- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
search
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Political Hay
Pat Leahy's Fish Story
(Page 2 of 2)
Ignored, of course, was a letter from a club official and longtime member saying that not only was the club not for business purposes, "the whole point of the Club is to get away from business."
But none of this -- not Smith's rare attendance at the club, not the fact that it was purely a social club, not the fact that he had tried to change the club as promised and eventually resigned -- was good enough for Leahy and his fellow Judiciary Committee Democrats. Over and over they drilled home that they opposed gender discrimination in clubs, most particularly any club that even hinted at the idea that business could be discussed on site and that business associates of a member could be invited. Time after time they chose to label this fishing club as a business club and worse, a business club that deliberately discriminated by excluding women as members.
Said Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois:
Judge Smith has a long association with a prestigious private club that has a formal policy barring women from membership. Exclusive clubs are serious business, forging important commercial ties and blocking women from full opportunity in society…
Said Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin:
In my mind, if the club permits its members to invite business associates to the club and hold business meetings there, that is a club that should not discriminate against minorities or women.
Other Democrats joined the chorus, including Senator John Kerry, who was not even a member of the Judiciary Committee. His Massachusetts colleague Senator Ted Kennedy, who was a senior member of the Committee, said he was opposed because:
Contrary to Judge Smith's representations, it also appears that the Spruce Creek Club is not merely a social club, but a place where business is conducted. Three ethicists, including one who wrote at the behest of the Ranking Minority Member of the Judiciary Committee, have written that if the Spruce Creek Club can be used for business purposes, its exclusion of women would violate the Judicial Code of Conduct.
Washington State's Senator Maria Cantwell huffed:
I believe that there is little difference between a club that affirmatively denies membership to women, and a club that denies membership to African Americans or to people of a particular religious affiliation.
One left-wing Washington special interest group after another piled on Judge Smith. People for the American Way, NOW, the Community Rights Counsel, the Alliance for Justice and so on.
Now, seven years later comes the nomination of Second Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court and Smith's critics are silent -- deafeningly so. Even in the face of the Politico story, which further describes the Belizean Grove club in this paragraph:
The group -- which on its website describes itself as "a constellation of influential women who are key decision makers in the profit, nonprofit and social sectors; who build long-term, mutually beneficial relationships in order to both take charge of their own destinies and help others to do the same" -- hosts periodic meetings around New York, as well as an annual off-the-record three-day retreat in Central or South America at which its members attend cocktail parties with U.S. diplomats and host-country officials and participate in panel discussions on public policy and business affairs."
In other words, the Belizean Grove, of which Judge Sotomayor is a proud member, is precisely what Spruce Creek Rod and Gun Club was not. It is not about fishing but about a "constellation of influential women" who quite specifically are "key decision makers" gathered by gender for "mutually beneficial relationships." It is -- according to the Belizean Grove itself -- about power.
Where are Senator Leahy and his colleagues now that they have a Supreme Court nominee who is guilty of all the things they falsely accused both Judge Smith and Spruce Creek? Where is Senator Feingold? Where is Senator Schumer? Where is the National Organization for Women? Where is People for the American Way? Is the Alliance for Justice now a believer that discrimination by gender is OK? Where are the so-called legal ethics law professors who insisted Judge Smith's presence at Spruce Creek was unethical?
The question is really very simple: will Leahy and company apply to a Latina female Obama nominee the very same standards they demanded of a white male Bush nominee?
Or are we about to listen to an affirmative action fish story?
Comments
Leave a Comment
Related Articles
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Breaking Fast With Bill Safire
- Obama's Vision Through History
- Obama's Foreign Policy Problems, Personified
ADVERTISEMENT
Quin| 6.16.09 @ 7:28AM
Jeff is absolutely right. The hypocrisy of Leahy, Schumer and Company knows no bounds. It takes twisted, bitter little minds and hearts to self-justify such outrageous double standards.
