🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <mogtb1d5sqt2u1kentf83n55pm0c8g1e1v@4ax.com>, rsturge@inreach.com says...
>
>On 26 Jun 2005 03:11:13 GMT, fwhite*NOSPAM*@colfax.com
>(Frank White) wrote:
>
>(snips)
>
>>>You must have Frank White Disease.  
>>
>>He's seeing through the BS?
>
>About as well as you are - not at all.
>
>>Woo.  O_O
>>
>>>In case you somehow
>>>missed it, those Evil Right Wingers are the ones who voted
>>>YOUR way.
>>
>>The legalist technocrats VS the Evil Right Wingers.  And we
>>see who won.
>>
>>And that we lost.
>
>Yes, WE lost, because there weren't enough Evil Right
>Wingers on the SC to defeat your precious Progressives, or
>Liberals, or whatever you want to call that pack of Big
>Government enablers.  And you'll probably continue to blame
>the Evil Right Wingers, as if the opinions were all exactly
>the opposite of what they really were.  Bizarre, truly
>bizarre.
>
>>:(
>
>You have plenty of things to be unhappy about in this case,
>but the opinions of Rehnquist, Thomas, Scalia, and O'Connor
>aren't among them.  The Truth is out there, Frank.  All you
>need do is look at it.

What I continue to be unhappy about is your characterization
of Souter's cliche as 'liberals'.  Let's look at some REAL
liberal decisions from a liberal SC and see if you STILL can
make that claim...

"1963 
Gideon v. Wainwright guaranteed a defendant's right to legal counsel. 
The Supreme Court overturned the Florida felony conviction of Clarence
Earl Gideon, who had defended himself after having been denied a 
request for free counsel. The Court held that the state's failure to
provide counsel for a defendant charged with a felony violated the 
Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. Gideon was given another 
trial, and with a court-appointed lawyer defending him, he was acquitted. 

1964 
New York Times v. Sullivan extended the protection offered the press 
by the First Amendment. L.B. Sullivan, a police commissioner in 
Montgomery, Ala., had filed a libel suit against the New York Times for
publishing inaccurate information about certain actions taken by the 
Montgomery police department. In overturning a lower court's decision, 
the Supreme Court held that debate on public issues would be inhibited 
if public officials could sue for inaccuracies that were made by mistake. 
The ruling made it more difficult for public officials to bring libel 
charges against the press, since the official had to prove that a harmful
untruth was told maliciously and with reckless disregard for truth. 

1966 
Miranda v. Arizona was another case that helped define the due process 
clause of the 14th Amendment. At the center of the case was Ernesto 
Miranda, who had confessed to a crime during police questioning without 
knowing he had a right to have an attorney present. Based on his
confession, Miranda was convicted. The Supreme Court overturned the 
conviction, ruling that criminal suspects must be warned of their rights 
before they are questioned by police. These rights are: the right to 
remain silent, to have an attorney present, and, if the suspect cannot 
afford an attorney, to have one appointed by the state. The police must 
also warn suspects that any statements they make can be used against 
them in court. Miranda was retried without the confession and convicted. 

1973 
Roe v. Wade legalized abortion and is at the center of the current 
controversy between pro-life and pro-choice advocates. The Court ruled 
that a woman has the right to an abortion without interference from the 
government in the first trimester of pregnancy, contending that it is 
part of her right to privacy. The Court maintained that right to privacy 
is not absolute, however, and granted states the right to intervene in 
the second and third trimesters of pregnancy."

Now, can you see Souter, Kennedy, or any of the other Freaky Four
signing off on any of these?  Or if you want a more contemporary
(and more extreme) example, how about the 9th Circuit's decision
that including "under God" in the Pledge of Alligence makes it a
prayer and so it cannot be used in schools?  That liberal enough
for you?  You think any Justice agrees with it?

I have said before.  I will say again.  Souter and his bunch are
not liberals, they are right wingers.  And it is a measure of just
how extreme this current Supreme Court has become that they are
considered the left wing of the Court.  And just how ignorant of
history those of you are who don't see this.

YMMV, but I'm correct on this and you're not.

FW