April 1-3, 2012
Apr 01 10:31 Are Ron Paul delegates committed to the GOP? Or just Ron Paul? Apr 01 10:26 Is Obama's war on families accelerating? Apr 01 10:56 How big of issues are energy, Obamacare? Apr 01 18:00 Why liberals are shocked with 'Supreme' treatment Apr 02 13:21 The Roberts Court & TEA Party radicals Apr 02 16:59 Lanning plan unraveling? Apr 03 04:28 Obamacare, judicial activism and SCOTUS
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Are Ron Paul delegates committed to the GOP? Or just Ron Paul?
The title isn't a trick question. It's been a point of curiosity since the 2008 election cycle. In 2008, alot of Ron Paul supporters showed up at the precinct caucuses with the hope of becoming state convention delegates. To a small extent, they were successful.
In 2010, many of Rep. Paul's supporters disappeared into the woodwork. A tiny percentage of them worked hard at getting legislative candidates elected.
This afternoon, I was told by a loyal reader of this blog that precincts that were dominated by Ron Paul supporters didn't have good turnout for the HD-15B endorsing convention.
One precinct that was allocated 11 delegates had 3 delegates show up. This precinct was filled with Paul supporters. Other precincts with high volumes of Ron Paul supporters had low turnout rates, too.
The activists I've spoken with have said that they agree with a number of Paul's policies. The trouble these activists have with Ron Paul's supporters is that they're there only for their candidate. They're take-my-ball-and-go-home types.
Republican activists want people that are team players, activists that they know will work hard to get candidates elected to the legislature and to the constitutional offices.
If people want to be delegates to the state conventions, there should be a requirement that they've earned that spot through their hard work. If Paul's delegates won't drop lit, man phones, march in parades and knock on doors for legislative candidaes, then they haven't earned the right to be delegates.
It's ironic that supporters of the presidential candidate that constantly talks about returning power to the states and to the people are the activists who've shown the least interest in legislative races. In fact, Paul's activists haven't been interested if it doesn't involve federal elections.
The gains we've seen this year Paul make this year will be shortlived if Paul's activists don't put in the work.
Tags: Ron Paul , Activists , Campaigns , Parades , Phone Banks , Conventions , MNGOP , Election 2012
Posted Sunday, April 1, 2012 10:31 AM
Comment 1 by Ken Anderson at 02-Apr-12 09:18 PM
Absolute garbage. We worked hard to get Dave Brown elected. On the 15A side we stand in a big way behind Christopher Kumpula with a few of us in the Zerwas camp as well, and will work together for whichever candidate ultimately is on the ballot. We will work hard for Jim Newberger. There was only one precinct in the Sherburne County section of the room Saturday that has a preponderance of Paul supporters as delegates, that's Baldwin Twp. P-2 and they showed in very strong number. They are not 15B however, rather 15A. There were multiple slates aplenty lacking disclaimers being circulated privately, including the Hegseth slate being openly compiled and printed w/o disclaimer at the table next to the Paul table. Yet only the private Paul slate was singled out for attention, only the Paul volunteer was ejected from the event. SD15 may be the only BPOU in the state resorting to such tactics, disclaimer issues only arise elsewhere in regard to literature generally distributed to all seats, and when enforced for such general distribution generally get enforced evenhandedly.
Absolute garbage to maintain a pretense that the Paul folks don't actively support their local candidates when they do, while at the same time pulling out all the stops unevenly and with the intent of putting barriers in front of these Constitutional Conservatives.
Comment 2 by Ken Anderson at 02-Apr-12 09:37 PM
It was the SD15 convention by the way, not the HD15A convention.
Comment 3 by Eric Boone at 03-Apr-12 01:02 PM
I'll speak to the Wright County BPOU as that is what I know.
The precincts in 30B this year did not have a strong Paul contingent. Santorum won a solid majority in the straw poll in the area. Even if every straw poll vote for Paul resulted in a delegate for Paul, Paul would have had maybe 40% of the delegates from the precincts that comprise 30B.
On March 10th at the Wright County Convention, these precincts had maybe 60% of their voting strength present.
On March 24, of approximately 140 spots, only about 20 showed at the SD30 convention.
