AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2007 > June > 11 > Entry
Should it matter to women that there is only one woman left on the Supreme Court?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
Yes, it matters that there is only one woman on the court, but not in the way Diane will argue. I think Ruth Bader Ginsburg risks creating a problem for women by consistently reinforcing a female stereotype that she lets her personal opinions get in the way of doing her job objectively.
Justice Ginsburg’s most recent dissents typify the strong personal feminist beliefs that led her to start the ACLU’s “Women’s Rights Project” in 1972. In her eyes, for example, when the high court recently upheld the ban on partial-birth abortion, it stole reproductive freedom from women. Never mind a May 2007 Gallup Poll that shows 72 percent of Americans agree with the ban. She characterized the ruling as “alarming” and “irrational.”
But why are we even talking about popular opinion? This is the Supreme Court, not Congress; it is supposed to interpret the law, not make it. And that’s exactly why a justice’s gender shouldn’t matter. A female justice should be able to uphold the purpose of the court just like anyone else. Yet Ginsburg is filling the role of Women’s Rights Advocate (a liberal idea of women’s rights, that is), instead of Supreme Court justice.
Ginsburg charged up one woman’s recent work discrimination case proceedings by saying: “This court does not comprehend or is indifferent to, the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination.” But she completely ignored the fact that the woman had filed her lawsuit after she was legally allowed to do so.
Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, shared by phone that Justice Ginsburg is “painting this as a huge rollback on civil rights, but in reality, it was simply a statutory case.”
If there is an insidious problem with pay discrimination, and women should be able to file lawsuits years after the fact, let’s encourage Congress to reform the law. That’s their job.
As a professional woman, it makes me uncomfortable to see such a high-profile woman so publicly giving into an unprofessional temptation. I do wish there was more than one female Supreme Court justice at the moment — but only because I’m eager to get a better female role model.
Rebuttal
If the Supreme Court is supposed to reflect the interests of all Americans, it does a very poor job. Looking at minority representation, the numbers disproportionately favor white males. Of the nine justices, one is African-American and one is female. The rest are white men.
African-Americans make up 13 percent of the population, which makes Clarence Thomas’ appointment equitable. On race alone, he represents 11 percent of the Supreme Court. But when we talk about sex, the inequities are glaring. Men make up 50 percent of the population but 89 percent of the court; women make up the other half of the population but a measly 11 percent of the court.
Contrary to white male opinion, men are not the bearers of universal truth who share the interests and opinions of both sexes. They represent their own interests, which are socially embedded in their gender, their religious beliefs and their upbringing.
People have opinions, and their opinions shape how they interpret the law. Shaunti may believe Supreme Court representatives are automatons who blindly pass legislation based on former case law. But if conservatives really held this view, massive energy wouldn’t be expended over conservative vs. liberal appointments with every presidential term.
As it stands, Catholic men now make up 55 percent of the Supreme Court, even though Catholics of all genders make up only around 25 percent of the American population. Judge Scalia, alone, has sired nine children in his quest to populate the world. He must have missed the memo about women’s access to birth control. His anti-choice stand on abortion could be better managed by him adopting, but I guess he’d rather legislate his belief.
The same goes for Shaunti, who thinks that being a feminist is equivalent to having green skin and owning a fleet of flying monkeys. But women — even feminist ones — have a right to interpret the law. It would be a far better solution to appoint politically divergent women in half of all Supreme Court appointments instead of burning one at the cross.
Comments
By Jeff
June 18, 2007 8:31 AM | Link to this
So, Diane, would you support having 2 Prom Queens as well - one white, one black? What about having one Prom Queen for each race represented in the school - even if there is only one person of that particular race, and that person is male. Is he still appointed to be Prom Queen for his race?
What does this have to do with the Supreme Court? Just showing the logical phallacy of Diane’s last paragraph. Oh wait, Diane has no use of anything phallic. Explains MANY of her positions…
By Archie
June 18, 2007 8:33 AM | Link to this
Diane is right on point this week. Her statements, Contrary to white male opinion, men are not the bearers of universal truth who share the interests and opinions of both sexes. They represent their own interests, which are socially embedded in their gender, their religious beliefs and their upbringing., are so true. Diane really needs to repeat those statements again on other subjects. It should matter that there is only one woman left on the court and I personally would prefer at least one liberal african-american on the court male or female.
By Lyrazel
June 18, 2007 9:12 AM | Link to this
Personally I find it ludicrous to assume that sex or skin color would merit qualification or not—but then with the racial inequities of political, judicial and executive powers having someone with a different mindset than the all-boys network might add some needed air in a very stogy regime. But for a judge to get on the highest court it takes a lot of political kissing azz and wink wink politics so knowing that makes me realize that its never: what they know; just who they know. For the generations who are next in line I think they should consider the implications of electing officials who will be nominating these justices and to address the lingering debate of if a judge is to be evaluated by their sex rather than their ability to define and refine law.
By ADT
June 18, 2007 9:55 AM | Link to this
The Supreme Court needs more people who will scrutinize constitutional issues. Why should the government be able to condemn private land through eminent domain because a private developer has a “plan” or design for a community? Doesn’t everyone have a “plan” for a city, and wouldn’t that deprive people of property without due process of law? Should the president have the power to drag the country into war without the approval of Congress? Should a private bank, the Federal Reserve, have the power to coin money without the gold standard or any other standard? Shouldn’t the government do this, and shouldn’t the amount of money be based on the GNP? Was the 16th Amendment properly ratified, and does the government have the power to institute the income tax for people’s labor when the tax isn’t apportioned or the income isn’t from corporate profits?
By JokesOn
June 18, 2007 10:02 AM | Link to this
Lyrazel,
Well put.
Seeing as they are appointed, whoever is in office at the right time holds all the cards.
By DK
June 18, 2007 10:30 AM | Link to this
Why stop at just adding a woman? What about a transexual? A gay person? A hispanic? A bi-sexual? A chinese? A japanese? A european? A sex addict? A prude? A drug addict? A bigot? A persone of wealth? A person of poor? An idiot? An intelluctual?
Geez, if we need at least one person for each people’s group, we might as well increase the 9 to 50???
Or, we can just have the most qualified to determine constitutionality of the laws passed and not make up things the constitution does not say!
By blablabla
June 18, 2007 10:55 AM | Link to this
If the Supreme Court is supposed to reflect the interests of all Americans, it does a very poor job.
thanks for playing diane. you didn’t make it past the first sentence this week. since when is the supreme court supposed to “reflect the interests of all Americans”? that’s a nice sounding phrase, but what the heck does it mean? here’s a newsflash: the supreme court has two jobs - (i)interpret law and (ii) ensure that statutes and orders don’t violate the constitution. what kind of lead sentence is this from someone who went to harvard?
are we so hung up on skin color and gender that we think if we just have a justice that looks like us, that justice will interpret the law in a way more favorable to us?
and what is diane’s point on scalia? the justice and his wife have nine children together. sounds like a personal decision.
By lozen
June 18, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this
To recap DK believes the judges are chosen because they’re the most qualified and Lyrazel believes they are chosen because of who they know. I think I have to go with Lyrazel on this one! And DK and Jeff think women, who make up over 50 percent of the population, have a right to claim court representation just as a bi-sexual or a prom queen do!!!!! Jeeeezus.
By FFB
June 18, 2007 11:11 AM | Link to this
Justice is blind, and so should be the character of the Supreme Court. Should each male member of the court have to recuse themselves from decisions on abortion as they are obviously unable to relate to the personal nature of the issue? Of course not. The most qualified jurist is the best person to make a decision regarding interpretation of the law and the constitution, not someone who relies on the their gender or skin color as their most important qualification. Diversity means an array of opinions, not a variety of skin color or gender.
By DK
June 18, 2007 11:53 AM | Link to this
Lozen, Even though bi-sexual and/or a prom queen justice could be interesting, if we are going to require gender as determining the make up of the court, then why not the ones I listed out??? Shouldn’t they have representation? If 50% of the population are women, then do we apply this to congress too? Atlanta Falcons? Atlanta Braves?
-DK
By Lyrazel
June 18, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this
If women drop out of the law workplace to raise children don’t they run the risk of not being considered for the Supreme court by their very absence in the judicial system?
Its really strange reading Shaunti’s remarks. She starts with a 1972 case about sex discrimination case argued by Ginsburg (omitting the fact these decisions helped pave the way for women like Shaunti to go to Harvard) and counters it with a poll from 2007 in yet another feeble attempt to bring up but not discuss abortion or Roe v Wade.
Ginsburg has consistently been far more moderate in her judgments if Shaunti would ever take the time to do some current research she may find Ginsburg’s opinion of Roe v Wade different than the opinions —Americans United for Life, the Eagle Forum, the Family Research Council, March for Life, and the conservative Christian Coalition spew for Shaunti to quote as being Ginsburg’s own.
Shaunti uses the term: professional woman. Is that a title or just the fact the lady has a job? If its just a job every woman who works from janitorial to justice is a professional woman. Hookers use the term daily.
By Abba download
June 18, 2007 11:59 AM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Abba download
June 18, 2007 12:01 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Jay
June 18, 2007 12:02 PM | Link to this
“what kind of lead sentence is this from someone who went to harvard?”
Harvard Divinity, not Harvard Law.
By Abba download
June 18, 2007 12:03 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By gladyass
June 18, 2007 12:30 PM | Link to this
too much old testosterone in the judicial system is not a good thing….we could find ourselves back in the dark ages where only men rule….
By David Bowie download
June 18, 2007 1:48 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By David Bowie download
June 18, 2007 1:48 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By David Bowie download
June 18, 2007 1:51 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By NetBanker
June 18, 2007 2:03 PM | Link to this
Hey kids! Some good and interesting points as well as some funny stuff:
Ginsburg is filling the role of Women’s Rights Advocate (a liberal idea of women’s rights, that is) Shaunti…can you enlighten us on the ‘conservative idea of women’s rights?’ In my estimation the concept is an oxymoron, but I’m ready to be educated.
being a feminist is equivalent to having green skin and owning a fleet of flying monkeys Good one, Diane! We all know its fun and games until the flying monkeys attack.
Lyrazel…nailed it on being appointed is more based on who you know than if you’re qualified…as is far too much in life.
By Archie
June 18, 2007 2:13 PM | Link to this
I may be the only person that thinks so but I really think Diane wins this debate hands down. Diane says People have opinions, and their opinions shape how they interpret the law. That is a true statement. That statement is exactly why so much energy is spent over judicial appointments at the state,federal, and even local levels. Clarence Thomas was not appointed just because his qualifications but also because of his personal political opinion and his skin color. It literally hurts some people to admit that but it’s the truth and I never heard the term “activist judge” until Bush took office so let’s stop pretending that gender and race don’t matter because they do. Let’s “man up” or “woman up” and say we want a court with a conservative bent or a liberal bent because Diane is right that people are not automatons that logically interpret the law and they should not be. See the Genarlow Wilson case. Also I will say this if 50 percent of qualified baseball athletes were women who could play professionally along the lines of a Bonds then yes half the Braves should be women. Half the people trying out for the Braves or the Falcons are not women and even if they were they would have to make the team but I would be willing to make a huge bet that there is a sizable number of qualified women for the Supreme court.
By Publius
June 18, 2007 2:14 PM | Link to this
A lot of lawyers seem not to understand some of the finer points of Federal employment discrimination law, so I can’t really say I blame Shaunti for misstating the basic nature of the Supreme Court’s recent decision about pay discrimination. The difference, however, exposes a fatal flaw in her argument about women on the Supreme Court. Reduced to its simplest terms, the case involved a woman who said she was paid less because she was a woman. The pay discrimination law says, in essence, that a person claiming discrimination must file an EEOC complaint “within one hundred and eighty days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred …” Her employer argued that, because it had been over 180 days since she got her first “discriminatory paycheck, her claim was too late. She argued that each paycheck in which she claimed to be “shorted” should count as a separate “wrong,” and start a new 180-day clock running. This would have made her claim timely. The statute, as written by Congress, does not answer the question. Therefore, the Court had to, to use Shaunti’s preferred term, “interpret” the law. Put more accurately, they had to choose between two facially equal interpretations. The Court agreed with her employer. “{T}he fact that the woman had filed her lawsuit after she was legally allowed to do so,” as Shaunti puts it, is only a “fact” because the Supreme Court said so, after the fact. The employee was asking the Court to resolve an ambiguity in her favor, not to ignore a clear mandate.
In making such determinations, the Supreme Court – indeed, any court – has to take into account many factors. On the employee’s side, the Court can ask how often this kind of thing happens. Are victims of discrimination thrown out homeless into the street, or does it have only a marginal impact on their standards of living? On the employer’s side, the Court can, and must, consider whether it’s fair to ask an employer to defend claims based on decisions made years earlier, and whether siding with the employees will make it hard for employers to remain in business. (In this sense, any court has to “make” law rather than merely “interpret” it. This new “rule” that the 180 days runs from the first paycheck is now as much “law” as if Congress had passed it as an amendment to the statute.)
This is where it becomes important to have a balanced and representative Court. We are all guilty of not fully appreciating problems that don’t directly impact us. When the Court goes behind closed doors to discuss and vote on a case, it’s more apt to reach a fair decision if there are three to five women in that room to say, “Ahem. Guys, it is a problem!” Finally, members of any group – women, blacks, workers, businessmen – are more apt to accept and obey an adverse ruling if it is not tainted by a perception that they were simply outvoted by a group of the “other” folks.
President Bush 41 got this. When Justice Thurgood Marshall, the Court’s first black Justice, retired, 41 was careful to select another black to replace him. And sure enough, Justice Thomas, a reliable conservative, has parted from the conservative block on several occasions to cast a swing vote on issues of particular import to minorities.
By blablabla
June 18, 2007 3:15 PM | Link to this
Archie - diane starts with a false premise to begin her argument. or hadn’t you noticed? then she makes completely unsubstantiated statements about what white men believe that would sound insensitive if they weren’t so laughable. how diane knows that white men (and only white men) believe that men (but in this instance not limited to white men) are the carriers of universal truth strikes me as just a wee bit odd. she then slames a justice for a personal decision about how many children he and his wife have.
and don’t forget this whopper: But women — even feminist ones — have a right to interpret the law. does that not just jump off the page at you, archie? i’ll be sure to use that one next time i’m in traffic court over how i interpret an inconvenient stop sign.
“people have opinions” is probably the sharpest thing she’s said in her piece.
By Susan
June 18, 2007 3:33 PM | Link to this
With the extreme liberal bias shown by the women justices we have had(Ginsburg and O’Connor), we don’t need any more women on the Supreme Court. Apparently, power goes to their heads more than mens, hense, absolute power corrupts absolutely. So they make decisions based on perceived oppression(womens)and not what is good for everyone. So more babies will be murdered, if weak people are made supreme court justices!
By George Michael download
June 18, 2007 3:34 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By George Michael download
June 18, 2007 3:36 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By George Michael download
June 18, 2007 3:39 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Archie
June 18, 2007 3:46 PM | Link to this
Blabla I don’t think Diane makes a false premise because she is giving a rebuttal to a commentary and she chose to use her first statement to say the court doesn’t look like America and that’s a true statement. Also the Supreme court does not deal with traffic tickets so let’s keep her comments about feminist’s in context, Diane is responding,responding to Shanti’s comments about Ginsburg being a feminist. Notice the second paragraph of Shanti’s commentary. Diane can defend her crack on Judge Scalia but her premise is really that the Supreme, Supreme court should have less white males and more women and that feminist female judges have the right to interpret the law and that people interpret the law sometimes based on personal experiences. Diane is so correct and makes the point that a lot of energy is spent on judicial appointments. Nifong was disbarred because he used the law to represent his own interests and notice that Nifong is a white male. I brought that up because you(blabla) did not get the context of Diane’s argument. Diane was really on point better than ever with her rebuttal on this subject. I am very much pro-male but I can’t overlook Diane’s points on this topic.
By chuck
June 18, 2007 3:52 PM | Link to this
Archie, YOU AGREED WITH THIS STATEMENT?!?!?!:
They represent their own interests, which are socially embedded in their gender, their religious beliefs and their upbringing.
What Diane, and you by proxy, are ACTUALLY saying is that White men are incapable of rendering legal opinions free of bias against females and minorities. That is a patently offensive statement.
Suppose Shaunti had said: “Black males represent their own interests in boinking as many females as possible in the limited time they have here on earth and “fathering” as many children as possible out of wedlock. This is obviously imbedded in their race and gender as statistics on such matters show. They are therefore incapable of rendering any worthwhile legal opinion concerning, child support, abortion, welfare reform or any other issue concerning family law, gender equality, or government services.”
Of course that statement would be both untrue AND offensive. You and Diane set an impossible standard for the adjudication of laws in the courts. Judges and Justices don’t REPRESENT ANYONE’S INTERESTS, EXCEPT those of the FRAMERS of the Constitution and its amendments. That is why elections are important. In our system of government REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS are supposed to represent OUR interests within the confines of the CONSTITUTION. Courts interpret the laws passed by these servants of the people to make sure they stay within those confines. END OF STORY.
I don’t care if a justice on the court is black or white or hispanic or male or female or OTHER, as long as they strictly hold to the construction and wording of the Constitution and leave their own interests, beliefs and biases out of it. In the future Archie, you should be a little more sensitive in issues of race.
By .
June 18, 2007 3:52 PM | Link to this
“With the extreme liberal bias shown by the women justices we have had(Ginsburg and O’Connor), we don’t need any more women on the Supreme Court. Apparently, power goes to their heads more than mens, hense, absolute power corrupts absolutely. So they make decisions based on perceived oppression(womens)and not what is good for everyone. So more babies will be murdered, if weak people are made supreme court justices!”
And they say it’s the liberals who cloud their thinking with emotion….
By chuck
June 18, 2007 4:01 PM | Link to this
Archie, these 2 statements are incongruous:
…judges have the right to interpret the law and that people interpret the law sometimes based on personal experiences.
PEOPLE can interpret laws any way they want to. JUDGES CANNOT. JUDGES take an OATH to protect and defend …what?… Oh yes, the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
BTW, I didn’t note Blacks and women complaining about the ability of these white males when LIBERAL WHITE MALES controlled the courts.
