Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« The Author Is Too Damn High | Main | Super Tuesday Open Thread »

March 06, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2aa69e20167637ceb38970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Fish For Santorum (Or At Least, His Sanity):

Comments

NK

TM-- serious question. Not that anything Fish says in that piece is clearly wrong (snarky of course, but not wrong), why would you link to a man who does not believe in any objective truth?

Chubby

an oldie but goodie from the NRO

October 28, 2010 12:00 A.M.

Forgetting the Constitution

The assurance that “separation of church and state” is in the Constitution shows our elites’ ignorance. -- By Thomas Sowell

lun

Jack is Back!

And didn't the O'Donnell babe in Delaware get everyone all Harummped over questioning her opponent (now a Senator) about where in the Constitution "separation of church and state" was laid out or something to that effect.

I know you lawyers refer to The Establishment Clause as to the operative effect of separation but in my little pocket copy of the Constitution I can find it explicitly laid out in those words or effect.

jimmyk

JiB, it's right there in the third penumbra, second emanation. Or maybe the other way around.

narciso

Yes, JiB, it was unpossible, that she would understand that over an Amherst and double Yale bearded marxist,

Captain Hate

Mike Castle was unavailable for questioning.

Thomas Collins

Long running battle. Marsilus of Padua's Defender of the Peace is an interesting treatise on what is properly Caesar's and what is properly God's. In any event, the argument that religious convictions can't motivate policy decisons is, in today's politics, simply another way for the progs to put the self-evident truths polity defenders on the defensive. If Georgetown is allowed to deny its law school darlings birth control pills and sex change operations, that's violative of separation of church and state. If a conservative official attempts to limit the never ending entitlement state, that's a violation of sacred liberation theology.

Chubby

highlight from another goody from the NRO

God and Congress lun

By Dennis Prager


January 25, 2011


The one thing you won’t see at the State of the Union tonight...

...I saw chiseled in the marble wall behind the speaker and vice president, in giant letters, the words, “In God We Trust.”....

...A generation of Americans has been raised to regard any mention of God outside the home or church as a violation of the deepest principles of our country. To the men and women of the left-leaning news media, in particular, “In God We Trust” is an anachronism at best, an impediment to moral progress at worst. ...We have been led to believe that America is supposed to be a secular country. But that was never the case. We were founded to be a God-centered, God-based country with a non-denominational government. And that is what those chiseled words affirm.

... millions of Americans — religious and secular alike — would be stunned to see what every member of the House sees almost every working day.

When I mentioned this to some congressman after I addressed the Republican members of the House two weeks ago, they told me that just as remarkable is the fact that when the president is speaking in the House chamber, he is facing a giant sculpted image of Moses holding the Ten Commandments.

... Imagine how this scene would go over in American homes [visible on television] — behind the president of the United States [giving his address] ...

This would astound and even confuse an America raised to believe that the words “separation of church and state” are in the Constitution, that those words prohibit the government from acknowledging even a non-denominational God, and that no speaker at any public-high-school graduation ceremony may say “God bless this graduating class.”

Jack is Back!

jimmyk,

I understand the "principle" that can be inferred from The Establishemt and Free Exercise clauses but the idea of "separation of church and state" comes from a 1802 letter that Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists.

Maybe its in the Declaration of Independence. Its so confusing that even Constitutional law lecturers in Chicago get the two mixed up all the time:)

Jack is Back!

Ex,

I that the left-over nugget they made that pre-K kid in North Caorlina eat in lieu of a turkey wrap?

narciso

Yes it's the Brezhnev doctrine in social policy, TC.

Jack is Back!

OT: DoJ has charged 6 people part of the Anonymous and LulzSec group with hacking. Looks like 2 are from the UK. Haven't read all the indictment.

