Amen! Preach it, O!
Second, President Obama has no clue what a justice's job is supposed to be. Hear him:
So I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity. I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives -- whether they can make a living and care for their families; whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation.That is a textbook prescription for judicial activism. What he describes is the concern of pastors and activists and legislators. The job of a Supreme Court justice is not even justice, per se, as Bork argued convincingly in his book.
I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes.
It is to apply the original sense of the Constitution to court rulings brought to their consideration. Period.
And so when he goes on to say "I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role," Obama is the perfect PoMo, saying the precise opposite of what he had just said. Indeed, even this statement is undone in his next words: "I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded." We know the number of that "respect": zero.
Oh well. At least Obama is now the second-least popular president, at this point, in 40 years. Even behind Jimmy Carter! May it continue to drop (barring the genuine repentance I pray for), and may this country get a well-needed intellectual enema.
Never have the words rung truer:
Put not your trust in princes,
in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation.
(Psa 146:3)
Many seek the face of a ruler,
but it is from the LORD that a man gets justice.
(Pro 29:26)
Posts
58 comments:
Nice picture.
Now, why does it make me think of margarine?
Can't wait to forward this post to my dad...
Julie
Backstory? Is your dad an Obamolater, or an Obamophobe (as I am)?
My dad would vote for a square of lineoleum if one ran against Obama. He's not the "bloggy" sort, but I send him links to things I know he'll like :0) He's a retired electrician, a scholar of God's Word, and a very gifted teacher. A wonderful dad, a great grandpa, and a wise and compassionate "manly man".
But that's just (a small fraction of) my humble opinion.
;0)
Julie
What a wonderful testimony. What a blessed man, to have a child speak so well of him in public.
Feel free to pass back any of his observations about anything.
I am a really bad girl in that I had a fleeting thought that O might have caught the flu while he was in Mexico. I also had a fleeting thought that maybe Biden needed to be somewhere where there were really close quarters. I know. Not the most godly thoughts.
Glad you posted those verses at the end, Dan. They are good reminders for me, especially because I've encountered some "interesting" situations at work. I have been constantly reminding myself that my superior(s) cannot do anything apart from God's given authority, and therefore I should not put my trust in them. (This weekend has been quite depressing thus far--the verses are definitely bright spots amidst the gloom....)
Oh, I'm sorry. And I'm glad. Respectively.
Oh, Candy, I gave a guilty giggle when I read your comment.
Dan,
"You twalkin' to me?"
Duh, yep.
That is, Duh, yep, Susan.
(c;
Jay Sekulow was on Hannity last night (Friday night). He didn't paint a pretty picture. He thinks it is possible that Obama will get to appoint three nominees and that the first one is likely to be the least liberal of the bunch (yikes!). (Jay, for those who don't know, is the top attorney at the American Center for Law and Justice which is a major non-profit that supports Christians legally).
Now when I see this, I want to know how supposed Christians who supported (or continue to do so) can possibly reconcile their vote with Christian beliefs.
Candy-
We'd be worse off as that would give us a President Pelosi. Wow, I just shuddered even typing it. After her is the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, Robert Byrd. Ok, now I'm really sad.
After Byrd isn't it, like, Helen Thomas or Perez Hilton or Bill Maher or someone?
Yeah. We're doomed.
Sounds like he's going to nominate Oprah.
Oh, so you think dead people from 200 years ago should dictate how people live in the 21st century?
Boy, I hope that's a joke. But in case it isn't: yes, of course I do, when those "dead people from 200 years ago" are the geniuses who crafted this nation, and the way they do it is through what we rightly call the founding documents. America isn't (supposed to be) a nation of feelings and fads, but of laws. And those guys wrote the country's charter.
If something needs to be changed in those documents, there is a way to do it. But it involves people and legislatures, not judicial tyranny. The judges are to interpret and apply the laws, not create them.
If Judge Eric Gant wants to change the law, let him step down from the bench and run for office.
I certainly agree that there is a procedure to change the Constitution but sometimes entrenched interests make that impossible. My husband and I live in the south now where racial segregation is alive and well, and often legally sanctioned with a wink and a nod. We have private schools here that are open only to whites and they receive state assistance. They're called "academies." The situation would be far worse if not for judicial activists in 1954 ordering desegregation.
