Comments on: Constitutional Originalism coming home to roost

By: teacherken

teacherken — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 01:08:18 +0000

hey RLewis

1) Juan considers himself a journalist and a writer. He tends to be liberal, more liberal than most of the voices on Fox. But that does not make him a”noted Dem” since he has never been a party activist.

And I was not arguing on Juan’s particular viewpoint on the subject per se, merely noting that the piece being referred to was a focus on what Thurgood Marshall had told him, to perhaps place the recent decision in a broader context.

And I feel perfectly comfortable referring to him as Juan, since he was a freshman at Haverford when I was finally finishing up as a senior who graduated about 10 days before his 27th birthday.

Feel free to have the last word. I am finished with this thread.

By: MB

MB — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 20:34:59 +0000

“If you say it loud enough
You’ll always sound precocious
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!”
-Mary Poppins, 1964

By: Anon E. Mouse

Anon E. Mouse — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 20:34:46 +0000

Dang, VAB, you STILL can’t read beyond the first paragraph, can you?

Let’s try a third time (third time’s a charm, right?):

THERE IS ENOUGH BLAME TO GO AROUND!!

Got it now? It’s not all about the Clintons, but they DO share the blame.

By: VAB

VAB — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 19:48:35 +0000

Not rage, just fatigue. (Sigh.) But go ahead, it’s all about the Clintons. Yes, these two people are responsible for all that’s evil in the world. Stop them, and America will have no problems whatsoever, just as it had no problems during previous administrations and has no problems under Bush ….

By: Anon E. Mouse

Anon E. Mouse — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 16:48:24 +0000

Well, VAB, apparently you couldn’t get past the Bill Clinton part before your eyes glazed over with rage and you were incapable of reading the next paragraph, which says,

“I think their (sic) is enough blame to go around on both sides, that no one has clean hands in any of this.”

Even Hillary voted to go into Iraq without being bothered to read the intelligence reports.

By: VAB

VAB — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 10:29:55 +0000

Bill Clinton is to Blame-O!
“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” Exodus 20:16.
Good thing none of those Republicans are exhibiting any kind of “moral decay,” eh, Tom?
What? You say you just awoke from a coma after fifteen years? That explains a lot.

By: Anon E. Mouse

Anon E. Mouse — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 01:43:23 +0000

I think you’ve just put a stick in the ant-hill, Tom.

By: Tom James

Tom James — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 01:04:22 +0000

MB. said,
“Long after we’re rid of this fool in office, we’ll be suffering the consequences of his presidency.”

MB
As I recall it was the left ’s “G_d” Bill Clinton who failed to stop the terrorist when he had real opportunities, and gutted our military, causing the need for so many members of the Guard and Reserve to be deployed repeatedly after long deployments.Not to mention the price of diesel fuel doubled under Clinton destroying 100,000’s of owner operators, small companies and some very old trucking companies who had enough of bureaucrats.

I think their is enough blame to go around on both sides, that no one has clean hands in any of this.

Birds of a feather flock together. Good, bad, ugly, black, white, green, or yellow, socialist, communist, and freedom lovers.

You can’t change human nature, but you folks keep trying to reinvent the wheel and refuse to learn the lessons of history.

“Righteousness exalteth a nation.”
Proverbs 14:34

“[Liberty] considers religion as the safeguard of morality, and morality as the best security of law and the surest pledge of the duration of freedom.”
Alexis de Tocqueville

“History fails to record a single precedent in which nations subject to moral decay have not passed into political and economic decline. There has been either a spiritual awakening to overcome the moral lapse, or a progressive deterioration leading to ultimate national disaster.”
Douglas MacArthur

By: Anon E. Mouse

Anon E. Mouse — Sat, 07 Jul 2007 17:41:46 +0000

Back to ad musinem attacks, huh?

By: MB

MB — Sat, 07 Jul 2007 13:17:38 +0000

Nah, that’s alright. Looks like he’s got enough on his hands, with you. Now hush up until you can either 1) prove your murder allegations or 2) can bring us a plate of freshly baked cookies.

VAB, I don’t think Juan Williams is much of (if at all) a Democrat, but I’d point to at least one regular Fox News contributor who’s a hell of a Democrat – Wes Clark.

By: Anon E. Mouse

Anon E. Mouse — Sat, 07 Jul 2007 13:06:44 +0000

God is in my world, BM. He’d be in yours, too, if you let Him.

By: VAB

VAB — Sat, 07 Jul 2007 12:18:30 +0000

“so because Juan Williams is on Fox News he is no longer a Dem.”
Yup.

By: Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » Some Thoughts On Constitutional Originalism

Sat, 07 Jul 2007 03:14:56 +0000

[...] Vivian makes this comment in connection with a post about the Supreme Court’s decisions last week about segregation in public schools. [...]

