shooter

I must have missed the liberal who came out in favor of gay marriage an then had their private medical records released to the public. I also missed the liberal plumber who came out in support of Obama and then had his private government records searched looking for dirt. I don't dispute that people on the right we come out against people on the left, but it seems that recent history seems to indicate that the far left stoops to underhanded tactics more often than the far right.

Palin is still getting attention because she is still a threat to the left. She won't cease being a target until the left succeeds in completely destroying her. It's no different than what they have tried to do to Prejean. Prejean needs to be destroyed for daring to voice an opinion inconsistent with the left's viewpoint so she needs to be destroyed. Also, the real story of somebody "stepping in it" today is Pelosi accusing the CIA of lying. It's not trying to parse every word Palin says to find fault in her statements.

Obama may not be able to claim originality but he can sure lay claim to setting a new benchmark. Obama is on a course that makes FDR look like a big government neophyte.

Just a few points, First, if it was civil rights legislation then it came from the legislature not from the bench and so it would qualify as judicial activism. Second, the 14th amendment had the effect of overturning the Dred Scott decision so the different direction began with the laws that were passed immediately after the civil war and therefore the different direction was initiated long before the last half of the 20th century. Finally, the court decisions relating to civil rights and equal rights for women in the 1970's and late 1960's (i.e. the last half of the 20th century) had their foundation in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and other similar acts passed under Johnson so again, the change in the law had the greatest impact on the changes in judicial decsions (although I do think there were some decisions in that era than amounted to judicial activism.)

There's nothing "neo" about Limbaugh's conservativism. He's old-school all the way.

For those who said they would vote for Powell, what policy differences do you think exist between Powell and Obama?

I believe that decision comes very close to judicial activism but just falls just short. However, Brown v BOE is a good example of the rare occasion in which precedent should not be followed. The Court, like any other group of people, is not immune from making mistakes. If going against precedent were prohibited in all cases, then the Court would never be able to correct a mistake, even after the mistake has become obvious. (The 9-0 decision lends credence that the mistake was obvious.) Those instances of going against precedent should be very very very rare. Where I believe the Brown v. BOE fall short of activism has to do with the logic used in the decision. They didn't have to resort to convoluted logic to justify their decision. The justices simply had to expose the flawed logic of the previous decision. In Plessey v Furgeson, the Court said that separate was equal. An objective comparison of facilities easily exposed separate but equal as an obvious falsehood. If the facilities for blacks and whites had truly been equal even though they were separate then I think you have your case for activisim since the Plessey logic would not have been refuted. I am willing to concede that there may be rare instances where both long established law and long established precedent are both wrong. Neither the law nor judicial decsions are without faults. So in that case it would seem that the RIGHT decision would be to go against both even though there might be no basis for the RIGHT decision other than the judges viewpoint. However, I believe that the harm in accepting going against the law and precedent as comonplace far exceeds any benefit that would be gained. The harm would exceed any benefit because I believe the judge's decision would ultimately prove to be incorrect much more often than the law and precedent. Also, the more radical a judge is (from either the left or the right) the more likely the judge would view the current law and precedent as being incorrect. Therefore, by accepting judicial activism you are empowering the most radical elements of the judiciary. Judicial activism weakens the law by allowing a judge to substitute his/her judgement for the law. We no longer become a nation governed by laws, we become a nation governed by judges. IMHO such a system empowers tyranny and reduces security.

I should also add that it is possible for a judge to "write new law" without being an "activist" judge. There are times when a situation is not covered by the law and never before encountered is before the court. (Although these are typically rare occurrences.) At that point in time the judge has to make a decision and regardless of how he eventually rules, he/she would be "writing new law".

OK. I'll bite. First, I'll give two examples of what an activist judge is not. A judge is not an activist judge because you disagree with his decision. However, peoples emotions often times cloud their judgment such that this is the most often reason judges are cited as being "activist". Second, a judge is not an activist judge just because he strikes down a law. Often times people who favor judicial activism will cite this as a criteria since statistically non-activist judges strike down a law almost as often as an activist judge. When a non-activist judge strikes down a law it typically is restoring the status quo prior to a legislature enacting a law that encroached on individual rights. He is not writing new law so much as he is protecting existing law. Now for the definition of an activist judge. An activist judge is a judge who ignores long established laws, and long established precedents to render a decision that effectively replaces the existing law. The judge absconds with what is and should remain the prerogative of the legislature. The "new law" written by the judge represents what the judge feels what the law should be rather than what the law as written actually is or what precedent has long established. Often times you can spot an activist decision by the logic used to justify the decision. Because the activist decision does not have a sound basis in the law, mental gymnastics are necessary. The result is novel interpretations to familiar law or references to obscure passages which previous carried little weight. Good examples of activist decisions can be found in the recent supreme court decisions at the state level concerning gay marriage. Existing law and precedent which has existed for centuries defined marriage between two people of the opposite sex. All the laws previous passed understood the marriage laws that way. The courts referred to general passages in the law that had never previously been interpreted to include the right that they divined to be included. Often times the state legislature or the the people had voted against establishing those rights conjured up by the courts. P.S. The only legitimate way for gay marriage to be legalized is either through a vote of state legislature or a state-wide referendum.

I would add one's willingness to fund the military and the role one believes that the military should play to the list of criteria. Another one would environmental issues. Particularly how one weighs environmental issues against other legitimate interests.

I'm not certain it was a mistake. The picture that I saw looked like it would not have been out-of-place in the lingerie section of a JCPenney catalog. That's hardly something a model should consider shameful. Perhaps more revealing photos will surface. Until then it seems to be much ado about nothing.

FYI. The Brown v Board of Education decision was a 9-0 decision. Of the 9 justices, 5 were appointed by FDR, 3 were appointed by Truman, and 1 was appointed by Eisenhower.

