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 Comments
Nancy 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 Comments
Indiana 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 Comments
Why 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
Pundit & Pundette
» Bishop Jenky, Nicki Minaj, and the "98%"JustOneMinute
» We Hear From The Department Of Good Ideas And False Choices
That’s a rather broad, unfocused statement, even by your standards.
how am I a liar? I said BET you think…didn’t say YOU DID…duhhhhhh MORON reading is fundamental…jacka**
of course not!! killing babies is what you left-wing pieces of trash are all about…you’re evil and bloodthirsty obviously
Only if present is not an option.
oh yeah, explain where I’ve lied before…post your proof moron…put up or shut up…or apologize…but you won’t becasue that would take honesty, and integrity, things you are lacking…
L.O.L. keep typing R4L. Keep typing.
Is what weak-minded (your words) women might do an argument for making something legal, though? I won’t erect any strawmen here if I can help it, but I can think of some examples where despite what someone might do to hurt themselves or others, we would still not change the law.
can’t back up what you say, no surprise…you’re the liar. but its what we expect from left-wing scum like you.
Interesting point, however, we live under the Justices’ decisions, not their justifications which, I concede, may have merit to lower courts in forming opinions and setting precedent, but a plurality of opinion is what counts in the end.
Well, that pretty well sums it up. Finally, Chappy and I agree on something!
right4life, with respect, would you mind toning down the ad hominem attacks on commenters with whom you disagree? I understand that you really don’t like some of them, but after a while it seems to be only about your feelings about them and not about having a discussion here.
Most pro-lifers care what happens to these women. Respecting life means respecting both the unborn and those that carry them. It’s a shame you have such a disregard for their lives.
See John Deax. This is a good question.
No, I don’t think laws should be passed, or policies should be put in place simply to prevent pregnant women from mutilating themselves. I think Roe was the right decision, though brought about through ultra-creative legal analysis. I think this is an issue of privacy. Of course shooting heroin is also private. I know it’s complicated. Clearly, I don’t equate first-trimester abortion to murder, so on a moral basis I differ from many others, and likely you.
Women doing harm to themselves is an unfortunate, hardcore reality when it comes to abortion. It always has been and will be. It’s not the reason for making law, but it’s an example of the desperation many feel when they’re feeling trapped and irrational. If abortion were illegal, I think these irrational acts would greatly increase, that’s just a fact, not an exercise in Constitutional analysis.
The first criteria for BrObama will be race, so the person will have to be black. This is the single most important issue in his life (other than his narcissism)…..his blackness. The white part does not count. Through his 20 year relationship with Rev Wrong he was schooled about THE worst evil in the world…..white people.
Of course if there is a judge with similar views as Father Phleger they might get a look.
uh no, sorry when I am the subject of an ad hominen attack I reserve the right to respond in kind. whats good for the goose is good for the gander…
you’re not going to save every troubled person in the world, and its unrealistic to think its possible…if someone wants to kill themselves its a shame, but its better that someone hurt only themselves than hurt others and themselves dont’ you think?
Which is precisely why it will be repealed, eventually, and most likely by a Left-leaning Court.
how can it be ‘fact’ when its your opinion??? do you have any data to back up this opinion???
This a basic tenet of liberalthink. If we allow/disallow A, then people will get hurt, therefore we must take action for/against A, regardless of consequences.
Liberals must save us from ourselves because they know what’s better for us than we do.
It’s a broad statement, but not unfocused.
I don’t think the result will change, but yes the reasoning, “the means”, will likely change. It’s a strange decision as written.
Self mutilation and various forms of S&M will always be legal. Liberals don’t have a desire to “save everyone from themselves”. It’s mainly liberals, including me a cop, who wants to see drug possession legalized.
I absolutely disagree with your premise.
uh yeah thats we have bans on smoking, and trans fat is banned, or going to be banned in NYC…soon we’ll have ‘grease easys’ so people can have a taste of good food…
Justice William Ayers.Or the equivalent thereof.
OK – so then why not 2nd or 3rd or 4th – or 80th trimester?