As for me, I say this is no reason for non-lefties to oppose Sotomayor. A social club is a social club. Sometimes men like to associate with men, and sometimes women like to associate with women. There are plenty of other, BETTER reasons to oppose Sotomayor's nomination. But this reason alone, this membership in the Belizean Grove, should be absolutely reason enough for Leahy, Schumer and Kennedy to oppose her nomination. By their own standards, she has disqualified herself. Bravo to Jeff for his excellent column!
drudge ette obama| 6.16.09 @ 7:47AM
As a nonLatin, female attorney, I shun memberships in all-women legal associations and never took a women's studies class in college or feminist law class in law school because there is nothing less appealing than sitting with a bunch of liberal women complaining about their bad luck in being born female in a white man's world. These groups do not tolerate a conservative outlook, so my brief and occasional visits to all-women's groups have been unpleasant and annoying. Reading feminist literature is education enough.
That said, there is some sexual discrimination in the workplace. My goal is to do a good job and, if it persists unfairly, to find a better place.
Sotomayer's membership in this all-women's group is wrong but it is permissible for the same reasons that all-black student groups, gay groups and other such single-classification groups are allowed to exist under government subsidies. The guilt-ridden white liberals feel that it is overdue to make-up for the inequities, so these groups are allowed to exist in public facilities and are often subsidized by the taxpayer.
Sotomayer must live a colorblind life, including getting the heck out of the all-ladies Belizian Grove, if she is to be taken as the true professional that she may or may not be.
drudge ette obama| 6.16.09 @ 7:50AM
One more point: these single-issue groups are wrong if they don't allow anyone to join. If that threshold is met, then my opposition to someone's membership is not necessarily a deal-breaker, unless it is the KKK or perhaps La Raza.
Galen| 6.16.09 @ 7:52AM
As usual Marx was righ; Don"t join any club that would accept you as a member.
Austin Scott| 6.16.09 @ 8:15AM
Pantywaists. About time for a full-fledged defense of single-sex clubs, schools, and organizations of all kinds. They have always been a feature of civilization and the bizarre campaign against them by the left has impoverished and coarsened our society.
David Gonzalez| 6.16.09 @ 8:25AM
"If that threshold is met, then my opposition to someone's membership is not necessarily a deal-breaker, unless it is the KKK or perhaps La Raza. "
According to the ABA, Sotomayor IS a member of La Raza!
moranec| 6.16.09 @ 8:42AM
Outstanding reporting. Yes, we see in Quinn's words an ample example of "twisted, bitter little minds and hearts to self-justify such outrageous double standards" fully at work here doing a fine job of coordinating through special interest groups. Conservatives who think such gender-distinct clubs are no big deal despite the overarchingly negative spin the liberal press puts on such forms of "discrimination" miss the point as to how to slander and slam to great effect. To take the high ground here means we also stay silent like Senator Leahy but for different reasons. I'm appreciative of Mr. Lord's pointing out the hypocrisy of Judge Smith's rude and crude treatment.
ncatty| 6.16.09 @ 9:25AM
The American Spectator at its best. Bravo!
Anthony| 6.16.09 @ 9:50AM
It's the same old story with these sclerotic leftists. You'd think by now our weak kneed, appeasement orientated leaders, such as McCain and Powell, as well as the rest of the Washington Republican establishment, would finally realize that Leftist reprobates like Leahy, Schumer, Durbin, et al, play politics for keeps.
These men have no scruples, no morals, and no conscience. The ends justify the means, and these snakes, along with their leftist allies, will leave no stone unturned for the cause. So when can we expect Colin Powell and Tom Ridge, the new leaders of the R party to speak up? Yeah, right.
true religion jeans| 6.16.09 @ 9:51AM
This is a great piece. Very thought provoking. I like the sort of ending that leaves it opn to personal input. Makes it work for just about everyone I think. Nicely done! I’ll subscribe.
