46.0°F Fair [Forecast]
:: Saturday, November 21st, 2009RappCity
A News Junkie with strong political viewsPlease visit these local CapeCodToday sponsors:
Cape Cod Homes & Land
Your online and print source for Cape-wide homes for sale and year-round rentals. Browse and search our listings online or order our free magazine. Distributed throughout the Cape. (Barnstable)
Your online and print source for Cape-wide homes for sale and year-round rentals. Browse and search our listings online or order our free magazine. Distributed throughout the Cape. (Barnstable)
ERA Cape Real Estate
ERA Cape Real Estate LLC. is a locally owned and operated real estate company with 4 offices, East Falmouth, South Yarmouth, West Dennis and Harwichport, and more then 60 Agents across Cape Cod providing premier services for buyers and sellers in our uni (Dennis)
ERA Cape Real Estate LLC. is a locally owned and operated real estate company with 4 offices, East Falmouth, South Yarmouth, West Dennis and Harwichport, and more then 60 Agents across Cape Cod providing premier services for buyers and sellers in our uni (Dennis)
"NINE" (The Supreme Court Musical)
10/11/05 · 4:30 pm :: posted by JC RappCity
"The Supreme Court needs to be five to four in favor of God, not in favor of Norman Lear, NOW, NARAL and other Anti-God, Anti Marriage things, or this nation will get God real mad!" Pat Robertson ...
"To Be or Not to Be - That is the Question."
Now for a subject everyone has been stunned by, confused about, amused with and even scared of: Harriet Miers, "Supreme Court Judge."
Personally, I didn't think it possible, but in the middle of the muck and mire of a sinking administration, President Bush has created one more insane controversy.
Everyone is wondering why Bush chose Miers as an appointee to the highest court in the land (Yes, even his own supporters).
The Far Right thinks she is a Liberal.
The Liberals think she's is a Right Winger.
The rest of us "Simple Folk," just want to know what qualifies her(other than never needing an appointment with the President).
Does Harriet Miers belong on the Supreme Court?
The highest court in our land?
Where NINE of the finest legal minds in our country are supposed to make unbiased, intellectual legal decisions out of a trough of Constitutional fodder?
And this appointment would put this Miers there for life!
"The Supremes Greatest Hits"
Now, while it is true that this country has had a fair share of Supreme Court Justices who were never Judges, most of them were, at least, "Scholars" of Constitutional law in one form or another.
Although they may never previously sat on a judicial bench, these eminent figures in history at least earned the respect and admiration of the country and the President due to their first hand and vast knowledge of Constitutional Law.
Most either brought historical cases before the Court, taught about it, wrote highly praised articles, papers and books on the subject, or even clerked for a sitting Justice.
As for Ms. Miers (No doubt a very educated person with some legal expertise), she has not shown anything in her resume' that is even remotely related to Constitutional Law.
But, yes, she is a lawyer.
She was even the head of the Texas Bar Association, and the Texas Lottery Commission.
Hell, I don't doubt she could have even run FEMA better than Michael Brown ...but that's not the issue here.
She also worked as George Bush's personal counsel (Say what?).
I repeat: She was President Bush's "Personal Attorney."
That HAS to mean something. Doesn't it?
No, not necessarily, unless HE is the one appointing you!
Let's Get Real
Even if Miers had already been a judge (which she wasn't), there is still a huge difference between sitting on the United States Supreme Court and other judicial benches.
At the very least, a nominee for the Supreme Court should have much knowledge of not only the Constitution itself, but of how and when past decisions were made, and by what interpretations.
Someone recently said there ought to be a Judge School. I agree. But at the moment there is not.
Harriet Miers: "Lifer"
What is most scary about Bush nominating Miers for the bench is that she and others are not elected.
They can't be tossed out, even if we don't like what they do.
That's why we need to know, before we hand out a LIFETIME job, that we've got a person who is the cream, floating on the top of the glass called the justice system.
We don't need to know how these people will vote (It would help hahaha) ... but we do need to know that they can THINK.
These NINE judges will decide cases crucial to all of us.
This Court will have to make difficult decisions on life altering cases that come before them.
They will choose whether to uphold or overturn lower court decisions.
They will be interpreting the legalities of whether to uphold, or throw out cases, based on whether the original decisions were Constitutional or Unconstitutional ... According to their opinions.
This is not a Judge Judy Court.
These are not divorces, corporate squabbles and custody battles.
Ms. Miers may be a very intelligent woman, and a very capable lawyer, but none of her work or background has brought her even close to Constitutional matters.
What happens every year, starting on the First Monday in October, will affect us all, often for the rest of our lives. These judges will remain on the Court not just for their lives, but possibly for ours too!
Impropriety Takes a Holiday
The only way a Supreme Court Justice usually leave the court, is if he or she is ill or they chooses to resign.
Back in the 1960's, a Justice Clark resigned, when his son, Ramsey Clark became Attorney General of the United States
The senior Clark stepped down to prevent even the, "Appearance of impropriety." ...or any perceived, "conflict of interest."
Clark Sr. knew how it might look if his own son argued cases before the very Court upon which he sat. So he made an ethical and moral decision to step down.
Boy, those were the days!
In these difficult times (When issues like Presidential Elections or whether to administer "Life Support" to dying patients), are wrongly being brought before the court, we need Justices who are clear thinking individuals who know what to judge ...and what to pass on.
Trusting that Miers will achieve impartiality and independence from the man who has not only been her employer, supporter and personal friend for many years, but the man who nominated her for this position is a stretch to me.
How can she possibly separate herself from Bush's ideologies after being in his "Posse" for so long? And how can she possibly weigh decisions that Bush likes or dislikes, without at least a "hint" of some conflict of interest surrounding her?
We have every right to worry that she is so much of an "insider" (wink wink), that she already believes in all his stances ...and plans to vote accordingly as soon as she takes the bench!
And, as icing to top off this layer cake, having been employed as Bush's personal lawyer, she could insist (down the road), on not revealing anything he told her when she was his personal attorney ... citing "Attorney client privilege."
Gee, you think Bush thought of that? Nahhhh, probably Karl Rove or Dick Cheney.
This "Bush" nominated Supreme Court will be making crucial decisions about abortion, what constitutes marriage (two touchy subjects already), and other very important issues. We need Justices that not only invoke the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, but all the arguments and debates surrounding our Constitution and also the amendments attached to it as well.
Harriet Miers is simply not qualified.
Being the buddy of the Governor of Texas, who then becomes President, may make her an "insider" ...but it does not make her a great legal mind!
Double Edged Swords?
When Judge Roberts was being questioned, the Republicans argued loudly that Democrats should NOT be asking him how he would vote on Roe VS Wade and other "touchy," subjects. That is was not ethical or necessary to know in advance.
They said Roberts was to get to the court with an open mind (Sure...wink wink).
But, how quickly the tide changed when Republicans (especially the Far Right) started clamoring for Ms. Miers to tell them how she stands on Roe VS Wade before getting their support. Is that a wee bit hypocritical, or is there another explanation out there?
This woman, surrounded by the Bush inner circle, cannot tell people often enough how she is an Evangelical Christian, not once, but TWICE over, as if that should be enough of a "hint" (wink wink) that they are getting her vote on all the Right Wing Religious issues. But that still is not clear enough to the Conservative, "Radical Fringe" of the Republican party. These "Fringers" are still concerned that once upon a time, back in the eighties (before she knew Dubya), Miers was not only a Democrat, but actually sent Al Gore $1,000 for his Senate campaign.
Wow, talk about Elephant's never forgetting! Shades of: "Are you now ...Or have you ever been?"
"Stay Little Valentine, Stay"
Despite the fact that Ms. Miers was once a Democrat, who voted for and contributed to Al Gore for Senator, she also left the Catholic Church to became a Born Again (and, "Again") Evangelical Christian. Now Bush tells us, that she will "Never change."
*If anyone out there wants to take a laugh break along with me right here ... feel free. It's still a constitutional right (so far)
So, I can rest assured that Harriet Miers "Changing" days are over!
She is now a rock. An island. She is solid and immovable!
I suppose now, even if the right guy came along, she still would not marry, since that could, reasonably, signify "change."
It makes me feel very secure (cough cough), knowing that if Harriet Miers sits on the Nations Highest Court, no matter what happens, she will never change her religion, her political views, her friendships, her loyalties or even her mind again (I would, however, encourage at least a change of underwear every now and then).
Bush, Bush, Bush... (He knows not what he does ... Or if he does ...that's even scarier).
With House Majority Leader, Tom Delay (Who claims people have been, "After him," since his first indictment in 1992), Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist (Who just happened to sell some family stock...right before it tanked), plus Bush's personal GURU ("Da Puppetmeister"), Karl Rove, all fighting off indictments as we speak, President Bush must have his hands full.
With everyone around him so busy, The President might even have written (and proofed) some of his own speeches and decisions recently.
Good Lord.... That would explain a lot (wink wink).
Pssst.... Would someone please tell the Emperor that his clothes are ready, and that ANYONE (including himself) who is finished, "Changing" ...is usually legally DEAD. ###JC
68 comments
Blog posts and comments are entirely the thoughts and ideas of the people who write them and in no way represent the views of CapeCodToday.com, eCape, Inc., or its employees or owners.
10/11/05 @ 5:03 pm
Peter Porcupine [Visitor] writes:
I wrote about this in a serious way (wink, wink,) a week ago - glad that Kos has finally provided you with your Saturday Night Live material! (wink, wink)
Anonymous [Visitor] writes:
Would Harriet Miers have even been accepted as a Supreme Court clerk had she applied to be one?
JC RappCity [Member] writes:
Peter:
I am very glad you also found this subject important.
Who is Kos?
As for SNL, I find all satirical political shows fun. Laughter is a good thing.
But if I ever feel the need to quote a comic I give credit where it is due (Check my blogs and see).
I happen to have my own sense of humor, and I think people enjoy it.
Nice to hear from you.
I am very glad you also found this subject important.
Who is Kos?
As for SNL, I find all satirical political shows fun. Laughter is a good thing.
But if I ever feel the need to quote a comic I give credit where it is due (Check my blogs and see).
I happen to have my own sense of humor, and I think people enjoy it.