Please explain the “magic” that happens upon any given day in the baby’s life.
I don’t want “I feel” – I want logical, consistent thought.
conservativesRus :
We have been through this many times. It’s analog, not digital. Why do you guys always seem to think this question is a logical trump card?
Salt:
Thank you for the effort with regards to R4L. Unfortunately, he just won’t get it. Until a large portion of MM’s readers start rejecting and/or chastising him, he won’t be fazed.
It might eventually take a banhammer, and to be honest, I am surprised it hasn’t happened yet.
Explain gun control then. It is a very clear individual right, yet it’s in the sights of every liberal.
That’s just one. Global warming. Vented gas cans. Lawn darts. I have no desire to list every possible issue where liberals see the need to replace common sense with a law.
pot meet kettle. your holier-than-thou drivel is laughable.
so its OK for others to use ad hominen attacks on me like you did..but not the other way around….ok…I’ll say to you what you said to me, you piece of trash
F YOU.
I have no idea what you just said. Please explain.
FWIW – I have multiple masters degrees is technical stuff so I do understand “analog” and “digital”.
John:
With the very obvious exception already noted as being drug laws. Other examples would be laws concerning prostitution, gambling, and other such vices.
Conservatives are the ones trying to “save people from themselves” in those cases.
conservativeRus:
The process of becoming a person is an analog process. There is no single “cut-off.”
R4L:
Yes, F you too you misogynist bigot. Too bad I am not female, because then you could ask me if it is “that time of the month” like you did to EQ.
bet you’re fat as you are stupid, you punk a** piece of sh**
R4L:
LOL. Keep ‘em coming, let’s hope MM finally takes notice.
Thank you for your answer. I still have no idea what that means. So the process is analog. Then who says it’s ever complete? At what point is it complete – and why?
BS, the number of unidentifiable objects that somehow, if left alone, develope into human beings, but are killed by “choice”, would drop from 1,500,000/yr. to a few thousand…and the horror would be placed more on the person allowing the the act of abortion, instead of the person on the receiving end of the forceps, suction or whatever.
Do you really believe there is less horror in an abortion if it’s legal?
she didn’t notice you, why would she notice me?
but you could have fooled me about being male…you sure are whinier than most women I’ve met…
You are either incredibly young and under-informed, or are intentionally feigning naivete.
I mean how can you post that, knowing Democrats want to regulate and micro-order our entire society through everything from taxes on cigarettes to Cap and Trade?
this typical less-than-zero stupidity…normally I would think someone who wrote this is high or drunk….
There are obvious cases where protection is required. People don’t ruin their lives trying to get their next fix of trans fat, nor will they attend shooters anonymous sessions.
didn’t the drug laws come in during the progressive era?? with Wilson banning cocaine etc…and Roosevelt banning marijuana?
conservativesRus:
Well, first you have to describe what you mean by “complete.” One could even argue that since an infant’s (and even child’s) brain is less developed then an adults then they are less of a “person.” Obviously, this line of thinking can’t lead to good things. The desire to protect children is “hard-wired” into us all for obvious reasons.
The truth of the matter is an arbitrary point must be set.
It is my personal opinion that setting the arbitrary point at the 3rd trimester is a good place. There is the full gambit of ”personhood” and brain development in the growth of a human being. This ranges from having no brain / mind at all to having a complex, rather aware “person”.
IMHO, conferring the full rights of a human being on (for example) a blastocyst; something with no brain/mind at all; makes little sense.
John:
I’ll agree with things like PCP, but MJ is even less harmful than beer. Furthermore, controlled prostitution harms no one. It is purely an attempt at legislating morality. Also, while it is true that there are people that cannot control thier gambling, it is also true that there are people that cannot control their trans-fat eating.
The very fact that these things are illegal is what creates the social ills. Legalize and control them and the various criminal entities associated will lose all power.
R4L:
Honestly, please continue.
