|
|
WASHINGTON-- The Supreme Court upheld Oregon's one-of-a-kind physician-assisted suicide law Tuesday, rejecting a Bush administration attempt to punish doctors who help terminally ill patients die. Justices, on a 6-3 vote, said that a federal drug law does not override the 1997 Oregon law used to end the lives of more than 200 seriously ill people. New Chief Justice John Roberts backed the Bush administration, dissenting for the first time. The administration improperly tried to use a drug law to punish Oregon doctors who prescribe lethal doses of prescription medicines, the court majority said. Congress did not have this far-reaching intent to alter the federal-state balance, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for himself, retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer. Kennedy is expected to become a more influential swing voter after O'Connor's departure. He is a moderate conservative who sometimes joins the liberal wing of the court in cases involving such things as gay rights and capital punishment. The ruling was a reprimand to former Attorney General John Ashcroft, who in 2001 said that doctor-assisted suicide is not a legitimate medical purpose and that Oregon physicians would be punished for helping people die under the law. Kennedy said the authority claimed by the attorney general is both beyond his expertise and incongruous with the statutory purposes and design. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for himself, Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, said that federal officials have the power to regulate the doling out of medicine. If the term 'legitimate medical purpose' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death, he wrote. Scalia said the court's ruling is perhaps driven by a feeling that the subject of assisted suicide is none of the federal government's business. It is easy to sympathize with that position. Oregon's law covers only extremely sick people-- those with incurable diseases and who are of sound mind, and after at least two doctors agree they have six months or less to live. For Oregon's physicians and pharmacists, as well as patients and their families, today's ruling confirms that Oregon's law is valid and that they can act under it without fear of federal sanctions, state Solicitor General Mary Williams said. The ruling backed a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said Ashcroft's unilateral attempt to regulate general medical practices historically entrusted to state lawmakers interferes with the democratic debate about physician-assisted suicide. Ashcroft had brought the case to the Supreme Court on the day his resignation was announced by the White House in 2004. The Justice Department has continued the case, under the leadership of his successor, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The court's ruling was not a final say on federal authority to override state doctor-assisted suicide laws-- only a declaration that the current federal scheme did not permit that. However, it could still have ramifications outside of Oregon. This is a disappointing decision that is likely to result in a troubling movement by states to pass their own assisted suicide laws, said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, which backed the administration. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and a supporter of the law, said the ruling has stopped, for now, the administration's attempts to wrest control of decisions rightfully left to the states and individuals. Thomas wrote his own dissent as well, to complain that the court's reasoning was puzzling. Roberts did not write separately. Justices have dealt with end-of-life cases before. In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that terminally ill people may refuse treatment that would otherwise keep them alive. Then, justices in 1997 unanimously ruled that people have no constitutional right to die, upholding state bans on physician-assisted suicide. That opinion, by then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, said individual states could decide to allow the practice. Roberts strongly hinted in October when the case was argued that he would back the administration. O'Connor had seemed ready to support Oregon's law, but her vote would not have counted if the ruling was handed down after she left the court. The case is Gonzales v. Oregon, 04-623.
Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Copyright © The Sun-Times Company Actually, it was the Ohio State Supreme court, not... the Supreme Court of the United States. That was then appealed to the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals, who upheld the state supreme court ruling. I guess that puts you and Sarah on about the same footing as far as the Supreme court? Just asking. He spent virtually no time in Iowa campaigning, so that may be part of the reason why. I hope he makes a good showing in other states. I'm glad he didn't throw in the towel yet, either. The numbers that Biden, Dodd, and Richardson put up in Iowa are not representative of the support they actually had (especially Biden, IMO). The way the Iowa caucus is set up for Democrats unfortunately doesn't reflect the true support because of that "viability" rule. Republicans don't have that. Sex is just a small part of marriage. What marriage So why is the fact that two people who happen to love and support each other, but who have a different concept of it than you do, are so incredibly threatening to you? Even if it WERE a 'sin' (which it absolutely is NOT), why would it be any business of yours? Did God fly down out of the sky and annoint your head, hand you a cape and superpowers, and tell you to go out and rid the world of same-sex love? I don't think so. Two Border State Governors Declare Illegal Immigration State of Emergency Two Border State Governors Declare Illegal Immigration State of Emergency SIGN THE PETITION! You can have our federal money along with a new state motto: "Michigan - The Slave State". n NM Laws vary state-to-state Many people were confined against their will just because someone wanted them "out of the way." These were normal people with no mental illness - that is why it is so difficult - don't blame the liberals. Blame your state. CONFINING THE MENTALLY ILL A look into JM's first marriage...sm While John McCain was a prisoner, his wife Carol never lost hope. During his incarceration as a prisoner of war, Carol was involved in a horrific car accident that almost took her life, having to go through about 20 operations in hopes that she would walk again. While her husband was gone, Ross Perot paid her medical bills that were not covered by John's government insurance. When he got back from Vietnam and saw the shape she was in, no longer a beautiful slim model, and quite disabled, he started carousing and ended up meeting Cindy his present wife who was young, beautiful and rich. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html NO. Marriage is between a man x Marriage Marriage is between a man and a woman. If gays want to have civil unions, that's perfectly fine with me but what they have is not and never will be a marriage. It's only a few squeaky wheels that everyone gives all the attention to. There are FAR MORE people in this country that are opposed to gays wanting to call their unions a marriage than are okay with it. In the last couple of decades, everyone tries to be so PC and not step on anyone's toes to the point we just let everything pass as okay, when it is not. We let abortion laws pass when there are far more who oppose abortion. We let gays think they have the right to marry when there are far more people who are adamantly against it. It is my business when everyone runs all over the majority of us just to pacify the few who just like to push the envelope on everything. Gays have rights just like me. No one is ever happy with what they have. Gays can adopt children just like anyone and those children are theirs forever....just like anyone else. They want their partner to come to the hospital when they're sick, they can list their name as the next of kin just like anyone else and that has to be honored by the hospital. All this garbage they throw out there about their rights is just that, garbage and hooplah to get their agendas pushed. Flame all you want.... Marriage is between a man and a woman. Same sex people will never be married, just as they can't ever have sexual intercourse. Beam me up Scottie. Red state, blue state? Written last Thanksgiving: "Some would argue that two different nations actually celebrated: upright, moral, traditional red America and the dissolute, liberal blue states clustered on the periphery of the heartland. The truth, however, is much more complicated and interesting than that. I don't know what state you live in but in my state they are adding police and only in the big cities do they have paid firemen. The rest are volunteers. I look at it this way: If a state can't stay in the black, then they have to cut spending some place that wouldn't jeopardize the safety of the citizens. Threats of cutting essential services like Barney Fife stated today are unjustified. Cut the non-essential services first. Our governor talks about cutting back on services, laying off government workers, which I think is a good idea because government is too big anyway, but then he turns around and spends more money on non-essential items. Doesn't make sense.
She is challeging marriage...sm It is my *assumption* (but you know what they say about assumptions) that she is not married and/or doesn't understand what it takes to be a supportive wife. Sometimes we have to let go of something we want or enjoy for the benefit of the bigger picture. Why is gay marriage an issue? Can someone explain to me why gay marriage is an issue in politics? I don't think it's ever been explained. I have heard the religious people say they want to keep the sanctity of marriage preserved to be between a man and a woman, and I can understand that. On the other side, I've heard gays and lesbians say that they've lived their lives with another person who happens to be the same sex as they are and they just want to be able to have the same rights as married people if something should happen to their partner, and I certainly do understand that too. I guess I don't understand why it is a political issue. To me if John and Jack or Mary and Sue want to get married that doesn't affect what I do with my life on a day to day basis or how I live my own life (at least I don't think it would have an impact). So just wanted to know why I'm always hearing this issue during campaigns. - Thanks. OK. So how do you feel about same-sex marriage? For or against? And why?
