Increasing Number Of Americans View Supreme Court As ‘Too Conservative’
Increasing Number Of Americans View Supreme Court As ‘Too Conservative’
During the full first term of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, the court has taken a sharp turn to the right. In June, the court ruled that local school authorities “cannot take modest steps to bring public school students of different races together.” It also upheld a ban on the so-called “partial birth” abortion procedure and repeatedly sided with big business in decisions.
According to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, an increasing percentage of the American public is unhappy with this shift:
The percentage who said the court is “too conservative” grew from 19 percent to 31 percent in the past two years, while those who said it is “generally balanced in its decisions” declined from 55 percent to 47 percent. […]
[A] majority disagreed with the court’s decision that sharply restricted the ability of local school boards to use race when making school assignments to achieve diverse student bodies. Fifty-six percent of those polled disapproved of the decision; 40 percent approved.
During their nomination hearings, Roberts said he had “no agenda.” Alito said he would rule in a “neutral fashion.” Yet the two Bush nominees have sided with one another approximately 90 percent of the time.
The Senate is frustrated that the two justices have not lived up to their promises. Yesterday, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) said that the Senate “should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush ‘except in extraordinary circumstances.’” Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), who championed the nominations of Alito and Roberts, plans to review their Senate testimony to “determine if their reversal of several long-standing opinions conflicts with promises they made to senators to win confirmation.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so.
July 28th, 2007 at 6:24 pmAlito and Roberts are way too conservative.
Not much can be done now, however, we’re stuck with them.
Elections have consequences. Maybe the President will get an opportunity to recess appoint Ann Coulter or Robert Bork to a vacant seat!
July 28th, 2007 at 6:26 pmSo what will Arlen recommened if he determines that Alito and Roberts have broken the “promises they made to senators to win confirmationâ€?
Will he ask his colleagues in the House to institute impeachment proceedings, meanwhile promising that, if it reaches the Senate, he’ll vote to convict and remove? Will he promise to be less of a lickspittle in the future?
I suppose he’ll conclude that they did break their promises, but only a bit, and although he’s troubled by all of this, he hopes everything will move along acceptably from now on.
July 28th, 2007 at 6:27 pmYup, like Marie said, we told you so.
How can we see these things and they not?
July 28th, 2007 at 6:28 pmBoth Roberts and Alito have been on the wrong side of so many important decisions. Democrats should have filibustered or placed a hold on both of these nominations. It is a pity the filibuster for Alito failed. Their decisions have set back women’s rights and civil rights and desegregation in this country. We need a democratic president who will appoint people to the bench that respect the previous decisions of the court. I’m glad Sen. Kerry had the forth sight to try to filibuster the Alito nomination.
July 28th, 2007 at 6:28 pmMarie ~ Exactly.
July 28th, 2007 at 6:29 pmNow all we can do is hold our breathe and hope that no other justices die between now and Jan 09!
Not me!!!
July 28th, 2007 at 6:29 pmI suppose he’ll conclude that they did break their promises, but only a bit, and although he’s troubled by all of this, he hopes everything will move along acceptably from now on.
Hahaha! Idiot, they followed Ginsberg Precedent to a T!
July 28th, 2007 at 6:29 pmLong live Justice Stevens!
July 28th, 2007 at 6:31 pmFifty-five percent of those polled — including majorities of both women and men — approved of the court’s abortion ruling. The decision significantly shifted the court’s abortion jurisprudence, marking the first time justices have upheld a restriction on a specific abortion procedure and one that does not include an exception for a woman’s health.
July 28th, 2007 at 6:31 pmIt’s not about right or left with the Supreme Court. It’s about the law and the constitution. And the Constitution is all about individual rights. Not favoring one race over another. A color blind society like Dr. King asked for.
July 28th, 2007 at 6:32 pmAnother opportunity for Specter to show off his caving skills.
July 28th, 2007 at 6:33 pmA color blind society like Dr. King asked for.
Comment by Kevin — July 28, 2007 @ 6:32 pm
———————-
Exactly, and that is one of the strong points for this Supreme Court.
July 28th, 2007 at 6:36 pmLet’s see, you vote for the war and Bush gives you war. You vote for Gonzales and you get Bush’s private attorney. You vote for these two friendly fascists and you get a far right wing majority on the Supreme Court.
-GSD
July 28th, 2007 at 6:40 pmThe RATS are in charge of the judicial branch of the government.
R=Roberts
A=Alito
T=Thomas
S=Scalia
Kennedy is the swing voter and his vote is going to the highest bidder.
July 28th, 2007 at 6:42 pmless gullible elected representatives, please.
July 28th, 2007 at 6:42 pm#4
Comment by pwapvt — July 28, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
I agree. As a person of average intelligence, why are these things so apparent to me and not to those who make the decisions?
July 28th, 2007 at 6:43 pmAre they all too removed, too isolated to see beyond their small world in government, whereas the rest of us deal with others day in day out in all walks of life, and we can smell a rat even if we can’t see it yet?
During their nomination hearings, Roberts said he had “no agenda.†Alito said he would rule in a “neutral fashion.†Yet the two Bush nominees have sided with one another approximately 90 percent of the time.
Roberts and Alito are blatant liars, and they are on the highest court in that land.
That is so f*cked up.
July 28th, 2007 at 6:47 pmKevin, in an ideal world, it IS the law of the land (the Constitution) that the SCOTUS interpret - and it should be without political bias. But throughout history, individual bias has always seeped into the deliberations and judgments. The ideal is to appoint judges who, regardless of their politics, will see the whole picture and vote for the better of the country and equality and fairness for its people. Bush&Co, sadly, look ONLY at politics.
July 28th, 2007 at 6:47 pmComment by Marie — July 28, 2007 @ 6:43 pm
I agree with what you said at the top, but, Marie, don’t sell yourself short. One of the reasons I enjoy reading your posts even when “lurking” through, is because you are clearly (to me) of above average intelligence. Otherwise I would likely never respond to them favorably. I think you’ve seen how I respond unfavorably. :)
Keep up the good posting.
July 28th, 2007 at 6:48 pmIt’s not about right or left with the Supreme Court. It’s about the law and the constitution. And the Constitution is all about individual rights. Not favoring one race over another. A color blind society like Dr. King asked for.
Comment by Kevin — July 28, 2007 @ 6:32 pm
You’re right, Kevin.
But that’s not what the SCOTUS is doing, and that is the problem.
July 28th, 2007 at 6:48 pmYes it’s too conservative, but some Democrat Senators helped to make it happen. They deserve most of the blame now.
July 28th, 2007 at 6:49 pm#20, Wayne
July 28th, 2007 at 6:50 pmGee, thanks! :)
Keep up the good posting.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — July 28, 2007 @ 6:48 pm
I wholeheartedly agree! If I see a comment by Marie, I read it, because I know she’s always very level-headed and really knows her stuff.
