Art Smith July 4, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Former Senator Jesse Helms, Republican from North Carolina, passed away today at 86. He joins Thomas Jefferson and John Adams as great Americans who left this life on Independence Day.
Helms held significant roles in Congress over the years, and helped move policy to the right during his tenure.
Anything else I can say has already been well written by Sister Toldjah. She also has a number of good links.
Sphere: Related ContentArt Smith July 4, 2008 at 12:50 pm
This is going to be a great day! I liked Sister Toldjah’s emphatic “What a great day it is to be an American!”. I woke up with a sense of anticipation at what the next year in our nation’s history will be like. What kinds of decisions will we make? How will we improve our standing among other nations? How will we make the lives of people in our country more secure, more joyful, more free?
In years past, we have had a quiz in the local newspaper about the history around this day… it did not show up today. Perhaps it will tomorrow.
They did reprint the Declaration of Independence. I hope people are reading it today and recalling why we formed a new nation, how we made our case for breaking away from England, and how seriously we took this responsibility.
In rereading the text today, I caught sight of something that I thought worthy of mention.
The signers of the Declaration were convinced that the despotism of the King had become so great, that their only choices were continued and deepening subjugation under Great Britain, or willful rebellion and forming of a new nation, and a new form of government.
They were clear that this was not only the right of the people, but truly an obligation.
So, one would wonder why there are not attempts to overthrow our government by those who think it is in need of dramatic change. You’d think we still think that’s is an appropriate model and that we would accept such an event as inevitable.
First of all, there have been attempts. There have been numerous uprisings over the years. Shay’s Rebellion, which occurred during the years of operation under the Articles of Confederation, is one example driven by an economic crisis and the punishments that existed at the time. The American Civil War almost succeeded in destroying the integrity of the establish legal republic, again mostly driven by economics, and to some degree, a correct ideal to ensure freedom was extended to all people.
The Civil War could have ended the United States for good. I believe that it was the grace of God that prevented that. However, if it had, it certainly had more right to than Shay’s Rebellion. The point being, if a small group of people don’t like what the government is doing, that does not necessitate overthrowing a government. But if a large enough part of the population is operating under duress, it may be appropriate to seek change.
Part of the reason we don’t find ourselves in a constant state of internal war is that we have created and continue to maintain a form of government that is always in flux. The entire people’s representative legislature (House of Representatives) is elected every 2 years. The Senate, which essentially provides representation for the state governments (although the 17th Amendment causes the people to elect them instead of the state legislatures). 1/3 of the Senate is elected every 2 years, each Senator getting a 6 year term. And the President of the United States, who most closely aligns in concept to the Monarch of England, is elected every 4 years and can only hold 2 terms of office.
This should create ample opportunity to dramatically change the government without firing a shot… and many times, we have. With this much change and voice from the people, there is little hope of the government becoming despotic. Or if it does, it would have the consent of the people.
There certainly is sufficient cause for concern as we become more apathetic. So much energy goes into the Presidential election, and so little attention remains on the other offices. The Presidential campaign itself still garners little real time and attention from the majority of people who will be voting in the election. That’s why the 30 second sound-bites are so carefully crafted… it may be all most voters bother to listen to.
And voters seem to pay just as little attention to the other races. The malaise hangs around all levels of government, and the result may well be a form of despotism that looks like freedom to the electorate, but in reality could be a carefully designed structure to keep people from being too concerned about looking under the covers and seeing what the elected officials are doing with the power and money we’ve bestowed upon them.
Ultimately, our form of government allows for the voters to be unconcerned about the actions of the government, and if we maintain the malaise, we have no one to blame but ourselves if we wake up one day and discover our freedoms have been more tightly constrained. Such as in Iowa, where the new smoking law, the most aggressive in the country at this time, went into effect Tuesday. Smoking is not permitted in any restaurants, bars, public places, places of business, and in homes where day-care services are provided. Smoking is allowed on casino floors at the betting tables and slot machines. I don’t smoke (I did at one time), and I don’t like being around smokers in restaurants, but I don’t think the government should impose these rules on private business owners… I’m fine with the constraints on public property, it’s the private property I have issues with, and I see this as another step toward excessive constraint on freedom. Next it will be another shot at our guns, our faiths, and our right to speak out against the government.
