And the basic fact is Palin rocks!! It’s her world and you my friend are paying rent and the rent payment will be going up for Rinos in 2010.
suck on a Palin/person to be named later ticket in 2012.

If she doesn’t rock then Cheney rocks.

Half the crowd at the tea party on 4 July did not even know what the hell they were protesting. I also saw people who defended with a straight face all of President Bush’s deficit spending. I also had no fewer than 10 discussions about the President being a Kenyan-born Muslim with the attendant signs being on full display (along with the Hitler signs that got us on Olberman). That is when I determined that the tea party (at least locally) had gone from righteous outrage to sour grapes and just plain crazy.

Squid Shark on November 15, 2009 at 12:45 PM

Do you have any proof to back this up? Video Audio?
So you talked to half the people there ?
I’m calling BS

What happened to the discussion on Palin?

texanpride on November 15, 2009 at 5:21 PM

Threads go through various stages of development, and then they die.

“Brilliant”? All I ever see from the guy is snark. “Steely nuts”. Come on.

ddrintn on November 15, 2009 at 7:51 PM

Snark is all some people see from Allahpundit, but he offers much more: The routine gloom that is so depressing it can cause mass suicidal ideation; frequent admissions of ineptitude that are cringingly pathetic; and the occasional brilliance, once in a blue moon.

But even if you continue denying TRC’s brilliance, you have to admit he’s nuts. Both of him.

TRC is a black Republican, unabashed, courageous, and one of the most brilliant around here, and in general. He is “annoying” because he has the steely nuts to nail stupidity from all directions, including from the right.

Schadenfreude on November 15, 2009 at 4:52 PM

“Brilliant”? All I ever see from the guy is snark. “Steely nuts”. Come on.

thought it was possible he was a Beta not an Alpha for sure but I never imagined he was an Omega.

Hopefully, you’re a kind person. What is an Omega?

AnninCA on November 15, 2009 at 4:35 PM

What happened to the discussion on Palin?

texanpride on November 15, 2009 at 5:21 PM

The thread is dead. Lots of discussion on Palin on newer threads on HA…

Agreed. TRC is most often brilliant and sometimes very funny. Although he is not a troll, he can get a bit annoying at times. I suppose we all can, though, including me.

TRC is a black Republican, unabashed, courageous, and one of the most brilliant around here, and in general. He is “annoying” because he has the steely nuts to nail stupidity from all directions, including from the right.

Disagree about Ann, though. I’ve done quite a bit of studying this particular case, and she is not stupid, but is very deft at what she does here. Perhaps the most clever of all.

Loxodonta on November 15, 2009 at 2:41 AM

Ann is not a troll, nor is she stupid (in relative terms, compared to TRC, she’s still Michael Moore).

If by “clever of all” you mean that she is a most deceiving liberal, we agree. Her only aim is to suck us in and to derail the threads which are adverse to her causes.

Lately she has changed tactics to pretend to not be such a leftie. If you fall for it, it’s your falt, not you Lox, anyone’s here.

I’d rather fight the trolls, if need be, and the honest lefties. Deception works with the ignorant, and, thus, Ann is callous. It’s also a dishonest ‘fight’ and/or ‘mission’ on her part.

The knee-jerk polarization continues.

Now I’m just a very concerned citizen.

It’s a club that is getting bigger! :)

Thanks so much for the discussion–it’s really helped me to firm up my thoughts on the subject of abortion and the role of the Supremes.

Ditto. I enjoyed the conversation with you. Have a great day.

Let’s hope Sotomayor is our only new judge until President Palin is sworn in!

Nice:)

Don’t sell yourself short!

Spirit of 1776 on November 15, 2009 at 2:48 PM

I went to law school for half-a-year, then left because it wasn’t for me.
Now I’m just a very concerned citizen.

Thanks so much for the discussion–it’s really helped me to firm up my thoughts on the subject of abortion and the role of the Supremes.
I think I’ve been so used to watching out for federal encroachment by the “men in black” that it was difficult for me to see that in crucial ways, the intervention of SCOTUS is not only good, but in regards to the protection of basic and natural rights, necessary.
Kind of an epiphany.
(Of course, this beneficent role is what I think the Founders intended in the first place and the activist usurper role is the one manufactured by the Left.)
Let’s hope Sotomayor is our only new judge until President Palin is sworn in! :-)

Jenfidel on November 15, 2009 at 2:41 PM

Ha. No, I don’t. I just linked it to my handle since HA used to be my homepage, so I wouldn’t have to bookmark it. :)

I am not worthy to discuss these deep legal issues with you, though.

