Court Watching
Sandra Day O'Connor retired from the U.S. Supreme Court this morning. Appointed by Reagan, she turned out to be quite a bit less conservative in her interpretation of the law than republicans had hoped. It's going to shape up to be an interesting summer no matter who Bush nominates, but we are hoping that he nominates someone who will make Ted Kennedy's head explode, just for sh**s and giggles...someone like Judge Janice Rogers Brown, a black conservative woman. What a kick in the shorts that would be to the left. They might actually start eating their own. And, if Rehnquist retires as expected before the fall session of Congress...whoa nelly.
UPDATE: The boys over at PowerLine had the same idea as me!
UPDATE: The boys over at PowerLine had the same idea as me!
posted by SCC at 3:14 PM
21 Comments:
I'm back and here to give the OTHER side of the political spectrum.
Justice O'Connor wasn't liberal enough in my view. This country needs a shake-up from the bottom on up. As long as there are die-hard supporters of the current leader of this country, who are blind to the plight of the working class, we need "true" leftists to bring everything back in balance.
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3626_021.pdf
Sorry, don't know how to make it a live link. You'll have to cut and paste.
"plight of the working class" ? What the heck are you yapping about? Geez, I think I'm listening to a Karl Marx rally. Seriously
NewsFlash: She wasn't nominated as a Liberal. She was nominated by Reagan who happened to be a conservative Republican. And as to the "die-hard supporters...blind to the plight of the working class," did you happen to see the recent election? The "working class" put the President back into office. Just thought I'd point that out :)
The leader of this country lied to the American public and deceived the voters. I imagine most of the folks here were fooled by him and voted for him.
Show me the lies. Show me one lie.
The lie is why we are in this nonsense over there. The lie he told the American public why we are going there.
OK, so you can't come up with even one specific lie. So typical of the "leftisbest" mentality.
Didn't the President infer that Iraq was tied to 9-11? That was a lie
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
CLICK HERE
When you can refute even a SINGLE one of the points in this article, then you can call Bush a liar. In the mean time, stop drinking the Koolaid; turn off ABC, NBC, CNN, SeeBS and MSNBC; stop reading NEwsweek, Time and the New York Times. Try to research your own news instead of swallowing the Howard Dean talking points memos whole. You'll appear to be more informed instead of just a tool.
Did not. Did too. Did not. Did too. I'm telling. Moooooommy!!!
Oh yea, National Review, that's a fair and balanced publication. Not! It is a mouthpiece for conservativism.
Colin Powell came out and said Suddam was not directly onnected to 9-11. Sure, he allowed al Queda to operate in his country but.....
What about Saudia Arabia, my friend? All but one of the 9-11 terorists were from there, but we did nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, in sanctions against the Saudias. Why? Big money is in Saudia Arabia and not Iraq.
When shall you realize the president cares only about the money and not the working man.
I don't get it.
ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, Newsweek, Time: the left thinks they are all propagandists of the right, the right thinks they are all bastions of the left.
And the H.L. Mencken quotes in a previous post...all the "lefties" I know believe that. If all the "righties" do, too, then what are we doing?
Check this blog out:
http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/
and the New York Times, Newsweek, Time, ABC, SeeBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC aren't mouthpieces for the left and the democrats? As far as I can remember, the above listed media outlets are the ONLY ONES offering/printing retraction after retraction after retraction. Ain't seen Nat'l Review do it yet. And your response STILL DOESN'T ANSWER any of the points addressed. Dismissing the source and not addressing the argument just proves you a tool. You don't even offer ANY rebuttal. Go away tool.
I did answer the question, my friend, yet like most supporters of the leader in power, you wouldn't admit he made a mistake even with concrete proof.
Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11, yet, right wingers shall use that lie to promote their own (disguised) hatred for people of color. The leader of this nation is allowing thousands of young people to die for oil.
War for oil? That tired old saw? If this is a war for oil, why the hell am I paying $2.50 a gallon? Go away tool, you are bothering the adults here. I shudder to think you might be a Chicago cop. Do you carry a gun or just trust in "kum-bi-yah" to keep you safe? You are naive, you have no world view, you no ideas and you have no clue.
Oh, and "hatred for people of color?" Tell it to Condi and Colin and Alberto and Janice and the rest of the minorities back in Washington. Go tell it to Howard Dean who has never EVER had a minority in any of his gubernatorial administrations. Go tell it to your Supremem Court heroine Bader-Ginsberg who never ONCE had a minority law clerk or even a black lawyer working in her law offices, despite the fact she practiced in a city over 50% minority! You're not just a tool, you're a two faced tool.
Tool....tool.....tool, can't ya come up with something different?
You talk about two-faced. What about all those conservative talk show hosts out there? Multi-miullionaires that try to pass off like a regular guy.
This is a war for oil because we continue to pay those high prices. That doesn't bother the GOP though.
I am not naive, my friend, I just look at thinmgs th way they should be for all.
<< Home