Nice to hear from you.
JC RappCity [Member] writes:
Anonymous:
Good to see you "out and about."
Miers might have gotten a clerkship, had she applied. Who knows.
Good to see you "out and about."
Miers might have gotten a clerkship, had she applied. Who knows.
Prosapio [Visitor] writes:
I hear the lottery commission is coming up with a scratch off game in honor of Harriet. If you get three Bushes in a row you get a lifetime appointment!
It's like watching a train wreck [Visitor] writes:
I can't believe it's happening, but I can't tear myself away.
I heard about a couple of Harriet's documents retrieved during 43's governorship on Imus this AM:
concerning 43: "I think he's really cool." (No,I'm not joking.)
concerning 43 & Mrs. 43: "They're really great." (I'm telling you, no joke.)
Hopefully Imus has it on his site.It was verbatim.
THIS is supposed to be "The most qualified person" for the job?
Bush also said she was given the distiction of the "top 50 women lawyers in the US." Well, it's actually one of the "top 50 most influential women lawyers in America." Difference being that she garnered that distinction by simply BEING his personal lawyer. (Thanks to Think Progress for that one.)
Anyway, she's all around scary. I can see her calling Bush up at every hearing; "Hey. It's me. How should I vote?"
I heard about a couple of Harriet's documents retrieved during 43's governorship on Imus this AM:
concerning 43: "I think he's really cool." (No,I'm not joking.)
concerning 43 & Mrs. 43: "They're really great." (I'm telling you, no joke.)
Hopefully Imus has it on his site.It was verbatim.
THIS is supposed to be "The most qualified person" for the job?
Bush also said she was given the distiction of the "top 50 women lawyers in the US." Well, it's actually one of the "top 50 most influential women lawyers in America." Difference being that she garnered that distinction by simply BEING his personal lawyer. (Thanks to Think Progress for that one.)
Anyway, she's all around scary. I can see her calling Bush up at every hearing; "Hey. It's me. How should I vote?"
docphyl [Visitor] writes:
I heard tell that Johnson convinced Tom Clark to resign in order tat he could appoint Thurgood Marshall to be the first African American justice, not simply because Ramsey Clark was going to be nominated. Tom Clark did resign to avoid impropriety, but Johnson defintely nudged him.
Jas [Visitor] writes:
Can you imagine the mental capabilities of any person whou could call Bush ".. one of the most brilliant minds..."
Todd [Visitor] writes:
How did this blog page make its merry way to the top of news.google.com?
Hoping [Visitor] writes:
I'd like to believe that she will change once again when facing the decisions coming before the SC and will realize she is no longer under any ones control and can vote via constitutional interpretation. The smartest minds aren't always the clearest.
LCV [Visitor] writes:
What % of the decision originated from his desire to reward the loyal and faithful he personally knew. Particularly in that he may be able to see that the wisdom of others near him is in doubt, e.g., about Iraq, about the deficit, about FEMA, etc.
Anonymous [Visitor] writes:
Yes that would really be ashame if this country had a few more people in high places that had half way human ideas. JC who wrote this is why this country is having the proplems that it has had.capetown
the smart lady. [Visitor] writes:
I really enjoyed this blog. I too, have written about this subject stop by and let me know what you think.
http://mywordsforever.blogspot.com/
http://mywordsforever.blogspot.com/
Anonymous [Visitor] writes:
Sorry, Hoping,
But I just don't see it. I am sorry that I have to bring
(Please forgive me)
religion to this debate.....
Of the ten or so Born Again's I have known in my life, not one has embraced human suffering with TRUE compassion; not one has said anything like "Live and let live", nor said, to quote the Beatles, "Whatever gets you through the night.."
Do you know what we are all called? Those that have NOT embraced Jesus Christ as our Personal Savior?
We are the WORDLY people. THEY, and it's a term I take from Born Agains, not a deliniation from me by any means, are "The Chosen Ones." Only those that think like they do, that believe as they do, are going to Heaven. We are, all of us,the Wordly Ones. No Heaven for us.
The woman from whom I bought my home left many a reminder for me, including a bumper sticker which read,
OH GREAT! Now I can't find it!
Oh Well, I will continue looking for the EXACT READING, but it *basically* said, 'We are not always right. But we are Chosen.' (No quotes. Not til I find that bumper sticker.)
That's scary. It speaks to a sect-like mentality.
A female Born Again (according to one of the female BA's I know)basically has intimate relations with her husband in the missionary position because it is a manifestation of her relationship with Jesus, occuring through the human male.
NO! I am NOT making this up! I'm really afraid of the backlash, and I may just delete this as send it before I'm done...but there it is. It creeps me out, but that is a first hand account of my (Sandwich resident) BA. She's on a "walk with God."
This woman (Ms. Miers) has that same mentality, as she is BA. She has the same condemnation in her heart. Anyone other than those who accept JC as their Personal Savior is doomed to Hell. What do you think her position on abortion is?
Hmmmmm......
We CANNOT accept her appointment!
Not only is she not qualified, she doesn't even represent the average American.
In Bush's pocket?
To invoke Nancy Reagan,
"JUST SAY NO!"
But I just don't see it. I am sorry that I have to bring
(Please forgive me)
religion to this debate.....
Of the ten or so Born Again's I have known in my life, not one has embraced human suffering with TRUE compassion; not one has said anything like "Live and let live", nor said, to quote the Beatles, "Whatever gets you through the night.."
Do you know what we are all called? Those that have NOT embraced Jesus Christ as our Personal Savior?
We are the WORDLY people. THEY, and it's a term I take from Born Agains, not a deliniation from me by any means, are "The Chosen Ones." Only those that think like they do, that believe as they do, are going to Heaven. We are, all of us,the Wordly Ones. No Heaven for us.
The woman from whom I bought my home left many a reminder for me, including a bumper sticker which read,
OH GREAT! Now I can't find it!
Oh Well, I will continue looking for the EXACT READING, but it *basically* said, 'We are not always right. But we are Chosen.' (No quotes. Not til I find that bumper sticker.)
That's scary. It speaks to a sect-like mentality.
A female Born Again (according to one of the female BA's I know)basically has intimate relations with her husband in the missionary position because it is a manifestation of her relationship with Jesus, occuring through the human male.
NO! I am NOT making this up! I'm really afraid of the backlash, and I may just delete this as send it before I'm done...but there it is. It creeps me out, but that is a first hand account of my (Sandwich resident) BA. She's on a "walk with God."
This woman (Ms. Miers) has that same mentality, as she is BA. She has the same condemnation in her heart. Anyone other than those who accept JC as their Personal Savior is doomed to Hell. What do you think her position on abortion is?
Hmmmmm......
We CANNOT accept her appointment!
Not only is she not qualified, she doesn't even represent the average American.
In Bush's pocket?
To invoke Nancy Reagan,
"JUST SAY NO!"
joey [Visitor] writes:
It's nice to know people like "Anonymous" can spell big words like pretentious. I wonder if his, or Harriets science education is as good. I wonder if, being an "Evangelical Christian," she believes in "Intelligent Design," and that Adam and Eve could have had a pet Triceratops.
Abhi [Visitor] writes:
I wonder if this country can/will do something about the "Bush plot" or it's just the frustration being taken out at such blogs. Are you so helpless?
Anonymous [Visitor] writes:
No, Joey.
It's worse. They are Penticostal.
(read BORN AGAIN.)
(Do they have two belly buttons? I've always wanted to ask that!)
It's worse. They are Penticostal.
(read BORN AGAIN.)
(Do they have two belly buttons? I've always wanted to ask that!)
Dear Abhi [Visitor] writes:
What do you mean "Bush plot?"
We are all to a certain degree helpless to this idiot, but I'm not sure what you are saying. Please clarify.
Any chance to help you discredit this dope should be accepted with glee - at least by me!
We are all to a certain degree helpless to this idiot, but I'm not sure what you are saying. Please clarify.
Any chance to help you discredit this dope should be accepted with glee - at least by me!
Anon of 9:43 [Visitor] writes:
Anonymous writes:
You are a pretentious butthole.
Anonymous writes:
Yes that would really be ashame if this country had a few more people in high places that had half way human ideas. JC who wrote this is why this country is having the proplems that it has had.capetown
10/11/05 @ 9:35 pm the smart lady. writes:
I really enjoyed this blog. I too, have written about this subject stop by and let me know what you think.
http://mywordsforever.blogspot.com/
SEE WHAT I MEAN?
IT'S STARTED ALREADY!!
You are a pretentious butthole.
Anonymous writes:
Yes that would really be ashame if this country had a few more people in high places that had half way human ideas. JC who wrote this is why this country is having the proplems that it has had.capetown
10/11/05 @ 9:35 pm the smart lady. writes:
I really enjoyed this blog. I too, have written about this subject stop by and let me know what you think.
http://mywordsforever.blogspot.com/
SEE WHAT I MEAN?
IT'S STARTED ALREADY!!
Fisheye994 [Visitor] writes:
If this woman makes it to the SC, my guess is America will go back to the Christian heritage of colonial days. Remember those good ole days when missing going to church on Sunday for the third time was punishable by DEATH!! I'm not making this up. Look up colonial Sunday Laws and be glad there is separation of Church and State!
Anon 9:43 [Visitor] writes:
Dear Fisheye 994,
Ok. creepy as your nom de plume is, you are TOTALLY correct!
Also, you say something BRILLIANT in your last statement.
"...be glad there is separation of Church and State!"
Guess what? Dubya wants to erase that!
Dubya, as with all Pentacostals... aka
BORN AGAIN CHRISTIANS
believe JC is their Personal Savior. EVERYONE else who do not profess the same are WORDLY people. We are all damned to Hell, because we have not embraced JC as our personal Savior.
That makes them "superior"
(THEIR TERMS!) to the rest of us.
Can't you see his domestic and foreign policy flash before your eyes?!!?
He's right, and anyone who defies him is going to Hell!
He's gotten away with it so far. Let's not let it go yet another DAY!
Unite, all!
NOT ANOTHER DAY!
Ok. creepy as your nom de plume is, you are TOTALLY correct!
Also, you say something BRILLIANT in your last statement.
"...be glad there is separation of Church and State!"
Guess what? Dubya wants to erase that!