I agree that Obama hasn't taken over the entire auto industry; just Chrysler and GM. Since you obviously disagree, who do you think is calling the shots at Chrysler and GM? With all due respect, rockmom, I believe it's foolish to believe that Nardelli at Chrysler is making any noteworthy decisions without first consulting the White House. Also, the last GM guy was "asked" (ordered?) to resign by the White House. Given that Obama sacked the last guy at GM, do you really believe the current head of GM has the freedom to be his own man? I certainly don't. As far as refusing the money, Ford had the option of taking the money. However, many of the banks were coerced into taking the money. The original argument was that some healthy banks needed to take money because if only unhealthy banks took money then everybody would know they were unhealthy and that might cause a run on those banks. So, yes Ford had a choice but many banks did not. Obviously Obama hasn't said he wants to "take over" the health care industry. However, Obama has been talking about a government sponsored health-care plan to "compete" with private industry. IMHO, the government alternative will never be competitive with private industry. I believe Obama knows it would be uncompetitive in the free market but Obama doesn't plan on a free market competition. He knows that a private industry plan has to make money to survive but a government plan does not. The government plan can run huge deficits almost (emphasis on "almost") indefinitely. He simply needs to poor enough money into to government option to make it appear cheaper on the open market. Obviously, it won't really be cheaper since we the tax payers will be subsidizing a significant part of the bill. When the private industry plans have folded leaving only the government plan in place, Obama will have his government run health care. I disagree. Looking up the meaning of empathetic in the dictionary is not sufficient when talking about phases used by politicians. Politicians use code words. IMHO, "empathetic" does mean constitutionally malleable.

Because to exclude someone because they are not a female of a minority descent or background is discriminatory.

Why ask Obama to reach across the aisle? Because he said he would. Not that I believed him. He only wants to appear to be reaching across the aisle. Therefore, I'm advocating calling his bluff. Ask him to match his actions to his rhetoric. Of course he won't appoint a moderate justice. Then, when Obama asks for Republicans to reach across the aisle, which will be code for Republicans need to cave to his agenda, the Republcians can use this as one of many examples where Obama actions do not match his words.

I consider Ginsberg and Stevens to be very, very liberal. Souter and Breyer to be liberal. Kennedy is the lone moderate. Kennedy seems to have been a moderate-conservative who has been moving closer to a moderate-liberal the more time he spends on the court. Alito and Roberts are solid conservatives with Roberts being pro-business. Both Scalia and Thomas are very very conservative with Thomas' brand of conservatism being originalist.

I would like to see the Republicans put forth an argument that this is an opportunity for the President to reach accros the aisle and appoint a moderate to the Supreme Court. I extremely doubt that Obama would actually appoint a moderate. In fact I fully expect him to nominate someone even more liberal than Ginsberg (extreme lefty) to replace Souter ( a lefty but not as extreme as Ginsberg). After Obama actually does appoint an extreme lefty for the position I would throw it back in his face that all his talk about reaching across the aisle is simply window dressing. That he is exactly what his opponents said he was during the campaign -- an extreme lefty who plans on governing as an extreme lefty. P.S. If Obama actually does appoint a moderate then I would be more than happy to admit I was wrong.

Let me preface what I'm about to say by first saying that I don't think we're to the point that we need to close the border. At least not yet. That said, I thought that the logic of Obama response to a question about closing the border was questionable at best. Essentially, he said that closing the border would do no good since we already have cases of swine flu in this country. The horse was out of the barn. I do not understand his logic. Can someone explain to me why preventing additional people with swine flu from entering this country depends in any way upon people already having entered this country with swine flu. Isn't there a difference between 100 people with the disease entering the country and 100,000 people with the disease entering the country? I know that Obama didn't rule out closing the border in the future but saying the horse is already out of the barn makes absolutely no sense to me. It would only make sense to me if the worst possible damage that could have be done has already been done. Are we at that point right now? I don't believe we are. Do you?

I have never considerated Lieberman a moderate. His overall voting record has been consistently liberal with his stance on the Iraq War being the notable exception. I don't believe that going against his party on that one issue makes him a moderate. I consider him a Pro-Iraq War liberal (One of the very few Pro-Iraq War liberals). I believe that there was no room in the Democratic Party for anybody who was sided with Bush on national security which is a much narrower litmus test than being a moderate.

Sure. Given that all current Senators from those states are pro-choice liberals I would see a pro-choice moderate as an improvement.

Nope. He pitched the night before against Dixie.

In the last 100 years, the periods in which only one party has had enough of a majority in both houses of Congress as well as the Presidency to be accorded complete blame or credit for the direction of the country have been few and far between. We have that situation right now with the Democrats. It was also true during Lyndon Johnson's term as President, and also when FDR was President.

Not at all. I would love to see a moderate Senator from California, New York, or Massachusetts.

I actually thought I was having an adult conversation.:lol: I suppose you don't subscribe to the idea that 15 Time magazine covers in the space of one year amounts to hero worship? Perhaps you rationalize that by saying that Obama was newsworthy. But how do you explain why the editors of the Washingtonian put a bare chested Obama on their cover? What kind of people do you think they were trying to attract? Foreign policy wonks? Have you ever seen the "Obama-girl" videos? Guess not. Clearly, Obama has entered into pop culture status for some. And like many pop culture figures, his pop culture followers show a degree of hero worship, you might even say they idolize him.

I think it will have some effect. Votes where Specter does not have a dog in the fight you can now expect him to vote Democrat instead of Republican. For many important votes Spector was just as likely to vote with the Democrats as vote with the Republicans. It will also be interesting to see if the Democrat leadership will be able to keep him on the reservation more often than the Republican leadership.