All the old subjects are pretty stale. So here's a new one. State your views. But if marriage is 'sacred', then why do so many -sm end in separation, or divorce, or WORSE? Such as domestic violence and sometimes murder? I think marriage vows should be about love, respect, and loyalty to another person, not about their religion or their gender. Some of my gay friends are now legally married in this state, and it changes nothing in my life, or anyone else's. But it changes so much for them. They enjoyed their ceremonies as much as any couple and their loved ones would. And having the same legal rights as anyone else is huge, as well. No, who or what gender another person falls in love with and marries has absolutely no bearing on religion, or on anyone else's lives. Isn't religion supposed to be about love for one's fellow humans, and about peace and charity? Yes, it is interesting. I would be willing to see it go to court... if we explore the dual citizenship/multi-citizenship of Obama at the same time. How about you? Supreme Court I think a huge issue people may not realize is that within the next president's term, the probability is that THREE to SIX of the Supreme Court justices will be retiring. The next president will be able to place a significant number of justices, and they will be in place until they retire or die. That makes the presidential race all the more important. I, for one, don't want Obama stacking the deck, so to speak, with people who share his 'you're not alive until I SAY you're alive' view of life. For me, this was the most profound part of the article: "For Obama, whether or not a temporarily-alive-outside-the-womb little girl is a "person" entitled to constitutional rights is not determined by her humanity, her age or even her place in space relative to her mother's uterus. It is determined by a whether a doctor has been trying to kill her." I saw an interview with a young woman once who had survived abortion, though it did leave her with lifelong disabilities. She would not have been alive at all if it weren't for a nurse pulling her out of the trash. That's as sorry a state of affairs as I can imagine. Even if it is court ordered By federal law, they cannot garnish someone's wages at maximum 65% and yes, child support is a garnishment. The judge can say all he wants and should put him in jail if he doesn't pay. I am totally behind you on this, but I have been there. I received checks for $15 for two weeks for years and that was 65% of his income. (The reason it was that low was because he decided to go back to school and his daddy supported him). The judge in our case also told him that he, by court order, still had to pay the full amount even though by FEDERAL law they could not garnish his wages more than 65%. Judge told him it was his responsibility to pay the difference no matter where it came from. Judge told him to get another job, borrow from his family, do what he had to do to get it paid. Unfortunately in the state of Ohio (I lived in Michigan), you have to be like $25,000 behind before they would go after him and actually put a person in jail for child support. Enforcing child support laws is something they were very much in lack of when I went through the system. He did get it paid up about 2 years ago. Took him over 10 years to do so. He has since passed away and I'd return all the money if it could bring him back for my kids. I struggled for years with my kids on my own. We had a lot of mac and cheese and PBJs. There were many times I went hungry to feed my kids or to make sure I had gas in my tank to get to my job. But I made it. She can too. I know how hard it is and how frustrating the whole situation is. I was just trying to empathize with you and let you know there were others out there. The person you need to blame is the dad for not taking care of his children. It is wrong of him to keep creating more children when he can't take care of the ones that he has, but I am a firm believer that what you do will bite you back twice as hard at some point. Remember that if he loses his security clearance and gets out of he military, jobs are even harder to come by that pay anything above minimum wage these days. They can hold his federal taxes only if he is holding a job that doesn't pay cash under the table. Holding a drivers license, most of the scum bags don't care. I was in a support group many years ago and ran into a lot of these situations. I've heard about what a lot of these irresponsible parents will do to get out of paying. Best of luck to you and your daughter. Religious Right and Gay Marriage Gay marriage is an important issue for the religious right. What exactly do they want a president to do about it? About homosexual marriage.... they put it to a vote in one of the most liberal states in the country (california) and the people voted to ban it. It PASSED. In with Obama, out with gay marriage. Gotta love those Californians. Wonder what all those gays Newsom "married" are gonna do now??? Bit of a sticky wicket there. It already is going to Supreme Court - I hope this time it wins. Marriage is more than just a label (sm) The Difference between Gay Marriage and Civil Unions by Kathy Belge You hear the politicians saying it all the time. “I support Civil Unions, but not gay marriage.” What exactly does this mean? Some even say they support equal rights for gays and lesbians, but not gay marriage. Is this possible? And why do gays and lesbians want marriage so badly when they can have civil unions? First of all, What is Marriage? When people marry, they tend to do so for reasons of love and commitment. But marriage is also a legal status, which comes with rights and responsibilities. Marriage establishes a legal kinship between you and your spouse. It is a relationship that is recognized across cultures, countries and religions. What is a Civil Union? Civil Unions exist in only a handful of places: Vermont, New Jersey and Connecticut. California and Oregon have domestic partnership laws that offer many of the same rights as civil unions. Vermont civil unions were created in 2000 to provide legal protections to gays and lesbians in relationships in that state because gay marriage is not an option. The protections do not extend beyond the border of Vermont and no federal protections are included with a Civil Union. Civil Unions offer some of the same rights and responsibilities as marriage, but only on a state level. What about Domestic partnership? Some states and municipalities have domestic partnership registries, but no domestic partnership law is the same. Some, like the recently passed California domestic partnership law comes with many rights and responsibilities. Others, like the