...for people who'd rather have flat panel TVs and motorcycles than pay for health insurance. Yes, I know some of these people, and maybe you do to. But why should I mind paying taxes -- or additional taxes -- to subsidize their life choices? After all, health care is not a commodity but a universal human UN-guaranteed constitutional right, and if they have better things to spend their discretionay funds on, then I'm more than happy to make up the difference. We all love each other in this country, don't we?

No, court's don't check "yes" or "no" boxes. According to salon, the opinion in this decision total 185 pages. I'd bet my bippy the posters who are critical of the ruling have not read even one page. They think judges should just ask themselves "what is a good result" and that's all that judging entails. Incidentally, these mindless critics are the same people who thought that the voters should have prevailed in Bush v. Gore....but don't think the voters should prevail in California's gay marriage initiative. No wonder China is eating our lunch (not that relevant, but a reminder of how dumb many Americans are despite their formal education.

JOan, what do you mean she just upheld the lower court fireman ruling? That makes it her own. You don't know shit about courts or law.

As often the case, the people paid to think for us have misapprehended the problem. That Sotomayor said something regrettable does not make her intrinsically bad: in fact, she probably was revealing what most justices feel, i.e., their background especially qualifies them to be a good judge (education, work experience, people they hang with).

No, what's going to hurt her for the rest of her career is every time she writes an opinion favoring women or minorities people are just going to say "I told you so." Don't bother trying to explain why that response will be illogical; the point is, it will be made and resonate with the less "sophisticated" among us, you know, the people the Liberals claim to champion.

You all remember the outcry from the left over calls to do harm to members of the previous administration. What's that -- you 've lost your memory?

....because he knows the U.S. system makes it harder to convict the guilty (the innocent don't triumph as much) than any other court apparatus in the world.

The writer seems unaware that people (feminists are people too, yes?) go by whether they like or dislike the target of inappropriate criticism or satire. Thus it has ever been with liberals (and conservatives) and thus it shall always be. Stop thinking that "progressive feminists" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean) are up there in the clouds somewhere They are just as biased as most people. Jeeeezzzzzzzzzz!

....because the posters here are representative of many others who have broken their arms patting themselves on the back. Please....spare me the pieties about rule of law, etc. Is Hillary Clinton going to be prosecuted? What about Zgibnew Brzinski (sorry for the sp!). Yeah, I thought so. Let's just beat up and Bush and his people....after all, it was fun calling for their heads for years, why stop now? And what about Obama? When torture during his administration is revealed -- trust me, torture has not ceased -- will there be calls for him to be placed in the dock? Ha, I say!

I haven't read all the letters so forgive me if this point has been made, but as an outsider to this (a straight who is sympathetic to gay equality) it's obvious to me that Obama being timid and doing only cosmetic things for gays is far, far worse than the indifference a Republican president would presumably bring to this issue. Obama's lack of action gives cover to Democrats who are not sure they want to stick their necks out. Most Republicans probably wouldn't vote legislation to help gays, but now Democrats feel no burning need to. This is very bad, and frankly I don't see anything to do about it, although there are those who will always believe letters, web postings, and demonstrations are what will move Obama. Why?

Robert Reich is one of two or three public intellectuals concentrating on government and social policy that I respect from top to bottom, without reservation or disappointment ever. Until just now. One can't be as brilliant as Secretary Reich and thinks that 1) he's telling Obama something Obama doesn't know 2) Obama is not doing exactly what he has decided to do long ago and will stick to his plan.

Obama is beyond persuasion, let alone exhortation. It is my camaign nightmare come to life: Obama is as smart as we thought, or even smarter, and his oration, while not A+, is certainly an A. (He would get an A+ is he stops channelling Christopher Walken in his speech rhythms.)

But the unwillingness, or perhaps inability, to fight the way a president who wants to do great things fights, is as plain as the new digital TV images that a few million of our people -- the kind who will never get health insurance on their own -- do not see because they are off the grid that tells people they need a converter.

But I digress. Does Obama just lack the emotional ability to project urgency, or does he have it and sees himself as Jackie Robinson being lectured by Branch Rickey to not respond even to the n-word?

I was lazy on a lot of my college courses, and what Obama is doing by leaving the heavy lifting to Congress without powerful input by the man whose approval ratings dwarf anybody else's in Washington, is being lazy. He's a hard worker, but he's being spiritually lazy.