|m (10 Nov 2004 11:48): So how about that Gonzales guy who it looks like will replace Ashcroft? Geneva Conventions are "quaint" and not really applicable to this war on terror stuff. I like him already!|
|m (10 Nov 2004 12:56): Likely supreme court nominee, even. <A href="http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=17000&c=206">Delicious!|
|m (10 Nov 2004 12:57): paul! why didn't that link work? I definitely closed the tag...|
|zong (11 Nov 2004 18:24): So why does everybody say he's a "moderate?" (on social issues maybe?)
Makes me wonder who the extremists are... hmm.
|m (11 Nov 2004 19:46): what does "energy policy" consist of?|
|Paul (12 Nov 2004 13:44): Sorry--until I patch up mancalablog, your <a> tags must be lowercase or they won't work. (Mike's attempted link from above: Mike's link)|
|(12 Nov 2004 20:24): Haha. Case sensitivity.|
|m (16 Nov 2004 17:07): Condoleezza Rice will be the new secretary of state. Awesome.|
| (19 Nov 2004 2:24): Wait, are you being sarcastic?
I don't know enough about politics to tell.
|m (19 Nov 2004 11:27): yeah - sarcastic. she's just another staunch Bush-camp loyalist who was part of the questionable intelligence problem as National Security Advisor. I guess a cabinet full of your own dudes is one way to go.|
|Paul (7 Feb 2005 10:04): A Knight Foundation survey finds that only 51% of US high-school students think that "newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories".|
|Grant (7 Feb 2005 23:33): 75% said that flag-burning was illegal. What is wrong with this picture?
Like, have these kids not heard The Amendment Song?
|m (10 Feb 2005 0:20): They even let you do that in Texas. Maybe not so much with draft cards.|
|Paul (10 Feb 2005 11:54): But check that 5-4 vote on Texas v. Johnson... we're headed for trouble as soon as one of them chokes...|
|Paul (1 Mar 2005 12:41): Supreme Court blocks death for underage killers, says a 17-year old should not lose the "potential to attain a mature understanding of his own humanity."|
|m (1 Mar 2005 21:36): "Scalia [in his dissent] hasn't written as angrily since the Court's sodomy ruling two years ago."|
|Grant (2 Mar 2005 4:14): My favorite part of Scalia's dissent has to be this: "the real force driving todayís decision is not the actions of four state legislatures, but the Courtís '†"†'own judgment'†"†' "
Check out those quotes!
|Grant (2 Mar 2005 4:20): But really, this kind of a discussion won't get us anywhere.
We should ask somebody who is objective.
|zong (3 Mar 2005 0:05): Oh goodness. Please tell me this is a joke web site.|
|Grant (3 Mar 2005 7:27): I'm laughing. Does that count?|
|m (5 Apr 2005 17:24): Gonzales says that the bulk of the Patriot Act is crucial for fighting terrorism and is telling the senate judiciary committee to leave it mostly unchanged. I guess part (but not all?) is up for renewal.|
Man, I just hope they don't decide to put those ankle collars on all of us.
|m (1 Jul 2005 15:57): Man, I hope we don't end up with Gonzales on the court. Only I guess he's kind of moderate, as far as that goes? So it's probably going to be someone worse? I predict vigorous last binges of anal sex before the states all reinstate their anti-sodomy laws.|
|Paul (3 Jul 2005 22:41): This is the clearest summary of SC voting lines I've seen. Are there any other lucid displays that go further in time and depth?|
|m (4 Jul 2005 15:31): I can't even figure out how to turn the opinions that I find here into vote breakdowns, but it's more comprehensive.|
|Paul (29 Jun 2006 17:50): Justice Thomas warns us of "a worldwide, hydra-headed enemy, who lurks in the shadows"(!)|
|G (29 Jun 2006 21:42): Man, when you put it like that, it sounds so cool!
||m (30 Jun 2006 17:00): cthulhu?