Comments on: David Savage Reprises His Role As Drama Queen

By: Larry Reilly

Larry Reilly — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 01:27:48 +0000

That’s one inarticulate munchkin to the defense.

By: SPQR

SPQR — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 01:16:23 +0000

Larry Reilly, your comments are often offensively stupid or stupidly offensive. This last one is both and among the most ludicrous.

By: Larry Reilly

Larry Reilly — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 01:13:34 +0000

You’re spinning this more than a White House flack wearing fishnet stockings.
You know exactly why Alito and Roberts, in upholdingthis ban on a particular aspect of abortion, declined to join Scalia and Thomas in a sweeping concurrence that went well beyond the matter at hand. They went against previous and recent Supreme Court opinion just the same. But of course you want more.
Never mind that the same issue had come before the court seven or so years earlier with an entirely different outcome. So much for staring decisively at challenges to prior rulings.
You’re spinning this, and smearing David Savage, because you’re working the refs for the next time, the next chance, to increase the value of your shares in a company that manufactures coat hangers. (Ha-ha. Of course I know you really are following the policy of the Church. That’s fine. Go with your religion, there are many, but don’t EFFing EFF with the truth behind the politics of it all.)
You know damned well that Roberts and Alito will come through if and when they can knock down Roe v. Wade in its entirety. They know what they’re doing. They didn’t want to raise any more hackles than necessary in Gonzales v. Carhart, especially so soon after their careful and calculated testimony in the Senate aimed at masking what everyone already knew. You know it was a ritualized dance.
They’re waiting until Roe v. Wade can be done with, and no more questions. You know that’s the game.
And you’re trying to help give them cover by saying no one can know how they’re going to go on the big issue.
Bullshit.
You, sir, are the drama queen, replete with short, tight skirt and makeup caked on with a trowel (see McCain misogyny dictionary).
You can BS your little gaggle of munchkins here, but you can’t put together an argument on this that might withstand serious scrutiny.

By: krazy kagu

krazy kagu — Tue, 27 May 2008 05:35:14 +0000

YOU KNOW YOUR A LIBERAL WHEN YOU HAVE BUMPER STICKERS READING KEEP ABORTION LEGAL RIGHT BESIDE YOUR SAVE THE REDWOODS,SAVE THE RAINFORESTS BUMPER STICKERS

By: Glen Wishard

Glen Wishard — Tue, 20 May 2008 11:22:32 +0000

“For the last three decades, Republican appointees have held at least seven of the Supreme Court’s nine seats.”

Like Blackmun, the author of Roe – a Nixon appointee.

For people who are mental 8 year-olds like David Savage, Nixon was a Republican.

By: JD

JD — Mon, 19 May 2008 22:21:08 +0000

aphrael – Well said. And applicable to many other topics.

By: aphrael

aphrael — Mon, 19 May 2008 21:30:20 +0000

To a certain extent, this is to the advantage of judicial conservatives.

My side keeps crying wolf, to the point where I no longer take it seriously. When the wolf actually shows up, nobody will believe it.

By: stef

stef — Mon, 19 May 2008 20:45:32 +0000

“No, if it is deemed a State’s Right to decide, then Congress can take a flying leap.”

Overturning Roe v. Wade doesn’t make it a state’s right. It just removes the national right to abortion. Removing the national right means both states AND congress can pass laws in this area. Congress can both prohibit as well as protect abortions post Roe.

By: Scott Jacobs

Scott Jacobs — Mon, 19 May 2008 20:36:05 +0000

Congress will be able to pass abortion laws too.

No, if it is deemed a State’s Right to decide, then Congress can take a flying leap.

By: Troopship Berlin

Troopship Berlin — Mon, 19 May 2008 18:20:41 +0000

Judges take an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, not to preserve, protect and defend precedent.