I don’t have to write anything to make you look idiotic, you do that all by yourself…
but I will continue to illustrate, and laugh at your absurdity, since it so obviously bothers you…truth hurts!
oh of course it doesn’t!! all these smuggling/slavery rings are just liberating women…and of course ‘controlling’ it would get rid of that…right…
newsflash: every law is an attempt at legislating morality..duhh…
Actually, this is a fair point. I should caveat by saying it is an attempt to legislate sexual morality.
What consenting adults do behind closed doors should not be the business of the government.
Also, I am not saying slavery should be legalized. that should be obvious.
I don’t. I’ve heard this tired old excuse for irresponsible behavior since the 70′s and it’s played out.
Speaking of horrors, what about nationalized health care? Wouldn’t it have the same affect on the nations health.
With its implementation do you not think that competent, well qualified doctors and health service providers would simply go underground w/ their care, rather than participate, attending to a cash only/well insured (if such a thing then exists) clientele and leaving the rest of us to find whatever horrific care remains?
Plus, once health care is rationed, wouldn’t there be little or no gov money to subsidize low income abortions?
For the record, I’m consistent on guns. I’m an NRA member. I’m also hardly a tree hugger, but I’ll play to prove a point.
Regarding some of the examples, I’ll opine that liberals are trying to save people from people. Smoking(second-hand), lawn darts, global warming, guns, ect…I’d argue that liberals are trying to protect the whole based on the actions from the few. That’s just my exercise in addressing that point.
HOWEVER, your inital point is bogus IMHO:
Wrong. Liberals may try to save people from people, but it’s the conservatives that try to “save us from ourselves”.
BTW, both sides are grossly generalizing here, but again I’ll play.
Zero hit on some.
Conservatives routinely oppose:
Prostition
Gambling
Drug use
Sodomy laws
Gay marriage
Pornography
Conservatives try to “save us from ourselves” by imposing their since of moral reasonng on others.
If I pay a chick at a bar to have sex with me. That’s a crime. That’s nuts.
If I wanna do a line of coke, who cares as long as I’m not operating machinery or performing an operation.
If I wanna go broke betting on the Miami Dolphins at a casino, who’s business is it of yours.
If I want to have anal sex with my buddy, what business is it of conservatives.(I undertand these laws are largely unenforced).
If I wanna go into a porn shop and watch asian scat porn, isnt’ that MY business as long as no minors are involved.
That’s the bible thumping conservative viewpoint based on my experience and obvious observations.
Yet another example of where liberals feel the need to insert law where common sense should be.
Liberals must save us from ourselves.
So I take it then that any “less than full personhood” is ok to get rid of?
Who determines “full personhood”?
Why do you go to such extremes to not define “personhood” as happening at conception?
This is where NOW loses all credibility: abortion and prostitution are abuses against women and benefit men only; yet NOW vehemently supports the former, and makes no official denouncement (to my knowledge) of the latter.
I had a rather long post that mysteriously disappeared. So, I’ll keep it short. Zero has addressed many quite well.
“Save us from ourselves” is generally the viewpoint of the bible-thumping conservatives based on their since of morality.
Sodomy
Pornography
Gambling
Prostitution
Drug Use
Speaking very generally, conservatives try to impose limits on these acts, much more so than liberals.
Smoking laws, global warming, lawn darts, here you’re generally speaking about protecting people from other people.
I’m no tree-hugger, and I’m an NRA member. I don’t smoke, but I have asthma, so I’m quite glad that liberals oppose smoking in places like restaurants, planes, classrooms ect…
We’re all generalizing here but,
“Save us from ourselves”, Deax’s intial post, is much more an issue of the bible thumping conservative than the liberal.
conservativeRus:
I already answered your questions, what part of my answers are you having trouble understanding?
DBinKY:
I could argue that there are women that would say they have benefitted from both prostitution and abortion.
as I said before drug laws came in LIBERAL administrations like Wilson..and prohibition began in Wilson’s term…of course the liberals want to regulate every area of our lives, from wearing seat belts to not eating fatty foods…
the only areas of ‘liberty’ liberals want is sexual pervions and killing babies…speaks volumes…
I agree that the law is supposed to protect all of us, snd not just the weak.