This is not a lack of Paul delegates. This is a lack of Santorum people. How come you're not complaining about the Santorum people?
In regards to putting in the work, Paul supporters in Wright County have busted their butts for the Republican candidates. In 2009, there were several parades were the marchers (excluding the candidate and spouse) were entirely Paul supporters. In 2010, Emmer brought a lot of excitement and again Paul supporters busted their butts for Emmer. By 2011, Wright County had lost a few of the most ardent Paul supporters and hardest workers within the BPOU because they moved out-of-state or life required them to work two full time jobs while being a single mom. (The later individual still does far more than most.) However, there still is a solid core of Paul supporters working hard within the BPOU. Given the absolute railroad job that was the 2008 State convention, the GOP is lucky as many Paul supporters stuck around.
In reality, you can say the same thing about all of the various campaigns and camps. In Wright County, we have approximately 600 delegates and alternates at our convention each year. Out of that, about 15 go above and beyond and another 30 or so do help out in some form or another on multiple occasions. The rest are no-shows or may do one parade or activity a year. That's basically about only 7% of the delegates actually putting in significant effort. Pretty poor across the board really.
Is Obama's war on families accelerating?
It's been apparent since the 2008 campaign that the Obama administration would be hostile towards coal. Based on the numbers from this article , it's apparent that this administration is ideologically driven to cripple family budgets.
"Renewable" energy such as Solyndra-style projects, along with energy efficiency, is slated to spend $2.33 billion. There's much, much more hidden away in corners of the budget. For example, the "Recovery Act" included a whopping $16.8 billion for the DOE office handling energy efficiency and renewables.
White House bias against the coal industry is even more apparent when you look at past federal budgets. Funding for coal technology is being trimmed down, slowly but surely. The amount provided for the current year is less than in any year since 2005. In fact, in FY 2010, the DOE received $404 million for coal projects.
The numbers highlight this administration's misplaced priorities. This administration will stumble all over itself in their attempt to fund failing companies based on questionable technologies but they'll cut off research grants for improving proven, reliable, energy sources.
That's bad enough. This information indicates that it's worse than the statistics indicate:
During the administration of former President George W. Bush, it was a priority to help the utility industry find cleaner ways to burn coal. Then, the DOE touted a $1 billion Clean Coal Power Initiative. The Obama administration's plan is to spend not one dime on it this year. Nothing.
Not to worry, insists Obama. His energy plan won't inflict serious damage on Americans' budgets.
But Rep. David McKinley, R-W.Va., has pointed out the EPA's numbers are wrong, very wrong. The agency claims its new limits on coal-fired power plants will , in the long term, remove only 4 gigawatts from the nation's power generation capacity. Other experts say 50-80 gigawatts , McKinley pointed out during a recent congressional hearing.
McKinley buttressed his contention with evidence the EPA frequently downplays the cost of its regulations. A decade ago, the agency claimed new regulations on heavy trucks would cost only $3,400 per vehicle, he noted. The actual cost by 2010 was $9,000.
These figures don't lie. Eliminating that much electricity-generating capability is driving prices higher.
Why is this administration driving up electricity prices while subsidizing failing technologies while crippling reliable energy sources?
We aren't cleaning the planet either. While this administration cuts coal production, other countries are increasing their use of coal-fired power plants. The only thing that's changed dramatically is Americans' utility bills.
President Obama's spin is that he's for an all-of-the-above energy policy. In reality, his crippling of the oil and coal industries indicates that he supports a none-of-the-above energy policy.
He couldn't put together a more destructive energy policy for families if he tried.
Tags: Obama Administration , Energy , Coal , Renewables , Solyndra , Stimulus , Inflation , Middle Class Squeeze , Gas Prices , Electricity , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Sunday, April 1, 2012 10:30 AM
No comments.
How big of issues are energy, Obamacare?
President Obama might have had the worst week in recent presidential history. That's the good news. The bad news is that this campaign, if run right, will utterly devastate the Democratic Party.
Things will get worse for this administration, thanks to their insistence on pushing a none-of-the-above energy policy. Every time a person pulls up to a gas pump, they'll be reminded that they're paying alot more to fill the tank than they paid when President Obama took the oath of office.
