Yup. Here is a picture of Lurch and his buddy Zephyr who is a miniture zebu.
Zephyr is full grown. By comparision, Lurch is about the size of normal cattle you might see on a farm around here.
Just an amazing place to see. All these unusual animals that act like they are a house cat or something. All they want is some food and attention. All the animals come to this lady near death. She nurses them back to health by bottle feeding them or whatever it takes. I think that they are so friendly towards humans because it is a human (this lady) who has literally saved their lives and treats them like close family.
We were going down the road near my Uncle's house and saw a herd of these things and stopped to take pictures. It was kind of scary to look at this giant horned animal and think that there was just a rusty barbed wire fence between us. The herd seemed more frightened of us though.
My aunt told me what it was and said that we should see her friends Watusi Lurch. She made arrangements for us to go see him.
"not very friendly to different kinds of people, they are a pretty monolithic party ... it's pretty much a white, Christian party."
"unfortunately, by and large it is. And they have the agenda of the conservative Christians."
"never made an honest living in their lives,"
What happened to tolerance and diversity?
Democratic New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said Tuesday that Dean is doing a good job, but is not the party's spokesman.
If the DNC chair isn't your party spokesman, who is?
Last weekend, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Delaware, and 2004 vice presidential candidate John Edwards criticized Dean for his recent remarks, saying he doesn't speak for them.
How's that for loyalty, Rick? They're running away from their own party chair.
While even prominent Democrats in recent days have distanced themselves from some of his comments, the outspoken Dean, appearing on NBC"s "Today" show, said criticism of him is meant by Republicans to divert attention from the country's problems and make him the issue instead.
Uhm yeah. It has nothing to do with you being mentally deranged.
Thanks. It turned into more of a celebration of her life rather than a mourning for our loss. That made it a lot easier. IÂ wish all funerals could be that way.
My pictures that I posted seem to be not showing up on my computer anymore. If anyone is interested in what the area is like or what I did while there, go to my pictures on Yahoo at:
That was how I began the services for my grandmother-in-law some years back. "We are here not just to mourn her passsing, but also to celebrate her life." MCing a memorial service is not a job for someone embarrassed to shed tears in public.
When my mother passed away at the age of 98, her three of her remaining children, including myself, and all 33 of her grandchildren were in attendance. From all corners of the US. We had a grand old time celebrating her LIFE. And what a life she had!
By GLEN JOHNSON, Associated Press WriterTue Jun 21, 6:09 PM ET
Under fire from Republicans and some fellow Democrats, Sen. Dick Durbin apologized Tuesday for comparing American interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp to Nazis and other historically infamous figures.
"Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line," the Illinois Democrat said. "To them I extend my heartfelt apologies."
His voice quaking and tears welling in his eyes, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate also apologized to any soldiers who felt insulted by his remarks.
"They're the best. I never, ever intended any disrespect for them," he said.
The apology came a week after Durbin, the Senate minority whip, quoted from an FBI agent's report describing detainees at the Naval base in a U.S.-controlled portion of Cuba as being chained to the floor without food or water in extreme temperatures.
"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings," the senator said June 14.
The comment created a buzz on the Internet and among conservative talk radio hosts, but Durbin initially refused to apologize.
"This administration should apologize to the American people for abandoning the Geneva Conventions and authorizing torture techniques that put our troops at risk and make Americans less secure," he said the day after his initial comments.
By last Friday, Durbin was trying to clarify his comments, yet the White House and top Republicans including Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist refused to relent. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in an interview scheduled for broadcast Wednesday on Fox News radio's "The Tony Snow Show," tried to equate the comment with actress Jane Fonda calling U.S. soldiers war criminals during a visit to North Vietnam in 1972.
On Tuesday, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley — a fellow Democrat — added his voice to the chorus of criticism, saying, "I think it's a disgrace to say that any man or woman in the military would act like that."
Durbin said in his apology: "I made reference to Nazis, to Soviets, and other repressive regimes. Mr. President, I've come to understand that's a very poor choice of words."
