Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Questioned by pro-abortion Sen. Dick Durbin, the number two Democrat in the Senate, Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito would not go along with calling the Roe v. Wade abortion decision "settled law."Â Â
One should be able to see just what a hypocrite Durbin is. But that is typical of most liberals. They say they are for a "living constitution" but then want certain matters "settled."
The question then becomes, will Justice Alito cling to his conservative judicial philosophy and interpret laws in light of what the Constitution says, or will he drift toward the liberal agenda, as has happened too often in the past?
One clue he might not drift came in his answer to a question about legal precedent. Responding to committee chairman Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican, Alito said that while he agrees "with the underlying thought that when a precedent is reaffirmed, that strengthens the precedent" he nevertheless does not subscribe to the idea of a "super precedent."
This week in the confirmation hearings for Judge Samuel Alito, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary committee demonstrated a blatant disregard for facts and a proclivity toward political hyperbole of the worst kind. Non-partisan observers could only come to one conclusion: Democrats live in their very own make-believe political la-la land in which reverence for facts and truth are nonexistent.
Leading up to this week’s hearings there was a very bad omen. Â
MINNEAPOLIS - One gubernatorial candidate in Minnesota is giving a whole new meaning to the "dark side" of politics. A man who calls himself a satanic priest plans to run for governor on a 13-point platform that includes the public impaling of terrorists at the state Capitol building.
Jonathon Sharkey, also known as "The Impaler", plans to launch his gubernatorial campaign on — when else? — Friday the 13th. He'll make the announcement in Princeton.
"I'm going to be totally open and honest," said the 41-year-old leader of the "Vampyres, Witches and Pagans Party."
"Unlike other candidates, I'm not going to hide my evil side," he said.
In Minnesota, anyone who pays the $300 filing fee can get on the gubernatorial ballot and it seems that every year a few eccentric candidates make the rounds.
Sharkey raises the bar. For one thing, he told the Star Tribune in an e-mail that he drinks blood.
Including the impaling of terrorists, rapists, drug dealers and other criminals, Sharkey's platform includes emphasis on education, tax breaks for farmers and better benefits for veterans.
Sharkey said he worships Lucifer and, while he says he has nothing against Christians, he calls the "Christian God the Father" his "mortal enemy."
Sharkey said he was injured during a parachute jump with the Army in 1982 and receives veterans' disability benefits.
He has not yet registered as a gubernatorial candidate, but he has already filed as a candidate for the 2008 presidential election.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi Thursday announced the formation of the "Clean House Team" to "address the Republican culture of corruption" on Capitol Hill. Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina, who is praised in the press release for a commitment to a high ethical standard, will head the task force.
But as it turns out, it was reported back in May that Clyburn took a trip to the beautiful Northern Mariana Islands in the Western pacific back in 1997... that trip paid for by none other than the disgraced Republican lobbyist Jack Abramhoff.
Fifty-eight percent of Americans think the president should have the power to authorize electronic surveillance inside the United States without a warrant. Fifty-seven percent believe the country would become more vulnerable to terror attacks if the patriot Act expired. And an astounding 61 percent said they are willing to give up some personal freedoms if it meant reducing the threat of terrorism... that number remaining steady over the last four years.
Despite recent criticism of President Bush’s policies on mine safety, the number of mining fatalities in the United States has dropped every year President Bush has been in office, according to the Mine Safety and health Administration. In fact, since 2001 mining deaths have averaged 63 per year, 30 percent lower than during the Clinton administration.
The trend hasn't been reflected in much of the news coverage. After the Sago mine tragedy, for example, a New York Times editorial argued that the president has littered the Interior Department with biased representatives from the coal, oil and gas industries — impeding safety in the mines.
In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, 27,000 people displaced by the storm found shelter in Houston, where they received health care, child care and assistance finding permanent housing and employment. Many chose to stay. But that did not stop two liberal advocacy groups from ranking Houston seventh in a list of cities practicing the worst treatment of the homeless.