If that doesn't remind them of skyrocketing gas prices, a plethora of ads will remind them that President Obama's energy policy has made their lives worse, not better.
That's actually the bright spot on energy. The worst news on energy is that this administration's EPA has shown great hostility towards coal. In 2008, President Obama won Pennsylvania's, Ohio's, Virginia's and Indiana's electoral votes. That's 65 EV's back then. Now it's worth 62 EV's.
With his administration's hostility towards coal, President Obama will face an uphill fight in each of those states. Take away those 4 states EVs leaves Obama with 276 EVs. That doesn't leave much margin for error.
President Obama's 2 signature accomplishments, Obamacare and the stimulus, will hurt him in the Heartland and the Rust Belt. States like Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa might flip.
Obamacare will likely hurt him in Florida, too. If President Obama is fighting for Pennsylvania's, Wisconsin's, Florida's and Michigan's EVs, he's history. Florida and Pennsylvania expensive states in terms of TV advertising. The more money President Obama has to spend in Pennsylvania and Florida, the less he has for Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin.
In the end, President Obama will lose because a) his policies are unpopular, especially his anti-coal policies.
Tags: Energy , Coal , Obamacare , SCOTUS , Florida , Pennsylvania , Ohio , Wisconsin , Iowa , President Obama , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Sunday, April 1, 2012 10:56 AM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 02-Apr-12 11:59 AM
The only thing missing from the calculus is the possibility of the Republicans nominating the worst Presidential candidate of modern times in Romney.
He's the only one of the major candidates left who could figure out how to screw up what should be a slam-dunk election and drag down the down-ticket in the process.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 02-Apr-12 01:07 PM
Bob, I don't like Mitt. Other than RP, Mitt's my least favorite GOP presidential candidate.
I haven't made it a secret that Newt's been my guy from the outset. That said, I'm confident that Mitt will defeat President Obama.
As for down-ticket races, I'm uberconfident that he won't have a negative effect on House, Senate & legislative races.
Thanks to the TEA Party's devotion to returning more gov't to the local level, there'll be lots of enthusiasm for strengthening legislative & House majorities while retaking the U.S. Senate.
Why liberals are shocked with 'Supreme' treatment
Prior to oral arguments on O'Care, liberals were 'Supremely' confident that it would breeze through the high court. They quickly found out that that wouldn't be the case.
With Jeffrey Toobin frantically saying that the oral arguments had been "a train wreck for the Obama administration", it's perhaps time to ask why they were surprised with the difficult questions. Here are a few thoughts on why they're stunned:
- Liberals in academia rarely have their worldview challenged. Frankly, each campus is like its own DC, complete with bubble.
- The Supreme Court has mangled the clear meaning of the Constitution so long that a right reading of it shocks liberals.
- Liberals have tried burying the Ninth and Tenth amendments for so long that they though they were dead.
- Liberals have tried replacing the Ninth and Tenth amendments with warped interpretations of the the Interstate Commerce and the Necessary and Proper clauses.
The thought that the justices would actually give more weight to the Constitution than precedents just stunned liberal pundits. Hearing justices question SG Verilli about the enumerated powers of the Ninth Amendment with regard to the individual mandate had to rock Jeffrey Toobin's world.
The thought that Justice Scalia would lecture SG Verilli on the true meaning of the Necessary and Proper Clause must've stunned liberal pundits, too. In that lecture, Justice Scalia said that O'Care might or might not be necessary but it wasn't proper. Here's the heart of the text of the Necessary and Proper Clause:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States
It's interesting that liberals don't think that legislation that violates the Ninth and Tenth amendments are proper. I've yet to meet a liberal that admits that the Constitution limits what the federal government is authorized to do. It appears as though the Roberts Court is about to teach them that foundational principle.
The Supreme Court has fit their rulings into their policy beliefs for so long that liberals expected the Supremes to rubberstamp the things they like (think O'Care) and overturn things they don't agree with (think Kelo v. New London).
If Democrats want to continue thinking of SCOTUS as a rubberstamp, that's their right. It's also foolish. The Roberts Court is getting the reputation of paying more attention to the Constitution and its amendments than to precedents. That's as it should be.
