyway, I don't argue the fact that the US was selling chemicals to Iraq. I argue against nutty claims that our soldiers are being killed in Iraq everyday by weapons our administration provided.
Not only is that nonsense, it's an outright lie.
Now, regarding the chemical/biological weapons. It's disgusting that we as a nation would do such a thing. Never again should such a thing happen. I don't even understand why we have such things in our arsenal. Other than in war I suppose it doesn't matter how you kill your enemy, just that you kill them.
When the massive pile of documents from Iraq appeared the U.S. immediately pulled out all stops to get first access, to shut down wide dissemination. The smart money said there would be evidence of U.S. culpability in aiding the Iraqi weapons programs. To be reported in tomorow's Die Tageszeitung (Berlin daily), here is a list of US and Eurpean corporations that supplied Iraq with nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile technology, prior to 1991. The list comes, it seems, from the original Iraqi report to the Security Council."
ÂÂ
U.S. corporations involved:
ÂÂ
A - nuclear    K - chemical    B - biological     R - rockets                  (missiles)
ÂÂ
1) Honeywell (R,K)                  2) Spektra Physics (K)                  3) Semetex (R)                  4) TI Coating (A,K)                  5) UNISYS (A,K)                  6) Sperry Corp. (R,K)                  7) Tektronix (R,A)                  8) Rockwell )(K)                  9) Leybold Vacuum Systems (A)                  10) Finnigan-MAT-US (A)                  11) Hewlett Packard (A.R,K)                  12) Dupont (A)                  13) Eastman Kodak (R)                  14) American Type Culture Collection (B)                  15) Alcolac International (C)                  16) Consarc (A)                  17) Carl Zeis -U.Ss (K)                  18) Cerberus (LTD) (A)                  19) Electronic Assiciates (R)                  20) International Computer Systems                  21) Bechtel (K)                  22) EZ Logic Data Systems,Inc. (R)                  23) Canberra Industries Inc. (A)                  24) Axel Electronics Inc. (A)
ÂÂ
Additionally to these 24 companies based in the US, are nearly 50 subsidiaries of foreign enterprises whose arms co-operation with Iraq seems to have been operated from the US. In addition, Ministries for                  defense, energy, trade, and agriculture, as well as the foremost U.S.                  nuclear weapons laboratories at Lawrence Livermore. Los Alamos, and                  Sandia, are designated as suppliers for the Iraqi arms programs for A,                  B, and C-weapons as well as for rockets.  Â
ÂÂ
Iraq's 11,000-page report to the UN Security Council lists 150 foreign companies, including some from America, Britain, Germany and France, that supported Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programme, a German newspaper said yesterday.
remember back when the concern was that they had WoMD like chemical weapons and nukes?
remember when that was the reason for the war?
It was ONE reason, not the only reason.
I honestly don't care about all that. I don't care if they had/have any WMD at all, because Saddam needed to be taken out. PERIOD. It's that simple to me.
This should be no surprise, as it is a result of a logical progression in our jurisprudence toward radical individualism -- the rights of the individual trump everything else -- including the interest of the majority in establishing a moral and stable society.
She once claimed that the Bill of Rights wasn't intended to be binding on the states to uphold. A radical idea that echoes "nullification," a favorite legal theory of the confederacy and revived later by segregationists.
This explains why the democrats are holding up the nominations. My personal favorite: The judge who campaigned for a sentence reduction for cross-burners. A regular pillar of the mainstream, eh?
So it is extreme to think somone got a disproportionate sentence for the crime they committed. I am sure it is a great idea to reduce sentence for drug users and sellers in your eyes.
The hearing for Janice Rogers Brown was the one I heard
She once claimed that the Bill of Rights wasn't intended to be binding on the states to uphold. A radical idea that echoes "nullification," a favorite legal theory of the confederacy and revived later by segregationists.
She would be historically correct. You really should read up on your history because it is obvious you don't get it. And you don't understand nullification either. Nullification is seperate fro secession. Nullification was the idea that a state could overule federal law but still remain in the union.
Democrats should have voted to confirm Miguel Estrada, a worthy nominee. But Estrada grew tired of the process and withdrew his name from consideration.
He waited for two years. It shows just how extreme Schumer, Leahy and their cabal are
But three other nominees blocked by the Democrats hold radical views that make them unfit for promotions to higher courts. Alabama Attorney General William Pryor, selected for the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (which hears cases out of Georgia) has opposed civil rights, women's rights and federal environmental protections; federal district Judge Charles Pickering, nominated for the 5th Circuit, mounted an unusual campaign to get a reduced sentence for one of the defendants in a cross-burning conviction -- and without notifying the lawyers on both sides; and Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, another 5th Circuit nominee, was criticized by her court colleagues for letting her personal anti-abortion views go beyond the letter of the law she was asked to construe.
