Clapton and Cale, singing us all home safely
A little Friday evening traveling music to see us all on our way out the door. Grab your lunch bucket and skedaddle, fool, the boss man ain’t paying you no overtime.
I should talk.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2009 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
86 comments Add your comment
I Report/ You Whine
March 13th, 2009
5:50 pm
Duh duh duh, da, duh, duh, duh, if you wanna get down, down on the ground, cocaaaaaiiiiine.
What was I just saying, hahaha.
Perfect performer for the libs.
I Report/ You Whine
March 13th, 2009
5:52 pm
She don’t lie, she don’t lie, she don’t lie, like Oblahma do, cocaaaiiine.
The Corporal
March 13th, 2009
5:54 pm
HEADLINE: BOSTON (AP) – Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told law students there could be an opening on the Supreme Court soon but didn’t hint at who might be leaving.
This is what is truly so scary and why a President who does not believe in judicial oligarchy should be in the White House whenever one of these openings occur.
The Corporal
March 13th, 2009
5:58 pm
HEADLINE: DOJ Drops Use of ‘Enemy Combatant’ Language
Government Reiterates Its Power to Detain as Needed
By JASON RYAN and ARIANE De VOGUE
March 13, 2009
“The Justice Department today told a federal court that it has the power to detain those who “substantially” supported Taliban or al Qaeda forces after Sept. 11 but is dropping the legal use of the phrase “enemy combatant” to describe such detainees.”
Hummmmmm ……… not sure what to think about this yet.
“Dulce Bellum Inexpertis”
Paul
March 13th, 2009
6:05 pm
Thanks, Jay. We needed that.
Hilbilly Deluxe
March 13th, 2009
6:12 pm
The Skynyrd version is probably more well known but it’s interesting to hear the writer’s version of the song. I like the groove of this one.
RW-(the original)
March 13th, 2009
6:39 pm
Is Obama snubbing another foreign leader?
After the Gordon Brown debacle, you would think the White House would put a little more thought into planning for visits by visiting heads of state. But Brazil is already grumbling about the treatment of President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who will sit down with Obama this weekend and is the first Latin American leader to visit the White House under the new administration.
Silva aides said the trip was pushed forward from Tuesday because of the St. Patrick’s Day holiday – making Latin America once again look like an afterthought. Then, the White House announcement misspelled his name as “Luis Ignacio” and put “Lula” – a nickname that decades ago became a legal part of the Brazilian leader’s name – in quotes.
When Obama gives this guy his Weekend at Bernie’s DVD collection let’s hope he at least gives him the Portuguese version.
Joey
March 13th, 2009
6:53 pm
Please Jay tell me it is not true that Bob Barr is the AJC’s choice for its conservative voice. This is the worse betrayal of your conservative subscribers ever. Balance? Balance?
You’ve known Barr for as long as you have been here. You know what kind of person he is. How could you support this move? Disgusting!
RW-(the original)
March 13th, 2009
6:55 pm
Corporal,
I read over at HotAir that Obama was probably thinking of changing “Enemy Combatant” to “Undocumented Protagonist”
Eleanor Rigby
March 13th, 2009
6:57 pm
Another excellent selection. If I may, I would like to suggest The Traveling Wilbury’s for next week. (Still missing George.
) Maybe next Tuesday we could hear some of The Tiller’s Folly, in honor of our Celtic friends. Just a suggestion. Now, let’s all get out there and eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow….
@@
March 13th, 2009
7:18 pm
Can’t wait till next week.
Giorraionn beirt bothar.
(ISH)
DB, Gwinnettian
March 13th, 2009
7:23 pm
With the headline, I was hoping for John Cale but, ok.
(and now I’ll go google away my curiousity–did Clapton and John Cale ever do anything together?)
DB, Gwinnettian
March 13th, 2009
7:33 pm
“This is the worse betrayal of your conservative subscribers ever.”
You sure it’s not worser?
DB, Gwinnettian
March 13th, 2009
7:34 pm
“This is the worse betrayal of your conservative subscribers ever.”
alternative punchline: “All six of them?”