Thanks, Marie!!
July 28th, 2007 at 6:50 pmDoes anyone else here think GWB looks like a little kid in the pic?
A power-drunk kid.
July 28th, 2007 at 6:51 pmDoes anyone else here think GWB looks like a little kid in the pic?
A power-drunk kid.
Comment by trueblue — July 28, 2007 @ 6:51 pm
He often holds the posture of a young child.
July 28th, 2007 at 6:53 pmYou’ve noticed that before, as well?
Zooey,
July 28th, 2007 at 6:54 pmDitto! :)
Roberts and Alito are blatant liars, and they are on the highest court in that land.
That is so f*cked up.
Comment by Zooey — July 28, 2007 @ 6:47 pm
And this is why we are so ph*cked to the core as a previously free people!!
The corporate suckup DemoGraphics colluded with the Repugniscums to screw all of us into the ground.
I’m a human without a party!!!
July 28th, 2007 at 6:55 pmHave any of you heard a Republican talk about “activist judges” when the Democrats want to nominate a judge? They want “strict constructionists” which is in itself dumb since the world has changed greatly since the constitution was written. But the “activist judges” thing is what really gets to me. What we have now are activist right wing judges who interpret law according to their religious beliefs. If that’s not an “activist judge”, I don’t know what is.
July 28th, 2007 at 6:55 pmDoes anyone else here think GWB looks like a little kid in the pic?
A power-drunk kid.
Comment by trueblue — July 28, 2007 @ 6:51 pm
Does anyone else here think GWB looks like a little kid in the pic?
A power-drunk kid.
Comment by trueblue — July 28, 2007 @ 6:51 pm
He often holds the posture of a young child.
You’ve noticed that before, as well?
Comment by Zooey — July 28, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
Are we talking about the picture of Alito and Roberts above? or is there another pic I missed? Or am I drunk now?
July 28th, 2007 at 6:56 pmAre we talking about the picture of Alito and Roberts above? or is there another pic I missed? Or am I drunk now?
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — July 28, 2007 @ 6:56 pm
That’s right, Wayne, embarrass everybody.
July 28th, 2007 at 6:58 pmI find it rather ironic that we would be in a much better position if the Democrats had filibustered Alito and/or Roberts and the Republicans had done their “nuclear option” on the filibuster. If they had done it, they would not be able to filibuster the Democrats today. I actually think the filibuster should be done away with.
July 28th, 2007 at 6:59 pmWow we now live in a colorblind society? Ummm somebody better inform New Orleans.
July 28th, 2007 at 7:03 pmI find it rather ironic that we would be in a much better position if the Democrats had filibustered Alito and/or Roberts and the Republicans had done their “nuclear option†on the filibuster. If they had done it, they would not be able to filibuster the Democrats today. I actually think the filibuster should be done away with.
Comment by bilbobaggins — July 28, 2007 @ 6:59 pm
Certainly, the threat of employing the “nuclear option” reduces the effectiveness of the filibuster. It at least seems fair that, if both sides are going to employ the filibuster, then both sides should either use the threat of the nuclear option or both sides should not use it.
July 28th, 2007 at 7:03 pmWhat we have now are activist right wing judges who interpret law according to their religious beliefs. If that’s not an “activist judgeâ€, I don’t know what is.
Not only are those Activist Judges, they should be considered treasonist judges for seeking guidance outside of the rule of man in favor of some imagined and ridiculous, useless god!
July 28th, 2007 at 7:03 pmThat’s right, Wayne, embarrass everybody.
Comment by Egreggious — July 28, 2007 @ 6:58 pm
Not my intent. I thought perhaps that they were referring to a funny pic in one of the links in the article. I’m easily confused.
Jeb fall down.
July 28th, 2007 at 7:05 pmHey nader voters; There’s your dimes worth of difference.
In 08 Congress needs to raise the number of Suprrmoes then President Edwards can fill the seats with non-religious fanatics.
July 28th, 2007 at 7:07 pmThe Supreme Plutocrats
-GSD
July 28th, 2007 at 7:12 pmAre we talking about the picture of Alito and Roberts above? or is there another pic I missed? Or am I drunk now?
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — July 28, 2007 @ 6:56 pm
Gee whiz, Wayne. Too much sun? :-D
July 28th, 2007 at 7:13 pm37. Maybe President Edwards or Obama or Richardson or Dodd or Biden can appoint Hillary to the Supreme Court.
July 28th, 2007 at 7:14 pmChew on that one trollie boys.
Or Gore (almost forgot).
July 28th, 2007 at 7:16 pmHillary for Supreme Court !!!!
Well, Bush was hoping that Herriet Miers will be on the Supreme Court bench,to begin with
July 28th, 2007 at 7:24 pmShe is now not responding to the Congress Subpoena sent to her.
Roberts asked for a pay raise two months after he started..
There you have it…
Maybe President Edwards or Obama or Richardson or Dodd or Biden can appoint Hillary to the Supreme Court.
While I have said that I wopn;t vote for her because I want her to fulfill the six year term she asked us New Yorkers to give her, I would support her nomination to the Supreme Court (though I would prefer her husband for that slot. Hell, why not both? Then the conservatives can finally STFU, because they wouldn’t be speaking out as much.)
July 28th, 2007 at 7:24 pmThank you Schumer, Leahy, Feinstein for the gold dust twins—Roberts and Scalito. You put up one helleva fight to keep these jerks off the court!!!
July 28th, 2007 at 7:25 pmMany knew that Alito and Roberts would wind up pushing a conservative agenda, despite their promises to the contrary. What I find difficult to understand is how the Senate didn’t see it coming and took these two at their word? It must be a mental deficiency that kicks in as soon as you’re elected to the Senate
Or maybe they knew full well that these two would push a conservative agenda?
July 28th, 2007 at 7:30 pmIt’s all about balance.
Sure, the Court is now conservative…we (the left) made it so w/a weak 2004 Presidential race. Unless you’re a hypocrite, you can’t blame the winner for that can you? Who would Kerry have appointed? Second place is first loser.
That said, a conservative court will lead to a progressive/liberal electorate as your average voter gets disenfranchised by the conservative voice of the court. And over time…vice versa… That’s the beauty of our system in the long view, the pendulum will always swing back the other way.
Naturally…the short term does suck though.
July 28th, 2007 at 7:31 pmIf Bush is actually able to push through one more conservative judge, I wouldn’t be surprised if we start seeing a generation of Constitutional amendments being proposed to overturn unpopular decisions.
July 28th, 2007 at 7:34 pmPlease, Egreggious,
Don’t scare me like that.
