I don't think it says what you think it says.

Post #298,470 by malraux 10/27/08 11:18:12 PM Reply	I don't think it says what you think it says. Pretty clear to me. The Warren Court wasn't radical. The Civil Rights movement concentrated too much on trying to get the court to be radical. It should have concentrated on community organizing instead. I don't see what you're talking about at all. Regards, -scott <i>Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.</i>
Post #298,481 by boxley 10/28/08 9:25:30 AM Reply	lets ask a law professor from Northwestern University who came to the same conclusion as I did http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122515067227674187.html If Mr. Obama wins we could possibly see any or all of the following: a federal constitutional right to welfare; a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities, without regard to proof of discriminatory intent; a right for government-financed abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy; the abolition of capital punishment and the mass freeing of criminal defendants; ruinous shareholder suits against corporate officers and directors; and approval of huge punitive damage awards, like those imposed against tobacco companies, against many legitimate businesses such as those selling fattening food. Nothing less than the very idea of liberty and the rule of law are at stake in this election. We should not let Mr. Obama replace justice with empathy in our nation's courtrooms. if lemmy and god had a wrestling match who would win?
Post #298,487 by malraux 10/28/08 9:45:16 AM 10/28/08 9:56:30 AM Reply	lets ask a law professor from the University of Chicago http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/ 'In other words, Obama says pretty much the opposite of what the McCain camp says he said. Contrary to the spin put on his remarks by McCain economics adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin, he does not express "regret" that the Supreme Court has not been more "radical." Nor does he describe the Court's refusal to take up economic redistribution questions as a "tragedy." He uses the word "tragedy" to refer not to the Supreme Court, but to the civil rights movement: "One of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think, there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change." Holtz-Eakin "read a different interview to the one I heard," said Dennis Hutchinson, a University of Chicago law professor who joined Obama in the panel discussion. "Obama said that redistribution of wealth issues need to be decided by legislatures, not by the courts. That is what a progressive income tax is all about."' Regards, -scott <i>Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.</i> Edited by malraux Oct. 28, 2008, 09:56:30 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #298,490 by mhuber 10/28/08 9:54:46 AM Reply	He forgot to mention that we could also see blue-helmeted stormtroopers raping our cats. And the forced mass-conversion of Prespeterians to Rastafarianism. And the re-painting of the White-House to pepto-bismol pink.

Welcome to IWETHEY!