Jay
March 13th, 2009
7:34 pm
Just got home, y’all. No, Joey, Barr is not the conservative columnist to replace Wooten. He is merely resuming the column he was writing for us before his presidential run.
And Mike, I agree, those are not stimulus-related. I included them in the hypotheticals in the belief that they are a major part of the Obama policy package that Limbaugh and others refer to when they say they hope he fails.
DB, Gwinnettian
March 13th, 2009
7:34 pm
Guess everyone else has a life. Well, me too. Later, all, enjoy your Friday.
BDAtlanta
March 13th, 2009
7:34 pm
great Irish music:
Planxty, especially “Raggle Taggle Gypsy” from the self-titled first album. The song is a story too about an adulerous woman i believe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRjaTChJu5U&feature=PlayList&p=57015A4BB2ECD573&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=94
The Pogues’ album Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash with “A Pair of Brown Eyes”, “Dirty old Town”, and “The Old Main Drag”
The Corporal
March 13th, 2009
7:35 pm
To RW (the original):
That was good but how about “terroristically challenged” ?
mike
March 13th, 2009
7:48 pm
” I included them in the hypotheticals in the belief that they are a major part of the Obama policy package that Limbaugh and others refer to when they say they hope he fails.”
No offense, but you really should have spelled that out instead of giving us the false choices you provided. The way the questions read is if the intervention (what should have been labeled the bank bailout, stimulus) failed than Obama’s ideology would be discredited. The intervention and Obama’s ideologically driven policies should not be equated, as they have nothing to do with each other.
getalife
March 13th, 2009
7:52 pm
Looks like Andy has moved up from booze to the rock.
Midori
March 13th, 2009
7:55 pm
hey DB!!
Look at what I got in the mail today!!
http://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Science-Theater-3000-XIV/dp/B001G8SX04/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1236988533&sr=8-1
TnGelding
March 13th, 2009
7:57 pm
The Corporal
March 13th, 2009
5:54 pm
It’s beyond me how a member could be labeled liberal or conservative. Is the Constitution really that vague? OR ARE JUSTICES REALLY THAT IDEOLOOGICAL? Wonder if Harriet Ellan Miers is still available? Or maybe Kenneth Winston Starr?
Midori
March 13th, 2009
7:57 pm
what do you mean “moved up” Getalife?
Ray
March 13th, 2009
7:57 pm
Let’s be politically correct and call them “Misdirected Sons of Allah”. Of course The Annointed One could not bring himself to call them sadistic, coldblooded savages. That might hurt their feelings.
TnGelding
March 13th, 2009
7:59 pm
The Corporal
March 13th, 2009
5:58 pm
THE MORE THINGS CHANGE…
Jay
March 13th, 2009
8:01 pm
I agree Mike, but that is a distinction lost on many on the right and I was trying to honestly reflect that perspective in the question.
The Corporal
March 13th, 2009
8:11 pm
Republican wants WH candidates to prove citizenship
Posted: 07:45 PM ET
From CNN Political Editor Mark Preston
WASHINGTON (CNN) — “Rep. Bill Posey, R-Florida, introduced legislation this week requiring candidates to produce a birth certificate to be eligible to run in future presidential elections, triggering a sharp reaction from Democrats who accused him of “questioning President Obama’s citizenship.”
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. POSEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee
A BILL
“To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to
require the principal campaign committee of a candidate
for election to the office of President to include with
the committee’s statement of organization a copy of the
candidate’s birth certificate, together with such other
documentation as may be necessary to establish that
the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to
the Office of President under the Constitution.”
SPECIAL NOTE: President Obama is the president and will continue to be the president. No court, including the Supreme Court would rule otherwise now (even if he was born overseas) because of the chaos that would erupt. However, the truth of his birth location needs to be clearly established so we know where to put the historical marker.
