Once again, another state court has forced its state legislature to make law contrary to its state constitution. According to a news report:
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) - Under pressure from New Jersey's highest court to offer marriage or its equivalent to gay couples, the Legislature voted Thursday to make New Jersey the third state to allow civil unions.
This report reflected how the respective state supreme courts have coerced legislatures of Vermont, Massachusetts (by one vote) and now New Jersey (also by one vote) to codify into law what has been regarded historically as "a crime against nature." In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court validated the view that a homosexual act as a criminal act as recently as 1986 in the Bowers vs. Hardwick case.
But why do legislatures bow down to such judicial tyranny. They and respective governors have been given constitutional authority to protect their respective state constitutions from such clear extra-constitutional juridical "opinions." Legislative weakness, both federal and state levels, have allowed such judicial imperialism. Often, legislatures no longer reflect the values of the people nor exercise constitutional and moral leadership, but rather experience political fear and legal handwringing.
Who will stand against judicial hegemony and stand for historically proven constitutional values?
Dec 14, 2006
Senate Democrat majority in danger, GOP looking to majority status
As reported yesterday and today, U.S. Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD), is in critical condition: WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson lay in critical condition Thursday after undergoing emergency overnight surgery to repair bleeding inside his brain, raising questions over whether his illness could cost Democrats their newly won control of the Senate.
Both Democrats and Republicans are concerned about the medical outcome. Republicans will take what reality will give them, though it is problematic that a major party has to depend on a possible disability to gain the majority again. The GOP can get the majority if:
1) Sen. Johnson is medically disabled;
2) The South Dakota Republican governor will choose a Republican;
3) This appointed Republican senator will give the GOP 50 senators against 50 Democrat senators;
4) Vice President Dick Cheney, as president of the U.S. Senate, will be break the tie;
5) The GOP gains the Senate leadership.
The GOP should have kept the majority during the November 2006 elections but senators Conrad Burns (R-MT) and George Allen (R-VA) lost (unnecessarily) their close races due to ethical or verbal mistakes.
Six critical senatorial races were lost by the GOP and gained by the Democrats, a result which few predicted. Now the mighty GOP must look to a disabled senator to win back majority status. As King David wrote in the Good Book, "How the mighty has fallen."
What do you think?
Both Democrats and Republicans are concerned about the medical outcome. Republicans will take what reality will give them, though it is problematic that a major party has to depend on a possible disability to gain the majority again. The GOP can get the majority if:
1) Sen. Johnson is medically disabled;
2) The South Dakota Republican governor will choose a Republican;
3) This appointed Republican senator will give the GOP 50 senators against 50 Democrat senators;
4) Vice President Dick Cheney, as president of the U.S. Senate, will be break the tie;
5) The GOP gains the Senate leadership.
The GOP should have kept the majority during the November 2006 elections but senators Conrad Burns (R-MT) and George Allen (R-VA) lost (unnecessarily) their close races due to ethical or verbal mistakes.
Six critical senatorial races were lost by the GOP and gained by the Democrats, a result which few predicted. Now the mighty GOP must look to a disabled senator to win back majority status. As King David wrote in the Good Book, "How the mighty has fallen."
What do you think?
Dec 13, 2006
Democrat Tsunami and radical changes in Iraq?
Democrat Tsunami and radical changes in Iraq?
Dr. E's analysis
It's almost been one month and one week since the Democrat Tsunami washed away the Republican kings of the Hill. Next month, Capitol Hill will change hands, from U.S. Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) to U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and U.S. Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) to U.S. Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV).
The media have been awashed for years of radical changes in Iraq, perhaps an immediate withdrawal said Pelosi and U.S. Rep. John Murtha (D-PA). Since the Democrats are in the congressional drivers' seat, they have to be verbally responsible--if they want to keep their leadership in both the Senate and the House. With leadership comes responsibility, hence their will be little talk about immediately withdrawal.
In fact, U.S. Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) has virtually echoed President Bush's call to let the generals on the field dictate decisions including a 12-18 month phased redeployment. Come 2008, the Bush doctrine and his War on Terror, much as the Dems want to throw it overboard will, in fact, dominate the debate.
If the Democrat leaders such as Pelosi, Murtha, with the vocal assistance of U.S. Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), were really committed to immediately withdrawing U.S. troops, their first order of business must be to, with one voice, defund the war effort in Iraq. Are you going to hear such clarion calls from congressional leaders?
Conclusion: With some tactical changes, all in all, little will change in Iraq during the next 12-18 months militarily and monetarily. Democrats don't want to be responsible for radical changes that lead to military losses, Iraqi anarchy and God forbid, a terrorist attack in CONUS (continental United States), esp. with the political tidal wave of the 2008 presidential and congressional elections fast approaching.
With responsbility comes political moderation and electoral consideration.
What do you think?
Dr. E's analysis
It's almost been one month and one week since the Democrat Tsunami washed away the Republican kings of the Hill. Next month, Capitol Hill will change hands, from U.S. Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) to U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and U.S. Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) to U.S. Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV).