I don't know what caused him to appologize. Not that long ago he was sticking up for what he said. My nephew is in Iraq because of people who we can truely compare to Nazi's, Stalinist henchmen and Pol Pot's killers (ie. Saddam and the Bathist party).
Having said that, he did appologize and I am willing to let it go at that, given he doesn't repeat himself on this issue.
Why Democrats, including so called "moderate" democrats like the rat, will smear any conservative court nominee
We don't know who President George W. Bush will nominate to succeed Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. But this is certain: Democrats will smear the nominee.
The Heartland Institute(Chicago) does its bit for the gross national blood pressure by tracking the outrages of the world's trial lawyers. The May newsletteroffers the following examples:
The next choice for SC JUstice, is likely to be about as interesting as an election, and why not? It will carry the weight of 1/3 of our form of government on it, and if the shoe were on the other foot, the Republicans would be screaming...
really? Do you know the vote on confirming Ruth Ginsburg?.
This bickering about who would next sit on the bench, started to be this intense during the Reagan years, and has been this strongly felt by BOTH sides ever since... it's about POWER, nothing else...that is why it is causing so much debate. Debate, is supposed to be what we are all about in the U.S., isn't it?
It was started by Democrats and it is continuing by Democrats. Again look at the vote confirming Ginsburg.
Republicans want to control the direction of Court and as much as they can for the next 50 years or so, and so do the Democrats. BIG Surprise there.
Republicans control the Senate and the presidency under the Constitution they should control who gets on the Court.
We should all be crying "Democracy in Action"...!!! Since to a large extent, the court will reflect the choices and will of We the People, as it always has... I don't see the big-deal.
The Court does not now reflect the will of the people.
If conservatives can recapture the court, social and moral issues can be returned to where they belong: elected legislatures and executives. The Left will lose its power to advance its social agenda and see a rollback of a revolution imposed undemocratically upon America over 50 years.
 The Left gets it. Liberals smeared Nixon nominees Haynesworth and Carswell as racists and tried to derail Rehnquist. They gave Reagan's moderate nominee, O'Connor, a pass, while savaging conservative Robert Bork. They let Bush I's stealth candidate Souter through, but attempted the "high-tech lynching" of Clarence Thomas. Â
Reporters quickly assured viewers this "titanic battle" that is guaranteed to be knock-down, drag-out, wall-to-wall ugly. They didn't wonder: Why does this always happen with Republican nominations, but not Democratic ones? In 1993, President Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was calmly approved by a vote of 96 to 3. In 1994, Clinton nominated Stephen Breyer, who was confirmed by a vote of 87 to 9. By contrast, all hell broke loose with Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas, with 58 senators against the one, and 48 votes against the other. The same pattern occurs with attorney general nominees: 42 votes against John Ashcroft, 36 against Alberto Gonzales, and zero against Janet Reno. Why?Â
And which explains the rage and incivility that may soon overtake us as the Senate considers George W. Bush's first nominee to the court. Conservatives and liberals alike understand the stakes. The eventual nominee not necessarily will but might take a modest view of the court's qualifications for overhauling the Constitution whenever the mood strikes. Democrats generally support the court's rough jurisprudence on abortion, gay rights, church-state relationships and capital punishment. Saves them the trouble of persuading the people. Permits them just to say, "The court says so ... " Conservatives, by contrast, argue for the people's right to shape their own constitutional arrangements.Â
The reason that Ginsburg sailed through is that Bill Clinton sat dowwn with Orrin Hatch, and Hatch told him that Ginsburg and Breyer would be confirmed with no problem, but Babbit, whom Clinton was reportedly considering, would be a problem.
Here's wwhat Hatch wrote in his 2002 autobiography:
Our conversation moved to other potential candidates. I asked whether he had considered Judge Stephen Breyer of the First Circuit Court of Appeals or Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. President Clinton indicated he had heard Breyer's name but had not thought about Judge Ginsberg.
I indicated I thought they would be confirmed easily. I knew them both and believed that, while liberal, they were highly honest and capable jurists and their confirmation would not embarrass the President. From my perspective, they were far better than the other likely candidates from a liberal Democrat administration.
