John Edwards – Ambulance Chaser. Need I say more
Bloomberg – I don’t want someone to run whose biggest accomplishment is protecting me from saturated fats and second hand smoke.
Huckabee – Disaster for the Republicans. Cannot win
Hillary – Dread. But surprisingly, would choose before Edwards and Bloomberg
posted by DRL @ 10:44 AM
0 comments
It seems to me that the sudden rush of local municipalities to use eminent domain for the purpose of taking property from one private owner to give to another makes it clear that court was wrong in their decision. Many are trying to get actions in before their states pass laws to prevent such actions. It is obvious that these actions are not “business as usual” but like a child with a new toy that it knows is soon to be taken away.
The courts made a decision that caught the country by surprise. How limits on eminent domain could be taken for granted by those on the left and right be somehow overlooked by the five most liberal justices on the court is beyond me, but not unexpected. It is one of the reasons I started voting Republican years ago.
posted by DRL @ 7:43 AM
0 comments
It appears I was correct about my view of the group of 14.
It has made it much easier for vulnerable Senators in red states to break ranks with their blue state Democrat counterparts.
Let's put it another way. The king is wearing no clothes. Everyone knows the elections of 2000 and 2004 were about the courts and particularly, the Supreme Court. This is the ballgame. If the Democrats want to make Alito an issue in the 2006 elections, go for it! Keep reminding the public who voted for Bush that he didn't let them down when it came to court nominations.
posted by DRL @ 12:55 PM
0 comments
When creating a document, whether on your own initiative, or when compelled to by others, always write it so it's valueable to yourself, because you are the only one who will ever read it.
posted by DRL @ 2:40 PM
0 comments
Admit it left. You think Bush is an easy target. He is nothing like what you have on your list. Let's look at this list. Kennedy, Schumer, Leahy, Corzine, Hillary, Boxer, Kerry, etc... These are people who have big fat "Far Side Bummer of a Birthmark" bulls eyes on them. The second they speak, feelings of nausea fill the bodies of those on the center and right. And unless some skeleton is found in Roberts background, he will easily be nominated to the court.
I am excited about listening to Kennedy and Schumer attempt to call Roberts out of the mainstream. What mainstream? The mainstream around San Fransisco, New York City, and Boston?
I would point out two areas where it is easy to show the public how far the left on the Court is out of the mainstream. The Interstate Commerce Clause and 5th Amendment. The Interstate Commerce clause is the left's cure-all to justify any Federal Legislation. The re-definition of the takings clause of the 5th is their cure-all for taking property for any of their bold big government boon doggles. One can for his whole life, vote against the Democrats for these two points. One can also work in the fact that the left does not like the concept of free association where as the Boy Scouts get to choose who their members are and what the beliefs of those members should be.
If the Republicans took my advice (as if it's worth anything...), they would read the Orwellian views written by the left on the court. For the Interstate Commerce Clause, kids going to school may one day grow up and be involved in Interstate Commerce. For takings, one owner will pay more property tax than another and hence, it is for public use to take the property from citizen A and give to citizen B. And yes, four legs good, two legs bad becomes four legs good, two legs better.
The Republicans need to force the issue of "out of the mainstream". Schumer and Kennedy can only push this concept if they are not required to back it up. And to do that they will have to speak. Let's see, East coast rich elitist leftwing Democrats explaining to America that judge Roberts is out of the mainstream...
Good-luck!
posted by DRL @ 11:18 AM
0 comments
I have come up with a new way to analyze a team's offense and defense (well, at least it's new to me.)
Quality Offense -- Offense scores more than four runs.
Quality Pitching -- Pitching holds opposing team to four runs or less.
If pitching holds the other team to four or less runs, the team is in the game. If the offense scores more than five runs, they've given the pitchers a good chance to win. Of course, in the steroid era, I probably would have had to select a number like eight instead of four.
For my team, the Twins who have played 61 games, here are the numbers first for their wins and then their losses:
Wins 36
QP 30
QO 26
Loss 25
QP 11
QO 2
Total 58
QP 41
QO 28
Based on this, the Twins pitching has been pretty effective, while their offense has under performed.
In a loss, it is impossible for a team to have both a quality pitching performance and a quality offensive performance. Therefore, the Twins had ten losses where neither pitching nor offense performed well. Over the last 17 games, the Twins are 11-6. It's been all an offensive struggle in that all six losses quality pitching performances.
Look at the Houston Astros who keep blowing games for Clemens. Their pitching is nearly as good as the Twins, but their offense is nonexistant.
Wins 25
QP 22
QO 13
Loss 36
QP 17
QO 4
Total 61
QP 39
QO 17
posted by DRL @ 12:20 PM
0 comments
I was very interested in this case. For years, I have been an Interstate Commerce Clause interpretation fanatic. Even before the decision was made public, I knew about Wickard vs. Filburn, United States vs. Lopez, and United States vs. Morrison. I am not a lawyer. (I am of a higher class: engineer.) But one need not be a lawyer to understand the abuse of interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. Incidentally, it does take a law degree to spew the B.S. justifications for the abuse of the Interstate commerce clause.
Interstate Commerce is business that crosses state lines. Lawyers out there will correct me in my definition, but there correction changes little. Back in 1942 with Wickard vs. Filburn, the Supreme Court said something could be considered interstate commerce if it had an effect on interstate commerce. Boy! What a loophole!
Then, in the mid 90’s, the Federal Government passed a law creating gun free zones around public schools. The problem is how to justify it. Police powers are a state issue. So, the government used the old cure all… you guessed it… the interstate commerce clause.
The government came up with this: kids who go to public school may one day work in the area of interstate commerce. Hence, guns around schools have an effect on interstate commerce. This is obviously pretty awful logic. Here is the big difference between engineers and lawyers two groups I consider to be polar opposites. Lawyers make their arguments to produce a desired outcome. Engineers make their arguments in order to find the truth. Otherwise, things fall apart, blow up, etc… There is no way an engineer can look at this logic and not laugh. However, lawyers being of a lower caste can say this with a straight face.
The Supreme Court rejected the argument but only 5-4. And now with Kennedy getting more and more loopy, one wonders if the votes are there in the future to hold back the federal government.
The Morrison case had to do with the violence against women. Here lies the rub. It is difficult to discuss these cases because the discussion withers into “why would you want guns around schools” or “why are you for violence against women”. You see the problem.
What is different about the Gonzalez case involving medical marijuana is that there is a sympathetic case against the Federal government intrusion. Hence, one need not understand the Interstate Commerce Clause to be against Federal Law trumping State Law.
So remember:
When it comes to cases decided upon the Interstate Commerce Clause, one’s support or non-support for a decision usually has nothing to do with one’s personal view about the law.
posted by DRL @ 10:56 AM
0 comments