Dubya, as with all Pentacostals... aka
BORN AGAIN CHRISTIANS
believe JC is their Personal Savior. EVERYONE else who do not profess the same are WORDLY people. We are all damned to Hell, because we have not embraced JC as our personal Savior.
That makes them "superior"
(THEIR TERMS!) to the rest of us.
Can't you see his domestic and foreign policy flash before your eyes?!!?
He's right, and anyone who defies him is going to Hell!
He's gotten away with it so far. Let's not let it go yet another DAY!
Unite, all!
NOT ANOTHER DAY!
JC RappCity [Member] writes:
Prosapio:
Good one. Thanks.
It's Like Watching a Train Wreck:
Your keen awareness of Ms. Miers and her quotes is refreshing in a world of misquotes and misinformation.
Becoming one of the TOP 50 lawyers BECAUSE she was picked by Bush is hilarious on one hand...scary on the other.
Thanks for writing. Come on back.
docphyl:
I imagine there will always be "Affirmative Action" rumors..when a Black person reaches such high stature.
Justice Marshall was, however, extremely qualified for the position, whether White or Black. He was certainly "next in turn" so to speak anyway. Marshall had succesfully argued before the court a few times, and was a walking source of Constitutional Law.
Johnson "nudging" out Clark sounds good to those who want to believe it was necessary, but Supreme Court Justices don't just "step aside" as favors to the President. The job is too good. Thanks for writing.
Jas:
Miers did show her true brainpower to me as well when she called Bush one of the most "brilliant" people she has ever met.
To ALL Anonyomous People who use name calling instead of intelligent comment: Read a book sometime and grow up.
Good one. Thanks.
It's Like Watching a Train Wreck:
Your keen awareness of Ms. Miers and her quotes is refreshing in a world of misquotes and misinformation.
Becoming one of the TOP 50 lawyers BECAUSE she was picked by Bush is hilarious on one hand...scary on the other.
Thanks for writing. Come on back.
docphyl:
I imagine there will always be "Affirmative Action" rumors..when a Black person reaches such high stature.
Justice Marshall was, however, extremely qualified for the position, whether White or Black. He was certainly "next in turn" so to speak anyway. Marshall had succesfully argued before the court a few times, and was a walking source of Constitutional Law.
Johnson "nudging" out Clark sounds good to those who want to believe it was necessary, but Supreme Court Justices don't just "step aside" as favors to the President. The job is too good. Thanks for writing.
Jas:
Miers did show her true brainpower to me as well when she called Bush one of the most "brilliant" people she has ever met.
To ALL Anonyomous People who use name calling instead of intelligent comment: Read a book sometime and grow up.
JC RappCity [Member] writes:
TODD:
Thanks for letting me know about Google.
I guess people are talking about Miers a lot, and we just fell in there somewhere.
Thanks for the plug.
HOPING:
You hit the nail on the head!
Miers has yet to even be confirmed, but one of the blocks that might hold her back is the nebulous nature of her positions.
Bush seems sure she will vote his agenda (which scares Dems) and the Dems feel sure she will vote along the "very" conservative lines of the Church she belongs to, which is totally Pro Life. And yet the Far Right wants her opinions before she even sees the cases!
If, as you "Hope" (and I join you) she breaks with the people in control, we might see some Independent thought from this woman in the shadows.
Let's just hope (again IF she makes it all the way to the court) that she also has clarity of thought, and can vote LAW independent of her religious views.
LCV:
Good point.
I am sure he is trying to keep his base solid as he faces an unsure future.
Perhaps Bush feels that he can leave a legacy (other than a political mess), by changing the Supreme Court to as many Conservatives as he can before he leaves office.
What concerns me still however, is why he chose Miers, when there is no shortage of experienced Conservative minds out there ...with a lot more experience.
That is where this could be seen as handing out favors to loyalists to me and many others.
Thanks for letting me know about Google.
I guess people are talking about Miers a lot, and we just fell in there somewhere.
Thanks for the plug.
HOPING:
You hit the nail on the head!
Miers has yet to even be confirmed, but one of the blocks that might hold her back is the nebulous nature of her positions.
Bush seems sure she will vote his agenda (which scares Dems) and the Dems feel sure she will vote along the "very" conservative lines of the Church she belongs to, which is totally Pro Life. And yet the Far Right wants her opinions before she even sees the cases!
If, as you "Hope" (and I join you) she breaks with the people in control, we might see some Independent thought from this woman in the shadows.
Let's just hope (again IF she makes it all the way to the court) that she also has clarity of thought, and can vote LAW independent of her religious views.
LCV:
Good point.
I am sure he is trying to keep his base solid as he faces an unsure future.
Perhaps Bush feels that he can leave a legacy (other than a political mess), by changing the Supreme Court to as many Conservatives as he can before he leaves office.
What concerns me still however, is why he chose Miers, when there is no shortage of experienced Conservative minds out there ...with a lot more experience.
That is where this could be seen as handing out favors to loyalists to me and many others.
JC RappCity [Member] writes:
To all the Hateful Anonymous's:
Attacking me, especially with ridiculous accusations and hateful, uneducated words and thoughts, only fuels my determination to try and work towards improving education in our schools.
SmartLady:
Thanks for writing. I shall check out your link soon.
To the NICE Anonymous: (Note: People...please use names..even if you make them up. TY)
Look, I wouldn't care if Ms. Miers were an Athiest, a Jew, A Buddhist, a Christian or a Witch Doctor, I still believe she is not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States.
No matter how it gets presented, Bush chose a "friend" with the same religious views as himself, to decide legal matters on the highest court in the Nation.
Even that would not be so bad, if she had ONE shred of ability or experience.
Some have even called her a "Tabula Rosa."
That would be the other extreme ...a blank slate ...and that worries me too.
We need someone on that court that can be non partisan, non beholding and interpret law with an open mind.
Attacking me, especially with ridiculous accusations and hateful, uneducated words and thoughts, only fuels my determination to try and work towards improving education in our schools.
SmartLady:
Thanks for writing. I shall check out your link soon.
To the NICE Anonymous: (Note: People...please use names..even if you make them up. TY)
Look, I wouldn't care if Ms. Miers were an Athiest, a Jew, A Buddhist, a Christian or a Witch Doctor, I still believe she is not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States.
No matter how it gets presented, Bush chose a "friend" with the same religious views as himself, to decide legal matters on the highest court in the Nation.
Even that would not be so bad, if she had ONE shred of ability or experience.
Some have even called her a "Tabula Rosa."
That would be the other extreme ...a blank slate ...and that worries me too.
We need someone on that court that can be non partisan, non beholding and interpret law with an open mind.
razfrat [Visitor] writes:
I honestly believe the religious right envisions shackling us with a pseudo-theocrocy. This really is no laughing matter.
JC RappCity [Member] writes:
Joey:
Thanks for a good laugh. :)
Yes, it would be nice to know that some of our Highest Legal minds believed the world was older than 5,000 years old (5766 to be exact).
Fisheye:
Deciding current law based on the history of the Bible...instead of the Constitution scares me.
Only a few of those Commandments are illegal.
The rest are "optional" in todays legal system.
I certainly would not want the Suprme Court telling me that I am going to jail for "coveting" or "cussing."
And let's not even get into the SEVENTY SIX (count em) Abominations!
Abhi:
I know of no Bush "Plots," but I do worry that Bush and his POSSE have an "agenda" to try and numb the nation with religious fervor...while they drain all the oil from our backyards and the money from our wallets.
Anon:
Let's keep America FREE. I agree.
Thanks for a good laugh. :)
Yes, it would be nice to know that some of our Highest Legal minds believed the world was older than 5,000 years old (5766 to be exact).
Fisheye:
Deciding current law based on the history of the Bible...instead of the Constitution scares me.
Only a few of those Commandments are illegal.
The rest are "optional" in todays legal system.
I certainly would not want the Suprme Court telling me that I am going to jail for "coveting" or "cussing."
And let's not even get into the SEVENTY SIX (count em) Abominations!
Abhi:
I know of no Bush "Plots," but I do worry that Bush and his POSSE have an "agenda" to try and numb the nation with religious fervor...while they drain all the oil from our backyards and the money from our wallets.
Anon:
Let's keep America FREE. I agree.
ducq [Visitor] writes:
It is amusing though, that much of the backlash is coming from conservatives. But in the final analysis, unqualified means unqualified, no matter how you slice it. Would you hire a master electrician to do your plumbing?
And btw, I am also "born again". It took me years to get over the ingrained "superior" attitude. Actually, I don't know if I'm entirely over it yet.
And btw, I am also "born again". It took me years to get over the ingrained "superior" attitude. Actually, I don't know if I'm entirely over it yet.
ducq [Visitor] writes:
One more thing. To say "You'll see why I chose her" is great for parties and surprises. This, however, is a public position. Traditionally they are earned. In politics, surprises are rarely beneficial, and secrets never are.
Anonymous [Visitor] writes:
I saw (when visiting church down south) a portrait of Mr. Bush on the church ceiling; and he had no bellybutton....wonder what that means?
By the way JC; I do love your writing and just like pulling your chain along with all the rest of you!
By the way JC; I do love your writing and just like pulling your chain along with all the rest of you!
JC RappCity [Member] writes:
My God:
I too have imgained Dubya in Nero garb....fiddling, fiddling, fiddling...
Razfrat:
I agree. This is not funny at all.
We all need to talk more, share opinions, and make sure people who are NOT aware of what is going on (Moving towards Theocracy), get the chance to see other opinions....and make educated decisions in future elections (if we still have them...arghhhh).
We need to remind people how important a VOTE is.
Too many people toss out opinions and complaints ...without every doing a thing about it, in the VOTING booth, where it counts!
It is not funny that people still don't realize that when they vote for a President, they are also voting for a Cabinet and (often) a Supreme Court as well. They are voting an AGENDA that reaches far beyond Pennsylvania Ave.
And in this case, the agenda reaches far beyond POLITICAL territory... into the Religious values of those in charge.
Madison Avenue is very good at stepping in and making politcal figures into people we would "Love to go bowling or fishing with, " when all the time they are just disguising Professional Politcos in, "Everyman" clothing.
