ElsewheresDaughter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 10:39 AM
Original message |
3 times the USSC declined the Schiavo case..why is bush trying to destroy |
|
the Judical Branch???
I am so confused
|
BlueEyedSon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 10:40 AM
Response to Original message |
1. That's a RHETORICAL question, right? |
Norquist Nemesis
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 10:40 AM
Response to Original message |
2. So He can "save" it? n/t |
Dhalgren
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 10:41 AM
Response to Original message |
3. They are nihilists, in essence. |
annabanana
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 10:43 AM
Response to Original message |
4. so he can rail against "activist judges" |
|
Edited on Mon Mar-21-05 10:47 AM by annabanana
This will help the RW paint us as "legislating from the bench" (In spite of the fact that it is, really, judging from the legislature.)
They turn it around and smack us with it.......again.
Remember, the base doesn't CARE about facts! We have to shout about Bush's signing a bill in Texas that says HMO's and Insurance Companies are allowed to PULL THE PLUG without family consent!!
|
TahitiNut
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
7. Exactly right. Gotta get them judges approved by the Senate, dontcha know? |
|
:thumbsup: It's the long Night of the Living Dead ... ambulatory brain donors.
|
BrklynLiberal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
9. As opposed to the judges that put * in the White House in the first place. |
trotsky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 10:45 AM
Response to Original message |
5. Consider also this is the party of "state's rights." |
|
And we see how willing they are to let states decide certain things (like presidential elections and the right of a person to die in peace).
|
BrklynLiberal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
10. The party of the 'sanctity of marriage" is fighting against the husband |
|
having the ultimate say in the decision over his wife's fate, and siding with her parents.
|
Contrary1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 10:47 AM
Response to Original message |
|
can make it a tri-fecta...or would that be tri-f*ckedya?
|
BrklynLiberal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 11:19 AM
Response to Original message |
8. To rally the Fundies and try to save the Congressional seats they are |
|
Edited on Mon Mar-21-05 11:20 AM by BrklynLiberal
doomed to lose in '06 because everything they are doing in this country is turning to crap.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sun Jun 16th 2024, 08:30 AM
Response to Original message |