Don’t sell yourself short!

Decisions like whether or not slavery or abortion should be considered “legal” should not be decided by the several states because it involves the violation of basic liberties and freedoms guaranteed at the federal level.
Did I get that right?

Yes. This is why, in my opinion, slaveholders like Jefferson and Washington were internally tortured by the slavery issue when they werew. Their turmoil came as a consequence the Declaration of Independence and with the establishment of the Federal government, not (for example) the establishment of the Virginian government. Also Jefferson’s work in the Virginian legislature to guarantee freedom of religious expression was important to him be elevated and guaranteed at the federal level as we see in the 1st A.

The only problem is, SCOTUS comes out with their own deluded rulings like Dred Scott and Roe, declaring abortion and slavery permissible.

Yeah.

But your point is well taken that the Supremes should protect basic human rights for all states and that truth be told, neither abortion nor slavery should ever have been relegated to the states for individual legal determination.

Yes, that’s pretty much exactly my point, actually, though I do get the inherent irony that the challenge arising from the states (like SD) have the best chance of righting the wrongs.

Spirit of 1776 on November 15, 2009 at 2:32 PM

Ach! You work for Akin, Gump and write SCOTUS blog?!
I live in the birthplace of Akin, Gump and went to school with Ted Akin’s daughter…
I am not worthy to discuss these deep legal issues with you, though.

Decisions like whether or not slavery or abortion should be considered “legal” should not be decided by the several states because it involves the violation of basic liberties and freedoms guaranteed at the federal level.
Did I get that right?
The only problem is, SCOTUS comes out with their own deluded rulings like Dred Scott and Roe, declaring abortion and slavery permissible.
At the same time, they’ll overrule jury verdicts and issue stays of execution with the full acknowledgement that the death penalty involves killing a human being, but refuse to do the same about abortion, although they did uphold President Bush’s Partial Birth Abortion Ban recently (Thank God!)
But your point is well taken that the Supremes should protect basic human rights for all states and that truth be told, neither abortion nor slavery should ever have been relegated to the states for individual legal determination.

the Founders had compelling reasons to leave the determination of criminal laws to the states.

I think their are distinctions in civil law that should certainly be left to be determined by the states. But that is not true for the rights that originate in natural law. These rights are unalienable – not to be determined by states.

Once you have SCOTUS establish its power as the federal enforcer and guarantor of constitutional rights, it’s a slippery slope and not a pretty one.

Yeah, the executive branch must be the enforcer, but the SCOTUS must determine whether the legislation doesn’t abridge the rights. It must be the guarantor of these rights, in the legal sense.

That being said, A ruling (contra Roe) that babies are human beings with the right to live would be like overturning Dred Scott, as Scalia notes.
This, I would heartily endorse.

No argument. That would be the best case scenario. Should this happen, though, the states will not have the power to ignore that right. It is not reserved to them.

but it is wrong to grant powers to the state to determine the rights of individuals.

Having said that, I think challenges by the states will be the key, but I don’t think constitutionally speaking that power will be retained (nor should it) by the states.

Spirit of 1776 on November 15, 2009 at 2:15 PM

Haven’t read the Federalist Papers recently, but the Founders had compelling reasons to leave the determination of criminal laws to the states.
Much of it has to do with the establishment of police duties, jurisdictions and penal institutions, I’m sure.
Once you have SCOTUS establish its power as the federal enforcer and guarantor of constitutional rights, it’s a slippery slope and not a pretty one.
That being said, A ruling (contra Roe) that babies are human beings with the right to live would be like overturning Dred Scott, as Scalia notes.
This, I would heartily endorse.
Is the next logical step to declare abortion illegal again?
Works for me.
But the Liberals will howl like the jackals they are.

The federal judiciary is failing its duties in 2 ways:
1.) By nullifying the rights of the unborn on a federal level

Yes.

2.) By abrogating the rights of the states to declare that abortion is a crime and/or murder punishable by criminal law.

No.

Two wrongs don’t make a right. It is wrong of the federal government to not uphold the rights of the unborn, but it is wrong to grant powers to the state to determine the rights of individuals.

Having said that, I think challenges by the states will be the key, but I don’t think constitutionally speaking that power will be retained (nor should it) by the states.