By WhiteMale
June 18, 2007 4:06 PM | Link to this
Us white males historically have shown how, by the very nature of us being exhalted white males, we are able to best understand all issues related to other races and the other gender.
By chuck
June 18, 2007 4:21 PM | Link to this
publius…aka dog in a toga…once again you got it exactly WRONG and Shaunti got it exactly RIGHT. You accused her of making the wrong connection concerning women on the court, and the pay discrimination case. You went on to say this:
In making such determinations, the Supreme Court – indeed, any court – has to take into account many factors. On the employee’s side, the Court can ask how often this kind of thing happens…
That is EXACTLY where Shaunti got it right and you got it wrong. In fact you make Shaunti’s case for her. Under your premise, the “woman” justice would have decided the case based on emotion and past experience rather than on the LAW. You are just as wrong as Diane and the statements she made about White males. While women are JUST AS CAPABLE as men in deciding these issues based on the law and the Constitution, GINSBURG did not. She should have.
Again, the MOST IMPORTANT qualification for serving as a justice is the ability to LEAVE BEHIND PERSONAL BIAS AND POLITICAL LEANINGS AND ADJUDICATE ON THE BASIS OF THE LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION.…in other words, STRICT CONSTRUCTIONISTS.
By Archie
June 18, 2007 4:22 PM | Link to this
Chuck, please. You have been on this blog long enough to know that I dislike and like people of all genders and races. For example I have disagreed with you several times without ever mentioning your race and I have disagreed with Diane,Mara,Lozen,Lyrazel, and Whiley without ever mentioning their race or gender. as long as they strictly hold to the construction and wording of the Constitution and leave their own interests, beliefs and biases out of it. Well, Chuck, people do not do that thus the reason for Diane’s statement and keep in mind she is giving a rebuttal. Diane did not say white males had to be perfect, she made a crack on the diversity of the Supreme court and she made a statement that I believe is very true that men have opinions shaped by their upbringing and religious beliefs,etc. She could have said black men represent their own interests and she would still have been telling the truth because people,people do have personal opinions and they do interpret the law sometimes,sometimes based on personal opinion which is just one reason you have appellate judges. There’s more to Diane’s rebuttal than she can write but I get it. Later…
By chuck
June 18, 2007 4:43 PM | Link to this
NetB, I thought this statement of yours was way beneath you:
Lyrazel…nailed it on being appointed is more based on who you know than if you’re qualified…as is far too much in life.
In the last 50 years, can you name me ONE PERSON who was appointed to the court who was NOT qualified to serve there? Didn’t think so. Every nominee to the court, as you well know, is vetted by the American Bar Association, not exactly a conservative enclave, and given a rating based on their legal education, history and experience. Every nominee since 1988 has ratings available for every nominee to every federal judiciary position. Every nominee to the Supreme Court since Bush I received a “Well Qualified” rating from the ABA. In fact I only found six nominees (out of hundreds) to ANY OTHER federal judgeship to be rated as “Not Qualified”.
I would therefore suggest that both you and Lyrazel are wrong in your assertion.
By blablabla
June 18, 2007 4:51 PM | Link to this
she chose to use her first statement to say the court doesn’t look like America and that’s a true statement.
umm, archie, that’s NOT what diane said. she said if the court is supposed to reflect the interests of all americans… that doesn’t sound even a bit like the court should be comprised of people that look like a slice of america.
let me ask you this, do you think the court is supposed to reflect our interests? is that what the court’s job is?
of course not. so diane starts her piece with a conditional statement that is false from the get-go.
as for your argument about me missing the context of diane’s argument - i didn’t. word usage is important. you used feminist female judges in your post. if diane had said the same thing, it wouldn’t have caught my attention. the fact that she didn’t is what i noticed.
By chuck
June 18, 2007 4:53 PM | Link to this
It’s still a blatantly wrong generalization, rebuttal or not, to say tat WHITE MALES, or all other races and genders, are incapable of leaving those biases aside to adjudicate based on the law. She is trying to make the case that the Supreme Court would be “fairer” if it had more women. That point is ASININE. You cannot say on the one hand that white males can’t adjudicate because they are biased, and promote the idea of more women on the court because they are biased in a different direction and come up with the conclusion that the court would then be “FAIR”. If those ideas were true, you would not have a FAIR court, but a divided and patently UNFAIR court.
By Chief Wiggum
June 18, 2007 4:54 PM | Link to this
If the Atlanta Hawks are supposed to reflect the interests of all Atlantans, they do a very poor job
Let’s take that incredibly IDIOTIC premise that Diane, who is supposedly well-educated, starts with, and apply it to the Hawks.
Can you see where I am going here, and why it’s so incredibly stupid?
Should the racial makeup of the Hawks match that of the viewing audience, or the metro Atlanta population? Or is it more appropriate for the Hawks to have the most talented players, REGARDLESS OF RACE, on the team.
Even a stupid, old, fat officer of the law can see just what a stupid, stupid premise Diane starts with.
But you know, I think Diane is pretty hot. Nice shoes, let’s get busy, baby.
By lozen
June 18, 2007 5:02 PM | Link to this
Can you imagine the scenario if Hilary is elected, someone knocks off eight of the Justices and Hilary appoints eight women to replace them? I’m sure you guys would be happy as long as they were qualified! I don’t know if Publius is dog poop, but whoever, the points made were excellent. The Supreme Court decision in May in the case of Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. dealt a near-fatal blow to our ability to use Title VII of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 to remedy pay discrimination based on sex, race, national origin, and other protected grounds. The 5 to 4 decision turns our understanding of employment discrimination on its head when the Court ruled that a Title VII complaint must be filed within 180 days of the specific action that sets discriminatory pay, regardless of its ongoing and continuing discriminatory impact on the employee. As a result, many victims of pay discrimination will be left without an effective remedy, even though their rights have been violated. Justice Samuel Alito’s decision was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy. Their majority opinion ignores the realities of the workplace where disparities in pay are often undiscovered or difficult to determine, especially since so many employers keep salary and pay information confidential.
By troy
June 18, 2007 5:18 PM | Link to this
DO YOU PEOPLE REALLY BELIEVE THAT A JUDGE LEAVES OUT HIS/HER OWN PERSONAL OPINIONS AND BELIEFS WHEN RENDERING DECISIONS ON THE SUPREME COURT. WHETHER YOU WANT TO BELEIVE IT OR NOT THE NINE MEN AND WOMEN THAT SIT ON THE SUPREME COURT LET THEIR OPINIONS SHAPE THEIR DECISIONS AS MUCH AS CASE LAW. WE ARE DISCUSSING HUMANS. BESIDES HOW CAN A JUDGE RENDER A DECISION BASED ON A CASE LAW AND FURTHERMORE, WHAT DO YOU THINK A JUDGE IS DOING WHENEVER THEY ASK THE QUESTION OR REFER “ANYONE WITHIN REASON OR A REASONABLE PERSON” WOULD/WLL DO THIS OR THAT DEPENDING ON THE CIR5CUMSTANCES, THIS IS PERSONAL OPINION.
By Eminem download
June 18, 2007 5:42 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Eminem download
June 18, 2007 5:47 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Eminem download
June 18, 2007 5:52 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Beatles mp3
June 18, 2007 9:09 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Beatles mp3
June 18, 2007 9:10 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Beatles mp3
June 18, 2007 9:11 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Depeche Mode mp3
June 18, 2007 10:43 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Depeche Mode mp3
June 18, 2007 10:44 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Eric Clapton mp3
June 19, 2007 12:29 AM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Eric Clapton mp3
June 19, 2007 12:30 AM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Eric Clapton mp3
June 19, 2007 12:33 AM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Enigma mp3
June 19, 2007 2:45 AM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Enigma mp3
June 19, 2007 2:48 AM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Enigma mp3
June 19, 2007 2:52 AM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Evanescence mp3
June 19, 2007 4:55 AM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Evanescence mp3
June 19, 2007 4:56 AM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Evanescence mp3
June 19, 2007 4:58 AM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Robbie Williams mp3
June 19, 2007 6:25 AM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Robbie Williams mp3
June 19, 2007 6:25 AM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Robbie Williams mp3
June 19, 2007 6:27 AM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Abba mp3
June 19, 2007 8:03 AM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Abba mp3
June 19, 2007 8:06 AM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Andrea
June 19, 2007 9:22 AM | Link to this
I personally don’t think a group of old fat guys should be making reproductive decisions for women. Creeps me out, especially since most of them are Catholic.
My vote is for Hillary. As a young woman, I don’t feel like it’s right that women are not in 50% of government. I know it’s tough to get into the “good ol boy” network, but we should have more of a voice in our government. Laws should not be based on religious views since religion is historically sexist & illogical. Access to birth control & all family planning should not be restricted, open & honest education of family planning should be taught in schools & made easily avail to all. There needs to be a complete change in how domestic violence & sex crimes are delt with in order to stop the daily reporting of women murdered by a spouse or boyfriend. There needs to be a complete change in how our country deals with the ever growing sex offenses committed.
All the fat rich white old guys in Washington don’t do squat & it’s time for change.
By David Bowie mp3
June 19, 2007 9:50 AM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By David Bowie mp3
June 19, 2007 9:53 AM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By David Bowie mp3
June 19, 2007 9:57 AM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By blablabla
June 19, 2007 10:27 AM | Link to this
Can you imagine the scenario if Hilary is elected, someone knocks off eight of the Justices and Hilary appoints eight women to replace them? I’m sure you guys would be happy as long as they were qualified!
like this wouldn’t happen? ha. in all candor, i wouldn’t care. i think diversity of thought with some original thinking sprinkled in is far more important than diversity of genetalia.
the balance of lozen’s post is a cut and paste job from the NOW website. so much for original thinking.
By kimberly
June 19, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this
Today’s CNN QuickVote poll on their website: “Should men and women have the same right to go topless?”
HAHAHA! Equal rights, my hiney. It’ll never happen here as long as religio-fundies control the government and the courts. Spout all the rhetoric you want, but this is not a free country until it’s free for everyone, and they’ll never let that happen. Ever.
By Lily Toad
June 19, 2007 10:37 AM | Link to this
We all have opinions based on our class, gender, race, religion, upbringing, and past experiences. However, some of you think only women and minorities use these biases in making decisions. Upper class white men have certain privileges that inform their decisions, so no one is completely free from biases.
By Andrea
June 19, 2007 10:46 AM | Link to this
I still don’t want fat old rich guys making reproductive decisions for me. Especially Catholic ones.
Seems like all the Washington guys are rich. Are only rich people allowed in those positions of power?
By Lily Toad
June 19, 2007 11:05 AM | Link to this
Andrea, what if they were thin? Would that be okay?
By kimberly
June 19, 2007 11:13 AM | Link to this
Andrea, don’t be silly. The rich white guys can’t do it alone; they have help! Working- and middle-class Baptists and Methodists (and don’t forget those Church o’ Christers) want to make your reproductive decisions for you too! That’s why preacher tells them to go out and vote for the rich white guys (who truthfully don’t care about you, your body, or your offspring) who appease their supporters by legistlating away your reproductive choices.
By .
June 19, 2007 11:17 AM | Link to this
I have to say, as an atheist, that I am perplexed by your Catholiciphobia, Andrea. What’s up with that? From what I can see the Catholics are less intrusive in personal lifestyles than the fundies. Sure, they bow to some guy in Italy who likes to wear funny hats but….
They don’t think it’s a sin to eat, drink, and be merry as long as it doesn’t make you freaky
They don’t believe you have to be Catholic, or even Christian, to get into their Heaven
They don’t go around trying to convert people using guilt strategies
They don’t oppress women any more than any other religion…..not different than other religions when it comes to abortion or the woman’s role in the world.
And then don’t see the Bible as the direct word of their God, which allows them to say they think evolution is the great plan of God.
I think Methodists and Anglicans/Episcopalians are the same…maybe a few others….
It’s the evangelicals, fundies, and Baptists that scare the crap out of me. I don’t want THOSE guys interpreting law…..
Theyr’e the ones telling us we can’t buy booze on sunday.
By Andrea
June 19, 2007 11:29 AM | Link to this
Andrea, what if they were thin? Would that be okay?
Only if they weren’t bald. lol!
Doesn’t it take a lot of cash to get to positions of importance? Is it possible for a normal income person to get to Washington without a family fortune to support them? What about here in GA?, what sort of financial support does one need to become one of the “lawmakers” & “decision makers” for the rest of us?
By Lily Toad
June 19, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this
Well, John Lewis is certainly not rich, even after all his years in office. But he is in the minority. It takes so much money to run for office that the non-rich are not able to run an effective campaign.
By lozen
June 19, 2007 11:37 AM | Link to this
I don’t want Catholic (or any other authoritarian religious sect) men or women making reproductive experiences for any woman Andrea, and that as you understand, is totally the point. The photo that creeped me out was one with Bush signing some kind of restrictive measure on abortion a few months ago while all these pompous old white men stood around him grinning! As Netbanker says, “Follow the money.” If women were in control of our reproductive powers it would effect business, cheap labor, and who would be available to fight the war (whereever it may be) 18/20 years from now? Yes, religion is/always has been sexist and illogical. Superstition is not a good thing to base our laws or anything else on IMO. I don’t know how young you are but you have a much better understanding of the situation than others. The only way women can get into the “good ole boy” thing now is to have a lot of money and play their game.
Kimberly, it just makes ya wanta gag sometimes huh?
Supreme court decisions effect every citizen in this country Chief Wiggums. The Atlanta Hawks do not.
By Andrea
June 19, 2007 11:49 AM | Link to this
They don’t oppress women any more than any other religion…..not different than other religions when it comes to abortion or the woman’s role in the world.
They encourage people not to use birth control. That’s stupid & dangerous. I don’t follow any religion. It’s all bogus to me, so most all the religious people that make laws scare me & I don’t trust them. I’m not saying they are bad people, just that I don’t want them making laws that are religious based that effect me directly. Seems like anything having to do with reproduction & what a woman should be doing is all religious based.
By Archie
June 19, 2007 11:53 AM | Link to this
Before the blogging gets crazy I will say again that I agree with Diane’s rebuttal, rebuttal and it’s one of the best she has done. It’s still a blatantly wrong generalization, rebuttal or not, to say tat WHITE MALES, or all other races and genders, are incapable of leaving those biases aside to adjudicate based on the law. Sorry Chuck but I disagree and like she says Supreme Court appointments would not be a big deal to liberals and conservatives alike if it were true. I like to think that I am objective but basically it’s just like Diane says about upbringing,gender, and religious beliefs because I don’t care much for shacking up and I am not a feminist and I do think there should be more minorities and women on the Supreme court for the same reasons Diane gave in her rebuttal. I really think some people are in denial about their biases because it’s just too hard to accept the truth and as a man it is very hard to understand women but if you know that as a man then you can work harder at getting an understanding. Excuse the digression. It is accurate to say one needs a lot of cash to get to DC.
By Lily Toad
June 19, 2007 12:02 PM | Link to this
For white men to say that women and minorities have biases but that white men don’t is like when white male writers & academics say that what white men write is universal and what women and minorities write is “too personal.”
Chuck, this is the bias that rich white men have — that their way of thinking is ” strictly constructonist” because it is based on their worldview, which, as the dominant culture, becomes defined as the norm.
By Archie
June 19, 2007 12:07 PM | Link to this
Supreme court decisions effect every citizen in this country Chief Wiggums. The Atlanta Hawks do not.
Thank you Lozen. I get so tired of the reasoning expressed by that Wiggums guy because it’s so out of context and it really makes Diane’s point. If there were a 6 ft plus female that could play offense and defense good enough to help the Hawks she would be on the team. We know there are women qualified to be on the Supreme court so there’s no need to even bring up a sports team. I must digress and say that women have their biases too, in fact, a female judge here in SC was removed from her judgeship because she was well, mean, in her application of the law. No one marched or really protested for her because she was mean and yes, she was a minority. So I have reasons for agreeing with Diane’s beyond just being against Shanti.
By George Michael mp3
June 19, 2007 12:18 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By George Michael mp3
June 19, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By .
June 19, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this
Andrea I agree about religion. It really does seem all like hocus pocus oogey boogey to me. And, other than the regular “you throw like a girl” type of machismo I don’t get sexism.
I’ve only known one guy who was in a situation where his girlfriend got pregnant and had an abortion and he was upset about it. It’s not the men who are hugely impacted other than it being a matter of control. So, why is this decision determined by them? Always been a mystery to me.
I was just wondering why you were picking on the Catholics, in particular.
From what I understand most Catholics ignore the ruling against artificial contraception. The Catholic church teaches that it’s wrong because the purpose of sex is procreation and if you use contraception you’re interfering with nature. There’s little to nothing in the bible about it….
As you can see, I looked up some stuff on Catholic.com….
By George Michael mp3
June 19, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Mara
June 19, 2007 12:30 PM | Link to this
interesting point about wanting “strict constructionists” on the SCOTUS. Scalia is considered by many to be the strictest of constructionists but look at this excerpt -
“Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. … He saved hundreds of thousands of lives,” Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent’s rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand.
“Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?” Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. “Say that criminal law is against him? ‘You have the right to a jury trial?’ Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don’t think so.
“So the question is really whether we believe in these absolutes. And ought we believe in these absolutes.”
Evidently Scalia, that strict constructionist, does’t really believe that assault under colors is illegal (against criminal law). Or that a trial of his peers would be a “fair” trial. Or even if sending a torturer to trial is an obligation of the court. So much for habeus corpus, life and liberty, and unreasonable search and seizure, not to mention “cruel and unusual punishment”. The scaiest part of this is that he doesn’t know if these rights are “absolute” or should even be thought of as absolute. These are Constitutional protections!!!
is that what chuck means by “strict constructionist”?
By Mara
June 19, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this
okay, just because Andrea and “.” are discussing Catholicism…
VATICAN CITY - Got road rage? The Vatican on Tuesday issued a set of “Ten Commandments” for drivers, telling motorists to be charitable to others on the highways, to refrain from drinking and driving, and to pray you make it before you even buckle up.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19308664/
By NetBanker
June 19, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this
Chuck…I think you read too much (or maybe not enough?) into my comment agreeing with Lyrazel about who you know vs. qualifications. Of course all of the Supreme Court candidates are vetted and fully qualified for the job. This is the point where who you know truly kicks into play. Of two candidates with equal qualification, the one who ends up with the appointment is the one with the connections. This is, more often than not, true in the private world too and is consciously (or not) a part of the decisions many people make every day from choosing which place to get your hair cut to who will baby sit your children to which medical specialist we see. People rely heavily on recommendations or the opinions of people they personally know when making decisions on choosing a 3rd party. The relationship the decider has with the person making the recommendation also comes into play. Who one knows influences one’s life more than we care to admit and it most certainly influences who receives an appointment given equal qualifications.
By Chilao
June 19, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this
Yes, Mara, I think that is EXACTLY what is meant by ‘strict contructionist’. LOL
Check out this one, if the President does a ‘signing statement’ when he signs the law, he and all members of the Executive(talking agencies), don’t even have to actually OBEY the law as Congress wrote it. Well, per GW Bush of course. LOL
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/06/19/usagenciesdisobey6lawsthatpresident_challenged/
By NetBanker
June 19, 2007 12:57 PM | Link to this
Kimberly..so how did you vote? Mine is “Yes, women should have the right to go topless like men.” Breasts have been sexualized in this country, but the bottom line is that they’re intended to produce food for infants. Ultimately they are a utilitarian body part. If it’s hot and a man takes off his shirt to be more cool, why shouldn’t a woman have the same option and not have to continue to wear a heat-trapping bra is she doesn’t want to?
no one is completely free from biases Excellent point, Lilly! In most cases I don’t even think we are consciously aware of those influences until we run smack into situations or people that cause them to be apparent.
Are only rich people allowed in those positions of power? Of course not, Andrea. It’s just that with the cost of running a campaign only rich people can afford to run. This is primarily because they’ve got the funds to start their campaigns and they tend to know other rich people who will donate to their campaigns as well as being in executive type positions in industry so they also gain corporate support. Think about it a Sr. Executive of a company and the guy from the mail room each decide to run for the exact same elected position. Who do you think is going to have a big ol’ war chest full o’ money?
By Lily Toad
June 19, 2007 12:57 PM | Link to this
Harriet Miers is a perfect example of someone who may not have been qualified (never having served as a judge), but was nominated because of cronyism.
By .
June 19, 2007 1:13 PM | Link to this
Ya know….if women started going around without shirts and bras on then they’d turn into us guys. I’m built pretty well….my wife likes my chest. When I take my shirt off when I get sweaty and my shirt starts chafing she LOOKS at me. Sits there with a silly smile on her face.
If women starting acting like men with the shirts and the heat then men would start acting like women with the looking. It’s be no big deal.
We’d, both sexes, appreciate the well-built chest and perhaps grimace at the ones that been “let go”.
However, women like my wife, with great big ole boobies, probably wouldn’t take their bras off…..my wife sleeps in hers a lot….says otherwise they get in the way…get trapped under her arm or whatever and pinch.
Doesn’t sound like so much fun….
By GOB
June 19, 2007 1:23 PM | Link to this
Of course all of the Supreme Court candidates are vetted and fully qualified for the job.
Really?? Harriet Meyers ring any bells??
By Mara
June 19, 2007 1:28 PM | Link to this
Chilao - LOL!! I guess that’d be the conservativ version of a “lib’rul activist judge” ;^)
regarding these “signing statements”…shame on him. If he disagrees with the law, he should veto it. He should NEVER sign into law anything that he believes to be unenforcable, unworkable, or unConstitutional. Any law he does sign obligates him to obey it as strictly as it would you or I. Good article on this in todays Washington Post regarding an inquiry by the GAO on how these statements affected the implementation of these laws…
Lily - agree 100% on the Miers thing. But then, this is the most crony-riddled administration we’ve had in decades, if not longer.
By NetBanker
June 19, 2007 1:28 PM | Link to this
Chilao…I guess those signing statements are why Bush has only had to dust off his veto for the war funding bill. He’s accepting all the laws from Congress and adding his personal escape clause so what does he care so long as the laws aren’t applicable to him or his minions?
By Lily Toad
June 19, 2007 1:28 PM | Link to this
It’s amazing to me that men’s nipples can be exposed but women’s nipples cause an uproar. Just look at the furor when Janet Jackson’s nipple was exposed. Right now women can show pretty much their whole breasts as long as the nipples are covered. All nipples are sensitive to stimulation so why aren’t men’s nipples verboten in public?
By lozen
June 19, 2007 1:31 PM | Link to this
Some of these comments are just so stupid all you can do is an eye roll and keep walking!
By Chilao
June 19, 2007 1:42 PM | Link to this
I wish I had done a signing statement when I got my driver’s license. “70mph, sure, Officer, I thought it was Advisory, my signing statement stated posted limits were Advisory, they must not have sent you a copy.
By lozen
June 19, 2007 1:43 PM | Link to this
From what I understand most Catholics ignore the ruling against artificial contraception. Except for people like Judge Scalia, who as Diane pointed out has sired nine children! That’s the point she was trying to make about Catholic men making up 55 percent of the court and making decisions effecting women and our choices on birth control and abortion. (I’m sure most people on here understood that reference as more than “his personal choices” but apparently there was at least one too dense to get it.)
By NetBanker
June 19, 2007 1:43 PM | Link to this
Yes, Harriet rings bells and there is no written requirement that a nominee for Supreme Court Justice must have previously served as a judge at any level. Do I agree with that lack of requirement? No, I do not, but it is not a stated requirement.
By .
June 19, 2007 1:47 PM | Link to this
lozen, you’re probably talking about me since I am only here to socialize today.
I happen to agree with Diane on this. And I think Chuck is a cherry picker for thinking that any human being actually fits his bill of qualifications. He doesn’t fit them himself.
By Mara
June 19, 2007 1:51 PM | Link to this
women like my wife, with great big ole boobies, probably wouldn’t take their bras off
I have to disagree. As a well endowed lady myself, I can barely wait to get home so that I can remove this implement of torture known as an “underwire bra”! I understand that using this device today will keep my bosoms from dragging the ground a few decades from now, but seriously…they ain’t what I consider “comfortable”! Especially when you start to perspire. Yuk! Given a hot day in August with 98% humidity…that sucker’d be history.
I don’t know how your wife stands being in hers 24/7.
By NetBanker
June 19, 2007 1:51 PM | Link to this
All nipples are sensitive to stimulation so why aren’t men’s nipples verboten in public? Maybe because most men won’t admit that stimulation of their nipples is arousing or pleasing? Actually, it’s more likely because sucking on a man’s nipple can never produce milk (although I’ve seen some cream produced by another body part) and men’s chests haven’t been sexualized and stigmatized the same way that women’s chests have. I completely agree that it’s crazy that so long as a woman’s nipples are covered it’s ok to show the rest of the breast. Then again, everyone knows that viewing a breast isn’t sexual if the part sensitive to stimluation isn’t shown. (snicker)
By .
June 19, 2007 1:59 PM | Link to this
lozen, are you slinging zingers at me when I agree with your sentiment? I think maybe you were too dense to get it. I was simply inquiring as to why Catholics were picked on….in particular. Like I said, I’m an atheist….not an apologist for any of that mythology.
By .
June 19, 2007 2:04 PM | Link to this
Mara, me either. My mother was also well-endowed and was like you in that she couldn’t wait to be unfettered (her words). But my wife…she’s inconsistent. Sometimes she’s taking that thing off as she’s coming in the door and other times she’s strapping it on to “get them out the way”.
To each her own, I guess. I know that if it were socially fine for women to walk around without shirts and bras on that she’d keep the bra on more times than not….
All I can think is maybe it’s like going commando for a guy, but that’s jsut me trying to sympathize….
By kimberly
June 19, 2007 2:18 PM | Link to this
Heh heh… y’all said… nipples… heeeeee!…
By Mara
June 19, 2007 2:20 PM | Link to this
Chilao - HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Wouldn’t it be a hoot to try that sometime? Dare ya! Double dog dare ya…LOL
Hi ya, Net. “I’ve seen some cream produced by another body part”?!! You naughty thing you! :^P
By Mara
June 19, 2007 2:29 PM | Link to this
. - my husband mocks me by singing the chorus to “Free Fallin’”
And I’m free
Free fallin’, I’m a-free fallin’, I’m a Free fallin’
Free fallin’, I’m a-free fallin’, I’m a Yeah, I’m free…
it amuses him
By .
June 19, 2007 2:40 PM | Link to this
That’s hilarious, Mara….my wife’s biggest complaint is those puppies getting caught up in stuff….I should sing her a song that goes with her pet peeve….
But she might smack me with one if I do….
By Lily Toad
June 19, 2007 2:59 PM | Link to this
I understand that using this device [underwear bra] today will keep my bosoms from dragging the ground a few decades from now Mara, hate to tell you this, but they’re gonna sag any way. And don’t try going through airport security with an underwire bra. I consider them torture devices.
By kimberly
June 19, 2007 3:12 PM | Link to this
LilyToad, Hon… I’m gonna respectfully disagree with you on the bra thing. You can’t beat good, sturdy, steel-reenforced equipment for maintaining altitude and structural integrity. That, and the daily application of imported, vitamin-enriched, anti-oxidant creams, and you CAN keep a perky smile through the decades. Believe it. {;->
By NetBanker
June 19, 2007 3:13 PM | Link to this
Good Lord! Can you imagine if men had underwire tighty whiteys that provide the same level of support to those parts?
By Eminem mp3
June 19, 2007 3:17 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Eminem mp3
June 19, 2007 3:20 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Mara
June 19, 2007 3:33 PM | Link to this
ROTFL!! y’all are killin’ me today. If I laugh out loud one more time, my boss is gonna come over to see what’s so funny ;^D
Lily - NOOOOOooooooooo!! All these years, and you tell me they’ll still end up hangin’ low?! Argh!
kimberly - ahhhh. reassurance. Thanks girl
Net - LOL @ “underwire tighty whiteys”. At least we women don’t have to worry about our “hair” getting caught in the bra!
By NetBanker
June 19, 2007 3:46 PM | Link to this
Mara…I say go the plastic surgery route for a breast lift if they start to sag too low. I’m not too proud to admit that when I’m ready I’m going for a brow lift and a face lift. Besides with all of the boob jobs going on today it’s going to become common to expect women in their 80’s to have perky breasts since silicon doesn’t sag.
By Chilao
June 19, 2007 3:57 PM | Link to this
common to expect women in their 80’s to have perky breasts since silicon doesn’t sag.
Now absolutely EVRYTHING else sagging at the same time, well, that’s another matter.
aw, the look, the look.. LMAO
By NetBanker
June 19, 2007 3:57 PM | Link to this
At least we women don’t have to worry about our “hair” getting caught in the bra! Hold up there! There were a few women I regularly saw on the bus when I lived in France that could have encountered this problem with their arm pit hair.
By Chilao
June 19, 2007 3:58 PM | Link to this
evErthing? why was I just reminded of the bar scene in Total Recall?(the movie).
By .
June 19, 2007 4:15 PM | Link to this
When I was in my 20s I used to lifeguard at a big gym (like Ballys only local). There was a woman there who liked to sunbathe in a string bikini. She was 65 if she was a day. Now, she kept herself slim. AND she’d gotten a boob job. However, her leathery brown skin (not meant to be brown) was all wrinknly and her muscles had that elderly sag and her skinny butt was droopy….BUT her boobs looked just like my 20-year-old girlfriends!
Needless to say all the male lifeguards thought she was a joke. If she’d worn an age appropriate swimsuit and had NOT gotten the new boobies then I think most of us would have been impressed with how well she’d maintained her figure. But schilling to youth when she’s clearly past that was kinda pathetic….
By Monica
June 19, 2007 4:29 PM | Link to this
If you want to envision the day where men and women can go around topless, just look at an old National Geographic article on any given third-world country. I’ll opt for the underwire. :)
Archie, I have a question that is totally off topic: you may have discussed this before and I missed it, but why do you always misspell Shaunti’s name? You always leave out the “u.”
By JokesOn
June 19, 2007 4:43 PM | Link to this
NetB,
Breasts have been sexualized in this country, but the bottom line is that they’re intended to produce food for infants.
Untrue. There is great wonder and debate as to why human females are the only beings that always have (sizable) breast. The rest of the kingdom follows your statement. The best reason that can be given is that when we stopped doing it doggie-style, that there needed to be a sexual stimulant on the front of females.
By HeeHaw
June 19, 2007 4:52 PM | Link to this
*human females are the only beings that always have (sizable) breast. *
missed that trip to the dairy farm in grade-school, did you?
By Beatles
June 19, 2007 4:56 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Beatles
June 19, 2007 4:56 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Beatles
June 19, 2007 4:59 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By lozen
June 19, 2007 5:02 PM | Link to this
The best reason that can be given is that when we stopped doing it doggie-style, that there needed to be a sexual stimulant on the front of females. I’m doing an eye roll and walking!!!!
By AnotherDayofMen
June 19, 2007 5:05 PM | Link to this
JEASUS the first thing this country needs to do, is DO SOMETHING ABOUT MEN ! ! There is a F******* WAR ON WOMEN & it’s disgusting our country doesn’t do squat about it !
A sexual assault victim in Lawrenceville went into premature labor after the attack and delivered a baby girl, Gwinnett police said Tuesday. The 20-year-old was assaulted about 7:15 a.m. Sunday at an apartment complex on Sweetwater Road. The victim’s husband had just left for work, police said, and she and their 2-year-old child were getting ready to leave. The woman heard a knock, opened the door and saw a man, who asked for directions. The woman said she could not help and tried to shut the door. The man forced his way in, police spokesman Cpl. Darren Moloney said in a news release. Police said the attacker overpowered the woman, forced her into another room and sexually assaulted her before fleeing on foot. The 2-year-old was not harmed. After being transported to Gwinnett Medical Center, the woman gave birth to a girl. Both are expected to be released, Moloney said. Police are searching for the assailant.
This guy is on the loose. And he’s not the only male like that, there are many many like him that never get caught.
Think about what this mom has to live with, what her husband & child will be reminded of, every day, every birthday for the REST OF THEIR LIVES.
By Depeche Mode
June 19, 2007 6:33 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Depeche Mode
June 19, 2007 6:34 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Depeche Mode
June 19, 2007 6:36 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Eric Clapton
June 19, 2007 8:38 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Eric Clapton
June 19, 2007 8:40 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Eric Clapton
June 19, 2007 8:43 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Enigma
June 19, 2007 10:14 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Enigma
June 19, 2007 10:15 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Enigma
June 19, 2007 10:17 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Evanescence
June 19, 2007 11:49 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Evanescence
June 19, 2007 11:49 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Evanescence
June 19, 2007 11:51 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Robbie Williams
June 20, 2007 1:37 AM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Robbie Williams
June 20, 2007 1:45 AM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Robbie Williams
June 20, 2007 1:46 AM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Abba
June 20, 2007 3:37 AM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Abba
June 20, 2007 3:38 AM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Abba
June 20, 2007 3:39 AM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By David Bowie
June 20, 2007 5:11 AM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By David Bowie
June 20, 2007 5:12 AM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By David Bowie
June 20, 2007 5:13 AM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By George Michael
June 20, 2007 6:46 AM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By George Michael
June 20, 2007 6:47 AM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By George Michael
June 20, 2007 6:48 AM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By myspace layouts
June 20, 2007 8:12 AM | Link to this
Not much on my mind today. What can I say? I’ve just been sitting around waiting for something to happen.myspace layoutsmyspace codes
By Eminem
June 20, 2007 8:13 AM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Eminem
June 20, 2007 8:16 AM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Eminem
June 20, 2007 8:17 AM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Mara
June 20, 2007 9:27 AM | Link to this
Wow!! W2W has gotten hip! Who would’ve ever dreamt that we’d be getting posts from such luminaries as Eric Clapton, Depeche Mode, David Bowie, George Michael, and those Swedish superstars ABBA?!
We are soooo cool…
By .
June 20, 2007 9:27 AM | Link to this
O god…..if you are there and I am totally wrong about this atheism thing I have going….can you please make the sale@mp3.com spammer explode?
OK, I’m done with this blog for the week.. Have fun kids…
By NetBanker
June 20, 2007 9:32 AM | Link to this
Good morning, kids! I’m off to start today’s meeting marathon, but noticed this article when I was skimming the paper and had to share:
http://www.ajc.com/health/content/health/stories/2007/06/19/0620LVsexes.html?imw=Y
Apparently our impressions of men and women might be a tad off.
By Chilao
June 20, 2007 9:39 AM | Link to this
don’t forget EVANESCENCE there. I especially like Lacrymoso, apparently turned into a The Tudors video. and I had to get a Seether for the Broken redo.
Archie - what’s up with some quick yahoo blurb I saw last night, something about the S.C. State Treasurer there? LOL
By ativan online
June 20, 2007 9:42 AM | Link to this
ativan online
By ativan online
June 20, 2007 9:44 AM | Link to this
ativan online
By Chilao
June 20, 2007 9:44 AM | Link to this
How come the “enlarge* on the red-head did not ‘enlarge’? (at ajc) jokin’….
anyone see the item at Foxnews yesterday, The Starlet of Israel? Apparently some in Israel do not like the Tourism Departments Bikini Babe ad campaign.
By ativan online
June 20, 2007 9:44 AM | Link to this
ativan online
By ativan online
June 20, 2007 9:45 AM | Link to this
ativan online
By morgan-lynn griggs lamberth
June 20, 2007 9:48 AM | Link to this
The courts,contrary to wingnuts, does indeed interpret the constitution: they just don’t reflect right wing tom foolery!I had thought that Giuliani was a moderate,but if he appointed so-called stritct construtionists, we would have a reactionary Supreme Cour, not one guaranteeing us liberty.A real constructionist would favor the thinking of the ACLU on our rights!It would guarantee a well-regulated militia. One hopes that Justice Kennedy will stop his reactionary leanings! Justice Ginsburg is a heroine and staunch defender of our rights! Go, Hillary,go!
By Sting
June 20, 2007 10:02 AM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Sting
June 20, 2007 10:11 AM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By JokesOn
June 20, 2007 10:16 AM | Link to this
HeeHaw,
Bzzzz, wrong.
A cow’s mammary glands are also not always large or lactating. Farmers impregnate them every ten months to KEEP them that way to produce milk. The calves are taken away immediately, fed on synthetic milk, and kept for veal and such.
