7
POPSWhales lose in Court Bush Administration said there is little evidence of harm - like global warming doesn't exist and the trickle-down economy works.
3
POPSIf a Liberal Calls a Black Man Inexperienced, Is It Still Racist? Obama: I’m Right Even When I’m Wrong Pastor Warren asked the candidates “What’s the most gut-wrenching decision you’ve ever had to make and what was the process you used to make it?” Obama answered that it was his decision to oppose the war in Iraq. He said, “I was firmly convinced at the time that we did not have strong evidence of weapons of mass destruction…” Steve Gilbert of Sweetness & Light points out that Iraq’s supposed lack of WMDs was not the reason he gave in his speech on the Illinois Senate floor in 2002. At that time, Obama acknowledged that Saddam Hussein has WMDs. He said, “He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.”
3
POPSPastor Rick Warren's Saddleback Civil Forum
McCain added the two appointments Alito and Roberts are his recent favorites. When asked does evil exist and if so how would handle it? Ignore it, negotiate with it, confront it or defeat it Obama: verbose, wordy ..... he would confront it but also equivocated on what evil is. "We have to have some humility on the issue on the of confronting". Evil has been been committed in the pursuit of good. *sigh* McCain: "DEFEAT IT" huge applause. McCain went on to describe Radical Islam as the greatest threat of the 21at century. He said he would pursue bin Laden “to the gates of Hell,” Gotta love that. Obama's most important advisers: Michelle (the "proud" wife, the grandmother "a typical white person", and then a bumch of politicians - Ted Kennedy, Nunn, Biden et al McCain's most important advisers: Gen. David Petreaus, head of US troops in Iraq; US Rep. and veteran civil rights leader John Lewis, D-Ga.; and former eBay CEO Meg Whitman, a top adviser to his campaign.
8
POPSOlbermann Explains the 2nd Amendment Those pesky rights that need to be explained. LOL Thanks, Keith, for explaining what our founders actually meant, given that they so woefully failed at expressing themselves clearly enough.
1
POPSAvoiding ‘CSI Kandahar’ they’ve just invalidated — decided the job is better done by politically unaccountable courts … the better to spare Nadler and his cohort from telling voters exactly what protections they’d lavish on the people trying to kill us. The attorney general begs to differ. The justices ruled that detainees get judicial review, but, as he posits, they “stopped well short of detailing how the habeas corpus proceedings must be conducted.” Many significant questions remain open, and, Mukasey rightly insists, “it is well within the historic role and competence of Congress and the executive branch to attempt to resolve them.” LAYING DOWN MARKERS The Justice Department has to live with the chaos caused by Boumediene’s dumping of approximately 270 combatants on the district courts with no guidance about how the cases should be handled. Fans of Kennedy & Co. laughably point to this as a demonstration of the high Court’s restraint. In Justice Antonin Scalia’s apt dissenting phrase
2
POPSOn Suing The Enemy “It bears repeating that our opinion does not address the content of the law that governs petitioners’ detention. That is a matter yet to be determined.” Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, who is nothing if not plain-spoken, was his usual clear and precise self on this occasion, “The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays upon the Nation’s Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.” And not just Americans, if Mr. Justice Scalia proves as prescient as he is plain. Already prisoners at Guantanamo who have had to be released have returned to attacking American troops and/or civilian targets, and had to be recaptured. Having again entered the maw of the American judicial system, who knows if they will ever face justice? That question, too, remains Yet To Be Determined.
1
POPSKeep a handgun at home to defend the family? Not smart Here are some numbers. Despite the recent SCOTUS decision and Scalia's assertions about the value of a handgun in the home, studies suggest that the gun in your house is twelve times more likely to be used on a resident of the house than on an intruder. In home invasions, the bad guy gets to the gun first in two out of three cases.