From our local selectmen and mayors in our home towns..to the state legislatures, the Congress of the US, and all they way to the White House, WE, the People do make a difference.
Any time we can open a forum of discussion on this, I think it's good.
I too have imgained Dubya in Nero garb....fiddling, fiddling, fiddling...
Razfrat:
I agree. This is not funny at all.
We all need to talk more, share opinions, and make sure people who are NOT aware of what is going on (Moving towards Theocracy), get the chance to see other opinions....and make educated decisions in future elections (if we still have them...arghhhh).
We need to remind people how important a VOTE is.
Too many people toss out opinions and complaints ...without every doing a thing about it, in the VOTING booth, where it counts!
It is not funny that people still don't realize that when they vote for a President, they are also voting for a Cabinet and (often) a Supreme Court as well. They are voting an AGENDA that reaches far beyond Pennsylvania Ave.
And in this case, the agenda reaches far beyond POLITICAL territory... into the Religious values of those in charge.
Madison Avenue is very good at stepping in and making politcal figures into people we would "Love to go bowling or fishing with, " when all the time they are just disguising Professional Politcos in, "Everyman" clothing.
From our local selectmen and mayors in our home towns..to the state legislatures, the Congress of the US, and all they way to the White House, WE, the People do make a difference.
Any time we can open a forum of discussion on this, I think it's good.
JC RappCity [Member] writes:
Ducq:
You are so right that, "Unqualified means unqualified, no matter how you slice it!"
I also agree that positions of extreme authrotity need to be "earned"...the old fashioned way. :>
Hey, "Some of my best friends," are Born Again people. And I like them too!
And most of them are good, kind hearted, nice people who would give you the shirt off their back.
They also respect people who think differently than they do (but then again...we are in Massachusetts...LOL).
And most of them are WAY less judgemental than these, "Professionally and Politically" Born Again types trying to create a "Corporate Theocracy" (Imagine how that might work...).
If you think the Pledge of Allegiance may be in trouble now... Wait until we have to pledge allegiance to God and the CEO of America!
Nope....We have to stop that train! In its tracks!
Thanks for writing. :)
Anonymous:
I'm ot sure what to say about the painting you saw at the Church, but thanks for the compliment. Y'all come back now...
You are so right that, "Unqualified means unqualified, no matter how you slice it!"
I also agree that positions of extreme authrotity need to be "earned"...the old fashioned way. :>
Hey, "Some of my best friends," are Born Again people. And I like them too!
And most of them are good, kind hearted, nice people who would give you the shirt off their back.
They also respect people who think differently than they do (but then again...we are in Massachusetts...LOL).
And most of them are WAY less judgemental than these, "Professionally and Politically" Born Again types trying to create a "Corporate Theocracy" (Imagine how that might work...).
If you think the Pledge of Allegiance may be in trouble now... Wait until we have to pledge allegiance to God and the CEO of America!
Nope....We have to stop that train! In its tracks!
Thanks for writing. :)
Anonymous:
I'm ot sure what to say about the painting you saw at the Church, but thanks for the compliment. Y'all come back now...
train wreck [Visitor] writes:
Hey JC,
Thank you for your nice comment.
As far as the Pledge goes,
"under God" was only added during the 50's. My thought is, take it back out and call it a day! But it's not that easy these days, is it? I feel that same religious "Big Brother" I think you and Ducq alluded to. The pendulum is swinging too far back, as far as I'm concerned. (Like 1600's back! Liberals swinging from the gallows...!)
Maybe that was a bit much. But you get what I mean.
Thank you for your nice comment.
As far as the Pledge goes,
"under God" was only added during the 50's. My thought is, take it back out and call it a day! But it's not that easy these days, is it? I feel that same religious "Big Brother" I think you and Ducq alluded to. The pendulum is swinging too far back, as far as I'm concerned. (Like 1600's back! Liberals swinging from the gallows...!)
Maybe that was a bit much. But you get what I mean.
Train wreck [Visitor] writes:
This was just posted on Think Progress. org. The "four horsemen" reference has me a little freaked out right now, given what has been discussed on this blog. Here you go:
The Right, Religion and The Supreme Court: What a Difference a Month Makes
USA Today notes that since the White House hasn’t been able to convince its allies to support its Supreme Court nominee, it has had “to add a dimension to its portrait of Miers,” namely, her religion.
White House ally and chief counsel to the American Center for Law and Justice, Jay Sekulow (described as one of the “four horseman” who helped Bush select Miers), has been publicly holding up Miers’s faith as a reason she should be confirmed:
[The Miers nomination is] a big opportunity for those of us who have a conviction, that share an evangelical faith in Christianity, to see someone with our positions put on the court. — Jay Sekulow, 10/11/05
In so doing, Sekulow completely contradicted what he said exactly one month earlier about the Roberts nomination:
To make John Roberts’ faith an issue at the coming Senate confirmation hearings would not only be wrong, but a big mistake. — Jay Sekulow, 9/11/05
That's the post.What do you all think?
The Right, Religion and The Supreme Court: What a Difference a Month Makes
USA Today notes that since the White House hasn’t been able to convince its allies to support its Supreme Court nominee, it has had “to add a dimension to its portrait of Miers,” namely, her religion.
White House ally and chief counsel to the American Center for Law and Justice, Jay Sekulow (described as one of the “four horseman” who helped Bush select Miers), has been publicly holding up Miers’s faith as a reason she should be confirmed:
[The Miers nomination is] a big opportunity for those of us who have a conviction, that share an evangelical faith in Christianity, to see someone with our positions put on the court. — Jay Sekulow, 10/11/05
In so doing, Sekulow completely contradicted what he said exactly one month earlier about the Roberts nomination:
To make John Roberts’ faith an issue at the coming Senate confirmation hearings would not only be wrong, but a big mistake. — Jay Sekulow, 9/11/05
That's the post.What do you all think?
JCRapp (RappCity) [Visitor] writes:
Train Wreck:
You are quite correct about the "Under God" being added to the pledge in the 1950's. I have all four versions of it here. An interesting progress. To say the least. :)
I would venture a guess that most people fighting tokeep it, don't even know it was not in the original text.
As for Miers being even "more" qualified due to her religion, anyone not scared about that, should be!
Next time it could be a Nominee who reflects ANOTHER religious view ...not the one in fashion now. Then what?
Jay Sekulow is one of the many hypocrites I talk about here.
Jesus himself had much to say about hypocrites.
Funny how the "Religious Right" people in the midst of political hypocracy always avoid the very words of Jesus on that subject.
You are quite correct about the "Under God" being added to the pledge in the 1950's. I have all four versions of it here. An interesting progress. To say the least. :)
I would venture a guess that most people fighting tokeep it, don't even know it was not in the original text.
As for Miers being even "more" qualified due to her religion, anyone not scared about that, should be!
Next time it could be a Nominee who reflects ANOTHER religious view ...not the one in fashion now. Then what?
Jay Sekulow is one of the many hypocrites I talk about here.
Jesus himself had much to say about hypocrites.
Funny how the "Religious Right" people in the midst of political hypocracy always avoid the very words of Jesus on that subject.
a sunk skunk [Visitor] writes:
alright JC I give in! I am no longer a member of that WAS Republican party. But, may I add that it WAS once a GRAND OLD PARTY till folks like the W used it to do a get even and steal the country blind with his stupidity. I don't think that he has any idea what he has done to his children's children....maybe he just doesn't care! May God forgive him.
JCRapp (RappCity) [Visitor] writes:
Sunk Skunk:
Yes, it was once a Grand Old Party.
Now it seems more like the "Good 'Ol Boys" Party...(GOBP).
Let's hope we can extricate ourselves from Bush's mess and move on to brighter days.
As pessimistic as we could allow ourselves to be, we need optimism that we can get this country back on track. Right? :)
Thanks for writing.
Yes, it was once a Grand Old Party.
Now it seems more like the "Good 'Ol Boys" Party...(GOBP).
Let's hope we can extricate ourselves from Bush's mess and move on to brighter days.
As pessimistic as we could allow ourselves to be, we need optimism that we can get this country back on track. Right? :)
Thanks for writing.
Peter Porcupine [Visitor] writes:
JC - Think about this before you react.
Isn't it an optimistic sign that conservatives are the ones blasting Bush's choice? That Glenn Reynolds and George Will and Thomas Sowell are calling for a higher intellectual standard for the court?
Philosophical conservatives are appalled by her lack of scholarship (and no, not the schools she went to, but her lack of published articles and comments). From those who routinely slam us as BushBots or brainwashed scum, where is the apology?
And would the Dems do the same? Or just hold their nose?
Isn't it an optimistic sign that conservatives are the ones blasting Bush's choice? That Glenn Reynolds and George Will and Thomas Sowell are calling for a higher intellectual standard for the court?
Philosophical conservatives are appalled by her lack of scholarship (and no, not the schools she went to, but her lack of published articles and comments). From those who routinely slam us as BushBots or brainwashed scum, where is the apology?
And would the Dems do the same? Or just hold their nose?
The old professor [Visitor] writes:
I flinched when I realized that Justice Clark resigned in favor of Ramsey Clark. The wrong clark resigned. As for ole RappCity's suggestions, I suspect they're valid. I can't remember a time when a president for whom I voted has "slud" so badly - and I didn't vote for the guy whose intern has a stained dress. He really did slide and if they ever can nail down all his foibles, well Judas may finally have a rival.
A Different One [Visitor] writes:
I am reading the comments here on religious people, and they are hateful. If they were written about Jewish people instead of Christians, there would be cries of 'anti-Semitism'! and 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion'!
I a proud to be a Lay Minister, and I have one belly button and one Lord.
Hate is hate, whatever you choose to scorn, and I think some of you need to look into a mirror before you whisper the next slanderous tidbit you come across. Anyone who is truly born again knows better than to be superior, and pride is a sin. But to be unashamed? To be an advocate? That is demanded, not negotiable.
When did it become a shameful thing in the eyes of some people in this country to be a religious person? And why?
I a proud to be a Lay Minister, and I have one belly button and one Lord.
Hate is hate, whatever you choose to scorn, and I think some of you need to look into a mirror before you whisper the next slanderous tidbit you come across. Anyone who is truly born again knows better than to be superior, and pride is a sin. But to be unashamed? To be an advocate? That is demanded, not negotiable.
