Wyrostek

Good post.

I think it is fair to conclude that we see the impact of the incident somewhat differently. Possibly we should just agree to disagree.

Absolutely. That should apply in all situations- criminal and civil. I think one of the main problems with our society is that everyone seems to know his or her rights but few seem to know of his or her responsibilities.

Well, it appears that opinions on the abortion of babies, even in the late- term, receives varied reactions- even on BGP. Why would you think that the killing of one of the four remaining late term abortionists would not be varied? As spindoc said, this could be called another late-term abortion.

Fair enough, Clyde. Do as you feel moved to do. Indeed, we should all react as we feel is proper under the circumstances.

Not everyone disagrees with you. If there is a "right" to drink then there should be a "responsibility" to avoid injuring others. If you break the responsibility, you should be be held firmly accountable for the damage you cause. with no excuses. You commit the crime, you pay the price.

I'm not taking your bait, Clyde. I am merely stating that the reaction to his killing will be varied. Interpret it to suit your needs. However, I must be honest and admit that my tears are for the thousands of aborted babies and not for the perpetrator. I think that is a reasonable reaction from one who believes first in the sanctity of the life of the innocents.

This was the killling of a man who performed thousands of abortions, many late term, during the last 35 years. He, among prolifers, was considered to be a mass murderer little different from other mass murderers in our history. And you ask why the reaction to his death will be varied?

Fox News is reporting that the infamous late-term abortion provider, George Tiller, has been murdered. Reactions should be varied.

I would certainly agree with your first statement but would add that sin also arises if , by your example, you lead someone else to excessive drinking. I know that some in Ashland and maybe Boyd County are starting a move to allow Sunday beer sales. The premise is, according to a friend of mine who is a Boyd County official, that Sunday sales will stimulate the stagnate economy in and around Ashland. I find it hard to believe that such a move will make more than a scintilla of difference in the economy in that area. If you have driven through Ashland in the last couple of years, you are aware that it will take far more than Sunday beer sales to revive that place. As proof of the futility up there, the recent "moist" vote which resulted in every precinct in the county becoming wet (an unexpected and unadvertised outcome) has resulted in nothing. Honest assessors know that Sunday beer sales will do little more. Of course, to quote my source, a few profitable businesses hiring more than waitresses, busboys, and dishwashers would help.

They will. Bet on it. Look for Ginsberg and Stevens to leave at appropriate times. The ones you need to protect are the other five Catholics- Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, and Kennedy. If one of them is lost, if you think we are in a dangerous situation now, you will see real extremism in a year or two after BO and his ilk get control of the court.

Can you cite some examples from MSNBC and CNN? If you heard anything negative, it wasn't from one of their anchors, analysts, or reporters. It had to be from some token Republican who was thrown in to give an appearance of "balance". I'll bet no one mentioned that Sotomayor has had six decisions in which she wrote the majority opinion appealed to the US Supreme Court? She was reversed in five of the six. I mention that in the spirit of full disclosure. She will obviously be confirmed easily. She is the stereotypical BO type of judicial appointment. Still, I can hope that her Catholic foundation occasionally wins out over her liberal bias.

As predicted, the usual media sources are ecstatic over the choice of Sotomayor. CNN and MSNBC have already run out of superlatives. It would make one wonder why this truly special woman was not elevated to royalty long ago. Why should no one be surprised?

Allegedly Sotomayor is a Roman Catholic. If this is true, she will be the sixth (out of nine) Roman Catholic on the US Supreme Court. However, her record indicates that she will rarely join with the other five in making decisions. I just took a look at the seal of the Kentucky Bar Association which features Lady Justice holding the scales and a sword. She is blindfolded. Her blindfold carries great symbolism. Justice is to be blind. Decisions are not made with empathy and the heart. It may sound good to be aware of the personal circumstances and background of litigants but it is not the purpose of the law. Over and over, through her decisions and through her statements, Sotomayor has shown her willingness to remove Lady Justice's blindfold. She will be popular with the media and the administration but she is wrong. Much of her judicial philosophy can be summed up in her decision in the New Haven firefighters case (pending in US Supreme Court as Ricci v DeStefano). In this case, she voted to uphold the "right" of the city to disregard test scores used for the promotion of firefighters in the city because almost no minorities qualified for promotion based on the scores of that test. Subjectivity has no place in the courts. However, I feel sure that this is merely the beginning of reshaping the federal courts in a way not remotely intended or anticipated by the framers of the US Constitution. I just hope and pray that God will protect the other five Roman Catholics presently on the Court.

Just what is "Powell's vision"?