one in Washingtonoffer very few benefits to the couple. What are some of the differences between Civil Unions and Gay Marriage? Recognition in other states: Even though each state has its own laws around marriage, if someone is married in one state and moves to another, their marriage is legally recognized. For example, Oregon marriage law applies to people 17 and over. In Washington state, the couple must be 18 to wed. However, Washington will recognize the marriage of two 17 year olds from Oregon who move there. This is not the case with Civil Unions. If someone has a Civil Union in Vermont, that union is not recognized in any other state. As a matter of fact, two states, Connecticut and Georgia, have ruled that they do not have to recognize civil unions performed in Vermont, because their states have no such legal category. As gay marriages become legal in other states, this status may change. Dissolving a Civil Union v. Divorce: Vermont has no residency requirement for Civil Unions. That means two people from any other state or country can come there and have a civil union ceremony. If the couple breaks up and wishes to dissolve the union, one of them must be a resident of Vermont for one year before the Civil Union can be dissolved in family court. Married couples can divorce in any state they reside, no matter where they were married. Immigration: A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege. Taxes: Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples. Benefits: The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them. But can’t a lawyer set all this up for gay and lesbian couples? No. A lawyer can set up some things like durable power of attorney, wills and medical power of attorney. There are several problems with this, however. 1. It costs thousands of dollars in legal fees. A simple marriage license, which usually costs under $100 would cover all the same rights and benefits. 2. Any of these can be challenged in court. As a matter of fact, more wills are challenged than not. In the case of wills, legal spouses always have more legal power than any other family member. 3. Marriage laws are universal. If someone’s husband or wife is injured in an accident, all you need to do is show up and say you’re his or her spouse. You will not be questioned. If you show up at the hospital with your legal paperwork, the employees may not know what to do with you. If you simply say, "He's my husband," you will immediately be taken to your spouse's side. Homosexual" marriage" is very offensive to me, yet there are still those pushing it in my face. Homo is a shortened version of the word homosexual. If you are so sensitive, I can type the entire word. There are African-Americans in my family and I have never used the F word in my life. You DO have a choice in who you love. If you didn't child molesters wouldn't be prosecuted because they wouldn't be able to stop their "attractions" and "love" of children. Prosecuting them would be inhuman. A law can't stop an attraction. It can only stop you from acting on it and consent can always be changed. Age is just a number and with all the people who feel like their "love" should not be controlled, no telling when our children will be the next targets. There is no homosexual gene so give that a rest. People of all persuasions can change their feelings on a whim. I find the entire aspect of homosexuality disrespectful to the human race. If you don't like what someone thinks, let's try to change the law and stop their thoughts. Homosexuals are just like BIG BROTHER. Marriage is for one man and one woman If gays and lesbians want to show their commitment, then a civil union is for them. Don't redefine something thousands of years old just because it's "politically correct." I am so sick of it political correctness. I understand civil unions so that G/L couples can have health insurance, etc., but don't change what marriage means to so many of the rest of us. It is so much more than a legality and a commitment, it's about becoming one and having children, and continuing the tradition for generations. Nowadays, anything that comes before a court and with courts and lawyers (and hospital legal departments) deciding what probably ought to be private family matters, everything is up for political grabs. Then libs and conservatives can square off on opposite sides and make a media circus out of it. It is unfortunate that husband and parents could not come to agreement on this matter. Were the parents just selfishly refusing to release their brain-dead daughter's soul, keeping it trapped in her deteriorating body; were they doing this out of love, to spite her husband? Or was her husband selfishly trying to get rid of an encumbrance in order to move on with his own life; was he doing it to spite the parents? Or was it more than a little of both? Defining marriage is not a theocracy It's just common sense since two people of the common sex cannot procreate. ...and no I don't advocate a theocracy. Supreme Court Ruling. I almost fainted when I read ***Supreme Court Finds Bush Overstepped his Authority** in relation to the military tribunals. This being a very conservative court with 2 Bush appointees I have just felt that whatever was on the table would have a conservative outcome. I am shocked. What does anyone else think? That's right, ignore a court document.... denial, denial, denial. You care nothing about the truth. I don't even know if you recognize it anymore. Pathetic. Cannot let go of prejudice long enough to see the truth when it is in plain black and white, and resort to snide remarks when you cannot effectively debate. But there is no debate here...CBS on the one hand said she was covert, and filed a brief in court stating the opposite. They have a history of lying to suit their agenda. And you are right there with them. I know you are not ignorant...I know you know that a court document is not cooked. The only impression one can glean from that is that you know they are lying, but you don't care. And how does that speak to character? No court has recognized any imperative cetificate of live birth which has been provided, recognized and accepted on numberous occasions. 1. Andy Martin (Hawaii) Petition 29414 - denied. 2. David Neal request (Ohio) - denied. 3. Cort Wrotnowski (Connecticut) - denied. 4. Steven Marquis (Washington) - denied. 5. Leo Donofrio (New Jersey) - denied. 6. Phillip Berg (Pennsylvania) - denied. 7. Rev Tom Terry (Georgia) - denied. Courts don't agree with you. There is NO CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS. How many more times will it take to get this through your thick skulls? Supreme court lost their credibility in the Bush/Gore recount.