In the above news article it states that President Obama’s campaign provided a “certified” copy of his birth certificate from the Hawaii Department of Health. It is my understanding that is incorrect. Instead, they provided a certified copy of his “Certification of Live Birth”; an “umbrella document” separate from his actual “Birth Certificate”. Under Hawaii law, a parent could have a child outside the United States and file for a birth certificate upon their return to Hawaii if they had lived there for one year prior. If provided, the actual “birth certificate” (which has much more information including his hospital of record) would settle this matter.
The absence of a certified copy of his “Birth Certificate” vs. his “Certification of Live Birth” begs for an answer.
If that is wrong, I will stand corrected.
The Corporal
March 13th, 2009
8:12 pm
TnGelding:
Read “Men in Black” by Mark Levin and then get back to me.
TnGelding
March 13th, 2009
8:13 pm
The Corporal
March 13th, 2009
5:54 pm
WHO WOULD MAKE A GOOD NOMINEE THAT CONSERVATIVES COULD ACCEPT? I thought it would be Hillary before she took state.
The Corporal
March 13th, 2009
8:13 pm
Sorry:
Here’s the article…………….
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/13/gop-congressman-wants-presidential-candidates-to-prove-citizenship/#more-43796
The Corporal
March 13th, 2009
8:15 pm
To TnGelding:
Good question. I really don’t care who it is as long as they are an “originalist” and believe in interpreting the Constitution instead of making law (which is the job of the Congress).
TnGelding
March 13th, 2009
8:17 pm
The Corporal
March 13th, 2009
8:12 pm
Thanks for the tip.
The Corporal
March 13th, 2009
8:20 pm
TnGelding:
It’s a great read. Hard to put down.
RW-(the original)
March 13th, 2009
8:22 pm
Jay B may think the right isn’t sophisticated or intelligent enough to understand the false choices he presented to us downstairs, but can you imagine what he would’ve had to do for the left.
A) Bush sucks
B) Follow the shiny ball
Which would you on the left prefer?
TnGelding
March 13th, 2009
8:24 pm
The Corporal
March 13th, 2009
8:15 pm
Agreed.
RW-(the original)
March 13th, 2009
8:26 pm
Gelding,
I bet Hillary would give up State for a seat on the Supreme Court as long as we had reached a point where there would be no viable way to present herself as an alternative to a failed Obama in 2012.
The Corporal
March 13th, 2009
8:36 pm
TnGelding:
Great! I can’t believe we agree on something ……….
)
Chad Harris
March 13th, 2009
8:40 pm
Ironically Norm Coleman sponsered a bill to make credit card info abuse violation of federal law. The bill didn’t pass, but he has violated Minnesota law and his donors are drying up.
The loser in the election court has to pay the substantial litigation fees for the 30 something days of litigation that will end in a week. That means either party can demand the other put said money in escrow.
That goes for the money to litigate an appeal to the Minn. Supremes.
A big shoutout to the Rethug party in Jawjaw who has in one day run biotech and medical grants out of Jawjaw with its insane ban on emb stem testing.
This will not only curb infertility practices as physicians back off using implanted embryos, but it will drive researchers out of Georgia and ultimately force Georgians to get treatments out of state when they develop rapidly in the coming years unless the bill before Congress is worded to supercede Georgia’s law.
Franken has it. Coleman doesn’t.
If Franken wins the Election court, and demands Coleman show him the money, and Coleman can’t.l game over and certification will take place and your new 59th Senator will be Al Franken.
All you wingnuts who want to donate to Coleman won’t be able to do so with a credit card, and I’d get your money in fast because in a week there won’t be any Coleman cause to contribute toward.
Chad Harris
March 13th, 2009
8:47 pm
Hillary won’t be considered for the Supreme Court. Her Hillary facade does not overcome the fact that Hillary is not much of an attorney and has very little real littigation and next to no appellate experience.
What most people don’t know, and now you do, is that a year out of Yale law school Hillary flunked the D.C. Bar, and she never had the guts to retake it. Almost no one out of Yale flunks the D.C. bar, but Hillary managed to accomplish it.