BD57| 6.16.09 @ 10:09AM
Jeff:
I understand the point of the article - "If they meant what they said, then Sotomayor's membership should be an issue for Leahy, et al."
But, seriously - you don't really believe they meant a word of it where Smith was concerned, do you?
The club was nothing more than a flag of convenience for Leahy, et al ... they didn't want Smith as an appellate judge & the club was the excuse they hid behind.
Sotomayor's membership won't be a problem because, you know, she's a good liberal who could NEVER be corrupted by such a thing ...
Oh, and when the oppressed get together - there's nothing corrupt in that ...
Siegfried X| 6.16.09 @ 10:20AM
"You'd think by now our weak kneed, appeasement orientated leaders, such as McCain and Powell"
Those RINOs WANT the Democrat's justices to be approved. That's why McCain doesn't talk about the double standard.
Dan D| 6.16.09 @ 10:56AM
Logic and fairness have nothing to do with it. Leahy and Durbin and Cantwell really did not care about Spruce Creek Rod & Gun Club's policy for any substantive reason. The only value it has was as a club to use against a political opponent by hyping the appearance of a possible impropriety, by tying its harmless practices to other, uglier discriminators such as some country clubs and elite gathering places.
From their perspective, Sotomayor's membership in a restricted group was not equivalent because that group is assumed by its nature to be plucky women banding together to overcome past discriminations.
It's an ugly political tactic, but tough to counteract.
Bob| 6.16.09 @ 10:57AM
Hypocrisy? You mean a politician can act differently now that they acted in the past? Oh, pshaw.... BOTH Democrats and Republicans are hypocritical in equal measures. We can go through multiple examples including the much bigger Republican spending debacle, but there is really no need.
I am not defending Leahy by any stretch of the imagination. He's a politician and he's hypocritical. I find no problems with same sex clubs, but I do find a problem with clubs that discriminate on the basis of race.
Lord, this "outrage" based on hypocrisy is laughable. Romney is one of the most hypocritical politicians around and I happen to believe he's make a good President.
By the way, Lord, your biased phrase about Smith being supported by a "liberal" senator rather than saying he was supported by two Republican senators, didn't pass my notice. You know as well as anyone that support is based more on party than orientation. But that would require objectivity....
In summary, it is hypocritical to talk about one politician being more hypocritical than another one. How many Republicans said that it was wrong to deny a judge confirmation based on ideology? How many Republicans said that Supreme Court nominations shouldn't be filibustered and you should just have and up or down vote?
Again, this is not a knock on Republicans -- it is a knock on all politicians. It would be nice if you put forth an article on hypocrisy in general with positions based on values rather than politics. But you won't....
Jeffrey Lord| 6.16.09 @ 11:14AM
Bob..
" It would be nice if you put forth an article on hypocrisy in general with positions based on values rather than politics. But you won't.... "
Excellent idea, Bob! I'll add it to the list!
Bob| 6.16.09 @ 11:35AM
Jeffrey -- what are you trying to do? Give me a heart attack? Seriously, as you know my biggest gripe with all politicians is their lack of fiscal responsibility. As to Supreme Court nominees, I believe the way to get your ideology into the ether is to win the Presidency. Then, if they are HIGHLY qualified, they should be confirmed, notwithstanding their personal views on abortion, etc.
My other pet peeve is that politicians use rhetoric rather than objective analysis. But then again, I do not expect objective analysis either at TAS or Huffington.
Nick| 6.16.09 @ 11:58AM
Mr. Lord,
Excellent article. Unfortunately, it is a day late and a dollar short.
It would have been nice to get Leaky-Leahy, Turban-Durbin, Cantwell, et al, on the record back in 2002 specifically rebuking liberal clubs like Belizean Grove. Republicans could be throwing it back in their faces right now.
But this would require a little forethought and some actual work on the part of the GOP. I think this was the worst part of the "Bush" years, laziness. They were in power and they thought they could just coast.
And they don't want to fight like the democrats. The GOP constantly brings knives to gun fights.
