[Lazamataz]

Not really. Three constitutional amendments have been repealed since Bush took over. Not to say that Bush himself is the only guilty party.

This last travesty has turned me away from Bush utterly. He didn't do it, but he could have lobbied for a better outcome.

A democrat would have done less damage.

[Protagoras]

A democrat would have done less damage.

It's hard to let those words pass my lips, but I agree.

In the minority, Republicans at least pay lip service to rights. In the majority, they will do anything to retain power. It's pathetic.

[Charles Martel]

This last travesty has turned me away from Bush utterly. He didn't do it, but he could have lobbied for a better outcome.

A democrat would have done less damage.

Honestly, I'm not sure how much lobbying power any president has these days - at least where the judiciary's actions are concerned. We know the overall trend is to issue rulings based on foreign law, so this is just more incrementalism. At the moment, it seems like a damned big increment, but have a look here: UN Agenda 21

Check out more of the Clinton Legacy, four of five paragraphs from the top (indented). Then think about the unfettered immigration from the south, and the new interstate highway corridors being developed.

I feel like a Roman, watching the barbarians coming over the seventh hill.

[Chunga]

This ruling has nothing to do with President Bush. It's a Supreme Court decision. Our government provides for the separation of powers.

Bush hasn't had an opportunity to nominate a single Supreme Court justice yet, and the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are stonewalling him on his constructionist appointees to lower federal benches.

His nominees bear out the obvious: Bush wants less activist federal courts. Save your ammunition for the actual culprits.