Hawke wrote in article ...
>
>
> It's not really surprising that the court didn't agree with Bush's ideas
> about law and liberty for those it incarcerates. Bush would just as soon as
> act like any other tin horn dictator on the block. Too bad for him we have a
> court that can reign him in. But it also shows why the coming election is so
> important. The next president will appoint several justices during his term.
> It's critical that no more of the far right wing radical (Originalist)
> justices get on this court. This decision was another 5 to 4 with the four
> radical right wingers all voting in lockstep. If they were to get even one
> more member all the decisions like this one would go the other way.
> Decisions on abortion, civil rights, and on down the line all would go the
> way the radical right wing wants. On the other hand, if more liberal or
> moderate justices are put on the bench it will negate the far right, nut
> ball decisions the Bush appointees would make. So if we get Obama as
> president we kill two birds with one stone. We get our civil rights back
> that Bush has been taking away, and we get a long term majority on the
> Supreme Court, which would set back the right wing's agenda back decades if
> not forever. So let's just make a new rule. No more old white men get to be
> president.
>
> Hawke
>
>
>
Here we have a liberal breaking the posting rules of the newsgroup in order to grouse about others breaking rules.
Perfect liberal double-standard.
Of course, liberals have a "special dispensation"........
Was that your credibility that just flew down the road, Tweety?