![]() |
worth thinking about
regardless of your specific stand on current 'hot button' issues, if you
honestly believe in the system our founding fathers designed this is worth listening to and thinking about http://tinyurl.com/mno5u I haven't been able to find a full transcript of the speech yet, but I'm looking |
worth thinking about
Larry L wrote: regardless of your specific stand on current 'hot button' issues, if you honestly believe in the system our founding fathers designed this is worth listening to and thinking about http://tinyurl.com/mno5u I haven't been able to find a full transcript of the speech yet, but I'm looking It's here http://www.appellateacademy.org/even...rks_110705.pdf Worth reading, but the people who need to read it will never suspect what it means. |
worth thinking about
"BJ Conner" wrote in message ups.com... It's here http://www.appellateacademy.org/even...rks_110705.pdf Worth reading, but the people who need to read it will never suspect what it means. Nope, this ain't the speech she gave at Georgetown Univ., on March 9, 2006; as what you linked us to is dated Nov. 7, 2005. Op |
worth thinking about
BJ Conner wrote
Worth reading, but the people who need to read it will never suspect what it means. OK. I'm game. Who are you talking about and what does it (the article) really mean? (I read it) -- -dnc- remove the 'la' to email me |
worth thinking about
"Fiddleaway" wrote in message news:01c6448c$a15a55c0$05ff1345@micron... BJ Conner wrote Worth reading, but the people who need to read it will never suspect what it means. OK. I'm game. Who are you talking about and what does it (the article) really mean? (I read it) -- -dnc- I suspect that it would better be asked, what part of "judicial independence" don't you understand? Op |
worth thinking about
Mr. Opus McDopus wrote in article
... "Fiddleaway" wrote in message news:01c6448c$a15a55c0$05ff1345@micron... BJ Conner wrote Worth reading, but the people who need to read it will never suspect what it means. OK. I'm game. Who are you talking about and what does it (the article) really mean? (I read it) -- -dnc- I suspect that it would better be asked, what part of "judicial independence" don't you understand? Well...now there's a couple a questions ... which article are we going to talk about? And I think it's pretty clear from his tone that he sees beyond the obvious to some deeper level not obvious to those of us with merely a public education. With regard to the article he cited the questions still stand. Who needs to read it? and What does it really mean? -- -dnc- |
worth thinking about
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 17:48:20 GMT, "Larry L"
wrote: regardless of your specific stand on current 'hot button' issues, if you honestly believe in the system our founding fathers designed this is worth listening to and thinking about http://tinyurl.com/mno5u I haven't been able to find a full transcript of the speech yet, but I'm looking Wonderful speech. -- r.bc: vixen Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher, etc.. Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless. Really. |
worth thinking about
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 17:48:20 GMT, "Larry L"
wrote: regardless of your specific stand on current 'hot button' issues, if you honestly believe in the system our founding fathers designed this is worth listening to and thinking about http://tinyurl.com/mno5u I haven't been able to find a full transcript of the speech yet, but I'm looking I think the speech itself is going to be hard to find - no recordings of any kind. FWIW, I've heard the NPR person has already caught flack for "misrepresenting" what O'Connor said by taking selected parts of the speech and cobbling it together with commentary to put a slant on it. That said, I don't think you really understand what the founding fathers desired or what they intended to design, and given your views as expressed on ROFF, I'd suspect that you'd freak out if such a system were implemented as they intended. Assuming that some here are right about Bush and Co. and an "imperial Presidency" that doesn't answer to the "riff-raff," I think you'd find it closer to what they had in mind than not. So-called (modern) conservatives generally champion laws that don't offend the Constitution but can, and often do, offend the individual, whereas so-called (modern) liberals generally champion laws that make particular individuals feel great but offend the Constitution. As examples, guns (because the 2nd is clear and combined with legislative intent, it is ironclad), most "recreational" drugs, and abortion (because the Constitution is silent directly on-point) should be legislated, not controlled by the Supreme Court. IMO, they should be Federally legal, with caveats, generally without input from or notice by the Supreme Court (form of law excepted, should the case arise) - malum prohibitum vs malum in se, unless the former crosses the line in such a way that the latter would be a foreseeable result, i.e., drunk driving in an unsafe (and uninsured, just to get it all messy) vehicle. OTOH, a lot of what is put forth a "free" press and a separation of church and state is just plain wrong - as examples, there is no language, and no intent, to allow the press to run amok, nor any prohibition against, for example, prayer in schools or religious symbols at public buildings. TC, R |
worth thinking about
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 13:46:08 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: wrote: On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 17:48:20 GMT, "Larry L" wrote: regardless of your specific stand on current 'hot button' issues, if you honestly believe in the system our founding fathers designed this is worth listening to and thinking about http://tinyurl.com/mno5u I haven't been able to find a full transcript of the speech yet, but I'm looking I think the speech itself is going to be hard to find - no recordings of any kind. Someone already posted a link to the speech. It was the same speech she gave back in November of last year. I don't think it is. FWIW, I've heard the NPR person has already caught flack for "misrepresenting" what O'Connor said by taking selected parts of the speech and cobbling it together with commentary to put a slant on it. That's nonsense, the only thing Nina Totenberg can be accused of in that piece is naming names where O'Connor didn't. There was no "misrepresentation" or "slant". Oh, OK...so O'Connor's opinion of a story about her own speech is nonsense? Well, good luck with that and all... The GOP got bitch slapped, and rightly so, they're the party constantly complaining about the left-wing judiciary legislating from the bench. Um, if the speech posted in the link is the speech you think "bitch slapped" the GOP, you might actually want to read the speech at the link posted. TC, R |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:07 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter