• Mike...I'm sure your brother-in-law is a nice guy. I guess even lawyers can't be ALL bad. Even rattlesnakes are good to their families. (I'd bet be got paid when he left the family thing, but I wouldn't bet much--he might be nicer than I think a lawyer can be).

    I guess the best way to illustrate is by example. Read the US Cosntitution. It is clear and concise. It is easily understood. Now read some of the US Code; the stuff written by lawyers. To really be disheartened, read the tax code and don't forget the new health care code. See what I mean? Finally, look at what lawyers have done in the name of the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't mean what it says. It now means what at least five memers of the Supreme Court (more lawyers) SAY it means, and they are not honorable enough to say it means what it says. They put their politics into the mix and decide the greatest document in the history of the world means whatever their POLITICS say it means. And lawyers think that is the way it's supposed to be. That madness makes sense to them. I guess because the more controversy they generate, the more lawsuits are created and the more billable hours they can accumulate.

    October 21, 2010 at 6:47 p.m.

  • Waywardwind

    My brother-in-law is a lawyer and I have been with him at times when he left a family gathering to help someone in need. I doubt that he got paid. He is not my personal lawyer but he helped my niece with her business law courses without being asked. He just showed up one day at my sister’s house with stacks of books and offered his services. I'm sure he's not an exception.

    I guess you can conjure up hate for lawyers without any trouble but people we revere such as doctors are not held up to the same standard. IMO…. Wall Street Bankers, hedge fund managers, oil company executives and one company(Goldman Sachs) admits they will hedge their bets against their customers but they are seldom hated as a group.

    I still think it's a noble profession and some of the hate comes from, envy, personal vendetta, painting with a broad brush, considered fashionable, or like used car salesmen, a profession some love to hate.

    Oh well ..Just my thoughts, I never had any illusions of changing your mind...:-)

    October 21, 2010 at 2:21 p.m.

  • I agree with what thewaywardwind said regarding the interpretation of the 1st amendment by O'D. The other is a Liberal spin. Same kind of spin that makes people who do not know better believe Bush and Palin are not smart. That is their tired old flap that replaces them running on their record, since they have none to run on.

    October 21, 2010 at 2:07 p.m.

  • Lawyers like buzzards are circling the mortgage defaults like fresh carrion. Their litigation will put a strangle hold on banks and other lending institutions - where this ends is not to hard to figure, it will be months, years, maybe decades of litigation. It will have a very negative effect on the economic recovery - but WTH they could give a damn.

    Just look at the abestoes litigation it has gone on for decades and shows no sign of ending. It bankrupted many innocenct firms and it has been filled with graft, corruption, kickbacks, etc.

    Lawyers are some of the wealthest people and the biggest contributors to politicians that enact overly complex, convoluted legislation that lawyers just love to feed on. Legislation that politicians don't even bother to read - it's a windfall for these parasites.

    October 21, 2010 at 12:48 p.m.

  • Actually, Mike, I agree with you completely about your interpretationof the First Amendment and the Establishment clause as far as protecting the people from government interference in their religious practices. I also agree that private prayer by individual students or a group of students getting together for prayer or meditation or whatever without school intervention is perfectly fine. I've also said many times that as long as there is algebra in school, there WILL be prayer in school. I haven't seen the clip you refer to...won't be able to unil this evening at home. Just going by what I read, I understood the controversy the other way 'round. I thought Coons was reading something into the Amendment that isn't there.