The report — by The National Coalition for the Homeless and The National law Center on Homelessness and Poverty — cites Houston's laws banning sleeping in public, begging, sleeping on tables, using public restrooms for bathing and prohibiting people with offensive bodily hygiene from using public libraries.
I guess in the liberals world sleeping in public, begging, sleeping on tables, using public restrooms for bathing and offensive hygiene are good things.
I guess in the liberals world sleeping in public, begging, sleeping on tables, using public restrooms for bathing and offensive hygiene are good things.
for the family who just lost everything, yeah, actually... some of those things we all just take for granted (having a place to sleep and bath and you know... having a place to live... the basics, are pretty good things to have.
for someone who has just lost all of their basics, being able to do the simplest of these daily behaviors at all must be a pretty good thing.
This case proves that when Thomas, Scalia and Roberts mention states' rights, they're lying through their teeth.
It also shows that jethro, despite his passionate defense of majority rule, even when it's wrong, in the discussion of "intelligent design" in the schools, has no problem with the federal government overriding the twice-expressed will of the majority about the practice of medicine in their own state, when it's in agreement with his ideology.
Further, eight years ago, Congress voted on legislation that would have given the Attorney General the authority he claimed in his actions concerning the ODWDA, but it did not pass.
In 1997, Members of Congress concerned about ODWDA invited the DEA to prosecute or revoke the CSA registration of Oregon physicians who assist suicide. They contended that hastening a patient’s death is not legitimate medical practice, so prescribing controlled substances for that purpose violates the CSA. Letter from Sen. Orrin Hatch and Rep. Henry Hyde to Thomas A. Constantine (July 25, 1997), reprinted in Hearings on S. 2151 before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 105th Cong., 2d Sess., 2–3 (1999) (hereinafter Hearings). The letter received an initial, favorable response from the director of the DEA, see Letter from Thomas A. Constantine to Sen. Orrin Hatch (Nov. 5, 1997), Hearings 4–5, but Attorney General Reno considered the matter and concluded that the DEA could not take the proposed action because the CSA did not authorize it to “displace the states as the primary regulators of the medical profession, or to override a state’s determination as to what constitutes legitimate medical practice,” Letter from Attorney General Janet Reno to Sen. Orrin Hatch, on Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act (June 5, 1998), Hearings 5–6. Legislation wasthen introduced to grant the explicit authority Attorney General Reno found lacking; but it failed to pass. See H. R. 4006, 105th Cong., 2d Sess. (1998); H. R. 2260, 106th Cong., 1st Sess. (1999).
The Court quite rightly held that the Attorney General, under the doctrine of separation of powers, does not have the authority to make law by fiat. This is the essence of strict construction.
This case proves that when Thomas, Scalia and Roberts mention states' rights, they're lying through their teeth.
No not at all. The fact is that the majority is picking and choosing the results they want. In so doing they do not apply the law in the same manner. Thomas pointed this out. Thomas also dissented in Raich.
It also shows that jethro, despite his passionate defense of majority rule, even when it's wrong, in the discussion of "intelligent design" in the schools, has no problem with the federal government overriding the twice-expressed will of the majority about the practice of medicine in their own state, when it's in agreement with his ideology.
What I am showing is the agenda of the lefties on the Court. I did not say anything aboput state's rights. And Scalia even stated that he had sympathy for that view. You just enjoy lying about me. You have no integrity.
The Court quite rightly held that the Attorney General, under the doctrine of separation of powers, does not have the authority to make law by fiat.
No they did not. You lie about this as you lie about everything else. They ignored their prior precedent because it did not achieve the result they wanted. Even if the result is right it was done for the wrong reasons. It is intellectually dishonest. But you appreciate and champion such things.
Intellectual honesty would compel youto read the opinion of the majority; it's quite apparent that you haven't, otherwise you wouldn't be making these false statements.