Hanging is too good for these creeps

NK

JiB/jimmyk-- to be serious for a second. The Founders had a strong consensus against an OFFICIAL state religion. The experience of the English CoE/Catholic wars was a strong lesson to avoid that religious strife. Hence the "No establishment" clause. The more religious observant Founders were concerned about secularists driving religion out of the "public square" hence the "free exercise" clause. Those concepts were more or less fairly balanced for 150 years, with occasional swings. For the last 80 years, the anti-religious elite have indeed tried to drive religion from the public square, meaning christianity, MormonLDS and religious judism (cool 3rd world religions religions such as, Islam, Buddism, hakunah matata, whatever, are OK). So we have had the endless ACLU litigations using the courts to prevent public displays of 'uncool' religion. The USA is not and can never be an officially Methodist, or Catholic or Conservative Jewish nation, but Santorum and other conservatives are right to push back against anti -religionists (like Fluke and Obama) using government against public displays and private exercise of religious conviction.

Chubby

((The Founders had a strong consensus against an OFFICIAL state religion))

the word "church" and the word "religion" are not synonymns

Jack is Back!

NK,

Actually, if I remember right - Madison heard that some Baptist preacher who didn't like the consttituion the way it was written threatened to lobby against Virginia adopting it. [Virginia had decertified the Church of England/Anglicans]. So, old Jamies found another influential Baptist minister and told him he would offer a number of amendments to the Consttitution if he would speak out in favor of adoptiing it.

Voila! You have the First and Sixth Amendments in the "Bill of Rights". Yes, No? Am I missing something?

NK

Chubby-- a number of the Founders wrote a lot about the harm official religions caused in England and continental europe, so the 'official religion' part of the clause is clear. The no government discrimination based on religious affiliation is also clear. Sowell is right that during the last 80 years the courts have stretched the meaning of the establishment clause beyond any recognition-- but there is no serious doubt that 'church' and 'religion' had the same meaning in the drafting of the 1st amendment.

Dave (in MA)


That's my opinion; I could be wrong.

jimmyk

And the interesting thing about that Jefferson letter is that he used the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses as the basis for the "separation of Church & State." So it would seem that what he meant by the term did not necessarily go beyond the meaning of those two clauses. And Chubby is right that "church" and "religion" aren't the same thing. Jefferson didn't say "separation of religion from the state."

So a reasonable reading of Jefferson's term is simply that the government can't interfere with any Church's practice, and no Church can play an official role in the government. Nothing about making the public square or the houses of Congress "religion-free zones."

NK

JiB-- don't know those Madison details. Obviously madison was keen on preventing the CoE mistake being repeated in the USA.

NK

jimmyk-- I agree with your 4:56 completely. That was Jefferson's meaning. The courts however have distorted that meaning for the last 80 years as accomplices in driving religious faith -- how about we use that term-- from public policy and government operations, in an attempt to secularize america.

Chubby

((jimmyk-- I agree with your 4:56 completely))

ditto

I am so grateful for all the clear thinkers on these issues

Danube of Thought

Bear in mind that Jefferson, author of that unfortunate phrase, had nothing to do with the drafting of the constitution.

Bear in mind also that it is only Congress that, under the language of the First Amendment, is barred from establishing a religion. The Framers had no problem with individual states having their own state religions--and a number of them did. The concern addressed by the Establishment Clause was that the national government might seek to pre-empt them.

Then the entire meaning of the clause was (supposedly) turned on its head by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. This entire doctrine has always seemed to me to be nothing other than judge-made law.

Jack is Back!

Unfortunately, all of the above on "separation" has been co-opted and cleverly used with smoke and mirrors by the secular humanist progressives to the detriment of or our moral underpinnings.

I just find it hard to believe that SCOTUS has been so adamant in protecting "separation" by believing prayer in school or putting a cross or creche on a public square is somehow "establishing a religion".

jimmyk

The phrase is unfortunate because its origins were forgotten and people began to give it meaning beyond perhaps what even Jefferson intended, much less what's in the constitution.

Then the entire meaning of the clause was (supposedly) turned on its head

DoT, you're referring to the "incorporation doctrine"? Yeah, I don't get how "due process" relates to preventing states from having official religions, not that I really long for states to do that.

jimmyk

I just find it hard to believe that SCOTUS has been so adamant in protecting "separation" by believing prayer in school or putting a cross or creche on a public square is somehow "establishing a religion".

