STFU SCOTUS
Memo to John Roberts: no one gives a fuck what you think about things like this:
Roberts’s remarks Tuesday protested the timing of President Obama’s State of the Union disapproval of the court’s decision in a major campaign finance case. It has begun Round Two in what appears to be a growing inclination from the White House and Democrats in Congress to criticize the court’s decisions.
The White House fired back Tuesday night with a statement that did not address the substance of Roberts’s comments but with another broadside at the court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission. Press secretary Robert Gibbs accused the court of opening “the floodgates for corporations and special interests to pour money into elections—drowning out the voices of average Americans.”
Shut the fuck up and do your job, you right-wing piece of shit. Or get together with the Cheney family and give that attempted coup you’re all fantasizing about a shot and be done with it.
I realize there has already been one post about this, but I can’t tell you how troubling I find this.
March 10, 2010 11:49 am
Posted in: Good News For Conservatives, We Are All Mayans Now
90 Comments
90 Responses
cleek - March 10, 2010 | 11:51 am · Link
i’m sure a Constitutional scholar like Roberts can point out where it’s written that the SC is above criticism.
General Egali Tarian Stuck - March 10, 2010 | 11:52 am · Link
ooooh!! so shrill. And you know I love it:)
Zifnab - March 10, 2010 | 11:52 am · Link
Don’t you know that it’s incredibly rude to criticize a sitting SCOTUS judge’s decision? This is unprecedented. Unprecedented! When will we be able to restore honor and integrity to the White House once again?
General Egali Tarian Stuck - March 10, 2010 | 11:53 am · Link
@cleek: Next thing you know, wingnuts will retaliate by calling liberals terrorist loving traitors.
GReynoldsCT00 - March 10, 2010 | 11:54 am · Link
and which administration coined the phrase ‘activist judges’? Hmmmm
The Grand Panjandrum - March 10, 2010 | 11:54 am · Link
It really must have gotten under Roberts’s skin if he made public remarks about being butthurt.
So many butthurt Republicans, so little time.
beltane - March 10, 2010 | 11:54 am · Link
A complete and utter intolerance of any form of criticism is the hallmark of Cheney, Roberts, Alito and the rest of the neocon scum. It must make them so mad that they can’t just summarily throw their critics in jail or worse.
Bhall35 - March 10, 2010 | 11:54 am · Link
Reposting from the earlier comment thread:
No mention of FDR or Reagan criticizing the court during the SOTU. But this is the AP we’re talking about, so I don’t really expect accuracy.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/
TenguPhule - March 10, 2010 | 11:55 am · Link
I volunteer to be the hangman at Robert’s execution for treachery. Apparently if not done just right the hangee dies a slow horrible death…..
Evinfuilt - March 10, 2010 | 11:57 am · Link
@TenguPhule:
Or if you do it the Iraq way the head just pops off.
Anyways, isn’t there a way to impeach a Supreme Court Justice? I know that would open a giant can of worms, but if ever there was cause, this ruling and the hissy fit follow up calls for it.
Eric U. - March 10, 2010 | 11:57 am · Link
@TenguPhule: we could bring in an Iranian hangman for the task, they apparently take a very long time to do the job.
General Egali Tarian Stuck - March 10, 2010 | 12:00 pm · Link
@Evinfuilt: When we get hit with round the clock GOP attack ads from hell, they may need to wring the SCOTUS building with M1 tanks to keep out the pitch fork hordes pissed at ruining their teevee time.
Kennedy - March 10, 2010 | 12:00 pm · Link
@Evinfuilt: I am no Constitutional scholar, but I was always under the impression that they serve life terms and we are pretty much stuck with them (hence why it sucked balls that Bush got to appoint a Chief Justice in his mid 50s).
Even so, do you really think that such a movement would even gain even an inkling of traction given all the hand-wringing and delays on HCR?
debbie - March 10, 2010 | 12:00 pm · Link
@The Grand Panjandrum:
Or maybe he just got fed up with Alito’s whining about the unfairness of it all.
Bordo - March 10, 2010 | 12:01 pm · Link
John Roberts is a typical conservative. Skin of wet tissue paper. He’s a fucking liar who sandbagged Congress during his hearings. What he and his right-wing brethren on the court have done to our election process with Citizens United, the all deserve not only scorn, but to be tarred and feathered.
neill - March 10, 2010 | 12:02 pm · Link
John Roberts is the “cute zombie” face of the extreme right wing in this country. It takes 5 seconds to perceive his soullessness.