As explained below, the CSA’s express limitations on the Attorney General’s authority, and other indications from the statutory scheme, belie any notion that the Attorney General has been granted this implicit authority. Indeed, if “control” were given the expansive meaning required to sustain the Interpretive Rule, it would transform the carefully described limits on the Attorney General’s authority over registration and scheduling into mere suggestions.
[ . . . ]
By this logic, however, the Attorney General claims extraordinary authority. If the Attorney General’s argument were correct, his power to deregister necessarily would include the greater power to criminalize even the actions of registered physicians, whenever they engage in conduct he deems illegitimate. This power to criminalize — unlike his power over registration, which must be exercised only after considering five express statutory factors — would be unrestrained. It would be anomalous for Congress to have so painstakingly described the Attorney General’s limited authority to deregister a single physician or schedule a single drug, but to have given him, just by implication, authority to declare an entire class of activity outside “the course of professional practice,” and therefore a criminal violation of the CSA.
[ . . . ]
The limits on the Attorney General’s authority to define medical standards for the care and treatment of patients bear also on the proper interpretation of §871(b). This section allows the Attorney General to best determine how to execute “his functions.” It is quite a different matter, however, to say that the Attorney General can define the substantive standards of medical practice as part of his authority. To find a delegation of this extent in §871 would put that part of the statute in considerable tension with the narrowly defined delegation concerning control and registration. It would go, moreover, against the plain language of the text to treat a delegation for the “execution” of his functions as a further delegation to define other functions well beyond the statute’s specific grants of authority. When Congress chooses to delegate a power of this extent, it does so not by referring back to the administrator’s functions but by giving authority over the provisions of the statute he is to interpret.
[ . . . ]
The Government, in the end, maintains that the prescription requirement delegates to a single Executive officer the power to effect a radical shift of authority from the States to the Federal Government to define general standards of medical practice in every locality. The text and structure of the CSA show that Congress did not have this far-reaching intent to alter the federal-state balance and the congressional role in maintaining it. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Intellectual honesty would compel youto read the opinion of the majority; it's quite apparent that you haven't, otherwise you wouldn't be making these false statements.
The Government, in the end, maintains that the prescription requirement delegates to a single Executive officer the power to effect a radical shift of authority from the States to the Federal Government to define general standards of medical practice in every locality.
There was no shift of authority, and certainly no radical shift. The federal government has had authority over this area for years. The majority's language is simply incorrect. It is clear that the five lefties want to play politician and get the political results they want without having to participate in politics. There is no way to square this decision with Raich honestly.
Not only are you "only repeating what they said," you are repeating onlywhat they said.
I am repeating what they said becuase any honest person can see that they are correct. I have no reason to repeat the lies of the left. The majority wanted the result and they were going to justify it anyway they can. Lefties do that and they have been doing it in so many cases. From abortion, to homosexual behavior to the death penalty. They are intellectually dishonest to the core. While you may admire that thinking people don't.
Gonzalez's position was that the Attorney General has the authority to define what constitutes good medical practice. Two-thirds of the Court disagreed. Deal with it.
I agree with limiting the applications of the CSA in a manner consistent with the principles of federalism and our constitutional structure. Raich, supra,at ___ (Thomas, J., dissenting); cf. Whitman, supra, at 486-487 (Thomas, J., concurring) (noting constitutional concerns with broad delegations of authority to administrative agencies). But that is now water over the dam. The relevance of such considerations was at its zenith in Raich, when we considered whether the CSA could be applied to the intrastate possession of a controlled substance consistent with the limited federal powers enumerated by the Constitution. Such considerations have little, if any, relevance where, as here, we are merely presented with a question of statutory interpretation, and not the extent of constitutionally permissible federal power. This is particularly true where, as here, we are interpreting broad, straightforward language within a statutory framework that a majority of this Court has concluded is so comprehensive that it necessarily nullifies the States' "Â 'traditional ... powers ... to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens.'Â "Â Raich, supra, at ___, n. 38 (slip op., at 27, n. 38). The Court's reliance upon the constitutional principles that it rejected in Raich--albeit under the guise of statutory interpretation--is perplexing to say the least.Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
"...one thing I truly cannot stand about modern conservatism: its defense of anything dumb, tacky, and second-rate, as long as it comes from "the people." The common man is deified by the right. NASCAR, an absolutely idiotic "sport" which consists, as the joke goes, of "a bunch of rednecks makin' left turns," is hailed as red state America's favorite pastime..."
Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy says he'll sever his ties with an all-male Harvard alumni organization after blasting Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito for belonging to a similar group at Princeton. Kennedy criticized Alito for his affiliation with the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, which opposed admissions quotas for women and minorities, calling the group "radical" and "right wing."
But Kennedy himself continues to pay dues to The Owl Club, a social group for Harvard alumni that was evicted from the university in 1984 for discriminating against women. Kennedy says he's no longer a member, but admits to donating $100 to the group last year and tells WHDH-TV in Boston, "I'm going to get out as fast as I can."
Next Up? Marijuana Legalization?
They tried that the Supreme Court rejected it in Raich.Basically the majority accepted the arguments of the druggies in Raich in ruling in favor of Oregon. It really was an intellectually dishonest ruling. Something that I know you appreciate.Â
Doctor Assisted Suicide, as recognized by the SC and as written by the Oregonians, is now law.
We'll see how long. Fortunately the Court only overruled an interpretation of a regulation. The Congress can rewrite the statute that the reg was based on and we will see if assisted suicide stands. Mostly likely it will with five lefties still on the Court.
Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., said after a morning meeting with Alito that he would vote against President Bush's Supreme Court nominee as too far outside the mainstream of judicial thinking.
"He's just not right for Montana, he's just not right for America," Baucus said. "He's very polished and he answered all of the questions I was going to ask. There is just a little too much inconsistency."
All I've got to go on is what you write. There is a difference between criticism and "Baucus is not right for Montana." That judgement is up to the voters of Montana, not you.
All I've got to go on is what you write. True. Because you have proven that you don' think.There is a difference between criticism and "Baucus is not right for Montana." And what is that? That judgement is up to the voters of Montana, not you. And did I say otherwise? Damn man, do you ever come out of your stupor?
The Bush administration repealed the Roadless Rule last year. There's an important decision coming up on Yellowstone's grizzly bears. Snowmobiles are roaring through the park again.
Who knows with the west coast folks moving in, Montana could go blue in 2008.
hmmm
wasn't it lady T.C.
if a lady is married...isn't that a lord??
oh god...its lord ares..
god.
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Questioned by pro-abortion Sen. Dick Durbin, the number two Democrat in the Senate, Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito would not go along with calling the Roe v. Wade abortion decision "settled law."Â Â
http://www.lifenews.com/nat1982.html
One should be able to see just what a hypocrite Durbin is. But that is typical of most liberals. They say they are for a "living constitution" but then want certain matters "settled."
The question then becomes, will Justice Alito cling to his conservative judicial philosophy and interpret laws in light of what the Constitution says, or will he drift toward the liberal agenda, as has happened too often in the past?
One clue he might not drift came in his answer to a question about legal precedent. Responding to committee chairman Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican, Alito said that while he agrees "with the underlying thought that when a precedent is reaffirmed, that strengthens the precedent" he nevertheless does not subscribe to the idea of a "super precedent."
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/calthomas/2006/01/12/182071.html
This week in the confirmation hearings for Judge Samuel Alito, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary committee demonstrated a blatant disregard for facts and a proclivity toward political hyperbole of the worst kind. Non-partisan observers could only come to one conclusion: Democrats live in their very own make-believe political la-la land in which reverence for facts and truth are nonexistent.