But a large majority of the population would need to be significantly disenfranchised, or more importantly, far more severely constrained, to justify an unscheduled change in the government, or more importantly, its structure. We should not take this type of action lightly.
Which leads me to the part of the Declaration that caught my eye this morning.
In the midst of arguing that the people have a right to abolish their government, the 2nd Continental Congress also said (emphasis mine):
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
We should have a substantially good reason, one that has broad support, and can be well defended in the court of international opinion, to abolish a perfectly good and functioning government structure even if we have elected bad apples. If the government takes the power to consistently and harshly abuse its power, its citizens, its integrity, then the people do need to deal with it. Clearly, the late 18th century American Colonies fit this category.
I hope we all continue to appreciate the bravery of the 56 men who signed this document and placed their lives on the line. We should today honor them, those who fought bravely throughout that war and those that followed, to secure freedom for us today. May we never forget their sacrifices.
We should, within the framework of our existing government, do all we can to engage our representatives and the voting public with the same vigor and enthusiasm our founders had, on topics that really matter. Topics that impact our freedom, our unity as a nation, our ability to grow and succeed as a people for generations to come. Such is the legacy our founders created for us.
And we can do it without violence, and I would hope without acrimony.
So, what will this next year of our country’s history bring?
(Today, BitHead reprinted a piece by Rush Limbaugh’s father. Definitely worth a read. )
Sphere: Related ContentArt Smith July 3, 2008 at 9:15 am
Fred is speaking at the NRTL Convention right now (Thursday, 10:00 AM Eastern). You can see it here at TownHall.com. (Update 12:40 PM Eastern: Looks like they have a line of speakers before Fred hits the key note. Below is the recorded version… The introduction for Fred starts at 37:30)
Sphere: Related ContentArt Smith July 2, 2008 at 10:14 pm
I am surprised I didn’t see more blogs lit up over this today (Allahpundit over at Hot Air did hit on it,
though).
That is, Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion in Kennedy v. Louisiana, was wrong. If you recall, Kennedy wrote in his opinion (discussed here last week) that
Thirty-seven jurisdictions—36 States plus the Federal Government— currently impose capital punishment, but only six States authorize it for child rape.
Kennedy then used this fact to establish that Congress’ lack of action to enact capital punishment for child rape reflected the country’s growing desire to treat child rapists more kindly. I’m still gagging over that one.
In Wednesday’s New York Times, we find that Kennedy, along with both legal teams on the case, missed some critical information. Federal Military code does cover child rape as a capital crime:
A military law blog pointed out over the weekend that Congress, in fact, revised the sex crimes section of the Uniform Code of Military Justice in 2006 to add child rape to the military death penalty. The revisions were in the National Defense Authorization Act that year. President Bush signed that bill into law and then, last September, carried the changes forward by issuing Executive Order 13447, which put the provisions into the 2008 edition of the Manual for Courts-Martial.
The blog referenced here is run by Colonel Dwight Sullivan of the Marine Corps Reserve. His post on his blog, CAAFlog, provides more specific details. Here’s the important part:
But just two years ago, Congress did enact a law permitting the death penalty for the rape of a child, which makes the number of authorizing jurisdictions seven (Louisiana, Georgia, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and the military), not six.
Section 552(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, 119 Stat. 3136, 3264 (2006), provides that “[u]ntil the President otherwise provides pursuant to” UCMJ article 56, “the punishment which a court-martial may direct for an offense under” the amended UCMJ article 120 “may not exceed the following limits: . . . For an offense under subsection (a) (rape) or subsection (b) (rape of a child), death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.”
Amusingly or not, it appears that the court and the legal teams were not only unaware of the law, but some had even research military law and not found this legislation. That’s kind of scary, if you ask me.
The state of Louisiana has 25 days to petition the court to reconsider its decision. I’m guessing if Louisiana petitions, the court won’t bother. Admitting that this kind of oversight is sufficient to reconsider will set a precedent that could overwhelm the court with spurious requests.
Of course, that throws the federal statute itself into question as well.
Ever notice the more our societies “evolve” (Kennedy’s word, by the way), the worse it seems to get? More proof that Darwin didn’t know what he was talking about either.