Michael Tomlinson| 6.16.09 @ 1:02PM
Of course, the Democrats fought a Bush nomination to the Federal bench. They knew unlike Reagan or his father W's nominees were conservatives. In fact, one of the enduring legacies of President Bush's administration (aside from actually fighting Islamic terrorism and with the Republican Congress promoting real economic growth) is that he appointed highly qualified conservatives to the bench. Something that stands in sharp contrast to all post WW II Republican Presidents.
That Democrats are giving a bigoted Democrat a free ride is not shocking since Democrats are the party of slavery, Jim Crow, segregation and reverse discrimination. Bigotry and Democrats go hand and in hand like Muslim terrorists and murder.
Missy| 6.16.09 @ 1:43PM
Hypocrisy on the Left? Couldn't be--they're the party of 'tolerance', right?
What a joke.
Michael Tomlinson| 6.16.09 @ 2:25PM
As for Republican hypocrisy on judges I would point out that unlike Democrats Republicans have been remarkably restrained in their remarks about Sotomayor (despite her record of bigotry and failure on the bench) precisely, because of their previous positions. That is why so many conservatives are upset with Republicans – they’re not crawling in the gutter with Democrats, but staying true to their principles and deciding on the facts. Of course, if Republicans choose to oppose this nomination based on the precedents set by Democrats it would not only be fair, but just.
Personally, I think they should use the standard pioneered by an insignificant Illinois Democrat when he voted against Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito despite stating that they were imminently qualified – he believed it was the senator's right to oppose high court nominees because of their philosophical and political views. To quote the Senator, “In those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart."
Since we know narrow-minded bigotry is a major component of Sotomayor’s “heart” it is the right, nay duty, of every Republican Senator to vote against her based on the standard pioneered by Barack Obama. Using the Obama standard how could anyone vote for a woman who defends the entrenched power of racist and unqualified minorities against the triumphant handicapped? How could anyone think this Latina is any less “dangerous” than Bush’s Latino especially when the Latina’s record of bigotry and hate is so public? Since Obama wants a judge who can empathize it would be responsible to vote against Sotomayor, because she cannot empathize with the handicapped, victims of reverse discrimination, Christians, traditional married couples, heterosexuals, Anglos and non-union workers.
Voting NO on this nominee would be what the old Barack Obama would do and how could that be wrong?
Robert Rosencrans| 6.16.09 @ 2:29PM
You can't operate a political mafia without mafioso standards. Collectivists ideals can only operate on a thematic stage of hypocrisy. Corruption in government is permanized by the lack of ethics and professional standards. These are the standards that lead to the crushing of your freedoms and individualism. These are the standards that made Hitler a success. Dictatorship rides to success on the back of lies.
Marc Jeric| 6.16.09 @ 2:45PM
Leahy, Schumer, Dobbs, Kennedy, Frank , Pelosi- they are like 3-day malaria attacks, or allergies; a real gallery of rogues. Every time I see them on TV or read about them in the paper, I get an attack of revulsion. Liars, killers, prevaricators, thieves - they should be sentenced to 20 years of hard labor in the soviet-type gulag - so they can feel themselves what they are fighting for to obtain for us. When any one of them opens his mouth I know with the 100% certainty what lie will come out. You see, before I escaped from a communist counrty I was bludgeoned with 8 long years of the marxist-leninist indoctrination.
Pingback| 6.16.09 @ 4:25PM
J’s Cafe Nette » Tuesday Tid-Bits links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Jeffrey Lord| 6.16.09 @ 5:01PM
Bob...
"As to Supreme Court nominees, I believe the way to get your ideology into the ether is to win the Presidency. Then, if they are HIGHLY qualified, they should be confirmed, notwithstanding their personal views on abortion, etc."
First..I will try and be more disagreeable for the sake of your health. I have enough to do without thinking my agreement has sent a reader to the Great Magazine In the Sky.