So if you are going to believe the lies and be dishonest there is no point dealing with you. That is the problem with most liberals they are fundamentally dishonest. The facts are that the judges took reasonable and legally sound positions on those matters.
The Democrats also rightly object to California Justice Carolyn Kuhl, nominated for the 9th Circuit, who supported tax-exempt status for Bob Jones University while it was still segregated; and California Justice Janice Rogers Brown, nominated for the influential D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, who has said she's not sure the Bill of Rights should ever have been applied to the states. (Republicans hypocritically call Democrats opposition to Brown, who is African-American, "racist." In fact, she's opposed by civil rights organizations across the country, including the NAACP.)
The NAACP opposes brown because she is conservative and undermines their brand of racial politics. As for questioning the IRS about Bob Jones, I think you would have approved of Kuhl's actions and arguments had the organization been a liberal organization. She put forward reasonable legal issues on the matter. You perpetuate the pure dishonest rhetoric, Taraka. That is why liberals are despised and well they should be.
jethro bodine 11/13/03 2:29pm
Fundamentally dishonest? So Charles Pickering DID NOT campaign for a reduced sentence for a cross-burner? Is that what you are saying? It's just a lie?
Do you think I could find original sources regarding the views of these judicial nominees? And if I did, and those sources supported the charge that these are extremist nominees, then what would you say?
Fundamentally dishonest? So Charles Pickering DID NOT campaign for a reduced sentence for a cross-burner? Is that what you are saying? It's just a lie?
The lie is that Pickering supports cross burning. That is what the extreme left wants people to believe. The fact is that Pickering thought the sentence was disproportionate to the crime.
Do you think I could find original sources regarding the views of these judicial nominees? And if I did, and those sources supported the charge that these are extremist nominees, then what would you say?
They are not extreme nominees. They have the blessing of the ABA.
jethro bodine 11/13/03 3:10pm
I've heard it is a "mixed blessing!"
American Bicycle Association?
House Democrats called for an average of $417.6 billion in new spending, nearly 13 times more than House Republicans ($32.3 billion). Annualized over 10 years this level of increases ($4.2 trillion) is over twice the size of the tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 combined ($1.7 trillion).
National Taxpayers Union
I am surprised no one said ABA: Aryan Brotherhood Association.
People such as Ann Coulter and Bob Novak, (and to be fair...From the Left we have Paul Begala and James Carville!),
I think a better example of the Left would be Michael Moore and Al Frankin.
and the United States will continue to be seen as a people driven only be their own self-interests,
The way we should be viewed, in my mind, because that is the course we should take.
People such as Ann Coulter and Bob Novak, (and to be fair...From the Left we have Paul Begala and James Carville!),
Bob Novak compared to Ann Coulter? What nonsense!
Old Hickory, Lincoln, Grover Cleveland, Wilson and FDR have all been victims of the same irrational hatreds and fear, but only the 1800 election really compares...(if you read up on it, that is.)
Maybe you should do some reading. Old Hickory was accused of being a bigamist and JQ Adams was accused of being a pimp. It is the same thing over and over and over. I don't really think that you can say one election is much worse or much better than another.
Conservatives don't believe in appointing conservative ideologues to the bench, but judges who will honor their constitutional role of interpreting, not making laws. Even if those laws run counter to their ideology, as strict constructionists they will strive to refrain from the temptation to overstep their constitutional authority and remake the laws to conform to their policy preferences. It is your liberal ilk, Senator, who can't seem to grasp this concept, or who just don't have the character to obey their oaths of office.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/dl20031118.shtml
The legislative branch writes the law, and the judicial branch interprets what they have written. When an appellate court interprets the law, said court is rendering an opinion as to what the law means. By their very function the higher courts "make law" -- it's unavoidable, and it's their job.
Jethro, compare and contrast Bush v. Gore and the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution.
The legislative branch writes the law, and the judicial branch interprets what they have written. When an appellate court interprets the law, said court is rendering an opinion as to what the law means. By their very function the higher courts "make law" -- it's unavoidable, and it's their job.
Apparently you don't have a clue about what you are writing. Court's are not suppose to "make" law. They are supposed to interpret it and they are supposed to interpret it based on what the legislature meant and based upon the U.S. and state constitution in historical context. But don't you believe that it would be a blatant violation of the separation of powers doctrine if the courts actually made law?