The left is a big believer in "slippery slope" arguments, but only in one direction. So putting a creche in a public square will inevitably lead to establishment of a state religion. Banning partial birth abortion inevitably leads to a ban on all abortions (but allowing it does not lead to infanticide). And so on.

NK

DoT-- you're right on. All of these doctrines are 20th century judicial 'penumbras'. They are political statements, not constitutional jurisprudence.

pagar

From JiB's 04:43 link.

"At the same time, the Obama administration is notoriously poor at negotiations. Undersecretary of State Ellen Tauscher was handily outplayed by Vladimir Putin when she negotiated the START treaty. Then, in order to entice the Taliban to open a diplomatic office in Qatar, Obama offered up everything the Taliban wanted before negotiations even began, much to the detriment of U.S. national security.

While our citizens sit around trying to figure out how many is too many for a Georgetown leftist.

Unbelievable that there are Americans who plan to vote for someone who gives those who hate our nation everything they ask for every time.

Rick Ballard

Dunno, Jimmyk, it's my understanding that some jurisdictions require separating garbage as an act of piety and propitiation and that fines can be levied for failure to perform the required empty gestures. There is also the federal ban, wholly faith based, against certain types of lighting as offensive to Gaia.

rse

pagar-they just do not know. Had lunch yesterday with several law school classmates and they were insisting it was not reasonable to think anyone would fire nuclear weapons at Israel. Reason has nothing to do with it got through but they were clearly frustrated.

I said we can pick the time and place for the confrontation or the collision will come to us but it can't be avoided. The only good thing about a relative in harm's way is you do get the moral high ground on the issue.

Danube of Thought

Wiki:

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids the federal government from enacting any law respecting a religious establishment, and thus forbids either designating an official church for the United States, or interfering with State and local official churches — which were common when the First Amendment was enacted. It did not prevent state governments from establishing official churches. Connecticut continued to do so until it replaced its colonial Charter with the Connecticut Constitution of 1818; Massachusetts retained an establishment of religion in general until 1833.
Chubby

Rick Ballard, LOL!

Thomas Collins

Professor Hamburger has made mince meat out of the proposition that the First Amendment mandates church/state separation. See LUN for a summary of a detailed text Professor Hamburger wrote on this issue.

Chubby

DoT, do you believe that a display of a manger scene by a government entity violates the establishment clause?

Danube of Thought

Yes, jimmyk--the incorporation doctrine. The case that applied it to the First Amendment was Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947). It was decided nearly 80 years ater the 14th was ratified, and I seriously doubt that many of those who drafted it or voted for ratification contemplated that it would be construed that way.

Thomas Collins

And here at LUN is a review of Professor Hamburger's book on the subject.

Thomas Collins

See LUN for a summary (derived from SCOTUS's McDonald handgun case) of the Bill of Rights provisions incorporated against the states.

Threadkiller

Coming soon to a judicial issue you favor.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/corrupt-georgia-superior-court-dismisses-legal-appeal-of-obama-eligibility-ruling/

The courts are circling the drain.

Chubby

to libertarians: is the idea of separation of church and state a tenet of libertarianism?

Chubby

TC that looks like a very interesting book.

MarkO

Let me ask all those who throw up when reading that there is absolute separation of church and state to describe how their formulation of the Constitution would work. Which religion should have its symbols displayed? All? Could the Feds almost establish one religion? I see the idea of including religion in the functions of the Federal government, such as prayers. Are these prayers to God, to Jesus, to the Holy Spirit and why? To only Christian gods because of some grandfathering of the original colonies? Is there a limit to it and, if so, how do you fix that limit.

Then, I ask, in a fair exchange, because there is no separation and it goes both ways, to what extent can Government tell religion what it should do or believe? Or, do those who throw up believe there is absolute separation in only one direction and why?

I await a unified theory.

Extraneus

It's depressing that we're the only ones who give a shit about what those dead white guys were about.

Thomas Collins

Chubby, you won't hear much mention of Hamburger among the progs. That is not only because he eviscerates their church/state separation claptrap, but also because he is supremely credentialled. He is an example of a supremely credentialled real scholar who obliterates a tenet bitterly clinged to by the credentialled moronocracy.

daddy

Matt gets an Instalanche!