Dawn Johnsen who is soon going to be confirmed as Chief of OLC which makes the major policy for DOJ after Specter is forced to remove his hold on her confirmation in SJC has considerable appellate experience and is one of the most respected con law professors in the US.
No one considers Clinton to have a chance to be a Supreme or that she has any qualifications whatsoever.
Obama is as worried about Hil in 2012 as he is Jindal, Alaska Ditzbrain (ah kin see Russshhha), Stanford, and all the other dead white people walking the wingbutts have to offer.
BDAtlanta
March 13th, 2009
9:02 pm
That’s not Hillary’s area. She needs to be in front of the cameras.
Harriet Myers…hehehe. Even Ann Coulter called Bush a dumb arse after he pulled that one.
The Amazing GodHatesTrash
March 13th, 2009
9:08 pm
Me mother’s mother’s mother was from the Emerald Isle… For all you Irishmen and wannabes…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EADUQWKoVek
mike
March 13th, 2009
9:27 pm
Jay –
“I agree Mike, but that is a distinction lost on many on the right”
Please don’t tell me that you are among those on the left who think that conservatives are not equally able to grasp reality as are liberals. Give me a break.
Dave R
March 13th, 2009
9:31 pm
Let’s just say that Chad Harris shouldn’t be waiting up for the phone call from President Hope & Change for his nomination to either the Supreme Court or Surgeon General.
And Dawn Johnsen doesn’t have a chance of being appointed, unless Hope & Change wants someone on the Supreme Court as inexperienced as he was going into office. (which would be par for the course in the administration, anyway) I don’t see any judicial experience in her resume. Regardless of her (somewhat light) background in Constitutional law, it is a theoretical background, not a court-tested one.
But when has experience stopped Hope & Change?
I Report/ You Whine
March 13th, 2009
9:40 pm
getalife March 13th, 2009 7:52 pm Looks like Andy has moved up from booze to the rock.
And if I did, Mr. Sedative Eater, what would be wrong with that?
Just kidding, speaking of rock, Eric Clapton ain’t got squat on the kings-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4Sxxy0ynXk&feature=related
Now that’s what I’m talking about.
The Corporal
March 13th, 2009
9:45 pm
This is just how far we have descended into the abyss …..
HEADLINE: “ACLU Urges California District to Let Kids Leave School for Medical Treatment Without Parental Consent …”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509171,00.html
I don’t have to worry about it now, but I would “pity” the school administrator and doctor if my daughter went through this prodedure without our knowldege or permission; was sent home that afternoon; and died in her bed overnight from surgery related hemorraging because we weren’t aware of the situation or monitoring her condition for symptoms.
Sad, sad, sad ………….
Chad Harris
March 13th, 2009
9:54 pm
Let’s just say Chad Harris doesn’t want political posts but he’s infinitely more qualified for either nomination than morons who post about commenters but not issues because they are too dumb to discuss them.
G
March 13th, 2009
9:57 pm
Sonia Sotomayor, federal judge on the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, would be a great Supreme Court pick.
And the fact that Pillboy attacked her on his radio show just makes her all the better.
Chad Harris
March 13th, 2009
9:58 pm
Dawn Johnsen is at the top of the list for a Supreme Court appointment, and her work at OLC will qualify her.
The cretins here who are wingnuts never heard of Dawn Johnsen until I brought her up. As a wingnut, you and your party will have no say on most of the issues decided for this country for years, and if you’re a bookman wingbutter, you will be too stupid and poorly read to even know what the issues are.
Dawn Johnsen is one of the most respected con law professors and one of the most prolifically published law professors in history.
Obama is showing that judgement as well as his seven years in the Senate are paying off.
Cretins thought that a moron like Palin was experienced enough to have the launch codes and how’d that workout for ya?
The Corporal
March 13th, 2009
10:12 pm
Mr. G:
Depends on whether she is an “originalist” or a “breather”.
RW-(the original)
March 13th, 2009
10:19 pm
And the fact that Pillboy attacked her on his radio show just makes her all the better.