July 28th, 2007 at 7:36 pmDon’t scare me like that.
Comment by trueblue — July 28, 2007 @ 7:36 pm
I was actually trying to inject a ray of hope. Amending the Constitution is the remedy we have for a Supreme court run amuck (or is that amok?).
July 28th, 2007 at 7:38 pmIt’s amok.
:)
I thought you meant they would return us to days I was happy I did not have to live through, as far as women’s rights went.
July 28th, 2007 at 7:40 pmI thought you meant they would return us to days I was happy I did not have to live through, as far as women’s rights went.
Comment by trueblue — July 28, 2007 @ 7:40 pm
Well that too, unfortunately. I was thinking if Roe v. Wade was overturned, it might be very difficult to get a Constitutional amendment that would restore the rights granted by that decision.
July 28th, 2007 at 7:43 pmLets keep our toes and fingers crossed that Kennedy remains healthy at least until Al Gore takes office in early 2009
July 28th, 2007 at 7:43 pmBTW, my dictionary says that amok is a variant of amuck.
July 28th, 2007 at 7:44 pm… so where is the ray of hope?
I’m not seein’ it.
July 28th, 2007 at 7:44 pm:P
BTW, my dictionary says that amok is a variant of amuck.
Comment by Egreggious
We’re both right.
YAY!
:)
July 28th, 2007 at 7:45 pmNo problem just let Larry Flynt do a background check and Alito and Roberts they will be removed. Alito is truely gay and sick in the mine. Roberts has a woman or more on the side. For those who disagree I only point to Vitter the Christian choice. Yes the Paster who preached the word of God while having sex with men. Ralph Reed the Christian boy who lied and steal from the Church. Jackie Abramoff you know what he did. Then there’s Fingers Foley who while voting for the Iraq war was on his computer talking sex with kids, he did go to the men’s room on a as needed bases.
July 28th, 2007 at 7:47 pmComment by Egreggious — July 28, 2007 @ 7:38 pm
Comment by trueblue — July 28, 2007 @ 7:40 pm
On the contrary, we would make sure those rights are embedded within the constitution. Let’s claer up the issue of Reproductive Rights once and for all, and guarantee a woman’s right to her own decisions, since a majority of the country favors a woman having such a right. (Many may also favor some restrictions, but at least they most emphatically do not want to see it taken away entirely.)
Amd why stop there? Amend the constitution to formally consider executive signing statements to carry no weight in law, absent specific legislation granting that authority to the excecutive branch, under Art 1, Sec 8, Cl 18., and require them at the time of signing, so it can’t be re-interpreted to suit their needs.
Do away with the electoral college and go straight to popular votes detemining presidential elections. Require all balloting to be on paper ballots (until such time as paper no longer exists, then find some other form of hard medium).
Prohibit all guaranteed cost-plus contracts with the government or any of its subsidiaries. And require that at least 90% of our money for contractors be put up for competitive bid. (I made that number up; it could vary according to how much must really be given directly to one company.) Limit any one contractor and its subsidiaries from receiving more than a certain percentage of the people’s money in any fiscal year.
I could go on, but not here. The point is that there is a lot we can do with the right people in government.
July 28th, 2007 at 7:50 pmI said difficult, not impossible. If abortions start being performed in back alleys again, people will hopefully come to their senses that this is not the kind of America we want to have, and we could then amend the Constitution to guarantee freedom of choice.
I also think that there is a lot of pandering by politicians and others over abortion, to appease their fundamentalist base. But, if it actually came down to it, I wonder if they’d actually be in favor of abandoning Roe v. Wade. It’s almost better to keep it out there as an issue to get those voters lining up. Kind of like the gay marriage amendments which turned out voters in 2004. Now that they got their way, how will they motivate these homophobes?
July 28th, 2007 at 7:51 pmI nominate Wayne Schneider for President!!
YAYYYYY!
July 28th, 2007 at 7:56 pmWayne, I agree with you.
It’s been a long time since the Constitution was amended, but it is not an unusual event really. The time may be coming again.
I remember you wrote something about having another Constitutional Convention or something. Tell me why you think that would be a good idea (if you do believe that).
July 28th, 2007 at 7:56 pmMaybe the President will get an opportunity to recess appoint Ann Coulter or Robert Bork to a vacant seat!
Comment by m12 — July 28, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
To where? One of the WH bathrooms?
July 28th, 2007 at 8:01 pmThe Court will be a sobering reminder of the neocon experiment–like the lingering smell of rotten eggs. It will remind us not to screw up again.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:03 pmComment by Zooey — July 28, 2007 @ 6:47 pm
Long time no see Zooey. Where you been hiding.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:04 pmA power-drunk kid.
Comment by trueblue — July 28, 2007 @ 6:51 pm
Why do we get so many pix of the Deciderer riding his bicycle? Jes’ asking.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:05 pmComment by Egreggious — July 28, 2007 @ 7:56 pm
First of all, thank you, but I am unelectable.
I suggested it esentially for the reason i stated above. I’m getting tired of wondering where a lot of five-four decision, which under stare decisis (sp?) should be decided law, are going to come down in the future. This court has demonstrated its willingness to overturn precedent. It’s time to take the wiggle room out of all those decisions and settle it once and for all.
Add the elimination of “Corporate Personhood” and any rights one of them might have to the list. (And no, I have no idea how that should be worded, but I think it’s understood what needs to be eliminated.)
Here’s another. Because the word “marriage” carries certain religious aspoects to it for some people, why not, on a federal level, eliminate the word “marriage” and replace it with “civil union”, defined to be a union of two, and only two (you religious wingnuts) humans (and you, Santorum). I’m confident the Union would not desolve if two gay people were allowed to enjoy the same benefits as heterosexual amrried (and even some unmarried) couples enjoy.
What else needs solidification in the constitution in order to make idiotic justices like these irrelevant to the Republican plan?
July 28th, 2007 at 8:06 pm“Not much can be done now, however, we’re stuck with them.
Comment by Marie — July 28, 2007″
And that sure is good news!
July 28th, 2007 at 8:09 pmI didn’t read all the comments yet and I apologize if this has already been asked..
July 28th, 2007 at 8:09 pmIf Senator Spector finds they misrepresented themselves to the Senate during confirmation hearings in order to win their seats on the Supreme Court, can their seats be challenged and can they be removed or impeached from the Court?
“Maybe the President will get an opportunity to recess appoint Ann Coulter to a vacant seat!
Comment by m12 — July 28, 2007″
I could support that! She is after all a Constitutional Attorney!
July 28th, 2007 at 8:10 pmHow can we change the process in the future to correct it. The last few years have amply illustrated that all you have to do to be approved is to lie your teeth off.
