Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

JUDGES: Gingrich right on judicial activism

Letter by Louis A. Kelsch, Puyallup on Dec. 23, 2011 at 2:17 pm with 161 Comments »
December 23, 2011 2:33 pm

Re: “Gingrich again attacks judges” (TNT, 12-19).

I agree with Newt Gingrich: “Activist” judges – ones who create new law – should be removed from the bench. I believe they should be placed on house arrest and their courtrooms padlocked until they can be tried for their crimes against their oath of office.

No judge, appointed or elected, has the right to legislate from the bench. Their oath of office requires them to perform all duties imposed by the Constitution and the law the U.S., not to create new law.

Who should prosecute activist judges? Not the attorney general or the state or federal government. Asking an office full of judge wannabes to prosecute fellow lawyers is asking the fox to guard the hen house.

So who should represent the people? Our elected officials, of course, because they report to us. They create law, and we can fire them.

Based on my observation, Fox News has done a better job of putting pressure on activist judges than any of the branches of government.

Leave a comment Comments → 161
  1. Pacman33 says:

    “I believe they should be placed on house arrest and their courtrooms padlocked until they can be tried for their crimes against their oath of office.”

    If you can’t refute a man’s statement ……….. just erroneously fabricate a fictional one to your liking to refute.

    Honesty is a virtue. Anyway back to the Looney Left.

    Finally, it wouldn’t be complete without the worn-out, desperate and tired Looney closing ……… the FOX News crutch.

    Whatever you need to do I guess.

  2. “Based on my observation, Fox News has done a better job of putting pressure on activist judges than any of the branches of government.”

    Of course an “activist” judge is one that the Conservatives disagree with.

  3. Fibonacci says:

    Judges don’t “legislate from the bench”. They just do this thing that is unpopular with the nut cases on the right fringe–THEY UPHOLD THE LAW. Just because something is popular, and enough people vote for it, it still may not be legal. What if enough people voted in slavery–should it be legal? After all, if over 50% voted for it, how dare some judge not uphold the vote–just imagine.

  4. fib: “Judges don’t “legislate from the bench”. They just do this thing that is unpopular with the nut cases on the right fringe–THEY UPHOLD THE LAW”

    Unfortunately, you’re wrong on that. Upholding the law is fine, but it’s not up to the judiciary to impose _their_ solution to unconstitutional legislation or to create solutions to civic conditions deemed contrary to constitutional protections. The federal judiciary does this all the time, and as often as not, higher courts don’t want to touch whatever the case may be with a cattle prod due to the political unpopularity of doing so.

  5. lanq – cite the case law that was used to determine by the Supreme Court that they could shut off the vote counting in Florida in 2000.

    I could go for more, that that will keep you busy for awhile.

  6. rw, first, this is not a right / left thing, and second, case law can be used as a guideline, and in addition, at some point, somebody came up with the first case regarding a certain topic, didn’t they? Slavery was legal in the USA for about eighty five years, and The Supreme Court upheld that federal authorities have the duty to enforce fugitive slave law. So much for that case law, nyet?

  7. .. and I forgot to add .. If you’re still stewing about Florida 2000, you make birthers look kinda normal. :)

  8. aislander says:

    I agree with Newt and the letter writer: there is absolutely no doubt that judges have made decisions based on their ideologies and not the applicable laws.

    I don’t care whether the judge in question cheats to the right or the left: he defeats democracy and should be called to account.

    Democracy isn’t about elections as those of us on the right often assert, and it’s not about equality as many on the left hold: it is about the creation of laws by those whom we have elected. If those laws are defeated by unelected judges, our votes are defeated, and–worse–we live in a dictatorship.

    I doubt that too many people would disagree with the above, but the catch is developing a method of dealing with such judicial malfeasance in a faster and surer way than we have now…

  9. So much for the separation of powers, this is nutty!

  10. “.. and I forgot to add .. If you’re still stewing about Florida 2000, you make birthers look kinda normal.”

    As I said…..“Of course an “activist” judge is one that the Conservatives disagree with.”

    Thanks for proving my statement, lanq I realize I grabbed the low hanging fruit, but….it’s so eeeeeeeeasy….

  11. As to slavery…I think there was a thing called a “Constitutional Amendment”…..

    Oh and to the “no left or right”….yeah, we know that the Right Wing Conservatives will not protect activist judges serving their needs.

    And Bill Gates is broke.

  12. aislander says:

    I really don’t believe there is a separation-of-powers issue; there is, rather, an adherence-to-law issue.

    Congress has remedies if it passes a law and the executive branch fails to…er…execute it, and those branches should have remedies if the judicial branch fails to apply it impartially…

  13. rw: “As to slavery…I think there was a thing called a “Constitutional Amendment”

    So what you’re saying is that it took a constitutional amendment to undo what the judiciary had ordered the federal government to enforce. That’s fine, I guess you got me there.. except.. Nowhere in The Constitution was slavery ever declared legal to begin with. What about the “general welfare” that progs are so enamored with? I guess you’re having and eating cake, no? Remember your own rule, homes, don’t linger too long on things outside your area of expertise. :)

  14. “Nowhere in The Constitution was slavery ever declared legal to begin with”

    Walking down the street minding your own business is legal, but not mentioned in the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution that says you can’t relieve yourself in the bathroom, but that is also legal.

    I’m always amazed at how, in one breath, something need to be spelled out in the Constitution to be legal, and in the next breath you can interpret to your heart’s content.

    I guess it is your contention that slavery was illegal from the very start of our nation because the Constitution never said it was legal. The legal implications could be horrendous.

    Slippery slope, there

  15. rw: “Walking down the street minding your own business is legal, but not mentioned in the Constitution”

    Walking down the street causes no one harm. Walking down Pacific Avenue capping people isn’t specifically addressed in The Constitution, either, but I doubt that The Supreme Court would direct US Marshals to provide escort.