You should check your info before posting a rebuttal, especially a snotty one.
By Mara
June 20, 2007 11:13 AM | Link to this
Farmers impregnate them every ten months…
do the farmers wives know about this?!
Chilao - in case Archie doesn’t stop in today, Republican Tom Ravenel, South Carolina’s State Treasurer (and Guiliani’s state election chair…) was indicted on federal cocain charges and subsequently has been charged with the distribution of cocaine.
By Bill
June 20, 2007 11:35 AM | Link to this
Couple of quick comments:
(1) The premise this week seems to be that only a black Supreme Court Justice can well represent the views of other black people, only a woman Supreme Court Justice can well represent the views of other women, etc. If this is the case, then why isn’t Clarence Thomas celebrated by the black community at large? Maybe because he’s not the “right kind” of black?— at least according to the liberals. The Supreme Court throughout the 1960s and 1970s was chock-full of rich, old white guys, yet they rendered some amazingly liberal decisions.
(2) As for the more important topic this week, perky breasts, I feel compelled to explain that while rubbing cream on the skin may have some benefit—and provides a wonderful visual—, the critical factor in determining perkiness is the number of tendrils a woman has inside her breasts. These are long chains of connective tissue that hold the breast up. The number a woman has is determined genetically.
By Chilao
June 20, 2007 11:37 AM | Link to this
Mara - yeah, I learned more ALL about it.LOL.. I also learned his father, a prominent politico, had a cable-stayed bridge, like Boston’s Zakim Bridge, named after him, it also known as the Cooper River Bridge, in Charleston. (Arthur Ravenel, Jr. Bridge).
the things you learn on dat der inanet. real neat looking structures if you care to search on either. I drive across the Zakim bridge regularly/(yearly)
By NetBanker
June 20, 2007 11:43 AM | Link to this
My guess on human breasts is that it’s a matter of anatomy that there is so much breast material on the body rather than IN the body. For example, marine mamals do not have exterior breasts, yet do have mamary glands to feed their calves milk. We also know that women’s breasts become enlarged during pregnancy and afterward when they are producing milk. The breasts of women who do not breast feed shrink pretty quickly after giving birth. I’m not a zoologist so I don’t know enough about mamalian anatomy to know if my guess is correct nor do I have time to research primate anatomy or infant nutrition as the closest comparison to women.
By Archie
June 20, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this
Chilao, don’t rub it in. The S.C. state treasurer has been indicted on distribution of cocaine!!! I met him and he is kinda cocky,arrogant and I picked up on that after a few minutes of conversation. I am not happy to see anyone face charges but so many folk that have done well are simply just arrogant and immature. Thomas Ravenel is his name and he has been suspended from his job and he is a republican so it’s not just the democrats that do drugs. Checking the blogs here on my state newspaper other people say the guy is a jerk but I can’t say that he said anything to me wrong, he just had an air or arrogance about him and I will leave it at that on purpose. I knew this topic was going to die but never expected the breast conversations. Well, ladies how many women should be on the Supreme court and should a person at least have been a judge before being considered for the court??
By Bill
June 20, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this
I’m not a zoologist so I don’t know enough about mamalian anatomy to know if my guess is correct nor do I have time to research primate anatomy or infant nutrition as the closest comparison to women
Let’s collaborate, then, NetB. I’ll handle the human part of the research project…….
By SusieHomeMaker
June 20, 2007 12:02 PM | Link to this
If this is the case, then why isn’t Clarence Thomas celebrated by the black community at large? Maybe because he’s not the “right kind” of black?— at least according to the liberals
Bill, please explain what you mean by that comment? What exactly is “the right kind of black according to liberals”?
By Oasis
June 20, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Oasis
June 20, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Bill
June 20, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this
Bill, please explain what you mean by that comment? What exactly is “the right kind of black according to liberals”?
Well, maybe you can explain that better than I can, SusieH. Do you celebrate Clarence Thomas’s appointment to the Supreme Court. If not, why not? According to Diane, you should be ecstatic that a person “of color” sits on the highest court in the land.
My point is that, once again, the content of one’s character is far more important than the color of the skin or disposition of the genitalia in determining political outlook. While statisticians can say, that as a group, women may tend toward certain views, each woman holds her own views. Here on W2W, for example, I think Monica’s rulings as a Supreme Court Justice would be very different than those rendered by Mara.
By Monica
June 20, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this
The breasts of women who do not breast feed shrink pretty quickly after giving birth.
Yes, but alas, they are never quite the same…
Mara, loved the 11:13! I bet the farmers’ wives are in the dark about the whole thing, poor girls.
By SusieHomeMaker
June 20, 2007 12:19 PM | Link to this
Well, ladies how many women should be on the Supreme court and should a person at least have been a judge before being considered for the court??
I think a true representation of the female population should be considered when picking a judge, (not just political leanings). My first reason is because of Sandra Day O’Connor — back a few years ago when they (Republicans) were trying to kill the Equal Rights Ammendment through the court system, Justice O’Connor, (someone who graduated at the top of her class and still could not get a job as a lawyer, only a legal secretay, until E.R. became law), was the deciding factor. Why?, because she remembered what it felt like to be female, and not being given an opportunity to succeed as her male counterparts.
No white male, no matter how good his intentions, can bring that type of perspective to the courts, mainly because they don’t have, or never had, to deal with that issue.
Should a person at least be a judge at a lower court before ascending to a higher court — HECK YEAH!!! I equate that just like someone’s who’s never had kids telling you how to RAISE kids!!! They have no idea what they’re talking about!!!
By Oasis
June 20, 2007 12:19 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Bill
June 20, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this
Oops, I meant “different from”, Monica. Or has “different than” finally become accepted as being “good English”? ; > )
By Archie
June 20, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this
Bill you are wrong about the premise this week. Diane says It would be a far better solution to appoint politically divergent women in half of all Supreme Court appointments instead of burning one at the cross. Also Diane discussed Looking at minority representation, the numbers disproportionately favor white males. Of the nine justices, one is African-American and one is female. The rest are white men., the diversity or lack thereof on the Supreme Court. I don’t like Clarence Thomas and Diane has a problem with Scalia because he is Catholic and he gets to make decisions that could affect women’s reproductive choices. Basically Bill reread Diane’s rebuttal because I think it was excellent but keep in mind it is a rebuttal which means she is not stating that any particular gender or race has to be perfect in all decision-making but she is responding to a commentary made by Shanti and she(Diane) covers a lot of ground and makes good points sometimes outright and other times in a subtle manner. Diane makes a good point that people don’t just interpret the law like a robot but they bring their personal upbringing,religious experiences,etc. as well as legal knowledge into their decision-making.
By Mara
June 20, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this
Susie - Bill=Dog=Bruce Feed at your own risk…
By Bill
June 20, 2007 12:29 PM | Link to this
If you think about it a little, the idea of proportional representation based on race, gender, ethnicity, etc. is flawed from the outset because it is based on the assumption that each of these groups is homogeneous in outlook, such that any member of each group will automatically hold the “mainstream view” of that group. Even on the abortion issue, all women do NOT speak with a single voice. To achieve “proportional representation, then, you would have to not only appoint people based on their race, etc, but also based upon whether that person held the “mainstream view” of their particular group.
Anyone see the madness of this way of thinking besides me?
By Boo-bees
June 20, 2007 12:33 PM | Link to this
Touch em and die, dirtbag. To be safe, don’t even look.
By SusieHomeMaker
June 20, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this
Bill: I think that Diane’s comment represents my feelings on Justice Thomas:
Contrary to white male opinion, men are not the bearers of universal truth who share the interests and opinions of both sexes. They represent their own interests, which are socially embedded in their gender, their religious beliefs and their upbringing. People have opinions, and their opinions shape how they interpret the law.
Justice Thomas’ opinions and beliefs do not correspond with mine. Justice Thomas is more apt to follow political “leanings” than the interpretation of the constitution in regards to equitable distribution of the law of the land. I can understand someone, from experience, feeling a certain way, however, I can not understand nor condone a Justice of the Supreme Court following the dictates of the poltiical dogma of one party to the detriment of everyone BUT his political party.
CAse in point: Bush vs. Gore. The Supreme Court decision was 5 to 4 with the Republican background Justices overturning the Florida Supreme Courts decision due to nothing more than partisian politics.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushv.Gore
By SusieHomeMaker
June 20, 2007 12:50 PM | Link to this
Ooops!! thanks Mara!!!
By Bill
June 20, 2007 1:02 PM | Link to this
CAse in point: Bush vs. Gore. The Supreme Court decision was 5 to 4 with the Republican background Justices overturning the Florida Supreme Courts decision due to nothing more than partisian politics.
Susie, the proposed Gore recount in selected counties in Florida was not only unconstitutional, but showed the world what a sore loser he was. One of my proudest moments as an American was when Florida Circuit Judge N. Sanders Saul—a registered Democrat—made the correct ruling that the Gore team didn’t meet the legal requirements to go forward with the bogus recount. The Florida Supreme Court then overruled Judge Saul without any legal justification. Thank God there were 5 US Supreme Court Justices with enough sense to restore the rule of law.
By NetBanker
June 20, 2007 1:05 PM | Link to this
Let’s collaborate, then, NetB. I’ll handle the human part of the research project Ok, but as a gay man I’m sure I’d be far more objective with the human subjects as well as they being comfortable with me due to the lack of sexual tension and I really have no desire to start measuring the breasts of other primates. Then again, since I’m not into bestiality male primates of the non-human variety aren’t my thing either.
the idea of proportional representation based on race, gender, ethnicity, etc. is flawed from the outset While I know this discussion has focused on the Supreme Court rather than the legislature I find it interesting that when it came to U.S. intervention in both Afghanistan AND Iraq that a required set aside of parliamentary seats for women was established to guarantee some type of proportional representation. If that is good for the establishment of democracy in those countries, then why is that not a universal truth and enforced here in the self-proclaimed bastion of democracy? Why shouldn’t that type of representation apply to other elected or appointed positions?
I’d love to hear thoughts on the reluctance of women in this country to elect their sisters-in-womanhood to leadership positions. Stats tend to show that more men than women run and that when a man runs against a women the man tends to win even though women have higher voter participation rates than men. Why can Indira Ghandi be elected Prime Minister in India with its very traditionally male dominated culture and we can’t even begin to achieve some type of parity of female representation in the highest levels of our own government?
By Bill
June 20, 2007 1:15 PM | Link to this
The bottom line is that the Lib concept of “proportional representation” is a total sham because no member of any given group thinks exactly like the rest of the group. If you want to put 9 Golda Meirs on the Supreme Court, I’m with you. Give me 9 Thomas Sowells and I’ll do a jig in the street.
You see, when you say you want more women and blacks on the Court, you really mean to say that you want more women and blacks who hold your own personal views. That’s why Clarence Thomas is the “wrong kind” of black.
By SusieHomeMaker
June 20, 2007 1:23 PM | Link to this
I know, I know….but I just CANT let him get away with outright LIES!!!
Florida’s election laws[5] allow a candidate to request a county to conduct a manual recount, and Gore requested manual recounts in four Florida counties: Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade. The four counties granted the request and began manual recounts. However, Florida law also required all counties to certify their election returns to the Florida Secretary of State within seven days of the election. Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, (Republican), issued a set of criteria by which she would determine whether to allow late filings, and she required any county seeking to make a late filing to submit to her, by 2 p.m. the following day, a written statement of the facts and circumstances justifying the late filing. Four counties submitted statements, and, after reviewing the submissions, Harris determined that none justified an extension of the filing deadline.
Gore challanged and WON the right to recount in the Florida Supreme Court due to Florida’s OWN election laws!!
The Supreme Court in a PURELY partisian decision, overruled the State of Florida. The majority ruled 5-4 (all five of whom had been appointed as a Justice or Chief Justice by George W. Bush’s father or George W. Bush’s father’s running-mate) first that the recounts must be stopped, and then after sufficient time had elapsed, that no constitutionally-valid recount could timley be completed by the December 12 deadline, effectively scripting an end to the recounts to ensure victory for George W. Bush. The opinion stated that the state-wide standard (that a “legal vote” is “one in which there is a ‘clear indication of the intent of the voter.’”[22]) could not guarantee that each county would count the votes the same way, and held that this violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. However, independent and unbiased studies have now demonstrated that had the Reagan/Bush appointees allowed the recount to continue as to all Florida counties, Al Gore would have received the majority of Florida’s votes and hence the electoral college and the election. [23]. Moreover, the decision ignores the fact that different voting systems exist in and within various counties in most states in the union, and that different voting systems exist from one state to the next. Therefore, votes are never truly “counted the same way” in any presidential election, nor are they done so now, nor have they ever been done so.
Four justices dissented — 2 appointed by Democrats and 2 by Republicans, including one appointed to the bench by George W. Bush’s father. The four dissenters noted the above flaws in logic of the Reagan/Gore appointees, and others including that the principle of fairness, and the conflicting laws could be interpreted as invalidating the December 12 deadline.
By Bill
June 20, 2007 1:24 PM | Link to this
I find it interesting that when it came to U.S. intervention in both Afghanistan AND Iraq that a required set aside of parliamentary seats for women was established to guarantee some type of proportional representation. If that is good for the establishment of democracy in those countries, then why is that not a universal truth and enforced here in the self-proclaimed bastion of democracy? Why shouldn’t that type of representation apply to other elected or appointed positions?
NetB, I had the very same thought when the plans for the Afghan and Iraqi governments were revealed. The only answer I can figure is that the situation is very much like the 13 original colonies reluctance to become the United States and the subsequent concessions made by our own Constitution to State’s Rights.
Ultimately I disagree with the plan for the same reason “bilingual education” is a failure. If the goal is to have students speak English, total immersion is the only way to go. If you want true representative democracy, you have to go with total immersion as well, which means free elections. The “proportional representation” condition was proposed to try to win over some of the Sunnis in Iraq, IMO, since they know they wouldn’t win many parliamentary seats in a free election.
By SusieHomeMaker
June 20, 2007 1:25 PM | Link to this
You see, when you say you want more women and blacks on the Court, you really mean to say that you want more women and blacks who hold your own personal views. That’s why Clarence Thomas is the “wrong kind” of black.
Don’t put words in my mouth. I told you EXACTLY what I meant. If you can’t understand what I wrote to you in English, please go to the babel website and transcribe it into the langauge of your choice.
By Bruce
June 20, 2007 1:31 PM | Link to this
Mara,
I hate to tell you this but Bill=Dog does not equal Bruce. If I have something to say I will say it under my own name. Please do not lump me in with others, I have been on the blog long enough to THINK FOR MYSELF.
By .
June 20, 2007 1:39 PM | Link to this
OK, I’m back because real conversation is going….
I’d love to hear thoughts on the reluctance of women in this country to elect their sisters-in-womanhood to leadership positions.
OK, while I am admittedly not female I have a thought on this. My mother absolutely, completely, and terribly….just HATES Hillary Clinton. In her words she thinks Hillary is Evil. At least she did during the Clinton administration. I haven’t talk to her about it lately. She’s coming for a visit this weekend so maybe I’ll ask…
After hearing her reasons back then for Hating Hillary (power grabbing, mannish, etc) I really think my mom has a knee-jerk contempt for women in what she views as non-feminine roles. My mother was a nurse who stayed home to raise the 5 of us after the 3rd was born. So, she placed herself in what she probably thought was appropriate feminine roles and that didn’t jive with Hillary.
But I wonder how she feels now. She’s turning 60 this year. And during the last few years I’ve learned that she has become anti-death penalty (her words - because you just never know and who are we to decide this anyway), that she’s for civil unions for gays (because what does it hurt and it protects their financial investments and the children they have together), and that she can’t vote pro-life because she feels that there are a few desperate circumstances that while she can’t possibly imagine it might be necessary, ie, to save a life or in rape, etc.
So, in her autumn years she’s become decidedly progressive and less black and white about things. More liberated from her upbringing as a closet racist conservative…
So…perhaps she doesn’t feel threatened by powerful women like I always thought she was….hmmmmmm
However, my best friend from high school and his wife are big GOPpers. In light of that, his wife said she’d vote for ANY female running for president, even Hillary.
My own wife prefers Kucinich over all the other Dem candidates. But she’s said she would vote for Hillary just to see a woman in the OO.
So, perhaps there are a lot of women out there who would vote for a woman on that alone?
Makes me think it would probably be important to a lot of women that our SJs have enough of a female line up…
By Bill
June 20, 2007 1:40 PM | Link to this
Susie—There were much deeper legal issues involved other than deadlines that weren’t met. Are you familiar with the concept of “due process”? That means that ALL citizens have to be treated equally. Gore wanted recounts in only the few selected counties in which he thought he could pick up votes rather than asking for a state-wide recount. This violated the due process rights of the citizens in the other counties. If you recall, the Gore team had 1000s of military votes disqualified via an asinine technicality involving the lack of postmarks on the absentee ballots.
A second requirement for recounts in Florida is for the challenger to show that the recount might actually change the results of the election. If you recall, the Democrats hired a statistician who testified before Judge Saul that a majority of people intended to vote for Gore based on exit polls despite the actual results. The Republican lawyer had a field day with that guy. The Democrat’ s case was further harmed by the fact that they misrepresented the findings of their own statistician, which he was forced to admit on the stand.
By Bill
June 20, 2007 1:46 PM | Link to this
Don’t put words in my mouth. I told you EXACTLY what I meant. If you can’t understand what I wrote to you in English, please go to the babel website and transcribe it into the langauge of your choice.
Susie, you made no racial argument today, but made a similar argument for the inclusion of 50% women on the Supreme Court. Would 9 Margaret Thatchers make you happy? I don’t think so. Why can’t you just admit that you want people on the Supreme Court who represent your views. Why do you believe that Justice O’Connor voted the way she did strictly because she is a woman? What reasoning do you provide for the other Justices who voted along with her. Shouldn’t every vote end up as men vs. women according to your logic?
By MrRogers
June 20, 2007 1:47 PM | Link to this
There goes the neighborhood.
By Archie
June 20, 2007 1:48 PM | Link to this
I’d love to hear thoughts on the reluctance of women in this country to elect their sisters-in-womanhood to leadership positions. Stats tend to show that more men than women run and that when a man runs against a women the man tends to win even though women have higher voter participation rates than men.