Sphere: Related ContentArt Smith July 1, 2008 at 11:49 pm
It took me a few days to figure out I could talk about this story without referring to the AP article… fortunately, a local newspaper (The Hartford Courant) web site covered the story along with the video. I’ve had several people mention this story to me via email.
So, two cars are racing around and a gentleman gets hit by one of them. Pretty routine, happens all the time. What was unusual was the lack of any helpful response by the crowd.
So, what’s happening here? Why would a crowd of people just circle around or walk by someone clearly in need without coming close enough to even convey a sense of belonging to the same race?
Those in the community of Hartford, Connecticut are expressing regret and shame over this, and I’m glad they are bothered by it. But fundamentally, this is another reflection of the state of decline our society is in. Not so much because people are “bad” as much as people are just not accustomed to direct contact with strangers in general let alone getting close enough to actually aid someone in distress.
We are becoming more accustomed to teaching our children, and as a result ourselves, to stay far away from strangers. We are fearful of any stranger that is bleeding for any reason because we may become infected by some unknown disease. Knowing full well the types of situations people can find themselves in, we lack good “civilian” training in first aid, which was once considered essential.
And we’ve become more and more subtly accustomed to minding our own business. Because perhaps we’ll get sued for doing something wrong. Perhaps someone will retaliate against us for doing something to help their enemy.
Good Samaritan laws, according to the TortsProf Blog, provide some protection. In some areas, such laws actually require assistance be provided (from the Ex Post Blog):
…the type that exists in many countries (most notably, Canada) and that are becoming more prominent in the US today. Good Samaritan laws describe a legal requirement for citizens to assist people in distress, unless doing so would put them in harm’s way. Good Samaritan laws, in certain parts of the nation, actually refer to laws that require citizens to assist individuals who need help (think Massachusetts, a la Seinfeld series finale.)
It’s sad to think that we need laws that force people to behave in a manner that many yet (including myself) simply expect of others, and at one time was considered “normal”.
But normal is gone. Proper, essential, appropriate behaviors are no longer considered the default response for a growing segment of society.
I think the general uproar is good, the response in Hartford is appropriate, but what can we do to stem the tide? I fear little, but the point we must always see is that we cannot give up. Keep doing what is right.
I believe that Isaac Asimov was sort of a social prophet. If you’ve read his science fiction, you’ll find that he immersed himself in theories of social order, which he proposed in varying degrees in his Foundation Series, and others. Most relevant here would be his Robot Series, about a future where people on Earth live indoors, and colonists have seeded many worlds in space.
And one of those worlds, in the book “The Naked Sun‘, was a planet called Solaria where everyone is tended by robots, and no one has personal contact with any other human beings. Not physically. They do talk via holographic communications, but never in person. The society decayed severely (as depicted in a later work titled “Foundation and Earth“) over time and the Solarians eventually altered themselves genetically to become hermaphrodites (providing the ability to self-reproduce).
I’m just saying.
Sphere: Related ContentArt Smith June 30, 2008 at 8:59 pm
This month’s Imprimis features a speech by John O’Sullivan, executive editor of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and one-time special advisor to former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
O’Sullivan’s speech provides a valuable lesson in the history of Thatcher’s leadership and the power of privatized industry in building an entrepreneurial society, and how this can stimulate a stagnated socialist economy.
May we never reach the depth that Britain did.
O’Sullivan’s speech was given at the dedication of the first statue of Margaret Thatcher to be placed in the United States, which was at Hillsdale College (the home of Imprimis).
He covers a great deal regarding the Cold War, and Thatcher’s role working with Reagan, Helmut Schmidt, and others to build a stronger missile presence in Western Europe, and the repelling of the Argentinians from the Falkland Islands, both of which conveyed dramatically Britain’s willingness and ability to fight.
Most importantly, however, is his treatment of the impact of both Thatcher and Reagan’s social/economic policies that build not only a successful growth in both countries, but provided a model for others to follow:
All these changes were a revival of what Shirley Robin Letwin, the distinguished Anglo-American political theorist, called the “vigorous virtues” in her important study of Thatcherism. These are such qualities as self-reliance, diligence, thrift, trustworthiness, and initiative that enable someone who exhibits them to live and work independently in society. Though they are not the only virtues—compassion might be called one of the “softer virtues”—they are essential to the success of a free economy and a civil society, both of which rely on dispersed initiative and self-reliant citizens.
