Email address obfuscation in effect -- please
click here to turn it off.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
- To: MLUG Off-Topic Discussion <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
- Subject: Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [POLITICS] what next?
- From: Vern Green <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
- Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 23:04:58 -0800
- Delivery-date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 01:05:22 -0600
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=hiP55osg7G6PvhkA9ddM60Yn93fTX1jPzhQS0tAXbcSGLIiLLzf5XTzsswRR3LvYWVPa0wQJXcs6g8jQTsc5sbw60mAfTQ0TblwvnBaftaZh8I8pvZNUm8lFxyNf/AhCZs6flCd2/KCqcosV4b8IM9pO3lsoGmvPrmWrlHaTjlQ=
- Envelope-to: EMAIL:PROTECTED
- In-reply-to: <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
- References: <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
- Reply-to: MLUG Off-Topic Discussion <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
- Sender: EMAIL:PROTECTED
Mike, what exactly was the supreme court ruling and why did they reach
that ruling? Do you really know? Do you really care? Or is this just
another bash on republicans without merit or clear understanding.
Maybe you should read what the decision was that placed the death nail
in Al Gore's hopes of becoming President. A decision that WAS clearly
based in Constitutional law.
Just like I apparently cannot let the Clinton administration go, you
cannot seem to let the 2000 election go, and clearly part of your bias
against Bush is still based in an illogical sense that he "stole" the
election. Something that has been disproved time and time again.
On 11/30/05, Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
>
> > Fortunately (from my point of view) the current right wing
> > administration is seeking to reverse this trend by appointing
> > constructivist, non-activist judges. It is not at all obvious whether
> > they will succeed, but I hope that they do.
>
> If Scalia is a strict constructionist, then why did he vote against
> allowing Florida courts to make their own decision in Gore v Bush in 2000?
> Why would he vote to allow the federal government to overrule state
> medical marijuana laws? Scalia is the most activist of all the judges on
> the bench, but he's a *conservative* activist. What your pal in the White
> House wants is not a constructivist, it's another conservative activist.
> All the talk about constructivism is a smoke screen. We all want judges
> who will vote our way.
>
> Here's more on Scalia's activism:
>
> http://www.reason.com/0510/co.cy.antonin.shtml
>
> I'm sure there are many articles on the topic on the 'net. That's just
> the first one I found.
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
> discussion mailing list
> EMAIL:PROTECTED
> http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>
--
Thanks
F Vernon Green
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion