What better motivator is there than kidnapping people around the world and holding them indefinitely? I'd fight anyone who did that to my friends/family wouldn't you?

As for my solution.....we apologize to Iraq for destroying their country, get the hell out of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and give the Gitmo prisoners trials in a federal court. The innocent ones get sent back home with our apologies and some kind of compensation, the guilty can go to any of various prisons within the US. Those prisons are good enough to hold the likes of Charles Manson, I'm sure they can hold the supervillian terrorists.

than Ben Stiller?

Obama increased the "faith based initiative" so even more of our tax $$$ go to churches.

How nice that in these strenuous economic times Obama found the money to give to child abusers and hate mongers.

anti war groups, gays/lesbians, gun control advocates, civil libertarians, environmentalists, etc.

He is proof that the Democratic party cares more about placating Republicans then about advancing the traditional Democratic agenda.

Enough is enough.

It's time to fight and get our party back !!

fight the real enemy, Obama.

Not only is he controlling the discussion here, it mirrors what is happening at the national level.

By aiding and abetting the Republicans on kidnapping, torture, and indefinite imprisonment, the Democrats have ceded any kind of opposition argument.

The Dean/Pelosi/Reid approach of giving Bush every single thing he wanted for the last 8 years may have won them the election but it cost the Democratic party it's soul.

Now we have Obama, who is more of a Republican than the Democrat, and anyone who argues for traditional Democratic values (civil rights, human rights, worker rights, gun control, separation of church and state, environmentalism, etc.)

has been marginalized.

I'd hardly call him an intellectual.

College professors can be hypocritical liars just like anyone else.

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overrule long-standing law that stops police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer is present, another stark example of the White House seeking to limit rather than expand rights.

The administration's action — and several others — have disappointed civil rights and civil liberties groups that expected President Barack Obama to reverse the policies of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, after the Democrat's call for change during the 2008 campaign.

Since taking office, Obama has drawn criticism for backing the continued imprisonment of enemy combatants in Afghanistan without trial, invoking the "state secrets" privilege to avoid releasing information in lawsuits and limiting the rights of prisoners to test genetic evidence used to convict them.

1. That it's acceptable to give our tax revenue to churches via the faith based initiative.

2. That it's acceptable to kidnap, torture, and hold anyone in the world indefinitely.

3. That it's acceptable for the government to spy on it's own citizens via FISA.

4. That it's acceptable to remove the right of having an attorney present during questioning.

5. That it's acceptable for straight people to get married but not gays/lesbians.

Former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson and former FBI Director William Sessions are among 19 former judges and prosecutors urging the court to leave the decision in place because it has been incorporated into routine police practice and establishes a rule on interrogations that is easy to follow.

Eleven states also are echoing the administration’s call to overrule the 1986 case.

Justice Samuel Alito first raised the prospect of overruling the decision at arguments in January over the rights of Jesse Montejo, the Louisiana death row inmate.

Montejo’s lawyer, Donald Verrilli, urged the court not to do it. Since then, Verrilli has joined the Justice Department, but played no role in the department’s brief.

http://www.freep.com/article/20090423/NEWS15/90423074

Maybe after she helps Obama give more of our tax dollars to organized religion (via the faith based initiative) she can help settle all those pesky catholic abuse cases......you know, like the thousands of children raped and abused by the catholic church in Ireland.

PS to all those who doubted my claim that Obama is trying to overturn Roe v. Wade......I say HA !

"As a federal appeals court judge in 2002, she ruled against an abortion rights group that had challenged a government policy prohibiting foreign organizations receiving U.S. funds from performing or supporting abortions."

"As a federal appeals court judge in 2002, she (Sotomayor) ruled against an abortion rights group that had challenged a government policy prohibiting foreign organizations receiving U.S. funds from performing or supporting abortions."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30938978

yeah, she's about as liberal as Obama !

They get to take away the rights of gays/lesbians in California via Prop. 8 and they get yet another seat on the Supreme Court.

Maybe after they get done helping Obama give our tax revenue to churches via the faith based initiative they can tackle some of those pesky child abuse cases......like the thousands of children that were abused and raped in Ireland by the catholic church.

PS "As a federal appeals court judge in 2002, she (Sotomayor) ruled against an abortion rights group that had challenged a government policy prohibiting foreign organizations receiving U.S. funds from performing or supporting abortions."

By abdicating their duty to protect all citizens, not just the ones who vote, the California Supreme Court has betrayed it's judicial purpose.

if they actually looked at her record they might put down the Obama kool aid for a minute.

"As a federal appeals court judge in 2002, she (Sotomayor) ruled against an abortion rights group that had challenged a government policy prohibiting foreign organizations receiving U.S. funds from performing or supporting abortions."

PS do we really need another catholic on the supreme court?