What Do We Do About Activist Judges?

[26 X World Champs]

yes, I agree that it is not written in stone, but it should be interesting to see this...check and balance...play out...

The Supreme Court constantly makes opinions that people violently disagree with. Why? Because all of us have opinions, and they're not all the same.

Some people disagree with Roe v. Wade. Some disagree with Gore v. Bush. One is tilted more democratic, one more republican. That's what those old guys do, they interpret the constitution as they see it, and majority rules.

What would be a better system? Should we elect Supremes? Should we limit terms?

The shocking truth is that we all have to live with their opinions. The only alternative is to legislate a new law that requires a new ruling IF the Supremes agree to hear the case. If they don't the law stands, until someone tries to change it and challenges it again.

What are the alternatives?

 

[Fantasea]

please, please quote me right...

but you see, that wouldn't happen. what they would do is this. they would find where in the constitution it supported their side, write up the majority of the opinion on that issue, and then throw in some stuff about the netherlands...where did that come from btw...

It's a perfect example of what happens once you start down the slippery slope.

Now in its third century, since it's inception, US Constitution, as amended, has epitomized the concept of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Why would any Justice have to look elsewhere?

Of course, there will always be those who believe that the US can't get anything right.

 

[Squawker]

The only alternative is to legislate a new law that requires a new ruling IF the Supremes agree to hear the case. If they don't the law stands, until someone tries to change it and challenges it again. What are the alternatives?

It is actually up to the people to keep the three branches in check. They will get away with anything we allow them to. The left checks the right and vise versa. We are in a better position now than we were 50 years ago. We have more sources of news and information available to us to make an informed decision about the issues. We have some blind ideologist, but most people can distinguish the truth even if they won’t admit it publicly.

 

[Fantasea]

The court can delegate itself powers to prevent abuse by other branches (check and balance) and to help itself govern, not unlike the legislative branch delegating itself powers all the time.

It is not, as you write, within the province of the Judicial Branch to govern. The responsibility for governing resides with the Executive Branch; the responsibility of enacting laws resides with the Legislative Branch.

The error is that there are activist judges who, instead of exercising their duty to apply existing law to cases, overstep their bounds and distort laws to invent inclusions or exceptions which neither exist, nor were intended by the Legislative Branch.

 

[RightinNYC]

It is not, as you write, within the province of the Judicial Branch to govern. The responsibility for governing resides with the Executive Branch; the responsibility of enacting laws resides with the Legislative Branch.

The error is that there are activist judges who, instead of exercising their duty to apply existing law to cases, overstep their bounds and distort laws to invent inclusions or exceptions which neither exist, nor were intended by the Legislative Branch.

Beautiful, beautiful statement.

 

[Fantasea]

The only alternative is to legislate a new law that requires a new ruling IF the Supremes agree to hear the case. If they don't the law stands, until someone tries to change it and challenges it again.

What are the alternatives?

Whether or not you realize it, you are advocating that the Supreme Court supercede the Legislative Branch.

Effectively, that would also render the Executive Branch subservient to the Judicial Branch and would result in the US being governed by the majority of a panel of nine justices.

The single role of the Judicial Branch is to apply existing law to the cases which come before it. Nothing more; nothing less.

 

[26 X World Champs]

It is not, as you write, within the province of the Judicial Branch to govern. The responsibility for governing resides with the Executive Branch; the responsibility of enacting laws resides with the Legislative Branch.

The error is that there are activist judges who, instead of exercising their duty to apply existing law to cases, overstep their bounds and distort laws to invent inclusions or exceptions which neither exist, nor were intended by the Legislative Branch.

Unless I'm suffering from amnesia, it does take a MAJORITY of Supremes to do anything, and that is their role.

One man's garbage is another man's treasure. Same is true about Supreme decisions.

As a Democrat how upset do you think I was in 2000 when the Supremes prevented all the votes in Florida from being counted? It sure seemed political to me, but Republicans/Conservative never complain about that ruling, they only complain about the ones they disagree with. It also seems that they then complain when Dems say that decision was wrong.

I think it was wrong, but I accept it. I sure wish it went the other way because life would be more "alive" for the 1500+ Americans Bush has sent to Iraq to be killed.

I oppose that ruling philosophically, but it's final, c'est la vie!

 

[26 X World Champs]

Whether or not you realize it, you are advocating that the Supreme Court supercede the Legislative Branch.

Effectively, that would also render the Executive Branch subservient to the Judicial Branch and would result in the US being governed by the majority of a panel of nine justices.

