Cynical Nation

It might be more effective if you added sugar on top. Forgive if I don't join you?

In keeping with Bush cronyism, I'm expecting Alberto Gonzales.

CRB!

Stay after class and stomp the erasers!

(And don't give them any ideas.)

Barry,
I thought you were a moderate. If I judge by who you support I may have to re-classify you as "wingnut"?? (sorry). I know you are not. How can you be supporting jusdges that want to throw the country 200 years backwards?

Yeah, yeah, yeah....

I'm hearing that it is more likely to be Priscilla Owens. I could live with that.

We NEED to bring this country back to its Founding principles...of, yes, 200 years ago. Those principles are still valid and unimpeachable to this day. The ONLY kind of SC justices that can do that are strict originalists in the Scalia and Thomas mold.

That's probably why those who want to "change" or "reform" the Constitution, NEVER make the argument that parts of it are "antiquated" or "outdated." They intuitively know that that's a marginal and fringe viewpoint, one not even shared by any siginificant percentage of Democrats.

I'd take Owens, but I'd prefer Rogers-Brown, or even Edith Jones.

JMK

JMK,
How about if we bring the country 400 years back? Maybe that would be better????

Is very hard for me to understand why intelligent people who define themselves as "conservatives" can support things like that. This is America. Conservatism never was and never will be an American Value. Judges like this have no place in the supreme court of the most free spirited and progressive country in the world. The good news is that the vast majority of the country will not allow the hijacking by "conservatives". Most Americans want America like it is: A free and very liberal country. Cheers.

Blue, why are you threatened by African-American women? ;-)

:) Barry I dont think he will pick her. I am still hoping that he will pick Gonzales. In any case, if he picks her or another similar wingnut, it will be good for the democratic party in the long run.

As a matter of principle, I support whoever will piss off Blue Wind the most.

The principles of the Constitution are NOT fluid, and they are certainly NOT anachronistic, as those who claim to support a "living Constitution" would suggest, Blue Wind.

This nation was founded upon private property rights, individualism and limited, VERY limited government. Nothing has occurred over the past two hundred years to make those foundations less relevant today, and I doubt that anything that occurrs over the next two centuries will either.

I like to say, "limited governance, private property rights, individualism and a market based economy yesterday, limited governance, private property rights, individualism and a market based economy today and hopefull even more limited government, private property rights, individualism and an even freer market economy tomorrow."

Socialism (the government managed economy) has proven to be, not only a dead end, but a bloody dead end, from Hitler's National SOCIALISM, to Stalin and Mao's Soviet and Agrarian Socialism, respectively.

America's Founders have been shown to be light years ahead of what passed for the political "leaders" of the 20th Century.

JMK444