Constitutional interpretation is a portion of its mandate, cw…

“…When the [Supreme] Court decides to hear a case, it usually does so for one of two reasons. Many cases that reach the Court involve an important question of constitutional interpretation that the Court wants to decide. In other cases, the Court chooses to resolve a “split among the circuits”. There are twelve different federal circuit courts of appeal, and sometimes these appeals courts will reach different decisions in different cases on an important legal issue. The Court will then decide to take one of the cases to resolve the issue…
J_Gocht on September 9, 2008 at 11:48 AM

generating contra-precedentary law from the bench is hardly adhering to its mandate Gucci….

Roe was bad law based on no precedent, deferring to foreign law had no precedent Gucci…..that’s the difference between moonbat law and strict constructionist theory.

Bottom line: McCain/Palin’s numbers are overall nowhere as good as Bush’s were (apart from one of Gallup’s poll) and he barely won by 1.5% at the end.

CBS News (931 LV) 9/20 – 9/22 Bush +9
AP/Ipsos (931 LV) 9/20 – 9/22 Bush +7
Pew Research (989 RV) 9/17 – 9/21 Bush +3
NBC News/WSJ (787 LV) 9/17 – 9/19 Bush +4
Zogby (1066 LV) 9/17 – 9/19 Bush +3
IBD/TIPP (650 LV) 9/14 – 9/18 Bush +3
ARG (LV) 9/7 – 9/21 Bush +1
CBS News (1048 RV) 9/12 – 9/16 Bush +9
CNN/USAT/Gallup (767 LV) 9/13 – 9/15 Bush +14
Battleground (1000 LV) 9/12 – 9/15 Bush +4
Pew Research (725 LV) 9/11 – 9/14 Bush +1
Harris (867 LV) 9/9 – 9/13 Kerry +1
Newsweek (1003 RV) 9/9 – 9/10 Bush +6
IBD/TIPP (674 LV) 9/7 – 9/12 TIE
Zogby (1018 LV) 9/8 – 9/9 Bush +4
Time (857 LV) 9/7 – 9/9 52% Bush +11
AP/Ipsos (899 LV) 9/7 – 9/9 Bush +5
FOX/Opin. Dyn. (1000 LV) 9/7 – 9/8 Bush +4
ABC News/Wash Post (LV) 9/6 – 9/8 Bush +9
Pew Research (745 LV) 9/8 – 9/10 Bush +16
CBS News (909 RV) 9/6 – 9/8 Bush +7
CNN/USAT/Gallup (778 LV) 9/3 – 9/5 Bush +7
Newsweek (1,008 RV) 9/2 – 9/3 Bush +11

“…It is also about the next 25 years of having a Supreme Court that will adhere to the Constitution or 25 years of leftist legislation from the Bench. coldwarrior on September 9, 2008 at 11:07 AM

Constitutional interpretation is a portion of its mandate, cw…

“…When the [Supreme] Court decides to hear a case, it usually does so for one of two reasons. Many cases that reach the Court involve an important question of constitutional interpretation that the Court wants to decide. In other cases, the Court chooses to resolve a “split among the circuits”. There are twelve different federal circuit courts of appeal, and sometimes these appeals courts will reach different decisions in different cases on an important legal issue. The Court will then decide to take one of the cases to resolve the issue…

Gives one pause as to how the Dems view the Constitution and the GOP views the Constitution.

This Election is about a lot more than McCain and Obama. It is also about the next 25 years of having a Supreme Court that will adhere to the Constitution or 25 years of leftist legislation from the Bench.

On this alone, even if one has a personal beef with McCain, it should convince one to vote for McCain in November.

“…In a speech to be delivered Tuesday, Bush says more forces could withdraw in the first half of 2009. But for now, the situation isn’t changing significantly.

Apparently we can’t get the arse holes to stand up so we can stand down…?

Damn fine political and military leadership goin’ on there…!

sven10077 on September 9, 2008 at 3:34 AM

sven, I believe even the Bush Boy is now following BHO’s plan.

He’s supposedly gonna pull 8000 out of Iraq and redeploy additional troops where Barack said they were sorely needed in Afghanistan…!

How about them apples…?

That and lots of hard work by Republican incumbents running for office to realize that they are the problem, not the solution. Change your ways or leave and let people willing to adhere to the idea of limited government, less intrusive government, and smaller government that is fiscally responsible run. You can lose individual fights and still win the war – something that the mayflies in politics and the media have forgotten. That takes a strong party… perhaps Gov. Palin should have some say in how the upper echelons of it hold themselves accountable after the election… that would be a welcome change that would bring hope to the party.

Remember you read it here first. I’ve been saying Captain Amnesty will win all along. To that i now add the GOP will regain majorities in congress. Despite these things we will not be pleased with what we get.

If it means getting rid of the likes of Ted Stephens and Mitch McConnell, sign me up.

Way to go John…!

John if you don’t give a damn about us…why should we even consider you…?

J_Gocht on September 8, 2008 at 6:11 PM

Gucci, rather than having a constant dull roar of hand extensions a lot of veterans of this current conflict seem to have this wild notion of not seeing all they sacrificed for rendered to naught.

Barry a member of the “over the horizon to Okinawawa” Mothra school of geopolitics seems to make that less likely.

Joe’s son is a Jag it is not like he is a door kicker.

So what?

Her son and Joe’s son are going to serve in combat in a despicable war…!

