Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Reproductive Justice and Gender

Our Next President Will Transform the Supreme Court

By Ellen Goodman, Washington Post Writers Group. Posted October 6, 2008.


John McCain has promised the court to the right wing, and Roe v. Wade is first up on the chopping block.
Advertisement

BOSTON -- I really hate to bring it up. We already have two branches of our national government in full-scale meltdown. The president looks like a guy pleading before the parole board for early release. The Congress makes "dysfunctional" sound like a compliment.

But there is the third branch also in dire need of a rescue operation. Oyez, oyez, or should I say oy vey. I give you the Supreme Court.

When the court opens Monday, it will look like an oasis of calm in the capital. There are no neon-bright cases on the docket this term. Indeed, my personal favorite is the case of the "fleeting expletives," a suit brought against -- and made for -- Fox News, asking whether the FCC ban on dirty words covers the occasional Paris Hilton outburst.

But even the court's routine cases will wrestle with personal injury suits, job discrimination, sexual harassment and the environment. The not-so-fleeting fact is that the court ultimately touches every life. And so I come reluctantly to my quadrennial and usually futile plea to consider the court when you get into the presidential voting booth.

Most Americans have some guilty, civics-class understanding that the Supreme Court hangs in the electoral balance. More than 85 percent tell pollsters that the court is either very or somewhat important in how they cast their vote for president. But the court rarely rises to the top of the voting issues.

In support of my plea, take this pop quiz. What are the three longest lasting legacies of the Gerald Ford administration -- and the Betty Ford Clinic doesn't count. The answer? John Paul Stevens, John Paul Stevens, John Paul Stevens -- 88 years old and still on the bench. (OK, Dick Cheney was Ford's chief of staff, but let's not go there.)

George W. Bush's shadow will hover over the country long after he's gone, in the shape of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. In just three years and counting, the Roberts court has chilled desegregation efforts, allowed the first abortion ban with no exception for a woman's health, made it harder to claim employment discrimination, and easier to mix church and state.

In the cold world of actuarial tables, the next president is certain to have one choice and probably more. Candidates for retirement are Stevens, the 75-year-old Ruth Ginsburg and the homesick David Souter. That's three of the four moderate and liberal justices on a bench that has made an art of 5-4 decisions.

You do the math. If Obama is elected, the court will stay pretty much the way it is. If McCain is elected, Katie bar the door.

McCain, who plays a maverick on TV, promised the court to the right wing. He told the women of "The View": "I want people who interpret the Constitution of the United States the way our founding fathers envisioned for them to do so." This prompted Whoopi Goldberg to ask if she should worry about being returned to slavery.

Of course, slavery is not up for review and not every case comes with an ideological amicus brief. But you can count on one more Scalia, one more Alito, one more Roberts to limit or strike down the federal power for things such as cleaning the air and safeguarding workers. And need I remind you, McCain is out to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Pro-choice groups have been crying wolf for so long that it's hard to believe that the wolf is actually at the door. Or at least the border of South Dakota. There a full-tilt abortion ban on the November ballot with high-hurdle exceptions only for rape, incest and the life of a woman is pointed directly at Roe and targeted to arrive at the Supreme Court in time to greet a new justice. If what happens in South Dakota doesn't stay in South Dakota, a woman's right will depend on whether she has enough gas to drive to the next, or the next, or the next state.

Finally, if you want to know which candidate just plain values the Supreme Court, try checking out their first appointments, the vice presidents. Joe Biden has spent a career on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Sarah Palin went blank when asked to talk about a single court case beside Roe v. Wade.

Ah yes, remember when only a few Cassandras warned that subprime mortgages and credit derivatives would affect everyday American life? We'll be paying for the next Supreme Court even longer. That's two branches of government down, folks, and one to go.

(c) 2008, Washington Post Writers Group

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: reproductive rights, supreme court, mccain, roe v. wade, palin

Ellen Goodman is a member of the Washington Post Writers Group.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Reproductive Justice and Gender! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
It's always RVW, isn't it?
Posted by: rickiey on Oct 7, 2008 8:12 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Roe Vs. Wade. Eventually, it is going to be overturned. Why? Well, contrary to conventional wisdom, it won't be because of right wing justices or politicians.

It is because it was the wrong verdict. Now, I personally don't have a problem with abortion. I think it should be legal, and I think those who don't for religious reasons, should shut the hell up.

But RVW on its on grounds, was NOT the correct legal decision. In RVW, the Supreme Court did not interpret law, as is its only authority. It made law, which is the sole purview of the legislative branch.