The media have been awashed for years of radical changes in Iraq, perhaps an immediate withdrawal said Pelosi and U.S. Rep. John Murtha (D-PA). Since the Democrats are in the congressional drivers' seat, they have to be verbally responsible--if they want to keep their leadership in both the Senate and the House. With leadership comes responsibility, hence their will be little talk about immediately withdrawal.
In fact, U.S. Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) has virtually echoed President Bush's call to let the generals on the field dictate decisions including a 12-18 month phased redeployment. Come 2008, the Bush doctrine and his War on Terror, much as the Dems want to throw it overboard will, in fact, dominate the debate.
If the Democrat leaders such as Pelosi, Murtha, with the vocal assistance of U.S. Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), were really committed to immediately withdrawing U.S. troops, their first order of business must be to, with one voice, defund the war effort in Iraq. Are you going to hear such clarion calls from congressional leaders?
Conclusion: With some tactical changes, all in all, little will change in Iraq during the next 12-18 months militarily and monetarily. Democrats don't want to be responsible for radical changes that lead to military losses, Iraqi anarchy and God forbid, a terrorist attack in CONUS (continental United States), esp. with the political tidal wave of the 2008 presidential and congressional elections fast approaching.
With responsbility comes political moderation and electoral consideration.
What do you think?
Hillary Clinton predicted to be president, Obama vice president, said GOP Leader DeLay
News and Analysis: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Tom DeLay
Breaking News from NewsMax.com
DeLay Predicts Hillary PresidencyFormer House Majority Leader Tom DeLay knows who will be elected president in 2008: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. At a meeting Tuesday in Washington, D.C., hosted by Human Events and the Heritage Foundation, the former Republican congressman also predicted that Clinton's running mate would be Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. DeLay, who just unveiled his new blog and Grassroots Action and Information Network, said liberal organizations and media will work together to elect Clinton, D-N.Y.
"Hillary will be the next president of the United States because they have built a coalition,” DeLay said, according to Human Events.
Dr. E's Analysis: To my co-workers and/or classes, I've predicted for 12 years that Hillary Clinton (HC) will run for president. In my classes, I've predicted for six years that she'll be the Democrat Party presidential nominee in 2008. This part, Tom DeLay is, I believe, correct. Her vice presidential choice of a well-spoken though unproven senator, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (IL-D) would be a mega media event, but (here's where DeLay and I part), it won't be enough to get the presidency. Why not?
During the last 30 years, Democrats have needed a Southerner to win the presidency (Carter in '76, Clinton/Gore in '92 and '96). The Democrats will need another Southerner, at least as a vice presidential nominee, to win the 2008 election.
Clinton/Obama against the Republicans in '08 will be a tough race; quite possibly ensuring a win for the Dems calls for someone like U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson (FL-D). Post-2000, Florida still remains a critical state for both parties.
Since HC is a NY/Northeast liberal, she does not need another liberal in Obama. Since Dems already get about 90% of the African-American vote, she won't benefit electorally if she chooses a black vice presidential nominee.
Conclusion: A calm and considered choice by HC would call for a substantive Southern male candidate that will balance the ticket and guarantee electoral votes.
What do you think?
Breaking News from NewsMax.com
DeLay Predicts Hillary PresidencyFormer House Majority Leader Tom DeLay knows who will be elected president in 2008: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. At a meeting Tuesday in Washington, D.C., hosted by Human Events and the Heritage Foundation, the former Republican congressman also predicted that Clinton's running mate would be Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. DeLay, who just unveiled his new blog and Grassroots Action and Information Network, said liberal organizations and media will work together to elect Clinton, D-N.Y.
"Hillary will be the next president of the United States because they have built a coalition,” DeLay said, according to Human Events.
Dr. E's Analysis: To my co-workers and/or classes, I've predicted for 12 years that Hillary Clinton (HC) will run for president. In my classes, I've predicted for six years that she'll be the Democrat Party presidential nominee in 2008. This part, Tom DeLay is, I believe, correct. Her vice presidential choice of a well-spoken though unproven senator, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (IL-D) would be a mega media event, but (here's where DeLay and I part), it won't be enough to get the presidency. Why not?
During the last 30 years, Democrats have needed a Southerner to win the presidency (Carter in '76, Clinton/Gore in '92 and '96). The Democrats will need another Southerner, at least as a vice presidential nominee, to win the 2008 election.
Clinton/Obama against the Republicans in '08 will be a tough race; quite possibly ensuring a win for the Dems calls for someone like U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson (FL-D). Post-2000, Florida still remains a critical state for both parties.
Since HC is a NY/Northeast liberal, she does not need another liberal in Obama. Since Dems already get about 90% of the African-American vote, she won't benefit electorally if she chooses a black vice presidential nominee.
Conclusion: A calm and considered choice by HC would call for a substantive Southern male candidate that will balance the ticket and guarantee electoral votes.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)