Here t'is.

Thomas Collins

Never let it be said that ALL of the supremely credentialled are morons. Take a look at Professor Hamburger's curriculum vitae at LUN.

matt

yay! We need 1,000 Breitbarts flowering.

Ben Franklin

+1......It's not a game to them. It's not personal. It's just business.


http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/obama-challenges-republicans-on-iran/?hp

"“This is not a game,” Mr. Obama said during a news conference at the White House timed to coincide with Super Tuesday voting in the Republican primaries in a number of crucial states. Mr. Obama gave a staunch defense of his administration’s actions to rein in Iran’s nuclear ambitions and said tough sanctions put in place by the United States and Europe were starting to work and were part of the reason Iran had returned to the negotiation table.

“The one thing we have not done is we have not launched a war,” Mr. Obama said. “If some of these folks think we should launch a war, .........................................let them say so, and explain to the American people.”

matt

considering that there were established churches at the time I would guess the whole argument of the separatists goes up in smoke.

If you ever saw Gangs of New York, the real danger was of people like the Know Nothings or the Klan burning down the churchs protecting people like the Irish or blacks. I don't know of any synagogue fires, but early in the history of the Republic, it was clear that the law protected churches from each other more than anything else.

Threadkiller

No transcript of this latest from McClintock. He is making the Eco politicians debate their garbage, in public, on the record.

This is great!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_iEtH_WqHU

The repukes better not kick him to the curb.

Threadkiller

Iran? I thought it was a tiny country. Obama is worried about them now?

Thomas Collins

MarkO, my unified theory is that federal courts should decide actual cases and controversies in good faith according to the words of the US Constitution aided by a close look at the historical background of the constitutional provision in question and a consideration of the structure of federalism and separation of powers inherent in the US Constitution. If the lawyers don't do a good job of going through these issues, my unified theory is that federal judges should tell the lawyers to go stick their briefs up their rear ends and come up with something that allows the judges to address the issues as judges, not super legislators.

As far as a unified theory of the First Amendment or any other provision, judges deciding in the actual crucible of controversies and operating in good faith over time will develop law more worthy of respect than having a unified theory at the beginning.

Clarice

Excellent article by Matt. Let's hope this is their usual overreach.

Extraneus

Does this indicate that Breitbart.com has the tape of the panel discussion?

Obama Ally Won't Release Alinsky Tape

Sources inform Breitbart.com today that Pam Dickler, director of the 1998 production of The Love Song of Saul Alinsky in Chicago that included a panel discussion featuring then-State Sen. Barack Obama, has a video tape of the play.

And she won’t release it.

I want to hear more about how the Constitution is unfortunately a document of negative liberties.

Ben Franklin

Dang, TK. Iran is even smaller than it was in 2008. All that heavy water causes 'shrinkage'. :>)

Thomas Collins
"The hypocrisy of the Left is unmatched. It is the exact same people condemning Limbaugh who said the most vile things about Breitbart upon his death and about Sarah Palin and anyone who has threatened their hegemony over the narrative. “Bitter clingers” and “right-wing religious zealots” are their stock in trade.Blacks who vote or campaign as Republicans are called the most vile names. God forbid one disagrees with the party line. They can’t shoot dissidents, but they can do their best to destroy them."

Matt's entire article is great. I particularly enjoyed the above quoted paragraph.

MarkO

TC, I don't mean to be overly critical and, in fact, I am interested in how you think this lack of separation would look. But, I take it you don't know. As I read what you say, you simply want to have Federal Judges develop a body of law different from that which we have.

But, if you were arguing about mandatory school prayer, how would you frame the argument to get the result you want? Same question were the case one in which the Feds wanted to require your church to provide contraception, there being no absolute separation?

I just find the oppotunity for mischief to be huge.

MarkO

*opportunity*

Danube of Thought

"DoT, do you believe that a display of a manger scene by a government entity violates the establishment clause?"

I believe that the Supreme Court has so held ( with lots of hedging and equivocating), and that its holdings comprise the law of the land. So the answer is yes.