5
POPSWe Won't Need The Expense Of A Supreme Court If McCain wins in November, we won't need a Supreme Court any longer. When he throws in a few more conservative ideologues to further unbalance this court, we will all know their rulings on EVERYTHING even before they cast their vote. It's almost that way now except for the conservative Kennedy who in his declining years of life has turned into a philosopher, that is a person who seeks truth by thinking! But he is the exception, not the rule. The other justices vote along the lines of WHATEVER THE HELL THEIR KING TELLS THEM TO VOTE. Now is this fair to the people in a democracy... HELL NO! Believe me, not only will progressives suffer many conservatives will suffer too! Left or Right we all feel the pain of injustice!
0
POPSoriginalism vs. policy judgments good point being made here. Breyer's thinking depends on estimate of a policy's outcome, something he piously refused to consider when thinking about other rights. .
2
POPSLandmark Decision on the 2nd Amendment The Supreme Court clarified the 2nd amendment recently, arguing that it guarantees a right to own guns for self-defense. As a former NRA member, I am thrilled with the decision. Scalia's explanation of his decision was superb. You should read it.
0
POPSSupreme Court Upholds 2nd Amendment, right to bear arms is personal but see even Scalia's "but" statements. They still want to "infringe". The idea of having a permit would be repugnant to Patrick Henry and the colonists of 1776. Notice how close this vote was, 5 to 4 by the Supremes , and even the most conservative do not deny some restrictions may be applied. "Shall not be infringed" is illegible to them apparently. So go buy yourself a Glock and learn how to safely use it. It's best to buy from private owners to keep yourself out of the "infringement" of federal data-bases which tracks gun sales, and could be accessed under PATRIOT ACT provisions upon any government desire to do so. My question is, what about the 4th amendment? This should be the next focus of challenges.
3
POPSSCOTUS Strikes Down DC Gun Ban Here's a fun question for the "strict constructionist" Scalia -- if this is true, why would 2nd amendment mention militias at all? And why doesn't it mention self-defense? Scalia's never been a "strict constructionist." All that means is "someone who'll be a judicial activist for Republican causes."
5
POPSCourt rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right riting for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted. The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.
1
POPSGun Control It is about time they get this RIGHT! Lets just think for a minute what our forefathers had just went though when they wrote the constitution. Do you really think they were worried about people protecting themselves from attach in their homes? Or making sure people were armed to protect themselves from an out of control government? My personal stands is the latter. And of course with that, the former is a given. Do yourself a favor and me too. Sign-up for this free service and receive a FREE DVD. Then watch it with an open mind. http://www.frontsight.com/gun-training-reports.asp
2
POPSBoston Legal's Depiction of the Supreme Court... Was right on target. When I first saw this clip, I couldn't believe how wonderful it would be if this was not fiction. Well, it seems the Supreme Court may not be as politically polarized as I thought but just one more Republican justice and it will be. When that happens a case like this will only be a fairytale. I can't embed it any longer but you can view it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqlGoxfAkuU See John Stewart's hilarious view of Scalia and the Supreme Court. Click Here: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/04/30/daily-show%20-the-loveable-and-charming-antonin-scalia/
2
POPSScalia’s Claim That Released Gitmo Prisoners Have Killed Americans Is An ‘Urban Legend’ All you have to do in America is tell people a lie, let it sink in and then apologize later. So many people will continue to believe and spread the lie that the damage has already been done and no amount of apologizing will undo it. This is why many still believe Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, why so many middle-Americans still believe Obama is a Muslim; the list could go on and on. This particular lie serves the purpose of adding weight to the habeas corpus arguments raging in congress (did I say arguments, I meant lip service). The more people that believe the lie, the easier it is to steamroll over the constitution. As a bright young man named Chuck D once said "Don't believe the hype!"
2
POPSNew rights for terror detainees as deeply split Supreme Court rules It isn't hard to figure out why the right wingers are all in an uproar over this--you see it gives rights to human beings that aren't Amerikans and that's unthinkable because if we actually see our "enemies" (anyone not Amerikan or kissing our leader's butt) as HUMAN BEINGS and not just some vile brown monkeys like we're supposed to. How sad is that? What has Amerika become? Are we so vile as to deny basic rights to everyone not born here? And when theyu are given the barest of rights--not freedom, juist a chance at Justice--The bile that comes from the Right wing, from Scalia to Giuliani to Limbaugh is so odious, I may gag.