The question posed, based on what then Sen Obama said, is that how “hate” is defined? It does not sound like “hate” to me. Does it to you? If you do not want to answer the question, so be it.
It seems you just said “the bible is bad” and should not be the basis for anything.
Since US law is “judeo-christian” based, and apparently that’s bad, please offer an alternative. Please cite specific long term successes with any such proposed system.
ConservativeRus:
Please note, I wasn’t trying to be nasty or sarcastic above. I am honestly confused as to what you don’t understand.
I will agree that the religious zealots want to impose a more severe morality than society is willing to accept.
However, the left has had much more success imposing their values than the right has. We had a Republican majority in Congress and the White House and how much did things change? Compare that to what the left has listed as their agenda.
conservativeRus:
The Bible has many, many draconian passages about stoning people to death and not eating shell fish.
Whether you admit it or not, you don’t follow biblical morality yourself.
US law is based on English common law, which in turn had it’s beginnings long before Christianity was the state religion of the Roman empire. I could easily make the argument that Christian “morality” is borrowed from earlier religions and society at large.
John:
Are you saying you are not a religious zealot and agree that prostitution and MJ should be legalized?
At least you’re implicitly admitting that it’s okay to “save people from themselves” based on YOUR moral reasons. You are a conservative. I believe most conservatives share your viewpoint. Just because you base your desire to control the personal behavior of others on the bible, doesn’t mean your actions aren’t essentially,
“save people from themselves”. That’s the point. It’s a christian consevative deal more so than a liberal deal. John Deaux is wrong, dead wrong IMHO. The bible is just often the excuse or reasoning for the control of the private behavior of others.
John:
Also note, you aren’t talking to a liberal here. As I have mentioned many times, I am independent.
Pointing out where Democrats have banned trans-fats and trying to argue that they are worse will only get a head-nod and a blank stare (respectively) from me.
Have you read the bible or are you speaking only the “cliff’s notes”?
Further – your point about borrowing from other earlier religions seems difficult to support given that the Pentateuch is dated about 1400 BC and is diametrically opposed so any of the known legal/moral systems in place at that time.
I disagree. It’s likely more accurate to say its more about working to ensure that your side’s morality is what is reflected in the laws. Both sides are equally guilty of this.
Liberals have their fair share of “it’s for the children” moments in legislation.
I believe the point many conservatives here are making is that they desire a more limited federal government whereas many liberals see federal government as a means to and end in establishing their moral system.
On the other hand, conservatives are also typically big advocates for the rule of law, so it’s not surprising that many would want the law to reflect their own value system (just as liberals).
Again, I agree we’re all generalizing, but let’s not label all conservatives as bible-thumping people who interfere in everyone elses’ lives. It’s fun for the typical hard-nosed liberal who comes here to comment to hang on to that mentality (not including you in this mix), but it’s simply not accurate.
I’m sure you also know that many of us conservatives are also big supporters of law enforcement professionals such as yourself.
(I didn’t know that before today.)
conservativeRus:
I have read the bible cover to cover, I was raised, communed and confirmed Christian. I have also read various other religious texts from a number of religions. Many have similar themes; things like:
Don’t kill
Don’t steal
Don’t lie
Be nice to others.
These are all universal. There is nothing special about the Pentateuch in this regard.
Did I say that? I’m not aware I said what you just suggested I said.
I did however request that you offer a suitable source for a legal/moral standard upon which a society should be built.
conservativeRus:
How about a rational, logical society built upon the idea of respect for other humans beings and dedicated to laws which will not infringe upon other’s attempts at staying alive, being free, and being happy?
…just throwing ideas out. *wink*.
Thank you. Often times it’s essentially just legislating their since of morality which suppresses private, personal behavior based on THEIR morals. Conservatives(a word you left out) come out against gambling, prostitution, pornography and pot use, much more so than liberals in this era. R4L this is the only era that matters in this discussion, not the 20s.