If I were asked to decide the question anew, given only the text of the constitution as amended, I would say that it doesn't. But that's not the way it works.

Rick Ballard

TC,

I haven't read the Hamburger book but it would have to include a rather lengthy dissertation on Madison's education by Witherspoon at Princeton to include Witherspoon's evolving views on Calvinism in order to be considered comprehensive. Madison should have been educated at William and Mary (like Jefferson) and had he been so educated I have reservations concerning the probability of the First Amendment accord being reached. The Calvinist view of the CoE in Revolutionary times was not markedly different than its view of Catholicism and the residue of the enmity that had driven the Puritans to Massachusetts was still sufficient (IMO) to make voluntary union suspect.

Madison's natural intellect and exposure to Calvinism provided the foundation for the bridge provided by the First Amendment. He understood the rationale for the mistrust and antipathy and provided the reassurance necessary to secure ratification.

matt

Is Pam Dickler related to Anthony Weiner?

As Professor Peter Venkman said, "we have to get these two together".

MarkO

Interesting, Rick.

Ignatz

--Mr. Obama gave a staunch defense of his administration’s actions to rein in Iran’s nuclear ambitions and said tough sanctions put in place by the United States and Europe were starting to work...--

It seems my entire life various sanctions on different countries have always been "starting to work." Have any sanctions ever actually work-worked or finished their work or are they like a teenager told to do a chore, interminably starting but never actually doing anything?

marlene

daddy,you asked about former Maine Gov.Angus King.He gave an interview to the Bangor Daily News and said his experience as an independent would give him leverage to reach across the partisan divide.His entrance into the race will have an impact on the final decision of former Gov.Baldacci and Congresswoman Pingree. The BDN also reports a PPP survey that he has an edge in a three way race,which is probably because he has name recognition statewide. Wow,I'm still nervous about posting,you all have been so welcoming!

Danube of Thought

The only successful sanctions that come to mind were those against South Africa. And that took a long, long time.

NK

RickB-- I am a big Madison fan-- I always found his "small' federal government arguments in the Federalist Papers (as opposed to Hamilton's BIG federal government) a far more practical and compelling vision of American federalism. You speculate about the particular reasons for Madison's anti-establishment and free exercise balance. I don't know if your speculation about why Madison came to that formulation is right, but there is no doubt Madison was a strong opponent of a federal official religion/church. His knowledge of European history undoubtedly played a role. The free exercise clause is very much in keeping with Madison's 'balancing of factions' which he believed was needed to maintain a representative government and avoid falling into tyranny.

jimmyk

MarkO, I'd give a different answer if the "government entity" is the Federal vs. state or local. I don't have a problem with a local government putting a creche in a public square, if that's what it's elected officials choose to do. I might be a bit more squeamish about the Feds doing it, though I don't have a problem with the Federal government having reasonably ecumenical religious activities like prayer. Of course I'd have a much more limited Federal government to begin with.

NK

DoT-- sanctions? they've worked in South Africa, Greece, Serbia and Chile. All western "right wing" authoritarian regimes. They never work against left-wing totalitarian (Cuba) and third world dictatorships (Sadaam, Kims, the Mullahs) -- those regimes seem to have infinite tolerance for the suffering of their people.

Ignatz

--Wow,I'm still nervous about posting...--

Marlene,
If they don't run me off for the lame jokes and pulchritudinous pics I post then consider yourself very safe with no need for nerves.

daddy

Carp. My polling place was changed from the usual location to a nearby Church. When I drove up to vote I see it is the Church who's roof collapsed a few days back due to excessive snow on it's roof. Pic.

Then a find a posted small xeroxed sign scotch-taped to the front door with the new, new address, so I now drive over to Grace Christian Church, but since it's also a school they say that polling will only be down after school, starting at 4 PM to 8 PM, so I have to come back later.

Grrrrrrrrrrr.

If our voting totals are more than normal then we will definitely know that folks are motivated, because I met a number of folks in the parking lot today of both Churches just fuming at this inability to cast a Primary Ballot at the normal place at the normal time.