It is like the old song Love and Marriage You can't have one without the other. President Obama inherited the nightmare that was created by George W. Bush. You cannot talk about what President Obama is doing without discussing the fact that George W. Bush and his cronies destroyed this country. No one's "changing the tradition of marriage". X Oh geez - are you still here? Yeah, same-sex marriage this act was most likely done by a heterosexual male. And you know what? Sometimes the most heinous acts are committed by ultra-religious people. So your standard of 'morals' doesn't apply here. Get on the internet someday and look up how many sex offenders live in YOUR neighborhood, maybe even right next-door or across the street. Their offenses have nothing to do with what you think is the 'loose morals' of the country, it has to do with the mental illness of the perpetrator. BTW - how old are you, anyway? 85? 95? 105? It seems like, in your mind anyway, you're living in a time that was more than a century ago. Bigamists, polygamists and marriage, oh my! sm The prefix "poly" means multiple, thus polygamy means multiple marriages at the same time. The previx "bi" means 2, thus bigamy means 2 marriages at the same time. Either way, both terms mean more than 1 marriage at a time. Polygamists and bigamists are merely groups of people who, for whatever reason, want to marry their partners, just as gays want to do. You claim that gay marriage is a union between 2 people who love each other and who happen to be of the same sex. Who is to say that polygamists and bigamists don't love all their partners and want to marry them as well? Love may or may not be in the equation for same sex marriage (even straight people are sometimes known to marry for reasons other than love), but another reason, if not the larger reason, is for the other benefits a legal marriage affords such as the right to make decisions for each other in medical and legal situations. Therefore, what is stopping polygamists and bigamists from demanding the same rights to marriage? Absolutely nothing. Then perhaps abolishing marriage is the answer By your reasoning, allowing men to marry women seems to make gay couples think they have the right to be married. Therefore, better to eliminate women rather than let those uppity homos think they can be married. A woman's right to vote was denied for years because of the fear that women would abandon their families and become somehow less feminine if they were granted that right. Do you agree that we should not have been given the right to vote because of someone's fear of what *might* happen? I feel like that scene in Ghostbusters where Venkman says, "Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria." In this country, I don't believe we've got a right to refuse rights to one group just because another group is liable to end up wanting right, too. I thought we'd stopped using that reasoning back in the 1800s. marriage vs civil union As a nation, we did not used to spend so much time splitting hairs over words. What if back when the 19th amendment was enacted, they had said: Women having the right to 'vote' would upset men. So instead of 'voting' we're going to call it 'ballot casting.' That way, women can have the same rights as men, but only men can be 'voters' and won't feel they're losing their special status. How about if during the civil rights movement, when segregation was eliminated, instead of integration they had called it: 'The right to attend the same schools and go to the same restaurants and ride in the front of the bus'? Calling institutions 'integrated' would upset the southern states. How about when women began to demand 'equal pay for equal work'? What if they had said: Okay, you can have the money and the responsibility, maybe even the corner office, but only a man can be called VP of Sales. Instead, your title will have to be something else, maybe Sales Coordinator, othewise the men who are VPs will get angry. I suppose a fair number of women or blacks would have considered this a win, because they were gaining the benefit, if not the exact status of the changes. But a fair number of folks rightly would have said: Huh? Aren't these silly distinctions? A lot of people would have wondered why they didn't just shut up and 'settle.' If a civil union conveys such benefits as inheritance rights, parental rights, credit rights, insurance rights, the right to make medical decisions for a spouse then, really, what's in a name?