Jethro, compare and contrast Bush v. Gore and the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution.
You apparently disregard the specific provisions of Article II Section 1 paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Bush v. Gore was decided on an an interpretation of Article II Section 1 paragraph 2 in light of the 14th amendment and federal statute. But as you should know the 10th amendment means virtually nothing anymore. The provisions of the 14th have superseded the 10th to a large degree.
Bob Novak compared to Ann Coulter? What nonsense!
YAH...He's probably her illegitimate father. They are complete birds of a feather, and they LOVE using the 'H" word...all the damn time.
Why don't you read their respective columns and find out that you are wrong? Afraid you will learn something?
And when they do so, in effect they make law, by determining what the law means. Try thinking instead of copying and pasting.
And when they do so, in effect they make law, by determining what the law means. Try thinking instead of copying and pasting.
That IS NOT making law. I see you simply ignore the separation of powers issue. But if we follow the road you apparently approve of, why even have a legislature? I mean if the courts can rule that black is white there would be no point in having a legislature.
As a matter of fact just a couple weeks ago, he claimed that History had nothing to do with the decisions that the court makes. NOTHING. I have no idea what you are referring to.
Glad to see that he at least realizes that the Court MUST take into account the changes in our society over time, as we express ourselves in the laws we make. If that is true why the hell do we need a legislature,you damn fool? It is the legislature job to "express ourselves in the laws we make." I mean why bother with a legislature if the court can change the law based on its view of society? It is no wonder we have such problems because its idiots like you that do not comprehend how the system is supposed to work.
For those of you who get your news from the WashingtonPostNewYorkTimesCBSetc., here is a summary of those three now half-famous memos: 1) Democrats on the Senate Intelligence committee had drafted plans to use and misconstrue classified intelligence data to politically undercut the president of the United States ("pulling the trigger" closer to the election); (2) The CIA and other intelligence offices of the government have identified 10 years of contacts between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden -- thus tending to dramatically justify our war against Iraq and contradicting one of the major Democratic Party criticisms of President Bush's Iraq policy; and 3) Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee were working closely with outside groups to block judicial appointments for the purpose of ethnic bigotry and unethical manipulation of court proceedings. In Senator Durbin's case, the memo advised that Miguel Estrada be blocked, as he is "especially dangerous because he is Latino." In Senator Kennedy's case, the memo advised to stall Judge Gibbons' appointment so she couldn't get on the bench in time to decide the pending Michigan affirmative action case. The memo questioned "the propriety" of such tactics, but nonetheless advised it. She was confirmed just two months after the landmark case in question.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/tonyblankley/tb20031119.shtml
At the bottom of the Tony Blankley page, there's an ad for the Ann Coulter Talking Action Figure. Doesn't seem to be too lifelike, though -- no Adam's apple, and the knees don't bend.
Re: the "dramatic new information" regarding Saddam and Al-Qaida, the Department of Defense, those linguini-spined liberals, has thisto say:
The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and it drew no conclusions.
But conclusions can be made from the information provided. I think there is more to come out on al Qaeda and Iraq.
pieter,
Is that your cat in the pic? If so, what's up with the devil duck? I like it.
Zack was using it for a pillow that day. I have three or four devil duckies -- they are often found in goth-y shops.
For months, pro-marriage activists have expected a negative decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court. The closeness of the vote, 4 to 3, was the only real surprise. But more surprises are coming, for as Boston College political science professor Alan Wolfe told The New York Times, the decision "is exactly the right kind of material for a backlash."
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/marvinolasky/mo20031120.shtml#
The Massachusetts Supreme Court's 4-3 decision sanctioning - mandating - homosexual marriage is but the latest in a long line of cultural assaults, large and small. From random recall:
In a campaign to redefine the abnormal as normal, the expropriation of the word "gay" for behavior of a sort eminently sad. Religious denominations roiled over issues of homosexuals in the clergy and the blessing of same-sex unions. Devastation of the Catholic Church by pederasty and (principally) homosexual predation. In New York, the nation's first school for homosexual youth - the city-funded Harvey Milk High.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/rossmackenzie/rm20031120.shtml
"Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom." Justice Anthony Kennedy
While true it certainly isn't the role of the judicary to make these determinations.
I wonder which administration provided more weapons to Iraq, than any other adminstration? I also wonder how many of our soldiers have been killed b y thopse same weapons, you know, the ones WE gave them?