  16. bobcat1a says:

    Nowhere in The Constitution was slavery ever declared legal to begin with.”

    lang, try reading The Constitution, Article I, sec 2, clause 3; sec 9, clause 1; and Article IV, sec 2, clause 3.
    And please don’t be so immature as to respond that the word “slavery” is not mentioned. When you provide clear specifications for dealing with slaves, you are recognizing the legality of slavery.

  17. bobcat: “lang, try reading The Constitution, Article I, sec 2, clause 3; sec 9, clause 1; and Article IV, sec 2, clause 3.”

    You’re trying to destroy RW’s argument, aren’t you? This is kind of cool, I didn’t know you would step in and relieve me of having to type, but it doesn’t matter. :)

  18. Islander,
    Once a law is declared unconstitutional the Congress has but one legal response which is to pass a modified version of the law that addresses the findings of the courts.

    Lanq,
    While slavery was outlawed in some states it was not because of the courts. Slavery could have been outlawed by a simple act of Congress, but a constitutional amendment was chosen because a law would have been too ease to repeale.

    (sort of like some people want to outlaw gay marriage)

  19. LarryFine says:

    Interesting.

  20. dallasow says:

    Louis, I wonder what you thinks about the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court that corporations are people, a new and extreme position contrary to prior rulings on campaign contributions. I also wonder what your take will be if justice Thomas does not recuse himself from the health care bill issue when it comes before the supreme court. You do know that Thomas’ wife is involved in an on-going effort, funded by the Koch brothers, to defeat the health care reform law. I also wonder if you thinks it’s ok for Supreme Court justices (Thomas and Scalia) to attend lavish social gatherings hosted by and their travel paid for by known, wealthy, right wing idealogs like the Koch brothers. Just wondering.

  21. It was back in 1886 that a clerical entry to SANTA CLARA COUNTY v. SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO., 118 U.S. 394 (1886) created the corporate personhood.

    http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/13-corporate-personhood-challenged/

  22. menopaws says:

    So, decisions like Miranda, ensuring you are told your rights, or Brown versus board of Education that desegregated public education—too activist???? Give me a break–the courts routinely make decisions that are difficult to swallow……..That’s their JOB…….Turning that over to a bunch of electable moron politicians is the same slippery slope that got Germany and Italy into trouble before World War II……….Their independence is the MOST important part of our judiciary and the last thing we need is a bunch of idiots running for re-election hauling them into Congress to ‘explain” their decisions……..Like any of our current group is even bright enough to understand what they say……The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing—Newt will say anything to get elected……….Our resident political prostitute……….We need to respect the wisdom of those who framed our Constitution–not some political hack surfing for more votes…..

  23. excellent challenges, menopaws, beerBoy and dallasow.

    We know that Louis isn’t on the top of his game based on two words from his letter:

    “Fox News”

  24. “I believe they should be placed on house arrest and their courtrooms padlocked until they can be tried for their crimes against their oath of office”

    What about Congressmen who are guilty of “inaccurate information supplied to investigators represented “intentional or … reckless” disregard of House rules.”?

    Should they be able to run for President?

  25. LarryFine says:

    Merry Christmas…

  26. BlaineCGarver says:

    Here’s how I see and understand this issue. Judges rule on a law as it stands..Pass/Fail. They should not re-write the law. That is the job of Congress. The courts are infamous for changing law to suit their agenda. This is akin to a local traffic court deciding that the speed limit on downtown Pac Ave should be 45mph, not what the city has decided it should be. Judges should run for congress if they want to make law.

  27. I see your problem Blaine!!! Please allow me to help you out. You wrote:

    “Here’s how I see and understand this issue. Judges rule on a law as it stands..Pass/Fail. They should not re-write the law. That is the job of Congress.”

    Now you see, you see it wrong.

    A: Congress’s job, at least one of them, is to write and pass laws. Correct.

    B. A Judge’s job is to interpret the law that Congress has written, but in relation to all other laws as well as the rights and protections we have as citizens of The United States, as guaranteed in the constitution. When there is a conflict between a law and our rights it is the responsibility of the judge to rule against the law.

    C. Conflicted rulings can be appealed all the way up to The Supreme Court, in which case the Constitutionality of the law that Congress made is determined. If the law is determine unconstitutional, then the law is thrown out. It happens. Congress doesn’t always make good law.

    And, as far as the local traffic court ruling that the speed limit on Pacific Avenue should be changed from 35 mph to 45 mph, please prove to me with documented evidence just one time that ever happened. Because you know what? I don’t think it ever did. But go ahead and prove it if you can.

  28. The SCOTUS merely halted the activist Florida court that kept changing the rules. How many times should they have been allowed to recount anyway ?

  29. As many times as it would have taken to get an accurate count and announce that Al Gore had actually won the election. That’s all.

  30. Of course.

  31. amjim…….so the stooge is gone?

  32. “The SCOTUS merely halted the activist Florida court that kept changing the rules. How many times should they have been allowed to recount anyway ?”

    An oversimplified analysis of the true facts of the case. Note the use of “activist” again when a Conservative opposes the ruling.

  33. beerBoy – gone? Nope. Vacationing with Obama.

  34. muck: “As many times as it would have taken to get an accurate count and announce that Al Gore had actually won the election. That’s all.”

    The dems were not interested in an accurate vote count, they were only interested in appointing Gore to The White House. How else to explain why they weren’t in the least bit interested in Duval County? (Jacksonville, a conservative military area, I know, I lived there) Or why they sued to have military ballots not counted from overseas? And the “butterfly” ballot cracks me up big time. What democrats were saying there, is that leftists actually wanted to vote for Gore, but were too stupid to figure out how. :)

    In any case, Bush won fair and square, and you people look so tiny whining about it eleven years later.

  35. bobcat1a says:

    How about the part I keep hearing from the right about judges recognizing the will of the majority of the people? After all, Gore received 500,000 more votes than Bush. Shouldn’t the courts endorse the will of the people?
    Just pointing out inconsistency. Nobody is “whining.” That’s a weasel word designed to deprecate your opponent, not his argument.