I’d argue that pollution and second-hand smoke are more about protecting people from people which is different than your initial comment “about saving us from ourselves”. If you have some other specifics in mind, please let me know.
When it comes to values or morals I’m not sure what much either side has accomplished in the past few decades. Pollution, second-hand smoke, drug laws, seem to be mostly bipartisen issues in congress.
As far as lobbyists are concerned:
Liberals have been largely unsuccessful in getting drug laws laxed on a national scale. State-to-state we have been more successful regarding pot. On the flip side, conservatives have had success in Florida and other states regarding pornography.(Google Max Hardcore indicted). Conservatives have won on gay issues on a national scale, and have placed limits on abortion(not that I disagree with many).
I think you’re generalizing a little bit. I think you’d have to break it down issue by issue. Again, many values things in Congress regarding health and values are fairly bipartisan.
Your initial comment about “saving people from themselves” is more related to ideology and lobbying efforts I think. Again, I think, SPEAKING GENERALLY, liberals rightly or wrongly try to save people from people, and conservatives, rightly or wrongly try to save us from ourselves based on their moral reasoning.
I’ve been typing for a while, so some of this may hopefully address posts made while typing.
really??
link
…and yet, (as I said) English Common Law is based on universal simple ideas (already mentioned) that predate Christianity.
If anyone seriously thinks that before there was Christianity there was total anarchy they are wrong.
uh right, did you know William F. Buckley was for the legalization of drugs??
like I said, the only ‘liberty’ liberals want is for sexaual perversions, and killing babies…
things like prostituion, and pornography victimize women quite a bit, I find it amusing and tragic that liberals, who supposedly ‘care’ so much for women’s rights would be for something that enslaves women.
and yes, history matters, since gambling is such a big liberal thing, why didn’t liberal states and cities legalize it long ago??? hmmmm??
post your proof. again you libs, and yes you are a lib, set up straw men all the time, because you cannot deal with the truth.
this is absurd and laughable.
Ever heard of the Lottery? Powerball? MegaMillions? Keno?
you missed the part before that…
yeah thats an good liberal answer!!
R4L:
You just posted it for me. I highlighted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China#Dynastic_rule
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerica
in case you missed the earlier conversation, US was arguing wonderful, good, caring, liberals were all for expanding personal liberty, in such things as gambling…and my point was why then was gambling illegal in the liberal areas like NYC, when evilvile bigotedhomophibicracist conservative place like Nevada legalized it??
and what you are posting?? are you saying china is the basis of english common law?? or that places like ancient china had laws??? duhhhhh no one is disputing that other civilization had laws!!
as I said you argue against a straw man, and then post absurdities like this
but you said English common law didn’t come from the bible, I posted that it did…you post things from china, from wikpedia
R4L:
If you seriously and honestly believe any and all inhabitants of the British Isles or ancestors thereof were completely and totally devoid of any kind of civlization, laws, or culture until they got the “good word” then I can’t help you.
Lindsay Graham has to know his career is over if he does not “man up” on the judiciary committee when filibusters become necessary.
Furthermore, the obvious reason I brought up other established cultures was to make the point that these civilized ideas and laws predate Christianity and it is Christianity that borrowed ideas like:
Don’t kill
Don’t steal
Don’t lie
from earlier religions and society at large.
again you prove yourself beyond stupid. post where I said that…you cannot….
its because you cannot argue issues…instead having to create little straw men so you can feel important…you’re a small man.
Christianity didn’t ‘borrow’ anything…thats why its called JUDEO-christian civilization
DUHHHHHHH moron.
Please correct me if I’m wrong.
I said:
Please tell me where I’m off base on your views.
That a good start from Zero. I’d legalize gambling unconditionially, any sex act involving adults, so sale and possession of any pornography involving adults, prostitution which should have been legalized many yesterdays ago, and I’d make drug use legalized and taxed. I don’t oppose restriction based on zoning at local levels regarding these issues. That’s it.