Do I understand why they ruled the way they did? Yes, I do. In the same circumstances, would I have violated the Constitution the way they did? To be honest, I don't actually know. I might. I'm a big fan of the Constitution, but I'm also a big fan of rights, even those that aren't in the Constitution. The old "ends-means" argument.

The only way that RVW and the abortion debate will EVER be put to bed, is to finally put abortion legality through the legislative process. Have congress pass a law, and have that law pass the legal challenges that will be initiated 30 seconds after it is passed.

It will be a painful process, but one that is necessary. Women's right to the control of their own bodies can not hinge on a flawed supreme court decision forever.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It's always RVW, isn't it? Posted by: luzmejor
Constitution is worthless
Posted by: jimmy37 on Oct 8, 2008 8:59 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author believes that the court should be packed to support her agenda, regardless how our government is supposed to work. If she doesn't get her way, only then will she cry foul.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

HOW MANY "VARIETIES OF COURT", CAN AMERICANS, STAND ??
Posted by: One American Lady on Oct 8, 2008 10:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm beginning to Wonder if the American "Court System" is Getting Privatized.
You see, there is Now...a "DRUG COURT", for
persons, who are charged with criminal action,
related to Illegal Drugs.
And Sweeping America, Now...is "VETERANS COURT"
for Discharged Soldiers, who "get arrested" for Non-Violent Offenses.
AND NOW, GUESS WHAT: There is: "MENTAL HEALTH
COURT", for Persons who are Clients of Mental Health Agencies... Private or VA associated.
EITHER WAY... CLIENTS OF THE "COURT" SYSTEM, WHEN THEY GET ARRESTED, MIGHT BE LOSING THEIR ONLY INCOME, IF IT IS A GOVERNMENT INCOME, EVEN FOR A *DISABILITY PAYMENT*.
With the Social Security Department / DHS /
Mental Health Agencies....along with the
National Offices of AA / NA,(who connect together, getting their fingers in the (pie of money)/ Finances of the Taxpayer's,
it is the Low-Income / Developmentally Disabled / Elderly / Disabled Veterans, WHO WILL SUFFER & BECOME HOMELESS & WITHOUT AN
INCOME...WORSE THAN THEY ARE NOW.
Most people are found to be "unable to Meet the Expectations of these "COURT SYSTEMS", like they are Established, "as an Alternative Action, Replacement Program, to Imprisonment."
The Key is This: A CLIENT OF THESE COURTS WILL BE REQUIRED TO PAY $1,500 TO $2,000, for the Learning Course / Submit to UA's, even in the middle of the night, to appear at the County Courthouse or local facility where the ua is collected (whether you are employed at night or not, doesn't matter) / be "Court-Ordered" to Attend AA / NA at least 3 to 5 times Each
Week / Attend 2 or 3 Counseling Group Therapy,
Each Week / Appear before the Judge for that Specific "Court" Once a Week.
DO YA GET THE PICTURE ?? IT'S ANOTHER MONEY-GRABBING GAME ??
Drug Court are Not Necessarily, being that Successful & it will most likely be this way for the other two types of "Courts", too.
NONE OF THESE "COURTS" ARE ESTABLISHED TO BRING "HEALTH & WELLNESS" TO THE CLIENTS OF THEM.
This is Not Surprising to Me, as Our Life in America, is "going to the Dogs" it seems... &
it's a Money-Grabbing bunch of Leaders, we have "forcing us to become Law-Abiding Citizens, while paying our own income to them, so they can Eat Better, Wear Better Clothes, have Better Houses to live & KEEP THEIR FAMILY IN UNITY"...& to Hell with the Poor People, who have very little to start with...
One American Lady

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good Reason
Posted by: VMRH on Oct 8, 2008 12:08 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No, McCain will not hand the court to the extreme right wing. Look at his record. That isn't him. He supports current abortion law, while lamenting the prevalence of abortion. Pretty darn middle-of-the-road pastel.

These types of over-the-top scare tactics do no one any good, and they result in a completely debased political discourse.

You can do better than this.

Red State Feminists

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Good Reason Posted by: lcgrissom
» RE: Good Reason Posted by: bobtr900
Instead of packing the courts with conservatives...
Posted by: vasumurti on Oct 8, 2008 12:27 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Instead of packing the courts with conservatives, I think pro-lifers should be pushing for a Constitutional Amendment to extend human rights to the unborn. The central issues in the abortion debate are the “personhood” or moral status of the unborn, and the extent of individual and marital privacy.

Stephen Douglas has been quoted as having said in debate with Abraham Lincoln that human slavery be resolved through the democratic process. Let the people decide: if they “want slavery, they shall have it; if they prohibit slavery, it shall be prohibited.”