If the federal government allowed one state to make null rights of the unborn, and another to protect those rights, it is failing it’s mandate.

Spirit of 1776 on November 15, 2009 at 2:04 PM

The federal judiciary is failing its duties in 2 ways:
1.) By nullifying the rights of the unborn on a federal level
2.) By abrogating the rights of the states to declare that abortion is a crime and/or murder punishable by criminal law.

By inventing the “right to privacy,” they were able to circumvent both the moral and criminal aspects of abortion.
Privacy trumped any other consideration in their minds.
It is pure Evil.

Judicial activists will be the death of us, if strict constructionists don’t save us, particularly if we pass ObamaCare and SCOTUS has to shut it down because it’s unconstitutional.

No argument from me:)

The Supreme Court did a good job ending some of FDR’s more statist programs, so we can only hope.

Yeah. Unfortunately, sometimes the executives don’t do their responsibility either. GWB passed CFR on the assumption that some of it would be ruled unconstitutional when challenged. He should have vetoed it and had them passed a bill that wasn’t unconstitutional.

Laws requiring parental consent for underage abortions,those requiring a 48-hour waiting period and even laws requiring that those seeking abortions look at an ultrasound of their baby should all be put in place, too, if possible.

I should add, I agree that this can exist on the state level. But it is with the tacit acknowledgment that abortion is not associated with the rights of the unborn, because otherwise (if it acknowledges those rights) the federal government has an obligation to keep the states from trampling those rights, as it is part of the agreement that all the states made to all other states upon entry that they would uphold the Constitution and it’s Amendments.

Judicial activists will be the death of us, if strict constructionists don’t save us, particularly if we pass ObamaCare and SCOTUS has to shut it down because it’s unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court did a good job ending some of FDR’s more statist programs, so we can only hope.

Clearly, the Constitution relegates the guarantee of natural rights on a personal level to the state (micro-level)in the 10th Amendment.

No. This is a common misconception. The 10th Amendment is about powers, not rights. Rights are retained by the people, and secured by the government.

So the states might have the power to decide what punishment to mete out, but they do not have the power to take away rights. If the federal government allowed one state to make null rights of the unborn, and another to protect those rights, it is failing it’s mandate.

Let me ask you a question, in response. Do you think murder should be defined by each state individually?

(I agree that manufacturing rights of thin air is complete BS)

Spirit of 1776 on November 15, 2009 at 1:39 PM

Short answer: Yes because the states define murder in terms of the penalty that the law imposes for its committal (hence the reason you find the death penalty varying from state to state) and what constitutes “degrees” of murder.
The Federal Government was meant to confine itself to larger problems like national defense (macro-level).

Clearly, the Constitution relegates the guarantee of natural rights on a personal level to the state (micro-level)in the 10th Amendment.
(You realize we’ve almost circled back to the question of slavery again…)
Abortion should be returned to the states due to the overturn of Roe v. Wade.
While there may be a “right to privacy,” it in no way justifies the complete license to have or perform abortions.
Nor should the President be telling a national audience that it is “a discussion in which we can all disagree.”
The states should be allowed to construct their own laws again about whether or not to allow abortions, with the full recognition that it is, indeed, infanticide.
This is not a matter of “disagreement,” Obama, but scientific fact that an abortion kills a living human being.

Laws requiring parental consent for underage abortions,those requiring a 48-hour waiting period and even laws requiring that those seeking abortions look at an ultrasound of their baby should all be put in place, too, if possible.
Roe v. Wade and the pro-abortion lobby have made the whole bloody business too easy (for everyone but the baby).

It is encroachment and yes, it’s a moral issue.

If it is a moral issue as one citizen taking the rights away from another, it is the responsibility of the government on the federal level because it exists to secure those rights.

Restoring the 10th Amendment rights of the states by setting Roe aside is the way to go, don’t you think?

It is my opinion that RvW will not be changed until challenged by states repeatedly, but I do not think it is consistent with our Constitution to say that the states have the right to determine whether murder is cool or not. If it’s not murder, then sure they can regulate it as much as they want on the state level. To argue that is both a moral issue and a state issue is a counter-intuitive argument, imo, but it will likely be the argument that gets to the SCOTUS and what will eventually undercut RvW.

The Founders never set up our government to decide such things which is why there is the 10th amendment.

Let me ask you a question, in response. Do you think murder should be defined by each state individually?

(I agree that manufacturing rights of thin air is complete BS)