Second..as to your point above. I used to be there with you, Bob. Alas, I was involved in the Bork episode and our friends on the left changed the rules. Robert Bork was the most supremely qualified nominee to date. Indeed, former Chief Justice Warren Burger was so stunned at Bork's treatment he blurted out that if Bork wasn't confirmable he, Burger, should never have been confirmed.
For this sea-change we have Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy, among others, to thank. Alas, the GOP was slow on the uptake. Adapting a pre-Bork attitude they gave a pass to both Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, refusing to play the Biden game. But alas, our friends on the other side just would not relent. George W won the 2004 election, nominated both Roberst and Alito - and still it was a no-go with these people, a no vote coming from both Obama and Biden as senators.
So...I have yielded. Supreme Court nominees no longer get a pass from me, regardless of the fact their side won the election. All bets are off.This is no longer about superb qualifications - this is about judicial ideology. Judge Sotomayor is, no surprise, way wide of my mark.
There. Feeling better already, aren't you? Who needs ObamaCare when you have me?
Bob| 6.16.09 @ 5:34PM
Thanks, Jeffrey for being disagreeable. It makes a body feel good....
You've heard the sayings that two wrongs do not make a right and do unto other, etc. What about it's what people do, not what they say? I have a consistent philosophy that bright, principled individuals will generally make bright, principled decisions. Furthermore, I believe that the Democrats were wrong in their behavior and should be chided for it. Therefore, I had no problems with Bork, Scalia, Alito or Roberts even though I'm a social libertarian and would probably disagree with them on the issue of choice and gay marriage. I didn't see Thomas as having that level of intelligence, however.
From a political perspective, if you oppose on the basis of ideology, you will excite the base and turn off independents and Dems. That is a formula for losing a general election and going against demographic trends. For that reason, your objection on the basis of ideology will have virtually no effect on the final decision as politicians always want to be reelected. That's why even politically, I would take the high road and not get into the mud with Dems. If you want people to believe the Republicans are principled -- whether it is with the budget/stimulus or Supreme Court nominations -- then you must act in a principled manner. I believe that principle is the way back to party health. Again, you and I may agree on fiscal conservatism, but we will disagree on social issues. Sotomayor, given her history, has been conservative on business decisions and moderate on social issues. In fact, on issues regarding discrimination, she decided against the side claiming discrimination 80% of the time. I happen to like the vast majority of decisions she has made. The Ricci case has two sides -- if she, indeed, followed precedent, then her decision is fine with me. I've read the case, and you could argue she did. However, the precedent can be read as muddled. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know the details. If she didn't follow precedent, I have a real problem with her decision, however.
Old Texican| 6.16.09 @ 6:34PM
Robert...right on again...except "permanized" ?
...Damm good word that doesn't exist, but what the hey?
(I am smiling. I thought I was the only person that makes up words here.)
OK!
Let's "Bork" Sotomeyor...just for justice' sake.
She is a nice, (predudiced), Hispanic lady that simplydoes not have the horsepower to be a Supreme.
A Supreme's job from my civics classes is to interpret the "Constitution" and force legislative people (Congress Critters), to pass laws only under the Constitution. Did I miss something in classes?
This poor lady does not have a clue.
"...Thank you for your application, judge, but we gotta' do better."
Siegfried X| 6.16.09 @ 7:45PM
From a political perspective, if you oppose on the basis of ideology, you will excite the base and turn off independents and Dems. That is a formula for losing a general election
It worked for the Democrats. They "Bork" nominees and are liberals morning, noon, and night. Also Ronald Reagan won in a landslide by being a real conservative.
On the other hand liberal Republican McCain lost.
So I don't see any evidence that ignoring our principles and standing for nothing is a winner. Right now polls show over 1/3 of Republican Party voters are unhappy, yet we are in exactly that situation, a party which stands for nothing.
I think the real motive is that liberals, both Democratic liberals and Republican liberals, try to talk conservatives into giving everything away, and getting nothing.