In the end, the President did not select Secretary Babbitt. Instead, he nominated Judge Ginsburg and Judge Breyer a year later, when Harry Blackmun retired from the Court. Both were confirmed with relative ease.
In case you didn't notice, YOU and your religiously-fanatic friends are now seen as THE stumbling-block to moderation and good policy making, including ending the IRAQ War, and your Prez is stymied... a Lame Duck. Unlike you, just a Lame - Dork.
The reason that Ginsburg sailed through is that Bill Clinton sat dowwn with Orrin Hatch, and Hatch told him that Ginsburg and Breyer would be confirmed with no problem, but Babbit, whom Clinton was reportedly considering, would be a problem.
So? Fact remains that Ginsburg is an lefty extremist. Can you say that if the conservative groups took out the big guns that she would have sailed through?
As far as the label "the most liberal Justice in the history of the US" label is concerned, Ginsburg concurs with Scalia's opinions more often than do Breyer or Stevens. Show me because I certainly can't recall any.
MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Just 23 weeks after the second inauguration of the 43rd president, someone who aims to be the 44th came here for the annual luncheon of the New Hampshire Federation of Republican Women. It was a target-rich environment for George Allen.
But, truth be told, the angst on the left is understandable. Having been uniquely unsuccessful at persuading the American people to adopt many of their favorite policies through the democratic process, they have relied on the courts to impose them on the people instead. Roe v. Wadeis the classic example, and the potential loss of the high court as their ace in the hole on abortion cannot be a happy proposition.Â
The chart indicates that there is "agreement" between Ginsburg and Scalia of 28% and "agreement" between Breyer and Scalia 25%. That certainly isn't much difference. And simply because two justices are "on the same side of the case" does not mean they are in agreement. They may well agree on the disposition of a case but do so for entirely different reasons.
It's better tthan 10%. Jeez, if a "liberal" split hairs like you just did you'd call it "Clintonian" and use the word "is" a lot.
Funny how you left out Stevens in your critique; a lifelong Republican, appointed by Nixon, yet he winds up on the same side as Scalia only half as often as "the most liberal Supreme Court Justice in the history of the United States." Could it be that that label just isn't quite accurate?
It's better tthan 10%. Jeez, if a "liberal" split hairs like you just did you'd call it "Clintonian" and use the word "is" a lot. 10%? What are you saying? Three percent isn't much difference. You need to think this over carefully. Just because they voted for the same result doesn't mean they did it for the same reasons. The 3% difference is meaningless.
Funny how you left out Stevens in your critique; a lifelong Republican, appointed by Nixon, yet he winds up on the same side as Scalia only half as often as "the most liberal Supreme Court Justice in the history of the United States." Could it be that that label just isn't quite accurate? Stevens was appointed by Ford. Ford was not a conservative but a moderate. For that matter Nixon was not a conservative either. Other than his anticommunist stance he believed in big government. As for the most liberal justice in history, well that is debatable. But I don't think I said that. I think Stevens would be in the running for that title. So would Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun and a number of others. But who would want it? But if I were to rank the current Court in terms of most liberal, Stevens would be the most liberal with Ginsburg second, Breyer third or maybe even Souter. Kennedy would be fifth, O'Connor sixth.
10%? What are you saying? Three percent isn't much difference. You need to think this over carefully. Just because they voted for the same result doesn't mean they did it for the same reasons. The 3% difference is meaningless.
The difference betweeen 25% and 28% is a 10% difference. That's not even math, that's arithmetic.
You're right. Nixon appointed Stevens to Appeals, not SCotUS. He's still a lifelong Republican.
As for the most liberal justice in history, well that is debatable.
It ain't even close. That label on Ginsburg is being used as a talking point to set up a RW-pundit temper tantrum if there's any serious scrutiny of a radical Bush nominee. Since Ginsburg was approved nearly unanimously and she's "the most liberal justice blahblahblah," that means that the Senate should roll over when Bush holds up a dog biscuit with a gavel.