Tazistan Jen - March 10, 2010 | 12:03 pm · Link
He should resign in protest of this scandalous treatment.
Zifnab - March 10, 2010 | 12:05 pm · Link
@Evinfuilt:
The rules are about the same for judges as for Presidents. You get impeached in the House, judged and removed by the Senate. In today’s gridlock, it’s simply not going to happen. Hell, it’s only happened once in US history – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Chase – and even then, he was impeached by the House but not removed by the Senate. And that was under Thomas freak’n Jefferson.
So I wouldn’t hold my breath.
jaxtra - March 10, 2010 | 12:05 pm · Link
stfu and don’t do your job would be better for all
JenJen - March 10, 2010 | 12:06 pm · Link
Thank you for being shrill, DougJ. It’s the perfect, and needed, response to this kind of WATB behavior from the Chief Justice.
John Marshall used to famously write newspaper Op/Eds using an alias, and Roberts must know this, which makes his crying hypocritical. As far as the modern Court is concerned, well, they shed any patina of independence after they ruled in Bush v. Gore, and can be considered every bit as political as the other two branches. Spare me, Roberts. Good gawd, what are you, a delicate little violet?
(And I still haven’t forgotten that you f’d up the Oath. It’s about the only thing you’re useful for, and you screwed the pooch before an audience of millions at a moment of great gravity and historical significance. Asshole.)
Citizen_X - March 10, 2010 | 12:08 pm · Link
I know Greenwald is persona non grata around here (for some good reasons), but he rakes Roberts over the coals today today for his lack of self-awareness:
Fergus Wooster - March 10, 2010 | 12:09 pm · Link
@neill:
This. I couldn’t believe how many people couldn’t see through that smarminess during the confirmation hearings. My moderate republican father bought it hook line and sinker.
Mnemosyne - March 10, 2010 | 12:09 pm · Link
Hey, here’s an idea, John Roberts—if you don’t want people to criticize you for making really stupid decisions that will affect elections, don’t make really stupid decisions that will affect elections.
KG - March 10, 2010 | 12:10 pm · Link
@Evinfuilt: @Kennedy: federal judges at any level can be impeached, much like the president or vice-president, for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The last one to be impeached was Alcee Hastings (who came back as a congresscritter). To my knowledge, no member of the Supreme Court has ever been impeached.
And no, making bad decisions is not a basis for impeachment.
geg6 - March 10, 2010 | 12:11 pm · Link
OT, but if A Mom Anon is around, she has an important email awaiting her perusal.
Comrade Dread - March 10, 2010 | 12:13 pm · Link
It’s not proper to question anyone within the Village.
Unless he’s an Islamo-facist, Communist, Soshalist, Euro-lovin’, dijon-eatin’ Kenyan with a funny middle name…
Or a latte-sipping San Franciscan libural…
Or a effete Francophile wuss who looks silly on a wake board and probably only got a purple heart cause he cut himself filing some reports…
Or a soshalist environmentalist who lives in a big house and wants to make us all bike to work while he drives a limo and flies around to environmental events, when he should just swim there on the back of a dolphin whom he loves a little too much if you ask me…
Nim, ham hock of liberty - March 10, 2010 | 12:13 pm · Link
Yeah, the legislature is a partisan, political body. That’s the way it was designed, and the way it’s supposed to be. The Chief Executive is also a political office, occupied by a partisan.
The SCOTUS is not supposed to be partisan or political. I mean, what else needs to be said?
It’s unfair because you can’t get up and start arguing federalism with the chief executive? Boo Fricken Hoo. You’re just an umpire calling balls and strikes, right? Then sit there motionless and don’t delegitimize the neutrality of the court any more than your opinions already do.
The Grand Panjandrum - March 10, 2010 | 12:14 pm · Link
@Citizen_X: Glenzilla is persona non grata? When did that happen? I know he catches some flack around here but I didn’t realize he was on the naughty list. He’s no Jane Hamsher!
J.W. Hamner - March 10, 2010 | 12:15 pm · Link
This WH response will confirm the belief in some quarters that the Supreme Court judges sit apart from partisanship and shouldn’t be the butt of criticism designed to score political points.
