KaskadskyjKozak

I love it when pro-abortionists say this.

he's baaaa-aack...

Alice Cooper "I Love the Dead" Black Sabbath "Black Sabbath"

Exactly. And if RvW were overturned, the Republicans would likely lose power at the next election. The public does not like radical change. So, the Republicans walk a fine line of pretending to want to overturn it, but not actually doing that.

that's par for the course. happens all the time. lawyers will be the end of us.

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. FW makes some good points about abortion here. O'Connor, a Reagan appointee, is pro-Roe v. Wade...the Supreme Court has made some really UN-popular rulings in the past. Remember Brown v. Board of Education? I've become convinced recently that overturning Roe v. Wade may not alter the nature of abortions in the US all that much. Technology has come along way in 35 years - no more coathangers, women are now using a prescription Ulcer drug to induce abortions. I don't know if I'm making sense here...just some musings on the whole abortion/supreme court thing... Roe v Wade will NOT be overturn. There may be restrictions put on abortions (partial-birth, parental notification), but that's a far cry from rolling back the clock 35 years.

It's not looking good for either party right now. Prepare to hold your nose for the next election when you cast your vote.

People who say the 2004 election was "fixed" just can't handle the truth - that a majority of Americans don't share their unmitigated hatred of Bush, and didn't buy the Demo-Liberal platform. Time to pull their heads out and deal with the truth - they lost, pure and simple.

yes. UNLIKE the WA state gubernatorial election.

Paternal: born son of immigrants from Ukraine. Oldest of 10 children. Finished HS and worked in the coal mines of Pennsylvania for 47 years. Failed his physical exam in WWII (bad leg). Died at age 89. Maternal: born son of immigrants from Ukraine as 8th child of 10. Dropped out of school at age 13 to work in the coal mines and help his family. Served in the Pacific Theater in WWII for 4 years. Worked in the mines, and other physical labor until age 62. Still alive (84).

To my mind Roberts is a Scalia; someone with a keen judicial mind, but whose ideology I disagree with. Miers seems like a Thomas; chosen to fulfill demographic desires and partisan loyalty. It's more than that. They seem to be trying to avoid a fight.

It will be interesting to see what happens to a nominee who lacks enthusiastic support from either party. I am just wondering whether or not the senate republicans will try work behind the scenes to get him to retract this nomination or if they'll just just deal. It seemed like while Robert's ideology was something that Congress would take exception to, the grounds for doubting his legal qualifications were considerably less solid. It seems that both this nominee's ideology and qualifications are grounds for objection, so it will be interesting to see where this goes. This nomination ranks right up there with the 1st nominee to head the Department of Homeland Security. Very bad vetting. Something is rotten in Denmark. My first thought was that this was part of some back-room deal, perhaps originating with the "filibuster/nuclear option" resolution. Now I'm thinking this may be purely about putting in a stealth candidate w/ no paper trail. If so, we can thank the Dems just as much as Bush for this, since this is where all the litmus-test, badgering, and obstructionism has led us. The president should be nominating very qualified candidates, and they should be evaluated on qualifications, not litmus tests.

slice onion and red pepper. Saute in olive or canola oil to taste. on the side saute italian sausage. Serve on a hard or soft roll (to taste) with the onions and pepper, season with mustard and crack open a beer. alternatively, for the brats, you can heat up sauerkraut (cook 5-12 minutes covered) instead. on the side, either fry potatoes, or buy baked beans, cole slaw, or potato salad.

they are all a pain in the ass to make. of those three, holubci (cabbage rolls) are the easiest. I know that is why I miss my mom I usually make a batch of pyrohy once a year - about 100 or so. I freeze them and haul them out from time to time for comfort food - fry them and sprinkly bacon bits and add sour cream, salt and paper. Mmmm.

they are all a pain in the ass to make. of those three, holubci (cabbage rolls) are the easiest.

it's a lot of work to prepare though. Takes about 2 hours.

Maybe the horse was more qualifed than the average senator romanus?

It does look very bad to nominate a friend that doesn't appear qualified. A cronyism double-whammy.

OK, but what qualifies her to be a supreme court judge? Roberts argued many cases before the court, and served as a federal judge, as I recall. Another way to look at it is to compare her qualifications with those of the other sitting judges on the court. If she is the least qualified of them all, then the Dems have a strong case to reject her.

It's the other way around, fool. You make an accusation - the burden is on you to prove it. Yet more evidence that liberals care not for the principles they claim to espouse.

yeah, it's too scary when you're confronted with arguments that counter your orthodoxy, and for which you have no compelling response. ya...like you when you forget to go download the conservative talking points from Rove. more hackneyed liberal snipes from Olyclimber

yeah, it's too scary when you're confronted with arguments that counter your orthodoxy, and for which you have no compelling response.

Please. As if liberals don't presume to be "know-it-alls" and tell people "what they need to be told". Liberals always talk about "educating" people to be "tolerant", "informed", etc. So this should be right up your alley. Just in case you needed a reminder about what you actually posted... Interpretation of your response: my suggestion to look at how immigrants succeed and leverage that in a policy to address poverty is "presuming to be a know-it-all". Since, as usual, this discussion, like all the rest here represents the same old liberal / anti-liberal conflict, I responded that the liberals are just as fond of moralizing as self-appointed "know-it-alls" telling people what "the need to be told" (in the liberal world-view/dogma).

Don't be obtuse. YOU brought up your parents, not me. My response was not directed at THEM but at the principle we were discussing. Various POLICIES of dealing with "social inequity" in America.

*yawn* get a new line Chicken Little.