Leading up to this week’s hearings there was a very bad omen. Â
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/TimChapman/2006/01/12/182072.html
I can barely walk :chagrin:
'Vampyre' Candidate Backs Public Impaling
MINNEAPOLIS - One gubernatorial candidate in Minnesota is giving a whole new meaning to the "dark side" of politics. A man who calls himself a satanic priest plans to run for governor on a 13-point platform that includes the public impaling of terrorists at the state Capitol building.
Jonathon Sharkey, also known as "The Impaler", plans to launch his gubernatorial campaign on — when else? — Friday the 13th. He'll make the announcement in Princeton.
"I'm going to be totally open and honest," said the 41-year-old leader of the "Vampyres, Witches and Pagans Party."
"Unlike other candidates, I'm not going to hide my evil side," he said.
In Minnesota, anyone who pays the $300 filing fee can get on the gubernatorial ballot and it seems that every year a few eccentric candidates make the rounds.
Sharkey raises the bar. For one thing, he told the Star Tribune in an e-mail that he drinks blood.
Including the impaling of terrorists, rapists, drug dealers and other criminals, Sharkey's platform includes emphasis on education, tax breaks for farmers and better benefits for veterans.
Sharkey said he worships Lucifer and, while he says he has nothing against Christians, he calls the "Christian God the Father" his "mortal enemy."
Sharkey said he was injured during a parachute jump with the Army in 1982 and receives veterans' disability benefits.
He has not yet registered as a gubernatorial candidate, but he has already filed as a candidate for the 2008 presidential election.
you are a closed minded ass, fold.
here is a guy fold could support: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181501,00.html
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi Thursday announced the formation of the "Clean House Team" to "address the Republican culture of corruption" on Capitol Hill. Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina, who is praised in the press release for a commitment to a high ethical standard, will head the task force.
But as it turns out, it was reported back in May that Clyburn took a trip to the beautiful Northern Mariana Islands in the Western pacific back in 1997... that trip paid for by none other than the disgraced Republican lobbyist Jack Abramhoff.
Fifty-eight percent of Americans think the president should have the power to authorize electronic surveillance inside the United States without a warrant. Fifty-seven percent believe the country would become more vulnerable to terror attacks if the patriot Act expired. And an astounding 61 percent said they are willing to give up some personal freedoms if it meant reducing the threat of terrorism... that number remaining steady over the last four years.
Despite recent criticism of President Bush’s policies on mine safety, the number of mining fatalities in the United States has dropped every year President Bush has been in office, according to the Mine Safety and health Administration. In fact, since 2001 mining deaths have averaged 63 per year, 30 percent lower than during the Clinton administration.
The trend hasn't been reflected in much of the news coverage. After the Sago mine tragedy, for example, a New York Times editorial argued that the president has littered the Interior Department with biased representatives from the coal, oil and gas industries — impeding safety in the mines.
In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, 27,000 people displaced by the storm found shelter in Houston, where they received health care, child care and assistance finding permanent housing and employment. Many chose to stay. But that did not stop two liberal advocacy groups from ranking Houston seventh in a list of cities practicing the worst treatment of the homeless.
The report — by The National Coalition for the Homeless and The National law Center on Homelessness and Poverty — cites Houston's laws banning sleeping in public, begging, sleeping on tables, using public restrooms for bathing and prohibiting people with offensive bodily hygiene from using public libraries.
I guess in the liberals world sleeping in public, begging, sleeping on tables, using public restrooms for bathing and offensive hygiene are good things.
for the family who just lost everything, yeah, actually... some of those things we all just take for granted (having a place to sleep and bath and you know... having a place to live... the basics, are pretty good things to have.
for someone who has just lost all of their basics, being able to do the simplest of these daily behaviors at all must be a pretty good thing.
out of touch with what is going on, as ususal, crabs. did you just toke up?
The majestic equality of the law forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
Scalia and Thomas tell it like is-again.  This case, compared with Raich, proves that the lefties are result oriented.
