e.e.

Personally, I'd like to see term limits for all lifetime appointed courts, like one term for 10 years, so we aren't stuck with the same people for so long. 438822[/snapback] fantastic, then bush should appoint all the justices, as all the current ones have been serving for more than ten years. do you think there may be a reason the founders set things as they did? do you think they may have been wiser than the talking head morons that advocate this kind of idea?

reminds me of a scene from training camp a couple years ago. the play was a hand off to simonton up the middle. well, it got whistled down right after the handoff for some reason, and sam adams turns around so his back is to the play. simonton continues the play anyway, right into sams back, bounces backwards like a rag doll right back where he came from. flew at least a couple yards backwards. adams didnt even twitch or turn around, like he didnt even feel it. funny stuff, unless you're the midget in question, i guess.

but say the only conflict is his political views on al quaeda, and he wants to remain an airport security screener...the guy has no other job performance or character issues.....should he be allowed to keep or get a job as a security screener? if not, why is it constitutionally acceptable?

i think that everyone here who has any sense at all can agree that the first amendment, at a minimum, guarantees freedom of political speech. so, what to do with a tsa employee who is a vocal proponent of al quaeda, osama bin laden, or the palestinians? should such a person be allowed to retain, or obtain, their government post as an airport security official? what is the line, or is there a constitutional arguement for non-retention?

this is the crux of why the american media sucks. pakistan/india is the crux of american foreign policy over the next 20 years and it gets no attention at all. yea fine, sell the "old" technology to pakistan, but how does that affect relations vis a vis india? long term our attention should be focused on india shouldn't it? there is no other viable balance v. china is there? capturing OBL would practically guarantee the next election, but is it worth losing the affection of a mostly westernized and anglicized, billion plus india in the process?

you're right again------god damn all those who would try to protect the innocent- thk god u were always there to protect the innocent you fool eddie. what kind of a name is that anyway, ed hedd..in the pre irony age a bishop named ed hedd. classsic.

lets explore that, ok? is it ok to euthanize a conscious creature? how about a morally aware creature? a defenseless, aware creature? it makes a difference, as medical science cant define where terri schiavo is definitively

he's just the kind of cancer they need to bring down their empire of luck

god knows you are right. i wish politicians would spend more time protecting heinous murderers from execution instead of protecting innocent life. it is particularly important not to take any extraordinary measures in cases where the medical science is inexact and at this point truly unknowable. it is just obscene to take any extra measures to preserve an innocent life. damn it, her husband got his blood money and now he wants to move on. i say so be it-starve the B word, she's served her purpose.

The purpose of the constitution was to protect our rights by limiting the powers of the federal government to a very specific set of duties, in the main because the founders believed that the greatest threat to liberty was an unrestrained federal apparatus. A narrow interpretation of the constitution protects us from that threat. The Bill of Rights, passed later, and subsequent amendments, by definition protect specific rights from the federal government only, and as such must be interpreted strictly. I believe your interpretation of the purpose of the constitution, focusing too narrowly on the Bill of Rights, is incorrect. Specifically, the constitution was intended to spell out the precise and narrow limits of federal power, which is what truly protects individual rights.

Of course, the delicious irony to your comment here is that SCOTUS didn't have jurisdiction to take Marbury v. Madison in the first place, as I'm sure you know. Besides, isn't that decision itself a terrific example of "monkeying around with the jurisdiction of the SCOTUS" and " "tweaking" the balance of powers"? There certainly isn't any delegated power of judicial review in the Constitution, is there? Not arguing the validity or wisdomof such, just a demonstration that sometimes it is necessary to "tweak" the balance of power.

You're right?!? (just a moment while i swallow back the vomit in the back of my throat) The NFL is all about matchups. The n.e. matches up worse against the bills offense than either Jax or the Raiders do. The weakness, such as it is, of the pats defense is defending between the tackles, and if there is a strength of the bills offense it is right there. The pats offense will be one dimensional, they will not be able to run at all against the bills d. The bills should be able to control the clock, keep running inside, and at least keep it close, and possibly come up with a play at the end to win the game. There's no way this is a blowout.

Not that this has anything to do with the colts or titans, but don't you remember how different the line looked depending on if Flutie or RJ was the qb? Bledsoe does not move around and can't run, so anybody rushing can converge on one spot. Even a guy who is just a threat to roll out occasionally would make a big difference in how the bills offense is defended, and make the offensive line look a little bit better.