Fairweather

The next abortion case to come before the court will be a parental notification law in New Hampshire. Hopefully that law will be upheld.

...Which is why I am surprised by your (assumed) opposition to Miers. She has supposedly been a strong advocate for gay rights. Again, not the hallmark of a conservative. I would have thought you would be singing Bush's praises re this nomination. I am not.

Of course you realize, Matt, that a justice can detest abortion and still rule it legal. You realize that even if Roe v Wade were overturned, abortion would remain legal in most, if not all states. You realize that Roe v Wade was as much about state's rights as it was abortion. Why do liberals insist on this litmus test above all others? I just don't understand. I think Miers is the wrong choice. Bush has many qualified conservatives from which to choose. He has a chance to put the brakes on the "progressive" agenda in a big way. The abortion issue notwithstanding, I would prefer a known conservative quantity - the hysterics from the left be damned.

There are no constitutional qualifiers for a Supreme Court Justice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

You mean the NYTimes columnist who just makes shit up?.... Fourth and Final Fix? The New York Times has issued a formal correction for columnist Paul Krugman's false claim that a full hand recount in Florida would have given the presidential election to Al Gore in 2000 -- the paper's fourth attempt to fix the error. Krugman tried to correct the August 19 error himself in a subsequent column, but Times ombudsman Byron Calame objected to the informal clarification. Krugman then published a more formal correction on August 26, but had to fix that after he relied on an incorrect Miami Herald report. The new correction will be appended to Krugman's original columns and editorial page editor Gail Collins says the paper will now run regular formal corrections under the Times' editorials.

Speaking of tough guys.....

We did it under Clinton. Look where we are now. C'mon, Jim. Despite your goofy politics, I actually once thought you were a fairly smart guy. Do you honestly believe that one dime of the "Clinton" budget surplus went to debt reduction??? As I recall, both parties were fighting like pigs at the trough over exactly how to spent it.

I used the bold because there wasn't a yellow highliter feature on cc.com. Other than the persons I was discussing the issue with, I don't really care if anyone reads what I write - especially you, assmunch.

http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/venezuela/intro/ The EU sent an Exploratory Mission to Venezuela to see whether deployment of an EU observation mission was advisable and feasible. Nevertheless, it was not possible to secure with the Venezuelan electoral authorities the conditions to carry out observation in line with the Union’s standard methodology used in all countries where EU election observation missions are deployed. The Inter- American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and others have recently issued reports, expressing concern on the extreme political polarisation, the regular acts of violence involving protesters from different sectors of society, violation of HR with impunity and lack of autonomy and independence of the judicial system.

I believe I did answer your question with this response. Read, SC. For your open mind, I have broadened my response on the thread to which you allude.

That's my point!!!!! That is how you decrease crime! Lock up the fucking criminals. Conservative doctrine reduces crime. If weak-stomached liberals would now like to go back to the 1970's, where citizens couldn't walk the downtown areas of most major cities, then they should open the jailhouse doors. The public will really like that, eh? With the supreme court now heading decidedly toward the right, I believe my family will remain as safe as can be reasonably expected in a free society because scum will remain behind bars until they have served their sentences. I believe Hillary Clinton recently gave a speech wherein she proposed giving voting rights to felons currently serving their time in prison! This is where liberals really stand.

I hate country music, but the song lyrics, "I've got the money if you've got the honey, lets cut a deal..." have to be among the best ever written. (Toby Keith) Here you come knockin' on my door baby Tell me what you got on your mind I guess those college boys all went home for the summertime And you're lookin' right, lookin' good, lookin' like a woman should So why is it so hard to find A place to lay your pretty little head down once in a while You run on a little tough luck baby Don't you sweat it Everything is waiting inside for ya You know I got it Come and get it Who's your daddy, who's your baby? Who's your buddy, who's your friend? And who's the one guy that you come runnin' to When your lovelife starts tumblin'? I got the money if you got the honey Let's cut a deal let's make a plan Who's your daddy, who's your baby? Who's your buddy, who's your man? You might've run on a little tough luck baby Don't you sweat it Everything is waiting inside for ya You know I got it So come and get it Who's your daddy, who's your baby? Who's your buddy, who's your friend? And who's the one guy that you come runnin' to When your lovelife starts tumblin'? I got the money if you got the honey Let's cut a deal let's make a plan who's your dady, who's your baby? who's your buddy, who's your man?