    As for as the lawyers are concerned, a great many people (myself included) believe that most lawyers are not interested in what is right, but who can pay them. Most of the people in Congress are lawyers and they only pay attention to the PACs and unions and big businesses who send them hundreds of thousands (millions) of dollars in the form of "campaign contributions" to get bills introduced and passed to benefit their "contributors." I don't know if anyone knows how many separate laws are included in the US Code, but the number is enormous. One would think that, other than mandated budget funding that we ought to have enough laws by now. There are so many that no one can possibly know and understand all of them. Lawyers write the laws so it requires the hiring of other lawyers to tell you what they mean and when a conflict arises, still more lawyers are required by both sides to litigate the conflict in front of another lawyer (the judge). The side that loses will appeal to other lawyers (appellate judges) and continue to the Supreme Court -- peopled by still more lawyers. Those of us who aren't lawyers see them as interfering with the orderly running of our lives. We see them as promoting conflict (lawsuits) in order for them to make money. We see them, regardless of political persuasion) as parasites and, much like prostitutes, willing to climb into bed with anyone who pays them. We don't see lawyers tell anyone that they don't have a case. We see them take cases and attempt to bleed the other side dry by various legal shenanigans to keep the money flowing. As an example, take a peek at the warning labels on just a simple step-ladder. Everyone of them is the result of some lawyers sueing a ladder making company because somebody did something stupid and then wanted to be paid for it. The lawyers took almost half. The most flagrant was the case several years ago of the lady who spilled hot coffee in her lap and burned herself. She would have gotten rich off McDonalds if the lawyers hadn't taken almost half. Gee, who woulda thunk it -- hot coffee will burn you and it's probably not a good idea to drive with it held between your thighs. Turned out to be a good deal for the lawyers, though.

    October 21, 2010 at 12:30 p.m.

  • I vaguely remember that case but didn't Santa Fe deliberately violate the law?..Didn't they want to take a stand?

    If I am right,how is the ACLU at fault in this case?..It seems that Santa Fe got what they wanted...The challenge.

    Perhaps I am wrong.

    October 21, 2010 at 11:55 a.m.

  • The majority opinion (6-3) stated "The majority opinion, written by Justice Stevens depended on Lee v. Weisman[2]. It held that these pre-game prayers delivered "on school property, at school-sponsored events, over the school's public address system, by a speaker representing the student body, under the supervision of school faculty, and pursuant to a school policy that explicitly and implicitly encourages public prayer" are not private, but public speech. "Regardless of the listener's support for, or objection to, the message, an objective Santa Fe High School student will unquestionably perceive the inevitable pregame prayer as stamped with her school's seal of approval."

    October 21, 2010 at 11:44 a.m.

  • I was just posting my interpretation of the establishment and the free exercise clause of the first amendment, to waywardwind.

    The know the ACLU is a right wing bogeyman but to me they are just a group of lawyers.

    Don’t complain about them; beat them in a court of law.

    I don’t mind any group challenging the constitution; it’s the only way we get answers.

    On a side note, to this day I don’t understand why conservatives hate lawyers…. I know many conservatives that just hate lawyers….. Even conservative lawyers hate lawyers.

    October 21, 2010 at 11:40 a.m.

  • In 2000, Santa Fe ISD v. Doe, the Supreme Court did push the envelope on the Establishment Clause. The students were punished because of there religious views, and the Supreme Court impeached their 1st amendments rights. That case should not have gone before the Supreme Court, and should have stayed with the 5th Circuit opinion. But that is what you get when the ACLU steps into the court room.

    October 21, 2010 at 11:27 a.m.

  • Hello Waywardwind

    Sorry if I came across too harsh but this Christine O'Donnell gets on my last nerve because she claims to be a constitutional expert but her expertise come from a 8 hour conservative think tank course she took.She is a rank amateur running for the United States senate.

    I've answered the prayer in school, religious idols on public display and the church and state issue many, many, times but it never resonates with those that are looking for an exact phrase in the constitution, to back up a claim.

    I just use court rulings to form my beliefs; not what the founders might have wanted...Groundwork:The First Amendment applies to the government — to protect individuals from government censorship ONLY...It doesn't apply to business practices.

    Prayer in school: The 1962 Engel v Vitale case ruled that state sponsored prayer in school was unconstitutional, not that prayer in school was. They basically said that it violated the establishment clause. Voluntary prayer was never outlawed but prayer cannot be coerced or seen to be coerced. A teacher (being an agent of the government in this case) cannot lead a school prayer because non Christians would be put in a position to comply. We call this " A compelling government interest — protection of children." On the other hand,In fact, a student's religious prayer cannot be singled out for punishment because they are praying. That is hostility toward religion and violates the First Amendment principle that the government may not punish or favor a particular viewpoint. The school can still maintain an order by claiming that the child is disrupting the other students.

