On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 17:59:09 -0700, WaIIy wrote
(in article ):

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:09:53 -0700, Paul Revere
wrote:

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 19:24:42 -0700, WaIIy wrote
(in article ):

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 14:42:17 -0700, Paul Revere
wrote:

Since Republicans appointed 5 of the 9 current Justices, this decision is
an
EXAMPLE OF what happens when "Repub's want to appoint some real
Constitutional Judges to the Supreme Court......."

I guess, "facts" don't matter to those who create their own reality.

Oh boy, check the records of the SC Justices.

This was clearly a liberal decision.

Call it any name you want, Wally.

To me, "liberal" and "conservative" have become meaningless.

For example, Bush claims to be a "Conservative", who just happens to
believe
in a strong central government, weakened state's rights, blundering into
international entanglements, and deficit spending (all "Liberal" positions).

The FACT is that Republicans (whether you consider them "liberal" or
"conservative"), appointed 5 of the 9 current Justices.

THEREFORE, when someone says, "Now maybe you Demorat dufus's will listen,
when we Repub's want to appoint some real Constitutional Judges to the
Supreme Court.......", as if to say "look what happens when Democrats
appoint
Judges to the SC", I have to point out that REPUBLICANS appointing Judges
to
the Supreme Court is WHAT WE HAVE NOW.

This was my only point. I had no intention to characterize the court's
decision.

Though, in my opinion, the decision was another in a long line of decisions
that increase the power of government at the expense of individuals and the
Constitutional rights the court was SUPPOSED to protect.

Very well said and I must agree with you.

Thank you. I am pleased that we can agree.