Good God, Man. Get your facts straight!
http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/IRQ_IMPRTS_73-02.pdf
The truth is, Russia & France provided a majority of weapons to Iraq.
You know, those same bastards that were hell bent on not going into Iraq.
I wonder if that had anything to do with their cozy little business relationships with Saddam?
DUH!
now, ask that of our administration.
Now that's, a Fact.
Fact my ass!
Did you even look at the link?
Did you even look at the link?
It is obvious that he didn't. I doubt if he could have understood the link if he had. If I read the link correctly it doesn't appear that there were any deliveries during Bush I's term.
Jethro, did you look at the details on what the US did send?
Not one SAM, not one tank, not one jet, not even one bullet.
Not one piece of equipment meant for military use.
the government, sure...but take a look at all the private U.S. businesses whom did business with them with the blessing of their friends Reagan and Bush. You will see a different picture of where Iraq was getting their weapons.
I love that you consider the US Constitution "platitudes." Charming.
So the lawyer who was arguing a few weeks ago that an eight-months-pregnant woman should not be deported because her unborn child was already an American citizen under the Laci Peterson Law was correct? The courts disagreed with you.
It's almost comical how fold trys to spin his way out of the holes he continually digs himself into.
the government, sure...but take a look at all the private U.S. businesses whom did business with them with the blessing of their friends Reagan and Bush. You will see a different picture of where Iraq was getting their weapons.
Yeah, Iraq was buying tanks off the back of a boosters truck.
fuck tanks....we are talking chemical and biological weapons...
but you say other countries were selling them guns and tanks?
I guess that we shouldn't have went in there and cleaned house then. Damn that Bush.
</sarcasm>
but you say other countries were selling them guns and tanks?
Yes.
And anti-aircraft guns. And jets. And SAM's....
Most notably France & Russia. You know, the ones that didn't want to go to war in Iraq?
Anyway, I don't argue the fact that the US was selling chemicals to Iraq. I argue against nutty claims that our soldiers are being killed in Iraq everyday by weapons our administration provided.
Not only is that nonsense, it's an outright lie.
Now, regarding the chemical/biological weapons. It's disgusting that we as a nation would do such a thing. Never again should such a thing happen. I don't even understand why we have such things in our arsenal. Other than in war I suppose it doesn't matter how you kill your enemy, just that you kill them.
remember back when it was about WoMD?
remember back when the concern was that they had WoMD like chemical weapons and nukes?
remember when that was the reasonfor the war?
ÂÂ
U.S. corporations involved:
ÂÂ
A - nuclear    K - chemical    B - biological     R - rockets
                 (missiles)
ÂÂ
1) Honeywell (R,K)
                 2) Spektra Physics (K)
                 3) Semetex (R)
                 4) TI Coating (A,K)
                 5) UNISYS (A,K)
                 6) Sperry Corp. (R,K)
                 7) Tektronix (R,A)
                 8) Rockwell )(K)
                 9) Leybold Vacuum Systems (A)
                 10) Finnigan-MAT-US (A)
                 11) Hewlett Packard (A.R,K)
                 12) Dupont (A)
                 13) Eastman Kodak (R)
                 14) American Type Culture Collection (B)
                 15) Alcolac International (C)
                 16) Consarc (A)
                 17) Carl Zeis -U.Ss (K)
                 18) Cerberus (LTD) (A)
                 19) Electronic Assiciates (R)
                 20) International Computer Systems
                 21) Bechtel (K)
                 22) EZ Logic Data Systems,Inc. (R)
                 23) Canberra Industries Inc. (A)
                 24) Axel Electronics Inc. (A)
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
remember back when the concern was that they had WoMD like chemical weapons and nukes?
Yea, but we were told that was a lie. So what is your point?
remember back when it was about WoMD?
remember back when the concern was that they had WoMD like chemical weapons and nukes?
remember when that was the reason for the war?
It was ONE reason, not the only reason.
I honestly don't care about all that. I don't care if they had/have any WMD at all, because Saddam needed to be taken out. PERIOD. It's that simple to me.
Yea, but we were told that was a lie. So what is your point?
Thank you!
Dan Zachary gets one point.
One lousy point? Jeez. That should be worth more. I demand a recount.
the point is that if you want to get rid of WoMD, you might want to start at the source.
This should be no surprise, as it is a result of a logical progression in our jurisprudence toward radical individualism -- the rights of the individual trump everything else -- including the interest of the majority in establishing a moral and stable society.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/dl20031121.shtml