I don't think I would call the dead guys who wrote the constitution 'geniuses' either. They considered blacks as less than human, slaves as 3/5th of a person.
The Constitution was designed to limit the power of majorities to tyrannize minorities and a court that simply rubber stamps the will of the majority fails to uphold the principles upon which this great nation was created. The founders created an intentionally vague document that left future generations to fight over the meaning.
Alexander Hamilton said the court would have neither purse nor sword, only judgment. It must judge what is the just outcome required by the Constitution. When it fails to do so it is no longer a court worthy of respect.
Wow. So you actually were serious? Yikes.
And on such silly premises! "[Y]ou think dead people from 200 years ago should dictate..." What does the age of the law or the health of the composers have to do with anything? You think (even accepting your pragmatic "defense") live idiots arrogating powers that do not belong to them is superior? That's why we have Obama and his supporters' favorite birth-control measure (abortion), and how we're heading towards homosexual "marriage" and a host of other ills.
But your lawlessness is a better brand of lawlessness than the bigot's lawlessness. This is the liberal mindset in a fortune-cookie. "The law doesn't apply to me, because my heart is pure and my judgment superior."
I just guess I'll never get over a professed Christian advocating pragmatism, judicial tyranny, and anarchy.
Pragmatism, judicial tyranny, and anarchy? I have advocated nothing of the sort.
Pragmatism- doing what works. Not a fan, never have been, never will be. I prefer to do the right thing.
Judicial tyranny- not familiar with that phrase. My guess is it is any judicial ruling that you personally disagree with.
Anarchy- Not from this girl. My job as a Christian is to obey the law and honor my leaders, even when I vehemently disagree with their policies. 1 Peter 2 does not give me the option to belittle my leaders or disobey the God ordained authorities. You might try reading the passage about honoring the emperor next time you tear down the man God has placed as president of this country.
Abortion- we'd have it regardless of the supremes. States were in the process of legalizing abortion before Roe was decided.
Same sex marriage- we'll have that too no matter what the courts say. People are becoming more accepting of homosexuality and will eventually shrug their shoulders about it. As Christians, we should not expect anything different from a godless society such as ours.
Well, that's very confusing and inconsistent, but it's a relief glad to hear that you really didn't mean what you said, and you do believe a justice should hew strictly to the intent of the Founders as expressed in the Constitution, until and unless the established Constitutional legal process changes it.
You might work on expressing that more clearly. And certainly drop the "dead guy / 200 years old" line.
Kate:
You have a naive view of the founding fathers and the founding documents. Many of those who supported the revolution abhorred slavery. It was the compromises on slavery in the Constitution that ended slavery in the U.S. far sooner than it would have otherwise ended.
And the Constitution isn't at all vague, especially when you in light of what they wrote in the federalist papers and other writings.
And lastly, I'm actually opposed to government enforced desegregation except in public settings. I think private businesses and schools should do what they want, even if it is despicable. I also sincerely doubt that the places you mention discriminate as a matter of policy since that would be blatantly illegal.
DJP- I do not hold to your formalistic view of the law. In my view, laws are only valid when they are both procedurally and substantively moral in accord with God's law. Any conflict between US law and God's law must be settled in favor of God (and there have been many). I think you are just plain wrong to believe what Judge Bork said about the job of the justice not being to seek justice. I think Scripture might have a thing or two to say about unjust judges, as well as bloggers approving of the same.
Sir Aaron- you are calling me naive? Have you ever lived in the south? Ever experienced racial discrimination? If so, you wouldn't say that you think private businesses ought to be able to discriminate as they wish. I hope you will be consistent and won't have a problem when those businesses begin discriminating against you on the basis of your religious beliefs.
Actually, it was the war of northern aggression that ended slavery.
If the Constitution weren't vague we wouldn't have disputes over the meaning and we wouldn't need judges to settle them. My husband has taught constitutional law at a university for several years, including the Federalist Papers. It is the height of naivete to think one can just read the Federalist Papers and know what was meant in the Constitution. If you can line up all the authors who contributed to the Constitution and examine all their writings and then examine all the statements made at the ratifying conventions to prove your case, I will concede your point. Until then, its just one opinion among many. We all know what those are worth.