  36. All I’m saying is that elections in this country are supposed to be decided by votes, not by Supreme Court decisions. Count the votes, then decide who wins. Don’t just stop the vote counting and award the election to someone who didn’t actually win.

  37. Al Gore’s team brought the court into it.

  38. Well, that’s kind of what you do when you think something illegal is going on.

  39. aislander says:

    xring writes: “…sort of like some people want to outlaw gay marriage…”

    Nobody’s trying to outlaw gay “marriage…”

  40. I see. So help me understand why you take exception to the issue going to higher court.

  41. If you are asking me amjim, I don’t have a problem going to a higher court, except that in this particular case the court acted to halt the normal election process and thus awarded the election, rather than helped to determine who the real winner was by actual verified count of votes.

  42. The Court also made an unprecedented ruling that they stated explicitly was not meant to set precedent.

  43. aislander says:

    Think qq is in board-nanny limbo, too, jim?

  44. After the Fla. court became involved, and rule changes were being made, would it be fair to say it was no longer a “normal election process”?

  45. Probably aislander. Me thinks the double standard rule book is in play again.

  46. amjim, I would agree that there was nothing at all normal about the Florida 2000 vote count or even their ballots, polling place management, and a lot of stuff that went on to skew the votes the way that Governor Jeb Bush would like them to be skewed in favor of his brother.

    Now, that is NOT to say that I accuse Jeb Bush of being involved in the obvious fraud that went on in Florida. So don’t pin that one on me okay? It’s just kind of a curious coincidence that the key to George Bush being named the winner was the result of the court case over the vote count in the same state his brother was the Governor of.

    But, I will say that I think we can all agree that The United States of America is the most technologically advanced nation in the world. And, given that state of technology, I believe somebody could have devised a means to fairly and impartially recount the Florida vote to come up with the real count. The Supreme Court “non-precedent” decision put an abrupt end to that possibility. Didn’t it?

  47. aislander “Think qq is in board-nanny limbo, too, jim?”

    Now that you mention it, where is qq… the artist formerly name xx…?

    Kooky!

  48. bobcat: “After all, Gore received 500,000 more votes than Bush. Shouldn’t the courts endorse the will of the people?”

    So you endorse the notion of federal judges ignoring the law, and enabling mob rule, then. Nice.

  49. Muckibr, I agree with parts of your 3:27 post. I find several things interesting.

    Since we are so technically advanced, why were they still using butterfly ballots and who was responsible for them still being used?

    How much handling (and re-recounting) of ballots , ballots that are relatively fragile, should be allowed?

    I’m not sure where you get the fraud allegation. It’s not like they found boxes of ballots in someone’s trunk.

    As someone else stated, it was 11 years ago. There was a website named after it. moveon.org It’s past time to do so.

    Look on the bright side, had it turned out differently, it would be entirely resonable to say Barack Obama would not be the president today.

  50. menopaws says:

    Please–just one branch of government that doesn’t dance to the whims of the media or a bunch of mouthy politicians………I did not agree with SCOTUS on Bush vs, Gore—but, you know what??? I didn’t want a bunch of angry politicians turning it into the seeds of some whacked out revolution……I respected the Court enough to live with their decision. Don’t need to agree with it, don’t need some used care salesman who got lucky enough to get elected to Congress to punish them when he disagrees………..And, I believe enough in the independent judiciary that I don’t like when they have to run for office………I don’t like electing judges—they lose their independence when they have to lobby votes……….I think the Founding Fathers were much smarter than our current crop of so-called ‘statesman”…..spend more time flapping their mouths in front of TV cameras than reading or studying the issues…….Give me a good deaf judge every day of the week!!!!

  51. aislander says:

    So…menopaws…you’re saying that whatever an unelected judge says, goes–even if the decision doesn’t follow the law written by our elected representatives? You don’t like democracy much, do you?

  52. “unelected judge”

    Hey, maybe we are on to something. Eliminate the Supreme Court Justices and make them run for their seats in 2012. Popular vote.

  53. Pacman33 says:

    Our Founding Fathers recognized the dangers of judicial supremacy. Jefferson wrote in challenging such judicial supremacy in 1820,

    “You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.” Jefferson further wrote later that year, “The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working underground to undermine our Constitution from a co-ordinate of a general and special government to a general supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet.”

  54. jmpurser says:

    Why does the Right Wing hate the Constitution and the American system of government so much?

  55. “it [Democracy] is about the creation of laws by those whom we have elected. If those laws are defeated by unelected judges, our votes are defeated, and–worse–we live in a dictatorship.”

    So if Congress passed a law that banned private ownership of all firearms, the courts shouldn’t overturn it?

  56. LibertyBell says:

    The family feud, just in case you flunked U.S. History, Jefferson and Marshall, 2nd Cousin’s, with Marbury, and John Adams “Midnight Judges” case.

    “He (Jefferson) is among the most ambitious &, I suspect among the most unforgiving men. His great power is over the mass of people & this power is chiefly acquired by professions of democracy…
    John Marshall

    “The great object of my fear is the federal judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting with noiseless foot & unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step…Let the eye of vigilance never be closed.
    Thomas Jefferson

    When one gets to the letters on judicial appointments between Jefferson and Madison Cabinets, the problem is stated with clarity. He wrote Granger, and Lincoln, that Republicans would restore freedom of the press and religion, trial by jury and an economical government, oppose standing armies paper currency systems war and any connections with all foreign nations, except with regard to commerce.

    “The problem with to many people is they believe the ream of truth always lies within their vision.”
    Abe Lincoln

  57. LibertyBell says:

    “Make No Law” after speech, got a man nailed to the cross.

    http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html

  58. ehill, VERY GOOD!!! Now I really want to see the answer they give to that one.

  59. aislander says:

    Easily impressed, are we muck?

    Nice straw man, ehill. I never said there shouldn’t be judicial revue of legislation–it has to comport with the Constitution–I (and many others) said judicial decisions should comport with laws that comport with the Constitution AND the intent of the lawmaking body.