The single role of the Judicial Branch is to apply existing law to the cases which come before it. Nothing more; nothing less.

I disagree. The Supreme's job is to hear case's that test the Constitutionality of the law. They then rule on their interpretation, which is a moving target, as opinions and mores change over time.

I've yet to see the Supremes write one law. I've seen them rule on laws, yea or nay, that alters the law, but that is what they're supposed to do.

 

[ShamMol]

I disagree. The Supreme's job is to hear case's that test the Constitutionality of the law. They then rule on their interpretation, which is a moving target, as opinions and mores change over time.

I've yet to see the Supremes write one law. I've seen them rule on laws, yea or nay, that alters the law, but that is what they're supposed to do.

Which is exactly what I have always said. Govern..bad choice of words, but in actuality a correct one. Their job is as the governors of the laws. they rule over them deciding which of them are right and which are wrong (actually I am just trying to save face...lol). The fact that they use the constitution as a basis and then add in all the cases (from wherever) that support them does not make them activist.

 

[Squawker]

As a Democrat how upset do you think I was in 2000 when the Supremes prevented all the votes in Florida from being counted? It sure seemed political to me, but Republicans/Conservative never complain about that ruling, they only complain about the ones they disagree with. It also seems that they then complain when Dems say that decision was wrong.

Just to clarify that case for you Champ. It was the Florida Supreme Court that was political.

A dispute arose concerning the deadline for local county canvassing boards to submit their returns to the Secretary of State (Secretary). The Secretary declined to waive the November 14 deadline imposed by statute. §§102.111, 102.112. The Florida Supreme Court, however, set the deadline at November 26. We granted certiorari and vacated the Florida Supreme Court’s decision, finding considerable uncertainty as to the grounds on which it was based. Bush I, ante, at ___—___ (slip. op., at 6—7). On December 11, the Florida Supreme Court issued a decision on remand reinstating that date. ___ So. 2d ___, ___ (slip op. at 30—31).
On November 26, the Florida Elections Canvassing Commission certified the results of the election and declared Governor Bush the winner of Florida’s 25 electoral votes. On November 27, Vice President Gore, pursuant to Florida’s contest provisions, filed a complaint in Leon County Circuit Court contesting the certification. Fla. Stat. §102.168 (2000). He sought relief pursuant to §102.168(3)(c), which provides that “[r]eceipt of a number of illegal votes or rejection of a number of legal votes sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election” shall be grounds for a contest. The Circuit Court denied relief, stating that Vice President Gore failed to meet his burden of proof. He appealed to the First District Court of Appeal, which certified the matter to the Florida Supreme Court.

Source

 

[26 X World Champs]

Just to clarify that case for you Champ. It was the Florida Supreme Court that was political.

Source

It's semantics, I believe? If the Supremes had not overturned the ruling, all the votes would have been counted. The Supremes vote went along party lines, but what they say goes, and crying over spilled milk will not change anything.

For the record, Ms. Harriss' ruling was obviously political, considering she was the chairperson of Bush's campaign in Florida. For anyone to seriously believe that this is not a horrific conflict of interest is simply, to be blunt, stupid.

The Florida court ruled on the side of the people, 'let them count the votes' was basically their ruling. The Supremes, for whatever reason(s) cited disagreed and in effect awarded the presidency to Bush. Had they let the ruling stand our history may very well be different.

To me, that was a nightmare, however, I stand by our system, and I accept their decision despite my personal revulsion with it. Am I asking for the system to be changed? NO! Am I pointing fingers at individual justices (and we know who they are ?) NO!

The Supremes ruled, and America accepted it, there wasn't a revolt, a civil war, or calls for the upheaval of the Court. That's because Democrats 'lost' and Democrats have much more respect, at the end of the day, for the system. Had the decision gone the other way, especially with a Republican legislature, who knows what attempts would have been made to change the Court?

After all, Repubs always seem ready to stop this (abortion), block that (stem cell research), infringe on people's 1st amendment rights (gay marriage), demand their personal views on the public in general (prayer in school etc.) be enacted.

Dems on the other hand want to stop this (the war in Iraq), block that (drilling for oil in ANWR), infringe on people's 1st amendment rights (allow Terry Schiavo's life to be determined by her husband not the courts), demand their personal views on the public in general (gun control) be enacted.

Big differences? All of which are kept intact due to the Supremes and their rulings. Some we agree with, some we despise. Through it all, however, we survive as a nation.