Thomas Collins

Feel free to be critical, overly or not, MarkO. I wouldn't say that I want federal judges to develop a different body of law. Applying the framework I propose, it is possible that in a given area, the same body of law might develop. The result I want as a political actor is not necessarily the one that I would think is appropriate to be imposed by a federal court. For example, I might as a matter of policy oppose many if not substantially all of the personal behavior laws that might be struck down by federal courts relying on Lawrence v. Texas. However, that doesn't excuse me if I pretend that Lawrence v. Texas has any basis in the structure, text and history of the US Constitution.

As a legislator, I would be very vigorous in my attempts to have the public square open to displays of all religions and displays of raving atheists. I would probably be voted out of office for the types of secular displays I would also allow on the public green. However, I am not acting in good faith if, as a federal judge, I pen (or pixel) the church/state separation talking point when I decide a manger case.

In terms of mischief, I think what SCOTUS has done is more mischievous. It has acted as a super legislator to take out of the legislative realm areas properly in that realm. When SCOTUS finally comes to the correct decisions, as in Brown v. Board and Heart of Atlanta cases, it often does so for the wrong reasons (see the first Mr. Justice Harlan's dissents in the Civil Rights Cases and Plessy v. Ferguson for the appropriate reasons why racial segregation laws should be croaked and civil rights laws upheld under the US Constitution).

In the context of the First Amendment, I make no claim that I can develop a unified theory to decide the application of Establishment and Free Exercise clauses. What I do argue is that a federal judge acting in accordance with the framework I have articulated fulfills his or her duties to our liberal (in the classical sense) republican society in a more responsible manner than a federal judge who bases his or her decisions on a unified theory (such as church/state separation) that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

By the way, I also realize that as a lawyer advising clients on constitutional issues, if the client is requesting advice on how a court would likely view an action under the US Constitution, it is my duty to advise that client based on the decided cases, not on my view of the US Constitution. It so happens that providing advice on Establishment Clause issues has been part of my practice over the years. In addition, when I am not acting in the context of a lawyer/client relationship but commenting in a blog such as JOM, I still attempt to distinguish between what my view of the law should be and how a court system such as the federal court system has viewed an issue. For example, as much as I think SCOTUS should strike down the Medicaid provisions of ObamaCare, on the basis of the existing cases, I think SCOTUS will uphold these provisons. I also won't be surprised if SCOTUS upholds the mandate as an appropriate exercise of the Commerce Clause power, although I thing SCOTUS has made a hash out of Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

And now, on my ad hoc theory that I have gone on for too long, I will cease and desist!

centralcal

Marlene - thanks for the info. What is your personal opinion of King?

Thomas Collins

OMG, I'm sorry! My last post reached troll proportions!

Chubby

((Then, I ask, in a fair exchange, because there is no separation and it goes both ways, to what extent can Government tell religion what it should do or believe? Or, do those who throw up believe there is absolute separation in only one direction and why?))

no no no

just because the phrase "separation of church and state" is not part of the Constitution, that does not translate to a situation that allows the state to establish an official church. Nor does it mean that if In God we Trust and Moses and the Ten Commandments are imaged on government walls that those images establish an official church. Nor does it mean that the religious images of one denomination prevent the free exercise of religion. Nor does it mean that said images force conversion.


so isn't it pointless to discuss hypotheticals that the Constitution clearly disallows?

Extraneus

Not at all, TC. Most welcome.

Chubby

((OMG, I'm sorry! My last post reached troll proportions!))

nevah!!! :)

daddy

Thanks Marlene,

Please keep us posted on all things Maine, especially as to who we should keep our eyeballs on re: replacing Olympia.

As for your feeling nervous about posting about Maine: Let me make you feel comfortable about that.

My late Mom (bless her soul) wrote her Doctorate in Library Science on all the books ever printed in Bangor Maine prior to 1846, therefore no matter what you post here, it will never ever be the stupidest thing ever written about Maine; at best only the 2nd stupidest:)

Ben Franklin

Of course you can't suppress the vote here. This ain't Cuba.

http://www.cleveland.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/03/portage_county_veteran_86_turn.html

henry

WI judge issues injunction stopping voter ID. Dane County judge, signed recall petition, wife circulated recall petition, shares campaign manager with union picked challenger to Walker. It was the NAACP lawsuit (I lost count of how many suits were filed on voter ID).