And as they’re philosophically talking about a scenario of what they may or may not do in the future, it is always easy to say that the current situation and action doesn’t match the philosophical scenario. Not to mention that time has elapsed since then and I’ve changed a little and the nice judge RATS next to me made such a good argument, yada, yada, yada………
In short, one couldn’t even conclusively establish that they were lying - excuse me, I meant talking discretely.
And I’m not even talking just about Supreme Court, but any presidential appointment on which Congress has a hearing. Remember the factual tongue of various UN nominees and nominees for head of the DOJ.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:10 pmWhat else needs solidification in the constitution in order to make idiotic justices like these irrelevant to the Republican plan?
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — July 28, 2007 @ 8:06 pm
Right now I’d like to see Executive Privilege defined.
And a clarification of what constitutes a legal war.
But you are right on the money with your suggestions as usual, Wayne.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:10 pm“Their decisions have set back women’s rights and civil rights and desegregation in this country.
Comment by Probus — July 28, 2007″
The above statement is a perfect example of why I come here! It’s both idiotic and untrue.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:13 pmComment by MapleStreet — July 28, 2007 @ 8:10 pm
Also a good point.
I believe the Congress can impeach Justices, but that is probably as far as their power goes. I think it’s even been done before. Wayne? I bow to your expertise.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:13 pm#57 Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — July 28, 2007 @ 7:50 pm
Do away with the electoral college and go straight to popular votes detemining presidential elections.
I have a fear of this. The tyrany of the majority is a frightening prospect to me. In today’s world of disinformation and misinformation, not to mention outright lying, which is enabled by the mass media, where is the security of “an informed citzenry” that Jefferson banked upon? The Iraq debacle is a case in point. Sold on lies and based on fear, the majority was pushed into thoughtless decisions in their choice of action.
And then there is the “religious” angle that is being sold by Bush in his pursuit of Good vs Evil. Again, the people are being conned, by fear (if you are against Evil, by Bush’s definition, you are against god.) and hesitate to respond. The media by its lack of speaking out enables this dangerous direction. It is the goal of the religious right to replace the Constitution with the bible as the source of governance. As the majority of people in this country are christians it is all too possible to have a problem.
That a candidate is a “religious” believer should not be the basis for election, and yet, as Bush’s “election” shows, many people believed him to be the right man for the job, based on his professing his belief in god.
As great as it sounds, I don’t think we are ready, at this time, to do away with the electoral process.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:14 pm“But you are right on the money with your suggestions as usual, Wayne.
Comment by Egreggious — July 28, 2007″
Wayne has never been right about anything. Wayne, I thought you picked up your toys and went home?
July 28th, 2007 at 8:14 pm“Do away with the electoral college and go straight to popular votes detemining presidential elections.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — July 28, 2007″
Did you want to do away with the Electoral College after both of Clinton’s victories?
July 28th, 2007 at 8:16 pm“The Iraq debacle is a case in point. Sold on lies and based on fear
Comment by Merlin — July 28, 2007″
What lies?
July 28th, 2007 at 8:18 pmAs great as it sounds, I don’t think we are ready, at this time, to do away with the electoral process.
Comment by Merlin — July 28, 2007 @ 8:14 pm
I don’t understand how giving states like Wyoming more influence in elections than their population would indicate they should have, solves the problem of an uninformed mass determining elections.
I agree with Wayne. I think a popular vote would have been fine in the Clinton years as well, Ann.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:20 pmWayne A. Schneider, I’ve been reading your blogs. They are very good. I like your ideas.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:20 pm“Or maybe they knew full well that these two would push a conservative agenda?
Comment by W.Clements — July 28, 2007″
You people are brain dead! Did you actually think that they would push a liberal agenda?
July 28th, 2007 at 8:21 pm“I agree with Wayne. I think a popular vote would have been fine in the Clinton years as well, Ann.
Comment by Egreggious — July 28, 2007″
Answer the question I posed in #76?
July 28th, 2007 at 8:22 pm“I like your ideas.
Comment by JG — July 28, 2007″
Of course you do.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:23 pmSo michael, ARE you Ann coulter? Or, is it you just want to BE Ann Coulter??
July 28th, 2007 at 8:24 pmI could support that! She is after all a Constitutional Attorney!
Comment by michael — July 28, 2007 @ 8:10 pm
When (she) was in private practice (she) was a corporate lawyer.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:24 pmThat’s the beauty of our system in the long view, the pendulum will always swing back the other way.
Comment by swill — July 28, 2007 @ 7:31 pm
—————————-
Well, this part is true, but I don’t know if I would call it “beauty,” maybe just the idiocy the idiocy and weak-mindedness of the masses.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:24 pmDid you want to do away with the Electoral College after both of Clinton’s victories?
Comment by michael — July 28, 2007 @ 8:16 pm
michael, I’ll play your game for a little bit.
To the best of my memory, I was not at all concerned with the Electoral College vote after Clinton’s victories, because it wouldn’t have changed the outcome either way.
I had thought about the Electoral College system before 2000, if that’s what you mean, and had come to the conclusion that it was silly. US Elections should be based on people, not geography, as far as I’m concerned.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:25 pm#70 Comment by Egreggious — July 28, 2007 @ 8:10 pm
Right now I’d like to see Executive Privilege defined.
And a clarification of what constitutes a legal war.
Yes, and add signing statements to the list. It would be good to examine the role of Commander in Chief, as defined by the Constitution, in today’s world. The abuse of power by this cabal requires it, I believe.
Unitary president. Indeed!
July 28th, 2007 at 8:25 pm“You put up one helleva fight to keep these jerks off the court!!!
Comment by nochickenhawk — July 28, 2007″
Why are they jerks?
July 28th, 2007 at 8:26 pmAnd do you have anything intelligent to say?
Comment by michael — July 28, 2007 @ 8:17 pm
Oh, gosh, Michael. I think I might be a couple of inches shorter after that.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:27 pmProbably die six months earlier too.
76: Tell us about how Clinton lost the popular vote in 92 and 96.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:27 pm77: Yes, your an assH@le.
78: WMD; Iraq oil will pay for the war; Mission Accomplished; Sadam involved in 9-11; connections between al queda and iraq pre-war; welcome us with flowers; No need for 300,000 + troops.
Anyone else care to educate my owner.
“When (she) was in private practice (she) was a corporate lawyer.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — July 28, 2007″
So what! She’s a Constitutional Attorney!
July 28th, 2007 at 8:27 pmComment by Wayne A. Schneider — July 28, 2007 @ 7:50 pm
I agree, Wayne. Reproductive rights are a no-brainer, or they ought to be.
And the electoral college needs to go. We obviously have the capability of counting votes on a massive scale, and our population is 99% literate. The electoral college is antiquated.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:28 pmLong time no see Zooey. Where you been hiding.
Comment by shane — July 28, 2007 @ 8:04 pm
I’ve been Zehava for a few days. :-)
July 28th, 2007 at 8:29 pmComment by Merlin — July 28, 2007 @ 8:14 pm
Thank you Merlin, Eggreggiosu,and JG.
I do not propose that this be done in a vacuum. We could also amend it to restrict media ownership to prohibit the kinds of evil perpetrated on the public by that pack of pernicious poodle pumpers. You get the idea.
In general, let’s have us a good old constitutional convention and propose amendments to cover as many controversial issues as possible, especially where any kind of “executive privilege” might begin or end. (Nat’l security only.)
Guarantee something like the Freedom Of Information Act, so we can make sure we’re never leid to again.
I think I’m going to start writing these all down somewhere, and I’ve got just the place. I’ll be back later. Thanks again everyone.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:29 pm92. And I’m a neurosurgeon.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:30 pm“US Elections should be based on people, not geography, as far as I’m concerned.
Comment by Egreggious — July 28, 2007″
Of course you feel that way! Gore would be in the Oval Office today and your mother and sisters would be wearing burkas!
July 28th, 2007 at 8:30 pmSo what! She’s a Constitutional Attorney!
Comment by michael — July 28, 2007 @ 8:27 pm
Are you embarrassed by that revelation?
July 28th, 2007 at 8:31 pmI think I’m going to start writing these all down somewhere, and I’ve got just the place. I’ll be back later. Thanks again everyone.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — July 28, 2007 @ 8:29 pm
Wayne’s ideas for a new constitutional congress.
Fan-damn-tastic!
July 28th, 2007 at 8:31 pm97: Quick, look under your bed, there’s islamo-fascists!!
July 28th, 2007 at 8:32 pm“WMD; Iraq oil will pay for the war; Mission Accomplished; Sadam involved in 9-11; connections between al queda and iraq pre-war; welcome us with flowers; No need for 300,000 + troops.
Anyone else care to educate my owner.
Comment by michael’spotbellypig — July 28, 2007″
And you can document the quotes behind each one of these where lies have been documented?
July 28th, 2007 at 8:32 pmAnd you can document the quotes behind each one of these where lies have been documented?
Comment by michael — July 28, 2007 @ 8:32 pm
Rule.
Ann is the hostile party here. Let’s put the burden of proof on her, if it’s so important to her.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:34 pm101: ??? Speak english. Close your eyes, click you heels three times and repeat after me . . . There’s no place like home, there’s no place like home, there’s no place like home.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:35 pm“We obviously have the capability of counting votes
Comment by Zooey — July 28, 2007″
Not so fast zooey. Arithmetic doesn’t come until the 6th grade in today’s public schools. Don’t be in such a rush.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:35 pmComment by Wayne A. Schneider — July 28, 2007 @ 8:06 pm
Wayne, I admire your enthusiasm, and in no way is it my intent to discourage you. However, I have been reading your ideas regarding the Constitution and I feel that some of what you suggest is not in the best interest of America.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:36 pmMr owner is practiced in the fine art of repetitive redundancy.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:36 pm“Let’s put the burden of proof on her, if it’s so important to her.
Comment by Egreggious — July 28, 2007″
One of you made the statement that there were lies, I’m just asking for proof!
July 28th, 2007 at 8:37 pmRule.
Ann is the hostile party here. Let’s put the burden of proof on her, if it’s so important to her.
Comment by Egreggious
Agreed.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:37 pm107: And we are asking you and your small-minded attitude to go “POOF”.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:38 pmThe Electoral College was created to give the individual colonies due influence in elections. It was a way to get everybody to sign on to the Constitution.
It’s antiquated and it’s silly to have it now.
Why should a voter in Alaska have more influence than a voter in New York? It’s ridiculous.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:38 pmWayne, I admire your enthusiasm, and in no way is it my intent to discourage you. However, I have been reading your ideas regarding the Constitution and I feel that some of what you suggest is not in the best interest of America.
Comment by Mr. President — July 28, 2007 @ 8:36 pm
What are your thoughts on that, Mr P?
July 28th, 2007 at 8:38 pm“There’s no place like home, there’s no place like home, there’s no place like home.
Comment by michael’spotbellypig — July 28, 2007″
Does that mean you can’t document the lies? I didn’t think so. Well I’m off to Home Depot to mingle with some intelligent Republican shoppers!
July 28th, 2007 at 8:39 pmI think I’m going to start writing these all down somewhere, and I’ve got just the place. I’ll be back later. Thanks again everyone.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — July 28, 2007 @ 8:29 pm
July 28th, 2007 at 8:40 pm—————————–
Ah… Wayne, I hope the disappointment won’t be too much for you.
112: It’s just that you seem to live in a fantasy world and I thought I would help you find your way back home.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:40 pmComment by michael — July 28, 2007 @ 8:39 pm
Thank goodness he’s gone. Talking to an imaginary pot belly pig!?
Heh!
July 28th, 2007 at 8:41 pmMr. Pee, did you get home Eck OK?
He was kind of weird this morning. I couldn’t get him to make eye contact.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:41 pmThank goodness he’s gone. Talking to an imaginary pot belly pig!?
Comment by Zooey — July 28, 2007 @ 8:41 pm
Home Depot’s good for something anyway.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:42 pmWhat are your thoughts on that, Mr P?
Comment by Zooey — July 28, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
——————————————————–
My thought is that most of the ideas on this board are way too idealistic.
The Leftists here should always remind themselves:
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:43 pmYou can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Comment by Mr. President — July 28, 2007 @ 8:43 pm
What about Cheney?
July 28th, 2007 at 8:44 pmAh… Wayne, I hope the disappointment won’t be too much for you.
Comment by Mr. President — July 28, 2007 @ 8:40 pm
Nevermind my question to you in #111. It was ridiculous to hope for a normal discussion.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:44 pmYou can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Comment by Mr. President — July 28, 2007 @ 8:43 pm
Yep, I was right. Useless.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:45 pmWell I’m off to Home Depot to mingle with some intelligent Republican shoppers!
Ummm, how can you tell which are the Republican shoppers? Do they LOOK different? Do they wear signs on their heads, wear pins, or have a secret handshake? (I’ve never seen any..) Or do only Republicans shop at Home Depot? (Oops, I shop there too..)
July 28th, 2007 at 8:45 pmMy thought is that most of the ideas on this board are way too idealistic.
The Leftists here should always remind themselves:
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Comment by Mr. President
Wow a vague point punctuated by a nebulous label followed by an idiomatic proverb. Bravo. Clearly stated as usual.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:46 pmComment by michael — July 28, 2007 @ 8:17 pm
“Got any good gags about Pat Tillman while you’re yukking it up?