No. But I suspect there will be quite a few gerbils.

the precedent is to confirm the President's nominees unless they are grossly unqualified. If you want to talk precedent, it was also precedent to not threaten rule changes to block fillibusters. Irregardless, a senator's "boss" is his (or her?) state's citizens, not the president. In any event, I was never really against this Roberts character. I think he is certainly unqualified to be Chief Justice as I tend to think Chiefs should be nominated from existing Justices, or at least somebody with a history at the federal court level. He has nither. (oh really???) But aside from that, i'll take him as a presumed improvement to Renquist. 1)Your use of Irregardless shows poor form. 2)The ABA rates Roberts as "exceptionally well qualified". Its highest rating. 3)Like you, I would have preferred to see Scalia appointed chief justice. 4)Roberts was previously appointed to The DC Circuit Court of Appeals. This is a federal court. Josh, forget about that "American Political Systems" course. You obviously aren't learning anything. Might I suggest you take a sub-100 level course in English, and then move forward with your post-primary education?

Ah, there it is: it's FEELINGS that matter, not reality. Of course demo-liberals will capitalize on these FEELINGS in their class-warfare politics. I'm so glad that you finally understand. Feelings are important. It's feelings that drive crime. Feelings are why we had a Watts Riot. Feelings are what determines social stability. Don't discount it. Um, Catbird, have you checked the latest crime statistics? Almost all categories at all time lows since national records began compiling in the late 60's early 70's. I think this represents a major hole in the poverty = crime argument, at least as it's being presented here. Don't you?

Two factors not yet injected into this discussion are: a.) The percentage of wealthy who are college educated versus the general population. I'm particularly interested in how the altruistic spirit taught in so many public (and private) universities translates into real wealth redistribution through (voluntary) charity. I suspect that holders of a Bachelor's Degree or above represent wealthier individuals, but I'm just not sure. Does a degree really represent an economic advantage in this country? And to what extent? Would more college access really change the mix of rich v poor? b.)The transition from a manufacturing economy to a service economy. I'm having serious doubts about free trade. This country's tax system was founded primarily on tariffs which not only filled government coffers, but nullified the advantage of cheap overseas labor. (Not that this factor was a major issue in 18th or much of 19th century, pro-slavery america)

I would have supported US intervention in Rwanda on simple moral grounds. Clinton seemed to think helping out the violent KLA/terrorist muslim minority in the Serbian region known as Kosovo was more important.

Somoza was leader of a South American country??? I guess all those 'latinas' down south fall into the same mental pot you have created in that big open mind of yours, eh? That's the best you can do? After making a valid point about the nature of Venezuela's democratically instituted reform; after making a valid point regarding your support of a military ouster of a democratically elected leader, all you can come up with is a nit-pick about Somoza being from Central America as opposed to South America? Please respond as to whether or not you support the will of the people in Venezuela, or the will of the minority through militant violence.... The choice is yours, and I am curious as to your answer. * I still believe in The Truman Doctrine. * I don't believe the last election/referrendum was conducted fairly. I don't believe it represents the will of the people. * Contrary to JayB's assertion that Venezuela has no strategic value to The United States, I think the geo-political importance of the country as it relates to Columbia's strife, Chinese influence, and yes...to oil, speaks otherwise. * And lets not forget....This guy is acting extra-constitutionally, the election be damned. It will be interesting to see how these landowners fare in the Venezuelan courts - and also interesting to see if Chavez honors an unfavorable decision. (I suspect he is another Mugabe.) Will you still support him if he does not?

I hear what you're saying, unfortunately in the case of The USSR, and a few other regimes, it took over 70 years for the house of cards to fall. Shall we write off three generations of Venezuelans to another demonstration of a bankrupt idea? I say we put a stop to this redux asap.

Ruling on jurisdiction sets no precedent as a ruling on the merits would. The supreme court has not ruled on the fate of this citizen detainee. It will be interesting to see how the new chief justice rules if this case makes it to his court.

If you're talking about Jose Padilla, his case hasn't even gone before the supreme court yet. So what are you talking about? Aside from his case, and the Saudi dual citizen who has been released, all of the other detainees are non-citizens, I believe. Regardless, I think the supreme court will grant him a trial, as they should. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/09/AR2005090900772.html

Good analogy. I agree. Now, take a look at which court justices ruled for this outrage. Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Breyer. All liberals. Tell me once again; which ideology represents the greatest threat to our freedom?

Somoza was leader of a South American country??? I guess all those 'latinas' down south fall into the same mental pot you have created in that big open mind of yours, eh?

Not completely true, Dru. EU election monitors refused to participate and returned home when it became apparent they would not be allowed proper access to polling places and counting stations. Sadly, our own Jimmy Carter sees Chavez through rose-colored glasses.