Maine Passes Gay Marriage Law AUGUSTA – Gov. John E. Baldacci today signed into law LD 1020, An Act to End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom. “I have followed closely the debate on this issue. I have listened to both sides, as they have presented their arguments during the public hearing and on the floor of the Maine Senate and the House of Representatives. I have read many of the notes and letters sent to my office, and I have weighed my decision carefully,” Baldacci said in a release. “I did not come to this decision lightly or in haste.” “I appreciate the tone brought to this debate by both sides of the issue,” Baldacci said. “This is an emotional issue that touches deeply many of our most important ideals and traditions. There are good, earnest and honest people on both sides of the question.” “In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions,” Baldacci said. “I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.” “Article I in the Maine Constitution states that ‘no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor be denied the equal protection of the laws, nor be denied the enjoyment of that person’s civil rights or be discriminated against.’” “This new law does not force any religion to recognize a marriage that falls outside of its beliefs. It does not require the church to perform any ceremony with which it disagrees. Instead, it reaffirms the separation of Church and State,” Baldacci said. “It guarantees that Maine citizens will be treated equally under Maine’s civil marriage laws, and that is the responsibility of government.” Why not leave marriage up to the churches There are some churches performing marriages now and have been for years. Go to the court house and get your "union license" and then get married whereever the heck you can. My Presbyterian church has been performing weddings for gays for almost 20 years. I am a Christian and do believe in gay marriage. Speak for yourself. sm . Not just drugs..."freedom" when it comes to gay marriage, also ...to think about what Barney Frank falls off of...or into...or anything else that makes me want to run my brain through an autoclave. Marriage is supposed to be a sacred union but unfortunately many see it as a temporary situation. Some people honestly cannot help their marriages dissolve, however, even if you throw the religion aspect out of it homosexuality doesn't even make sense in Darwin's theory. Homosexuals would naturally die out, because they aren't procreating. I've not had children either, but just because I haven't and you haven't doesn't make a case for homosexual marriages. No offense, but I seriously doubt she will prove it in a court of law. sm She is entitled to her belief system, but I don't agree with anything she has to say. We will have to wait and see. The Supreme Court won't stop him for much longer. Thate 5-3 decision would have been a 5-4 decision, had Roberts not recused himself from ruling due to his prior ruling in the case at a lower court. Alito and Roberts are Bush loyalists who will vote in his favor every time. Same with Scalia and Thomas. Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the majority opinion, is 86. This means there is a very good chance that Bush will have the opportunity to appoint a third Supreme Court Justice, thus negatively tipping and fixing the scales of justice for decades to come, long after Bush is gone. Some radical right-wingers (including Ann Coulter) have publicly called for the assassination of a Supreme Court Justice, and Pat Robertson has been *praying* for another Bush appointment. If/when that happens, freedom as we know it in the United States will be gone for generations. In the meantime, the current Supreme Court ruling won't mean much. They're already talking about creating a law to make Bush's tactics legal. Not that even THAT would matter much. Bush hasn't agreed with Congress' laws 750 times since he's been in office, and he's issued *signing statements* allowing him to ignore the law. He apparently views himself as having expanded Presidential powers in a time of war. Maybe that's a large part of the true reason we're at war with Iraq. Palin and McCain's Shotgun Marriage http://www.truthout.org/article/palin-and-mccains-shotgun-marriage "...go to court AGAINST a Christian who wants to wear a cross" nm It is still on the docket slated for a court date -- At least she isnt fighting the court by refusing nm So you'd believe Michael Savage (of all people) over a court of law? No offense, but using something that Michael Savage read isn't really proof of anything, but the fact that Michael Savage can form words and speak them. There is a picture of the birth announcement (along with all kids of very level, logical information) here (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html). But given the fact that (a) there was a birth announcement, (b) Obama has a valid birth certificate from the state of Hawaii (that I am SURE, if forged, would have been looked into by a number of people who have access to birth records in Hawaii), and (c) that a huge network of people would have had be a part of this vast conspiracy theory, from the moment Barack Obama was born, it's a pretty far-flung accusation and one that really just resembles clinging to insanity so as not to have to deal with a distasteful reality. Please give us a link for the court's not agreeing... 
|
|||||||
 |
 |
||||||
marks the location of current message within thread
I am personally for it. It hurts nobody, but for some reason all the religiosos seem to be terrified of it. 