Netbanker, I have asked those questions over and over.
Justice Thomas is more apt to follow political “leanings” than the interpretation of the constitution in regards to equitable distribution of the law of the land. I can understand someone, from experience, feeling a certain way, however, I can not understand nor condone a Justice of the Supreme Court following the dictates of the poltiical dogma of one party to the detriment of everyone BUT his political party.
SusieH, you must have read my posts this week. A lot of regular bloggers have covered this topic pretty well and people started discussing breasts and my state treasurer, but good luck getting anything other than denial about some of Diane’s points. At least this blog is civil compared others on this site because according to Angela Tuck some subjects can’t even be discussed because the commentary is too insulting.
By SusieHomeMaker
June 20, 2007 1:55 PM | Link to this
Gore wanted recounts in only the few selected counties in which he thought he could pick up votes rather than asking for a state-wide recount
Not True. As I stated earlier, Gore challenged “HARRIS’S” decision NOT to allow the recount of the four counties that put in a written request. There was no need for a state wide recount; just a recount of the four counties that had specifically requested it.
A second requirement for recounts in Florida is for the challenger to show that the recount might actually change the results of the election
Which in fact, it would have. You’ve just proved my point. Thank you.
By Bill
June 20, 2007 1:57 PM | Link to this
Netbanker, I have asked those questions over and over.
Somehow this fact doesn’t stop the feminists from complaining, however.
By John Williams
June 20, 2007 1:59 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By John Williams
June 20, 2007 2:01 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By John Williams
June 20, 2007 2:04 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Bill
June 20, 2007 2:04 PM | Link to this
However, independent and unbiased studies have now demonstrated that had the Reagan/Bush appointees allowed the recount to continue as to all Florida counties, Al Gore would have received the majority of Florida’s votes and hence the electoral college and the election
Susie, what crackpot source are you referencing, anyway? The fact is that the AP and UPI paid millions of dollars to recount the votes in Florida over and over again after the election was over using many different standards of counting (e.g whether to count votes with hanging chads,etc.), and they found out that Bush would have won no matter which standard was used. In other words, the recount was actually held, there is no need to speculate. What independent “experts” can dispute the actual recounts done by the AP and the UPI?
By Mara
June 20, 2007 2:29 PM | Link to this
Bruce - my apologies. He has used so many different monikers it’s hard to keep track…sorry. My bad…
. & Net - I don’t know about “women” in general but I vote for the candidate that reflects my issues. If I were to be presented with two equally meritorious candidates, one of each gender, I probably would vote for the female.
as for the larger question of why so few women are in leadership positions…one reason may be reflected in the media coverage of candidates. Commentary on the male candidate usually focuses on his political record, his education, what he intends to do if elected, etc. Even when his private life is brought up it’s usually in context of “and this is his lovely wife of 15+ years and his 2.5 children”. Women, on the other hand, have to deal with all that PLUS her hair, her clothes, her “styl”, and how she could juggle elected office with her obligations to her husband of 15+ years and her 2.5 children…
It’s tougher for women because we are still fighting the “mommy wars”. As illustrated by .’s story about his mother, there’s still “a knee-jerk contempt for women in…non-feminine roles”. Look at how the media ripped Judy Dean for not being the starry-eyed political wife that followed her husband about looking up at him with dewy rapture as he expounded on his intentions as president. Instead, she dared to continue providing medical care to her patients instead of “supporting her husband” on the campaign trail. The vitriol was astounding! And she wasn’t even the candidate.
By SusieHomeMaker
June 20, 2007 2:37 PM | Link to this
I’d love to hear thoughts on the reluctance of women in this country to elect their sisters-in-womanhood to leadership positions.
I think with the advent of a younger, more diverse, and politically savy generation, there will be no more reluctance to elect women in a leadership position. Times change and people’s minds change with them. Just 40 years ago someone would’ve been decrying the right of blacks to drink at the same water fountains as whites and using their long held beliefs as facts. It’s not an issue now, because the younger generation has grown up in a totally different mindset than some of the older generation.
Now while saying that, I would be reluctant to vote for a black male candidate. WHY? Well, mainly because I have the “Tuskeegee” Mentality. Whatever black person who becomes President of the US must be the BEST of the BEST of the BEST. His election, although not morally nor accurately correct, would reflect on ALL black americans.
BUT, and here’s the contradiction again, I’d vote for a black FEMALE president in a NY minute, no matter their political affiliation. WHY? History has shown that when a black female is given the chance to take command, they do so with as much as the utmost integrity as they can. They won’t bend and they don’t break.
By .
June 20, 2007 2:37 PM | Link to this
Remember how people used to comment on how Hillary has big thighs and big knees (or ankles or something)? I remember being completely astounded by how retarded it was. She was running for president then. She wasn’t running for Top Model, either.
Who the hell cares? I can see why women become feminists….
And Bill, as to this Somehow this fact doesn’t stop the feminists from complaining, however. If I were you I’d stop hating on the feminists. Feminists are the women sexually liberated enough to sleep with you. It’s the conservative girls who won’t put out because it’s baaaaaaaaaad. Even in marriage they think that nice girls submit to their busbands.
Who the hell wants to hop in the sack with that? Give me a feminist for a roll in the hay anyday….yep…and they like porn, too. Now THAT’S fun!
Swhy I married one…
By Bill
June 20, 2007 2:39 PM | Link to this
Gotta run, but I’m still waiting for Mara to explain why making a profit is such a bad thing in a free market economy….. Sounds rather narcissistic to me for her to expect companies to operate with no profit simply so that her own costs are lower.
By Mara
June 20, 2007 2:40 PM | Link to this
btw, did you all know that there are NO eligibility requirement for Supreme Court justices? None, zilch, nada. The nominee could be a 17-year-old drop-out, an Arabian horseshow judge, a felon….even a foreign national. Of course getting the nomination through the Senate is another story, but there are NO qualification required for nominees.
I did not know that…
By SusieHomeMaker
June 20, 2007 2:41 PM | Link to this
At least this blog is civil compared others on this site because according to Angela Tuck some subjects can’t even be discussed because the commentary is too insulting.
Funny!! Well, let’s hope it can STAY civil!!
By Bill
June 20, 2007 2:45 PM | Link to this
Feminists are the women sexually liberated enough to sleep with you. It’s the conservative girls who won’t put out because it’s baaaaaaaaaad. Even in marriage they think that nice girls submit to their busbands.
Unfortunately, the feminists also sleep with every other Tom, Dick, and Harry, and lose their charm as time goes on.
Also, what is wrong with submission? Super-aggressive women turn me off in the sack, because I’m the boss.
By lozen
June 20, 2007 2:47 PM | Link to this
There are women I would vote for and there are women I would never vote for. If Darth Condi Vader ran for prez, no way could I vote for her. There are many women who despise other women. Just as gay people have to deal with internalized homophobia learned in a homophobic culture, women have to deal with internalized misogyny in a misogynist culture.
By MrRogers
June 20, 2007 2:50 PM | Link to this
Feminists are the women sexually liberated enough to sleep with you.
Is it Friday?
By blablabla
June 20, 2007 2:53 PM | Link to this
lozen, are you slinging zingers at me when I agree with your sentiment? I think maybe you were too dense to get it.
dear ., lozen was talking to me. to be insulted by someone as low on the intellectual food chain as lozen is something i take as a complement.
you see, lozen has no idea what scalia thinks on abortion beyond what the NOW website tells her to think about him.
she’s never read his opinions on the topic, least of all webster in 89 or PA planned parenthood in 92. if she did, she’d probably be shocked.
in fact i would invite anyone with an interest in the topic that extends beyond mindlessly spewing someone else’s rheteroic, to read scalia’s opinions on abortion cases.
then let’s see how many people subscribe to diane and lozen’s view that scalia’s opinions are so obviously tainted by his catholic upbringing and his nine children.
for lozen though, i expect this to be too tall a chore. it’s much easier to hurl veiled insults at people who disagree with her views than to actually research the topic at hand and have an independent and informed view.
By Mara
June 20, 2007 2:56 PM | Link to this
…explain why making a profit is such a bad thing in a free market economy…expect companies to operate with no profit simply so that her own costs are lower
An erroneous and misleading characterization of my comments. Typical of the poster.
By .
June 20, 2007 2:59 PM | Link to this
So, Bill, you like your women to just lay there while you rut on top? SNORE Unless you’re talking about S&M….but not my thing…
And sorry, since I most likely know a lot more feminists than you I have to say you’re soooo wrong about feminists and promiscuity. It’s the unliberated women who are promiscuous….promiscuity is behavior that results from a messed up sense of sexuality. This is not the liberated feminist. Feminists are well-grounded in their sexuality. They don’t view their sexuality as some dirty bad thing.
But conservative girls do….and they’re the ones who are most promiscuous….engaging in secret sex that causes them shame….often times in a very submissive fashion.
From the way you talk…not liking sexually aggressive women and only liking submissive ones…I guess you’re one who sees a woman’s sexuality as a dirty bad thing, thus continuing the cycle of poor messed up promiscuous conservative girls…
By SusieHomeMaker
June 20, 2007 2:59 PM | Link to this
Would 9 Margaret Thatchers make you happy? I don’t think so. Why can’t you just admit that you want people on the Supreme Court who represent your views.
Again, you try to put words in my mouth. I want people on the Supreme court who can understand my views and my viewpoint. A single parent from Wisconsin, fighting for her court mandated child support has different issue/point of view than a married mother of five who has a different issue/point of view than a Single man who’s 20 something straight out of college who has a differnt issue/point of view than a 50 year old man who spent his life in the military who has a different point of view/issue than…….
Why do you believe that Justice O’Connor voted the way she did strictly because she is a woman?
I didn’t say that, and it’s ridiculous to repeat myself over and over, so please go back and reread my post and the reason behind my comment.
What reasoning do you provide for the other Justices who voted along with her. Shouldn’t every vote end up as men vs. women according to your logic?
The law is supposed to be treated with a dollop of compassion,sensitivity and common sense also. The “Letter of THe Law” must also speak to the “heart of the law”.
By SusieHomeMaker
June 20, 2007 3:02 PM | Link to this
Susie, what crackpot source are you referencing, anyway?
Try the BBC for one……
By Bill
June 20, 2007 3:06 PM | Link to this
Feminists are the women sexually liberated enough to sleep with you.
Is it Friday?
You might be surprised, MrRogers. I think my current lady friend must have “squealed” to her girlfriends about the ol’ package since they’re all putting the moves on me now. She has nothing to worry about, though. In spite of my bluster, I’m a one-woman guy and wouldn’t dream of cheating on her. I cheated once in my whole life, and deeply regret it.
By Archie
June 20, 2007 3:13 PM | Link to this
SusieHomemaker I have to get on you a bit about this I’d vote for a black FEMALE president in a NY minute, no matter their political affiliation. WHY? History has shown that when a black female is given the chance to take command, they do so with as much as the utmost integrity as they can. They won’t bend and they don’t break. That SusieH is bias and as a black male I am taken aback that you don’t think we have integrity and what about this Condilezza Rice person who has been there from the start of this lying administration as far as this war goes. Let me be clear the administration does not, does not lie about everything but Ms Rice does not exemplify any great integrity and I don’t know what history you’re talking about because every gender,race, has people that are dishonest. SusieH you have to be careful with what you say because you apparently don’t know about the kind of black women George Bush has brought up for judicial appointments. You dislike Clarence Thomas, well Bush has supported a black female judge from California that is worst than Thomas. I applaud Mara for her 2:29 post because she answered Netb’s question honestly without excuses. I am asking if anyone knows the name of that lady Bush nominated that was said to be worse than Thomas. Also thanks for the info,Mara.
By .
June 20, 2007 3:15 PM | Link to this
Dude, you are not going there talking about your nuts. That is the lamest thing you can ever say…ever. I don’t care if you got nads like King Kong….you never ever ever ever say anything as retarded as what you just said. You might as well have said the opposite for all the effect it will have…
What a wingnut…
By Byron
June 20, 2007 3:16 PM | Link to this
What a wonderful, wonderful illustration this is of the difference between conservatives and liberals. Shaunti believes that it’s about the rule of law, while Diane is a bean-counter (who doesn’t seem to even understand that Supreme Court justices don’t “pass legislation”). Conservatism, rightly understood, is about substance, while liberalism is about symbolism. Thanks, AJC, for this wonderful and useful illustration!
By Facts
June 20, 2007 3:19 PM | Link to this
Archie - Janice Rogers Brown:
http://www.blackcommentator.com/54/54femaleclarence.html
By Bill
June 20, 2007 3:21 PM | Link to this
Again, you try to put words in my mouth. I want people on the Supreme court who can understand my views and my viewpoint. A single parent from Wisconsin, fighting for her court mandated child support has different issue/point of view than a married mother of five who has a different issue/point of view than a Single man who’s 20 something straight out of college who has a differnt issue/point of view than a 50 year old man who spent his life in the military who has a different point of view/issue than…….
Susie, what you are saying is crazy. I don’t give a rat’s behind if any of the Supreme Court justices understand me, my viewpoint, or even life situation as long as they vote the way I would like them to. The actual voting record is what is important, not the phony compassion. Don’t tell me you fell for that “I feel your pain” BS that the other Bill spouted, did you?
Also, I rechecked the results of the 2000 recount conducted by the AP, etc, in the year 2002. Gore actually would have won if they utilized “mind-reading” standards such as trying to count the undervotes and overvotes based on statistical projections. I’ll give you that. However, if the recounts had gone the way Gore had requested, he still would have lost. Check it out:
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf
Not addressed in the official report, however, were the thousands of military votes that were disqualified due to the lack of a post mark, which, BTW was not offered in many of the postal depots at the various overseas army bases at the time. If you add in those votes, the slim 100+ vote “victory” for Gore using “mind-reading” standards would be toast.
By Monkey
June 20, 2007 3:22 PM | Link to this
I want people on the Supreme court who can understand my views and my viewpoint.
This is the problem, and it is the flaw in Diane’s thinking. The SCOTUS does not exist to understand Susie’s views and viewpoints. The SCOTUS does not exist to reflect the interests of Americans, as Diane hints. In fact, a number of the justices probably find our individual views to be irrelevant. What is relevant is the constitution, the law, legal precedent and the like. The people who are supposed to listen to our opinions and viewpoints are our elected officials, not the justices.
By Mara
June 20, 2007 3:25 PM | Link to this
I’d vote for a black FEMALE president in a NY minute, no matter their political affiliation
Susie - rumor has it that Cynthia McKinney is toying with the Green Party nomination…
. - great 2:59 comment
By SusieHomeMaker
June 20, 2007 3:27 PM | Link to this
That SusieH is bias and as a black male I am taken aback that you don’t think we have integrity and what about this Condilezza Rice person who has been there from the start of this lying administration as far as this war goes. Let me be clear the administration does not, does not lie about everything but Ms Rice does not exemplify any great integrity and I don’t know what history you’re talking about because every gender,race, has people that are dishonest. SusieH you have to be careful with what you say because you apparently don’t know about the kind of black women George Bush has brought up for judicial appointments. You dislike Clarence Thomas, well Bush has supported a black female judge from California that is worst than Thomas. I applaud Mara for her 2:29 post because she answered Netb’s question honestly without excuses. I am asking if anyone knows the name of that lady Bush nominated that was said to be worse than Thomas. Also thanks for the info,Mara.
Archie, maybe I should’ve used the adverb most before I said the rest!! Sorry. Naturally not ALL of any race, gender, sexual preference, etc. is any one thing. I was however thinking of people like Shirley Franklin, Angela Gittens, (black female GM of Hartsfield before DeCosta who cleaned up the corruption there), et al.; when I made that comment.
As stated earlier, I have the “Tuskeegee” mindset when it comes to selecting a black male for a position of power. The Tuskeegee Airman program turned away thousands of qualified pilots because they knew that the pilots that they picked would have to be 20X better than their white counterparts; and right or wrong, their pilots would represent not only Tuskeegee but *every black American in the Armed Services and in the US. The Bests of the Best of the Best. I Didn’t mean to offend, it’s just my opinion.
By .
June 20, 2007 3:27 PM | Link to this
Conservatism, rightly understood, is about substance, while liberalism is about symbolism. Thanks, AJC, for this wonderful and useful illustration!
What a maroon. “This is white. This is black. Black is bad. White is goooood.”
By Bill
June 20, 2007 3:30 PM | Link to this
Dude, you are not going there talking about your nuts. That is the lamest thing you can ever say…ever. I don’t care if you got nads like King Kong….you never ever ever ever say anything as retarded as what you just said. You might as well have said the opposite for all the effect it will have…
Just being an a*, By . Question: Since women are allowed to draw attention to their physical assets and it’s considered sexy, (see discussion of perky breasts earlier this week), why is it not sexy if a man takes the same tact and mentions the package?
By R E M
June 20, 2007 3:39 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By R E M
June 20, 2007 3:40 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By SusieHomeMaker
June 20, 2007 3:45 PM | Link to this
Mara: IMO Cynthia McKinney is a NUT. Yes, she does do good things for her constituents, but she also, in all her years of politics, has not learned the art of being an effective politician. She ostracizes more people than she HELPS. It might work for Maxine Waters, but the people of Georgia that live in her district per ratio are some of the richest and most educated blacks in America, (besides the blacks in that suburbn in Maryland).
By Mara
June 20, 2007 3:45 PM | Link to this
What is relevant is the constitution, the law, legal precedent and the like
Should be the only things relevant maybe, but IS the only relevant? Not so much.
May I refer you to two previous posts, the straighforward and well written post by Publius on 6/18 @ 2:14 and mine yesterday @ 12:30 (the one with the Scalia quote)
By .
June 20, 2007 3:46 PM | Link to this
Probably because the package isn’t a pretty thing except to YOUR woman
Remember…women are pretty…men are hairy….
Look, REM has joined the blog. Wsup, Stipes!
By Ewwww
June 20, 2007 3:48 PM | Link to this
News flash, Hogzilla: No one cares that you are proud of your little pony.
By Bill
June 20, 2007 3:50 PM | Link to this
Susie, I’ve reconsidered. You’re right. We need to institute racial and gender quotas across the board. How racist and misogynistic of me to think that any other factors could be important in selecting political candidates and Supreme Court Justices.
