Defined by those who feel that way, of course. I mean, I’m all for killing off 75% of the population if I get to be the one to make the lists. Otherwise, let’s not get hasty.
I suspect that the reason that people who believe that "a sense of fairness and justice" should guide the interpretations are the same ones who automatically think that anyone to the right of Ginsburg has no sense of fairness or justice, and that is why they feel utterly justified in themselves slandering, demeaning and otherwise destroying the lives of nominees such as Judge Bork or Justice Thomas. It’s as if they cannot envision withholding powers from their own ideological compatriots, nor can they envision granting those same powers to their ideological opponents. I suspect that same impulse — as profoundly elitist and unamerican as it is — is at the heart of BDS and the anger leveled at Reagan and Bush pere in their time, or for that matter at Limbaugh now. Even the basic human right of free speech is, for some, conditional on what exactly you are going to say.
|
| |
Written By:
Jeff Medcalf
URL:
http://www.caerdroia.org/blog
|
Me!!!! Me, me, me, me!!! *I* get to define "fairness and justice." Trust me. Really. Trust me. I won’t do anything you don’t like.
Hillary Clinton |
| |
Written By:
JorgXMcKie
URL:
http://
|
|
To state the obvious, it’s all about controling the narrative. Got to make sure that commercials that question legislative decisions of a vet are protraited as questioning ones patriotism whereas when calling someone "unpatriotic" is not. |
| |
Written By:
bains
URL:
http://
|
"In another coincidental poll, 38% of the population can’t find its cheese and is clamoring for Congress to ban cheese that cannot be found."
|
| |
Written By:
Grimshaw
URL:
http://
|
Well, if you think Clark’s position is somehow unconstitutional, then certainly your view of strict constitutionalist is just as misguided as someone’s notion of fairness.
There is no way government limits on what kinds of things can be said on AFN can be considered a first amendment violation. And I say that as someone who is a strict constitutionist! After all, what if AFN carried a commentator, and he started belittling the troops and the war? Wouldn’t the government be right to say "that’s not appropriate for our listeners on the armed forces network?" Or would that be freedom of speech and they’d have to let it continue? |
| |
Written By:
Scott Erb
URL:
http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
|
There is no way government limits on what kinds of things can be said on AFN can be considered a first amendment violation. Yes, there is.
Its’ a government entity.
And if as you say, someone started to belittle thr troups on AFN, trust me, likley not make it to their car from the studio before getting an education in the matter from the listeners.
No government involvement is needed.
|
| |
Written By:
Bithead
URL:
http://bitsblog.florack.us
|
|
I think is was Scalia who said something to effect that if people want the Supreme Court justices to decide the "right or wrong" of an issue, they might as well just pick 9 people off the street. |
| |
Written By:
Jay Evans
URL:
http://
|
|
We can thank the NEA for their part in encouraging ignorance in Americans. Then we can thank Americans who fail to vote in school board elections. The lack of voter participation in school board elections usually results in former teachers and former administrators running the school board. Ignorance and apathy has cost us plenty. This survey is just a sample. |
| |
Written By:
River City
URL:
http://
|