When did it become a shameful thing in the eyes of some people in this country to be a religious person? And why?
A World Concerned [Visitor] writes:
Would it be only that people who had faith did not have to become "born again", but believd and had faith in their first birth.
Rough Rider [Visitor] writes:
Ridiculous rantings- faith is a good thing- faith in God, faith in one's beliefs- whatever they are, faith in one's country. The issue is picking a quailified person for the court- being a judge means little, but knowledge of the Constitution and Constitutional law is crucial. Religion should not be part of the equation. I was a proud Republican before becoming a Progressive Party candidate, and we did not discuss religion with candidates for the court. What on earth is happening to us as a people. When appointing a Supreme Court Justice, one should look to the most qualified candidates willing to take the job- not someone who happens to be an nearby! Dems- I'm not thrilled with you or the Grand Ole Party- it is time to bring back the Progressive Party (1912 version) if Bush is going to imitate Taft!
The Watcher [Visitor] writes:
Bush is and Taft was a conservative. Perhaps the Rough Rider has forgotten his Socialist roots- at least by today's standards.
Drew [Visitor] writes:
"What happens every year, starting on the First Monday in October, will affect us all, often for the rest of our lives."
This statement is very accurate. However, one stark truth was left out of it. It should have read: "...will affect us all, often at the expense of our liberty to govern ourselves."
There is a simple cure for this, and I wonder why it is that so many fear it. Some have proposed we remedy this by a constitutional amendment. This amendment would allow a majority vote of both Houses of Congress to overrule federal or state court decisions.
Shouldn't we have the ability to decide what is best, rather than allowing nine glorified attorneys to do this for us without any checks or balances?
This statement is very accurate. However, one stark truth was left out of it. It should have read: "...will affect us all, often at the expense of our liberty to govern ourselves."
There is a simple cure for this, and I wonder why it is that so many fear it. Some have proposed we remedy this by a constitutional amendment. This amendment would allow a majority vote of both Houses of Congress to overrule federal or state court decisions.
Shouldn't we have the ability to decide what is best, rather than allowing nine glorified attorneys to do this for us without any checks or balances?
JC RappCity [Member] writes:
Peter:
I say the Liberals are just beig quiet on Miers because they don't need to do or say anything more. Let the Conservatives tear her down for them.
As for your still strong support of Bush: >>>"From those who routinely slam us as BushBots or brainwashed scum, where is the apology?< <<
I wouldn't think of apologizing over anything I have said about Bush.
I think he ought to be IMPEACHED!
Most of his hand-picked buddies are being indicted as we speak, and that is only the tip of the iceberg!
I can't wait until Rumsfeld gets HIS subpeona.
This is the WORST and most inept Administration in the history of the United States, and the sooner it is gone, the better off we all will be.
And THAT is non partisan.
Show me a GOOD Republican and I would consider voting for them as well as a Democrat.
I say the Liberals are just beig quiet on Miers because they don't need to do or say anything more. Let the Conservatives tear her down for them.
As for your still strong support of Bush: >>>"From those who routinely slam us as BushBots or brainwashed scum, where is the apology?< <<
I wouldn't think of apologizing over anything I have said about Bush.
I think he ought to be IMPEACHED!
Most of his hand-picked buddies are being indicted as we speak, and that is only the tip of the iceberg!
I can't wait until Rumsfeld gets HIS subpeona.
This is the WORST and most inept Administration in the history of the United States, and the sooner it is gone, the better off we all will be.
And THAT is non partisan.
Show me a GOOD Republican and I would consider voting for them as well as a Democrat.
JC RappCity [Member] writes:
The Old Professor:
TY. Clear thinking may get us through the days ahead. Come on back.
A Different One:
I have not seen any real "Christian bashing" either in my blog or in the words of others in these comments.
I have seen, however, some frustrated people who are very upset (and I can relate) that one religious group wants to speak for all of us.
And yes, that group are the "Radical Right Fringe Group" of Christianty. Not your basic mainstream Christians.
You are seeing reaction to politics trying to use religion to force their views and morals on others.
Although a little "HEATED" at times, it is called freedom of Speech.
But, I HAVE also seen a lot of GOOD discussion here about very obvious attempts by the current administration trying to override the Constitutional protection of a distinct "Seperation of Church and State."
If anything, Mr. Bush has brought much criticism on himself by his failure to accept the views or "applications" for jobs from anyone outside his inner circle of his own religious beliefs.
If Senator Lieberman had gotten into the White House, and only appointed Jews to his cabinet and the Supreme Court, you would hear screaming MUCH louder than you are hearing now. Even from Secularists!
I cannot even imagine the outcry if a Buddhist got the Oval Office.
No matter the religion: Intolerance and "Religious Theocracy" has no place in Washington DC.
You say, "Anyone who is truly born again knows better than to be superior, and pride is a sin."
Tell that to your President, not me.
TY. Clear thinking may get us through the days ahead. Come on back.
A Different One:
I have not seen any real "Christian bashing" either in my blog or in the words of others in these comments.
I have seen, however, some frustrated people who are very upset (and I can relate) that one religious group wants to speak for all of us.
And yes, that group are the "Radical Right Fringe Group" of Christianty. Not your basic mainstream Christians.
You are seeing reaction to politics trying to use religion to force their views and morals on others.
Although a little "HEATED" at times, it is called freedom of Speech.
But, I HAVE also seen a lot of GOOD discussion here about very obvious attempts by the current administration trying to override the Constitutional protection of a distinct "Seperation of Church and State."
If anything, Mr. Bush has brought much criticism on himself by his failure to accept the views or "applications" for jobs from anyone outside his inner circle of his own religious beliefs.
If Senator Lieberman had gotten into the White House, and only appointed Jews to his cabinet and the Supreme Court, you would hear screaming MUCH louder than you are hearing now. Even from Secularists!
I cannot even imagine the outcry if a Buddhist got the Oval Office.
No matter the religion: Intolerance and "Religious Theocracy" has no place in Washington DC.
You say, "Anyone who is truly born again knows better than to be superior, and pride is a sin."
Tell that to your President, not me.
JC RappCity [Member] writes:
Drew:
You suggest that, " ...Some have proposed we remedy this by a constitutional amendment. This amendment would allow a majority vote of both Houses of Congress to overrule federal or state court decisions."
Drew, our system already has that written into the Constitution. That is what makes it such a great document!
The "Checks and Balances" we hear about all the time, concern the three branches of Government.
They are based on being able to change things in one part of government if one part sees injustice being done in another.
Many "Laws" have gone back to Congress (it works the same way in most states as well), for new legislation to be voted on and passed ..thereby creating new laws that, in some cases override High Court decisions.
I think however, they need a QUORUM or a 2/3 vote to do this though ...rather than a simple majority
Then this new law must be signed by the President to take effect.
But the two branches CAN and HAVE overturned the High Court.
The only problem is, when it goes too far, and Congress wants to take every issue to the peope ...for Majority votes on Constitutional amendments.
We can't just go around changing the constitution everytime we disagree about something..
And we can't let ourselves decide extremely sensitive issues by majority vote (If we did, we would still have segregation).
By the same token, if legislation is proved to be unconstitutional, the Supreme Court may overrule the Congress and the President and toss out a law.
This is why it is SO important that a Judge sitting on the Supreme Court be knowledgeable in how tri-dimensional Democracy works.
We have good system. And it works well. IF we play by the rules and don't stack the decks EITHER way!
Miers hasn't got a clue ...as seen in her recent answers to Congressional questions.
She has also shown us this week that her mind is already made up on the abortion issue (her 1989 vote).
We need educated, clear thinking and OPEN MINDED people on the most important court in our country. Even if they ARE religious.
Religion should certainly NOT be an obstacle for anyone wanting to do public service.
We just need to know they will consider the views of other faiths as well as their own when making important decisions for all of us.
That is a true Democracy.
You suggest that, " ...Some have proposed we remedy this by a constitutional amendment. This amendment would allow a majority vote of both Houses of Congress to overrule federal or state court decisions."
Drew, our system already has that written into the Constitution. That is what makes it such a great document!
The "Checks and Balances" we hear about all the time, concern the three branches of Government.
They are based on being able to change things in one part of government if one part sees injustice being done in another.
Many "Laws" have gone back to Congress (it works the same way in most states as well), for new legislation to be voted on and passed ..thereby creating new laws that, in some cases override High Court decisions.
I think however, they need a QUORUM or a 2/3 vote to do this though ...rather than a simple majority
Then this new law must be signed by the President to take effect.
But the two branches CAN and HAVE overturned the High Court.
The only problem is, when it goes too far, and Congress wants to take every issue to the peope ...for Majority votes on Constitutional amendments.
We can't just go around changing the constitution everytime we disagree about something..
And we can't let ourselves decide extremely sensitive issues by majority vote (If we did, we would still have segregation).
By the same token, if legislation is proved to be unconstitutional, the Supreme Court may overrule the Congress and the President and toss out a law.
This is why it is SO important that a Judge sitting on the Supreme Court be knowledgeable in how tri-dimensional Democracy works.
We have good system. And it works well. IF we play by the rules and don't stack the decks EITHER way!
Miers hasn't got a clue ...as seen in her recent answers to Congressional questions.
She has also shown us this week that her mind is already made up on the abortion issue (her 1989 vote).
We need educated, clear thinking and OPEN MINDED people on the most important court in our country. Even if they ARE religious.
Religion should certainly NOT be an obstacle for anyone wanting to do public service.
We just need to know they will consider the views of other faiths as well as their own when making important decisions for all of us.
That is a true Democracy.
A Different One [Visitor] writes:
Here are some remarks from your comments.
"I wonder if, being an 'Evangelical Christian,' she believes in 'Intelligent Design,' and that Adam and Eve could have had a pet Triceratops."
"It's worse. They are Penticostal [SPELLED WRONG]. (read BORN AGAIN.) (Do they have two belly buttons? I've always wanted to ask that!) "
"Remember those good ole days when missing going to church on Sunday for the third time was punishable by DEATH!!"