By Bill
June 20, 2007 3:54 PM | Link to this
Really gotta run now. Say what you will about the Mongrel, but the board is dull without my input. Just don’t take anything too personal, bloggers, it’s just a bunch of blog BS.
By Mara
June 20, 2007 4:03 PM | Link to this
News flash, Hogzilla: No one cares that you are proud of your little pony
R.O.T.F.L.M.F.A.O.!!!!
Susie - IMO Cynthia McKinney is a NUT
yeah, but she is a black female…
see y’all tomorrow. I’m outtie
By NetBanker
June 20, 2007 4:06 PM | Link to this
My mother absolutely, completely, and terribly….just HATES Hillary Clinton. In her words she thinks Hillary is Evil. Many people feel this way about Hillary, but when pressed can’t seem to explain why or what has caused them to form their opinion. It really gets under their skin when they complain about her stances on various positions and I ask them where they got that information and if they’ve actually gone to her web site to read her actual positions for themselves. My partner just about blows a gasket when I do this to him, but why should I treat him any differently than I would anyone else when it comes to having a political discourse? My favorite statement to make steam come out his ears in relation to his saying “Hillary will tell any group whatever it is they want to hear just to try to get them to support here” is “And that’s different from any other politician how?” People really do seem to hold her to a different standard than they do others with aspirations for political advancement. I just don’t understand why. (FYI to all, I’m neither for nor against Hillary at this point. It’s too early in the presidential game, in my estimation, to take time to research all those candidates when some won’t make it to the primary and only 1 from each will make it to the primary).
By SusieHomeMaker
June 20, 2007 4:07 PM | Link to this
The Supreme Court MUST reflect the constitution as its written but it must also reflect the people of the US.
Google these references and see how the Supreme Court has changed over the years to reflect the times.
Dredd Vs. Sanford
Miranda vs. Arizona
Loving vs. Virginia
Luther vs. Borden
South Dakota vs. Opperman
Reno vs. ACLU
Brown vs. Board of Education
By Archie
June 20, 2007 4:15 PM | Link to this
SusieH, I accept your apology but people are already setting you up with the McKinney comments so watch what you say because some people actually read your entire post. Also I like Maxine Waters because she is not a nut. She has not hit a security guard for doing his job but I understand some may not like her politics but Ms Waters is not a nut and Hillary is not a villian but people don’t like her politics. Be careful SusieH and have a good day..
By SusieHomeMaker
June 20, 2007 4:31 PM | Link to this
OK let me rephrase. I’d vote for a black female candidate for president no matter their political affiliations, who has the qualifications and who isn’t C. Rice, (don’t like the job she’s doing as Sec. Of State), AND who isn’t a nut. Whew! I hope that clears it up, I really don’t wanna see anymore Cynthia M. comments, that’s just too scary!! (smile)
By HeeHaw
June 20, 2007 4:37 PM | Link to this
JokeSon - thanks for the clarification, that must explain all the A-cup cows I see in the field suckling new calves this time of year. I never knew those Double-DDDs in the dairy industry were the result of selective breeding. (Not!)
There is great wonder and debate as to why human females are the only beings that always have (sizable) breast
But I have to wonder where you have been hanging out, if all you see are ALWAYS sizable-breasts. I have known many A and B cup babes but then they did not work as strippers.
By Monkey
June 20, 2007 4:44 PM | Link to this
Mara -
You are guilty of taking one sentence and making a conclusion out of context. Perhaps I should have been more expansive, but certainly the primary factors for the SCOTUS to consider include those I mentioned. They do not need to be the only factors, but my statement is made to contrast with those of Diane and Susie who want justices to understand their views and reflect the interests of all Americans. Personally I do not understand how the SCOTUS can possibly reflect the interests of all Americans, since part of the reason that we have courts to begin with is to decide issues where reasonable people can disagree, or have divergent interests.
Your post from 12:30 yesterday makes very little sense to me for two reasons. First, Scalia is not a strict constructionist. He is a textualist first and foremost, and secondly an originalist, with strong preference to original meaning. Pundits and politicians often confuse the terms, but the difference is important. Second, I don’t watch 24 so the Jack Bauer reference and whatever point you are trying to make as a result…these are unclear to me. If you clarify your position we can chat further.
By Lily Toad
June 20, 2007 4:47 PM | Link to this
Jokeson, That doesn’t explain why beef cattle have big bags. Yes, they are impregnated, but not for milk, for reproduction. Oh, and it’s not farmers, but ranchers who raise cattle.
By SusieHomeMaker
June 20, 2007 5:06 PM | Link to this
They do not need to be the only factors, but my statement is made to contrast with those of Diane and Susie who want justices to understand their views and reflect the interests of all Americans.
Please read the post made by me at 4:07 — in it it reflects some of the Supreme Court Decisions stemming from the 1800s onward that reflect the current times thinking and have since be reversed due to the NEW current times process of thinking. In the 1800s the Supreme Court ruled that it was okay for the races to be Separate but Equal; in the 50’s it was struck down. Why? The constituional LAW on the matter hadn’t changed, but the Court’s “perception of the law” had; because of the changing of the times. So to state that “Personally I do not understand how the SCOTUS can possibly reflect the interests of all Americans, since part of the reason that we have courts to begin with is to decide issues where reasonable people can disagree, or have divergent interests” is simplistic in the extreme.
That’s basic Law 101 —
By Moby
June 20, 2007 5:30 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Moby
June 20, 2007 5:30 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By NetBanker
June 20, 2007 5:32 PM | Link to this
IMO Cynthia McKinney is a NUT. Oh, Thank God!! I read Mara’s statement and my mind immediately screamed…NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
why is it not sexy if a man takes the same tact and mentions the package? Let’s start off with the fact that men LIE about the size of their equipment…especially on the internet. As one friend of mine said “According to the AOL chat room ruler I’m 10 inches.”
Second, unlike breasts which remain constant in size regardless of a woman’s state of arousal, the flacid state of a package does not necessarily indicate the size when erect. This was most certainly proved to me by an old BF who I nicknamed CrackerJack because his package was like the toy surprise inside. You just had to wonder how something that started at one size managed to exponentially grow so much…who knew skin could stretch THAT much?! Another BF was “a show-er, not a grower.”
By Moby
June 20, 2007 5:34 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Enya
June 20, 2007 7:55 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Enya
June 20, 2007 8:02 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By funnyPasds
June 20, 2007 8:38 PM | Link to this
[url=http://www.xtopsearch.info/tramadol.htm]1[/url] [url=http://www.xtopsearch.info/tramadol.htm]here[/url]
By kama sutra
June 20, 2007 8:46 PM | Link to this
I found this site and became happy!kama sutra
By kama sutra
June 20, 2007 8:47 PM | Link to this
I found this site and became happy!kama sutra
By kama sutra
June 20, 2007 8:48 PM | Link to this
I found this site and became happy!kama sutra
By Guns N Roses
June 20, 2007 9:59 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Guns N Roses
June 20, 2007 10:00 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Guns N Roses
June 20, 2007 10:01 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Cure
June 20, 2007 11:40 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Cure
June 20, 2007 11:43 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Cure
June 20, 2007 11:43 PM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Rammstein
June 21, 2007 1:15 AM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Rammstein
June 21, 2007 1:16 AM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Rammstein
June 21, 2007 1:17 AM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Saher
June 21, 2007 1:27 AM | Link to this
Very good site. Thank you.
where are you google? i miss you!
By Vangelis
June 21, 2007 2:57 AM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Vangelis
June 21, 2007 3:00 AM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By Vangelis
June 21, 2007 3:04 AM | Link to this
sale@mp3.com
By buy viagra
June 21, 2007 4:52 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By buy viagra
June 21, 2007 4:55 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By buy viagra
June 21, 2007 4:57 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By generic viagra
June 21, 2007 6:31 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By generic viagra
June 21, 2007 6:34 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By generic viagra
June 21, 2007 6:34 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By Monkey
June 21, 2007 8:06 AM | Link to this
Susie, your post is silly. Listing a bunch of cases and asking others to Google them for you is not an argument. Pick your case and make your point.
Are you trying to make a case that the court’s interpretation of a given issue has changed over time, or society’s interpretation of a given issue has changed over time? Because if it is the former, you’ve maybe listed one case with which you could make an argument. I also would invite you to investigate judicial tradition where the courts rule as narrowly as possible so as to specifically avoid “re-interpretation” and to not to upset or contradict existing law. If it’s the latter, well that is clear and is the reason why there is an amendment process for the constitution. I would think it rather obvious that the court might come to one conclusion prior to an amendment and then reach a different one following an amendment but I wouldn’t call that evidence that the court itself is changing its interpretation of an issue. The law changed.
So to state that “Personally I do not understand how the SCOTUS can possibly reflect the interests of all Americans, since part of the reason that we have courts to begin with is to decide issues where reasonable people can disagree, or have divergent interests” is simplistic in the extreme.
Of course it is simple. It is quite simple and obvious that the SCOTUS cannot reflect the interests of all, because a court will decide between two parties. By and large, the SCOTUS has two main tasks: interpret laws, statutes and orders, and ensure that laws, statutes or orders don’t violate the constitution. If you want your views understood, you vote for candidates who agree with you on key issues during elections. If enough people feel as you do on a certain item, society amends the constitution. But the justices of the Supreme Court themselves or the SCOTUS as a body itself owes no duty to “understand your views”. This is why justices possess are appointed for life, a decidedly un-democratic characteristic. Do you contest this?
By Archie
June 21, 2007 8:20 AM | Link to this
SusieH, you did a good job making your point with your 4:07 pm post. The law has not been interpreted robotically as Diane says. The interpretation of the law has evolved over time and an explanation for that would be that interests have changed over time thus making Diane’s point once again. Diane does say divergent women in her last paragraph not just liberal women. I am amazed that some men cannot see their biases and that’s why we still have ‘isms and sociological numbers bare that out.
By cheap viagra
June 21, 2007 8:21 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By cheap viagra
June 21, 2007 8:23 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By Monkey
June 21, 2007 8:26 AM | Link to this
Please read the second to last sentence of my previous post without the word possess.
By cheap viagra
June 21, 2007 8:27 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By SusieHomeMaker
June 21, 2007 8:58 AM | Link to this
Are you trying to make a case that the court’s interpretation of a given issue has changed over time, or society’s interpretation of a given issue has changed over time? Because if it is the former, you’ve maybe listed one case with which you could make an argument. I also would invite you to investigate judicial tradition where the courts rule as narrowly as possible so as to specifically avoid “re-interpretation” and to not to upset or contradict existing law. If it’s the latter, well that is clear and is the reason why there is an amendment process for the constitution. I would think it rather obvious that the court might come to one conclusion prior to an amendment and then reach a different one following an amendment but I wouldn’t call that evidence that the court itself is changing its interpretation of an issue. The law changed
Your comment is argumentative and not based in fact. The LAW changed when the Supreme Court changed its interpretation of the law. Two cases, (and yes I said GOOGLE them and READ THEM FOR YOURSELF — best way to learn), of those listed before; I will highlight for you. One is Loving vs Virginia and the other is Brown Vs. Board of Education.
Brief Background (since you don’t like to read for yourself):
Loving v. Virginia, was a case in which the United States Supreme Court declared Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute, the “Racial Integrity Act of 1924”, unconstitutional, thereby ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.
At that time there was no need for an AMMENDMENT to the constitution because there wasn’t any Article in the Constitution to forbid miscengenation.
Brown vs. Board of Education - Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954),[1] is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court overturning its earlier ruling, declaring the establishment of separate public schools for black and white students inherently unequal. This basically REVERSED the original Supreme Court Deicision of the 1800’s (Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896, the Supreme Court decided in the jurisprudence of the United States, upholding the constitutionality of racial segregation even in public accommodations under the doctrine of “separate but equal”.)
AGAIN, there wasn’t an AMMENDMENT to the Constitution because there isn’t any Article in the Constitution that deals with the separation of races. It was a Supreme Court Ruling that reversed the law as well their, (Supreme Court’s) original decision.
Again, your argument above is simplistic and misleading in the extreme and shows a marked lack of any basic knowledge of the law, NOR a willingness to learn. You’d rather spout off your own views than reading for yourself with your own eyes the correct historical documented cases that are on file, (and on line) and available for all to see.
By SusieHomeMaker
June 21, 2007 9:17 AM | Link to this
The interpretation of the law has evolved over time and an explanation for that would be that interests have changed over time thus making Diane’s point once again
I still am amazed when people can’t seem to grasp that simple concept!!
By Archie
June 21, 2007 9:17 AM | Link to this
Once again good job Susie with your 8:58 am post. I think you have more than whipped your opponent and you help make the points that Diane made in her rebuttal.
By Mara
June 21, 2007 10:01 AM | Link to this
NYT has an interesting look at how well the SCOTUS “respects” judicial doctrine of stare decisis, or “precedent”. Worth reading the whole thing.
Precedents Begin to Fall for Roberts Court
“The fact is that the court regularly revisits and reconsiders its precedents, as Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the current chief justice’s former boss and mentor, once observed succinctly. “Stare decisis is not an inexorable command,” he said in a 1991 opinion that included, in a page and a half of small type, a list of 33 precedents that the court had overturned in the previous 20 years.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/21/washington/21memo.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1182426512-mlTAHDS+wbKt73ViZ0ri8Q
By lozen
June 21, 2007 10:11 AM | Link to this
Two Buddhist monks were on a long journey when they came to a river. On the bank sat a young woman. “I beg you,” she asked, “Could you carry me across?” The current is strong and I’m afraid I might be swept away.” The first monk remembered his vows never to look at or touch a woman, so he ignored her and crossed the heavily flowing river. The other monk bent down so that the woman could climb upon his back. When they reached the other side, he let her down and went on his way. After some hours the first monk could no longer contain his anger at the second for breaking their vows. “How could you even look at that woman, let alone carry her across the river?” The first monk looked at his companion and smiled, “I put the woman down way back there on the riverbank. You’re still carrying her.”
By Mara
June 21, 2007 10:15 AM | Link to this
I agree with Archie that Susie has made her point, and made it well.
One thought that I might add…if the law is as static, as clear, and as unequivicol as some suggest, we wouldn’t NEED a SCOTUS to interpret its details for us or choose between two equally valid applications.
We would only require our judiciary to cite the appropriate precedent and voila…justice.
By Archie
June 21, 2007 10:28 AM | Link to this
Mara, that article was good reading. I would love to have another Thurgood Marshall on the Supreme Court. This topic was a good topic on behalf of Shanti and Diane but some folk got their feelings hurt over the 3rd paragraph written by Diane’s rebuttal and could not see any facts after that. Wow 33 precedents overturned and someone actually thinks it’s just about the law.
By discount viagra
June 21, 2007 10:43 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By discount viagra
June 21, 2007 10:46 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By discount viagra
June 21, 2007 10:50 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By Mara
June 21, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this
Archie - Marshall was good as were Blackmun, Brandeis, and Douglas. (sigh) And we get stuck with Alito and Roberts…
At the constitutional level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections. ~ William O Douglas
By Mara
June 21, 2007 11:33 AM | Link to this
btw, Happy Summer Solstice to all my blog buddies :^)
By Monkey
June 21, 2007 11:33 AM | Link to this
Thanks for the chuckle. Unfortunately it is you who fail to make much of a cogent argument, despite the fact that I see some merit in what you are feebly trying to articulate.
First, Loving v Virginia didn’t change the court’s interpretation of the issue. Loving struck down provisions of law that it finds unconsitutional, which is not terribly uncommon.
That is why I asked you to clarify your argument.
As for the others, your list of cases candidly made very little sense.
For example, Dredd v Sanford was explicitly replaced by an amendment. As were parts of Luther v Borden. Hence my statement about a change of view of the constitution by the court following a change in the constitution itself. As for South Dakota and Reno v ACLU, I would not describe these as changes of prior views on the law by the court, but rather clarification of finer points of the fourth and first amendments.
Once I finished weeding through your “argument”, the only example (of the cases you provide) where the Supreme Court explicitly reverses itself is Brown, which was what I was alluding to when I said: Because if it is the former, you’ve maybe listed one case with which you could make an argument.
Great, you got Brown. I’ll concede Brown. What else do you have? None of those other cases you mention qualify as the court changing its interpretation absent a constitutional change. Of the thousands of cases the SCOTUS has heard over the years, please tell me you have more than one case to support your argument.
Setting aside the inflammatory rhetoric for a moment: truth be told, stare decisis does not always hold. My opinion is that it should not always hold. I doubt anyone would argue that the law should never change one iota – times change and call for clarifications. A reasoned court can, and should examine precedent. I would not argue that. But unfortunately the cases you list, outside of Brown, do nothing to conclusively make your point. If I were going to take your side, I would argue that Roe was essentially gutted by Casey, and that Stengel was gutted by the recent partial birth abortion ban.
However, that does not mean in any way, shape or form, that the SCOTUS owes a duty to your views. The judiciary is supposed to remain independent from the public will, lest you disagree with Lincoln and the Federalists. That was the impetus for my post and the overarching point I have been making to you, although I question whether you received the message.
By lovelyliz
June 21, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this
It’s not necessarily the lack of gender/racial diversity on the Supreme Court that causes a problem. The lack in diversity of thought is what worries me.
By Chilao
June 21, 2007 12:25 PM | Link to this
Happy Summer Solstice to all my blog buddies
HSS as well. Is that why all those 420ers are at Stonehenge right now? I tried to go there, coincidentally June 21 years ago, but it was back when it was closed and had police barricades. And was advised I would only get arrested if I tried to get there. So I had a mince-meat pie in Salisbury and kept moving. LOL
If you ever get to Salem, MA, go to this place, it is run by Wiccans.
http://www.salemwitchmuseum.com/about/index.shtml
And I don’t know why they came out with 420, 515 makes alot more sense to me. But then I am not in high school anymore.
By lozen
June 21, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this
Oh yes Mara & Chilao, Happy Solstice and Blessed Be. Much abundance and many blessings to all. Anybody going to Pride this weekend? It’s gonna be sizzling out there so the water guns will be welcome! SusieHM, I think you’ve made your point very well also. Netbanker, you are a very, very bad boy and I love it…your early post this morning.