    Since there IS judicial revue of legislation (one branch of government keeping tabs on another), there should also be legislative-branch revue of court decisions–again, one branch of government keeping tabs on another. No separation of powers issue here!

  60. aislander says:

    …and I know “keeping” is a gerund and that the preceding noun should have been possessive (government’s), but I blame my lapse on Christmas-generated excitement.

    Merry Christmas, all!

  61. TSkidmore says:

    Where did Newt receive his claimed PhD in History? If he actually has one he should be familiar with the fact Presidents (with leadership) have told the Supreme Court to shove it at times – Jackson’s famous “Mr. Taney has made his decision now let him enforce it.” And Obama should have told the court the Justice Department was going to continue to enforce campaign spending limits. Further the U.S. Constitution clearly gives the Congress the power to make rules governing “all departments of government under the constitution” and congress does put limits on the courts in certain pieces of legislation. Judicial Review is not in the constitution – it is a power the court took on in 1803 – hardly a new concept. Congress can – rather than hauling judges into the “Star Chamber” – can look at “department rules”…Newt is an idiot! I bet Obama is praying this half wit will be the Republicon nominee!

  62. jmpurser: ” Why does the Right Wing hate the Constitution and the American system of government so much?”

    Gosh, what a highly intelligent thing to say, you’ve added so much to the conversation! We may as well just all stop right here, wander off, and try as we might to wrap our heads around the above profundity. We should just put that on a poster, and people reading your words will simply shake their heads and quietly say, “Whooaaa ..”

  63. To All
    “Nowhere in The Constitution was slavery ever declared legal to begin with.” = straw man.

    What is important is that “Nowhere in The Constitution was slavery ever declared ILLEGAL.”

    Thus under the10th Amendment the question of slavery was left to the STATES, allowing each individual State to decide it issue on their own until the 13th Amendment declared slavery illegal.

    B-C-G,
    You are right – Judges rule on a law, and they can and should point to specific sections of the law that they find to be unconstitutional and to state the reason why.

    And then it is up to Congress or the appropriate State Legislature to address the specific concerns of the Courts.

    However, the paramount issue with the findings of the Courts is ‘Were the Court findings base on a valid interpretation of existing law or on the personal, religious, or political considerations of the judge/judges.

    Islander says “Nobody’s trying to outlaw gay “marriage…”

    Your lack of knowledge is par for the course. DOM

    BeerBoy, but by stepping in and hearing the case the Supremes DID set a president.

    Ehill & Muckbir ‘law banning the private ownership of firearms”

    If Congress passed such a bill, and it became law, SCOTUS could uphold the law and we would lose our 2nd Amendment Right.

    IMO: IF this ever happens it will come from the RIGHT and will be sold as a temporary but necessary national security action.

  64. “there should also be legislative-branch revue of court decisions–again”

    Which is pretty much what Gingrich’s point was, from what I understand.

  65. aislander says:

    So…xring…I would be VERY interested in seeing the language of any proposal that bans same-sex “marriage…”

  66. aislander says:

    LibertyBell: It’s great to see that you’re posting on this forum once again. Welcome back!

  67. “I never said there shouldn’t be judicial revue of legislation”

    You just said that if judges overturn laws passed by the legislature, democracy is dead: “If those laws are defeated by unelected judges, our votes are defeated, and–worse–we live in a dictatorship.”

    Which, of course, is meaningless hyperbole. Courts have a DUTY to review laws for their constitutionality and throw out laws that violate the constitution.

    “judicial decisions should comport with laws that comport with the Constitution AND the intent of the lawmaking body.”

    Correction: Judicial decisions must comport with the constitution regardless of the intent of the lawmaking body.

    You’re welcome.

  68. The first sentence of the microficed book that Liberty Belle posted:

    “This not a law book”.

    To take a historical document, repeat one line of it, out of context, is meaningless in the argument.

    That book is historical data of the Supreme Court.

  69. ehill, I was very impressed (not easily, but very) with your question:

    “So if Congress passed a law that banned private ownership of all firearms, the courts shouldn’t overturn it?”

    … but totally unimpressed and completely disappointed with the way aislander sidestepped it with another variation if his “I know what I wrote earlier, but that’s not what I meant” denial.

    xring’s answer was a lot more honest and to the point, but I think you were looking for a conservation-Gingrich-supporter response, weren’t you?

    Why is it that the guys on that side of the issue can never seem to give a straight answer to a fairly simple question?

  70. rational1 says:

    I agree that most of the time when I hear the term “activist Judges” it simply means that the person disagrees with the ruling. However in most cases do they really understand the ruling or is it what they heard on FOX. What most don’t know is that these aren’t so called liberal judges, many were Republican appointees. I didn’t hear anyone accuse the Supreme Court of being Activist when the ruled that a corporate entity equals a person…….now that is activist,

  71. aislander says:

    Typical lefties: ignore the argument, declare victory, and try to move on–and this from the hypocrite who was blubbering for substantive debate…

    OF COURSE there needs to be a mechanism that checks Congress, but there ALSO needs to be a mechanism that checks the judiciary, and that mechanism can’t BE the judiciary. Every action by all three branches must be constitutional.

    “Checks and balances” refers to the relationship of the three branches to each other. You can’t put the judicial branch on a pedestal and declare it untouchable…

  72. aislander says:

    Striking down unconstitutional laws is not the subject of this thread, anyway. The subject is the nullification of law that passes constitutional muster (or has not been subjected to that test) because a particular judge happens not to like the thrust of the law.

    That’s what Newt was talking about and that’s what everybody but muck and that other one is talking about. When you’re losing an argument, change the subject, huh?

  73. Typical right-winger response. Never answer the original question. Sidestep by saying he was misinterpreted, or now it’s off topic, except when he originally brought it up. Hurl some nasty little personal attack or epithet. Throw a tantrum. Have a snit. And just never ever ever admit that he was wrong, wrong, wrong and doesn’t have the courage to admit it.