That transformation did not stop at the Atlantic’s edge. Thatcher (and Reagan) also changed the world economy by virtue of the demonstration effects of Reaganism and Thatcherism. They had provided the world with successful models of free and deregulated economies.
These demonstration effects were similar but not identical. Tax cuts were America’s principal intellectual export; privatization was Britain’s.
Of the two, privatization was the more important globally, since the Third World and post-communist economies were encumbered with a vast number of inefficient state industries. Privatization expertise became one of the City of London’s most profitable services over the next two decades. Even the Soviets and Western European communists were forced to change course by the widespread adoption of privatization internationally—and also by the equally widespread acceptance of the market logic behind it.
And later…
When Lady Thatcher revived the British economy, she was reviving profound social virtues that the British had once exemplified to the world—the Thatcherite “vigorous virtues” described above. In 1979, they seemed utterly destroyed by 50 years of statism and socialism. In fact, they had merely been driven underground by government over-regulation and intervention.
As James C. Bennett has observed, it took only a few years of Lady Thatcher’s application of free market solutions for these virtues to become vigorous again. Once that happened, it took only a few more years for those revived virtues to transform Britain from the sick man of Europe into the world’s fourth largest economy.
Deep social patterns can rarely be extirpated altogether. Cultural transformations of nations and societies imposed by governments nearly always fail in the long run. The old ways only look dead; in reality, they are merely dormant. They are the resources of our civilization and they can be revived to meet new challenges.
These words from O’Sullivan frame up for us a demonstrable history model that supports the value of a conservative mindset. Later in his speech he references the more obvious economic success of these policies in Estonia and Poland. Having visited Poland a few years ago, I can attest to the remarkable growth in retail and recreation industries. We stayed at a wonderful resort in the mountains of southwest Poland and while there visited a store comparable to large Target or Wal*Mart. While in a supermarket, I was struck by how similar the setting was to similar stores here in the US, but at the same time I was struck by the fact that the locals were obviously nervous around foreigners… smiling and attempts at friendly greetings were rebuffed, apparently out of distrust built up over the decades. Hopefully that will change soon as well.
I strong encourage a full read of the speech (pdf format) at the Hillsdale web site. One may also want to take a look at some of Thatcher’s writings, including “Statecraft“.
Excerpts of Sullivan’s speech are reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.
Sphere: Related ContentArt Smith June 29, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Wow! I totally missed the Lieberman confrontation with YouTube (owned by Google) until it was mentioned in an email exchange I had today.
From CNN:
In a Monday [May 19, 2008] letter to Eric Schmidt, chief executive officer of Google, Lieberman asked that YouTube “implement its own policy against this offensive material,” by removing the videos. Lieberman, the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, also wants YouTube staffers to have a system that will prevent the video from reappearing.
I am a bit amazed, as I did not think he would advocate this kind of censorship. If I understand his position, I think he’s wrong. I like Lieberman mostly because of his willingness to stand up to his party and be his own man. I suspect he is trying to get on conservatives’ good side with this approach, but I think he will find he’s barking up the wrong tree. I’m glad that YouTube reacted the way they did.
Again from CNN:
YouTube said Monday on its blog that it had removed a “number of videos” from its site after examining several videos that Lieberman’s staff said “violated YouTube’s Community Guidelines.”
The videos that were removed “depicted gratuitous violence, advocated violence, or used hate speech,” YouTube said.
However, “Most of the videos, which did not contain violent or hate speech content, were not removed because they do not violate our Community Guidelines.”
It deeply saddens me to see such horrific violence or gratuitous sexual content so readily available to children and adults in our world. I do believe that the easy availability of this kind of content will have a deteriorating impact on our society. However, I don’t think the answer is to use the government to control it. As a society, we can choose to manage it in ways that are not destructive, convince adults of the undesirable personal and societal impacts of the content, and train our children to be discerning about what they consume.
This is not the government’s responsibility. Quite the opposite. The minute we allow the government to decide what is appropriate content to view, we slide down the path of political censorship and government media management.