The difference between 25% and 28% is a 10% difference. That's not even math, that's arithmetic. What? Wouldn't that be an 8.92% difference? The fact remains that Scalia "agreed" with Ginsburg 25% of the time, accoridng to the chart. Scalia "agreed" with Breyer 25% of the time. That is 3% difference.
You're right. Nixon appointed Stevens to Appeals, not SCotUS. He's still a lifelong Republican. But would Republicans claim him. You know Jim Jeffords was a Republican, too, in name only! It just says to me that the term Republican and Democrat is meaningless on a national level.
As for the most liberal justice in history, well that is debatable.
It ain't even close. It is debatable.That label on Ginsburg is being used as a talking point to set up a RW-pundit temper tantrum if there's any serious scrutiny of a Bush nominee. Since Ginsburg was approved nearly unanimously and she's "the most liberal justice blahblahblah," that means that the Senate should roll over when Bush holds up a dog biscuit. Unless they can prove the nominee has committed a crime or may have committed one, maybe they should.
The difference between 25% and 28% is a 10% difference. That's not even math, that's arithmetic. What? Wouldn't that be an 8.92% difference? The fact remains that Scalia "agreed" with Ginsburg 25% of the time, accoridng to the chart. Scalia "agreed" with Breyer 25% of the time. That is 3% difference.
I checked out the pictures from that rufuge and one of the Miniature Zebu's is named Zephyr!Â
Yup. Here is a picture of Lurch and his buddy Zephyr who is a miniture zebu.
Zephyr is full grown. By comparision, Lurch is about the size of normal cattle you might see on a farm around here.
Just an amazing place to see. All these unusual animals that act like they are a house cat or something. All they want is some food and attention. All the animals come to this lady near death. She nurses them back to health by bottle feeding them or whatever it takes. I think that they are so friendly towards humans because it is a human (this lady) who has literally saved their lives and treats them like close family.
[Edited by on Jun 8, 2005 at 07:57am.]
Here is what Lurch is suppose to look like:
We were going down the road near my Uncle's house and saw a herd of these things and stopped to take pictures. It was kind of scary to look at this giant horned animal and think that there was just a rusty barbed wire fence between us. The herd seemed more frightened of us though.
My aunt told me what it was and said that we should see her friends Watusi Lurch. She made arrangements for us to go see him.
[Edited by on Jun 8, 2005 at 08:09am.]
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/08/dean.gop.ap/index.html
"not very friendly to different kinds of people, they are a pretty monolithic party ... it's pretty much a white, Christian party."
"unfortunately, by and large it is. And they have the agenda of the conservative Christians."
"never made an honest living in their lives,"
What happened to tolerance and diversity?
Democratic New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said Tuesday that Dean is doing a good job, but is not the party's spokesman.
If the DNC chair isn't your party spokesman, who is?
Last weekend, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Delaware, and 2004 vice presidential candidate John Edwards criticized Dean for his recent remarks, saying he doesn't speak for them.
How's that for loyalty, Rick? They're running away from their own party chair.
While even prominent Democrats in recent days have distanced themselves from some of his comments, the outspoken Dean, appearing on NBC"s "Today" show, said criticism of him is meant by Republicans to divert attention from the country's problems and make him the issue instead.
Uhm yeah. It has nothing to do with you being mentally deranged.
"How's that for loyalty, Rick? They're running away from their own party chair."
I don't think it's disloyal to criticize someone. And I don't know that they're running away from him.
"What happened to tolerance and diversity?"
They're still more tolerant than conservatives. Just not perfectly tolerant. Nor should anyone have to be, to be considered tolerant.
[Edited by on Jun 8, 2005 at 08:37am.]
It's not worth my time.
He's your fruitcake.
The best funerals/memorial services are like that. I'm glad it went as I had hoped.
I'm glad it went as I had hoped.
Thanks. It turned into more of a celebration of her life rather than a mourning for our loss. That made it a lot easier. IÂ wish all funerals could be that way.
My pictures that I posted seem to be not showing up on my computer anymore. If anyone is interested in what the area is like or what I did while there, go to my pictures on Yahoo at:
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/dzachary24/album?.dir=/cb9f
That was how I began the services for my grandmother-in-law some years back. "We are here not just to mourn her passsing, but also to celebrate her life." MCing a memorial service is not a job for someone embarrassed to shed tears in public.