    Kooky!

  74. aislander says:

    So…muck…exactly where was I wrong, in your opinion? What say we go back to that point and try to get back on the right path? I’m game!

    I’ll start. If there is a law that is constitutional, does a judge have a legal right to ignore that law because he disagrees with the substance of it, and render a verdict that is contrary to the intent of the legislative body that passed the law in the first place?

  75. aislander, where you went wrong is that you refused to answer the question. And, you still refuse, by trying to change the issue. Here is the original question as posed to you by ehill …

    “So if Congress passed a law that banned private ownership of all firearms, the courts shouldn’t overturn it?”

    Just answer that question.

  76. aislander says:

    Of course the courts should overturn it because it is unconstitutional. I never said that unconstitutional actions by Congress should stand, but neither should unconstitutional actions by courts be allowed to stand…

    Can we agree that, if a law is constitutional, the courts should follow it?

  77. ehill, here is your answer from aislander, finally! What say you now?

    (aislander, it doesn’t matter if you and I agree on this. This is an issue between you and ehill. I was just hoping to bring it back around to see if we could get something resolved one way or the other Now let’s see what ehill’s response is to your answer. Shall we?)

  78. aislander says:

    So…THAT’S what this whole back and forth has been about? I ANSWERED the fatuous question yesterday! What do you think “I never said there shouldn’t be judicial revue of legislation–it has to comport with the Constitution” means?

    But…now I’VE asked YOU several questions that you have sidestepped. I’d really like to know if you believe that judges have the right to ignore the letter and intent of laws when rendering verdicts.

  79. The answer is not ‘should’ but ‘could’ such a law be overturned.

  80. aislander says:

    And muck, when I responded to ehill yesterday, it was only because I had forgotten momentarily what ehill is. I shall try to avoid that mistake in future…

  81. aislander says:

    Now that I look at the thread as a whole, rather than as a series of isolated posts, I would have to arrive at the conclusion that ehill purposely responded dishonestly to my original reply to his question (copying and pasting only part of my salient point) in order to muddy the waters and divert the thread from exploring the question of whether judges should subvert the law in their decision-making…

    I blame myself for deigning to engage in the first place.

  82. Wow, this has been quite a voyage.

    I must say tho, muckibr, after reading some of your posts from Dec. 18th on another thread and your post here from 10:52 I’m a little surprised at the contradiction, if you will.

  83. aislander says:

    Do lofty ends justify undemocratic means? Should judges ignore the law as written in order to impose their own sense of morality?

  84. aislander,

    “I never said that unconstitutional actions by Congress should stand” == You said pretty clearly that judges shouldn’t overturn laws passed by our representatives because that wouldn’t be “democratic”.

    “unconstitutional actions by courts (shouldn’t) be allowed to stand” == I can’t think of one time where that’s happened. Can you?

    “Can we agree that, if a law is constitutional, the courts should follow it?” — That makes no sense at all. It’s the role of the judiciary to DETERMINE if a law is constitutional.

    I’ll ignore the rest of your gratuitous insults.

  85. rational 1 hit the nail on the head.

  86. aislander says:

    The constitutionality of laws is not raised in every case. It is the obligation of judges to follow the law, or to strike down the law based on a perception of an absence of constitutionality. The judge cannot just ignore the law and arrive at a verdict that does not conform to the law…

    The argument that no unconstitutional actions by courts have been allowed to stand is circular and unknowable, since the courts have been the arbiters of their own degree of adherence to the Constitution. That’s why people are looking at a new mechanism for disciplining the judiciary. There are many cases (Roe v Wade, Engel v. Vitale, Murray v. Curlett, for example) where a large bloc of opinion asserts the decisions to be unconstitutional.

    I’m sorry my observations were perceived to be insults, but I can assure you none were gratuitous.

    Now, I shall return to ignoring you

  87. The objective judges of this thread say

    ehill = 1

    aislander = 0

    Congratulations to ehill, who easily wins this debate!

  88. aislander says:

    So…muck…should judges ignore the law as written in order to enforce a “higher” moral law–in your opinion (which seems to be less sound with every ungrounded cheer)?

  89. This objective judge rules that ehill loses points for using a false premise (using “gratuitous insults”) and simultaneousy dodging aislander’s question.

  90. Louis A. Kelsch’s letter starts with “I agree with Newt Gingrich:” and ends with “Based on my observation, Fox News has done a better job of putting pressure on activist judges than any of the branches of government.”

    Everything else in between those two statements can be totally ignored, because Louis agrees with Gingrich based on what he’s seen on Fox News, and that’s likely all that he has seen to base his opinion on. A very narrow tunnel vision point of view to say the least, and that’s being charitable.

    aislander, it’s been pretty obvious throughout all these threads that the only opinion you have ever respected is your own. Therefore, it is completely pointless for me or anyone else to share our honest opinions with you. You disagree with people before you’ve even read what has been written.

    amjim, when islander writes that he responded to ehill “only because I had forgotten momentarily what ehill is. I shall try to avoid that mistake in future…” That, my friend, is a gratuitous insult, not a false premise. Your judgement is ruled invalid amjim, and you are henceforth fired from your judgeship. The police will be coming to your house to arrest you soon, as is the recommended action of Newt Gingrich.

  91. Calling aislander guity of a gratuitous insult is being redundantly redundant.

    The best part is that ehill is not “what” aislander thinks ehill is.

  92. rw, this is a little above your pay grade. They’re actually thinking about things.

  93. lanq…to quote you….

    “Gosh, what a highly intelligent thing to say, you’ve added so much to the conversation! We may as well just all stop right here, wander off, and try as we might to wrap our heads around the above profundity. We should just put that on a poster, and people reading your words will simply shake their heads and quietly say, “Whooaaa ..”

  94. rw, that was a pretty good comment, nyet? Glad you re-posted it. I assume you’re wasted right now, but that’s fine, it’s a holiday and all. Don’t see any other reason that you’d grab that comment and think that it disparages me in any way. Merry whatever, homes! :)_

  95. aislander says:

    You’re tying yourself into tiny little knots to avoid giving me an answer about whether judges must follow the law, aren’t you muck? Why don’t you do the usual lefty thing and lie…for justice, doncha know?