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — July 28, 2007″
And do you have anything intelligent to say?
Comment by michael
TRoS has more intellegence in his little finger than you do in your whole body. Funny you should ask about intellegence, you empty headed troll. Please, regal me with all your college degrees and prestigious awards. I am impressed easily, you know. You are like the “Straw Man” in the “Wizard of Oz” but without the Wizard to give you any brains.
On this board you have nothing constructive to say, and do nothing but ask inane questions designed to get a response. You are simply a coward who would sell his worthless soul to the highest bidder.
Yeah, the reality of your presence here sucks, but you’re here. Sh*t happens.
Hmmmmm…
July 28th, 2007 at 8:46 pmI wonder if you are worth using your head as a punching bag. I’m not sure its worth the effort of pumping it up every time I want to punch it around. And without being full of air, it just won’t sound the same.
Home Depot’s good for something anyway.
Comment by Egreggious — July 28, 2007 @ 8:42 pm
I hope he finds lots of things to occupy his tiny mind and soft hands.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:46 pmI probably should go get ready for that catering gig.
I’ll leave my computer on for a bit to monitor the situation here.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:47 pmWhy is Think Progress once again buying into the strategic triangulation of Arlen Specter? How many times will Liberal websites buy his feint left run right routine until they stop using him as a poster boy for Conservative “moderates.” Don’t you realize that everything that comes out of this mans mouth is nothing but rhetoric designed to trick Independents, moderates and misinformed Democrats into keeping him in office. He consistently says one thing and does the opposite. Let’s not help him fool his constituents anymore shall we?
July 28th, 2007 at 8:47 pmI actually enjoy talking with Pee after a bout with Coultergeist.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:48 pm#127 Comment by Snowball
Agreed. Anything Specter says just absorbs some of the shock for this administration. The MSM flouts how one leading repug is questioning their own and blah…blah…the main point is lost.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:49 pmComment by Snowball — July 28, 2007 @ 8:47 pm
Hallelujah!
July 28th, 2007 at 8:50 pmWow a vague point punctuated by a nebulous label followed by an idiomatic proverb. Bravo. Clearly stated as usual.
Comment by dlet — July 28, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
——————————————-
Well, okay.
I didn’t want to insult anybody, but frankly, a strict democracy is a recipe for disaster. The majority of Americans are not qualified to make political decisions, and as far as Reproductive Rights go, I have to ask:
How can one say “there is no justification for taking a life” while at the same time the same person supports abortion?
July 28th, 2007 at 8:53 pmPart of Specter’s game is to pretend to criticize the far right and then the media will use him as a counterpoint to a hard right Republican instead of having a Democrat in the debate. Then later on, he caves allowing the far right to have its way. Works every time.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:53 pm#123 Comment by dlet — July 28, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
Wow a vague point punctuated by a nebulous label followed by an idiomatic proverb. Bravo. Clearly stated as usual.
Well said! An insightful view!
July 28th, 2007 at 8:54 pmHmmmmm…
I wonder if you are worth using your head as a punching bag. I’m not sure its worth the effort of pumping it up every time I want to punch it around. And without being full of air, it just won’t sound the same.
Comment by Merlin — July 28, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
Do wear gloves, Merlin. That crusty snot under michael nose has been there for weeks.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:54 pmHow can one say “there is no justification for taking a life†while at the same time the same person supports abortion?
Comment by Mr. President — July 28, 2007 @ 8:53 pm
You are pro-choice. Don’t stir up the shit.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:56 pmThe majority of Americans are not qualified to make political decisions,
Comment by Mr. President
And there it is the seed of fascism. “I know that I am better than others and they should not have the rights I do.” Pathetic. Un-American in its most ugly form.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:56 pmPart of Specter’s game is to pretend to criticize the far right and then the media will use him as a counterpoint to a hard right Republican instead of having a Democrat in the debate. Then later on, he caves allowing the far right to have its way. Works every time.
Comment by Snowball — July 28, 2007 @ 8:53 pm
Specter isn’t the main point of this post, Snowball. I think we all know what Specter is. The point is the PEOPLE are viewing the SCOTUS as too conservative.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:57 pmYou are pro-choice. Don’t stir up the shit.
Comment by Zooey — July 28, 2007 @ 8:56 pm
July 28th, 2007 at 8:57 pm————————————
Yes, but I never said that there was no justification for taking a life.
The majority of Americans are not qualified to make political decisions,
Comment by Mr. President
Straight from the horses mouth. Oh, the irony! :)
July 28th, 2007 at 8:58 pmAnd there it is the seed of fascism. “I know that I am better than others and they should not have the rights I do.†Pathetic. Un-American in its most ugly form.
Comment by dlet — July 28, 2007 @ 8:56 pm
July 28th, 2007 at 8:58 pm—————————————————–
I never said that I was better than others.
Wayne, I admire your enthusiasm, and in no way is it my intent to discourage you. However, I have been reading your ideas regarding the Constitution and I feel that some of what you suggest is not in the best interest of America.
Comment by Mr. President — July 28, 2007 @ 8:36 pm
And I appreciate your courteously-given constructive crticism. I do. I have often said that the defense of the views I post is one of the reasons I put them out there for everyone to see and criticize.
So, may I ask to what you refer, sir?
July 28th, 2007 at 8:59 pmI didn’t want to insult anybody, but frankly, a strict democracy is a recipe for disaster. The majority of Americans are not qualified to make political decisions…
I actually share your concern about the majority of Americans, Pee (all I have to do is look at the 2004 election).
Democracy is not perfect. I think our founding fathers realized this when they created a “representative democracy” and tried to put some checks and balances on the idea of mob rule.
That said, democracy as a concept beats monarchies or dictatorships as far as I’m concerned.
The Electoral College does not smarten up the election process, in my opinion. It dumbs it down.
July 28th, 2007 at 9:01 pm#134 Comment by Zooey — July 28, 2007 @ 8:54 pm
Do wear gloves, Merlin. That crusty snot under michael nose has been there for weeks.
Yes. Thanks for the warning. I will send him the bill if the gloves get cuts on them.
July 28th, 2007 at 9:01 pmI never said that I was better than others.
Comment by Mr. President
Whatever. Parsing words of the same meaning and then claiming you never said them is spineless. Stand up to what you said. You think most Americans should not have the right to think and choose about a topic but you should. Or do you include yourself in those that are too stupid to be allowed to vote on the subject. Which is it? Are you better than them or are you one of the stupid.
July 28th, 2007 at 9:01 pmHow can one say “there is no justification for taking a life†while at the same time the same person supports abortion?
How can one say “there is no justification for taking a life” and support this war (based on lies) in Iraq that has taken over half a million Iraqi lives and over 3,500 lives of American soldiers. This doesn’t even count the lives that will be lost due to the long lasting effects of depleted uranium. How do you justify that?