Then, Kate, I guess you do favor anarchism, pragmatism, and judicial tyranny.
Among the other things you're mistaken about:
Pragmatism is not "doing what works." It is the philosophy that anything that "works" is right. Profoundly anti-Christian.
Prophets: given that the constitution of Israel was the Law of Moses, if you imagine that by "justice" the prophets meant "breaking God's Law if you feel you should," we have yet another sharp disconnect with God's Word.
Kate:
Yes, I said what I said. And the answer you gave only reinforces my belief.
The civil war technically ended slavery, but the war came about because slavery could not exist in a nation who had individual liberty at its foundation. And it was judicial activism that promoted and extended slavery until it the civil war. Many states enacted tough laws that were very anti-slavery. It was originally illegal in many new U.S. territories. But activist judges who did not believe in Federalism who overruled those laws.
I currently live in Texas. I lived for nearly six months in Georgia. I've been to every state in the South, except Louisiana. I have relatives who live in the South or have lived in the South. Satisfied?
And yes, I think discrimination is reprehensible, but I think a lot of things are reprehensible. I don't, however, think it should be enforced legally. And while I don't like being discriminated against, I live with it. If a private individual or business wants to discriminate against me for any reason, I think it should be allowed.
Kate, many people do not believe in the perpiscuity of Scripture too. But that doesn't make it true. The Constitution is not vague but has come under various "opinions" because we have chosen not to see it for the words that were written.
Kate-
"If the Constitution weren't vague we wouldn't have disputes over the meaning and we wouldn't need judges to settle them."
We don't need judges because people don't understand the Constitution. We need judges because people want to ignore it.
Sure - God has something to say about unjust judges. For example:
"And I charged your judges at that time, 'Hear the cases between your brothers, and judge righteously between a man and his brother or the alien who is with him. You shall not be partial in judgment. You shall hear the small and the great alike. You shall not be intimidated by anyone, for the judgment is God’s." Deut 1:16-17
In The Obama's rant against Alito, the thing he faults him for is not showing partiality! He said he couldn't confirm Alito precisely because he hears the small and great alike!
Oh, he doesn't come out and say it in those words, precisely. What he does say is that Alito won't favor "the little guy". Mean ol' Alito will rule in favor of the big guy or corporation rather than siding with the poor, browbeaten wittle guy. Awwww.
Meanwhile, nowhere does The Obama even hint at asking whether the "little guy"'s case, you know, actually has any merit. Never does The Obama even consider whether Alito judged according to the law. No, with The Obama, it's all about whether a judge will favor the "little guy" and rule in his favor regardless of the facts of the case.
According to The Obama, the ultimate qualification for a judge (because if one doesn't do it he is disqualified, regardless of his exemplary record (as even The Obama attested)) is whether he will pervert justice in order to screw over the rich/powerful and unjustly help the favored victim group o' the day.
Now, taking a step back from Maximum Leader, we can look at the larger issue. Legal interpretation really comes down to only two options.
1) The objective standard. Rule according to what the law says, according to the original intent (as best as can be determined - which is entirely possible much, much more often than you suggest).
2) The subjective standard. Allow the judge to ignore what the law says when he disagrees. Includes such things as perverting justice to favor one party, incorporating foreign law to find an excuse to ignore the law of the land, inventing law by judicial fiat, etc.
When judges rule objectively - obeying the law even when it feels wrong to them or they disagree - there can be some painful results. Rather than just ignoring laws that they believe (sometimes even correctly) to be unfair, the laws need to be changed through legislative action, which can be slow, painful, requiring great sacrifice and sometimes even bloodshed (as in the Civil War). Righting wrongs takes tremendous dedication and perseverance, and can take decades or longer. It's a really, really hard standard to uphold.