Whether or not democracy is the ideal form of government is not the issue here, but since we live in a democracy, what is wrong with Douglas’ statement? It was through the democratic process that we gave women the right to vote, gave 18 year olds the right to vote, and even attempted the Equal Rights Amendment. Isn’t this how we should extend human rights to the unborn? Isn’t this how we should give rights to animals?

Pro-lifers compare Roe v. Wade to the Dred Scott decision of 1857. In both cases, rights were denied to an entire class of humans based upon an arbitrary criterion, such as developmental status or the color of the skin. The conclusion author Paul Nowak draws from this in Guerilla Apologetics for Life Issues is that the Supreme Court is not infallible.

Roe v. Wade was decided in part by denying rights to the unborn, but also by assuming a right to privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut assumed a right to marital privacy regarding the use of contraception) not clearly spelled out in the Constitution.

Can we overturn Roe without overturning Griswold?

Is the solution to the abortion crisis to pack the Court with conservatives who might also oppose things like church-state separation (in the Newdow case regarding the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, Justice Scalia had to excuse himself from the case, because he doesn’t believe in complete church-state separation) and deny us contraception and a right to privacy (Griswold)…or is the solution to enact a Constitutional Amendment to extend human rights to the unborn?

And again, as Paul Nowak says, the Supreme Court is not infallible. The views of the Court are constantly changing. In 1986, the Supreme Court upheld a sodomy law. A few years ago, they reversed themselves, which outraged the religious right, but pleased lesbians and gays, the parents and friends of lesbians and gays, and political liberals.

I cannot understand how pro-life liberals and pro-life Democrats, most of whom respect the private nonviolent behavior of consenting adults, most of whom support church-state separation, and most of whom support contraception and better sex education as the most effective way to prevent unplanned pregnancies, would want to align themselves with pro-life conservatives and pro-life Republicans in order to pack the courts with conservatives in the hopes of eventually overturning Roe v. Wade.

It’s my conviction that we do have a fundamental right to privacy, and I cannot advocate putting the women of America unwillingly under electronic surveillance, probing their past without their consent, denying them contraception, or even going through their personal effects (although the Fourth Amendment does protect us against unwarranted search and seizure). There must be a better way.

Again, instead of packing the courts with conservatives in the hopes of overturning Roe v. Wade, I favor grassroots activism and educating the American public about when human life begins, prenatal development, etc. in order to get them to eventually support a Constitutional Amendment to extend human rights to the unborn.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

get the f out of my womb
Posted by: cyr3n on Oct 8, 2008 7:01 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I certainly do not remember inviting any penis-bearing lawmakers into my vagina. What makes them think they're somehow entitled to pass laws which will never apply to them?

Seriously.. get the fek out of my womb and solve bigger issues pertaining to woman's health. Like rape. Solve rape.. then we can talk about rights for some non-sentient homunculus.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: get the f out of my womb Posted by: kungfuma
If they can regulate a womens womb...
Posted by: Bearzerker on Oct 10, 2008 2:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...whats preventing the politicals from undermining any persons individual rights to anything!

as a man I support the right to choose because its a fight over the rights to my body masculine as well as the womb... its not a question of sex or the unborn or whatever other argument they may bring to the electorate!

I think the decision in Roe Vs Wade recognized this basic constitutional right... it also recognizes and enforces the separation of church and state which MUST be recognized at all levels

Roe Vs. Wade was a right decision then and will continue to be the right decision in the future!

nuff said
JDFU

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

President Palin would appoint right wing wackos just as Bush did
Posted by: whealeydj on Oct 11, 2008 5:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
so why are we reading alternet rather than working to elect Obama?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

pro choice people "crying wolf?" say wha?
Posted by: Zenobia on Oct 12, 2008 6:50 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This statement by the author made me cringe. Last I checked, we had lost something like 452 abortion and other reproductive rights under this administration. And that was about 2 years ago.

Attempts to define a fertilized egg as a "person" with more rights than a woman were made in Colorado. Mike Huckabee was campaigning on trying to get this "Human Life Amendment" added to the federal constitution. California is trying to get parental notification laws passed for the third year in a row. Georgia has a trigger law that declares that a woman who attempt to abort and her doctor will be punished with the death penalty. (Hmmm, someone smell something BURNING in here???) A trigger law is one that goes into effect if federal protections for abortion fall.

The author didn't do her homework here. NARAL is good at keeping track of laws and changes to laws, state by state and federally. Bookmark it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Congress/Supreme Court
Posted by: weathered on Oct 13, 2008 2:47 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
have been placed essentially under house arrest since 9/11.

