After being a fly on the wall for the last 50 or so posts I have a few comments:

1. Wasn't it John Marshall who in Marbury v. Madison in 1803 established the right of judicial review? And wasn't it Thurgood Marshall who said, "The Law is what I say it is." It was decided long ago. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter in all matters related to law.

We now seem to have reached a point where the idea is to load the Supreme Court with highly partisan appointees that can be used as an easy tool in the balance of power exploits between the executive and legislative branches of our government. If the Supreme Court becomes a Court of Men as opposed to a Court of Law, where then is the Law? Where then is the Constitution? Does it even exist?

And if we become a Nation of Men as opposed to a Nation of Law, do we cease to exist as a democracy?

Judging by today's post and comments, am I to assume that that is precisely the goal of Harvey Mansfield? Does he speak for the Republican Party?

2. With regard to the role of government in its relationship to capitalism Adam Smith said, "To found a great empire for the sole purpose of raising up a people of customers may at first sight appear a project fit only for a nation of shopkeepers. It is, however, a project altogether unfit for a nation of shopkeepers; but extremely fit for a nation whose government is influenced by shopkeepers. Such statesmen, and such statesmen only, are capable of fancying that they will find some advantage in employing the blood and treasure of their fellow-citizens to found and maintain such an empire."

He understood corporate capitalism in a way we have yet to admit to. In many ways, war serves the self-interest of capitalism. Unchecked, capitalism can lead to a constant state of war.

Is a constant state of war the goal and purpose of a government ruled by a unitary executive?

3. My take-away from all of this is that there are people in the highest level of government whose great desire is to remove any and all of the countervailing political forces as described in the Constitution, forces whose purpose is to establish a balance of power between the three branches of government. It seems to me that what these people are advocating is the destruction of our government as it has existed for 200 years and its replacement with a unitary executive (i.e, dictator) whose primary purpose is to serve the interests of capitalism.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

In the case of people at Politico, our motivations are simple -- to write interesting and worthwhile stories and to put those stories before largest possible audience. -- Roger Simon

I thought about it a minute and decided to make a short list of other magazines that meet this criterion. Just off the top of my head:

People

Forbes

Readers Digest

TV Guide

Better Homes and Gardens

Sports Illustrated

Cosmopolitan

Playboy

Maxim

At times the comments on this particular thread remind me of Monty Python's Oscar Wilde sketch:

(In WILDE's drawing room. A crowd of suitably dressed folk are engaged in typically brilliant conversation, laughing affectedly and drinking champagne)

. . .

OSCAR WILDE: Your majesty, have you met James McNeill Whistler?

PRINCE OF WALES: Yes, we've played squash together.

OSCAR: There is only one thing worse than playing squash together, and that is playing it by yourself.

(Silence)

I wish I hadn't said that.

WHISTLER: You did, Oscar, you did.

(A little laughter)

PRINCE: I've got to get back up the palace.

OSCAR: Your Majesty is like a big jam doughnut with cream on the top.

PRINCE: I beg your pardon?

OSCAR: Um... it was one of Whistler's.

WHISTLER: I never said that.

OSCAR: You did, James, you did.

(The PRINCE OF WALES stares expectantly at WHISTLER)

WHISTLER: ... Well, You Highness, what I meant was that, like a doughnut, um, your arrival gives us pleasure... and your departure only makes us hungry for more.

(Laughter)

Your Highness, you are also like a stream of bat's piss.

PRINCE: What?!?

WHISTLER: It was one of Wilde's. One of Wilde's.

OSCAR: It sodding was not! It was Shaw!

GEORGE BERNARD SHAW: I... I merely meant, Your Majesty, that you shine out like a shaft of gold when all around is dark.

PRINCE (accepting the compliment): Oh.

OSCAR (To WHISTLER): Right.

(To PRINCE)Your majesty is like a dose of clap. Before you arrive is pleasure, and after is a pain in the dong.

PRINCE (Loudly): WHAT?

WHISTLER and OSCAR: One of Shaw's, one of Shaw's.

SHAW: You bastards. Um... what I meant, Your Majesty, what I meant...

OSCAR: We've got him, Jim.

WHISTLER and OSCAR: Come on, Shaw-y.

SHAW: I merely meant...

OSCAR: Come on, Shaw-y.

WHISTLER: Let's have a bit of wit, then, man.

SHAW: (Blows raspberry)

(The PRINCE shakes SHAW's hand. Laughter all around)

Thank you for showing me this.

http://www.boer.co.za/boerwar/hellkamp.htm

I thought I knew a little history. I thought I was familiar with the Boer War. But this. I had no idea. None.

You are right. The site is a little scary. But the particular information LWM referenced seems to be correct.

http://www-sul.stanford.edu/africa/boers.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War

Why would you do that? When you engage in an argument using one specious rhetorical device

Wow. A link to a white supremacist, Holocaust-denial, Afrikaner separatist group. You don't see that on Salon every day. "Alleged atrocities committed by the Germans"? "Purported Jewish holocaust"?

after another

I was only kidding when I suggested you seemed sympathetic to FDR's concentration camps. You continue to surprise.

in the face of the facts, you lose all credibility.