    I didn’t lie about forgetting about my previous experience with your co-religionist (who seems to have been gone for a while), muck, and my statements were based on that experience and rigorous empirical observation of the specimen…

  96. aislander says:

    RW: You don’t have any idea what I believe it to be, but I don’t think I should share. Don’t want to be accused of slinging gratuitous OR deserved insults. And, frankly, it doesn’t matter anyway. I certainly couldn’t have a lower opinion, could I?

  97. Yoda. You have no problem sharing your analysis.

    To quote lanq again:

    “Your wrong.”

  98. “Merry whatever, homes!”

    Must be a real estate greeting

  99. aislander says:

    Are you saying my opinion could be lower, RW? Doubt it…

    As for the Yoda thing, you’re the one with the strange syntax…

  100. aislander,

    “The constitutionality of laws is not raised in every case.” == Perhaps you could name a few cases where that has happened.

    “It is the obligation of judges to follow the law, or to strike down the law based on a perception of an absence of constitutionality.” == Agreed. And that’s exactly what they do.

    “The judge cannot just ignore the law and arrive at a verdict that does not conform to the law.” == Disagree. The judge can determine that the law is unconstitutional. So the judge is not conforming to that law because that law is not conforming to the constitution.

    “the courts have been the arbiters of their own degree of adherence to the Constitution” == You’ve never yet provided one single example of a court performing an unconstitutional action.

    “There are many cases (Roe v Wade, Engel v. Vitale, Murray v. Curlett, for example) where a large bloc of opinion asserts the decisions to be unconstitutional.” == Well, the court has clearly been granted the authority to determine if a law is constitutional or not. And in each of those cases, that’s exactly what they did. So I fail to see what your argument consists of, unless it’s the petulant “it’s unconstitutional because I don’t like it” claim. I think you’re probably more intelligent than that, so perhaps you can enlighten me.

  101. WTraveler says:

    As long as judges are either elected by how much money they can raise to be elected, and others are political appointees–and the two party system continues to be so partisan–judges will not be making decisions based on constitutional law–or other written laws. I don’t care what Fox News says about it–or actually I don’t care what Fox News says about anything.

  102. aislander says:

    The preceding was NOT addressed to you, WTraveler…

  103. Gee, I thought this was an open forum.

  104. aislander says:

    No wounds to lick, muck. I have addressed every fatuous “point” it raised, but, apparently, reading for comprehension is not taught in troll school…

  105. ehill, those 5 “fatuous points” that aislander stood up at 7:10 AM, you knocked-down with great aplomb. I only mention it, and BTW congratulate you as well, because aislander seems to have missed or dismissed your counters, in saying at 10:10 AM that he has “addressed” every point. I think not!

    (I wish aislander would take some time for himself to decompress and de-stress a little. It concerns me that his comments seem less and less informed and more off-topic knee-jerk reactionary.)

    BTW, Pacman33 did make another comment at 11:21 PM on the 24th, but did anyone see a link in that comment or his previous comment? Where did that supposed quote from Jefferson come from? Just asking, because when you quote stuff you should leave at least some kind of attribution, right?

  106. aislander says:

    muck seems to have gone to the same school…

  107. aislander says:

    I get the strategy of marginalizing every conservative on this forum, and, you hope, causing them to give up and just go away. It reflects the tenor of the upcoming campaign. You may have succeeded in the case of qq. I hope not.

    You are a partisan person and you do what you do, along with some others, but I’m not going anywhere.

    Neither, however, am I going to follow you down any rabbit holes and get bogged down in pointless discussions like this one. I meant what I said, and that’s it. If you’re explaining, you’re losing.

    I don’t know if you are a privateer or a Dem operative, and I don’t care. We had LuckyCharm last presidential election cycle; this cycle we have you.

    I’m not sure why I forget this lesson and get dragged back in with the dogs, but I’ve picked up enough fleas to last me for a good long time. I intend to press my points as well as I can and do what I can to defeat Obama and turn this country around.

    We have too much debt and too much spending and Democrats will never do anything about it until we are in the position of Greece…

  108. aislander, First of all let me state that the topic of this thread is “Judges: Gingrich right on judicial activism”, and I have taken an opposing position on that issue. That’s really all my comments have addressed, as far as I am aware, except for my genuine concern for your latest reactionary comments that are turning quite personal and straying far from the topic at hand.

    I assure you that I am not some kind of “operative” for the Democratic Party. If I were I would expect them to pay me something for my effort, but I ain’t getting paid for posting anything on this web.

    You’ve taken a position supporting Gingrich and his view of firing activist judges. On this, and the previous thread that also broached this topic, I think you’re wrong, and I have argued that. Apparently somewhat effectively.

    As far as whatever happened to qq… (the blogger formerly known as xx…) I have no idea what happened to him. If he just quit posting, or was blocked, I don’t see how you can blame that on me. There are a lot of people here that disagreed with him, besides me.

    I am truly sorry you feel the way you do right now, but I did suggest you take some time to get away from all this and calm down a bit before blasting another off topic reactionary comment. Please do take some time for yourself and get away from this. It seems to be getting to you. I have felt that way at times myself, and so I think I see the signs in your latest comments.

    President Obama, the Dems, and the upcoming elections really have very little to do with this topic. This is really all about Newt Gingrich and his dumb idea about firing judges just because he wants to. Newt is wrong!

  109. Aislander,
    In the Case of Roe v Wade, IMO, most of those who oppose it do so on religious or personal-philosophical grounds.

    While the children are busy calling each other names, to answer your question:

    Judges should not ignore the law as written to ‘enforce a higher moral law’ and a continued persistent pattern of doing so should be grounds for removal.

    Judges may state in their decisions that they think the current law is flawed.

    This would be one boring blog if it did not include both sides of the political spectrum.