"Dubya wants to erase that! Dubya, as with all Pentacostals [SPELLED WRONG AGAIN]... aka BORN AGAIN CHRISTIANS
believe JC is their Personal Savior. EVERYONE else who do not profess the same are WORDLY people. We are all damned to Hell, because we have not embraced JC as our personal Savior.
That makes them 'superior'."
I do not know why you do not see these remarks as bashing. As I said, if they wre written about Jews, making fun of little hats, or about black people, making fun of watermelon - you would be up in arms (and rightly so).
You are the hypocrite - about Pentecostals and other people of faith. Just because you do not agree with a persons ideas is no reason to permit rudeness which comes close to blasphemy, like your crack about a painting on a church ceiling.
"I wonder if, being an 'Evangelical Christian,' she believes in 'Intelligent Design,' and that Adam and Eve could have had a pet Triceratops."
"It's worse. They are Penticostal [SPELLED WRONG]. (read BORN AGAIN.) (Do they have two belly buttons? I've always wanted to ask that!) "
"Remember those good ole days when missing going to church on Sunday for the third time was punishable by DEATH!!"
"Dubya wants to erase that! Dubya, as with all Pentacostals [SPELLED WRONG AGAIN]... aka BORN AGAIN CHRISTIANS
believe JC is their Personal Savior. EVERYONE else who do not profess the same are WORDLY people. We are all damned to Hell, because we have not embraced JC as our personal Savior.
That makes them 'superior'."
I do not know why you do not see these remarks as bashing. As I said, if they wre written about Jews, making fun of little hats, or about black people, making fun of watermelon - you would be up in arms (and rightly so).
You are the hypocrite - about Pentecostals and other people of faith. Just because you do not agree with a persons ideas is no reason to permit rudeness which comes close to blasphemy, like your crack about a painting on a church ceiling.
Drew [Visitor] writes:
"Religion should certainly NOT be an obstacle for anyone wanting to do public service."
Is that your opinion JC, or someone else's?
Is that your opinion JC, or someone else's?
Howie Farr [Visitor] writes:
A different one....excuse me, you mean to say that talking or even harshly joking about a painting on a church ceiling to be rude or blasphemy...HOW REDICULOUS you are. Also believing that most folks are worldly while you are not (as in being above it all) is also held as a supposed in Alcoholic Anonymous Circles.
Drew [Member] writes:
I can assure you, I am not the only one who has this question.
Drew [Member] writes:
Howie,
Is it ridiculous for someone to defend someone else's religion?
Is it ridiculous for someone to defend someone else's religion?
Drew [Member] writes:
"The "Checks and Balances" we hear about all the time, concern the three branches of Government."
Actually our founders were more concerned with our Executive and Legislative branches in creating their "checks and balances" JC. I don't think they could have predicted (without collapsing into hysterics) that our State Courts and Supreme Court would be "legislating" and twisting law to suit present day ethical and moral questions.
Actually our founders were more concerned with our Executive and Legislative branches in creating their "checks and balances" JC. I don't think they could have predicted (without collapsing into hysterics) that our State Courts and Supreme Court would be "legislating" and twisting law to suit present day ethical and moral questions.
JC RappCity [Member] writes:
First of all let's make sure that everyone knows that I am JC too. JCRappCity. Not to be confused with those who wish to call Jesus "JC."
OK Good.
Now ...Peter says ...about my wanting Bush Impeached:
>>>"Well, yes, of course you do. Tricky that you have no grounds and all..."
Peter, I don't need tricks. Bush is making soldiers disappear and trying to make the Constitution disappear too...(with smoke and mirrors), not me.
Peter also asked, "...if you would apologize for your characterization of Bush's supporters as mindless robots who can only follow orders, since it appears that it is they who are determindly breaking ranks over this issue, demonstrating intellectual capacity you claim they do not have."
I offer no apology, and do not recall calling any of BUSH's supporters mindless robots.
As a matter of fact, Bush's supporters are leaving him in droves. The latest polls show Bush with only a 39% approval rating. The LOWEST rate of any president in over 80 years!
So, dumb they are not. MOST are smart enough to jump ship before the sink.
If you stay aboard...please keep a life preserver handy.
I will, however, clarify thatI think too many people were fooled and abused by Bush and his "Handlers." They tried to pushing so many agenda's through him it's no wonder he looks more and more like Swiss cheese each day.
Manipulating voters by getting radical religious leaders to mix religion and politics ...so seamlessly that they look like one thing...is the real TRICKERY here.
But, yet, I do find Bush, himself, a little short on brainpower.
I don't think he can speak without a writer, make a decision without Cheney or Rove or even change his underwear without Laura!
OK Good.
Now ...Peter says ...about my wanting Bush Impeached:
>>>"Well, yes, of course you do. Tricky that you have no grounds and all..."
Peter, I don't need tricks. Bush is making soldiers disappear and trying to make the Constitution disappear too...(with smoke and mirrors), not me.
Peter also asked, "...if you would apologize for your characterization of Bush's supporters as mindless robots who can only follow orders, since it appears that it is they who are determindly breaking ranks over this issue, demonstrating intellectual capacity you claim they do not have."
I offer no apology, and do not recall calling any of BUSH's supporters mindless robots.
As a matter of fact, Bush's supporters are leaving him in droves. The latest polls show Bush with only a 39% approval rating. The LOWEST rate of any president in over 80 years!
So, dumb they are not. MOST are smart enough to jump ship before the sink.
If you stay aboard...please keep a life preserver handy.
I will, however, clarify thatI think too many people were fooled and abused by Bush and his "Handlers." They tried to pushing so many agenda's through him it's no wonder he looks more and more like Swiss cheese each day.
Manipulating voters by getting radical religious leaders to mix religion and politics ...so seamlessly that they look like one thing...is the real TRICKERY here.
But, yet, I do find Bush, himself, a little short on brainpower.
I don't think he can speak without a writer, make a decision without Cheney or Rove or even change his underwear without Laura!
JC RappCity [Member] writes:
A Different One:
You say:
>>>"You are the hypocrite - about Pentecostals and other people of faith. Just because you do not agree with a persons ideas is no reason to permit rudeness which comes close to blasphemy, like your crack about a painting on a church ceiling."<
First of all I an not the one who even mentioned Evangelicals and Triceratops.
I also never mentioned Pentacostalists, Belly buttons, or Adam and Eve in relation to any of the above.
These were comments made by others on this Blog.
However, if you find them offensive, feel free to address whomever you like on the matter.
I still will say, however, that aIthough agree that singling our particular religions might be offensive to some, I also think the reason for it is that the particular religion mentioned is the same as the President and most of his cabinet.
And I think a lot of people are very scared that one of the basic duties of Evangelicals is to try and convert others to THEIR beliefs.
But in this particluar case....not by Religion....but by National Law.
As for rudeness, I don't like rudeness myself. But this is a public BLOG, and people are free (to a degree) to say what they feel. It is the very nature of the Blog to have it that way.
For instance, you had the right in this space to get facts wrong and call em a hypocrite.
I would suggest you talk to our editor. Perhaps you should write a Blog too. That way you would have a forum to say what you want to say about the things that you see as unfair and in need of change.
Come back soon...
You say:
>>>"You are the hypocrite - about Pentecostals and other people of faith. Just because you do not agree with a persons ideas is no reason to permit rudeness which comes close to blasphemy, like your crack about a painting on a church ceiling."<
First of all I an not the one who even mentioned Evangelicals and Triceratops.
I also never mentioned Pentacostalists, Belly buttons, or Adam and Eve in relation to any of the above.
These were comments made by others on this Blog.
However, if you find them offensive, feel free to address whomever you like on the matter.
I still will say, however, that aIthough agree that singling our particular religions might be offensive to some, I also think the reason for it is that the particular religion mentioned is the same as the President and most of his cabinet.
And I think a lot of people are very scared that one of the basic duties of Evangelicals is to try and convert others to THEIR beliefs.
But in this particluar case....not by Religion....but by National Law.
As for rudeness, I don't like rudeness myself. But this is a public BLOG, and people are free (to a degree) to say what they feel. It is the very nature of the Blog to have it that way.
For instance, you had the right in this space to get facts wrong and call em a hypocrite.
I would suggest you talk to our editor. Perhaps you should write a Blog too. That way you would have a forum to say what you want to say about the things that you see as unfair and in need of change.
Come back soon...
JC RappCity [Member] writes:
Drew:
You quote me first: "Religion should certainly NOT be an obstacle for anyone wanting to do public service."
And then you ask:
"Is that your opinion JC, or someone else's? "
Of course it is mine. Why else would I say it?
I will add that then "pushing" your own religious views on others ... once in power ... is another story.
Sometimes you worry me Drew....
You quote me first: "Religion should certainly NOT be an obstacle for anyone wanting to do public service."
And then you ask:
"Is that your opinion JC, or someone else's? "
Of course it is mine. Why else would I say it?
I will add that then "pushing" your own religious views on others ... once in power ... is another story.
Sometimes you worry me Drew....
A Different One [Visitor] writes:
JC - You said -
"A Different One: I have not seen any real "Christian bashing" either in my blog or in the words of others in these comments." Instead you said it was just "good discussion". I never said your blog post was offensive, only the commnents, which you choose to endorse by sniggering with them.
So, I put together a number of offensive comments to show you, and you respond - "These were comments made by others on this Blog. However, if you find them offensive, feel free to address whomever you like on the matter."
Well, I choose to address you. You cannot say it's a good discussion and then say I have nothing to do with comments. You choose to endorse these quotes, so I hold you accountable for them.
Thank you for letting me "get facts wrong and call em a hypocrite." But I am calling you one too.
"A Different One: I have not seen any real "Christian bashing" either in my blog or in the words of others in these comments." Instead you said it was just "good discussion". I never said your blog post was offensive, only the commnents, which you choose to endorse by sniggering with them.
So, I put together a number of offensive comments to show you, and you respond - "These were comments made by others on this Blog. However, if you find them offensive, feel free to address whomever you like on the matter."
Well, I choose to address you. You cannot say it's a good discussion and then say I have nothing to do with comments. You choose to endorse these quotes, so I hold you accountable for them.
Thank you for letting me "get facts wrong and call em a hypocrite." But I am calling you one too.
