Leadership 101

I'd be happy if Tony would actually respond with a reply which makes sense, doesn't insult others and actually stays on topic.

Plain and simple Tony, either you agree or disagree with the AG on this one. All other responses from you should be withheld until you make up your mind on it.

We'll be waiting.

 

Careful there AA, you'll wind up with the horrific punishment of being included, along with a fake quote, in tony's sig.

 

Are we clear?

 

Crystal.
(Oh, and by the way, both the Afghan and Iraqi wars are being conducted off the books in our soaring domestic economy. To finance them properly, yes, I'd roll back all or most of the grotesque tax breaks given to the superrich.)

 

Would you say that leaves our economy in GRAVE danger?

 

We'll have to forgive you, dog, for calling "tell the woman -- black or white or whatever -- to have kids but not marry the father and kick him out of the house and then we'll give her free money" as a civil right. We're so much a better country for The Great Society tearing families apart, right dog?

 

Is there any other kind?
(Between this and the thread about The Paper, I feel very good about the essential uselessness of long-term memory.)

 

I believe AA asked you a question. Surely you're not ducking his question.

 

old_tony's assessment of The Great Society -- which, I guarantee you, he can't define -- is ahistorical, but makes up for it by introducing us to syntax from Neptune.

 

Keep waiting then ... actually, just kidding there. Based on what I've seen in this thread, the quote from Gonzalez, if presented in context (and I haven't otherwise read up on the issue just yet) is wrong.

It is the SC's job to interpret laws. Now, that having been said, it's the ONLY job judges have. It's the job of the legislature to pass laws, not the judges, the way you guys apparently want it. The system of checks and balances our Constitution set up was meant to check and balance all three branches. That means executive, legislative AND JUDICIAL, not just the executive and legislative.

Activist judges are a threat to everyone just as other branches out of control. You'd see the point a lot more clearly if conservative judges were activist, but since liberal judges are the ones who are activist, you seem to be OK with it.

Summing up, judges can either uphold or strike down laws. They can not rewrite them, and that's what too many of them do nowadays.

 

Are you planning on doing any investigating, or are you just gonna take the guided tour?

 

I think we need a Tony-English/English-Tony dictionary.

He's starting to sound like Borat.