    I hope qq has not been blocked, and is just having a very merry holiday season.

  110. LibertyBell says:

    xring

    Roe?

    Row, Row, Row your boat gently down the stream, merrily merrily merrily merrily, Life is but a Dream…

    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

  111. LibertyBell says:

    “Common Sense”

    Roe?

    “Even brutes do not devour their young, nor savages make war upon their families . …”

    Thomas Paine

  112. “devour their young?”

    Is that the latest fear mongering from the TEA Party funders?

  113. LibertyBell says:

    No;

    The more ignorant we become the less value we set on science, and the less inclination we shall have to seek it.

  114. xring wrote: “While the children are busy calling each other names, to answer your question:”

    And I agree with xring 100%. Stop calling each other names, and let’s just share ideas calmly and courteously. Okay?

    In fact, for a second there I was afraid that I might have engaged in some inadvertent name-calling, but I have re-read all of my 18 comments prior to this one and see that I have not once called anyone a name on this thread. Not once. So I know xring is not referring to me.

    (In fact, in all the recent threads I have commented in over the past few weeks, I have tried very hard to refrain from name-calling, because I hate it when people call me names. And, I do like to try to live by the rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”)

    So, those of you who are doing the name-calling, knock it off! Let’s stick to the topic. Which is:

    “JUDGES: Gingrich right on judicial activism” of which, of course, Newt Gingrich, Fox News, the letter writer and anyone who agrees with them are totally wrong.

  115. LibertyBell says:

    If, however, such a bill should be passed and a person should be prosecuted under it, must the court condemn to death those victims whom the constitution endeavours to preserve?

    ‘No person,’ says the constitution, ‘shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.’
    Here the language of the constitution is addressed especially to the courts. It prescribes, directly for them, a rule of evidence not to be departed from. If the legislature should change that rule, and declare one witness, or a confession out of court, sufficient for conviction, must the constitutional principle yield to the legislative act?

    From these and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent, that the framers of the consti- [5 U.S. 137, 180] tution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature.

    Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!

    The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words: ‘I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States.’

    Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him.

    If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.

    It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.

    Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

    The rule must be discharged.

  116. RW… and all others, please excuse me for asking this off topic question, but I find I must ask…

    As regards these long, cut-n-paste, off topic passages recently posted by LiberyBell…

    Is this what LarryFine use to accuse Kardnos of doing, which Larry called “wallpapering”?

  117. And how does that apply to the topic?

  118. LibertyBell says:

    Did Justice Marshall’s first political Opinion, above mentioned, not explain Roe?

    “must the court condemn to death those victims whom the constitution endeavours to preserve?”

  119. Please excuse me for this possibly off-topic comment, but I find I must ask.

    Are these long, cut-n-paste off topic posts being posted by LibertyBell the same kind of thing that LarryFine claimed that Kardnos would do, that Larry termed as wallpaper?

  120. Are thes long cut-n-paste posts from LibertyBell what L-F used to accuse k-nos of as wallpaper?

  121. Since there’s no attribution in your post as to who wrote what you cut-n-pasted into the comment, then I have to ask

    Justice John Marshall or Justice Thurgood Marshall?

  122. LibertyBell says:

    And I thought the subject “WAS” judicial activism, I guess I missed the subject’s 1st Opinion, that any person “is” required to read in any Courthouse in every state?

    DiD it get “overuled” muckibr, and if it did, evidently we need a few more real newpapermen.

    http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/us/5/137.html

  123. LibertyBell says:

    “The Constitution is not a panacea for every blot upon the public welfare, nor should this Court, ordained as a judicial body, be thought of as a general haven for reform movements”
    John Marshall

  124. What country are you living in?

    LibertyBell wrote (and I still can’t believe this): “the subject’s 1st Opinion, that any person “is” required to read in any Courthouse in every state?”

    I am not aware of ANY opinion, that ANY person is REQUIRED to read in ANY courthouse in ANY jurisdiction of ANY state or territory in these United States!

    In fact I am fairly certain that here in The United States of America, these is NOT a single OPINION that ANYONE is REQUIRED to read ANYTIME – ANYWHERE!

    … and, what “real newspapermen” are you referring to? I do not recall ANYONE on this blog claiming to be a newspaperman.

    Very Strange!!!

  125. LibertyBell says:

    And Thomas supporting 1 simple theory.

    The minority?

    http://www.law.louisville.edu/library/collections/harlan/dissent

  126. LibertyBell says:

    I will yield the issue of required reading muck, so why argue any point on this subject, and Marbury, the opinion required before the 1st day of most law schools?

  127. LibertyBell says:

    For instance?

    William Rehnquist “The Supreme Court” ISBN 0-375-40943-2

    CHAPTER !

    Marbury v. Madison

  128. LibertyBell says:

    W. Rehnquist

    “All the Law’s but One”

    WHICH ONE IS IT?

  129. LibertyBell wrote: “why argue any point on this subject, and Marbury, the opinion required before the 1st day of most law schools?”

    How man people on this thread have said they went to Law School? I did NOT!

    Okay, No law school grads here as far as I know.

    No newspapermen hers as far as I know.

    Who’s next LibertyBell? Theoretical Physicists?

    What planet are you posting from anyway?

  130. SCORPION says:

    Sir, do you have a comment as to the content of the post by Liberty Bell?

    I find them informative and though I have not gone to law school myself, I am capable, as some here appear to be, of reading and comprehending the resources provided.

    The quote is in reference to a book, if that helps.

  131. aislander says:

    Stop with the patronizing show of concern. Your effectiveness (and that of tweedledumb and tweedledumber) resides only in your own mind. That and endless repetition of incredibly lame “points,” combined in a self-congratulatory daisy chain seems to be the sum-total of your “contribution.”

    No matter, you’re LibertyBell’s problem now…

  132. Scorpion, if you can tell me what the hell LibertyBell was trying to get at I may try to answer. However, I can’t make any sense whatsoever out of his/her scatological postings.

    aislander, what have we all said about calling people names! xring called people like you children. It’s not nice. You shouldn’t do it. And on top of that telling Scorpion he/she is “patronizing”.