And yet, even a few seconds of reflection should reveal it to be far, far preferable to letting judges rule subjectively. Do you really want a system where your case depends less on its merits according to the law than on which judge you happen to draw? For the judge to have no objective bounds to his rulings? To promote someone to a lifetime position with no accountability and no check to his power, then grant him the power to rule however he feels on any given day? To have no idea from one day to the next how a judge is formulating his rulings? That is supposed to be preferable?
trog- You make a fabulous case against subjective judicial rulings and all the implications thereof. Too bad it is all based on a caricature of reality. I do not accept the tattered pieces of the straw man you have constructed and demolished.
The simple truth is that of the two options you present, only one truly exists. There is NO SUCH THING as an objective judge. All judges are human beings with religious, personal, and political values. All judges bring those political values to the bench in every case they decide.
No, what your argument really boils down to is politics. You are a conservative who prefers conservative outcomes because you dislike change, especially if it challenges the status quo which you prefer. Conservative justices are not objective creatures deciding cases on the basis of some objective law. No, they decide cases the same way liberal justices do, according to their preconception regarding the role of a judge and their policy preferences.
No, it's not so magical to interpret the law.
Say, this blog. If I tell a man that he is banned from posting, the intent and the wording are both clear. Right?
And so if he changes his Blogger name, is he still banned? Of course.
If he uses his wife's account, or tells her what to write for him, is that still a violation? Of course.
Simply reading and applying the law isn't magic or alchemy. But it is characteristic of the anti-Christian philosophy of liberalism to cast off any external restraint in favor of internal urges, biases, feelings, preferences. The only good law, to a liberal, is the law he writes and controls. Particularly if that law remains putty in his hands.
Anarchy, pragmatism, tyranny. Poor alternative.
Kate-
"The simple truth is that of the two options you present, only one truly exists. There is NO SUCH THING as an objective judge."
Hence the value of the Constitution. Thanks for playing.
In all seriousness, I'm no longer following your argument. You originally stated that we should not follow the Constitution strictly because it was written by dead people 200 years ago but should instead rely upon judges to decide what's "fair" in this day. Then you follow up Trog with the following:
"No, what your argument really boils down to is politics. You are a conservative who prefers conservative outcomes because you dislike change, especially if it challenges the status quo which you prefer. Conservative justices are not objective creatures deciding cases on the basis of some objective law. No, they decide cases the same way liberal justices do, according to their preconception regarding the role of a judge and their policy preferences."
So, I have a question. Given that you realize that judges will rule based on their own politics and prejudices, what is your solution? Or is it that you just think that liberal justices will be more fair because their ideas are more to your liking?
It sounds more like you just don't like Conservatives and have an axe to grind with them. Strict interepretation of the Constritution being a tenet of Conservatism, you are attacking it. It also sounds like you are in a pot and kettle situation with Trogdor.
DJP- Then I guess it is a good thing my husband is in Mississippi and I'm in Massachusetts right now! Maybe I'll ask his opinion when I get home next weekend.
Trog- I find it interesting that you assume the little guy's case has no merit. The Constitution was written to protect the little guy, not the wealthy guy who gets to influence all the laws made by our two corrupt and ungodly political parties. If, as you seem to require, a judge is to be objective, he should have no predilection toward either side. As I admit and you deny, that is an utter impossibility.
It was written to protect the person whose rights have been violated, regardless of size.
Sem- I don't have a solution to your problem. I don't prefer liberal outcomes to conservative outcomes or vice-versa. I prefer 'just' outcomes. Sometimes those will be liberal and sometimes they will be conservative. My problem is with conservatives claiming they are objective based on some 'original intent' argument that can't be proven. Which of the 60 or so authors of the Constitution do you side with when making a decision about intent? How about a law passed by 219 members of the House and 51 senators? Were they all in absolute agreement as to the meaning? I don't believe it is possible this side of glory.
I'm not a political person and actually hate politics, just ask my husband. I have to leave the room whenever he watches those guys on tv yelling at each other.
Your husband? But, on your stated solipsistic principles, if you thought his banning was unjust, and that a proscription of lying (even if from God) were unjust, you wouldn't consider yourself bound by such trivia. You could ignore the one and break the other. Because, really, you're the lord, lawgiver, and judge.
That's just it - I don't assume it has no merit. Apparently The Obama doesn't care one way or the other! All we know is that he viewed Alito as an unqualified judge. Why? Because he lacks the intelligence and skills? No, The Obama praised that very well. Because his record is lacking? No, according to The Obama, his judicial record is exemplary.