I’d like to see our laws based on direct physical harm, or threat thereof to non-consenting others. I’d outlaw any and all forms of theft. I’d ignore the bible in regards to my law-making. I’d legislate based on objective reasoning and cause n effect with the priority on protecting the physical and financial well being of non-consenting others.. The Bible would have nothing to do with it.
That’s my base. It’s not perfect, please don’t flood me with dozens of hypotheticals, because my base will likely provide the answer.
I waste a lot of time and tax payer money arresting crackheads, prostitutes and johns. It hopefully won’t be that way forever.
R4L:
*blank stare*
I honestly do feel terrible for you. Truly.
Have a nice day.
yeah we’ve seen how well that works in other ‘great’ atheist societies…soviet union, red china, north korea, Cuba
you prove bible with every post…professing to be wise, they have become fools…
There you conservatives go again trying to save adults from themselves. If a woman or man(woman is a red herring) wants to get paid to engage in sex acts with other adults, what business is it of yours? What business is it of yours if other adults want to watch?
Are you aware of how silly that sounds?
What does that mean? Who sets the standards?
Who defines “respect”?
What is rational?
What is “logical”? Are you the definer of those things or am I?
Has such a society ever been successful in the past? Where? For how long?
OTBs
Racetracks
Lottery
Keno
Turning Stone Casino (which exists, like any Indian casino because the state entered into a gaming compact with the tribe, i.e., they approved it).
That’s just New York.
Then of course in CT, you have Foxwoods and Mohegan.
And in liberal Rhode Island, you have Twin Rivers and Newport Grand, which offer basically everything, including table games, in electronic form.
And there is this place in Jersey, whose name escapes me…but I think they might operate a small casino or two there as well.
ConservativeRus:
You do realize I basically just rephrased this:
?
Oh for goodness sakes. I don’t know why my posts won’t come up. But anyway, its a longgg list of ways that gambling exists in “liberal” states that apparently r4l missed. Probably too busy visually assaulting women at the gym while “seriously” weightlifting.
Interesting stuff today, but my neck is starting to hurt. I’m about to sign off.
Later.
And what about those?
Taking seven words out of the middle of a much longer sentence often leaves the intended meaning of the sentence completely behind.
In the study of any historic document, one needs to a) get the words right, b) get the meaning of the words right (what the words meant at the time they were spoken) c) get the context for the words right (not only in the paragraph at hand but also culturally) and d) understand what those words meant the the “audience” at that time. The list of “requirements” is actually much longer for how to properly interpret a document but I dare say, if you apply just those to your seven words above, you’ll discover that you in no way paraphrased even a section of the founding documents of our country.
conservativeRus:
You asked about a BASIS (a “standard to build on”). I gave you a BASIS. The only retort you had was hand-wringing over semantics.
A society based on the opening of the Declaration is an excellent place to start.
you do know there is a large worldwide slave trade in women for the sex trade right??
to say it is ‘victimless’ is laughable and naive.
really? well you tell me where gambling existed legally before las vegas???
and yeah punky boy, I got the trophies at home to prove I was a serious lifter…you?
let me guess, you only look at guys!!
Oh for goodness sake.
Slaves are used for mining, cash crops, menial labor, AND prostitution to this day.
This doesn’t mean that mining, cash crops, menial labor, or prostitution should be illegal.
uh oh.
what you call a ‘victimless’ crime is not. its obvious you don’t care about the victims of prostitution, nor what it does to society in general.
why don’t you tell us about the societal benefits of prostitution…even the dutch are getting rid of it…
link
so go ahead, lets here how wonderful it would be….this should be good…
It’s obvious we don’t speak the same language.
Please run your world-view to it’s logical conclusion. Either it’s based on something external, or it’s based on something internal. If internal, then which “internal” system? If external, then which external system and why?
I am definitely not a religious zealot. I don’t know how you could ever get that from my posts. Maybe it’s because I believe in creation, I don’t know. I honestly wouldn’t have a problem with legalization under certain conditions except for the give them an inch problem.
conservativeRus:
Here we go again…
Why don’t you tell me when was the last time you conferred with this “external” entity/person/system and what he/she/it had to tell you?