Drew [Visitor] writes:
JC,
What worries me is so many people making light of other people's religions. When did this become acceptable? I have said it here before, and I will say it again. Ridiculing people's religion is just a lockstep away from persecution. My parents brought me up differently.
What worries me is so many people making light of other people's religions. When did this become acceptable? I have said it here before, and I will say it again. Ridiculing people's religion is just a lockstep away from persecution. My parents brought me up differently.
JC RappCity [Member] writes:
Drew:
I totally agree.
Ridiculing another persons religion is not a nice thing to do.
I totally agree.
Ridiculing another persons religion is not a nice thing to do.
JC RappCity [Member] writes:
A Different One:
Let me first say that your letter before this last one was not very clear about your complaints.
The way it was written, seemed that you were quoting me with words said by others.
Try and explain yourself a little clearer next time.
But you do blame me for the "discussion" going on here and that is ridiculous!
Even more ridiculous is your saying that I, "choose to endorse" offensive comments by "sniggering" with those that write them.
First of all, I have no idea what "sniggering" is (I never heard it on Cape Cod), but I'm sure I am not interested in doing it with with anyone here.
Secondly, I do allow people to post comments in response to my BLOGS.
Occasionally I agree with some comments, and very often I disagree.
The same goes for the writers of the comments.
That is what the comment space is for.
Sometimes the commentors themselves get into their own conversations. That's OK too.
That's where I say it is GOOD when people with differing opinions feel free to discuss things.
But nowhere have I ever gotten behind religious bashing or encouraged anyone else to put down anyone's religion.
That is absurd.
You have misread my words, or not read them thoroughly. Try a good re-read...first of the original blog,then my comments. You will find my thoughts mostly political, with a few pesonal "sentiments" on the abuses of the Rich and Powerful in our society.
I am also someone who strongly believes in the separation of Church/Synagogue/Mosque and state.
Let me add this for you calling me names:
Name calling is offensive too.
If this Blog and comment space displeases you, feel free to leave anytime.
It's STILL a free country. The last I looked anyway.
Thanks for stopping by.
Let me first say that your letter before this last one was not very clear about your complaints.
The way it was written, seemed that you were quoting me with words said by others.
Try and explain yourself a little clearer next time.
But you do blame me for the "discussion" going on here and that is ridiculous!
Even more ridiculous is your saying that I, "choose to endorse" offensive comments by "sniggering" with those that write them.
First of all, I have no idea what "sniggering" is (I never heard it on Cape Cod), but I'm sure I am not interested in doing it with with anyone here.
Secondly, I do allow people to post comments in response to my BLOGS.
Occasionally I agree with some comments, and very often I disagree.
The same goes for the writers of the comments.
That is what the comment space is for.
Sometimes the commentors themselves get into their own conversations. That's OK too.
That's where I say it is GOOD when people with differing opinions feel free to discuss things.
But nowhere have I ever gotten behind religious bashing or encouraged anyone else to put down anyone's religion.
That is absurd.
You have misread my words, or not read them thoroughly. Try a good re-read...first of the original blog,then my comments. You will find my thoughts mostly political, with a few pesonal "sentiments" on the abuses of the Rich and Powerful in our society.
I am also someone who strongly believes in the separation of Church/Synagogue/Mosque and state.
Let me add this for you calling me names:
Name calling is offensive too.
If this Blog and comment space displeases you, feel free to leave anytime.
It's STILL a free country. The last I looked anyway.
Thanks for stopping by.
JC RappCity [Member] writes:
Drew:
Opps, missed this one. I got sidetracked.
You said: "our founders were more concerned with our Executive and Legislative branches in creating their "checks and balances" JC. I don't think they could have predicted (without collapsing into hysterics) that our State Courts and Supreme Court would be "legislating" and twisting law to suit present day ethical and moral questions."
I just wanted to let you know I disagree.
The whole point of the, Constitution "Experiment" was that the THREE branches of Government would keep in other in check.
No TWO could run off with the country (Like a President and a friendly Congress. And thank goodness for that!
Fascism would be right behind any President who had that much control.
State courts were not even discusses back them.
The Feds would simply not interfere with states rights to run themselves as they wanted back in 1776.
But, again, the LAW (whether enacted by legislation and signed by the President, or by Judges, who have upheld or overturned them) has always got to be looked at in the context of the times.
That is why our constitution is flexible enough to see the law as a "living" thing...subject to change, and offer tools to do it.
That is why our form of government has so many solutions to problems that cause revolutions in countries with no similar documents.
It is a beautiful thing. And all three parts make ONE.
Opps, missed this one. I got sidetracked.
You said: "our founders were more concerned with our Executive and Legislative branches in creating their "checks and balances" JC. I don't think they could have predicted (without collapsing into hysterics) that our State Courts and Supreme Court would be "legislating" and twisting law to suit present day ethical and moral questions."
I just wanted to let you know I disagree.
The whole point of the, Constitution "Experiment" was that the THREE branches of Government would keep in other in check.
No TWO could run off with the country (Like a President and a friendly Congress. And thank goodness for that!
Fascism would be right behind any President who had that much control.
State courts were not even discusses back them.
The Feds would simply not interfere with states rights to run themselves as they wanted back in 1776.
But, again, the LAW (whether enacted by legislation and signed by the President, or by Judges, who have upheld or overturned them) has always got to be looked at in the context of the times.
That is why our constitution is flexible enough to see the law as a "living" thing...subject to change, and offer tools to do it.
That is why our form of government has so many solutions to problems that cause revolutions in countries with no similar documents.
It is a beautiful thing. And all three parts make ONE.
Drew [Visitor] writes:
I understand very well the original intention of our checks and balances. However, my concern is related to a Supreme Court (nine glorified attorneys as I said before) being repeatedly called upon to determine what is correct or incorrect for us all.
The "context of our times" is very open to interpretation, wouldn't you say? People would not be so concerned about a candidate's religion or abortion views if this were not the case. Were both Houses of Congress given the ability to overrule State or Federal Court decisions with a majority vote, we could put democracy back into action.
Sink or swim, at least we would be making the decisions... not intellectuals who think they know what is best for us.
The "context of our times" is very open to interpretation, wouldn't you say? People would not be so concerned about a candidate's religion or abortion views if this were not the case. Were both Houses of Congress given the ability to overrule State or Federal Court decisions with a majority vote, we could put democracy back into action.
Sink or swim, at least we would be making the decisions... not intellectuals who think they know what is best for us.
Peter Porcupine [Visitor] writes:
Actualy, JC, youor description of the Founders intent is wrong. The state courts were paramount in their thinking.
It was not until the Supreme Court decided Marbury vs. Madison that the principle of a Federal court being able to void a state statute was put forth. From that decision, Federalism was born, with its hieracical interpetation of power and loss of states rights.
Chief Justice John Marshall has a lot to answer for.
It was not until the Supreme Court decided Marbury vs. Madison that the principle of a Federal court being able to void a state statute was put forth. From that decision, Federalism was born, with its hieracical interpetation of power and loss of states rights.
Chief Justice John Marshall has a lot to answer for.
JC RappCity [Member] writes:
Drew:
Harriet Miers was a "Glorified attorney," which is why she is now gone.
Normally (and hopefully) we pick Suprme Court justices that have experience, not just in everday legal matters, but in interpreting the constitution when it comes to cases that TEST it.
We need good legal minds who have dealt constitutional questions before, and are aware of how important their ultimate decisions will be.
Some of us still (actually) have such high regard for the Supreme Court we often find their decisions more fair than legislation passed by Pork Barrel politicians trying to get re-elected.
That's the reason we appoint these judges for life; So they don't need to kiss up to anyone when it comes to important decisions.
You again mention MAJORITY VOTE as being a true democracy.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
The Founding Fathers even enacted (what some say we don't need anymore) the Electoral College to PREVENT majority votes for Presidents.
I will admit that subject needs a little discussion these days, but to enact MAJORITY VOTE is not a very good way to run a Democracy.
If this country were run that way, minorities would have no rights, schools would still be segregated and other things you may not think of might even come back to bite you in the behind.
Remember, there are more WOMEN than men in this country.
The ERA might get passed with a Majority vote by women.
Abortion could very well be voted IN and, as we know, women are less scared of Gays than men are, so women might use thier majority vote to say YES to Gay Marriage.
Who knows?
For one thing, if the Majority took a vote today, BUSH would be out of a job and the troops would be on their way home from Iraq too.
It's easy to say Majority Rules in the schoolyard, but when real lives and, "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness," as guranteed in the Constitution, are on the line we need a group (NINE) of intelligent, educated, non partisan, non greedy people to look at the law and decide what fits into that definition of Freedom...according to that document.
Of course both sides of the aisle are going to try and get their own nominees on the court. As usual.
But, over the years, it ends up balancing out.
But, one hopes, that no matter the religion, the party affiliations or leanings of these people, once they take the oath of the High Court they come to realize the true significance of what it really means to sit there ...and use their votes in favor of the constitution...and not for any personal or partisan politics.
Yes, that is idealistic.
But I still hold onto a shred of belief that America can redeem herself and get back on track as the great nation it is meant to be.
And the Supreme Court is one of the GREAT institutions of that great nation.
To get rid of it ....iwould plunge us into chaos and mob rule..perhaps eventually even fascism.....and THAT is not the America we once were and could be again.
Be careful what you wish for.
Harriet Miers was a "Glorified attorney," which is why she is now gone.
Normally (and hopefully) we pick Suprme Court justices that have experience, not just in everday legal matters, but in interpreting the constitution when it comes to cases that TEST it.
We need good legal minds who have dealt constitutional questions before, and are aware of how important their ultimate decisions will be.
Some of us still (actually) have such high regard for the Supreme Court we often find their decisions more fair than legislation passed by Pork Barrel politicians trying to get re-elected.
That's the reason we appoint these judges for life; So they don't need to kiss up to anyone when it comes to important decisions.
You again mention MAJORITY VOTE as being a true democracy.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
The Founding Fathers even enacted (what some say we don't need anymore) the Electoral College to PREVENT majority votes for Presidents.
I will admit that subject needs a little discussion these days, but to enact MAJORITY VOTE is not a very good way to run a Democracy.