[Edited by on Jun 8, 2005 at 09:57am.]
When my mother passed away at the age of 98, her three of her remaining children, including myself, and all 33 of her grandchildren were in attendance. From all corners of the US. We had a grand old time celebrating her LIFE. And what a life she had!
Funny...
Who told Bill Fold where to find us?
Only grievous offenses catch my notice.
By GLEN JOHNSON, Associated Press WriterTue Jun 21, 6:09 PM ET
Under fire from Republicans and some fellow Democrats, Sen. Dick Durbin apologized Tuesday for comparing American interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp to Nazis and other historically infamous figures.
"Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line," the Illinois Democrat said. "To them I extend my heartfelt apologies."
His voice quaking and tears welling in his eyes, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate also apologized to any soldiers who felt insulted by his remarks.
"They're the best. I never, ever intended any disrespect for them," he said.
The apology came a week after Durbin, the Senate minority whip, quoted from an FBI agent's report describing detainees at the Naval base in a U.S.-controlled portion of Cuba as being chained to the floor without food or water in extreme temperatures.
"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings," the senator said June 14.
The comment created a buzz on the Internet and among conservative talk radio hosts, but Durbin initially refused to apologize.
"This administration should apologize to the American people for abandoning the Geneva Conventions and authorizing torture techniques that put our troops at risk and make Americans less secure," he said the day after his initial comments.
By last Friday, Durbin was trying to clarify his comments, yet the White House and top Republicans including Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist refused to relent. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in an interview scheduled for broadcast Wednesday on Fox News radio's "The Tony Snow Show," tried to equate the comment with actress Jane Fonda calling U.S. soldiers war criminals during a visit to North Vietnam in 1972.
On Tuesday, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley — a fellow Democrat — added his voice to the chorus of criticism, saying, "I think it's a disgrace to say that any man or woman in the military would act like that."
Durbin said in his apology: "I made reference to Nazis, to Soviets, and other repressive regimes. Mr. President, I've come to understand that's a very poor choice of words."
At least he had the guts to apologize.
Having said that, he did appologize and I am willing to let it go at that, given he doesn't repeat himself on this issue.
Found on the Internet today:
1st version
Sandra is gone after many years...it is evoking such left wing fears
See you in October
That's when they'll be on our side
Here we are...listening to our talk stations
Such fascination...the lefties' hopes have died
With one more vote, we are praying
That this nation that we love can still be saved
So we'll see you in October
We'll make the liberal scum behave
You can just bet lefties everywhere
Are screaming and pulling out their hair
Confirmation is a battle
A great battle that our side is gonna win
So we'll see you in October
For our side, let the fun begin
You can just bet lefties everywhere
Are screaming and pulling out their hair
See you in October
That's when our court will move right
Here we are...watching the whackjobs go crazy
Their thinking's hazy...they'll never see the light
With one more vote, we are praying
That this nation that we love can still be saved
So we'll see you in October
We'll make the liberal scum behave
ÂÂ
It was from a poster on another board and the link didn't seem to work. So I don't know where it is.
We'll make the liberal scum behave
Somebody needs to.
Why Democrats, including so called "moderate" democrats like the rat, will smear any conservative court nominee
We don't know who President George W. Bush will nominate to succeed Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. But this is certain: Democrats will smear the nominee.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20050705.shtml
The Heartland Institute(Chicago) does its bit for the gross national blood pressure by tracking the outrages of the world's trial lawyers. The May newsletteroffers the following examples:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/monacharen/mc20050701.shtml
The next choice for SC JUstice, is likely to be about as interesting as an election, and why not? It will carry the weight of 1/3 of our form of government on it, and if the shoe were on the other foot, the Republicans would be screaming...
really? Do you know the vote on confirming Ruth Ginsburg?.
This bickering about who would next sit on the bench, started to be this intense during the
Reagan years,
and has been this strongly felt by BOTH sides ever since... it's about
POWER,
nothing else...that is why it is causing so much debate. Debate, is supposed to be what we are all about in the U.S.,
isn't it?