    This is my interpretation of the establishment clause: it means that the government can not establish or favor a religion or take preference over a nonreligious sect. This is where the disagreement comes in; it's on the level of separation. Some will say that faith based initiatives in government are unconstitutional and having " in God we trust" stamped on our money is also unconstitutional but we've gotten around this, without much fanfare.

    Watch the clip KyleC provided... It describes what Coons was taught at Yale Law....Coons was describing the establishment clause and the free exercise clause...IMO

    I may have made it more confusing but this is my belief an I'm not sure if we agree or disagree....Am I wrong?

    October 21, 2010 at 9:46 a.m.

  • Mike...I guess you and I interpreted the same thing differently. The way I read it was that Coons was saying the First Amendment required a separation of church and state and O'Donnell was asking him if that's what he meant when she said "you're telling me it's in the First Amendment?"

    BTW, I KNOW you don't need a lesson in the Constitution. I was only pointing out the obvious and I still think O'D was trying to get Coons to say specifically that the First Amendment required the sepration. I didn't see it on tape so I don't know the inflections. I read it and that was the way I understood what I read.

    October 20, 2010 at 7:58 p.m.

  • Well as to the other issue a federal judge is handling...

    I seem to remember that when the health care debate was going on in congress, the failure of a person to purchase health care would result in a fine, not a tax.

    Now since the health care bill is being challenged in federal court, the fine isn't a fine at all, but a tax.

    My how terms change when the wind does not blow in the right direction.

    October 20, 2010 at 6:40 p.m.

  • Red Herrings - a list:

    1. First Amendment issues - WTH?

    2. Illegal housekeepers - yeah right go ahead and check their papers, hello lawsuit!

    3. DADT - lol.

    4. Tea Party - chuckle.

    This election is about big government and socialism period. The rest of this crap is just a way to change the subject - yep, they're red herrings all right.

    October 20, 2010 at 5:57 p.m.

  • lol

    October 20, 2010 at 4:01 p.m.

  • The Liberals have quite a slant and it goes on most of what those still watching the main stream media see.

    When a person makes a statement such as, "tea party members have no brain", "tea party members should not have graduated high school", and most recently, " they need to stay on Hannity where people don't know better," I realize that the Liberals themselves have even run out of ideas to show they belong in office. They have nothing else. This pathetic striking out that is unfortunately being bought by a small number of the ignorant is sad. They have even lost track of what makes a statement stupid. We do need a change.

    October 20, 2010 at 3:59 p.m.

  • It's not a matter of political party; it's a Federal judge's interpretation of a violation of our constitution.... The department of justice has filed an appeal.

    I think you were standing on your head when you read the poll.:-)

    Gallup May 10,2010

    A large majority of Americans (70%) continue to favor allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the military, with continued majority support from every key demographic subgroup.

    Thanks for your thoughts

    October 20, 2010 at 3:13 p.m.

  • Mike

    From my point of view, in your defense, it would be wise for your party to wait until after the elections to go through with this. I read somewhere that 70 percent of Americans do not want this repealed. That is including some of the democrats currently in office. Just a thought...

    October 20, 2010 at 3:02 p.m.

  • Hictoria

    You said that a Federal judge could not tell the military what to do(UCMJ)... I said the Federal judge ruled that DADT it's unconstitutional... That's a fact but like any other ruling, there are appeals, injunctions, noncompliance, and misinterpretations. This an ongoing battle but it's only delaying the inevitable.... The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is for repealing DADT.

    How did we get on this subject?....I usually wait a few days after the ruling.

    October 20, 2010 at 1:11 p.m.

  • waywardwind

    Take a little time, read the sentence, digest i,t and then respond because the quote you mentioned came from Maureen Dowd.... Christine O'Donnell was lobbying for Creationism being taught in school..... As I've said before, I don't argue with fundamentalist... Fundamentalist think that just because the phrase " separation of church and state " is not in the constitution,then "shall make no law restricting an establishment of church" does not apply. It's a fruitless argument.

