Souter to retire
Supreme Court Justice David Souter has announced he will retire at the end of the current term.
The biggest mistake John Sununu ever made was vouching that Souter would be a “home run” for conservatives.
Now, we’ll get an out liberal as opposed to a stealth one.
Is it Harold Koh’s lucky day?
Gah.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Supreme Court to Decide Arizona Immigration Law
December 12, 2011 01:18 PM by Doug Powers
57 CommentsNancy Pelosi: The Obamacare SCOTUS Arguments Should Be Transparent (Now That the Bill Has Been Written, Passed and Implemented)
November 16, 2011 08:51 PM by Doug Powers
47 CommentsDocument drop: C-SPAN asks Supreme Court to open Obamacare oral arguments to cameras
November 15, 2011 04:37 PM by Michelle Malkin
49 CommentsObamacare Arrives at the Supreme Court; Update: Court Announces They’ll Hear Case This Term
November 13, 2011 03:42 PM by Doug Powers
158 CommentsIndiana Supreme Court: Resisting an Unlawful Entry Into Your Home is… Unlawful
May 14, 2011 01:03 PM by Doug Powers
148 CommentsWhite House Tells Supreme Court to Stay Away from Obamacare
March 15, 2011 09:38 AM by Doug Powers
130 CommentsWhy Liberals and the Supreme Court are a Dangerous Mix, Part XXXVII
September 14, 2010 12:52 PM by Doug Powers
51 CommentsWho Inspired Lindsey Graham to Vote for Elena Kagan’s Confirmation? Why, Jesus, of Course!
August 6, 2010 03:40 PM by Doug Powers
75 Comments
Categories: Supreme Court
Patterico
» Rick Santorum and the two playbooks



Pundit & Pundette
» King Barack vs. the Nonconformists
JustOneMinute
» Cat Blogging In A Harsh New Light
Gateway Pundit
» Top Leftist Blog: Obama Must Quash Religious Freedom to Save Earth From Global Warming










John Deaux–I do hate it when that happens.
John:
I know you aren’t a zealot. I was just poking at you.
I am glad to hear you agree WRT MJ and prostitution. To clarify, I do agree with undreseige in regards to zoning. that just makes sense.
I’ll happily answer your question after you’ve run your world view to it’s logical conclusion.
I apologize to MM for my part in getting this thread far far off track from it’s original subject.
Come one come all to Rhode Island where prostitution, so long as the solicitation occurs indoors, is legal.
But you better hurry. The legislature has been trying to close the loophole.
Just look for a big pink building off the west side of I-95 as you are entering Providence called “Cheaters.” At least they are honest.
I gotta get back to paying work.
Ya’ll have a great day.
Gay marriage is a value of the left, not right and more inroads have been made pushing that agenda than any other.
This is also another slippery slope problem. Most people really don’t care if somebody’s gay. It’s the PDA that they don’t want. I think you’ll also find they feel the same about all PDA. The big problem with gay marriage is that once legal, the left will use it to damage religion by forcing them to marry gays against their beliefs or face discrimination charges. If you don’t think that’s true, look no further than Massachusetts, where Catholic Charities no longer handles adoptions.
Slippery slope. Simple as that. You know as well as I do that those zones would get stretched and challenged to the detriment of everyone. Somebody’s always got to ruin it for the rest.
conservativeRus:
What are you talking about? We have already run a state to it’s “logical conclusion” where Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness are used as a basis.
What exactly is your problem with my “worldview?”
conservativeRus:
When you get back from work please let us know when was the last time you spoke to “god” and how did he communicate to you that he agrees with you?
A Brit friend of mine once explained that prostitution is technically legal there. However, it’s a crime to ask or offer.
That kind of limits things to telepaths.
Isn’t this basically just dating?
Chap:
If my marriage ever fails let’s meet up in RI and get some coke and hookers.
With money exchanging hands?
Pretty trinkets, nice dinners…
From that we can extrapolate a whole lot.
I have that sense of impending doom. Let’s change the subject.
I saw a zombie pug this morning.
undresiege wrote:
You are very careful to say “first trimester abortion,” but you know very well the door to abortion for any reason at any time before natural delivery is opened by the semi-wide loophole considering “the health or life of the mother.” As you are probably aware, it is that exception which has allowed our new DHS chief Kathleen Sebelius’ favorite abortionist to stab thousands of newborns in the back of the head without saying exactly why it was necessary to save a mother’s life.