It was started by Democrats and it is continuing by Democrats. Again look at the vote confirming Ginsburg.
Republicans want to control the
direction
of Court and
as much as they can
for the next 50 years or so, and so do the Democrats. BIG Surprise there.
Republicans control the Senate and the presidency under the Constitution they should control who gets on the Court.
We should all be crying "Democracy in Action"...!!! Since to a large extent, the court will reflect the choices and will of
We the People,
as it always has...
I don't see the big-deal.
The Court does not now reflect the will of the people.
If conservatives can recapture the court, social and moral issues can be returned to where they belong: elected legislatures and executives. The Left will lose its power to advance its social agenda and see a rollback of a revolution imposed undemocratically upon America over 50 years.
 The Left gets it. Liberals smeared Nixon nominees Haynesworth and Carswell as racists and tried to derail Rehnquist. They gave Reagan's moderate nominee, O'Connor, a pass, while savaging conservative Robert Bork. They let Bush I's stealth candidate Souter through, but attempted the "high-tech lynching" of Clarence Thomas. Â
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/pb20050706.shtml
Reporters quickly assured viewers this "titanic battle" that is guaranteed to be knock-down, drag-out, wall-to-wall ugly. They didn't wonder: Why does this always happen with Republican nominations, but not Democratic ones? In 1993, President Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was calmly approved by a vote of 96 to 3. In 1994, Clinton nominated Stephen Breyer, who was confirmed by a vote of 87 to 9. By contrast, all hell broke loose with Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas, with 58 senators against the one, and 48 votes against the other. The same pattern occurs with attorney general nominees: 42 votes against John Ashcroft, 36 against Alberto Gonzales, and zero against Janet Reno. Why?Â
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/bb20050706.shtml
And which explains the rage and incivility that may soon overtake us as the Senate considers George W. Bush's first nominee to the court. Conservatives and liberals alike understand the stakes. The eventual nominee not necessarily will but might take a modest view of the court's qualifications for overhauling the Constitution whenever the mood strikes. Democrats generally support the court's rough jurisprudence on abortion, gay rights, church-state relationships and capital punishment. Saves them the trouble of persuading the people. Permits them just to say, "The court says so ... " Conservatives, by contrast, argue for the people's right to shape their own constitutional arrangements.Â
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/billmurchison/bm20050705.shtml
Supreme Court, in perspective
This is an old survey, but I bet the numbers haven't changed that much
"Nearly Two-Thirds of Americans Can't Name Any U.S. Supreme Court Justices, Says FindLaw Survey"
The reason that Ginsburg sailed through is that Bill Clinton sat dowwn with Orrin Hatch, and Hatch told him that Ginsburg and Breyer would be confirmed with no problem, but Babbit, whom Clinton was reportedly considering, would be a problem.
Here's wwhat Hatch wrote in his 2002 autobiography:
As far as the label "the most liberal Justice in the history of the US" label is concerned, Ginsburg concurs with Scalia's opinions more often than do Breyer or Stevens.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/20050701_NOMINATION_GRAPHIC/index_03.html
In case you didn't notice, YOU and your religiously-fanatic friends are now seen as THE stumbling-block to moderation and good policy making, including
ending the IRAQ War,
and your Prez is stymied... a Lame Duck. Unlike you, just
a Lame - Dork.
The reason that Ginsburg sailed through is that Bill Clinton sat dowwn with Orrin Hatch, and Hatch told him that Ginsburg and Breyer would be confirmed with no problem, but Babbit, whom Clinton was reportedly considering, would be a problem.
So? Fact remains that Ginsburg is an lefty extremist. Can you say that if the conservative groups took out the big guns that she would have sailed through?
As far as the label "the most liberal Justice in the history of the US" label is concerned, Ginsburg concurs with Scalia's opinions more often than do Breyer or Stevens. Show me because I certainly can't recall any.
MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Just 23 weeks after the second inauguration of the 43rd president, someone who aims to be the 44th came here for the annual luncheon of the New Hampshire Federation of Republican Women. It was a target-rich environment for George Allen.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/gw20050707.shtml
But, truth be told, the angst on the left is understandable. Having been uniquely unsuccessful at persuading the American people to adopt many of their favorite policies through the democratic process, they have relied on the courts to impose them on the people instead. Roe v. Wadeis the classic example, and the potential loss of the high court as their ace in the hole on abortion cannot be a happy proposition.Â
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Ruse20050707.shtml
Ginsburg concurs with Scalia's opinions more often than do Breyer or Stevens.
Whassamatta -- you too lazy to click a damn link? I showed you.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/20050701_NOMINATION_GRAPHIC/index_03.html
The chart indicates that there is "agreement" between Ginsburg and Scalia of 28% and "agreement" between Breyer and Scalia 25%. That certainly isn't much difference. And simply because two justices are "on the same side of the case" does not mean they are in agreement. They may well agree on the disposition of a case but do so for entirely different reasons.
It's better tthan 10%. Jeez, if a "liberal" split hairs like you just did you'd call it "Clintonian" and use the word "is" a lot.
Funny how you left out Stevens in your critique; a lifelong Republican, appointed by Nixon, yet he winds up on the same side as Scalia only half as often as "the most liberal Supreme Court Justice in the history of the United States." Could it be that that label just isn't quite accurate?
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=920659
Our proud union Democrats will be with us when the time comes.
God bless them.
It's better tthan 10%. Jeez, if a "liberal" split hairs like you just did you'd call it "Clintonian" and use the word "is" a lot. 10%? What are you saying? Three percent isn't much difference. You need to think this over carefully. Just because they voted for the same result doesn't mean they did it for the same reasons. The 3% difference is meaningless.
Funny how you left out Stevens in your critique; a lifelong Republican, appointed by Nixon, yet he winds up on the same side as Scalia only half as often as "the most liberal Supreme Court Justice in the history of the United States." Could it be that that label just isn't quite accurate? Stevens was appointed by Ford. Ford was not a conservative but a moderate. For that matter Nixon was not a conservative either. Other than his anticommunist stance he believed in big government. As for the most liberal justice in history, well that is debatable. But I don't think I said that. I think Stevens would be in the running for that title. So would Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun and a number of others. But who would want it? But if I were to rank the current Court in terms of most liberal, Stevens would be the most liberal with Ginsburg second, Breyer third or maybe even Souter. Kennedy would be fifth, O'Connor sixth.
The difference betweeen 25% and 28% is a 10% difference. That's not even math, that's arithmetic.
You're right. Nixon appointed Stevens to Appeals, not SCotUS. He's still a lifelong Republican.
It ain't even close. That label on Ginsburg is being used as a talking point to set up a RW-pundit temper tantrum if there's any serious scrutiny of a radical Bush nominee. Since Ginsburg was approved nearly unanimously and she's "the most liberal justice blahblahblah," that means that the Senate should roll over when Bush holds up a dog biscuit with a gavel.
Not everyone thinks "liberal" is a dirty word.
The difference between 25% and 28% is a 10% difference. That's not even math, that's arithmetic. What? Wouldn't that be an 8.92% difference? The fact remains that Scalia "agreed" with Ginsburg 25% of the time, accoridng to the chart. Scalia "agreed" with Breyer 25% of the time. That is 3% difference.
You're right. Nixon appointed Stevens to Appeals, not SCotUS. He's still a lifelong Republican. But would Republicans claim him. You know Jim Jeffords was a Republican, too, in name only! It just says to me that the term Republican and Democrat is meaningless on a national level.
It ain't even close. It is debatable.That label on Ginsburg is being used as a talking point to set up a RW-pundit temper tantrum if there's any serious scrutiny of a Bush nominee. Since Ginsburg was approved nearly unanimously and she's "the most liberal justice blahblahblah," that means that the Senate should roll over when Bush holds up a dog biscuit. Unless they can prove the nominee has committed a crime or may have committed one, maybe they should.
3/28=0.107142857143, 3/25=0.12 jethro = dunce.
C'mon Pieter, you know what he meant -- 3 percentage point difference.