It occurs to me that Rush really could shape our government if he played his cards right. He could just attack the next Clarence Thomas and the next CT would be the hero of the mindless sheeple.
The Corporal
March 13th, 2009
10:36 pm
To Chad Harris:
Sir, I hate to disagree with you on general principal but since I have been on this site I have found more often than not that it is the liberals (with exceptions) who are the most mean spirited, vitriolic, sometimes infantile, name calling posters. I am constantly having to encourage them to engage in reasoned debate – which is much more fun and constructive.
Just my opinion.
G
March 13th, 2009
10:44 pm
TC @ 10:12, It depends on whether I like her or not – and I do.
G
March 13th, 2009
10:46 pm
RW @ 10:19, you wish.
Chad Harris
March 13th, 2009
10:48 pm
It occurs to me that Rush has shaped our government and continues to. He is a terrific force for the Democratic party and our causes, and he continues to sink the Republican party in election after election like the last two national elections in which they were buried in landslilke fashion.
His claim to having 20 million radio listeners was quickly debunked by experts in the radio field who pointed out that when ratings are objectively done on radio in the same way that they are done in TV, Rush actually has about 1.5 million listeners. And even if you gave him the fictional 14-20 million he does not have but has cooked the data to claim, they would not impact the lopsided majority that the Dems now have gained, nor the Presidential election.
Rush is a terrific vote getter for the Dems among Independents, and as I linked and pointed out repeatedly, the WSJ (a conservative paper by anyone’s judgement)-NBC poll showed President Obama’s ratings increasing although that is fairly normal for this early in a Presidency, but Rush Limbaugh’s negatives are off the wall and his approval rating is even lower than Bush’s–hovering in the high teens as I type this.
He continues to insure defeat for the Republicans in Congress, and Rush is as naive as the Bookman wingbutters when it comes to legal issues. Rush does knows the top prospects for the Supreme Court should Obama have the opportunity to appoint someone, does not know the case law in the federal appellate courts whatsoever including the S. Ct., and will have no influence whatsoever on any appointments to the Court for the next eight years–and that includes to the federal appellate bench because Obama is teeing up several appointments who will be confirmed.
I might add that two more of the top DOJ officials were confirmed yesterday. Rush couldn’t name them to save his life. Dave Ogden was confirmed as DAG the #2, and Tom Pereilli was confirmed as AAG, the #3.
Clarence Thomas continues to enter his 18th year on the S.Ct. to cowed in fright to utter so much as a single burp during oral argument. In that vein, he has made history as the only justice in the history of the Court never to ask a question or make a comment during oral argument. 18 years is a damn long time to remain silent, but he has done it. When minority hires began to soar at Atlanta law firms, there was not one law firm in Georgia who would consider hiring Clarence Thomas. Again, concommitant with that many African American lawyers were hired and quickly became associates in law firms throughtout Atlanta and Georgia, but not Clarence Thomas.
One wonders what a “CT” is supposed to be.
The Corporal
March 13th, 2009
10:48 pm
To G:
Well, that’s not a real solid reason …. but it’s a free (sort of) country.
p-nut gallery
March 13th, 2009
10:54 pm
what are you trying to say chad?
YOU DONT LIKE RUSH?
G
March 13th, 2009
11:12 pm
TC @ 10:48, I find it odd that that you use the words “real,” “solid,” and “reason”.
AmVet
March 13th, 2009
11:55 pm
Hillbilly, you are my kinda music fan. But I’m sure you’d agree those first two Skynyrd albums were both incredible. Second only to the Allman Bros. in the southern pantheon of must have music IMHO.
Eleanor, you too are a true inspiration of tunes. Thank you.
Corporal, a nightmare come true!!! The Uppity One is gonna stack the SCOTUS with baby killing, terrorist coddling, “living Constitution” libs! And you thought things were already bad. But again I commend you for your civility and your calls for respect on this blog. It is rare.
