Comments


  • whoooooohoooooooo long ... say it like it is !!

    May 28, 2009 at 3:38 p.m.

  • Didn't you mean 65?..That's the only demographic McCain clearly won.

    May 28, 2009 at 3:12 p.m.

  • lol...Didn't Mike Huckabee call her Maria Sotomayor and some group doesn't like the fact she loves Puerto Rican food...Seems to me the GOP is sending out all the has beens ,that don't have to run for office ,to do all the dirty work....And they wonder why they a regional party.

    May 28, 2009 at 3:06 p.m.

  • Well, now some idiot is saying Sotomayor needs to change her name because it's too hard to pronounce. I'm just amazed at all this "I know I am, but what are you."
    So far as Gen Petraues, I will take the word of an O-10 over a 5 deferment draft dodger.
    Mike, if your guys aren't doing well, watch channel 25 and watch the stupid crawl about the DTV changeover every 30 minutes.
    Thought you may enjoy this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_jrll...

    May 28, 2009 at 2:45 p.m.

  • Nice words that I cannot disagree with, but “rule of law” in a lot of cases is subjective.

    I liked the makeup of the Supreme Court as is…. Four justices on the liberal side and four on the conservative side, with one swing vote. The fact that we have so many 5 -4 decisions bears that out.

    Brown vs. the Board of Education is a prime example that you cannot go by a one -sided interpretation of the United States constitution. This decision rightly overturned previous flawed interpretations.

    May 28, 2009 at 1:07 p.m.

  • Pro-political Supreme Court appointees; through consistent liberal interpretation of the constitution and reliance on liberal precedents, brings further into question the constitutionality of those decisions. The popular emphasis on “selective” rather than “pragmatic” interpretation of the United States Constitution is a cause of concern.

    Simply stated; the executive branch enforces law through deferred arbitration by authority, the legislative branch creates law through deferred arbitration by representation, and the judicial branch interprets law through deferred arbitration by constitution.

    The constitution is a contract between the citizens of this country and those delegated or appointed to “act” as their governing body. The sole purpose of the constitution was to avoid both, popular (or mob) rule and minority oppression, recognizing the destructiveness of both to civility and order.

    To alleviate a point of possible contention, I do not mean “liberal” in the political ideological sense.

    My concern is whether Supreme Court judges possess an agenda pursuant to a course, in excessive of their authority. When any branch of government exceeds their authority it places in danger the legality of our government. The United States of America’s existence is attributed to the rule of law, not whether those with the responsibility of governing act according to rule of law.

    The Constitution is the “highest representative authority” of American citizens; which empowers and restrains our governing bodies, and is not subjugated to any political ideology or popular government. Both of which only serve to undermine, or serve to bring about disorder and chaos.

    You know the old saying “The road of misery is paved with good intentions”; the country can ill afford a Supreme Court judge to be miserable. Which is why I say “rule of law” over “rule of conscious”, when interpreting the Constitution.

    May 28, 2009 at 12:47 p.m.

  • When is every1 gonna wake up and smell the crap. Its not a neo-conserv or neo-dem thing its a gov thing. What the media and gov want you to see and hear is what they want you to believe. BOTH parties are dirty and crooked. From top to bottom.

    May 28, 2009 at 7:27 a.m.

  • I know, I love watching the death spiral-except Boehner-he drives me nuts with that fake tan.

    May 27, 2009 at 5:17 p.m.