The only reason he gave for voting against Alito is this - he refused to favor the little guy.
He gives no example of Alito ruling unjustly in favor of the big guy. He cites no case where the little guy's case was stronger, yet Alito ruled the other way. He gives no example of misapplying the law, engaging in judicial misconduct, or being incompetent in any way. Never does he even suggest that a single one of Alito's rulings was unfair.
The only complaint he has against Alito is that he refuses to favor the little guy.
Which apparently means that the thing that matters most to The Obama is that a judge is willing to pervert justice to stack the deck for the chosen victim class o' the day. This one thing must be more important than all else combined, because it is enough to disqualify an otherwise exemplary judge.
Welcome to Obama World, where a judge ruling fairly is grounds for disqualification!
So no, I don't assume the widdle guy had no case. Nor do I assume his case is stronger. All we know is that Maximum Leader believes the deck must be stacked in widdle guy's favor. Which is, of course, the very definition of injustice.
Sem- And who is mostly likely to have had his rights violated? The wealthy corporation that spent millions of dollars influencing the writing of the law or the hard working guy that just wants to raise his family and make a decent living?
Laws are written by the powerful to protect the powerful most of the time. Whenever legislatures attempt to write laws granting protections to the weak they are opposed at every turn by special interests. That's why so many have fled to the courts as their last hope for justice.
When judges adopt a judicial philosophy that defers to the powerful at the expense of the weak that is not justice. The converse is also true. Cases ought to be decided on their merits, not on whether the judge is conservative or liberal.
I have to go babysit my cousin's kids so I won't be back tonight.
And thanks for the strawman, btw. Odd how you throw out a strawman to accuse me of one. Hmmm.
Never did I claim, nor does anyone I know of claim, that it is possible for a judge to be purely objective at all times. There? There.
What I am saying is - that is exactly why an objective standard is needed. The goal should be to, as much as possible, work through those biases and uphold the standard....
You know, it's not like you don't understand this. Why am I wasting my time? If you're intelligent to figure out how to post to a blog, you certainly understand this concept. It ain't exactly rocket surgery.
But congratulations on getting me to waste my time.
"When judges adopt a judicial philosophy that defers to the powerful at the expense of the weak that is not justice. The converse is also true."
EXACTLY!!!!
See, you do understand!
Class warfare? Check, check
"Sem- I don't have a solution to your problem."
It's not my problem per se. I was responding to the circular rotation of your comments.
What I am saying is - that is exactly why an objective standard is needed. The goal should be to, as much as possible, work through those biases and uphold the standard....The objective standard is the constitution, which wasn't written to protect the powerful OR the weak but to provide a framework in which the government could promote and protect individual liberty.
Honestly, I cannot think of a single issue that you cannot rule based on the wording of the Constitution, much less based upon the written opinions of the founding fathers.
At least Obama is now the second-least popular president, at this point, in 40 years. Even behind Jimmy Carter!Actually, Obama has good, if average, approval ratings for the first 100 days. According to Gallup, He rates below Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter for the first quarter; and above Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II.
Obama is apparently middle-of-the-pack popular, historically speaking; and he enjoys more public confidence at this stage than any other president in the past three decades.
FYI, the Washington Times editorial has been removed. I'm guessing someone took a second look at those Gallup numbers.
The objective standard is the constitution, which wasn't written to protect the powerful OR the weak but to provide a framework in which the government could promote and protect individual liberty.Holy smokes Batman, we actually agree on something. Now if only we had a definition of that pesky phrase "protect individual liberty"?
Nathan: FYI, the Washington Times editorial has been removed. I'm guessing someone took a second look at those Gallup numbers.The poll that is being referred to by Gallup on the 56% approval was released on April 24th was 56%.
The Washington Times did not "take a second look at the numbers." If anyone is responsible for the confusion it is Gallup, after all, they released their poll ,saying, "In First 100 Days, Obama Meets or Exceeds Expectations" . They accurately reported the poll numbers of Gallup and then Gallup released another poll the day after the editorial.
There's something fishy when the poll numbers jump 9% in just 5 days, but that's a subject for another topic.