You aregue that abortions are wrong because life is sacred, but once the children are born you veto legislation that would ensure children have needed health care. Where is the value of life there?
In the same breath, you argue against and veto stem cell research, which has the potential to save MANY lives using stem cells that are going to be discarded and destroyed anyway. You can’t have it both ways. You either value life or you don’t. Actions speak louder than words.
July 28th, 2007 at 9:02 pmHere, I’ll save some time and say that the Preamble should be amended to include the very important statement along the lines of,
July 28th, 2007 at 9:03 pm“In all considerations, those who serve the people under oath to support the constitution shall construe “the best interests of the United States of America” to mean the best interests of its citizens, as human beings with rights, both enumerated and not.
So, may I ask to what you refer, sir?
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — July 28, 2007 @ 8:59 pm
—————————————–
Most troubling is your suggestion for a democracy proper. I don’t trust the masses to make informed decisions.
July 28th, 2007 at 9:03 pmIt dumbs it down.
Comment by Martha Stewart — July 28, 2007 @ 9:01 pm
————————————–
How so?
July 28th, 2007 at 9:05 pmMost troubling is your suggestion for a democracy proper. I don’t trust the masses to make informed decisions.
A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.
July 28th, 2007 at 9:06 pmJohn F. Kennedy
Comment by Zooey — July 28, 2007 @ 8:57 pm
Yes, I know that Zooey. My point is, is that the Corporate Media consistently uses Specter to limit the terms of the debate. That’s his function. Just like he made a big show about criticizing Gonzo and did a 180 degree flip flop by attacking Schumer for trying to actually do something about it. Nothing is gained by Liberal websites propelling and promoting Specter’s rhetoric. It’s designed to suck the oxygen out of the debate and limit any possible action that could be taken to reign in the far right. Works every time and it’s time for Liberal websites to stop helping him do it.
July 28th, 2007 at 9:07 pm#131 Comment by Mr. President — July 28, 2007 @ 8:53 pm
“The majority of Americans are not qualified to make political decisions…”
Serious question, Mr. Pee
July 28th, 2007 at 9:07 pmThen who should make the decisions and what would you call the form of government that would exist under that choice?
Most troubling is your suggestion for a democracy proper. I don’t trust the masses to make informed decisions.
Comment by Mr. President — July 28, 2007 @ 9:03 pm
What, are you denigrating the Fox News demographic?
Are you actually saying that we’d be better off if individuals… **snicker-ouch-snicker…** like YOU were making the decisions, He Who Thinks The Saudis Aren’t Moslems?
Snicker-ouch-snicker… BWAHAHAH-ouch-HA-ouch-HA-ouch…
July 28th, 2007 at 9:07 pmOr do you include yourself in those that are too stupid to be allowed to vote on the subject. Which is it? Are you better than them or are you one of the stupid.
Comment by dlet — July 28, 2007 @ 9:01 pm
July 28th, 2007 at 9:08 pm———————
I’m one of the learning. I don’t vote.
How so?
Comment by Mr. President — July 28, 2007 @ 9:05 pm
This is my personal opinion, and I’ll probably get some slack for it. But for some strange reason the “general” population of less populated states like Wyoming, Alaska, Idaho (sorry, Z), etc., tend to have some backwards ideas about what’s good for this country. And yet, these same states have a disproportional influence in the outcome of presidential elections.
July 28th, 2007 at 9:09 pmI don’t vote.
………. you don’t vote..?
July 28th, 2007 at 9:10 pmThen how can you be so critical of those of us who do and who work for a better country for ourselves and our children??
Comment by JG — July 28, 2007 @ 9:02 pm
I take it you agree with me, that that way of thinking is contradictory.
July 28th, 2007 at 9:10 pmThe majority of Americans are not qualified to make political decisions,
Comment by Mr. President
Your statement states that there are those that are not qualified to make political decisions(vote?). That would mean that there are those that are qualified(better). Which of these two categories would you place yourself? I’ll give you a choice: Better Than or Less Than. And remember its an either/or statement that YOU made so an either/or answer is requested.
July 28th, 2007 at 9:10 pm#153 Comment by Mr. President — July 28, 2007 @ 9:08 pm
I’m one of the learning. I don’t vote.
What do you mean by “learning?” And why don’t you vote?
July 28th, 2007 at 9:13 pmI’m one of the learning. I don’t vote.
Comment by Mr. President
Wow. You don’t vote. Bravo. You are “One of the Learning”? What the heck does that mean? Does that mean that you are waiting for that special moment to practice the sacred act of voting? Dude, it happens at 18. There’s no reason to be a 40 Year Old Vote Virgin.
July 28th, 2007 at 9:14 pmYes, but I never said that there was no justification for taking a life.
Comment by Mr. President — July 28, 2007 @ 8:57 pm
That was saidin regard to the death penalty. Don’t try to make this an abortion issue.
July 28th, 2007 at 9:14 pmI’m one of the learning. I don’t vote.
Comment by Mr. President — July 28, 2007 @ 9:08 pm
Thank you for not voting.
July 28th, 2007 at 9:15 pmSerious question, Mr. Pee
Then who should make the decisions and what would you call the form of government that would exist under that choice?
Comment by Merlin — July 28, 2007 @ 9:07 pm
———————————
1) Those who have devoted their lives to statecraft and are determined to make the nation the best it can be in the opinion of the citizens.
2) A politeia.
July 28th, 2007 at 9:16 pmThis is my personal opinion, and I’ll probably get some slack for it. But for some strange reason the “general†population of less populated states like Wyoming, Alaska, Idaho (sorry, Z), etc., tend to have some backwards ideas about what’s good for this country. And yet, these same states have a disproportional influence in the outcome of presidential elections.
Comment by Martha Stewart — July 28, 2007 @ 9:09 pm
You’ll get no argument from me on that. :)
July 28th, 2007 at 9:16 pmRecent Supreme court decisions have made two very significant changes in the Abortion debate.1. The health of the mother is no longer paramount.2.The courts, not physicians, decide what is a necessary medical procedure.
July 28th, 2007 at 9:17 pmIf the court overturned Roe v. Wade, abortions would be illegal in some states and not others. Poor women, who have difficulty traveling to other states, would suffer.
And… democracy Without a Bill of rights is very dangerous. Tyranny of the majority.
Personally, I don’t define an embryo as life, and thus find no contradiction.
I know this is a controversial stance. When DOES life begin? I’ll take the Roe v. Wade compromise. That’s just me.
July 28th, 2007 at 9:17 pmMost troubling is your suggestion for a democracy proper. I don’t trust the masses to make informed decisions.