Not my idea of a warrior hero’s purpose or cause.

Yah gotta do what the olde men conjure my young sons…!
For their honor you just may die…!

Who the hell am I to say, when you’ve got real honest to God shirkers like Cheney and Bush the younger…?

J_Gocht on September 8, 2008 at 8:07 PM

Gucci, I am pretty certain I don’t rate as much of a Peacenik Corps backer but it gives the lunatic leftoids something to do and maybe wakes them up to how good we have it here vis a vis “the world”.

This war is not worthless, nor misguided.

I don’t want “benefits” from a worthless, anti-military, anti-American poof like Barack Obama. Most veterans don’t walk around with their palms out and we’ll be voting for John McCain.

NoDonkey on September 8, 2008 at 8:37 PM

Benefits come from Congressional action, not the Executive branch of government. The new GI Bill that came out of Congress is an example. It was spearheaded by creepy Senate Democrat James Webb of Virginia. IMO, it’s not a perfect bill, my one combat tour should probably be differentiated from those on their third tour in harm’s way. The generic requirement that one only need have served on active duty for three years since 2001 is a good starting point but I personally would have been happier if those that took on more risk got more reward from this legislation.

You’re right that most veterans are not out there demanding handouts. You’re wrong in your assertion that only combat wounded service is worthy of consideration of benefits. The possibility of combat service when you enlist/recieve a commission should be enough to qualify you for whatever benefits are legislated into existence. There should be (and are) a seperate set of benefits for wounded vets but that doesn’t mean that service without peril is meaningless and not worthy of recognition. The possibility was always there. Back in the 1980’s I joined a military poised to attack the Soviet Union. I’m going to retire from a military attempting to deal with asymetrical warfare from terrorist groups. I was ready to respond throughout that transition- no matter the threat. Why diminish the service of those who were around for the (relatively) peaceful times?

All that being said, I only wish that there was more of an appreciation of military service by the American public. Older folks who find out I am in the military will thank me for my service but, frankly, that isn’t really the point and it shouldn’t be. The young people making the real sacrifices in Iraq and Afghanistan should be treated like rock stars and they are probably the most likely to be treated with your “walk it off” mentality unless they are wounded.

Think about it. For the first time since the Vietnam era, there is a significant group of combat-tested veterans in America but not every veteran serves in combat and not every combat-tested veteran comes back wounded. Does this nation recognize military service during wartime or do they take on your attitude that most of the military is chairbound and worthless and one needs to be wounded before they are worthy any sort of consideration? Military service in combat or not is honorable and should be recognized for what it is.

Of the “final four” John McCain is the only one who served in the military. Biden (far more than Cheney who had a family) used deferments to keep him out of having to join the military during the Vietnam era. Obama and Palin are children of the volunteer military. I’m saddened that the current crop of political “leaders” don’t have more of an appreciation of these matters though I think it interesting that McCain, Biden, and Palin all have children serving in harm’s way. The fact that our political leaders’ kids might be facing combat is a good thing because it adds a personal touch to impersonal policy decisions.

I’m retired…!

0430 till 2115 is soldier’s time…
I’m retired…!

Thanks folks…!

This year we have a VERY strong debate team v a pretty weak one. If McCain still has the big MO going into the debates and wins, as expectd…we could have a blowout in November JIMV on September 8, 2008 at 9:09 PM

I’m with you JIMMY VEE…!

“…I’m a veteran who doesn’t give a F*** about “veterans” groups who are largely led by losers with their hands perpetually out, asking for more. Gimee, gimee, gimee.

I say give it to the guys wounded in action, NoDonkey on September 8, 2008 at 8:37 PM

Hey NoDonk, so you have all your arms and legs, your eyesight and hearing and no effects from TBI [traumatic brain injury] …?

You dah man NoDonk, you dah MAN…!

Hang tough trooper…!
Olde soldier sends…!

Veterans groups don’t identify with Senator McCain…?

Why should they? Veterans groups are primarily made up of those who made the decision to serve this nation and had to make an effort to do so. With a grandfather and father who were four star admirals, McCain didn’t so much make that decision than go along with family tradition. He coasted into the Naval Academy on the family name and got some plum assignments because of who his daddy and grandaddy were. That’s not to marginalize his service in the least but, let’s be honest here, his personal life story doesn’t mirror most veterans.

Put another way, most vets don’t have ships named after their grandfathers.

Chuck Schick on September 8, 2008 at 8:15 PM

Thanks for the thought, Chucky…

Been on the road all day and thought I might have missed something…?

I may have swamped all their neurons with my links to On the Issues …?

One vodka and four posts have set me straight.
Thanks again Chuck…!

I’m a veteran who doesn’t give a F*** about “veterans” groups who are largely led by losers with their hands perpetually out, asking for more. Gimee, gimee, gimee.

I say give it to the guys wounded in action, instead of heaping benefits on the 98% of troops who spent their days chairbound.

It’s ridiculous that a guy who develops a bad knee over time, gets benefit checks in perpetuity. That’s the kind of nonsense veterans groups got us.

Veterans groups also do incredibly antiquated things like preserving the 20 year retirement, guaranteeing a steady supply of dead wood from years 15-20. I say, pay us up front, not when we’re retired.

I don’t want “benefits” from a worthless, anti-military, anti-American poof like Barack Obama. Most veterans don’t walk around with their palms out and we’ll be voting for John McCain.