 

[Squawker]

It's semantics, I believe? If the Supremes had not overturned the ruling, all the votes would have been counted. The Supremes vote went along party lines, but what they say goes, and crying over spilled milk will not change anything.

I have seen a lot of people ignore the facts, but I think you are the Champ. After several sources counted all the votes, Gore still lost.

For the record, Ms. Harriss' ruling was obviously political, considering she was the chairperson of Bush's campaign in Florida. For anyone to seriously believe that this is not a horrific conflict of interest is simply, to be blunt, stupid.

What part of this, The Secretary declined to waive the November 14 deadline imposed by statute. §§102.111, 102.112. don't you understand?

The Florida court ruled on the side of the people, 'let them count the votes' was basically their ruling. The Supremes, for whatever reason(s) cited disagreed and in effect awarded the presidency to Bush. Had they let the ruling stand our history may very well be different.

No it wouldn’t have. You can’t supply one reliable source that said Gore got more votes in Florida than Bush.

To me, that was a nightmare, however, I stand by our system, and I accept their decision despite my personal revulsion with it. Am I asking for the system to be changed? NO! Am I pointing fingers at individual justices (and we know who they are ?) NO!

Really?

The Supremes ruled, and America accepted it, there wasn't a revolt, a civil war, or calls for the upheaval of the Court. That's because Democrats 'lost' and Democrats have much more respect, at the end of the day, for the system. Had the decision gone the other way, especially with a Republican legislature, who knows what attempts would have been made to change the Court?

Don’t make me laugh, if Democrats had respect for the system, they wouldn’t have tried to steal the election. You need to get some of your facts right, Champ. Throwing out garbage stinks up the place..

 

[26 X World Champs]

I have seen a lot of people ignore the facts, but I think you are the Champ. After several sources counted all the votes, Gore still lost.

This is not true. No one is certain. There are sources who claim that Bush won, and sources that claim that Gore won. We will never know.

What part of this, The Secretary declined to waive the November 14 deadline imposed by statute. §§102.111, 102.112. don't you understand?/quote]

This was challenged in court and the Florida Supremes ruled otherwise.

No it wouldn’t have. You can’t supply one reliable source that said Gore got more votes in Florida than Bush.[/qote]

What about this (and this is one of MANY):

According to the certified Florida results, Bush won the state by 527 votes.

Recounts by the Orlando Sentinel, Palm Beach Post and the Chicago Tribune Co. collectively show Gore picking up 1,617 votes, giving him a "winning" margin of 1,080 votes.

The Orlando Sentinel reported that Gore would have gained more than 200 extra votes if Orange County had conducted a hand recount of all its ballots that machines could not read. An earlier investigation of overvotes in Lake County showed a 300-vote pickup for Gore.

The Chicago Tribune examined more than 15,000 undervotes and overvotes in the 15 counties with the highest rate of rejected ballots, and found a net gain of 366 votes for Al Gore among the uncounted ballots.

An examination of so-called dimpled ballots in Palm Beach County by the Palm Beach Post had Gore picking up 682 additional votes if those ballots had been counted as votes. Palm Beach County Election Commissioner refused to count the dimpled chads, however.

Really?
Don’t make me laugh, if Democrats had respect for the system, they wouldn’t have tried to steal the election. You need to get some of your facts right, Champ. Throwing out garbage stinks up the place..

You're proving my points, exactly. Contesting election results is NOT stealing an election. It is the proper and prescribed legal remedy for close elections. Only a sore winner would make such an inept statement. I said that I accepted the ruling of the Supremes. Would you have accepted it if the votes had been allowed to be counted and Gore won? I doubt it very much. You can't even accept a challenge to the count, no less a ruling that would not meet with your desires.

I don't know about you, but I believe that all votes need to be counted, and if there's a dispute you go to court to settle it. Based on your "steal the election" quote you seem to disagree with this method of deciding close or disputed elections. Perhaps then, America is not the place for you? Perhaps you need to live in a country where everyone thinks the same and votes the same? If you do like living here, then I suggest that you accept that courts are there to settle disputes.

 

[26 X World Champs]

I have seen a lot of people ignore the facts, but I think you are the Champ. After several sources counted all the votes, Gore still lost.

This is not true. No one is certain. There are sources who claim that Bush won, and sources that claim that Gore won. We will never know.

What part of this, The Secretary declined to waive the November 14 deadline imposed by statute. §§102.111, 102.112. don't you understand?

This was challenged in court and the Florida Supremes ruled otherwise.