    Not nice aislander!! Very childish, according to xring that is.

  133. “That and endless repetition of incredibly lame “points,” combined in a self-congratulatory daisy chain seems to be the sum-total of your “contribution.”

    That’s pretty funny coming from the person who accuses others of trying to marginalize those with whom they disagree, and refers to other posters as “it.”

  134. ehill, THANK YOU! First time I have laughed out loud today was reading your last comment. THANKS!!!

  135. LibertyBell says:

    Evidently, posting from the Moon?

    Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex… It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.
    Albert Einstein

  136. SCORPION says:

    Scorpion, if you can tell me what the hell LibertyBell was trying to get at I may try to answer. However, I can’t make any sense whatsoever out of his/her scatological postings.

    Not sure what the issue is but the posts by aislander and Liberty Bell are clear to me and provided some insight to a subject I hold an interest. Maybe you can articulate your understanding of the posts, you must have some? At that point we can move forward.

    to ehill – I refer to your 7:10 post specifically your third paragraph, though you state you disagree, from what I read from aislander and your response, it appears you actually may not disagree as much as you profess. I think that is similar to what he was talking about in that post and others.

    Thank you aislander and Liberty Bell for your insights, very refreshing.

    Sometimes these threads can get wearisome at times and cause a person to get queasy quickly… ;)

  137. Scorpion, If as you say, “Not sure what the issue is but the posts by aislander and Liberty Bell are clear to me”

    Then explain to me what LibertyBell is getting at, because to me it’s a bunch of unrelated nonsense directed at newspapermen, law school students, and whomever else he thinks is here but isn’t. If you can’t explain it, even though it is so clear to you, then please don’t try to BS me. Explain LibertyBell or admit you can’t. Be honest.

  138. aislander says:

    SCORPION: DON’T they though!

  139. SCORPION says:

    Sir, What I am asking from you is what is your current understanding of what, to focus, Liberty Bell posted as an example. If we begin there then we can move on with your perception and/or understanding as a foundation.

    aislander is actually easy to explain. My perception is that you guys were responding to the person and not the post. If you focus on the post and dance to his lead, I think it would have been a more enjoyable exchange. He did raised some good points.

  140. SCORPION says:

    Liberty Bell put a lot of emphasis on this particular case. Perhaps this introduction in wikipedia gives some light as to why.

    Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) is a landmark case in United States law and in the history of law worldwide. It formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. It was also the first time in Western history a court invalidated a law by declaring it “unconstitutional”, a process called judicial review.[1][2] The landmark decision helped define the “checks and balances” of the American form of government.

    “…in the history of law worldwide” no less.

    “…the basis for judicial review…”

    Seems very much in line with the second paragraph of the letter and also provide a textbook example of the proper role of judicial review without overstepping the boundaries of the role of the court.

    The Plessy case is also an example of the concepts aislander alluded to in his posts.

    Does this help muckibr?

  141. The claim that judges “legislate from the bench” is just code for “I disagree with the ruling”.

  142. So then you’re not one of those that claim Bush was “appointed” or “selected” by the SCOTUS. Cool.

  143. SCORPION says:

    well ehill that is no code… I do disagree with the ruling because they are in fact legislating from the bench.

  144. “they are in fact legislating from the bench.”

    Another person who confuses their opinions with facts. That’s pretty common among ideologues.

  145. SCORPION says:

    lets play… do you have a Supreme Court case that you agree with that others have demoguoge was legislating from the bench.

    or… do you have a case that in your opinion was the Supreme Court legislating from the bench.

    You make a comment based on your opinion, I responded with my opinion. If you have a specific case we can respond to one another with opinion supported by the case evidence.

    That’s what this stuff is… opinion. As in the courts opinion… dissenting opinion…

  146. So, eric, based on your 8:10am post, are you one who claims Bush was “awarded, appointed, or selected” by the SCOTUS ?

    Will you answer the question or are you a chip off the ol’ block?

  147. “That’s what this stuff is… opinion.”

    Then why did you claim it was a fact?

  148. SCORPION says:

    apples and oranges ehill

    Judges render legal opinion…

    Their actions become observable fact.

    Are we digging a rabbit hole here?

  149. Once again, confusing facts and opinions. Sorry to tell you this, but your opinions are not the same thing as facts.

  150. “Bush was “awarded, appointed, or selected” by the SCOTUS ?”

    Bush won the 2000 election fair and square, by the only votes that counted – those of the Supreme Court justices who his daddy appointed.

  151. SCORPION says:

    “Once again, confusing facts and opinions. Sorry to tell you this, but your opinions are not the same thing as facts.”

    We are down a rabbit hole… ummm, dude, I have been trying to tell you that – my (and your) OPINION are not the same thing as FACT.

    Shall we hold hands and say it together – duh!

    As far as the Bush election, 11 years later… therapy helps… wow.

  152. Still not going to answer it erik ?

  153. “my (and your) OPINION are not the same thing as FACT.”

    So when you said “they are IN FACT legislating from the bench” (emphasis added), you admit that you meant that it’s your opinion, and not a fact.

  154. Who’s Erik?

  155. … son.

  156. Huh? You’re obviously confusing me with someone else.

  157. SCORPION says:

    actually ehill the ones I was referring to were actually in fact legislating from the bench as there decisions were overrulled by a higher court and the legal opinion of the over turning judge was that it was legislating from the bench.

    The legal opinion was in fact a legal opinion, that it occured is indeed fact.

  158. “the ones I was referring to were actually in fact legislating from the bench”

    Still confusing your opinion with fact, I see. You aren’t alone. A lot of ideologues have the same problem.

  159. Simmer down son.

  160. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Wow, this thread just appeared on my browser. I’ve been commenting on other LTE’s all weekend, but this LTE/ thread was not even on this page.

    Help Mr./ Ms. TNT tech person!

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0