I think your comment about political ideology factoring into judicial decisions simply underscores Glenn's point.

One can rather easily infer the ideology of the 6 Republican appointees. (I don't pay all that much attention to Cali. Supreme court decisions, but what I've heard hasn't struck me as incredibly "liberal")

The fact that they (apparently, almost against their "will") were compelled to arrive at the conclusion they did is evidence of the truth of Glenn's statement.

You're probably aware of this, but over @ Balkinization http://balkin.blogspot.com/ they discuss stuff like "judicial theology" all the time. They're mostly lawyers.

Here, less lawyerly, as far as I can tell.

'bop!, you got deleted, really? Jeezuz, Glenn IS a freakin' machine - how could he possibly keep up!? 8')

The other day, somebody (don't remember who) posted something along the lines of

"I forgot what I was going to say". Maybe it was my mood, but man, I laughed at that one.

I'll send a cup of morel soup to whomever correctly predicts the topic of the new post today.

My congrats also. I suggest you tell your betrothed my "bigamy" joke. "Chicks" love that one.

Fer some reason yer post reminded me. I inform the occasional nitwit that "my wife and I are SOOOOO liberal, we were married in Massachusetts". Nothing to do w/ anything, but it seems to stun a fair percentage of Texans.

No misspellings, arbitrary use of caps, or anything, today...

Why don't you take your racist screed on down to StormFront or some some other place it'd be welcome?

Whose "house" is this?

No, I'm not naming names, but if you think I'm talking about you, chances are I am.

And my monitor is asbestos (flame-proof) so conserve the bandwidth, please.

Let me be among the first to offer you a hearty fuck off! Go back to StormFront you retard.

New post up...

Facts be damned.

Kristol said

I can't find a single recent instance of a candidate who ultimately became his party's nominee losing a primary by this kind of margin.

That statement may very well be factually correct. You know, as if he said, "I can't find my ass in the dark even if I use both hands."

As is clear, then, Chris Carney isn't demanding the enactment of warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty because doing so is politically necessary. Instead, he's doing it because he believes in those things and/or because Carney is afraid of the political price he thinks he will pay if the President does not get what he demands (and, relatedly, because he believes that there is no price to pay for supporting such radical measures).

GG, will you keep us updated please, as to Carney's reaction when he sees the actual campaign? I'm most interested in whether there're any promised behavioral changes for the good, or whether he responds w/ a knee-jerk "FU".

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1210668683139&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

or click sig for linky (h/t/ Raw Story)

From The Jerusalem Post (reliable?)

US President George W. Bush intends to attack Iran in the upcoming months, before the end of his term, Army Radio quoted a senior official in Jerusalem as saying Tuesday...

JPost.com » Iran » Article

May 20, 2008 11:00 | Updated May 20, 2008 16:39

White House denies Army Radio report on plan to attack Iran

By JPOST.COM STAFF

The White House on Tuesday flatly denied an Army Radio report that claimed US President George W. Bush intends to attack Iran before the end of his term. It said that while the military option had not been taken off the table, the Administration preferred to resolve concerns about Iran's push for a nuclear weapon "through peaceful diplomatic means."

But why is Steny Hoyer not also being targeted?

NANCY! Now there's a pressure point. She even has a challenger or two, doesn't she?

No email from aclu for me, and not a word from GG to the rest of us "minions".

I put this up @ the aclu blog, but I'm not sure it posted...

Did you see this?

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/19/clive_stafford_smith

Perhaps not torture per se, but damn close if not...

But all indications seem to be that he's somehow flogging the telco amnesty [metaphor lacking]. If he can be induced to reverse that behavior, then I say Missio.. uh, never mind.

If Carney can be induced to reverse that behavior, then the ads have resulted in precisely the desired outcome.

Does that mean I should get hacked off and ban myself? Sheeesh.