No it wouldn’t have. You can’t supply one reliable source that said Gore got more votes in Florida than Bush.

What about this (and this is one of MANY):

According to the certified Florida results, Bush won the state by 527 votes.

Recounts by the Orlando Sentinel, Palm Beach Post and the Chicago Tribune Co. collectively show Gore picking up 1,617 votes, giving him a "winning" margin of 1,080 votes.

The Orlando Sentinel reported that Gore would have gained more than 200 extra votes if Orange County had conducted a hand recount of all its ballots that machines could not read. An earlier investigation of overvotes in Lake County showed a 300-vote pickup for Gore.

The Chicago Tribune examined more than 15,000 undervotes and overvotes in the 15 counties with the highest rate of rejected ballots, and found a net gain of 366 votes for Al Gore among the uncounted ballots.

An examination of so-called dimpled ballots in Palm Beach County by the Palm Beach Post had Gore picking up 682 additional votes if those ballots had been counted as votes. Palm Beach County Election Commissioner refused to count the dimpled chads, however.

Really?
Don’t make me laugh, if Democrats had respect for the system, they wouldn’t have tried to steal the election. You need to get some of your facts right, Champ. Throwing out garbage stinks up the place..

You're proving my points, exactly. Contesting election results is NOT stealing an election. It is the proper and prescribed legal remedy for close elections. Only a sore winner would make such an inept statement. I said that I accepted the ruling of the Supremes. Would you have accepted it if the votes had been allowed to be counted and Gore won? I doubt it very much. You can't even accept a challenge to the count, no less a ruling that would not meet with your desires.

I don't know about you, but I believe that all votes need to be counted, and if there's a dispute you go to court to settle it. Based on your "steal the election" quote you seem to disagree with this method of deciding close or disputed elections. Perhaps then, America is not the place for you? Perhaps you need to live in a country where everyone thinks the same and votes the same? If you do like living here, then I suggest that you accept that courts are there to settle disputes.

 

[Squawker]

I don't know about you, but I believe that all votes need to be counted, and if there's a dispute you go to court to settle it. Based on your "steal the election" quote you seem to disagree with this method of deciding close or disputed elections. Perhaps then, America is not the place for you? Perhaps you need to live in a country where everyone thinks the same and votes the same? If you do like living here, then I suggest that you accept that courts are there to settle disputes.

All the votes that were legal were counted. Obviously, there is no point in trying to discuss anything with you. You are way too narrow minded, to carry on a reasonable debate with. I suggest you learn to tone down your rhetoric, and treat members with a bit more respect for their opinion.

 

[shuamort]

You are way too narrow minded, to carry on a reasonable debate with.

Snerk:

When you can't defend yourselves in the debate, you make personal attacks.

Hypocrit much?

 

[26 X World Champs]

All the votes that were legal were counted. Obviously, there is no point in trying to discuss anything with you. You are way too narrow minded, to carry on a reasonable debate with. I suggest you learn to tone down your rhetoric, and treat members with a bit more respect for their opinion.

Perhaps you should look in the mirror before casting aspersions my way? My last post was in response to this unfriendly comment you made about my post:

Don’t make me laugh, if Democrats had respect for the system, they wouldn’t have tried to steal the election. You need to get some of your facts right, Champ. Throwing out garbage stinks up the place.

You said that what I wrote was garbage. Is that showing respect for for other members, or do you only show respect for other members who agree with you? Now you're calling me narrow minded. That's two posts in a row that you've thrown barbs at me.

I write garbage and I'm narrow minded. Do you mean that because I believe that all the votes in Florida weren't counted I am narrow minded?

You wrote that there wasn't any proof that Gore won Florida. I then produced some of the many examples that dispute that claim. I never said Gore won Florida, I said that we will never know. You said that all the votes were counted, I and millions of other people disagree. However, we accept the Supremes ruling as law.

You seem to dislike me? That's too bad. You seem to think that I showed disrespect for you when, in fact, my reply was a reaction to the unkind remark you made about me. Therefore, if I am understanding what you've written, it's OK for you to toss stones at me, but if I respond in kind I am the one that is being disrespectful? Is that what you mean?

I try hard to use facts, a lot of them, in my posts. If that is a poor debating style in your opinion, well, that's your opinion, and I respect it, but I also disagree with it.

I didn't realize that the Moderator is allowed to write barbs about members but the members are reprimanded for not praising the Moderator for his dispersion.