Chubby

Thank you Matt for getting that out there, and congratulations on your lanche.

Janet

Wisconsin Dems must really feel like they are gonna have to cheat to win. They seem frantic to keep the cheating options open.

Jane (get off the couch - come save the country)

I showed my ID today even tho we don't have voter ID. All 3 of the ladies at the table told me they were for voter ID.

I'm sitting here wondering if I won my election and I realized I have no idea what I am running for. The most important question is: Will I have a title?

Gmax

Jane hell no, you need to know the perks and the amount of graft available. There is a reason they go in paupers and come out multimillionaires....

Porchlight

Here is the Insty post that 'launched Matt's post. (I like to click through from Insty so as to provide the site traffic/feedback.)

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/138467/

Extraneus

Jane, can you give us a little more info on how you ended up on a ballot that you knew nothing about and still don't know what position you're running for?

daddy

From Henry,'s link:

"UPDATE — My oh my… (Via Dan Bice)

"Dane County Cir­cuit Judge David Flana­gan, who granted a tem­po­rary injunc­tion against Wisconsin’s new voter iden­ti­fi­ca­tion law, signed a peti­tion urg­ing the recall of Gov. Scott Walker.

Walker, an ardent sup­porter of voter ID, signed the leg­is­la­tion cre­at­ing the require­ment last year.

Records show Flana­gan signed the Walker recall peti­tion on Nov. 15. The peti­tion lists Flanagan’s wife, Mau­reen McG­lynn Flana­gan, as the one who cir­cu­lated the petition."

I think the solution is to start selling Tar and Feathers at our local K-Mart's, and the proceeds to pay for Contraceptives. That's the ticket!

qrstuv

BF, come back once you figure out why it matters to have only legally registered voters who can prove who they are.

Gmax

Dane Co judge will get overruled on appeal. The Supreme Court of the USA has already ruled on the Indiana voter law, and it passed. As I understand it, Wisconsin is modeled on Indiana and will have no problem once the judge is not on the SEIU payroll...

henry

Gmax, you are right. The issue is when. The recall election are expected in June.

Chubby

((I believe that the Supreme Court has so held ( with lots of hedging and equivocating), and that its holdings comprise the law of the land. So the answer is yes.))

I didn't ask you what the SCOTUS has held, I asked you what you personally believe, never imagining that your personal beliefs never dissent from the law of the land. However I think I was able to figure out what you personally believe from this: ((If I were asked to decide the question anew, given only the text of the constitution as amended, I would say that it doesn't. But that's not the way it works))

Gmax

I should have been voting today, but due to the idiot democrats in the this state, I dont even know when a primary will be held. And they wont get a single statewide office, again.

Gmax

Henry

It was an unforced error to sign his wife's petition. Appellate judges dont like to have to deal with cases that judges are the issue or become the issue, the umpire is not suppose to do anything other than call balls and strikes...

They will accept an emergency appeal, and they will quickly overturn and probably admonish the cretin.

daddy

Dennis Miller had a good point today.

In so many words, Dennis said something like the following:

Said that the Prez now says, to prevent Iran from acquiring Nuke weapons, lets really ramp up the sanctions against Iran so that the people will be impoverished and thus angry at their Government, and so they'll take to the streets against the regime just like they did 2 years ago, back when we sat on our ass and didn't do squat to help them.

That's our new strategy now? Really? And at the same time we're not supposed to criticize Obama at all because this is serious stuff, no bluster allowed.

Jake Tapper, Miller's guest, sorta mumbled, well I think if the president had to do it all over again this time he might do things a little differently.

I'm taking some license with the exact wording but that was pretty much the sentiment.

henry

The ruling is here. He bases it on the cost of obtaining a birth certificate.

daddy

Porch,

I have to run off now to try to vote again, but please, if it's easy, tell me how you cross linked to Insty instead of just to Matt. I can't figure out how to do that. Thx in advance.

Janet

Dennis Miller is wonderful.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Amazon





Traffic

Wilson/Plame