By: MB

MB — Sat, 07 Jul 2007 02:28:03 +0000

No, I said *your* world.

By: Anon E. Mouse

Anon E. Mouse — Sat, 07 Jul 2007 01:57:11 +0000

Indeed. With God, all things are possible.

By: MB

MB — Sat, 07 Jul 2007 01:37:08 +0000

Anything’s possible in your world, dear.

By: Anon E. Mouse

Anon E. Mouse — Sat, 07 Jul 2007 00:02:43 +0000

Clinton, Shumer, Kennedy, and Bloomberg (yes, he’s a Democrat) are made up? That IS good news!

By: catzmaw

catzmaw — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 22:17:12 +0000

I wasn’t all that upset about the SC decision, frankly, mostly because I think the assumptions upon which such treatment is based are no longer valid, assuming they were valid to begin with. For one thing, race based solutions were hammered out in a time when the problem was mostly between black and white. Now our society is far more diverse and multi-cultural. Moreover, the assumption always appears to be that the African American kid is necessarily at more of a disadvantage than the white kid. Maybe this had more truth in the sixties, but nowadays I look at my area’s African American legal colleagues, judges, doctors, nurses, probation officers, police officers, business owners, and assorted professionals and wonder how their kids could be deemed more needful of help than some white indigent kid. And what are we supposed to do when there are numerous different minorities in a school system? Do we still adhere to the “minority kid disadvantaged, white kid advantaged” assumption? Do we do as my own son’s minority dominated school did and have all sorts of outreach programs for at-risk minority youths and exclude the at-risk white youths? My kid was definitely at-risk, but he was never invited into any programs or groups at his school because they were all aimed at minority at-risk kids. There was a clear disparity in the way he was treated as opposed to other kids who had problems at that school. It was assumed that he was automatically much more advantaged than other kids in his position simply because he was white. I never saw this assumption being made about the children of educated and sometimes very successful African American or other minority parents. If their kids had problems they were invited into the groups. Just saying that the playing field should be even for all or else we’re never going to solve the problem of discrimination in this country.

By: MB

MB — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 21:01:37 +0000

The only Dems of any consequence who are for banning guns are the ones that people make up. And speaking of making things, where’s my sweater?

By: rlewis

rlewis — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 20:46:48 +0000

teacherken,
so because Juan Williams is on Fox News he is no longer a Dem.

The fact that Juan Williams pointed this out is an indication that he was not upset by the decision. It is the Dems who making this a race issue. As Roberts stated “the way stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discrimination on the basis of race”

By: teacherken

teacherken — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 20:37:40 +0000

Juan Williams is not a noted Dem. He was more liberal in the past, but has been a voice on Fox News for a number of years. And I think you are misreading his column after the decision. He was pointing out that Marshall had been less concerned with integration per se than in getting equal resources for the education of black children.

By: Anon E. Mouse

Anon E. Mouse — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 20:30:03 +0000

I thought the dems were for banning guns.

By: MB

MB — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 19:33:41 +0000

Shorter RLewis: I don’t really care about any principled reading of the Constitution, but I’m sure that whatever the liberals say is wrong.

Long after we’re rid of this fool in office, we’ll be suffering the consequences of his presidency. This term is just the beginning of it. I sure am glad the Dems “kept the powder dry” . . .

By: Anon E. Mouse

Anon E. Mouse — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 19:19:02 +0000

I, too, think that Bush’s elimination of Habeas Corpus exceeded the authority of the Executive. That power is clearly in Article I, which concern the structure and authority of the legislature. (Article II covers the Executive.) Lincoln also assumed that power, which he conveniently did when the Congress was not in session, as I recall, and the S.C. backed him up on it.

By: rlewis

rlewis — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 19:08:47 +0000

MB,
You can approach it anyway you want. I just disagree with Helen Thomas and the rest of the liberals stating that Roberts decisions are bad for the country. There are more than enough people to defend his decisions with regards to the race issue and plenty of them are African American, Juan Williams a noted Dem is an example of one.

By: catzmaw

catzmaw — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 19:04:32 +0000

The only hope I have with this court is that if indeed it adheres to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as conservative proponents claim, then it should have some real problems with this administration’s elimination of habeas corpus and assertion of the right to search without warrants. If it’s a by the books court then let’s see it go by the book.

By: MB

MB — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 18:29:08 +0000

So tell us how one ought to approach Constitutional questions, RLewis.

By: rlewis

rlewis — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 18:23:12 +0000

Oh come on Vivian,
If it is anyone other than a democratic appointee, Helen Thomas is going to have a problem with them. I say Thank God we have someone like Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court. Just because liberals are not getting there way with Supreme Court rulings, it is bad for the country? Please, that kind of talk is getting old!