WADO said:
and tried to say, "hey, just be cool" by giving them a whole bunch of white flour each year, giving the population chronic diabetes.
Kindly define that term for me.
There are arguably three (and some might say two or even four) kinds of diabetes. None are known as "chronic diabetes." At least one is effectively chronic (it never goes away), but that one has nothing to do with what one eats. When someone says "chronic diabetes" that's generally a strong hint that they don't know a thing about diabetes.
I'm all for Native Americans. Whatever white flour was given to them wasn't given with the intent of giving them any disease (though I'd assume it was a rather crappy bit of flour, and probably short-shipped). Us white folks were likely eating breads made from white flour as well.
Just a little not particularly important correction. He's actually still a professor at McGeorge (happens to be my lawschool).. He only teaches in the summer now, when the Supreme Court is out of session. I think he's got a regular class on International Human Rights.
WHat scares the piss out of me is these fuckers can be in for as long as they damn well please. We've already recognized the damage senators congressmen and the president can have with out term limits, why on earth do we hold out life time appointments for something so vital as the supreme law makers and policy holders/changers of the entire country. It boggles the mind.
30
AceT
Portland, OR
April 2004
APR 20, 2007 12:37 AM
How did 'Brosa know that I say things like "what the golly eff gee"?!
31
AceT
Portland, OR
April 2004
APR 20, 2007 12:45 AM
emotedcreations said:
If he's so powerful, why can't he get our troops out of Iraq, huh? I'm going to have to go with the President on this one, but either way, good article.
Decisions made by this justice can and will affect your life for decades. He has the power to add or remove any and all of the constitutional rights you hold dear. No president, or any other person in this country, has that power.
During the last election I posted that I was way more afraid of the apointees which would affect me for the next 40 years, than the candidate who would affect me for just four.
Emptymouthpiece said:
WHat scares the piss out of me is these fuckers can be in for as long as they damn well please. We've already recognized the damage senators congressmen and the president can have with out term limits, why on earth do we hold out life time appointments for something so vital as the supreme law makers and policy holders/changers of the entire country. It boggles the mind.
Life appointments for the federal judiciary is a really, really good thing. The last thing we want are overtly political judges.
emotedcreations said:
If he's so powerful, why can't he get our troops out of Iraq, huh? I'm going to have to go with the President on this one, but either way, good article.
Decisions made by this justice can and will affect your life for decades. He has the power to add or remove any and all of the constitutional rights you hold dear. No president, or any other person in this country, has that power.
Wait, you don't think effects of decisions this President has made will effect this country for decades? Two the President hasn't removed constitutional rights we hold dear? OK, sure, I guess you could say it was Congress, but they did it at the behest of the President.
During the last election I posted that I was way more afraid of the apointees[sic] which would affect me for the next 40 years, than the candidate who would affect me for just four.
Moreover, I was talking about the two as institutions when the next President is elected he will still be more powerful than Mr. Kennedy. I'm sorry I just don't agree. There's a reason they call the President of the United States the most powerful man in the world.
And the funny thing is, I think the fact that the Supreme Court just upheld the partial birth abortion Act, in whatever form, is just more evidence that the President got his way and not vice-versa. Whatcha think?
because he is a swing vote it allows the conservatives to have even more power and further sets back our country's progress. civil rights alone has gone back over 100 years because of the conservative block and his swing vote.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, by contrast, is having the kind of year most judges only dream about.
It is not just his recent star turn as the presiding judge in the trial of Hamlet at Washington's Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, either.
Kennedy is a robust 31-1 in signed opinions issued since the court began its current term in October. He is 12-0 in 5-4 cases, the only justice in that narrow majority each time in cases concerning abortion, the death penalty and global warming.
Kennedy has been in the majority nearly 97 percent of the time. Justice David Souter, who has dissented five times, is second at 84 percent.
At the other end are Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Despite the more conservative bent of this court, Scalia and Thomas have dissented 12 times each, putting them in the majority in just over 60 percent of the court's cases so far.
Scalia dissented from eight of the court's 10 most recent decisions, although he was in the majority in the recent abortion case, among the term's most important.
Kennedy's lone dissent this year was in a case striking down California sentencing rules that allowed judges, rather than juries, to determine facts that justify harsher prison sentences. Kennedy consistently has taken the position that judges should have discretion in sentencing.
ASSH0LE
Las Vegas, NV
June 2003
APR 19, 2007 09:34 PM