    O'Donnell showed her ignorance yesterday, and I am amazed her followers praise her. She did it at a law school where law students laughed at her interpretation...She needs to stay on Hannity where people don't know any better.

    Believe it or not, I don't need a class on the constitution... I can read and I have a copy of in United States constitution, Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and the Federalist Papers as apps on my iPad, just in case I forget or misinterpret something... That happens quite often.

    October 20, 2010 at 12:59 p.m.


    October 20, 2010 at 12:50 p.m.

  • Mike- You need to read my post again. Oh, this is from your source.

    "The Department of Justice, however, is required to defend laws passed by Congress under most circumstances."

    That was all I was getting at. Lastly, as I said before, even if DADT is repealed, it will only make it easier for the military to get rid of gays. There are several articles in the UCMJ that could easily be used regardless of DADT.

    I rest my case as well.

    October 20, 2010 at 12:39 p.m.

  • From watching the debate it seemed that the 1st Amendment debacle arose from O'Donnell's wish to teach Creationism in the classroom.

    More to the point, why waste time on this candidate? There are other political races that are much closer and more interesting to analyze than this one.

    With that I will shut up about it!


    October 20, 2010 at 12:17 p.m.

  • The conversation between the Danbury Baptists and Jefferson seemed clear in intent:

    "Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty — That Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals — That no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious Opinions — That the legitimate Power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor..." - Danbury Baptists to Thomas Jefferson

    "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." - Jefferson to Danbury Baptists.

    October 20, 2010 at 12:15 p.m.

  • Mike...You say "It’s news to Christine O’Donnell that the Constitution guarantees separation of church and state."

    Well, pardner, it's news to me, too. The Constitution doesn't say that. It says there shall be no religious test to hold office. It says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It DOES NOT say that there is a "separation of church and state." It does not say that religious icons cannot be displayed -- even on public property. It does not say that kids cannot pray in public schools.

    O'Donnell was simply expressing here amazement that Coons thought the Constitution did in fact require such a separation.

    October 20, 2010 at noon

  • Hictoria, you made one statement about the military and the constitution and you never came back to explain your reasoning..... Now ,you move to another subject and a source but you forgot to leave an explanation..... In context, Christine O'Donnell seem surprised and the crowd mocked her her ignorance by laughing out loud.

    Can I rest my case again?

    October 20, 2010 at 11:51 a.m.

  • Not a great fan of Anderson Cooper but he pretty much disassembled O'Donnell's poor showing:

    I love the bit about her "study of the Constitution"

    October 20, 2010 at 11:44 a.m.

  • KyleC KyleC Report a ViolationReport a Violation

    "Those tea party members should not have graduated high school much less be running for office"

    Quite right, Mike!

    "When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"
    October 19, 2010 at 1:11 p.m.


    Later in the debate, O'Donnell challenged Coons to name the five freedoms of the First Amendment. He came up four freedoms short.

    October 20, 2010 at 11:40 a.m.

  • Leave it to Maureen Dowd, columnist New York Times, to put an exclamation point on it.

    From her article " Making ignorance chic"

    But now another famous beauty with glowing skin and a powerful current, Sarah Palin, has made ignorance fashionable.
    You struggle to name Supreme Court cases, newspapers you read and even founding fathers you admire? No problem. You endorse a candidate for the Pennsylvania Senate seat who is the nominee in West Virginia? Oh, well.

    At least you’re not one of those “spineless” elites with an Ivy League education, like President Obama, who can’t feel anything. It’s news to Christine O’Donnell that the Constitution guarantees separation of church and state. It’s news to Joe Miller, whose guards handcuffed a journalist, and to Carl Paladino, who threatened The New York Post’s Fred Dicker, that the First Amendment exists, even in Tea Party Land. Michele Bachmann calls Smoot-Hawley Hoot-Smalley.