Personally, I don’t see how anybody can argue that the Supreme Court isn’t just as partisan as any other aspect of our politics. Presumably it’s because of all those 9-0 rulings they make, and how nobody can tell which side of a case people like Scalia are going to be on those rare contested rulings.
Corner Stone - March 10, 2010 | 12:16 pm · Link
@neill:
Served in the Reagan Administration = instantly recognizable evil.
Martin - March 10, 2010 | 12:18 pm · Link
@KG: Samuel Chase was impeached but not removed from the bench. Been a while, granted.
Balloon Juice » Blog Archive » WATB - March 10, 2010 | 12:19 pm · Link
[...] STFU SCOTUS 10 Mar WATB [...]
MikeJ - March 10, 2010 | 12:21 pm · Link
OT, but Congressional Quarterly (via Benan) says we won’t have Reed to kick around this November.
Corner Stone - March 10, 2010 | 12:21 pm · Link
@The Grand Panjandrum:
That would be awesome if she showed up for a thread. Two thousand comments here we come!
But I don’t think Cole knows the proper incantations to summon her grisly visage.
She’s pure evil you know. And more powerful than Paul Bunyan on his ox.
Paris - March 10, 2010 | 12:24 pm · Link
According to Hal Sparks on The Stephanie Miller Show, since its the Republican appointees that are the activist problem, the correct term is SCROTUS.
STFU SCROTUS.
kth - March 10, 2010 | 12:25 pm · Link
It perhaps bears repeating that Citizens United was the most outrageous decision the SCOTUS has made since Bush v Gore. 100 years of precedent tossed out the window.
WereBear - March 10, 2010 | 12:27 pm · Link
@kth: Bush vs Gore will be the Dred Scott of the future.
Toast - March 10, 2010 | 12:29 pm · Link
Maybe the pain of being publicly criticized by the president will prove too much to bear and Roberts will retire.
Corner Stone - March 10, 2010 | 12:29 pm · Link
@WereBear:
And John Roberts went to FL to advise Jeb Bush for that episode, at least according to Wiki.
Veddy interehstink.
Egilsson - March 10, 2010 | 12:29 pm · Link
I care less about Roberts’ work in the Reagan administration than I do about his work for Kenneth Starr.
What happened with Kenneth Starr and their pursuit of all things Clinton – and their destructiveness – is the part that is the real red flag.
That whole episode was a disgrace, and much less so on Clinton’s part than on Starr et al.
WereBear - March 10, 2010 | 12:31 pm · Link
@Corner Stone: Oh, yeah.
And all that state’s rights stuff? They didn’t really mean it.
Napoleon - March 10, 2010 | 12:32 pm · Link
@Citizen_X:
Re: your out take from Glenn G. I use to do a little litigation when I first got out of law school and so got to know a little about the judges in the area (not only do I not do that work any more but no one at my firm does court work) and there were some judges that would have made Stalin blush. I can think of one guy who when a 2nd year clerk was sent down to drop something off at his office he pulled her in and yelled at her/berated her as if she was the firm’s managing partner over some perceived problem in the case she knew nothing about. It was incredibly low class and inappropriate, not to mention ineffective. In normal life somebody from the firm would have then drove down and screamed at the ass——to never again treat our employees that way again, but then again you can’t afford to do that with a federal judge, so that didn’t happen.
georgia pig - March 10, 2010 | 12:38 pm · Link
Roberts seems to have confused the Supreme Court with the Vatican.
former_friend - March 10, 2010 | 12:39 pm · Link
I’m with you on this one, DougJ. Thanks for the shrill hippie-speak, it’s quite welcome.
FlipYrWhig - March 10, 2010 | 12:42 pm · Link
@Citizen_X: Greenwald is fine, albeit often overwrought, when he’s talking about what he actually knows, which is the law and civil liberties. When he wanders away from that, he’s just another voice in the cacophony, but he still acts all lordly and lofty and dismissive of all other possible views. That’s what irritates me about him. So I’m not surprised he would have something useful to say about the Supreme Court. That’s his beat. Good for him.
Soul On Ice - March 10, 2010 | 12:47 pm · Link
Warren Burger says Roberts should tell him about it
Svensker - March 10, 2010 | 12:50 pm · Link
@Citizen_X:
Why is Glenn PNG? I thought he was wrong as hell on his “I can divine the source behind the Rahm is a genius leaks by my super-human reasoning powers” thing. But everybody’s wrong sometimes. He’s persona very grata in my book.