Probably the one distinct exception is Child Pornography. Only because in order to produce it, you need to be exposing a child to abuse.
That said, we at The Conservative Reader reserve the right (as others do as well) to censor our web site to ensure it is suitable for visitors of all ages. That means we watch for the use of offensive words, we don’t intentionally link to a site with pornography or gratuitous violence or the kind of language we restrict on our site. This is not censorship… it is our own right under the First Amendment to exert this type of control over the content we provide here.
And YouTube has the same right. Take that away and you might as well chuck the whole Bill of Rights.
My thanks to Richard Perlman for pointing this story out to me.
Sphere: Related ContentArt Smith June 28, 2008 at 10:35 pm
When I was in college, my first major was Psychology. I was planning to become a counselor like psychologist in my high school who helped me work through some issues (sure, not all of them, but you should have seen me then). One semester was enough to tell me this was not my field. A lot of work was done to reach conclusions that just seemed too obvious to me, and although I do respect those that work in the field to serve the needs of individuals, the overarching view by some that psychology/psychiatry provides a method for improving society is tenuous in my mind.
And so today I find in one of my favorite weekly columns in the Wall Street Journal, the “Five Best” (five books recommended by someone of interest and covering a common topic) to be offered by Paul McHugh, a professor at Johns Hopkins University. The books mentioned are touted as “factions and follies of psychiatry”. Sadly, I could not find an electronic posting of the list at wsj.com.
Interesting in that his list focuses on Psychiatry, which is the medically related segment of the spectrum (so, surgery, drugs, etc.). I’m sure there are similar lists related to Psychology (more counseling related), but this list is fairly interesting.
Take a look. I plan to purchase all 5 this week… might take a while to read through. Without a doubt, this looks like a good set of content to see many of our historical mistakes in trying to manage society with psychology/psychiatry. Again, not intending to criticize the disciplines as a whole, just to see where our desire to control through any means can lead to disastrous failure.
Updated: Reader Richard Perlman, obviously more adept at finding content on the Wall Street Journal web site, graciously provided me with the link to Paul McHugh’s Five Best reviews. Thanks, Richard, for the assistance!
Sphere: Related ContentArt Smith June 27, 2008 at 9:07 pm
I was subjected to scenes of Barack and Hillary playing nice with each other on stage at a rally in Unity, New Hampshire. It was a bit over the top.
I don’t know what the real content (if any) of their speeches consisted of, and the newscasts simply showed snippets of each of them saying cute and insipidly stupid things about each other (Obama: “She Rocks! She Rocks! That’s what I’m talking about”).
At the same time, CBS covered Clinton supporters at the rally who are dead set against voting for Obama, and writing in Clinton. Like that’s gonna work.
It’s intriguing that so many people are proclaiming they will not vote for one of the major candidates this fall. I’ve be watching some bloggers and talk show hosts who are taking the idealistic path of saying “No way will I ever vote for McCain!”. I can totally understand the need to think through and work out one’s priorities and convictions. And of course, this kind of thoughtful discourse is a tad better than those who want to vote for Obama because they like his looks or mannerisms. But the more I hear people say they are rejecting McCain because he doesn’t represent their perfect set of values, the more I wonder whether these people a) understand politics (especially our brand of two-party politics), and b) know of someone other than themselves that would fit the bill.
Granted, if there was a real chance that Fred Thompson could run on the third party ticket and win the election (and I mean a real chance), I’d get in line for that. But the fact is that, especially with the incredible splintering we are experiencing in each party right now, there is practically zero chance that a third party candidate would win… there would be too many and such candidates would simply take votes out of the pool of votes that would normally go to one of the core parties.
The biggest confusion I think many suffer from is the belief that the Presidency really matters so much in terms of having the perfect person (with regard to policy) that someone like McCain would actually represent a negative impact on our country’s success. Someone like McCain is not going to create dramatic domestic change on his own. He is unlikely to create chaos, or dramatically oppose Congress in areas such as the Economy, Energy, Health Care. His presence may influence to some degree a Democratically controlled Congress in a way that would be slightly more favorable to Conservatives, though without being a dramatic voice for Conservatives.