Pingback| 6.16.09 @ 7:56PM
Belizean Grove links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Nick| 6.16.09 @ 8:50PM
Bob,
Messrs. Bork and Scalia have both said Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton were bad law and that the states should decide for themselves. You disagree with this?
"If she didn't follow precedent, I have a real problem with her decision, however."
What about FOLLOWING THE LAW, Bob? Where does following the law as written fit into Bob's concept of a federal judge?
LarryG| 6.17.09 @ 11:07AM
So what sort of experiences has this female had that have imbued her with such wisdom as to qualify her for the highest court in the land. I have infinitly more on the ground experience than she but it doe not qualify me as possessing wisdom - just experiences from which wisdom may accrue. This club arrangement is, to me, a symptom of her unspoken agenda.
Jason Schuler| 6.17.09 @ 11:37AM
I'm all for same sex clubs as well as any other way that people want to identify themselves. There is the black caucus, let there be a white caucus, Hispanic caucus, gay caucus, straight caucus etc. People's concerns are given a greater voice when they come together. Let there be men's clubs, women's clubs etc. Freedom is freedom. As long as any group of people do not advocate aggression towards others, I'm all for it.
John Navratil| 6.17.09 @ 11:37AM
The original complaint against all male clubs was that the "Old Boys" would get together for 18 holes and discuss business deals. Sounds baaaaad!
That any competitive business would seek to deal without all players is as smart as any society which won't educate its women. But it sounds baaaad.
That everyone should be present every time business is discussed might be ideal, but it surely isn't practical or necessary and it's time for people to realize that clubs and associations exist for like-minded people to get together for reasons which are rarely nefarious and when they are for nefarious reasons there are other means of redress.
I'm waiting for a judicial nominee to be pilloried for being a Boy Scout.
Bob| 6.17.09 @ 3:23PM
Nick,
I work on principle, not on outcomes. Even though I am pro-choice, I do not find a privacy right in the Constitution (Palin found one, however) and thus I think Roe v. Wade should be a matter for the states. However, we do have the principle of stare decisis so overturning settled law is a higher bar to jump over.
Regarding the Ricci case, as I said, I am not a lawyer. Arguments have been made that precedent had been set in the case and that settling in favor of Ricci would be overturning precedent. That would mean settling in favor of Ricci would be judicial activism. That is a case where most of you guys wouldn't mind judicial activism, would you?
Nick| 6.17.09 @ 3:51PM
Bob,
Then why did you write you would disagree with Bork and Scalia on "choice"? You should write more clearly.
Following the constitution and the law trumps a bad decision by a bunch of judges. Or should Dread Scott and Plessey still be the law of the land?
Bob| 6.17.09 @ 4:08PM
Nick, I would disagree with Bork and Scalia because I believe they would rule on the basis of ideology and then find a reason to support it. They did that in the recent D.C. gun law case in completely disregarding the phrase regarding "malitias" as "not relevant". That was a case of judicial activism on their part.
As I've said many times, both sides use judicial activism based upon their ideologies. There are always several ways to justify a case based upon which specific laws, precedent, or history upon which to place more or less emphasis. If I were to make a decision on Roe basis my ideology, I would support it. However, I don't believe that's should be the function of the judicial branch.
Overturning settled law must be done with care or we would have no stability in our court system. It is relatively rare for the Supremes to overturn prior cases. In these cases, intervening laws that are passed by the legislature often are the reason for overturning the case. In the case of Roe, there has been no intervening laws.
The reason you and others want Roe overturned is because you are anti-abortion -- not because of the rationale for the decision. If you were pro-choice, I'm sure I wouldn't hear you talking about overturning Roe.
Nick| 6.17.09 @ 4:26PM
Bob,
I forgot, in another thread, you claimed the original U.S. Constitution had a "provision that gives blacks only 3/5ths of a vote."
Later, YOU admonished Gov. Palin to LEARN about the constitution, ouch!