Comment by Mr. President — July 28, 2007 @ 9:03 pm
Thank you. I see.
But, you know, if more money had been spent educating our youth instead of building up a huge weapons arsenal to use against no one with the ability to dream of defeating it, we might not have such an ill-informed electorate.
Had we not allowed media corporations to quietly consolidate so that one company controls a huge percentage of the media that reach our citizens, we might not have an electorate so ignorant that they believed that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. (Though one can truthfully thank the massive deception campaign by the White House designed to increase support for their Iraq war, if not our understanding of exactly why it was supposed to be necessary. It kept changing so often.)
At the risk of sounding silly, there’s a quote that I’ve always liked, and its source doesn’t matter that much.
“In the 24th century, there will be no more hunger, there will be no more greed. And all of the children will know how to read.”
I believe that world is possible much sooner if we all had the willto put down our weapons, and recognize that sooner or later, we’re going to have to face survival as a species, not as a bunch of autonomous, arbitrary city-states, forever mistrustful of one another.
I guess one of the core differences between me and conservatives, is that I believe that people are born inherently good, and are taught to be bad. And I believe that the world will one day be a better place for all of us on it if we just learn to work together for the common good. I honestly do.
I think that conservatives believe that humans are born inherently bad, and must be taught how to be good. And that we will always be in danger because of this. They are naturally distrustful and cynical, and become part of the problem we need to overcome.
That’s how I see it, anyway. So I want to amend the constitution to protect the rights we all agree we should have, so that judges like the ones that Bush (Cheney) appoint won’t be able to take them away from us.
DO you oppose putting money toward making sure all citizens are taught civics lessons? It could be a licensing thing that would decrease your taxes if you take it. You would get a little more than you had to pay to attend the classes, so it would finacially attractive to people who measure life in dollars and cents.
July 28th, 2007 at 9:18 pmMr. P: Do you not vote because you are not 18, a felon or ex-felon, not a U.S. citizen or a non-voting citizen? If it’s the latter, you have no right to comment on anything that affects you politically.
July 28th, 2007 at 9:19 pm1) Those who have devoted their lives to statecraft and are determined to make the nation the best it can be in the opinion of the citizens.
Comment by Mr. President — July 28, 2007 @ 9:16 pm
And how do you determine the opinion of the citizens?
July 28th, 2007 at 9:19 pmIf it’s the latter, you have no right to comment on anything that affects you politically.
Comment by michael’spotbellypig — July 28, 2007 @ 9:19 pm
Yes he does. It’s in the First Amendment.
July 28th, 2007 at 9:20 pm168. Legally yes. But he has no social, moral or ethical standing to complain about anything.
July 28th, 2007 at 9:21 pmAnd how do you determine the opinion of the citizens?
Comment by Martha Stewart
Preemptive Mr. PEE response:
July 28th, 2007 at 9:21 pmBy not allowing them to vote.
well, back on topic–I’m just waiting for the witch trials to start up again.
July 28th, 2007 at 9:22 pmLegally yes. But he has no social, moral or ethical standing to complain about anything.
Comment by michael’spotbellypig — July 28, 2007 @ 9:21 pm
That’s better, I guess. But if his moral stance is that voting is dumb, he may still have a point.
July 28th, 2007 at 9:22 pmYes he does. It’s in the First Amendment.
Comment by Martha Stewart — July 28, 2007 @ 9:20 pm
I’ve always considered voting to be a civic responsibility, and have voted since I turned 18. Less formally, I considered voting to be my purchase of “b*tching rights.”
Frankly, if I know someone hasn’t voted, I don’t want to hear it.
July 28th, 2007 at 9:24 pmFrankly, if I know someone hasn’t voted, I don’t want to hear it.
Comment by Zooey — July 28, 2007 @ 9:24 pm
Take that, Mr. P! :)
July 28th, 2007 at 9:25 pmwell, back on topic–I’m just waiting for the witch trials to start up again.
Comment by loretta — July 28, 2007 @ 9:22 pm
According to wingnuttia, the witch trials are occurring now.
*eyes rolling*
July 28th, 2007 at 9:25 pmTake that, Mr. P! :)
Comment by Martha Stewart — July 28, 2007 @ 9:25 pm
Yeah, and his little dog too! :-)
July 28th, 2007 at 9:26 pmComment by michael’spotbellypig — July 28, 2007 @ 9:19 pm
Comment by michael’spotbellypig — July 28, 2007 @ 9:21 pm
Your second post referencing the first was off by one number on my screen. I had the first one as #167, and the second as #170.
I point this out not to nitpick, but to suggest the advantage of copying the entire “name-date-time” stamp when making a reference, to avoid possible confusion. Sometimes the number comment being referenced supported the person attacking the misnumbered one. And sometimes much hilarity ensued, but usually it got a little avoidably ugly. If you only saw how many times people said “What?” last night. :D
Anyway, I agree with your point, BTW.
July 28th, 2007 at 9:27 pmYour statement states that there are those that are not qualified to make political decisions(vote?). That would mean that there are those that are qualified(better). Which of these two categories would you place yourself? I’ll give you a choice: Better Than or Less Than. And remember its an either/or statement that YOU made so an either/or answer is requested.
Comment by dlet — July 28, 2007 @ 9:10 pm
———————————————–
Am I better than or less than what?
I don’t remember saying that some citizens were better than others.
July 28th, 2007 at 9:28 pmThe original witch trials occured during the Taliban phase of American History. Patriarchy is evil, and leads to mysogeny. Teach the worlds girls to read!
July 28th, 2007 at 9:30 pmwell, back on topic–I’m just waiting for the witch trials to start up again.
Comment by loretta
Well you might have to wait for a negative time of 315 years. What is happening now is just pure political happenings. Ya know….corruption…trial…conviction…commuted sentence……pure 21st century Republican gold.
July 28th, 2007 at 9:31 pmTeach the worlds girls to read!
Comment by Badger — July 28, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
Oprah, is that you?
July 28th, 2007 at 9:31 pmWhat do you mean by “learning?†And why don’t you vote?
Comment by Merlin — July 28, 2007 @ 9:13 pm
———————————————–
I don’t have time to explain the epistemological and cognitive aspects of “learning,” so for now, understand it as defined by Oxford or Webster.
I don’t vote because I don’t trust the government.
July 28th, 2007 at 9:33 pmHey Martha,
What’s for dinner? Is it a fancy affair? :)
July 28th, 2007 at 9:33 pmI don’t remember saying that some citizens were better than others.
Comment by Mr. President
The majority of Americans are not qualified to make political decisions,
Comment by Mr. President
Ok. Would you apply yourself to those that are qualified to make political decisions or to those that are not qualified to make political decisions?
July 28th, 2007 at 9:34 pm