    Sharron Angle sank to new lows of obliviousness when she told a classroom of Hispanic kids in Las Vegas: “Some of you look a little more Asian to me.”

    As Palin tweeted in July about her own special language adding examples from W. and Obama: “ ‘Refudiate,’ ‘misunderestimate,’ ‘wee-wee’d up.’ English is a living language. Shakespeare liked to coin new words too. Got to celebrate it!”

    I rest my case.

    October 20, 2010 at 11:27 a.m.

  • I'm surprised in the year 2010, I have to explain that Federal judges interpret the United States constitution.... Last I heard, the military and the entire population of the United States come under its jurisdiction. The judge ruled "“infringes the fundamental rights of United States service members and prospective service members” and violates their rights of due process and freedom of speech. "..... The government has 60 days to file an appeal. This will only delay the inevitable. The president is on record saying "DADT" will be repealed on his watch.

    Before we even attempt to dissect anything, why don't you do a little researching.....Start with the constitution, congressional powers, and UCMJ.

    Drop the homophobic language.

    October 20, 2010 at 10:10 a.m.

  • Let's dissect this story a little bit. First, a Federal Judge has absolutely no jurisdiction over any matters military. The military has its' own, insular judicial system. It will simply give those in the chain of command the authority to ask. Homosexuality is still prohibited by the UCMJ, and that cannot be changed by any court ruling. To modify the UCMJ would take an act of Congress. Repealing DADT will simply take the military back to the days when gays were immediately discharged, if not jailed. So, what do you think of that, all you cheering gays? Is the repeal really what you wanted?

    October 20, 2010 at 9:55 a.m.

  • Who is the sex offender running for the senate in S. Carolina?

    October 20, 2010 at 9:08 a.m.

  • Sorry, I thought you might enjoy a walk down memory lane with a look at your party favorites♣♣♣

    October 19, 2010 at 11:04 p.m.

  • Mike it is hard to argue with someone who believes that tea party candidates are all too stupid to have graduated from high school and have no brains.

    I would bet that for every whine I have uttered regarding the main stream media, I have heard two from you regarding Fox.

    You have the idea that anyone who does not believe as you do or watch the same news info is not as informed or as smart.

    It is hard to make a list of those running for office and what they say. I really don't listen. The Democrats are not running on any policy, they are dipping down to the negative about their opponent, and getting the same in return. So I went on and voted and got it over with so I don't need to even listen to any of it.

    October 19, 2010 at 9:45 p.m.

  • I wrote about 2010 ....Not the all time greatest hits.

    Reading comprehension!

    October 19, 2010 at 5:28 p.m.

  • Classic quotes from the big dog dems:
    ''It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.''
    "In 50 years there will be no North Pole in the summertime."
    -- algore on MTV's 'Choose or Lose' Town Hall Forum 9/26/2000
    (apparently global warming will cause the earth to shift on its axis)

    "We are the President"-Hillary Clinton
    "I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it"-John Kerry
    "Reporting for duty"-John Kerry
    "I never had sex with that woman, ms Lewinsky"-Bill Clinton

    October 19, 2010 at 5:17 p.m.

  • That's what I was talking about,KyleC, on one hand, there's Chris Coons ,who earned his law degree from Yale Law School and then there is Christine O'Donnell embellished resume. It shows.

    I can't figure out tea party republican candidate Joe Miller of Alaska... He has an excellent resume, like graduating from West Point with honors and he got his law degree from Yale.... Then he supports some wild libertarian views.... He is against unemployment compensation but he didn't mind his wife receiving the benefits for a part time job in HIS office but he is a hypocrite at best.

    October 19, 2010 at 1:42 p.m.

  • Hictoria

    I we will be willing to bet Obamacare will not be repealed because it takes 2/3 majority to override a presidential veto...They are going to have to win really big...NOT

    The fact that "Don't ask Don't tell" does not need congressional approval is a good thing..Now, the military is unable to enforce DADT.

    The midterm elections will probably give the house back to the republicans but now they have to govern because obstruction will not work.... Yea, back to reality it's the democrats turn to say no, assuring president Obama another four years.