Relying on precedents will get people in trouble. Trusting in the Constitution never will. That's the Democrats' biggest downfall.
Tags: SCOTUS , Constitution , Obamacare , Liberalism , Precedents , President Obama , Roberts Court , Ninth Amendment , Tenth Amendment , Kelo v. New London
Posted Sunday, April 1, 2012 6:00 PM
No comments.
The Roberts Court & TEA Party radicals
Stunned by last week's questioning during the Supreme Court's oral arguments on O'Care, E.J. Dionne lashed out in his latest column :
Right before our eyes, American conservatism is becoming something very different from what it once was. Yet this transformation is happening by stealth because moderates are too afraid to acknowledge what all their senses tell them.
Last week's Supreme Court oral arguments on health care were the most dramatic example of how radical tea partyism has displaced mainstream conservative thinking. It's not just that the law's individual mandate was, until very recently, a conservative idea. Even conservative legal analysts were insisting it was impossible to imagine the court declaring the health care mandate unconstitutional, given its past decisions.
It's apparent that E.J. hasn't thought about the possibility that "past decisions" might've been wrong. It's equally apparent that E.J. relies on precedents more than the Constitution's plain text.
When did trusting in the Constitution become proof of radicalism? If that's radical, then people like Madison, Jefferson and other Founding Fathers were the first radicals.
Charles Fried, solicitor general for Ronald Reagan, told The Washington Post's Ezra Klein that it was absurd for conservatives to pretend that the mandate created a market in health care. "The whole thing is just a canard that's been invented by the tea party,' Fried said, "and I was astonished to hear it coming out of the mouths of the people on that bench."
Fried should be ashamed of himself. Fried should rely on the Constitution more and less on poorly decided precedents. The Constitution's text is exceptionally straightforward.
While it's true he was Reagan's SG, it should be pointed out that Reagan also nominated Sandra Day O'Connor. That's proof that Reagan's record isn't without blemish.
This is proof that Dionne's panicking:
If supposed moderates refuse to call out the new conservatism for the radical creed it has become, their timidity will make them complicit in an intellectual coup they could have prevented.
The U.S. is a center-right nation intellectually. It isn't always center-right in practice. What's certainly true, though, is that the pendulum is swinging back to correct the Obama administration's excesses, which are legion.
Whether we're talking O'Care, the NLRB telling Boeing it couldn't build a plant in South Carolina or the EPA essentially shutting down the coalmining and oil drilling industries, this administration is the definition of radicalism.
This is just the nation's way of correcting itself.
Tags: SCOTUS , Constitution , TEA Party , Conservatism , GOP , Obamacare , Media Bias , Democrats
Posted Monday, April 2, 2012 1:21 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 02-Apr-12 05:19 PM
Gary:
I hate to ask what law school that doesn't exist anymore did Charles F. go to? The argument has always been can the government force you to go out and buy something if you don't want. The state might under the grounds of the tenth amendment (the defense Romney uses for Romneycare), but the federal government can't.
If Charles doesn't understand that let alone the liberals I know why we have the problem.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 02-Apr-12 08:05 PM
Walter, no level of government can force you to buy a product as a condition of existence. States can force people to buy car insurance as a condition of driving but that's the extent of it.
I've made this point before but there's a part of the Tenth Amendment that Mitt omits. I'll paraphrase it here: The things that aren't the federal government's responsibilities are given "to the several states and to the people." The point is that the Tenth Amendment gives states more latitude than it gives to the federal gov't but the Founding Fathers gave the greatest latitude to We The People.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 03-Apr-12 06:26 AM
Shifting the system, sooner or later, to single payer will be the answer. Everyone has base coverage paid for out of general funds, as a public good; and the 1% can buy extended coverage that, for example, would pay the exorbitant costs of heart transplants for nasty 71 year-olds, or nice ones.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 03-Apr-12 09:24 AM
Except once you have a single payer, they can slash your coverage to below survival to save money, or mandate that lavish procedures be provided for next to no cost, or both. Do you really want a monopoly of any kind in control of something so important as your ability to keep living?