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/17jan20061050/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-623.pdf
This case proves that when Thomas, Scalia and Roberts mention states' rights, they're lying through their teeth.
It also shows that jethro, despite his passionate defense of majority rule, even when it's wrong, in the discussion of "intelligent design" in the schools, has no problem with the federal government overriding the twice-expressed will of the majority about the practice of medicine in their own state, when it's in agreement with his ideology.
Further, eight years ago, Congress voted on legislation that would have given the Attorney General the authority he claimed in his actions concerning the ODWDA, but it did not pass.
The Court quite rightly held that the Attorney General, under the doctrine of separation of powers, does not have the authority to make law by fiat. This is the essence of strict construction.
This case proves that when Thomas, Scalia and Roberts mention states' rights, they're lying through their teeth.
No not at all. The fact is that the majority is picking and choosing the results they want. In so doing they do not apply the law in the same manner. Thomas pointed this out. Thomas also dissented in Raich.
It also shows that jethro, despite his passionate defense of majority rule, even when it's wrong, in the discussion of "intelligent design" in the schools, has no problem with the federal government overriding the twice-expressed will of the majority about the practice of medicine in their own state, when it's in agreement with his ideology.
What I am showing is the agenda of the lefties on the Court. I did not say anything aboput state's rights. And Scalia even stated that he had sympathy for that view. You just enjoy lying about me. You have no integrity.
The Court quite rightly held that the Attorney General, under the doctrine of separation of powers, does not have the authority to make law by fiat.
No they did not. You lie about this as you lie about everything else. They ignored their prior precedent because it did not achieve the result they wanted. Even if the result is right it was done for the wrong reasons. It is intellectually dishonest. But you appreciate and champion such things.
Intellectual honesty would compel youto read the opinion of the majority; it's quite apparent that you haven't, otherwise you wouldn't be making these false statements.
Intellectual honesty would compel youto read the opinion of the majority; it's quite apparent that you haven't, otherwise you wouldn't be making these false statements.
Not only are you "only repeating what they said," you are repeating onlywhat they said.
The Government, in the end, maintains that the prescription requirement delegates to a single Executive officer the power to effect a radical shift of authority from the States to the Federal Government to define general standards of medical practice in every locality.
There was no shift of authority, and certainly no radical shift. The federal government has had authority over this area for years. The majority's language is simply incorrect. It is clear that the five lefties want to play politician and get the political results they want without having to participate in politics. There is no way to square this decision with Raich honestly.
Not only are you "only repeating what they said," you are repeating onlywhat they said.
I am repeating what they said becuase any honest person can see that they are correct. I have no reason to repeat the lies of the left. The majority wanted the result and they were going to justify it anyway they can. Lefties do that and they have been doing it in so many cases. From abortion, to homosexual behavior to the death penalty. They are intellectually dishonest to the core. While you may admire that thinking people don't.
Gonzalez's position was that the Attorney General has the authority to define what constitutes good medical practice. Two-thirds of the Court disagreed. Deal with it.
I agree with limiting the applications of the CSA in a manner consistent with the principles of federalism and our constitutional structure. Raich, supra,at ___ (Thomas, J., dissenting); cf. Whitman, supra, at 486-487 (Thomas, J., concurring) (noting constitutional concerns with broad delegations of authority to administrative agencies). But that is now water over the dam. The relevance of such considerations was at its zenith in Raich, when we considered whether the CSA could be applied to the intrastate possession of a controlled substance consistent with the limited federal powers enumerated by the Constitution. Such considerations have little, if any, relevance where, as here, we are merely presented with a question of statutory interpretation, and not the extent of constitutionally permissible federal power. This is particularly true where, as here, we are interpreting broad, straightforward language within a statutory framework that a majority of this Court has concluded is so comprehensive that it necessarily nullifies the States' "Â 'traditional ... powers ... to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens.'Â "Â Raich, supra, at ___, n. 38 (slip op., at 27, n. 38). The Court's reliance upon the constitutional principles that it rejected in Raich--albeit under the guise of statutory interpretation--is perplexing to say the least.Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
Justice Clarence Thomas
All hail the Imperial Court. All bow down and kiss the feet of Saint Justice Kennedy.