By Chilao
June 21, 2007 12:59 PM | Link to this
Happy Solstice, Lozen.
Love Lovelyliz’s 11:56. That is probably the real point.
By SusieHomeMaker
June 21, 2007 1:12 PM | Link to this
Monkey: To repeat myself, This is what I stated in my previous comments:
The Supreme Court MUST reflect the constitution as its written but it must also reflect the people of the US.
These are the cases I cited and the reasoning behind why I cited them in the first place.
Dredd Vs. Sanford (AKA “Dred Scott Decision”, was a lawsuit, pivotal in the history of the United States, decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1857 that ruled that people of African descent, whether or not they were slaves, could never be citizens of the United States, and that Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories) Basically this point of view upheld by the Supreme Court, (remember Slavery is not addressed in any Articles Of The Constitution; however a contradiction appears in the Bill of Rights which state that “all men are created equal”), was a broad interpretation that states that the Africans residing in America, whether slaves or free, could not become United States citizens and the plaintiff (Dredd) therefore lacked the capacity to file a lawsuit. And YES there was an ammendment to overturn this decision (The 13th and 14th), however the decision was made BEFORE the Constitution was ammendment. Hence your arguement that *I also would invite you to investigate judicial tradition where the courts rule as narrowly as possible so as to specifically avoid “re-interpretation” and to not to upset or contradict existing law,” is naive in the extreme. If that was the case certain laws that are in effect now, Roe vs. Wade; Brown v Board of Education; etc., would not BE A LAW; because the Supreme Court avoided “upsetting” existing law.
You asked for the relevance of the cases cited, per your comment of None of those other cases you mention qualify as the court changing its interpretation absent a constitutional change. Please continue reading below:
Dred Scott and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld Currently, the War on Terrorism, post-9/11 and illegal combatants captured in resulting conflicts and extraordinary renditions (many of whom are held in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp and other sites), the Scott case has been echoed in that the habeas corpus rights are not granted to the captured, therefore not providing them the constitutional protections which would otherwise apply.
In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the military commissions set up to rule over captured prisoners were illegal with respect to United States’ Constitution, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other laws, international law and the Geneva Convention.
The case upheld meant that Hamdan had still to be tried either in a court, a military court-martial or possibly a commission that has court-like protections. This meant that enemy combatants’ habeas petitions were within the jurisdiction of applicable courts.
The ruling also addressed the scope of President’s powers to convene a military commission, the idea of which stands against Third Geneva Convention Article 3, which stipulates being tried in a “regularly constituted court” as one of minimal protections to combatants “in the territory” of a signatory. The created military commission did not meet the requirements and could not be used to try Hamdan.
The Supreme Court upheld that the President did not have the right to convene such commissions, effectively reversing itself on the Dredd Scott earlier ruling in the 1800s.
By Monkey
June 21, 2007 1:17 PM | Link to this
Mara, Lozen & Archie:
I am perplexed at how you conclude that Susie has made her “point”. Susie believes that the SCOTUS will modify its interpretation of law over time. I’m not really debating that. What I contest is that the list of cases that she has provided actually substantiate her argument. Outside of Brown, they do not. In the simplest terms, I contest her methodology far more than her conclusion.
I am arguing that the SCOTUS owes no duty to our individual views, which both Susie and Diane seem to imply. The only thing Susie has said in response is that SCOTUS sometimes changes its interpretation of the law, and argues it poorly. That’s not really a fulsome response as it relates to the SCOTUS reflecting or understanding our views. Do any of you have anything of substance to add?
By SusieHomeMaker
June 21, 2007 1:22 PM | Link to this
Miranda vs Arizona: Miranda is NOT a case of the Justices reversing an opinion. It was listed to reflect my assertion that the court MUST reflect the constitution as its written but it must also reflect the people of the US.
As you know in the Miranda case, the case comes down to this fundamental question: What is the role of the police in protecting the rights of the accused, as guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution? The Fifth Amendment states that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself… .” The Sixth Amendment states that, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right … to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.” The Supreme Court of the United States had made previous attempts to deal with these issues. In Brown v. Mississippi (1936), the Court had ruled that the Fifth Amendment protected individuals from being forced to confess. In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the Court held that persons accused of felonies have a fundamental right to an attorney, even if they cannot afford one. In 1964, after Miranda’s arrest, the Court ruled that when an accused person is denied the right to consult with his attorney, his or her Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated (Escobedo v. Illinois).
The Miranda case reflects the will of the people of the United States, to fair and equitable treatment hence its inclusion on my list.
By buy generic viagra
June 21, 2007 1:25 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By buy generic viagra
June 21, 2007 1:26 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By buy generic viagra
June 21, 2007 1:27 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By Mara
June 21, 2007 1:29 PM | Link to this
lovelyliz - good point that cuts right to the chase.
Chilao - LOL! Yeah, that’s why the earth chil’dens are partyin’ at the Henge. Always wanted to go. Maybe one day…
Hey lozen! You tricked me with the monk story. I was expecting a punchline, not a message. But it was a good story.
By SusieHomeMaker
June 21, 2007 2:04 PM | Link to this
Luther vs. Borden: (AKA as the “Right Of The People To Establish Forms of Government) Synopis: The litigants involved alleged acts of trespass committed by state militiamen seeking to arrest a man accused of treason against the state of Rhode Island. The militiamen claimed exemption from such suits because the legislature had proclaimed martial law over the entire state in the summer of 1842 in order to prevent revolution. Martin Luther responded that the proclamation of martial law had no validity because the government itself had been changed by a vote of the people some six months earlier in January 1842. Therefore, the militiamen had acted solely as individuals who took the law into their own hands, thereby violating the rights of property assured to all by the Constitution of the United States and the laws of Rhode Island derived from the English common law.
The justices opinions on this were ,No one, we believe,” the Chief Justice intoned rhetorically, “has ever doubted the proposition, that, according to the institutions of this country, the sovereignty in every State resides in the people of the State, and that they may alter and change their form of government at their pleasure.” But when and if the people of a state exercised that power remained for them to decide, not for courts. “It is the province of a court to expound the law, not to make it. And certainly it is no part of the judicial functions … to prescribe the qualifications of voters … nor has it the right to determine what political privileges the citizens of a State are entitled to, unless there is a constitution or law to govern its decisions.” Such matters belonged legitimately to the people to decide, within the limits assigned by the national Constitution.
Basically stating that the state government had declared martial law altered nothing, in Taney’s view. After all, the power “to meet the peril of armed resistance to authority,” a power “essential to the preservation of order and free institutions,” accrued to “the States of this Union as to any other government.” Nothing was clearer. “If the government of Rhode Island deemed armed resistance so formidable, and so ramified throughout the State, as to require use of its military force and the declaration of martial law, we see no ground upon which this court can question its authority.” Once the state government made that determination, “it was a state of war; and the established government resorted to the rights and usages of war to maintain itself, and to overcome unlawful opposition.” Justice Taney’s ruling allowed existing governments to destroy political opposition by discovering a crisis and proclaiming martial law for the duration.
This precedent upheld states rights, HOWEVER it also opened the door for the people of Rhode Island by also stating when the people have once established a government, it is the legitimate government with all its limitations, and that no new government can be introduced except under the provisions of an act of legislation by the existing government. Hearing this the people of Rhode Island constructed a new constitution in November, 1842, and was adopted by the people, Nov. 21-23, and went into operation in May, 1843.
This case was also used by me to support my claim that The Supreme Court MUST reflect the constitution as its written but it must also reflect the people of the US.
By SusieHomeMaker
June 21, 2007 2:07 PM | Link to this
The only thing Susie has said in response is that SCOTUS sometimes changes its interpretation of the law, and argues it poorly. That’s not really a fulsome response as it relates to the SCOTUS reflecting or understanding our views.
Monkey: Were you one of those kids who’d get mad at the other kids if their team won and yours didn’t; so you’d take your bat and ball away and go home? Somehow, it just seems like you’d be that kid……
By SusieHomeMaker
June 21, 2007 2:10 PM | Link to this
Susie believes that the SCOTUS will modify its interpretation of law over time. I’m not really debating that.
For the record, YES you were; but when you were proven wrong, you, amazingly, seem to forget what you’ve said previously. If you’d like, I can cut and paste it for you……
By Mara
June 21, 2007 2:24 PM | Link to this
yaaaawwwwwn
By Bill
June 21, 2007 2:33 PM | Link to this
lovelyliz—“Diversity of opinion” sounds like a great idea until you consider Supreme Court decisions like the recent eminent domain debacle. Basically, David Souter and the other Lib Justices on the SC changed the standard by which the government can forcibly take away your property and redevelop it from public use to public good. The phrase “public use” is clear in referring to the building of roads and schools. The phrase “public good” is nebulous, and opens the door for commercial developers to “convince” local governments that taking away your property and redeveloping it so that more property taxes are generated is the only civic thing to do. I understand thousands of people have already been screwed out of their properties via this new ruling. Pretty scary to me.
So, can any Libs here explain how Souter, et.al. were able to change the clear wording of the Constitution like that? They must have consulted Clinton’s lawyers. I mean, exactly just what is the meaning of the word is?
By Bill
June 21, 2007 2:37 PM | Link to this
yaaaawwwwwn
So, Mara, are you and your hubby coming to the big Wiccan Solstice celebration tonight? It’s clothing optional, of course. Should give me a good start on my research project with NetB.
Of course, the 4th of July North Georgia Boogie is the biggie, the Mother of all Meltdowns.
By Archie
June 21, 2007 2:47 PM | Link to this
If the debate between SusieH and Monkey had been a fight the referee would have stopped it long ago and declared SusieH the winner by knockout. Without even being a lawyer SusieH has won and the thing is she has defended her original point. The idea that only one case supports SusieH is enough to make her win the debate. Then Mara posts where 33 precedents have been overturned. Come on, sometimes we lose debates or simple arguments and we have to move on. My attitude about partial birth abortion changed as a result of a debate on this blog and a lady named Jennifer corrected me on my usage of the word skewed. Sometimes it’s better for one to admit that you don’t know everything and move on, because you may win the next debate. Shanti has won some debates in my opinion and Diane has won other debates but neither one has to lose face.
By Bill
June 21, 2007 2:49 PM | Link to this
My new motto: Never grow up! What do you think, Susie?
By Bill
June 21, 2007 3:00 PM | Link to this
Monkey—Here’s a tribute to you:
I’m a fleabit peanut monkey All my friends are junkies That’s not really true I’m a cold Italian pizza I could use a lemon squeezer Would you do?
But I’ve been bit and I’ve been tossed around By every she-rat in this town Have you, babe? Well, I am just a monkey man I’m glad you are a monkey woman too
I was bitten by a boar I was gouged and I was gored But I pulled it on through Yes, I’m a sack of broken eggs I always have an unmade bed Don’t you?
Well, I hope we’re not too messianic Or a trifle too satanic We love to play the blues Well I am just a monkey man I’m glad you are a monkey, monkey woman too, babe I’m a monkey man I’m a monkey…
By viagra uk
June 21, 2007 3:03 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By viagra uk
June 21, 2007 3:06 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By viagra uk
June 21, 2007 3:07 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By buy cheap viagra
June 21, 2007 4:39 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By buy cheap viagra
June 21, 2007 4:40 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By buy cheap viagra
June 21, 2007 4:41 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By buy viagra generic
June 21, 2007 6:18 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By buy viagra generic
June 21, 2007 6:21 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By buy viagra generic
June 21, 2007 6:22 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By viagra prescription
June 21, 2007 8:25 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By viagra prescription
June 21, 2007 8:28 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By viagra prescription
June 21, 2007 8:33 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By online viagra
June 21, 2007 10:07 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By online viagra
June 21, 2007 10:07 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By online viagra
June 21, 2007 10:09 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By viagra generic
June 21, 2007 11:38 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By viagra generic
June 21, 2007 11:38 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By viagra generic
June 21, 2007 11:42 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By viagra discount
June 22, 2007 1:28 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By viagra discount
June 22, 2007 1:28 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By viagra discount
June 22, 2007 1:31 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By buy cialis
June 22, 2007 3:33 AM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By generic cialis
June 22, 2007 5:00 AM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By generic cialis
June 22, 2007 5:00 AM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By cheap cialis
June 22, 2007 6:41 AM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By cheap cialis
June 22, 2007 6:42 AM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By cheap cialis
June 22, 2007 6:44 AM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By cialis soft tab
June 22, 2007 8:52 AM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By cialis soft tab
June 22, 2007 8:57 AM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By morgan-lynn griggs lamberth
June 22, 2007 9:52 AM | Link to this
It was Justice Kennedy who voted with the other four in the infamous Florida case! We expect the two Pres. Bush appointees to be reactionaries, but his is the pivotal vote now that Justice O’Connor is no longer there.Most Americans want fairness,not reactionism.They appreciate our Nanny State and want it bettered.They also want efficiency and getting the taxpayer’s worth.Preds. Reagan and Bush have tried to enter the fairy land of laissey-faire, the known dystopia.Our constitution of liberty with our dedication to it have kept us from the road to serfdom.Reagan had the impeachable Iran-Contra conspiracy and Bush has his disastrous war in Iraq and furthermore, thereby hurting the one in Afghanistan.Fortunately,the courts so far have kept Cheney-Bush from more encroachmnents on our liberties.The best government is one that protects liberties and administers the general welfare.If libertarians value liberty, they had better hope for a great Democratic victory in 08! The Supreme Court is at stake and so our liberties!Would we had another O’Connnor! Some more female justices are in order: ones who know the value of liberty and fairness.Activist judges is just a buzz word for reactionism.Liberals protect the constitution.Some conservatives like Bob Barr agree with the ACLU about some rights. I hope that someone like its leader Nadine Strossen would become a Supreme Court Justice!
By cialis cheap
June 22, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By lozen
June 22, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this
TGIF, it’s Friday and time for jokes: A man ran through a crowded train looking very agitated, calling out, “Is there a Catholic priest on board?” When he got no reply, he ran back up the train shouting, “Is there an Anglican priest on board?” Still no reply. By now becoming more desparate, he ran down the train shouting, “Is there a Rabbi on board?” Eventually, a gentleman stood up and said, “Can I be of any assistance, my friend? I’m a Methodist minister.” The man looked at him and said, “No, you’re no bloody good. I need a corkscrew!”
By cialis cheap
June 22, 2007 11:06 AM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By cialis cheap
June 22, 2007 11:07 AM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By morgan-lynn griggs lamberth
June 22, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this
Well, what kind of female justices do others want?
By Ms. Obvious
June 22, 2007 12:06 PM | Link to this
Well, what kind of female justices do others want?
The kind that won’t act like A D-CK! LOL!
By cialis soft
June 22, 2007 1:11 PM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By cialis soft
June 22, 2007 1:11 PM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By cialis soft
June 22, 2007 1:18 PM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By discount cialis
June 22, 2007 3:30 PM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By discount cialis
June 22, 2007 3:38 PM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By discount cialis
June 22, 2007 3:42 PM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By cheapest cialis
June 22, 2007 5:03 PM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By cheapest cialis
June 22, 2007 5:13 PM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By cheapest cialis
June 22, 2007 5:20 PM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By buy levitra
June 22, 2007 6:58 PM | Link to this
cheap@levitra.com
By buy levitra
June 22, 2007 7:07 PM | Link to this
cheap@levitra.com
By buy levitra
June 22, 2007 7:10 PM | Link to this
cheap@levitra.com
By buy levitra
June 22, 2007 7:12 PM | Link to this
cheap@levitra.com
By cheap levitra
June 22, 2007 9:31 PM | Link to this
cheap@levitra.com
By cheap levitra
June 22, 2007 9:41 PM | Link to this
cheap@levitra.com
By cheap levitra
June 22, 2007 9:42 PM | Link to this
cheap@levitra.com
By cheap levitra
June 22, 2007 9:44 PM | Link to this
cheap@levitra.com
By generic levitra
June 22, 2007 11:07 PM | Link to this
cheap@levitra.com
By generic levitra
June 22, 2007 11:16 PM | Link to this
cheap@levitra.com
By generic levitra
June 22, 2007 11:22 PM | Link to this
cheap@levitra.com
By order levitra
June 23, 2007 12:54 AM | Link to this
cheap@levitra.com
By order levitra
June 23, 2007 1:05 AM | Link to this
cheap@levitra.com
By order levitra
June 23, 2007 1:07 AM | Link to this
cheap@levitra.com
By order levitra
June 23, 2007 1:11 AM | Link to this
cheap@levitra.com
By buy viagra
June 23, 2007 3:19 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By buy viagra
June 23, 2007 3:30 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By buy viagra
June 23, 2007 3:34 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By buy viagra
June 23, 2007 3:44 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By generic viagra
June 23, 2007 6:13 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By generic viagra
June 23, 2007 6:25 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By generic viagra
June 23, 2007 6:33 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By generic viagra
June 23, 2007 6:36 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By cheap viagra
June 23, 2007 9:15 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By cheap viagra
June 23, 2007 9:26 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By cheap viagra
June 23, 2007 9:31 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By cheap viagra
June 23, 2007 9:40 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By discount viagra
June 23, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By discount viagra
June 23, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By discount viagra
June 23, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By buy generic viagra
June 23, 2007 2:21 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By buy generic viagra
June 23, 2007 2:30 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By buy generic viagra
June 23, 2007 2:32 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By buy generic viagra
June 23, 2007 2:35 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By purchase viagra
June 23, 2007 4:03 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By purchase viagra
June 23, 2007 4:12 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By purchase viagra
June 23, 2007 4:13 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By purchase viagra
June 23, 2007 4:19 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By buy cheap viagra
June 23, 2007 6:13 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By buy cheap viagra
June 23, 2007 6:25 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By buy cheap viagra
June 23, 2007 6:29 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By buy cheap viagra
June 23, 2007 6:32 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By buy viagra uk
June 23, 2007 8:43 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By buy viagra uk
June 23, 2007 8:51 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By buy viagra uk
June 23, 2007 8:58 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By buy viagra uk
June 23, 2007 9:06 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By online viagra
June 23, 2007 11:51 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By online viagra
June 24, 2007 12:00 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By online viagra
June 24, 2007 12:06 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By online viagra
June 24, 2007 12:14 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By prescription viagra
June 24, 2007 3:47 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By prescription viagra
June 24, 2007 4:03 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By prescription viagra
June 24, 2007 4:12 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By prescription viagra
June 24, 2007 4:21 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By viagra generic
June 24, 2007 5:48 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By viagra generic
June 24, 2007 5:57 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By viagra generic
June 24, 2007 5:58 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By viagra generic
June 24, 2007 6:02 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By viagra discount
June 24, 2007 7:23 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By viagra discount
June 24, 2007 7:32 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By viagra discount
June 24, 2007 7:34 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By viagra discount
June 24, 2007 7:37 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By buy cialis
June 24, 2007 9:00 AM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By buy cialis
June 24, 2007 9:08 AM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By buy cialis
June 24, 2007 9:11 AM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By buy cialis
June 24, 2007 9:16 AM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By generic cialis
June 24, 2007 10:51 AM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By generic cialis
June 24, 2007 11:02 AM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By generic cialis
June 24, 2007 11:05 AM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By generic cialis
June 24, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By cheap cialis
June 24, 2007 12:57 PM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By cheap cialis
June 24, 2007 1:07 PM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By cheap cialis
June 24, 2007 1:08 PM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By cheap cialis
June 24, 2007 1:13 PM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By cialis discount
June 24, 2007 2:35 PM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By cialis discount
June 24, 2007 2:42 PM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By cialis discount
June 24, 2007 2:45 PM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By cialis cheap
June 24, 2007 4:38 PM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By cialis cheap
June 24, 2007 4:49 PM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By cialis cheap
June 24, 2007 4:51 PM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By cialis cheap
June 24, 2007 4:55 PM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By cialis soft
June 24, 2007 6:58 PM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By cialis soft
June 24, 2007 7:07 PM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By cialis soft
June 24, 2007 7:12 PM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By cialis soft
June 24, 2007 7:18 PM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By discount cialis
June 24, 2007 9:43 PM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By discount cialis
June 24, 2007 9:54 PM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By discount cialis
June 24, 2007 9:58 PM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By discount cialis
June 24, 2007 10:12 PM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By cialis generic
June 25, 2007 1:08 AM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By cialis generic
June 25, 2007 1:20 AM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By cialis generic
June 25, 2007 1:26 AM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By cialis generic
June 25, 2007 1:37 AM | Link to this
cheap@cialis.com
By buy levitra
June 25, 2007 5:43 AM | Link to this
cheap@levitra.com
By buy levitra
June 25, 2007 5:51 AM | Link to this
cheap@levitra.com
By buy levitra
June 25, 2007 6:04 AM | Link to this
cheap@levitra.com
By cheap levitra
June 25, 2007 7:38 AM | Link to this
cheap@levitra.com
By cheap levitra
June 25, 2007 7:47 AM | Link to this
cheap@levitra.com
By cheap levitra
June 25, 2007 7:48 AM | Link to this
cheap@levitra.com
By cheap levitra
June 25, 2007 7:55 AM | Link to this
cheap@levitra.com
By Abba
June 25, 2007 8:50 AM | Link to this
New topic, please.