Evinfuilt - March 10, 2010 | 12:52 pm · Link
This thread has been an education, thank you :) Even if being an idiot isn’t an impeachable offense it doesn’t stop me from day-dreaming of the drama. I mean, it wouldn’t stop the Republicans.
Heck, this whole week at University of Houston we’ve had pro-impeachment protesters (though they can’t explain what laws Obama has broke, then again, they’re LaRouchies.)
Dan Robinson - March 10, 2010 | 12:54 pm · Link
Roberts is a
pussy(oops, I’ve known some pussies that I’ve actually liked)prick(oops, I have one of those and I am quite partial to it) a pile of shit.DonBelacquaDelPurgatorio - March 10, 2010 | 12:55 pm · Link
The Bush Administration treated the courts like unwelcome pariahs, and the courts were largely silent.
President Obama criticizes one decision, and you’d think he wanted to write the judicial branch out of the Constitution.
I guess uppity negroes are still a little hard for our Republican friends to cope with.
Sorry, but Fuck Roberts©. And the glue factory horse he rode in on.
slippy - March 10, 2010 | 1:00 pm · Link
The Roberts Court decisions are, from here on out, going to have an asterisk next to them, and they’re going to make more work for Congress undoing their bad, partisan decisions.
Well, actually I think everything the Court has done since Bush V. Gore deserves an asterisk next to it.
Right now, the SCROTUS (and I would like to point out that I’ve been calling them that for several months now) is an illegitimate body, with little or no credibility. It will remain so until Alito, Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and/or Kennedy resign or are impeached or die. ESPECIALLY any decisions where Thomas, Scalia, O’Connor, Rehnquist and/or Kennedy were involved.
JasonF - March 10, 2010 | 1:01 pm · Link
If Republicans want to get angry at the president for criticzing the consequences of a judicial opinion, then they need to stop talking about “activist judges” and “legislating from the bench.” Either the Supreme Court’s duties are limited to ruling on the Constitutionality of legislation without regard to whether the legislation represents a sound policy decision or it isn’t. If it is, they can’t complain when they strike down laws and the political branches want to make policy to address the consequences of the courts’ decisions.
But as usual, the right wants to have its cake—pretend that judges aren’t making policy—and eat it too—get upset when the left criticizes the policy implications of what the right pretends are purely legalistic decisions.
The Populist - March 10, 2010 | 1:07 pm · Link
Roberts should be impeached. The right wing supremes are the true activist judges. Nothing they do is on the side of the constitution or what the founding fathers intended. NOTHING.
The Populist - March 10, 2010 | 1:09 pm · Link
@JasonF:
How many times did we hear the right go after liberal supremes? It’s unfortunate that Roberts and Alito don’t have thicker skins. If they want to play partisan dickwad, go ahead, but they should show some integrity and go be private lobbyists, lawyers and stop fucking with this country to make it a haven for the super rich and corporations at the rest of our expense.
rikyrah - March 10, 2010 | 1:23 pm · Link
can’t have too many diaries pointing out what an asshole the Chief Justice is.
Mike - March 10, 2010 | 1:27 pm · Link
Strange, it was OK when Birchers had billboards demanding the impeachment of Earl Warren, but everything is OK if it’s the GOP.
Of course, the elitist Supremes only seem to have a snail address:
“Substantive questions should be directed, in writing, to the Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, DC 20543.”
dr. bloor - March 10, 2010 | 1:50 pm · Link
@Mike:
They tried putting computers in the justices’ offices, but Fat Tony kept yelling about not being able to find Judge Judy and Matlock reruns on it.
Comrade Sock Puppet of the Great Satan - March 10, 2010 | 1:52 pm · Link
“Served in the Reagan Administration = instantly recognizable evil.”
Hey, but the Krugster served in the Reagan Council of Economic Advisers.
Xenos - March 10, 2010 | 1:53 pm · Link
@KG: Lying in your confirmation testimony can be a criminal act, but it looks like the claims by Roberts and Alito that they would respect precedent do not rise to the level of perjury. You could impeach and convict over anything, really, as the Senate would be the final arbiter of what is and is not a high crime or misdemeanor in this context. Does not mean it would be a good idea, of course.