Metrocon says "get some taste, conservatives!
"...one thing I truly cannot stand about modern conservatism: its defense of anything dumb, tacky, and second-rate, as long as it comes from "the people." The common man is deified by the right. NASCAR, an absolutely idiotic "sport" which consists, as the joke goes, of "a bunch of rednecks makin' left turns," is hailed as red state America's favorite pastime..."
The Rat 1/18/06 10:39am
He's obviously gay.
So, how do you reach that conclusion?
Are you back on your preoccupation with all matters gay, JT?
Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy says he'll sever his ties with an all-male Harvard alumni organization after blasting Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito for belonging to a similar group at Princeton. Kennedy criticized Alito for his affiliation with the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, which opposed admissions quotas for women and minorities, calling the group "radical" and "right wing."
But Kennedy himself continues to pay dues to The Owl Club, a social group for Harvard alumni that was evicted from the university in 1984 for discriminating against women. Kennedy says he's no longer a member, but admits to donating $100 to the group last year and tells WHDH-TV in Boston, "I'm going to get out as fast as I can."
The Rat 1/18/06 12:01pm
I was kidding, Rick.
Although I do question anyone that labels themselves a "metrosexual".
jethro bodine 1/18/06 12:29pm
No way! Must have been some sort of mistake.
Next Up?
Marijuana Legalization?
They tried that the Supreme Court rejected it in Raich.Basically the majority accepted the arguments of the druggies in Raich in ruling in favor of Oregon. It really was an intellectually dishonest ruling. Something that I know you appreciate.Â
Doctor Assisted Suicide, as recognized by the SC and as written by the Oregonians,
is now law.
We'll see how long. Fortunately the Court only overruled an interpretation of a regulation. The Congress can rewrite the statute that the reg was based on and we will see if assisted suicide stands. Mostly likely it will with five lefties still on the Court.
Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., said after a morning meeting with Alito that he would vote against President Bush's Supreme Court nominee as too far outside the mainstream of judicial thinking.
"He's just not right for Montana, he's just not right for America," Baucus said. "He's very polished and he answered all of the questions I was going to ask. There is just a little too much inconsistency."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182056,00.html
Alito not right for Montana? Baucus is not right for Montana. Baucus is outside the mainstream of common sense
The people in Montana will decide that.
yes, they will decide whether he is right for Montana. But it won't change the fact that he is outside the mainstream of common sense.
Not enough money for education? It's a myth.
http://soapbox.townhall.com/opinion/columns/JohnStossel/2006/01/18/182750.html
As we've all seen time and time again, you love democracy only when the majority votes your way. Baucus was re-elected in 2002 with 63% of the vote.
As we've all seen time and time again, you love democracy only when the majority votes your way. Baucus was re-elected in 2002 with 63% of the vote.
I don't get it. If he answered all of your questions to your satisfaction, then what is the problem?
All I've got to go on is what you write. There is a difference between criticism and "Baucus is not right for Montana." That judgement is up to the voters of Montana, not you.
All I've got to go on is what you write. True. Because you have proven that you don' think.There is a difference between criticism and "Baucus is not right for Montana." And what is that? That judgement is up to the voters of Montana, not you. And did I say otherwise? Damn man, do you ever come out of your stupor?
The Bush administration repealed the Roadless Rule last year. There's an important decision coming up on Yellowstone's grizzly bears. Snowmobiles are roaring through the park again.
Who knows with the west coast folks moving in, Montana could go blue in 2008.
Who knows with the west coast folks moving in, Montana could go blue in 2008.