Mea Culpa! :thumbdown

 

[ShamMol]

All the votes that were legal were counted. Obviously, there is no point in trying to discuss anything with you. You are way too narrow minded, to carry on a reasonable debate with. I suggest you learn to tone down your rhetoric, and treat members with a bit more respect for their opinion.

all the votes taht weere legal were counted...i seem to remember that a lot of absentee ballots that should not have been legal that went for bush (for the most part because they were from military personel) were counted as well.....

Rhetoric is one thing Squak, but from what I have seen, he has actually provided evidence as well, as you have in every single on of your posts...

 

[Squawker]

Yes, thank you ShamMol. I brought two threads together and apologize for that. Having said that, I do not see how saying someone is narrow minded is in the same class as suggesting someone is a bigot, paranoid, or a gay basher. The Court briefs tell the story, not the left or right wing pundits who claim something we cannot verify. The Florida statutes were very clear, how could one not understand what they said? The Supreme Court ruled that the Florida Courts had no legal standing to extend the counting. I get frustrated with the left banging the same drum to make it mean something else.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Yes, thank you ShamMol. I brought two threads together and apologize for that. Having said that, I do not see how saying someone is narrow minded is in the same class as suggesting someone is a bigot, paranoid, or a gay basher. The Court briefs tell the story, not the left or right wing pundits who claim something we cannot verify. The Florida statutes were very clear, how could one not understand what they said? The Supreme Court ruled that the Florida Courts had no legal standing to extend the counting. I get frustrated with the left banging the same drum to make it mean something else.

That is not what you wrote. You wrote this:

if Democrats had respect for the system, they wouldn’t have tried to steal the election.

It's also not what I wrote. I've written several times that I accept the Supreme's decision despite disagreeing with it. Democrats were not trying to steal anything. That is an unfounded and untruthful attack against the entire Democratic party.

You wrote "I get frustrated with the left banging the same drum to make it mean something else." What drum was I banging, exactly? You've twisted my words.

With all due respect, but your last several posts have been extremely hypocritical. Have mine?

 

[Squawker]

This is the way you introduced your position on the Supreme Court, Champ.

One man's garbage is another man's treasure. Same is true about Supreme decisions.

As a Democrat how upset do you think I was in 2000 when the Supremes prevented all the votes in Florida from being counted? It sure seemed political to me, but Republicans/Conservative never complain about that ruling, they only complain about the ones they disagree with. It also seems that they then complain when Dems say that decision was wrong.

I think it was wrong, but I accept it.

You twisted what the ruling said to comply with your position that the court gave the election unfairly to Bush. The Florida Courts had no legal right to extend the counting beyond what Florida Law allowed. The court didn’t have the right to make a new law. That is up to the Florida legislature. I complain when a decision isn’t based on State law or the Constitution. The court extended the deadline once for Gore. That didn’t get the result Democrats wanted, so it was extended again. To expect the entire country to be on hold until Gore got the count he wanted was ridicules. I have nothing personal against you Champ. I am not crazy about the way you present your arguments. You repeat left wing talking points that have been beaten into the ground.

 

[26 X World Champs]

This is the way you introduced your position on the Supreme Court, Champ.
You twisted what the ruling said to comply with your position that the court gave the election unfairly to Bush. To expect the entire country to be on hold until Gore got the count he wanted was ridicules. I have nothing personal against you Champ. I am not crazy about the way you present your arguments. You repeat left wing talking points that have been beaten into the ground.

Again, I must point out that I've written multiple times:

I think it was wrong, but I accept it.

How is that anything but my truthful expression of my opinion? In my heart I do believe that Gore won, that Bush, his bro, Cat. Harris and many others did 'dirty tricks' that squeaked out the election for Bush. That is what I believe. Sadly for me, and millions like me, the Supremes disagreed. That is the process. Democrats didn't try to steal anything. You have put that out that we did, and that is what offended me originally.

Question Squawk? If the Supremes ruled the other way and it turned out that Gore then won the election, how would your point of view on this subject change? Mine would be the same, the Supremes ruled and I accept it. Can you sincerely say the same thing?

 

[Squawker]

Question Squawk? If the Supremes ruled the other way and it turned out that Gore then won the election, how would your point of view on this subject change? Mine would be the same, the Supremes ruled and I accept it. Can you sincerely say the same thing?

When the Florida Court ruled in Gores favor in spite of Florida Statutes, I thought the fix was in. I view the US SC as left leaning, so I would have thought it was political, activism. That is what activist Judges do. They ignore laws to make a case come to the conclusion they want. We can accept it, or try to change it.