Comment 4 by walter hanson at 03-Apr-12 06:00 PM
Eric:
Um why will we want the inferior Candian or British system? Waiting lines, no treatment, etc. One reason why the United States spends more money on health care is simply because our system allows the money to be spent on health care and faster better treatments.
Gary:
I did have the word "Might" in my argument. The point I was trying to make (which Eric doesn't want to acknowledge) the federal government doesn't have the right to tell me how to get my healthcare let alone be able to restrict how I get it. Obamacare and single payer both fail because of that.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Lanning plan unraveling?
Before its first committee hearing, it's possible that Rep. Lanning's Vikings stadium plan might be unraveling :
The new plan offers more tax relief to the charities than Dayton had offered. Charities pay taxes on they raise money through gambling operations, and groups have complained for years the burden is too heavy.
According to Revenue Commissioner Myron Frans, allowing electronic forms of pulltab and bingo, which are now played on paper as fund-raisers for charities, would generate a total of $125 million per year.
Seventy-two million dollars of that total would flow to the state as tax revenue, but Dayton offered to give $10 million of that to the charities as tax relief. The bottom line was that the state would get $62.5 million for stadium bonds and the charities would get $62.5 million in tax relief and revenue.
The new proposal splits the $72 million equally, $36 million for the state and $36 million for the charities.
That's a problem for the state because it's estimated to need $38 million per year in the early years to pay down the stadium bonds. So if tipboards are in fact illegal and can't be a tax revenue source for the state, another source would have to be found, officials said.
The House Commerce and Regulatory Reform Committee might table the amendment because it's a) a hastily-prepared amendment with a high level of revenue uncertainty and volatility and b) there's no fiscal note for it. Passing an amendment of this import without that type of information and without ample hearing time is reckless legislating.
That's the procedural consideration. That's before factoring in whether the bill a) generates the revenue that's needed or b) shortchanges the charities because one revenue streams isn't legal. Both considerations need full hearings. Based on this document, I'd argue that the tipboard is illegal:
tipboard ruling
The responsible thing would be to gather information tonight, then table the bill until after the Passover/Easter recess.
Tags: Minnesota Vikings , Mark Dayton , Charities , Gambling , King Wilson , Tax Relief , Bonding , NFL , Morrie Lanning
Posted Monday, April 2, 2012 4:59 PM
Comment 1 by Rex Newman at 02-Apr-12 06:00 PM
I don't understand where this new revenue is coming from. If we can hold Charitable Gaming harmless while coming up with tens of millions to Ziggy, that means more people must gamble or their "handles" increase.
But I see nothing to suggest that there is unmet gambling demand and anything connected with such a stadium bill might even see a backlash. Besides, you can get better odds (and have more fun) at the Indian Casinos or across any border.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 02-Apr-12 08:06 PM
Rex, I totally agree.
Comment 2 by Chad Q at 02-Apr-12 07:42 PM
The reasonable thing to do would be to tell the Queens and the legislators on both sides to go pound sand! We're broke you morons! Building a stadium that will not pay for itself does nothing to help out our broke situation. The Queens, Nowins, Timber puppy's, and Mild bring nothing to this state except embarrassment. The so called money they bring in is just a transfer from other forms of entertainment that is no longer spent in outstate MN. Get rid of them all.
Comment 3 by eric z. at 03-Apr-12 06:20 AM
I support "single payer" football.
Zygi.
Comment 4 by J. Ewing at 03-Apr-12 09:20 AM
eric gets one right!
No, really. If this stadium were a profitable enterprise, investors including Zygi would be all over it looking to invest. That they aren't says that this thing only pays for itself if the taxpayers pony up the lion's share of the money and get NOTHING in return on that investment. Pretty Bernie Madoff but without the criminal charges. There should be.
Comment 5 by Bob J. at 03-Apr-12 03:02 PM
Never know, folks. If the Supreme Court doesn't show a little backbone, maybe they can use the Commerce Clause to make us gamble.
Obamacare, judicial activism and SCOTUS
This afternoon, President Obama said that overturning Obamacare would be judicial activism. That's insulting. Judicial activism is when judges ignores the Constitution and inserts their policy preferences into a ruling. Judicial activism is when creates rights that aren't spelled out in the Constitution.