Comrade Sock Puppet of the Great Satan - March 10, 2010 | 1:53 pm · Link
“They tried putting computers in the justices’ offices”
But Thomas ate up all the bandwidth doing one-handed “research” on adult-content websites.
Joey Maloney - March 10, 2010 | 1:55 pm · Link
@OP:
I first read this as, go for that attempted coup and get shot [for treason] and be done with it.
Which is kind of harsh but it would tend to tie up a lot of annoying loose ends.
...I will say, though, that clutch of pearls looks divine with the black robe.
Dog is My Copilot - March 10, 2010 | 2:11 pm · Link
My mother used to be a court reporter. The judge she worked for was an absolute tyrant. Verbally abusive. Ruled over his little fiefdom and verbally struck down anyone who dared challenge him, talk over him, argue with him, contradict him. Most of the court staff lived in fear of him or of potentially crossing him in any way. Most of the judges in the court system were like that, however. My mom and her fellow court reporters called it “Black Robe Disease.”
russell - March 10, 2010 | 2:13 pm · Link
Dear John Roberts: If you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
No kidding.
Cheney missed his big chance to roll out his Continuation of Government deal on 9/11, because the folks on Flight 93 brought the plane down before it could get to DC.
So close, yet so far! And when will a chance like that come again?
I don’t think he’s ever gotten over it.
Some days I wonder how Bush made it alive to 9/12.
someguy - March 10, 2010 | 2:21 pm · Link
What makes you think he did? Until I see evidence of the contrary, I’m going to presume he had no brain activity.
Brent - March 10, 2010 | 2:22 pm · Link
Roberts : Obama is an uppity n**ger. He should know his place.
Richards : Back in the day, you would be strung upside down with a fork up your ass.
Cacti - March 10, 2010 | 2:26 pm · Link
His excellency the Chief Justice just isn’t accustomed to having someone disagree with him in anything other than the most deferential tones. I’m surprised he didn’t threaten to hold Obama in contempt at the SOTU.
The precedent that the judiciary should be immune from criticism by a co-equal branch of Government is found in Article III, Section 4, Jackson 5. Scalia and Thomas looked it up for him.
Robertdsc-iphone - March 10, 2010 | 2:33 pm · Link
The next SOTU should be a barn-burner.
TuiMel - March 10, 2010 | 2:38 pm · Link
Some one should get footage of Chief Justice Roberts’ attendance at W’s SOTU speeches. I recall distinctly the look of approval and support on his face for Bush – and at least one instance of applause for Bush’s statements. I think Roberts can say what he likes. But, my recollection of his shining face at at least one of Bush’s SOTU speech, makes me think he is a hypocrit. It is not the first time I have had this reaction. Go ahead, John. Stay home. No one would fault you, but you get no public glory either.
Sam Alito’s performance at his confirmation hearing (he literally punched hippies in his remarks) makes nothing he does a surprise to me. He is an ideologue.
Makewi - March 10, 2010 | 2:45 pm · Link
The problem will resolve itself once we are rid of Obama, the most openly partisan, factually challenged idiot we have ever had the displeasure of having serve as POTUS during my lifetime. 3 more years, then we can put this nightmare behind us and return to a time in which court decisions are not politicized in the SOTU.
SB Jules - March 10, 2010 | 2:55 pm · Link
Breaking from tradition, Obama criticized the court’s decision that allows corporations and unions to freely spend money to run political ads for or against specific candidates.
No mention of FDR or Reagan criticizing the court during the SOTU. But this is the AP we’re talking about, so I don’t really expect accuracy.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/
UCSB is my beloved alma mater. We’re Obama country here.
Bob L - March 10, 2010 | 3:14 pm · Link
Makewi @ “then we can put this nightmare behind us and return to a time in which court decisions are not politicized in the SOTU.”
Getting all teary eyed and nostalgic for Bush verse Gore you say? Or was that Dred Scot verses Standford? I get mixed up. What ever happened to the good old days when the Left just bent over and took it with out comment for the Right.
Comrade Kevin - March 10, 2010 | 3:22 pm · Link
@Makewi: That was weak, even for you. Too obvious.
asiangrrlMN - March 10, 2010 | 3:28 pm · Link
@Fergus Wooster: But look at Reagan. Look at Palin. Look at W. Look at Thune, for god’s sake. People got taken in by the surface and never bothered to look underneath. People tend to see what they want to see/are trained to see. Roberts is purportedly boyishly handsome, so that’s that. Personally, he gives me the creeps, but to each her own.