By generic levitra
June 25, 2007 9:16 AM | Link to this
cheap@levitra.com
By generic levitra
June 25, 2007 9:25 AM | Link to this
cheap@levitra.com
By Mara
June 25, 2007 9:27 AM | Link to this
well, well, well. Either Diane and Shaunti have run out of irrelevant topic, their tech intern didn’t get the columns posted, the dog ate their assignment, or they’ve gone on vacation. Any wagers on which one it is?
How about THIS for a topic…Dick Cheney insists that the Office of the Vice-President is NOT part of the executive branch and thus not governed by rules and oversight of that branch.
LOL!! We now have FOUR branches of government - the Executive, the Legislative, the Judicial…and Dick Cheney. :^)
By generic levitra
June 25, 2007 9:27 AM | Link to this
cheap@levitra.com
By generic levitra
June 25, 2007 9:31 AM | Link to this
cheap@levitra.com
By NetBanker
June 25, 2007 9:58 AM | Link to this
Hey kids! Hope everyone had a good weekend and survived the heat!
Actually, Mara I was quite surprised to learn that VP Cheney is correct. The office of VP is NOT part of the executive branch and the VP is not subject to direct orders of the President. Additionally, the VP’s and his staff’s salaries are paid by the Legislative Branch. It seems as though the concept of VP was late in the game during the framing of our government to the point that it was almost an oversight until someone pointed out that a line of succession was needed rather than force an election in the event of an untimely death of the sitting President. One more little factoid is that the only way to remove a VP is impeachment. He or she can not be dismissed by the President.
So at this point my sentiment is ‘Long live W’ because the alternative scares the heebie jeebies outta me!!
By NetBanker
June 25, 2007 10:12 AM | Link to this
Oh…just had a quick thought though about Cheney NOT being part of the Executive Branch. I would question hard whether this pronouncement should preclude the VP from claiming executive privilege in the Energy Commission inquiry. As you will recall, the V.P. claimed that executive privilege extends to him for those energy meetings due to being an advisor to the President and therefore he does not need to turn over records of who attended which meeting and what was discussed. While the two may be mutually exclusive ideas, it does seem somewhat logical that one can’t claim executive privilege AND claim not be part of the executive branch. It feels like playing both sides of the same card…which may turn out to be technically true and therefore legal…but is it right?
By Chilao
June 25, 2007 10:17 AM | Link to this
‘Long live W’, well, until Fall, 2008 anyway. LOL
Actually have two friends, politically very different, in different parts of the country and they do not know each other, who seriously think GW will seize power around then, declare martial law. They are keeping their fingers crossed.
Diane and Shaunti may also be burned out on creating these types of topics for the masses. Another option is that they both have decided that creating controversy in the form of Red/Blue, Liberal/Conservative is counter-productive to a cohesive country. Okay, I jest.
By Mara
June 25, 2007 10:19 AM | Link to this
Hi Net.
Evidently Congress doesn’t know that because they think they’ve been funding the VP office through Executive Appropriations.
“Following Vice President Dick Cheney’s assertion that his office is not a part of the executive branch of the US government, Democratic Caucus Chairman Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) plans to introduce an amendment to the the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill to cut funding for Cheney’s office.”
“The amendment to the bill that sets the funding for the executive branch will be considered next week in the House of Representatives.”
“The Vice President has a choice to make. If he believes his legal case, his office has no business being funded as part of the executive branch,” said Emanuel in a statement released to RAW STORY. “However, if he demands executive branch funding he cannot ignore executive branch rules. At the very least, the Vice President should be consistent. This amendment will ensure that the Vice President’s funding is consistent with his legal arguments.”
Can you tell me where you learned about the funding thing? I would really like to look it over and maybe pass it on…
By Chilao
June 25, 2007 10:33 AM | Link to this
A third friend has on his office door, (a standalone cottage in his back yard): True Patriots Dissent.
By Topic Change
June 25, 2007 10:39 AM | Link to this
Another pregnant woman has been murdered by a boyfriend/ husband. How many is that this month? This week? The last few days? This new creep has a history of violence & stalking, he is also a police officer. How nice.
How and why do boys grow into wife-beaters & murderers? There is a definite hatred/contempt for women by abusers. Is it as common for men to get angry at their car and take a bat to it as it is for a man to hit his wife? I believe our culture perpetuates a hatred for women and some men respond by taking it to extremes. Of course our culture doesn’t perpetuate the hatred of all women all of the time, but the message is strong enough. Conventionally beautiful women are valued a great deal as long as they serve their purpose. A beautiful woman’s purpose of course is to please a man and the man who is rejected by her can become enraged (regardless of how he measures up to society’s standards) because of his sense of entitlement. The same goes for a man who feels entitled to having his dinner prepared for him and his house kept by a woman. Behind the abusers I’m pretty confident you will find very rigid, patriarchal gender roles. I believe gender roles are the cause/origins of domestic violence. Children are exposed to TV, movies & music that glamorize it. Police departments hire known abusers. What do you think?
By order levitra
June 25, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this
cheap@levitra.com
By order levitra
June 25, 2007 11:02 AM | Link to this
cheap@levitra.com
By order levitra
June 25, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this
cheap@levitra.com
By order levitra
June 25, 2007 11:07 AM | Link to this
cheap@levitra.com
By Mara
June 25, 2007 11:08 AM | Link to this
Chilao - nice quote with which I sincerely concur. One of my faves is Teddy Roosevelt saying, “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
But, as you know, a lot of people disagree with that (mostly from the Republican party) and pride themselves on being “loyal” to the king…er…I mean, to the President and his policies.
By Mommy is Scared
June 25, 2007 11:11 AM | Link to this
Hello “Topic Change”, pregnancy is dangerous in so many ways, isn’t it? After the Laci Peterson media circus, I read that law enforcement agencies were beginning to note Preggie murders for as yet unkept statistics. Numbers weren’t kept because it was so common for women to be whacked by significant others. Now with advancements in forensics and the news-tainment value of such deaths, we are becoming more aware of just how dangerous it is to be pregnant when the man would rather not be responsible.
My first child was an unplanned surprise, so I guess I should consider myself lucky that he decided to offer support money instead of strapping weights on my swollen ankles and dropping me into the ocean. THANKS, Baby’Daddy!!! You’re the BEST!!!
By Chilao
June 25, 2007 11:40 AM | Link to this
Mara, man, that’s a good one from TeddyR, about to send it to my True Patriots Dissent friend.
By http://lexaworld.info/weather-and-temperatures/index.html
June 25, 2007 12:21 PM | Link to this
http://lexaworld.info/weather-and-temperatures/index.html
By buy viagra
June 25, 2007 12:39 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By buy viagra
June 25, 2007 12:48 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By buy viagra
June 25, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By buy viagra
June 25, 2007 12:55 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By Mara
June 25, 2007 1:19 PM | Link to this
Chilao - I’m honored! :^)
By Mara
June 25, 2007 2:13 PM | Link to this
did any of you read the article about the dad who killed the bear with a peice of firewood over the Fathers Day weekend?
Evidently he was camping with his three boys and a mother bear came up and started dragging away their improperly stored cooler of food. Instead of letting it take the food and waiting quietly until the sow left, one of the idiot children ran at it brandishing a shovel. Naturally the bear decided that live prey running right into her mouth was more interesting than a cooler of cold-cuts, so she went to meet him, growling with anticipation. Right about this time the father whipped up a peice of firewood and bashed the bear in the head, killing it.
Sad, sad, sad. Had the brat not attacked the bear she would most likely have gone off to feed and the wildlife officers could have darted her, found her cubs and perhaps relocated her. Instead the father is hailed as some kind of hero for killing the animal that his kid provoked, leaving the cubs motherless and probably killing them too.
By NetBanker
June 25, 2007 2:33 PM | Link to this
They are keeping their fingers crossed. Crossed that he does declare marshall law or crossed that he won’t?
Mara…I heard about it on Neal Boortz’s show. One of his interns did the research. I’ve checked out Wikipedia and from the skim of the Constitution it does seem to establish the office of VP as part of the Executive Branch. I’m sure there must be other writings that I don’t have time to research or I’m not structuring my query in a way that is returning the desired results.
By generic viagra
June 25, 2007 2:46 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By NetBanker
June 25, 2007 2:53 PM | Link to this
I read that story too and had something of the same reaction. While I was impressed that the man hit the bear with enough force and the right was to kill it, I thought that the must have been another way to scare the bear off. Turns out the man received a citation for improperly storing food which is what attracted the bear in the first place.
By Chilao
June 25, 2007 2:54 PM | Link to this
haha , how about crossed that he won’t? LOL
By generic viagra
June 25, 2007 2:56 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By generic viagra
June 25, 2007 3:00 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By generic viagra
June 25, 2007 3:03 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By Archie
June 25, 2007 3:09 PM | Link to this
I side with the father on the bear story. It wasn’t the bear’s food to take in the first place and second a human is more important than a bear. Frankly the Dad is lucky to be alive. As for the woman allegedly killed by her boyfriend I wonder how much consideration did she have for the wife. I mean you have two children by someone else’s husband and no one questions your values? My line of conversation will be criticized but you have murderer/cheater and dead person/cheater. We already know the guy is straight up wrong if he killed the woman and we already know the guy is wrong for cheating on his wife, but why is it so hard to say to women you’re wrong for messing with someone else’s husband and you are contributing to the hurt of the wife? I only brought up that line of conversation because of an earlier post by “topic change”. The creep had other women on the side which makes me ask again did any of them care about the wife or was it all about me,myself, and I? There are plenty of good single guys available and they are fertile and want to marry.
By Archie
June 25, 2007 3:15 PM | Link to this
Turns out the man received a citation for improperly storing food which is what attracted the bear in the first place.
I have nothing against bears Netbanker but that explains why the bear was there. I did not know that before I posted earlier. I do agree with While I was impressed that the man hit the bear with enough force and the right was to kill it
By myspace backgrounds
June 25, 2007 3:32 PM | Link to this
cool site:) tnx for good work admin!myspace backgroundsmyspace codesmyspace editormyspace graphicsmyspace quizzes pictures
By Mara
June 25, 2007 4:05 PM | Link to this
Archie -
1) my issue was with making the guy out as some kind of hero when it was his kid attacking the bear, NOT the bear attacking them that led to its death. The bear was just being a bear, where bears are allowed to be, doing what bears do…find food. The poor thing died because some snot-nosed kid attacked it and it defended itself.
2) Do we know that the girlfriend knew he had a wife? I’ve met some smooth-talking guys in my life who didn’t mention that other girlfriend, some that said they were breaking up, some who said the woman was crazy and he couldn’t leave, some with the “I’ll never see my babies again…” story, etc.
Maybe we women are crazy to give y’all the benefit of a doubt. Maybe we should assume the worst about every guy…but it could be that we really do believe that, for the most part, people are decent and one or two mistakes shouldn’t bar you from finding love. Even so, just because a woman is blind in love, stupid, trusting, naive, or whatever…blaming the victim for being murdered by someone they trusted…I dunno. Just doesn’t seem right.
anyhooo. Later taters :^)
By kimberly
June 25, 2007 4:06 PM | Link to this
Geeeeeezusss Aiche, Archie! Seriously. Guys like that hit on single women who appear to be lonely, vulnerable, and likely to be swayed by charm, caring overtures, and stories of the horrible wife that doesn’t understand him. If I had a dollar for every married guy that came WHINING to me about his mean ol’ selfish wife….. Goodlordhavemercy! I’m older and smart enough now to send them packing on the first chorus, (and I hear it weekly at least) but that was a lesson hard learned, ‘cause guess what? They’re not always forthcoming about their marital status (legal or regarding the relationship) in the beginning. But yeah, go ahead and malign the dead girl if it makes YOU feel superior. They said she was warm, sweet and always smiling; they never said she was blessed with the brains to be cynical in her 20’s… Geeeezussss Aiche again, don’t miss a chance to wave that finger in someone’s FACE!!!
By Anonymous
June 25, 2007 4:07 PM | Link to this
P** off a bear, and a mauling is the least you deserve. Let Darwin work his magic.
By Archie
June 25, 2007 4:25 PM | Link to this
Mara and Kimberly, I didn’t blame the victim but I figured someone would say I did. I brought up that conversation because of the generalized bashing of men that we see each time something happens. I know we men lie but just once I would like see a woman apologize to the spouse not in person but in a way that the spouse can hear it. I have women in my life at all levels so no one deserves death for a bad choice. My conversation is about why don’t women have as much sympathy for other women in relationships??
By Lily Toad
June 25, 2007 4:25 PM | Link to this
The AJC yesterday had the lame question for our beloved commentators — something like: “Progress vs. Protection?” (literally — it was not a full sentence question) and abridged versions of their answers. Shaunti had the unpleasant prospect of defending Wal-Mart disturbing gopher turtles. I’m serious!!
By cheap viagra
June 25, 2007 4:36 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By cheap viagra
June 25, 2007 4:46 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By kimberly
June 25, 2007 4:48 PM | Link to this
why don’t women have as much sympathy for other women in relationships??
Okay Archie, I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt here. I have seen women whose husbands left them for the girlfriend (pain to the wife), and I’ve seen married men whose wives stay and look away while he makes promises all over town he has no intention of keeping (pain to the girlfriends). Usually, the wife gets the holidays, the yard work, the credit cards, and oh yeah, his name for the babies. Usually, the girlfriend gets d—k. Maybe the GF is a single mom or working poor, and she’s thrilled to get a few financial crumbs from her sweet-talking hero held captive by a wicked wife. Sometimes good wives get screwed over too.
Any woman will tell you we’ve all been there for our girlfriends in their times of pain (all kinds). Where do you get the idea that women don’t care about each other? Are you there for your male friends, slapping them on the back, buying them a beer, when they lie and manipulate their women?
By cheap viagra
June 25, 2007 4:49 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By cheap viagra
June 25, 2007 4:52 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By Darwin
June 25, 2007 4:57 PM | Link to this
It appears in this case, Darwin held a big piece of firewood.
By discount viagra
June 25, 2007 6:45 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By discount viagra
June 25, 2007 6:56 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By discount viagra
June 25, 2007 7:00 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By discount viagra
June 25, 2007 7:05 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By buy generic viagra
June 25, 2007 9:14 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By buy generic viagra
June 25, 2007 9:21 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By buy generic viagra
June 25, 2007 9:22 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By buy generic viagra
June 25, 2007 9:25 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By viagra uk
June 25, 2007 10:40 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By viagra uk
June 25, 2007 10:48 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By viagra uk
June 25, 2007 10:49 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By viagra uk
June 25, 2007 10:50 PM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By buy cheap viagra
June 26, 2007 12:04 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By buy cheap viagra
June 26, 2007 12:12 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By buy cheap viagra
June 26, 2007 12:15 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By buy cheap viagra
June 26, 2007 12:18 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By buy viagra generic
June 26, 2007 1:58 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By buy viagra generic
June 26, 2007 2:07 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By buy viagra generic
June 26, 2007 2:07 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By buy viagra generic
June 26, 2007 2:12 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By viagra prescription
June 26, 2007 3:42 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By viagra prescription
June 26, 2007 3:51 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By viagra prescription
June 26, 2007 3:52 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com
By viagra prescription
June 26, 2007 3:53 AM | Link to this
cheap@viagra.com