McCain’s presence in the White House will, however, certainly provide strong support for a more conservative Congress, whether created in this cycle or in two years. Regardless of his statements regarding domestic drilling, for instance, it is extremely unlikely that he would veto a domestic drilling bill, especially if the People make it clear that they want it.
An Obama administration would be devastating. A Democratic Congress would be empowered to move for more and more sweeping change, including socialized Medicine, higher taxes, growing restraints on freedom, including new reviews of gun control once some Supreme Court appointments are made. It’s interesting that even when we’ve been in a position to have the court review Roe v Wade, the court has avoided bringing any cases up on abortion rights. But once the court is solidly activist and liberal, watch out… hide your guns, your faith and your thoughts.
Obama and a Republican Congress would be somewhat more controlled. And yet, Supreme Court appointments and foreign relations are still big risk areas. And dismantling our defense infrastructure, especially our nuclear arsenal, and jumping ship on our allies (backing out of Iraq, of example) appear to be the centerpieces of Obama’s campaign. We might as well all start learning Farsi and Russian now to stay ahead of the game.
Bottom line is, everyone needs to vote their conscience. But one’s conscience should go beyond your personal values compared to the candidates, and rather, look at our personal values compared to the events and circumstances that may occur as a result of our voting. Obviously, we can’t predict everything, but I’m not going to avoid voting for a candidate that’s been divorced simply because I think divorce is bad. Now, if the candidate promotes a vision of an America where murder is acceptable, where shipping the lowest 10% of income earners to Australia is the model for increasing America’s wealth, where legalizing unmonitored sales of cocaine is the ideal solution for solving our drug problems, that candidate will be vehemently opposed by me. As a Christian, I hear many who share my faith placing expectations on the candidate to share the convictions of their faith. While we (as followers of Christ) have a responsibility to speak out the truth, placing this kind of expectation on our leaders is not only impractical, it is inconsistent with our celebration of the Founders, many of whom were Deists… I would still vote for George Washington, even if he doesn’t believe God is actively involved in the affairs of the world.
We must continue to have effective dialog on issues, candidates, etc. Throughout this campaign period, we continue to have opportunities to influence the debate and sway party officials, candidates, and voters… we should not abandon that opportunity (and for some us, a responsibility).
The support here at The Conservative Reader will, barring some major issue, be for the Republican candidate for President. More importantly, we want to ensure there is appropriate focus and dialog on Congressional seats, both House and Senate, because the core of where our country is going will be reflected in those chambers more powerfully than in the house at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Building a grassroots groundswell to take back the legislative arm of government should be Priority 1.
That said, this is a place for discussion. Voice your opinion here. We want to learn from each other. Everything described here is worthless if we don’t engage with each other and our representatives. Not engaging is what leads to the the wanton abuses we’ve seen in both parties, and if we allow them to continue, shame on us.
Sphere: Related ContentArt Smith June 26, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Thank goodness, albeit another split decision, the court came through with a good decision. In DC v Heller, the court ruled in favor of gun ownership. We discussed this case back when arguments wrapped up in April. For those of you that are sure to argue that my position yesterday was that the court should have stayed away from the state’s right to legislate on the death penalty, one must understand that there are significant differences here.
One (death penalty) has to do with the meting out of punishment, which is certainly addressed in the 8th amendment. For that reason, the court certainly has a role in ensuring that the 8th Amendment is not abrogated. In Kennedy v Louisiana, however, the case does not appear to me to offend the 8th Amendment.
In DC v Heller, the 2nd Amendment is directly attacked by the DC law.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Infringed this right has been by DC, which is not a state and therefore enjoys existence in a special class, but nonetheless should not have be allowed to remove the right to bear arms from its citizens.
Of course, the court has essentially set the same process and issue in motion in both cases, that is, finding against the legislated laws which it believes (wrongly and rightly in my opinion) are unconstitutional. The impact will be substantial review and representing of new cases in the future which may create a bigger mess as the court’s makeup will certainly change before too long… the question is in which direction will it sway?
Great conversation at Sister Toldjah, BitsBlog, McGehee, SCOTUSBlog, Michelle Malkin, TownHall, Stop the ACLU, and Hot AIr.
Sphere: Related Content
|
|
View blog authority | View blog reactions |
|