So why am I asking you anything regarding the constitution?
Bob| 6.17.09 @ 4:38PM
Nick,
Nice diversion, but you took me out of context as usual. I went on further to talk about slaves being COUNTED as 3/5th. But then again, since you didn't know enough to respond to my post, I do understand the diversion.
You obviously have some things to learn about the Supreme Court. When you've gained that knowledge, let me know so we can have an intelligent discussion.
Nick| 6.17.09 @ 6:56PM
Bob,
You couldn't have an intellegent discussion if your life depended on it.
Here, I'll quote you at length from this thread:
"Bob| 6.13.09 @ 11:30AM
Baker, you are right. The nature of human behavior hasn't changed. Let's bring back slavery and take the vote away from women. After all, women should be barefoot and pregnant, right? These things are, indeed, self-evident. I especially want to bring back the provision that gives blacks only 3/5ths of a vote. That will reduce the impact of minorities on Republican success."
Mr. Baker responded to your stupidity:
"Richard Baker| 6.13.09 @ 5:25PM
Bob:
If you don't know why 3/5 is in the Constitution. please don't embarrass yourself."
You countered with more ignorance and inanity, Bob:
"Bob| 6.13.09 @ 6:20PM
Richard -- so you think it was right to count slaves as 3/5th even if it was for apportionment purposes? How can you justify that under ANY circumstances? Do you have any morality?"
Like the proverbial cornered mouse you attack with blindingly stupid assaults. It is obvious you are ignorant of the actual words of the U.S. Constitution and the concepts that formed it.
Talk about diverting, you never answered my question, should Dread Scott still be the law of land?
Nick| 6.17.09 @ 6:58PM
That should be,
Here, I'll quote you at length from this thread:
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/06/12/its-time-to-get-serious
Bob| 6.18.09 @ 8:31AM
So Nick, still in diversion mode since you know nothing about the Supreme Court? You are like the rest of the social conservatives here that just ignore the truth when it doesn't conform to your views. Clearly, you are one of the three monkeys.
alleyboy| 6.18.09 @ 9:15AM
"Yet in 2002 he couldn't stop talking about his thought that Smith's one-time fishing club membership was sufficient grounds to deny Smith a seat on the Third Circuit."
OK, then where's the video?
Nick| 6.18.09 @ 2:10PM
Bob,
It sucks having your words quoted back to you, huh? Especially when they show your constitutional illiteracy.
You didn't even know that my Dread Scott query was a trick question. Dread Scott was voided by the 13th and 14th Articles of amendment, Webster.
Now, according to you, it was acceptable for 60 years to pass before Plessey v. Ferguson was overturned. Because "[o]verturning settled law must be done with care or we would have no stability in our court system."
Since I'm sure you don't have a clue, Plessey was the case that cemented "seperate but equal" into the law until Brown v. Board of Education reversed it.
"In the case of Roe, there has been no intervening laws." (sic)
Have you ever heard of Planned Parenthood v. Casey?
Richard Baker| 6.18.09 @ 11:35PM
Senator Leahy was removed years ago from the Senate Intelligence Committee because he was extremely careless with classified documents and his Democratic colleagues agreed. Take anything he says with a HUGE grain of salt.
Pingback| 6.20.09 @ 11:27AM
All Republicans should oppose the Sotomayor Supreme Court Nomination « Smash Mouth Po links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
مركز تحميل| 6.27.09 @ 3:19AM
مركز تحميل
nike shoes| 7.1.09 @ 8:30AM
It is a wonderful article,i like it,thank you very much!
lingerie wholesale Blog| 7.23.09 @ 10:00PM
very nice. Hope to know more important things regarding design from it.
