I have issues with her approach to Iraq .. the economy ... ethics ... campaign finance reform ... her honesty ... healthcare ... most definitely her allegiance to her party.
She is attacking the same people, that for years, helped to defend the Clintons. It get's me pissed.
--- end rant ---
But what my good friend said to me stuck. It stuck so hard, that it lit a fire. He was right. And I knew it.
The Supreme Court
Iraq will work itself out ... Clinton or Obama will both get us out ... McCain will be forced out, kinda like how Nixon left vietnamn. (that's my opinion anyway).
But the supreme court?
Wow ... imagine our country without Roe-Wade .. or without Habeas Corpus .. AND with Religion in Science class teaching our kids that dinosaurs were on the ark, and that condoms are evil !
Imagine a United States that Promotes TORTURE
My good friend Scott was right ... let's just take a look at Scalia ..
Senior judges from North America and Europe were in the midst of a panel discussion about torture and terrorism law, when a Canadian judge’s passing remark - "Thankfully, security agencies in all our countries do not subscribe to the mantra ‘What would Jack Bauer do?’ " - got the legal bulldog in Judge Scalia barking.
The conservative jurist stuck up for Agent Bauer, arguing that fictional or not, federal agents require latitude in times of great crisis. "Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent’s rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand.
"Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. "Say that criminal law is against him? ‘You have the right to a jury trial?’ Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don’t think so.
Just as a brief reminder I'd like to post this ...
The Abu Ghraib rules, promulgated by Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, the commander of ground forces in Iraq, elaborated on the interrogation rules for Guantánamo Bay, which had been issued by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld; they were designed to create far more license than restriction for interrogators who sought to break prisoners. The M.P.s at Abu Ghraib were enlisted as enforcers of such practices as sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation, sensory disorientation, and the imposition of physical and psychological pain. They never received a standard operating procedure to define what was required and what was allowed, but were repeatedly instructed simply to follow the guidance of Military Intelligence officers. An orthodox standard operating procedure leaves nothing to the imagination, and as Megan Ambuhl settled into her job it occurred to her that the absence of a code was the code at Abu Ghraib. "They couldn’t say that we broke the rules because there were no rules," she said. And by taking pictures of the prisoners on the M.I. block the M.P.s demonstrated two things: that they never fully accepted what was happening as normal, and that they assumed they had nothing to hide.
By way of orientation, the soldiers of the 372nd who were assigned guard duty at the hard site were given a tour of the place. They saw the ordinary cellblocks for Iraqi criminals and the highly restricted M.I. block, where the most "high value" security detainees were held, during and pending interrogation, in single-occupancy cells. "That’s when I saw the nakedness," Javal Davis said. "I’m like, ‘Hey, Sarge, why is everyone naked?’ You know—‘Hey, that’s the M.I. That’s what the M.I. does. That’s the M.I. thing. I don’t know.’ ‘Why do these guys have on women’s panties?’ Like—‘It’s to break them.’ " Davis was wide-eyed. "Guys handcuffed in stress positions, in cells, no lights, no windows. Open the door, turn the light on—‘Oh my God, Allah.’ Click, turn the light off, close the door. It’s like, Whoa, what is that? What the hell is up with all this stuff? Something’s not right here."
Perkins & Co. had every reason to believe Scalia was a top contender. On the campaign stump, Bush repeatedly vowed to fill Supreme Court vacancies with judges "in the mold of Scalia" or Justice Clarence Thomas, meaning strict constructionists who favor a literal reading of the text of the Constitution. Bush's promises -- he even declared Scalia to be his favorite jurist -- combined with a year-long charm offensive by the usually irascible Scalia, led many to believe that the famously argumentative justice had a good shot to replace Rehnquist. After all, Scalia ranks alongside Rehnquist as one of the key intellectual architects of contemporary conservative legal philosophy. Both men fought lonely battles against the prevailing liberal jurispudence in the 1960s and 1970s, lived long enough to see their principles prevail over the past two decades -- and became heroes to the Right.
In fact, the 69-year-old Scalia was never on the short list, say sources close to the White House. His age, combined with his combative personality, a raft of controversial opinions, and the messy realities confronting a politically weakened President, conspired against him. By making Roberts chief, Bush has to go to the Senate for confirmation only twice -- once each to replace Rehnquist and retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, but not the third time that would have been required to O.K. Scalia's elevation to the top spot. With Bush's approval ratings at an all-time low, the President seems ill-inclined to risk his limited political capital on a knockdown struggle over Scalia.
Ughh ... what's with these Reups?
I digress ... my apologies ... let's move on ...
Here's some audio you may be interested in.
It seems to me, like his job is to interpret the constitution.
ehh?
Or is it his job to interpret the consistitution, in ways that benefit his own ideology?
look at this.
WTF folks!
My friend Scott is as close to me as any brother, indeed I consider him my brother.
Your damn right we have an interest in voting Hillary if she steals this.
If I know one thing ... she won't appoint assholes like this guy.
