I don't know who you are talking about (unless you are referring to the host) as S.E. Cupp is a woman:
Posted on 06/16/2011 4:52:31 PM PDT by American Dream 246
No offense but why exactly can’t Bachmann do it by herself and Palin can? Why is it breaking news just because Palin goes on TV? Front page news yeah maybe but is she going to announce or people are hoping she will? Politically Palin has everything to prove and Bachmann won the debate if you discount the media clown global warming ObamneyCare Romney.
Um, why is everyone writing off Cain? With Ed Rollins as her chair, I am not sure if Palin will endorse Bachmann...how about endorsing Cain?
I don't know who you are talking about (unless you are referring to the host) as S.E. Cupp is a woman:
Very very well done that Palin pointed out Re:Obama and Libya the key word. “Hostilities” and how Obama is deceiving all with parse wording. I think she was referring to Perry as well as herself about not declaring.
Yes. Yes, she is.
I love Sarah but I don't don't know what we've got with her. It is disconcerting to hear her say things like, "some may never declare" in such vague terms.
You know what, until she declares, IMO IT IS about Sarah Palin. IMO, Palin is here "for such a time as this." I believe this is her time and I don't see anyone on the horizon who can say and do what she can - in that sense it IS about her.
In the meantime, Palin's coyness about running is driving me nuts.
The Constitution is not like legislative law. It's generally very broad with some certain specifics and of course generally much older with terms that were used 200+ years ago. I agree with Judge Bork that Constitutional interpretation requires first the text itself, and second, if there's any question about it, research original intent.
Legislative law is generally more specific and more recent and might require less original intent analysis if the text is clear.
The liberals do neither - they invent interpretations ("judicial activism") that is neither in the text or even close to an honest evaluation of original intent because liberals have an agenda and want to bend the law to meet their objective.
Scalia is a bulwark against judicial activism. If he's against an honest evaluation of original understanding of the Constitution where needed, that is unfortunate.
Your comment is better by far than mine! Thank you.
I've always liked Scalia, but I'm actually beginning to think Thomas is more of a Constitutional guy than Scalia. Thomas has stood against the Commerce Clause excuse for unlimited government, much more than Scalia has, by arguing for the Founders' original meaning and intent of that clause. We need about five more Thomas's in SCOTUS which is another reason Palin needs to quit the coyness (must be a girl thing) and run baby run!
as i keep saying..bachmann will not only lose, but she is damaging her political career as a whole in the process..she may have made a great Senator! as the LORD reminds us: “pride cometh before a fall.”
True, and even Thomas, although great, misses on some issues.
I can name two I am aware of, but one is currently overly contentious. So I’ll name the other. The term “limited times” in the Copyright and Patent clause. The English copyright law of 1708 was well established at the time. That, the Statute of Anne, granted book publishers 14 years protection for new works, 21 years for works already in print previous to enactment, and 14 more years to the author if still living, if expired.
In 1774 The English House of Lords debated the nature of copyright, whether the right to copyright was a limited grant of the sovereign or a perpetual copyright due the originator (common law copyright). They left it as a limited term grant of the sovereign.
In the nascent US, the Articles of Confederation precluded the Continental Congress from making a copyright law, they adopted a resolution of granting 14 years and 14 more if surviving. Seven of the 13 individual states passed copyright laws per the resolution, others adopted single terms of 14, 20 and 21 years. That the early lawmakers wanted LIMITED terms was clear.
After the Constitution was adopted, our first copyright law kept the 14 and 14 rule.
However today, even Thomas has ignored original intent on this issue. He has allowed the legislature to continually extent copyright terms and today, after a number of such extensions, the term is life of individual author + 75 years, and 120 years for corporate creations.
Called the Mickey Mouse Protection Act of 1998 this latest copyright extension act protects all works copyrighted after 1923. (Mickey Mouse first appeared in 1928.) And when 2019 rolls around it seems close to certain that Disney and other corporations will lobby for even further extensions.
Original intent implies that some reasonable meaning be given to “limited”, especially as while we were still British (in 1774), the difference between a limited term copyright and a perpetual copyright was debated and the precedent left the 14+14 rule of 1708 standing. And it is clear our founders accepted that and some original state legislatures limited it even further.
Yes, no fixed number of years was specified, it is a matter of legislative discretion, but too a reasonable extent. Both the current “limited term” is too long, and the dynamic of incessant legislative extensions making it in all practical purposes, perpetual, is clearly established.
These run counter to original intent, as it seems that Founders gave no fixed number of years to allow Congress to go more limited than 14+14, as the individual states had done.
In the past Palin has said that she would be Romney’s VP. Is that not cozying up to Romney? That Bachmann diss is very weak.
How is it different than Palin gave birth to a disabled son? It is a fact.
Forrest Gump said, “It must be hard being a king.” Same must be true with a Justice, I guess. Hard to put your own personal biases aside and rule strictly on the law as applied to the facts. I think Judge Bork might have been one of the best SCOTUS Justices ever if he’d been confirmed and not savaged by Kennedy.
If Palin does not run will you support Bachmann? Who will you support? This question is to all in this thread that are Palin supporters dissing Bachmann, or not.
Will not support her under ant circumstances.
Compare the methods of reasoning and what the Justices are reasoning about to say Chief Justice's Jay's ruling in Georgia v. Brailsford.
Jay was simple and worked his rulings from principle.
Today the Justices argue and dicker at no end to nuances of case law, and miss the big picture, miss the foundation. The foundation is flooded and falling over and they peck like old hens in a chicken coop over gingerbread.
Even for the best of them today, the rulings are unprincipled because no entry is given for appeal to basic morality and founding principles in rulings. Only chickenpecks on the moldy grit of stare decisis.
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.