The left is trying their best to cheapen the phrase by claiming that rulings they disagree with is fraught with judicial activism. That's BS. Screaming judicial activism is the left's latest tactic when judges don't rule the way they want.
If these justices rule that O'Care is unconstitutional, they'll point to specific parts of the Constitution that O'Care tramples. That isn't judicial activism. It's the opposite of judicial activism.
President Obama's scolding this afternoon was political theatre. It didn't have anything to do with judicial activism. This was political theatre meant to exite President Obama's base. It's a preview of the tactics that President Obama's campaign and the Agenda Media will utilize if O'Care is ruled unconstitutional.
President Obama says that overturning O'Care will be unprecedented overreach. That's projection on his part. Nothing like O'Care has ever been attempted. No other legislation, at any level of government, has required American citizens to buy a commercial product as a condition of breathing.
Here's a little information about the second of the Militia Acts of 1792 :
The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company overseen by the state. Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack. Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.
The mandate required militias to be prepared for war. As commander-in-chief, presidents had to ensure the Country would be protected.
That's why the mandate in O'Care is totally different in context than the mandate in the Militia Acts of 1792. The mandate in O'Care is social policy. The mandate in the Militia Acts of 1792 was military and national security policy.
If this administration wanted some credibility about restraint, they shouldn't have let their NLRB, an agency filled with unelected bureaucrats, tell Boeing that they couldn't build a manufacturing plant in South Carolina. If this administration wanted some credibility about restraint, they shouldn't attempt to implement Cap and Trade through the EPA, another agency filled with unelected bureaucrats.
President Obama's record on restraint is the opposite of stellar. President Obama's understanding of the Constitution is the opposite of thorough.
Tags: President Obama , Obamacare , Constitution , Judicial Activism , NLRB , Boeing , Cap and Trade , EPA , Agenda Media , Media Bias , Spin , Democrats
Posted Tuesday, April 3, 2012 4:28 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 03-Apr-12 06:17 AM
"This afternoon, President Obama said that overturning Obamacare would be judicial activism. That's insulting. Judicial activism is when judges ignores the Constitution and inserts their policy preferences into a ruling."
Gore v. Bush.
Citizens United.
Get real.
Comment 2 by Patrick at 03-Apr-12 08:41 AM
Eric Z
Please provide detailed factual analysis (not based on your opinions) of why you think the Gore v. Bush and Citizens United cases is judicial activism.
Thank you for your time.
Comment 3 by Bob J. at 03-Apr-12 09:53 AM
Both decisions where the left didn't get its way despite holding its breath until it turned even more blue.
1) Gore v. Bush - the Equal Protection Clause applies even when the left doesn't want it to.
2) Citizens United - free speech is for everyone.
The left will have to try harder.
Comment 4 by walter hanson at 03-Apr-12 05:54 PM
Eric:
Um you are aware that the first amendment clearly reads Congress should make no law ... thus when the Supreme Court rules as they did in Citizens United they were restoring the first amendment which liberal democrats were trying to take away. That's not judicial activism.
As for Gore Vs Bush the process of the President being elected is described in the constitution. The first decision was 9-0 telling the Florida State Supreme that they shouldn't interfere with how the State of Florida determined their electoral votes will be determined. It was an activist set of judges encouraged by Gore and the Democrats who tried to steal the election with judicial activism.
Gary:
The easiest way to have made this post was, "Obama endorses Prop 8! Obama endorses Prop 8!" If his argument is suddenly the democracy matters the majority of California residents who were much more informed on the issue than the members of Congress who didn't read the health care bill shouldn't have their decision overturned.
Or since Arizona, South Carolina, and Texas legislatures have passed laws in a democrat fashion like Obamacare was passed then Obama shouldn't be trying to oppose their immigration laws or voter id laws.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 5 by eric z. at 04-Apr-12 09:12 AM
Comments are a healthy way to agree to disagree.
Personally, I find Roe v. Wade and Griswold to be fine examples of judicial insight; and the Warren Court, to have been a better set of jurists than any since.
Any disagreement?
