Posted on 06/29/2012 5:44:33 AM PDT by tioga
In order that we might all raise the level of discourse and expand our language abilities, here is the daily post of “Word for the Day”.
Lugubrious
Adjective
lugubriously, adverb
lugubriousness, noun
[From Latin lgubris, from lgre, to mourn.]
Rules: Everyone must leave a post using the Word for the Day in a sentence.
The sentence must, in some way, relate to the news of the day.
The Review threads are linked for your edification. ;-)
Practice makes perfect.....post on....
Review Threads:
Review Thread One: Word For The Day, Thursday 11/14/02: Raffish (Be SURE to check out posts #92 and #111 on this thread!)
Review Thread Two: Word For The Day, Tuesday 1/14/03: Roister
Review Thread Three: Word For The Day, Tuesday 1/28/03: Obdurate
I love that one.
Even if everything you say is true and comes to pass, this decision is still carte blanche for the gov’t to mandate anything and simply include a “penalty” for non compliance.
But unfortunately, other than that that, we don't know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever.
Since the announcement, court-watchers have been like the old Kremlinologists from Soviet days looking for clues as to what kind of justice Roberts will be.
Will he let us vote?
Does he live in a small, rough-hewn cabin in the woods of New Hampshire and avoid "womenfolk"?
That’s my idea, and I’ve applied for a patent. ;-)
Oh is Ann ok to use as back up now? Bc last I heard she was discredited based on romneylove.
Ideas are great but we need a bill sponsor.
Who would be ballsy enough to do it? How about Trey Gowdy of SC or Joe Walsh of IL?
It's OK by me.....now.
First of all, all law is a matter of interpretation, and tactic.
This law, like it or not, is still in the courts, and under far better circumstances...for a favorable decision.
Striking it down on Commerce Clause grounds alone, served no good purpose, except to empower the President.
And the view of Defending the Constitution, while leaving the Voters that empowered this free from their own idiocy, seems ill conceived...
As Krauthammer pointed out, the Job of the C.J. is also the stewardship of the court, and damaging the validity of the institution, a coequal branch of Government, does not defend the Constitution, when it’s just as beneficial to return a political question to the body politic, while keeping a much larger club in the bag.
In all the hysteria, it’s overlooked that the coming questions on this act are far more blatantly unconstitutional
We are paying for the sins of the past. More precisely for electing the last two Progressive Republicans. And we’ll pay for generations.
I’ve certainly seen a lot of Gowdy lately.
My plan is elliptical in am and AC. Swimming in afternoon/evening. Walk my hill at dusk. All cardio, the elliptical has settings for resistance and hill, so my knees get a good workout. I feel it if I skip the elliptical for more than a day. My back is holding up with the inversion table. All I have to do is stop and hang for a few minutes, and it's back to normal.
A member of the squirrel mafia had the effrontery to step onto the deck in full view of these two in the kitchen, by way of the French doors. Holy hell just broke loose as they tore out to secure their perimeter and vocally threaten said mafia member.
I can take it.
And my brother takes anti siezure meds too. He’s a great guy. He has a full life. He’s not a supreme court justice, but there are only 9 of those.
You think they could find nine people in extra good health all who are married and have produced children, but no.....instead we get Souter(s)
Less than 60 wasn't it?
Did you think we'd have gotten Janice Rogers Brown on the court?
'President George W. Bush nominated her to her current position on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2003. However, her nomination was stalled in the U.S. Senate for almost two years because of Democratic opposition. She began serving as a federal appellate court judge on June 8, 2005.'
Ann's very talented, but sometimes she tends to spew invective while ignoring the facts on the Ground.
At that time and place we were LUCKY to get Alito, for Sandra Dee.
At that time and place we were LUCKY to get Alito, for Sandra Dee.
That wasn't luck. That was the result of an uprising. An uprising against Bush. And it showed that the Dems couldn't get 41 for a filibuster on a SCOTUS judge. That's the proof.
Typical GOP, even with a majority they don't know how to use it. The Dems have no such problem.
Did I tell you about the squirrel at my bird feeder who panicked when the dogs came roaring out at him and fell into the pool? He was a good swimmer. I had to fish a swimming mouse out this morning. I put peanuts out for the squirrels and they still raid my sunflower seeds, obnoxious rodents.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.