I just thought I would mention to all who are debating why was the Constitution written. I would suggest reading the Preamble to the Constitution.
The most controversial phrases of the Constitution (both in the preamble and in the articles themselves) is the phrase of providing for the "general welfare" of the United States. Liberals will say that it includes providing for medical care, lower gas prices and a public education. (But yet dismiss that it should protect the unborn).
CR: Here's a snippet from the April 24 Gallup article, with my emphasis in bold:
"These summary evaluations of Obama's presidency provide a more detailed picture of public reaction to the new president than Gallup's standard job approval rating. Gallup Poll Daily tracking from April 20-22 finds 65% of Americans saying they "approve" of the job Obama is doing as president; 29% disapprove."
The USA Today/Gallup poll that gave Obama a 56% approval rating measured degrees of approval on a whole range of topics, then mathed 'em together. But, when respondents were asked to give a flat thumbs up or thumbs down, Obama comes out well above 60%. When this flat up-or-down rating is measured against similar polls under previous administrations, public opinion of Obama looks better than the Times editorial suggests.
If the Times took the drilled-down poll of April 20-21, and compared it to flat up-or-down ratings of prior presidents, then it screwed up by comparing apples to oranges. And it's not Gallup's fault, because the latter provided up-front acknowledgement of its different methodologies.
Right CR. But in coming to a conclusion about general welfare, most people completely ignore the writings of the founding fathers or any of the people which influenced their writings (i.e. Montesquieu, David Hume). The founding fathers would have been unanimously against public welfare of the sort liberals now propose.
You can spin this however you want, Nathan. The fact, remains, again, as I already stated, if anyone is responsible for the confusion it is Gallup. They chose to headline their poll with the 56% rating. Noticed how they didn't use the same good/excellent for the polling on 4/29.
Kathy,
The reason you and I cannot agree on the definition of liberty is because you don't actually believe in it. On the other hand, I'm fairly certain that CR and I could agree on a working definition before finishing our first cup of coffee.
Come on, Aaron. The founding fathers are a bunch of dead people.
{sarcasm}
CR: Spin? Seriously? What exactly do you think I'm spinning?
Too true, CR. Those dead people and their pesky phrases that nobody can figure out.
Sir Aaron- It's Kate, not Kathy. I've never gone by that name. Even Rob doesn't get to call me that!
How do you know we won't agree on what it means to protect individual liberty? I haven't seen your definition yet.
I shouldn't say nobody. Obviously Nicholas Cage did it, but then again he did have those fancy spectacles to decode them...
Kate, my apologies, I was scrolling too fast on my phone...
Anyways, I know we wouldn't agree on the definition because based on your previous posts its quite obvious where you stand.
Liberals aren't interested in interpreting the Constitution. Just read what OBama said about it:
...To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties...So it isn't a matter of knowing what the constraints are. Liberals simply don't care about the constraints except in order to find ways to usurp them.
Thomas Jefferson once said: ...One single object ... will entitle you to the endless gratitude of society; that of restraining judges from usurping legislation. If only he knew. If he and the other founding fathers knew how out of control the judiciary would become, none of the states would have ratified the Constitution.
CR: Still waiting to see exactly what you think I'm spinning. These are the facts:
(1) On April 20-21, Gallup polled the public using a different methodology than they usually use to divine presidential approval ratings.
(2) On April 24, Gallup published the results of their poll, explicitly acknowledging that they used a different methodology than they usually use.
(3) Gallup explicitly stated that the president's approval ratings for roughly this same period, judged by their usual methodology, hovered around 65%.
(4) A Washington Times editor, who apparently couldn't be bothered to read beyond the first few paragraphs, compared a 56% approval rating derived from a different methodology, and compared it to past presidential approval ratings derived from the usual methodology. Apples and oranges.
(5) The Washington Times removed the editorial in question. Hard to imagine they'd do that unless they believed it was factually impaired.
Dude: What part of this am I spinning?
All I will say is that things are not always what they seem, and it's extremely unlikely that I will be posting on the metas dealing with political issues in the future.
All I will say is that things are not always what they seemIndeed. I think we learned that after Bush appointed Souter.
Post a Comment