The ONLY parts that have the appearance of working are for those that complied. MSM validates the chrade everyday.

The inJustice Dept. are corporate policemen to insure the criminals and crimes are fully indemnified - that's Mukasey job and his performance to date is nothing less then stellar.

AlterNet should be all over Mukasey.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Supreme Court is Already Right Wing
Posted by: Mexitli on Oct 13, 2008 5:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And they have not changed Roe vs. Wade.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It was CONGRESS that banned "partial birth abortion", NOT SCOTUS !
Posted by: maxpayne on Oct 13, 2008 6:08 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So let me get this straight. Congress bans what they term "partial birth abortion" which is really banning a woman's right to save her own life even in the case of incest and rape after the rightwing media distract the country with Laci Peterson BULLSHIT even as Iraq was turning for the worse in 2003 and now you people expect SCOTUS to change that? The only thing that matters is some irrelevent Roe v Wade ruling which has already been rendered USELESS for the past 28 years, correct? Sorry people but it was Congress that said FUCK YOU and kissed up to the President. Yes, it was Republican controlled in 2003 but did Nancy FUCKING Pee-low-sick and her cowardly backstabbing bastards try anything to undo the damage? FUCK NO ! And do you REALLY think President Obama will put in even a social moderate? That weasel is already planning to extend Bush's faith based programs and put more children in Christian BOOTCAMPS ! My wife and I are softhearted Christians and we cringe at the thought of seeing children run into religious concentration camps. When President Obama shoves your kids into religious concentration camps, unless you're armed (and I hate it when this has to be the case) and can ward those religious gestapo off or get a Paul Kersey type vigilante to help you, don't come crying about it ! And as far as economic and foreign policy issues are concerned, even the so-called "justices" sided with the ones appointed by Republican presidents but I guess that's not important is it ? Both political parties have lost control of their fucking faculties.

RALPH NADER FOR PRESIDENT !!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Roe V. Wade here to stay
Posted by: JoeLiberalman on Oct 13, 2008 7:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The next president will transform the supreme court, unquestionably. But I do not believe Roe v. Wade is an any real danger. Firstly I don't believe McCain can win at this point. Realistically. If he did by some miracle/curse even with Palin and her extreme right wing views, it still won't happen. The GOP controlled all 3 branches of government for 6 years and they never overturned it.Never even tried.They had the votes in Congress, the President was " on board",supreme court in their favor, yet they didn't even attempt to overturn it. Explain that. Ok, I will. The Republican party has been using abortion as a wedge to help them win elections for 25-30 years now. If Roe v. Wade is overturned and abortion is made illegal or whatever the effect is, that wedge is gone.They lose the right wing evangelical pro-life vote. Read Thomas Frank's What's the Matter With Kansas for an in depth look at what I am saying. If they actually intended to overturn Roe it would have and could have been done.The truth is,they need anti-abortion sentiment to leverage election victory.If they don't have that or other wedge issues like gay marriage then people look deeper at the rest of their platform. And see that it is ugly and actually hurts the average citizen. Especially conservative economic policy. So they have no intention of overturning Roe v. Wade. They need it in order to win elections.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ROE VS. WADE IS OBVIOUS
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Oct 13, 2008 7:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It continues to get everyone's attention and in keeping with the pattern of this Administraton makes everthing else seem inconsequential. Does anyone else see what they've done to our right to free speech? What about rights if you've ben arrested? Bankruptcy laws changed just in time for millions of forclosures? Employee discriminiation and retaliation laws? Re-definiing torture? The list goes on. Abortion rights are important, but not the only thing in jeopardy. This handful of people have the power to re-define the Bill of Rights and The Constitution. Women's rights are important but so are everyone else's. A woman has the right to have an abortion, but at the same time someone else has the right to picket the clinic and harass her on the way in the door. While the Neocons stoke the flames on this single issue, there's alot going on that is not getting our attention. They are chipping away at an individual's right to sue. It's easier than enforcing the laws that people break causing them to be sued in the first place. We're being cut off at the pass more and more everyday. Let's face it, they put George Bush in the White House and he still has 3 months to go. He's a man with nothing left to lose. But we have everything to lose. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Scary
Posted by: QQOblivion on Oct 13, 2008 9:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is what is as stake with this election.
Do you want the Supreme Court to be FAR-RIGHT ULTRA-MEGA-GIGA-TERA-FASCIST? Then vote for McCain.
Do you want at least a little commonsense to guide the Supreme Court? Then vote for Obama.