If this country were run that way, minorities would have no rights, schools would still be segregated and other things you may not think of might even come back to bite you in the behind.
Remember, there are more WOMEN than men in this country.
The ERA might get passed with a Majority vote by women.
Abortion could very well be voted IN and, as we know, women are less scared of Gays than men are, so women might use thier majority vote to say YES to Gay Marriage.
Who knows?
For one thing, if the Majority took a vote today, BUSH would be out of a job and the troops would be on their way home from Iraq too.
It's easy to say Majority Rules in the schoolyard, but when real lives and, "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness," as guranteed in the Constitution, are on the line we need a group (NINE) of intelligent, educated, non partisan, non greedy people to look at the law and decide what fits into that definition of Freedom...according to that document.
Of course both sides of the aisle are going to try and get their own nominees on the court. As usual.
But, over the years, it ends up balancing out.
But, one hopes, that no matter the religion, the party affiliations or leanings of these people, once they take the oath of the High Court they come to realize the true significance of what it really means to sit there ...and use their votes in favor of the constitution...and not for any personal or partisan politics.
Yes, that is idealistic.
But I still hold onto a shred of belief that America can redeem herself and get back on track as the great nation it is meant to be.
And the Supreme Court is one of the GREAT institutions of that great nation.
To get rid of it ....iwould plunge us into chaos and mob rule..perhaps eventually even fascism.....and THAT is not the America we once were and could be again.
Be careful what you wish for.
JC RappCity [Member] writes:
Peter:
I will certainly look at the Marbury/Madison decision. It sounds interesting. TY.
As for our Founding Fathers intents however, we may always disagree.
When the Colonies got together (after much debate, argument and dissention), and finally agreed on a Constitution for this new country, none of them had any idea, "How big this thing might get." At that time there were no states. Just thirteen colonies.
So, what they did was create a document that could grow with the times.
The Bill of Rights was the first important document that grew out of it.
That document does override state's rights by its very nature.
But, it is the fabric that holds our entire nation together.
By the early 19th century the Federalists you speak of began to try and unify what were then colonies ...with the addition of more territories...into a UNITED states. Not an easy task.
Circuit courts were created to handle disputes and to bring law to parts of our loosely knit country that did not even have local governments.
Without a Judicial "Center," this nation would never have been able to survive past that time and into what was a real Republic by the time of President Lincoln (I have doubts we even could today).
And then we all know what happened with Lincoln...
The southern states decided to "SECEDE" from the union because they did not like the idea of states rights being dictated by Washington (many still don't).
The matter of secession itself was always the biggest challenge.
Slavery may not have been part of the original intent of the Federal Goverments crackdown on the seceding south, but it soon was added to the list, and grew in importance, as one of the things states would have to take orders from Washington about.
And Washington said, "No more slaves!"
It certainly compounded the situation ...and eventually we had that "awful" war over it.
Guess who won?
Incidentally, one of the most overlooked items the Federal Goverment used to unite this country together were the interstate commerce laws.
They became the backbone of our nations growing economy, and to this day are most important in getting goods 3,000 miles without obstacles from each state at their borders. At one time each state could tax and obstruct any commerce passing through it.
Some Fed laws and Supreme Court decisions have been necessary.
Rosa Parks is the first woman to ever be honored by "laying in state" at the Capital Rotunda this week.
She has an honor guard.
If not for FEDERAL Intervention in her state, black people would still be riding on the back of a bus.
I will certainly look at the Marbury/Madison decision. It sounds interesting. TY.
As for our Founding Fathers intents however, we may always disagree.
When the Colonies got together (after much debate, argument and dissention), and finally agreed on a Constitution for this new country, none of them had any idea, "How big this thing might get." At that time there were no states. Just thirteen colonies.
So, what they did was create a document that could grow with the times.
The Bill of Rights was the first important document that grew out of it.
That document does override state's rights by its very nature.
But, it is the fabric that holds our entire nation together.
By the early 19th century the Federalists you speak of began to try and unify what were then colonies ...with the addition of more territories...into a UNITED states. Not an easy task.
Circuit courts were created to handle disputes and to bring law to parts of our loosely knit country that did not even have local governments.
Without a Judicial "Center," this nation would never have been able to survive past that time and into what was a real Republic by the time of President Lincoln (I have doubts we even could today).
And then we all know what happened with Lincoln...
The southern states decided to "SECEDE" from the union because they did not like the idea of states rights being dictated by Washington (many still don't).
The matter of secession itself was always the biggest challenge.
Slavery may not have been part of the original intent of the Federal Goverments crackdown on the seceding south, but it soon was added to the list, and grew in importance, as one of the things states would have to take orders from Washington about.
And Washington said, "No more slaves!"
It certainly compounded the situation ...and eventually we had that "awful" war over it.
Guess who won?
Incidentally, one of the most overlooked items the Federal Goverment used to unite this country together were the interstate commerce laws.
They became the backbone of our nations growing economy, and to this day are most important in getting goods 3,000 miles without obstacles from each state at their borders. At one time each state could tax and obstruct any commerce passing through it.
Some Fed laws and Supreme Court decisions have been necessary.
Rosa Parks is the first woman to ever be honored by "laying in state" at the Capital Rotunda this week.
She has an honor guard.
If not for FEDERAL Intervention in her state, black people would still be riding on the back of a bus.
Monponsett [Visitor] writes:
I'm shocked to find out that our shady SOB president didn't try to put his failed FEMA hack into this job. Harriet must give better brains.
Please visit these local CapeCodToday sponsors:
Wellness Group of Cape Cod
Located at McClennen Family Chiropractic and Wellness Center and providing a unique environment for complete family health and wellness. Licensed chiropractic, acupuncture and massage practitioners offer healing and continued wellness education. (Chatham)
Located at McClennen Family Chiropractic and Wellness Center and providing a unique environment for complete family health and wellness. Licensed chiropractic, acupuncture and massage practitioners offer healing and continued wellness education. (Chatham)
The Carpet Man, Inc.
Dedicated to providing the best carpet services for your home and business. To save you time and money, we will come to you! Choose from a vast array of colors, styles and manufacturers and see how they actually look in your home or business. (Sandwich)
Dedicated to providing the best carpet services for your home and business. To save you time and money, we will come to you! Choose from a vast array of colors, styles and manufacturers and see how they actually look in your home or business. (Sandwich)
IMPORTANT NOTICE FOR COMMENTORS & BLOGGERS: CapeCodToday now requires a one-time validation of your
account email. When logging in or registering for the first time, you will be emailed a link to click that will validate your
email and complete your login. The link in the email must be clicked in the same session when you are logged into the site for security purposes
(i.e. retrieve the email right away and do not close your web browser).
This is a one-time-only process (or if you change the email on your account), and will help CCToday keep out the spammers. If you cannot validate your email because it is invalid, and you are a legitimate user, feel free to contact us and we will update your account to your current email.
This is a one-time-only process (or if you change the email on your account), and will help CCToday keep out the spammers. If you cannot validate your email because it is invalid, and you are a legitimate user, feel free to contact us and we will update your account to your current email.
Please Login or Register to leave a comment. There are 3,358 registered commenters!
CapeCodToday requires readers register an account with us in order to post comments. Become a trusted commenter and receive the benefits of posting instantly throughout the site. It's quick and easy!
Please note: If you are a CapeCodToday registered blogger, you can use your blogger login. Your login for the blogs is separate from your CapeCodToday main site login (if you have one).
Previous/Next posts in this blog
About This Blog
Recent Comments
- bitters bud OB is receiving the same treatment her nemesis
7 mins ago - Why, so glad you asked!!!
He's also the progenitor of the
42 mins ago - At this point:
"And here's another thing Uncle ronnie did as
5 hrs, 1 min ago - Sure you don't want to add anything more?
5 hrs, 9 mins ago - Unlike Obama, who can't blow his nose without being harangued
5 hrs, 14 mins ago
- site sponsors -
CCT Blog List
Blogs with posts in the past 60 days are listed here in order of newest posts. For a list of all blogs, visit Blogs A to Z
- Newest Blog Posts
- Newest Comments
- EXTRA...
- Cape Cod History
- Entering Falmouth
- Long Bridge Runner
- Bill Snowden's Blog
- Police and Fire News
- Cape & Islands News
- Latimer on Law
- Entering Bourne
- Cape Yoga
- Wellfleet Bay Sanctuary
- The Ballyard
- The Poet's Perspective
- Cape Cod Rock Hopper
- Editorial
- Media Watch
- Mr. Mom I am not
- Politicalendar
- Cheap Eats
- Rep. Jeff Perry in His Own Words
- The Belly Check
- Conservative's Conscience
- Mahler's Music Notes
- Historic Harwich
- Off-the-Shelf
- Ned Sonntag
- Literary Pop
- Boston Bureau
- Frugal Internet Marketing
- Cape Native
- Sea Street
- Rog's Gallery
- State of Cape Cod
- Town Notes
- Solon Economou
- Cape Cod Barrister
- Cape Eyes
- CapeCodToday Arts Calendar
- One Day at a Time
- Cape Cod Tracker
- DIY Marketing
- Trail Hound
- Letters to the Editor
- Project I.E.P.
- Op-Ed
- Through a Washashore's Eyes
- Travel Tales
- CapeCodToday Featured Event
- Off Cape
- Bismore Park
- My day
- The Natural
- Buckley's Blog
- Eastham Windmill
- Washington Window
- Seufert's Scenes
- Massachusetts Paranormal Institute
- Cape Cod Pets
- Reflections on a Quarter-life Crisis
- Myrbie & Dax
Archives
- February 2006 (1)
- January 2006 (1)
- December 2005 (1)
- November 2005 (1)
- October 2005 (3)
- September 2005 (4)
- August 2005 (2)
- July 2005 (3)
Become a CapeCodToday Blogger!
Are you passionate about your community? Do you blog or at least harbor thoughts of doing so?
If so, CapeCodToday.com would like to host your blog on our CapeCodToday weblog publishing platform.
Blog Newsfeed
CapeCodToday uses standard web "newsfeeds" (RSS) to automatically update the latest blog entries in your browser or newsreader.
Use any of the links below in your newsreader or web browser to get "RappCity" postings delivered to you, or use the RSS icon in your browser's address bar.