2
POPSLet's Not Kid Ourselves, It's All About Torture. Democracy Now, had a very informative show on June 13, 2006. They started their segment with Vince Warren on the Supreme Court's ruling of June 12th... That the detainees will have the same rules that America abides by in our Constitution... This ruling has happened 3 times now... The last two times Bush and his Republican Congress had it somewhat annulled. The Judges did not do as they were told so their ruling cannot stand. This is the mindset of Bush and his good little Judges Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Chief Justice Roberts but Justice Kennedy was... "A Bad Boy, A Very Naughty Boy" ... (A Flashback: On what Larry Craig Called Bill Clinton ) Watch the video and stay tuned for (Renowned Attorney Vincent Bugliosi Seeks “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder”) next on Youtube.
0
POPSJustice Scalia Says SCOTUS Ruling "limits Presidential power"
Nielsen Hayden continues: I’ve also skimmed Scalia’s dissent (starting on page 110 of that PDF), in which, having seen a terrorist scurrying around the floorboards of his kitchen, he leaps up onto a chair, robes clutched around his knees, and shrieks for a big strong executive branch to do away with our essential liberties so he can have a little temporary safety. But the real gem comes on page 127: But so long as there are some places to which habeas does not run — so long as the Court’s new “functional” test will not be satisfied in every case — then there will be circumstances in which “it would be possible for the political branches to govern without legal constraint.” Or, to put it more impartially, areas in which the legal determinations of the other branches will be (shudder!) supreme. Yes, he actually wrote “(shudder!)”! But don’t let that distract you. Check out the first half of that quote. The thing Scalia’s actually worried about is that this decision places li
0
POPSThe Supreme Court According To Bush.
The Supreme Court - According to Bush and his merry band of neoconservatives the only function of this Court should be TO DO AS THEY TELL IT TO DO. Well the 4 lackeys' did just that, 2 of which he appointed himself, the others, one his Daddy's choice and the other (he wished he was his daddy) Reagan's. Good ole Reagan appointed Anthony Scalia, (Scalia on capital punishment: "Death is no big deal" {unless of course it's his or his loved ones} - Hypocrisy to the highest degree!) did Bush's bidding just like a good little justice was suppose to do. But the tie breaker was Kennedy (Justice Anthony Kennedy acknowledged the terrorism threat the country faces — the administration's justification for the detentions — but he declared, "THE LAWS AND THE CONSTITUTION ARE DESIGNED TO SURVIVE AND REMAIN IN FORCE, IN EXTRAORDINARY TIMES!") Thank all that is good that Reagan slipped up on this nomination, when he nominated a THINKER to the Supreme Court. Will wonders never cease? thinkingblue
8
POPSSupreme Court Rules Detainees Have Constitutional Rights Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the court majority: "The detainees in these cases are entitled to a prompt habeas corpus hearing. . . . Within the Constitution's separation-of-powers structure, few exercises of judicial power are as legitimate or as necessary as the responsibility to hear challenges to the authority of the executive to imprison a person." The court was narrowly split, 5 to 4. The dissenters accused the majority of meddling in a wartime matter better left to the president and the military. The decision "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in a dissent. President Bush said he would abide by the decision but added: "It was a deeply divided court, and I strongly agree with those who dissented." About 270 men are still held at Guantanamo. Fewer than 20 are now facing trial before a military commission, and about 60 are in the pipeline.
2
POPSSCOTUS Rules Gitmo Prisoners Have Habeas Rights “Some of these petitioners have been in custody for the past six years with no definitive judicial determination as to the legality of their detention,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. “Their access to the writ is necessary to determine the lawfulness of their status, even if, in the end, they do not obtain the relief they seek.” Not surprisingly, Scalia saw things differently. "The nation will live to regret what the court has done today,” Scalia wrote. For the record, Scalia's a dick.
3
Pops
Newest Clips
Latest Comments
Most Pops
Print
Save
Turn on live update