Your commentary about the Supremes was on the mark and could be (should be!) construed as applying to all activitist judges be they city, county, state or federal.
They know not what they sow for the rest of us to reap:
"The law of unintended consequences, often cited but rarely defined, is that actions of people -- and especially of government -- always have effects that are unanticipated or 'unintended.' Economists and other social scientists have heeded its power for centuries; for just as long, politicians and popular opinion have largely ignored it."
The lawyers are going to make a lot of money from applying Roper v. Simmons to a multitude of issues involving 17 year olds and younger, including the yet-to-be-born.
p>Let the fun begin. br> -- Nelson Ward br> Ribera, New Mexico /p>
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
The speech our President should make.
A noted economist fires back.
How political can you get?
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.