    October 19, 2010 at 1:18 p.m.

  • "Those tea party members should not have graduated high school much less be running for office"

    Quite right, Mike!

    "When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"

    October 19, 2010 at 1:11 p.m.

  • jbj
    My challenge stands....And whining about the mainstream media is getting pretty lame.

    The context Nancy Pelosi's statement is not crazy and I've explained it but have it your way.

    Again, in the year of 2010 the Republican Party has the corner on stupid idiotic statements. Prove me wrong.

    Those tea party members should not have graduated high school much less be running for office ; yet their supporters vote for them. I'ts not about brainstorming because they don't have a brain and if they think anymore outside the box; they will be in another galaxy.

    You can apologize for them all you wan,t but I will take the most staunch conservative republican before I will the less intelligent.

    October 19, 2010 at 1:08 p.m.

  • oops still don't have it right. Sontany

    October 19, 2010 at 12:49 p.m.

  • Democrats lose house and majority of senate. DADT is denied. Obamacare repealed. AHHHHHHHHH back to reality...

    October 19, 2010 at 12:48 p.m.

  • Acually it was not Baird, but Janis Baird Sotany who made the comment. I knew it didn't look right, just couldn't see what was off. I put the comment because I thought it was kind of funny. Someone even commented that it was good that a person's sex should not determine how they vote.

    The mainstream media is going to report more of the Republican's and Tea Party's stupid comments. I have been amazed at the comments I have seen from those in office. Sometimes from Republicans, some tea party supporters, but the ones that take the cake have come from those like Grayson, (Republicans want you to die quickly) and Nancy Pelosi. (Let's pass it so we can see what is in it). So no one has a corner of the market on stupid comments.

    We are seeing some really ignorant comments from tea party members who are new to the political game. They just don't know yet how to present their ideas, nor do they realize at this time how their little puzzle piece will fit into the big puzzle. Most are not career politicians. Brainstorming ideas and thinking outside the box may be a good idea in bringing about some answers to the problems we are trying to solve.

    October 19, 2010 at 12:44 p.m.

  • jbj
    I was not aware of U.S. Rep. Brian Baird's comments but he is not running for reelection. Several democrats have condemned Kentucky's state Atty. general's Conways's ad, saying going after Rand Paul religion is over the top.... Both sides do it is not an excuse because this year there is no moral equivalence.... I could fill up a legal pad with crazy things tea party candidates have said and I challenge you to match it,with crazy quotes by democrats... You won't even come close.

    I did hear a discussion this morning on whether these are the craziest candidates that have ever run for office or is it just that t 24/7 media is making us more aware of it? I think it's a combination of both but I put more emphasis on the craziest ever.... I don't blame a self respecting college graduate for not wanting to run for office.... His whole life will be scrutinized and his family will not be able to go to the corner store without having to be aware of cell phone videos.

    In the past we had ultra conservative Barry Goldwater but he was not crazy and ultra liberal Ted Kennedy and he was not crazy.... They both knew the constitution, parliamentary procedure, and what it took to pass legislation... You can work around ideology but you can't do anything with crazy.

    October 19, 2010 at 9:03 a.m.

  • I would guess those who intend to vote, already know who they are going to vote for anyway.

    October 18, 2010 at 11:01 p.m.

  • I guess it is what we can expect. There are lies, damn lies and statistics on both sides. And I guess the Chronicle left off Baird's comment that Republican women had to lift their skirts to know they are women, (can't tell by how they vote), which led to the comment that Tenn. laws are tougher than Arizona's, at least in Arizona no one has to lift their skirt to prove identity.

    Anyone who puts much stock in the stories that come out now has to be pretty gullible. I don't worry much about what Rand Paul or Angle or O'Donnell think, newcomers can have some big ideas and they won't get far unless plenty of others agree.

    This country is swinging back toward the middle and what sounds like NO to one party sounds more like the brakes to the other. That is how it is supposed to work. When one ideology goes too far, the momentum swings.

    October 18, 2010 at 7:20 p.m.