Joey, Bob “Dour” Barr, doesn’t surprise me in the least as lameass Wooten’s temp. Though he’s apparently had an epiphany on the evils of the wicked weed, joint, spliff, pot, hemp, maryjane, doobywah, etc… he’s still quite out there by most standards. But the conservo-libertario-fringe needs a voice to remind us why after we are where we are.
As if in Dixie we needed the reminder…
p-nut gallery
March 14th, 2009
12:03 am
if anyone is insane enough to wade through chad’s manifesto, god bless.
Dave R
March 14th, 2009
5:48 am
Thank you, Chadly, for proving my point.
If you consider Stevens and Ginsberg great justices regarding Constitutional issues, then you’d simply love Dawn Johnsen. You don’t want someone who will uphold the Constitution, you want someone who will interpret the Constitution to support your Socialist agenda.
The words are simple enough for even you to understand, Chad, but you refuse to even read them.
Dawn Johnsen is one of the most respected Constitutional law professors in the country? By whose standards? Is this the same Dawn Johnsen who argued (unsuccessfully) that any restriction in abortion rights violates the 13th amendment which abolished slavery? Restricting abortions makes you a slave? That Dawn Johnsen? Is this the same Dawn Johnsen who argued AGAINST President Bush’s claims of executive privilege and powers, yet argued for those SAME powers and privileges when working for President Clinton?
Great choice, Chadly.
You’ve moved from political and economic malpractice to judicial malpractice.
And let’s just say that someone who “liberally”
laces their every diatribe with invective such as “wingnutter” “cretin” and “Rethug” really doesn’t want to have serious discussions about anything.
Bud Wiser
March 14th, 2009
7:18 am
There must be trouble in rat paradise….Lady Chadderly is hot on the keyboard again.
You impress no one Chad. Your cut and paste skills are pedestrian, an all of your claims about being a doctor, lawyer, etc., pretty much categorize you as just another anonymous internet dreamer who thinks they can save the world by just thinking it and, VOILA, it is so!
Come back when you move out of mom’s basement.
Oh, and your foul invectives against those who disagree with you, plus your continual use of misspelled words, just might be the first two clues that you are not who you purport yourself to be.
Grow up little boy.
jon
March 14th, 2009
8:11 am
“The Justice Department today told a federal court that it has the power to detain those who “substantially” supported Taliban or al Qaeda forces after Sept. 11 but is dropping the legal use of the phrase “enemy combatant” to describe such detainees.”
Hmmm…. The article didn’t say what the new moniker would be. Might we speculate?
The less fortunate
Victims of American aggression
Our Muslim Brothers
Losers in life’s lottery
Unjustly accused
Potential Democrat voters
anything but Murderous, American-hating, terrorist MFs
mm
March 14th, 2009
9:36 am
Things aren’t looking so good for the GOP and their brainwashed supporters. The house, the senate, the WH, a potentially stacked supreme court, and a doj that actually does it’s job. Whine on. Bwa.
The Corporal
March 14th, 2009
9:38 am
To Jon:
The new “moniker” is: “Terroristically Challenged”
The Corporal
March 14th, 2009
9:46 am
To AmVet:
Thank you for your kind words. Now, I mean this seriously, what do you think about these quotes ….. especially, the one from Washington:
“The courts exist to exercise not the will of men, but the judgement of law”. James Madison
“The Constitution does not constitute us as ‘Platonic Guardians’ nor does it vest in this Court the authority to strike down laws because they do not meet our standards of desirable social policy, wisdom or common sense … We trespass on the assigned function of the political branches under our structure of limited and separated powers when we assume a policymaking role.” Chief Justice Warren Burger
“The Court, in addition to the proper use of its judicial functions, has improperly set itself up as a third house of Congress – a super legislature – reading into the Constitution words and implications which are not there, and which were never intended to be there. We have therefore reached the point as a nation where we must take action to save the Consitution from the Court and the Court from itself. We must find a way to take an appeal from the Supreme Court to the Constitution itself. We want a Supreme Court which will do justice under the Constitution and not over it. In our courts we want a government of laws and not of men.” President Franklin D. Roosevelt
“If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” George Washington
The Corporal
March 14th, 2009
9:51 am
Headline/Report: Cuba, Venezuela could host Russian bombers …
Uping the ante ……….