cheap handbags| 7.27.09 @ 5:28AM
We only sell the top grade replica cheap handbags, some of them are genuine leather handbags, yet the price is far lower than the authentic designers want you to pay. We lead you to a genuine pool of bags : collections in wide range: handbags, shoulder bags, clutches, tote bags, purses and wallets, the hottest brands you can find like replica Louis Vuitton handbags, Replica marc jacobs handags, Replica Prada handbags, Coach,Replica Chloe handbags,Burberry, Dior,replica Chanel handbags, Chloe,Replica gucci handbags, Dolce & Gabbana,Replica Balenciaga handbags . Crafted to the highest standard, from the finest materials in the industry, we guarantee the toppest Replica Hermes handbags at low price you'll find anywhere.
george| 7.29.09 @ 4:24AM
Louis Vuitton Agendas , commonly referred to as
Louis Vuitton Antigua bags, or sometimes shortened to
Louis Vuitton Antigua has become one of the most
Louis Vuitton Bequia Leather bags luxury brands.
lv salelove
sale lvnice
louis vuitton outlet
vuitton outlet good
hootoo| 8.6.09 @ 11:04PM
Acer Aspire One A110 Netbook LCD Panel ScreenAcer Aspire One A110 Netbook
LCD Panel Screen
Acer Aspire One A150 Netbook LCD Panel ScreenAcer Aspire One A150 Netbook
LCD Panel Screen
ASUS EEE PC 900 Netbook LCD Panel ScreenASUS EEE PC 900 Netbook LCD Panel
Screen
ASUS EEE PC 901 Netbook LCD Panel ScreenASUS EEE PC 901 Netbook LCD Panel
Screen
ASUS EEE PC 903 Netbook LCD Panel ScreenASUS EEE PC 903 Netbook LCD Panel
Screen
ASUS EEE PC 904 Netbook LCD Panel ScreenASUS EEE PC 904 Netbook LCD Panel
Screen
ASUS EEE PC 905 Netbook LCD Panel ScreenASUS EEE PC 905 Netbook LCD Panel
Screen
Dell 910 mini 9 Netbook LCD Panel ScreenDell 910 mini 9 Netbook LCD Panel
Screen
LP089WS1 (TL)(A1) NetBook LCD Panel ScreenLP089WS1 (TL)(A1) NetBook LCD Panel
Screen
LP089WS1 (TL)(A2) NetBook LCD Panel ScreenLP089WS1 (TL)(A2) NetBook LCD Panel
Screen
LP089WS1 (TL)(B1) NetBook LCD Panel ScreenLP089WS1 (TL)(B1) NetBook LCD Panel Screen
rolex replica| 8.19.09 @ 4:24AM
Your article is very interesting, I have introduced a lot of friends look at this article, the content of the articles there will be a lot of attractive people to appreciate, I have to thank you such an article.
iwc watches| 8.19.09 @ 4:25AM
I have introduced a lot of friends look at this article, the content of the articles there will be a lot of attractive people to appreciate, I have to thank you such an article.
breitling watches| 8.19.09 @ 4:26AM
I have to thank you such an article.
s| 8.20.09 @ 3:38AM
Cheap Jordan,Cheap Jordan shoes,Retro Jordan,Air Yeezy Shoes,Supra shoes,Kanye West ShoesJordan shoes,New Jordans,Air Yeezy,Air Force Ones,Nike Dunks,Retro Jordan, Cheap Jordan Shoes,Nike Dunk High,True Religion Jeans,New Air Force OnesAir Yeezy Shoe,Supra Shoes,Retro Jordan,Creative Recreation,Nike DunksNike Air YeezyTrue Religion,Air Jordan Shoes,Air Shox,Air Max,Dunk Shoes.Air Jordan,Cheap Jordans,Jordan Shoes,Cheap Air Jordans,Air Jordan Shoes
Wedding Dresses| 9.10.09 @ 12:19AM
are located in all major cities such Wedding Dresses
Designer Wedding Gowns
as Shanghai, New York, etc, you may travel to these cities and get one for yourself.
Supra Shoes| 11.18.09 @ 12:57AM
Supra Shoes
Supra Skytop Shoes