Look at it this way. If McCain wins, whatever you think of McCain, Sarah Palin will very likely be the president following McCain (for whatever reason). Do you want ULTRA-WRONG-WING Hyper-Religious Global-warming-and-evolution-denying sadist and Cheney-admiring President *Sarah Palin* to be picking Supreme Court judges!!??

Hey, if she does nominate any SC justices, then Scalia and Thomas and Alito and Roberts will be the (relative) LIBERALS on the Court!!!

Jesus, I've scared myself today!...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Everyone does realize that
Posted by: EncinoM on Oct 13, 2008 9:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Roe v. Wade has been replaced. It is no longer the controlling case on abortion, but Casey v. Planned Parenthood is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: veryone does realize that Posted by: maxpayne
It isn't just Roe v. Wade
Posted by: brunowe on Oct 13, 2008 9:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Boudemienne v. Bush, which rebuked the Bush administration's attempt to read the habeas writ out of the constitution was a 5-4 decision.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hold on to your lug nuts you Constitution Mechanics because it is ass busting time!
Posted by: Nightstallion on Oct 14, 2008 3:44 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have never been convicted of a crime in this country. But the time is coming when we all could be including you and most definitely me. It is now impossible to tell if you have committed a crime let alone if you are guilty of anything. If those in power do not like your responses to their machinations you will be targeted for removal. This is not supposition, this is the way it works.
The laws in this country are loosely based on English Common Law. This is as follows: This article is about the general legal concept. For the book by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., see The Common Law.
Common law refers to law and the corresponding legal system developed through decisions of courts and similar tribunals, rather than through legislative statutes or executive action.
The common law is created and refined by judges: a decision in the case currently pending depends on decisions in previous cases and affects the law to be applied in future cases. When there is no authoritative statement of the law, judges have the authority and duty to make law by creating precedent.[1] The body of precedent is called "common law" and it binds future decisions. In future cases, when parties disagree on what the law is, an idealized common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision (this principle is known as stare decisis). If, however, the court finds that the current dispute is fundamentally distinct from all previous cases, it will decide as a "matter of first impression." Thereafter, the new decision becomes precedent, and will bind future courts under the principle of stare decisis.

All this by definition is well and good, but in THIS country we had no law as such till the appointed and self appointed magistrates, lawyers and barristers who began to practice it as it were: a necessary adjustment to lawlessness in the newly formed states. In other words it was mutual tacit agreement by an elite few that installed English Common Law in the colonies.

It was not then NOR HAS EVER BEEN RATIFIED THROUGH A CONGRESSIONAL SEE, HEARING OR PUBLIC REVIEW! In short the so called laws of the land are indeed illegal, fraud, and further therefore felonious, no WONDER they call it CRIMINAL LAW!


However, this means nothing to a Religious Corporatocracy or a Theosophic Oligarchy, the laws will be made willy-nilly on the spot just to please the Elite few and mighty. If that nebulous “we” out there in power in the United States of America say a thing is terrorist, insightful, subversive or anti-American it will be just because “WE’ said so. Who will tote the bill and shuck the profit? The working poor, the destitute, and the middle class (many of these folks reading this are one in the same!) who makes under $250,000 a year. From 0 dollars to $250,000.00 , are the new paupers!


So get down off that horse little republican shill you are just as expendable as me and the rest of the grunts! Anyone who believes we have a legal leg to stand on in this country is as full of shit as a Christmas goose! These laws are not for you they are for the elite!


What you will get is a wall an oven or a gas chamber in your not too distant future. I have NO confidence in the American law system. I have ZERO confidence that anyone will represent you fairly in a court of law. I have seen Eight innocent men condemned to death and executed in this country in the last ten years and NOTHING will bring them back or re-install my faith in this brutal horse shit you people call American Juris Prudence because it is NEITHER!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» A small hint > > > > > Posted by: Nightstallion
where to start?
Posted by: Levon on Oct 14, 2008 9:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
first of all, the senate, and a couple of well placed democrats ( who shall remain nameless) could have blocked both alito and roberts -but didn't. think aobut how the democrats on the senate judiciary committee sold out the country with allowing these two nominees to be appointed and then think about how if the shoe were on the other foot if the repubs would not have fought tooth and nail to resist similar lefty appointees.
second, if anyone ever thinks that the gop would allow roe to be overturned is just not thinking clearly. its about the only issue they have left to keep the religious right from finding a new issue, which might not be a republican issue (can u type environment). does anyone remember terry schiavo and how repubs flew back to washington to sign this law and then consider than if abortion was so much on their to do list if they couldn't have done the same thing?
I'm not so sure most democrats in congress are our friends.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]