TnGelding
March 14th, 2009
10:00 am
The Corporal
March 14th, 2009
9:51 am
Just trying to improve negotiating position?
What did you major in at UGA?
Andy the welcher
March 14th, 2009
10:04 am
Gosh, by trying to outlaw abortion even though there is not a single word for or against it in the Constitution? Or perhaps trying to amend it to outlaw same sex marriage?
“Activism” is rampant on both sides of the aisle.
The Corporal
March 14th, 2009
10:11 am
To Andy the Welcher:
I agree with you. Both sides can sometimes be wrong. That’s why Washington’s quote is so important. I am a purist!! If it’s not there, Amend it or too bad. Most things should have been left to the States – PERIOD – as the Constitution provides. If you don’t like it – move.
By the way …. abotion laws or the lack thereof should be left to the States.
The Corporal
March 14th, 2009
10:12 am
To TnGelding:
BBA Accounting – 1972.
AmVet
March 14th, 2009
10:15 am
Corporal, you are very welcome. You’ve mastered the knack of not taking this stuff personally. Nor making it such. If only others, from both sides of the divide, would follow your lead.
As to the quotes, I am infinitely unqualified to assess them. I make no bones about this. Though there are some here who tacitly profess to be great constitutional scholars with vast legal erudition. I do not.
But since you asked, I’ll take a stab.
Madison’s says a great deal with very few words. Burger’s says not all that much of value other than apparently adjudicating and interpreting legislation can be a form of “policy making”. FDR’s is undecipherable out of context. And from my reading of Washington, it appears to me that he is strongly advising great care in not adding unnecessary amendments to the US Constitution. If this is the case I wholeheartedly agree. I’ve said before that I find it a travesty that partisans would love to pollute that most sacred document with inane flag-burning and definition of marriage amendments, for example.
To them I say, keep your filthy hands off of it.
Further, I am most unimpressed with these armchair John Marshalls, Oliver Wendell Holmes and Earl Warrens.
These judicial matters are exceptionally complicated, though some here often parse them down to sophomoric and partisan drivel.
We have a Supreme Court and a subsystem of courts with imminently educated and experienced men and women who, in some cases, struggle with these issues and questions their entire lives.
I leave the brain surgery up to the brain surgeons…
The Corporal
March 14th, 2009
10:19 am
P.S. to TnGelding:
“Just trying to improve negotiating position?”
Here’s where we may disagree. All countries aren’t equal. That’s why we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan? Do they have an equal “legal” right to invade us even if they could? No.
Russian bombers landing in our hemisphere is the same to me as the mafia in New York brandishing their weapons in front of the local FBI field office. That’s not an equal event. There are criminals and there are “state” criminals.
Bottom line: We get to patrol the Black Sea but Russia doesn’t get to patrol the Carribean. Equality among nations. No.
Just my opinion ………. good vs. evil.
Chad Harris
March 14th, 2009
12:01 pm
Corporal–
How ’bout your homeboy Dare R who can barely spell the words “constitutional law: claiming Dawn Johnsen who has done major litigation on con law cases for 28 years in federal circuits is “light on experience.” LOL to the 128th. That’s because the thug standard is nominating Harriet Meirs who never litigated in federal court to the Supremes making a fool out of the thugs once again.
The Corporal
March 14th, 2009
1:41 pm
To AmVet:
Thanks for your responses.
“We have a Supreme Court and a subsystem of courts with imminently educated and experienced men and women who, in some cases, struggle with these issues and questions their entire lives.”
Very true but education or intelligence has nothing to do with it …. the difference is, some (kind of like jury duty) are able to set aside their prejudices and some are not. THAT is the problem.
I don’t think Washington was talking about “unnecessary Amendments”. What I think he was saying, and you have to read the old style of writing very carefully, is that that you don’t usurp what the Constitution says by making a “societal” ruling. Whether the purpose is “good or bad” you cheapen the Constitution and overall weaken it.