 

[Fantasea]

Unless I'm suffering from amnesia, it does take a MAJORITY of Supremes to do anything, and that is their role.

One man's garbage is another man's treasure. Same is true about Supreme decisions.

While I have no way of knowing anything about a condition from which you may be suffering, I do know that the inability to tell garbage from treasure is a matter of grave concern.

As a Democrat how upset do you think I was in 2000 when the Supremes prevented all the votes in Florida from being counted? It sure seemed political to me, but Republicans/Conservative never complain about that ruling, they only complain about the ones they disagree with. It also seems that they then complain when Dems say that decision was wrong.

I think it was wrong, but I accept it.

I venture that you have not read the Supremem Court decision to which you refer. If you would like to read it, you can find it at the link that follows. You can save yourself time if you scroll to the bottom and read the final paragraph.
http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/election2000/usc00-836final.pdf

I sure wish it went the other way because life would be more "alive" for the 1500+ Americans Bush has sent to Iraq to be killed.

Earlier I wrote along the lines of how progressively emboldened terrorists became as actions such as the first World Trade bombing in 1993, Mogadishu, Khobar Towers, the African Embassy bombings, and the USS Cole went unanswered by the Clinton Administration. Had the actions against terrorists taken by the Bush Administration in answer to the 2001 World Trade Center disaster not occurred, it is quite likely that by now, there would have been considerably more dead Americans than the 1,500 who have died in the Middle East.

Rather than continuing to flourish, the terrorist network, together with it's logistical and financial support system, has been decimated.

I oppose that ruling philosophically, but it's final, c'est la vie!

Considering that all of the President's actions have been vindicated by the electorate's reelecting him to a second term, that's mighty big of you.

 

[26 X World Champs]

While I have no way of knowing anything about a condition from which you may be suffering, I do know that the inability to tell garbage from treasure is a matter of grave concern.

You really never do understand when someone writes an analogy, do you? Maybe the next time you stick your pen in your mouth you'll try to learn what an analogy is?

Earlier I wrote along the lines of how progressively emboldened terrorists became as actions such as the first World Trade bombing in 1993, Mogadishu, Khobar Towers, the African Embassy bombings, and the USS Cole went unanswered by the Clinton Administration. Had the actions against terrorists taken by the Bush Administration in answer to the 2001 World Trade Center disaster not occurred, it is quite likely that by now, there would have been considerably more dead Americans than the 1,500 who have died in the Middle East.

So, according to Fantasea, President Clinton alone, is 100% responsible for 9-11? I see. Is that what you mean by the above statement? I ask, because the war in IRAQ has nothing to do with 9-11, so I am having a bit of a struggle connecting all your accusations re Clinton to the war in Iraq that so far has KILLED more than 1500 American soldiers?

Re 9-11, do you think Bush is not in any way responsible for 9-11? You seem to be developing quite a pattern in your posts. Let's review:

1. Clinton is responsible for terrorism in America, and for 9-11, despite not being in office when it happened. Question, the 1st WTC attack occurred 38 days after Clinton took office, but you find he's responsible, but Bush isn't responsible for 9-11 after being in office for 8 months? Is that what you're saying?
2. Clinton is responsible for the recession in the USA despite not being in office when it occurred?
3. Clinton is responsible for the Social Security "crisis."

I'm sure there's lots more? If I am reading your posts correctly, Bush has done nothing wrong, only right, since he took over? Any problems that his administration has were inherited from Clinton? Is that right? Clinton is responsible for the war in Iraq? How about the falling dollar and of course, the record setting deficit? Price of gasoline? All Clinton / Democrats doing?

Did Clinton's balancing the budget in 1998 lead to the budget deficit of today? It's all Clinton and/or the Democrat's fault, is that what you're saying?

Please clarify?

Rather than continuing to flourish, the terrorist network, together with it's logistical and financial support system, has been decimated.

Hmm? So if I am understanding this part of your post terrorism is finished, done. not capable of terror anymore, and Bush is responsible? Al-Quaeda is done, over, castrated?

Considering that all of the President's actions have been vindicated by the electorate's reelecting him to a second term, that's mighty big of you.

I see, in your America a 51%-48% margin of victory means that the ENTIRE country must now bow down to the great and almighty Bush and accept anything he says become of his LANDSLIDE victory? Key word, LANDSLIDE? He was swept into his reelection? The fact that no other sitting President has ever won with a smaller margin doesn't count, because, in your world, it seems that you believe it's WINNER TAKE ALL?

:thinking :damn