Wisconsin judge tosses union-busting law

Who cares who appointed her? She is a liberal and her son was working (and getting paid) to stop SB 5. No one gives a shit who appointed her.
[/quote]

And her husband may have a left lean as well. So what? Is this the 18th century? Honest question...do you think it is possible for a woman to have her own views on things or do you just assume that she must agree with her "much smarter" male family members?

BTW I guess I am too stupid to get the quote function to work. Maybe I should ask my "smarter male family members" for help (or women , just someone that can make my quote function work).

 

Carlton, I'm not trying to get in a pissing match with you. But why do you assume she is a liberal activist judge? I just don't see this being as clear cut as you do.

 

I hope I've made it in time.

 

I believe that has been the fate of every thread involving the Wisconsin union/governor showdown, and there have been several of them.

 

Seriously? I would think if there's one thing we can still agree on on this "journalists" board, it's that we won't violate copyright law.

 

And can we assume you hold the same view about Clarence Thomas since his disclosure, following years of false declarations to the contrary, that his wife earned more than $600,000 in a five-year span from the Heritage Foundation?

 

Exactly.

But I guess if somebody isn't in favor of open meeting laws being observed, then why should they respect copyright laws?

 

Absolutely, Clarence Thomas should recuse hiself from any case in front of the US Supreme Court involving the Heritage Foundation.

And Inky & Magic....take your holier-than-thou attitude and pound it straight up something.

 

Among its many other advocacy positions, the Heritage Foundation filed an amicus brief in the Citizens United case.