There is a process …. called amending.
Here is an example of what I think he meant. Let’s suppose that the Constitution was never amended for women to vote and it’s now 2009. American women are “really” upset because even the Iraqis are letting their women vote. They file suit, it works its way to the Supreme Court and they rule womens’s rights have been violated and they now have the right to vote.
That would be an “erroneous” ruling (even though for good) without an Amendment !!
The Corporal
March 14th, 2009
1:45 pm
To Chad Harris:
Two points:
1) When Bush nominated Meirs (similar to some of Clinton’s first nominations) I went through the roof. I call ‘em like I see ‘em.
2) As I somewhat covered with AmVet, education, intelligence or years of experience in litigation means very little if one cannot set his/her prejudices aside and respect the Constitution as a written contract between the American People and their government. A written contract “does not change”. It says what it says and means what it means”. It can be amended but it does not change.
Attorneys/judges are very intelligent and obviously educated but that doesn’t mean a “lay person” cannot see the folly/prejudice of their arguments/rulings.
TnGelding
March 14th, 2009
1:59 pm
The Corporal
March 14th, 2009
10:19 am
My point was they probably have no intention of basing the bombers at either place.
The Corporal
March 14th, 2009
2:26 pm
To TnGelding:
Probably. But ……. if they “try” what is your suggestion ….
)
The Corporal
March 14th, 2009
3:43 pm
My AJC “Vent” submissions for today ………….
)
I miss William F. Buckley.
I’m growing a little weary of all these Joaquin Phoenix articles. Who is this guy and who cares?
Hollywood is making all of these comic book “super-hero” movies. When are they going to make one about Sgt. Rock ?
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=Sgt.+Rock&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=MvG7SeyDH82xtwerrYn4Cw&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title
The Corporal
March 14th, 2009
3:45 pm
P.S. I always liked the way Sgt. Rock opened his C-rations cans with his Tommy Gun. I tried it once. It didn’t work.
TnGelding
March 14th, 2009
3:52 pm
The Corporal
March 14th, 2009
2:26 pm
Venezuela, no problem. Cuba would be tricky. We might have to give up something to prevent it. It wouldn’t be worth going to war over.
If Russia (or China) wanted to sail warships in the Carribean I don’t think there’s a whole lot we could do about it.
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=77604§ionid=351020602
The Corporal
March 14th, 2009
3:59 pm
Sure we could. Just let a killer nuclear submarine of ours keep surfacing off their bow ……………
TnGelding
March 14th, 2009
4:01 pm
The Corporal
March 14th, 2009
3:59 pm
You were right we would disagree. I don’t see us having “rights” that other sovereign nations don’t. We need to back off a little. Besides, we can’t afford it and really never could.
Dave R
March 14th, 2009
6:12 pm
So Chad, do you agree with Ms. Johnsen that any abortion restrictions at all are the equivalent to slavery and thereby violates the 13th amendment? That’s what she thinks.
Please, defend this position. I’d love to have you make the case for this nut-job to be a Supreme Court justice based on FACTS, not your phony “qualifications” regarding her.
The Corporal
March 14th, 2009
9:15 pm
To Dave R:
Hummmm …….. if an abortion restriction violates the 13th Amendment then the military “draft” also does. The problem is that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled almost at the same time in the early 1970’s that the first was unconstitutional but the second (the draft) was not. Go figure ……. they ruled based on societal pressure instead of the law.
The Corporal
March 14th, 2009
9:19 pm
Tn Gelding:
Of course we have rights that other nations don’t. Otherwise, we could not be the world’s policeman ………..
) Someone has to do it.
The Corporal
March 14th, 2009
9:23 pm
HEADLINE: WASHINGTON — “The protracted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are forcing the Obama administration to rethink what for more than two decades has been a central premise of American strategy: that the nation need only prepare to fight two major wars at a time.”
WHAT? THE “THREE WAR” PRESIDENT ?? WHAT DO YOU LIBS THINK ?