DougJ, I like it when you get shrill. And, I think on this topic, it’s important to go full-metal shrill on the SCOTUS’s rightwing asses.
liberal - March 10, 2010 | 3:54 pm · Link
Thank God we have the filibuster, or else that right-wing POS would be on the USSC.
Oh, wait…
liberal - March 10, 2010 | 3:55 pm · Link
@Fergus Wooster:
So did the US Senate. Alito was much closer than Roberts, right?
liberal - March 10, 2010 | 3:57 pm · Link
@Makewi:
WOW!
It’s been how many years since Bush left office? You’re extremely precocious—-typing blog comments, and you probably aren’t even potty trained yet!
liberal - March 10, 2010 | 4:00 pm · Link
@Xenos:
Huh? I think every single judge who voted in the majority of Bush v. Gore should be impeached.
liberal - March 10, 2010 | 4:02 pm · Link
@Mike:
Just to be clear: Warren was nominated by a Republican for the SC, and when he first ran for gov of Cal., he ran as a Republican. (Wiki says the second time around, he ran as a Republican, a Democrat, and as a Progressive. I sh*t you not.)
liberal - March 10, 2010 | 4:05 pm · Link
@Svensker:
Because he dared to criticize Obama.
Corner Stone - March 10, 2010 | 4:20 pm · Link
@Comrade Sock Puppet of the Great Satan:
Case closed.
Corner Stone - March 10, 2010 | 4:29 pm · Link
@liberal:
Actually I don’t he’s officially PNG here, just takes lotsa flack from a portion of the hive mind
And it wasn’t just the Obama part, GG dared to tell the cultists that they were, in fact, displaying classic cultist/tribalist behavior.
AxelFoley - March 10, 2010 | 4:59 pm · Link
Damn, Doug, tell us how you really feel. LOL!
Makewi - March 10, 2010 | 5:01 pm · Link
@Bob L:
Funny. The left as the perpetual victim of the Right, even when they hold all the levers of power. Plus the insinuation of bigotry in the Scott reference. You are good soldier son, hitting all your marks.
beatty - March 10, 2010 | 6:20 pm · Link
what do you think Roberts would do if we, say, sent him a whole bunch of faxes, the kind some of us have been sending to our congresspersons to urge them to pass a health care bill…something politely worded but screaming with logic at the court’s recent rulings?
Veritas78 - March 10, 2010 | 8:06 pm · Link
John Roberts is most likely a deeply-closeted gay man. His
beardwife and he arranged to adopt two blonde South American kids (like those are readily available.) He has never once ruled against a corporation. Bought-and-paid-for.Now we know that he has a thin skin. I suggest that we find out how thin that skin is. The Roberts family is well worth our while delving into, because we ARE going to find the kink, and it will be what gets Roberts off the court. Which he shouldn’t have been on in the first place.
John Roberts—if you are reading this, prepare yourself. You have been warned.
priscianus jr - March 10, 2010 | 8:33 pm · Link
The irony of it is that this is already the most political SCOTUS in history, and even more ironic, that Roberts, by even saying this, is engaging in politics, this time through the typical GOP image manipulation. He’s making a big mistake, because the court lost a lot of its credibility when it willfully interfered with the presidential election of 2000, and the greatly-disliked recent decision on campaign financing is widely and rightly seen as another big interference in electoral politics. In other words, Roberts should keep his mouth shut, because he’s just showing more of what the majority of people don’t like about the current SCOTUS.
dmhlt - March 10, 2010 | 9:28 pm · Link
MediaMatters documents a long history of presidents criticizing SCOTUS in their SOTU speeches:
Source:
http://mediamatters.org/research/201001290019
TenguPhule - March 11, 2010 | 12:10 am · Link
I propose we start the experiment with a paring knife.
Nancy Irving - March 11, 2010 | 5:50 am · Link
GOP politicians, including presidents, have been blasting “liberal” Supreme Court decisions for decades, in fact since Earl Warren was Chief Justice starting in the fifties.
Get used to taking some of your own medicine, creeps.
JK - March 11, 2010 | 6:48 am · Link
Fixing JK’s account.
—Doug