Is it your opinion that partial-birth abortions should be subject to evidence of necessity? Sebelius does not.
On May 1st, 2009 at 12:42 pm, zeroangel said:
Could you argue it in good faith, that those women chose such a path for themselves when other options existed?
Convincing women abortion and prostitution are acceptable alternatives when other options do not appear viable, is part of the meme of a male dominated society.
DBNinKY:
Actually, undreseige already pointed out that this is a red herring.
Why do you mention only women in regards to prostitution? Why not men?
In regards to abortion, don’t be frivolous. There are plenty of women that could claim abortion befitted them. I need only point to a teenage pregnancy of a girl that had plans to go to college.
This is more than just a “meme” of a male-dominated society. It is concerning puritanical views of sexuality borne out of a male dominated society. Consider, what would sexuality be like in a society that DID NOT think it was important to know who the father was? Just food for thought…
The government doesn’t belong in anyone’s bedroom, period. The abortion debate is far less cut and dry, but I’ve already made my case above.
How is it a red herring to not accept the premise that a fellow human being selling his body for money, is left physically and psychologically undamaged by such a practice? Sexuality is both sacred and committal; it is against our nature and the interests of our mental and physical health to engage in unsafe/multiple partners. Not to be flippant but have you ever seen a happy or healthy, prostitute over the age of forty?
Women are more physically vulnerable to prostitution than men.(Some women may turn to prostitution due to single motherhood, under-educated for workforce demands, or leaving an abusive relationship and in need of money.)
I suggest there are other options. Motherhood may impede or delay an education, but it doesn’t prevent one for the truly determined. Bristol Palin comes to mind; she completed high school and intends to someday attend college. Even the rural school system where I work provides alternative classes and daycare for young mothers.
Good point. But I still say abortion and prostitution afford men as many sexual conquests as possible w/o the apprehension of a long-term commitment or emotional attachment, and usually at the expense of a woman’s dignity, virtue, and better nature.
I agree, but nor should it propagate a system that devalues human sexuality and regeneration.
DBNinKY:
All the social stigmas and ills you are concerned with all go back to our society’s hang-ups about sexuality. I am not sure I can be clearer. I am not sure human beings are monogamous by nature; however, looking at our closest relatives in the animal kingdom, I doubt it.
Why do you (or anyone) even call a man having sex with a woman a “conquest?” Why does a woman having multiple sex partners cost her her dignity? What is dignified about denying our nature?
It is our society that devalues human sexuality and our nature. There is nothing “wrong” with exchanging services or monies for sex.
As far as abortion I’ve explained my position several times now. I consider the idea that a teenaged child that made a mistake MUST carry a fetus to term to be cruel.
We have had this conversation a million times; you aren’t going to convince me.
The fact there are communicable diseases and STD’s pretty much solves this dilemma for us.
Leaving religion completely out of the equation, I can’t imagine anyone who sells his or her body is psychology at ease or entirely happy with that life choice.
My point is, it’s a fallacy to say that abortion and/or prostitution liberate females, because they don’t. They afford men an out from fatherhood and a means of sexual release which, in my view, is why a male dominated Court allowed the former to come into legal existence.
DBNinKY:
…and condoms solve that. Perhaps we should avoid going out at all for fear of disease?
Yes, please.
Society. Seriously, why shouldn’t anyone be happy to make a living out of having sex? I am willing to be there are porn stars that absolutely LOVE their jobs. Furthermore, what business is it of yours and why should we waste taxpayer money on chasing down johns and prostitutes?
Huh? I am not saying this. I am merely saying, a fetus is not worthy of “personhood” under the law for reasons spelled out above and that the government doesn’t belong in anyone’s bedroom. Women AND men should be allowed to make any kind of sexual arrangement they want with another consenting adult(s).
DBNinKY:
An afterthought: let’s assume you are correct; though I don’t think so, and it’s impossible to prove; let’s assume that prostitution causes psychological distress. My answer is, so what?
Spending too much time playing video games or surfing blogs could possibly cause psychological distress too, should we limit or ban those activities? I think China does something like that…
#221
*willing to bet there are porn stars
Typo, sorry.