Posted on 08/10/2005 5:44:45 AM PDT by alnick
Guests and topics on Tony's show today include:
Now that space shuttle Discovery has returned safely to Earth after a perilous trip, Tony looks at whether privately funded space flight will eventually eclipse government sponsored ones. Tony will talk to the man behind the private space flight, Burt Rutan.
Jeanine Pirro, the Republican District Attorney from Westchester, hopes to challenge Hillary Clinton in the 2006 election. Renowned political guru Dick Morris will join to provide his insight about the 2006 NY Senate race.
Confirmation hearings won't begin for a month, but the liberal attacks are ratcheting up against the nomination of John Roberts for the Supreme Court. Tony will dissect the latest NARAL attack ad and tell us why the Roberts nomination is a lock.
You can find out more information about the line-up, stream Tony's show, find local radio stations as well as other fun stuff off his website
CLICK HERE and follow the "Listen Live" link to stream the show which runs from 9 AM est to noon.
moongriffon.com streams the show every day from 3:00 to 6:00 PM (EDT).
WMET airs Tony’s show on the web from 9-12 EST. Another way to hear Tony’s show is by streaming it at 7pm CST on klif.com
Yet another source of the show is at 1190wamt.com which streams at least part of Tony’s show during its regular air time.
XM Channel 165 also airs the show for satellite radio subscribers.
You can also listen to Tony on WGTX live, in color and on time.........HERE
Sirius Channel 142 also carries the show live.
To call the show and talk to Tony dial: 1.866.408.SNOW
By the way, if you miss anything, the show is streamed again immediately after the three hours. Please feel free to add thread narrative about what is aired on the show as a group effort is helpful to get more of the content posted and is much appreciated by those reading the thread later. If you’d like on or off the Tony Snow Show ping list, please post a request. All requests happily honored.
Of course. It's all theatre..
I have a copy will post it. My Bold and Italics.
Stopping a judicial conflict of interest
By Christopher D. Morris | August 9, 2005
IN THE presidential campaign, a new threshold in church-state relations was crossed when Catholic bishops threatened to exclude Senator John Kerry from the Eucharist because of his support for Roe v. Wade. The Senate Judiciary Committee is now fully justified in asking these bishops whether the same threats would apply to Supreme Court nominee Judge Roberts, if he were to vote to uphold Roe v. Wade.
The bishops have made this question legitimate because Americans no longer know whether a Catholic judge can hear abortion cases without an automatic conflict of interest.
When judges may derive a financial gain from the outcome of a case before them, they must disqualify themselves; this requirement should be even more urgent when the gain in question is full Communion and the promise of eternal life. According to the American Bar Association's Code of Conduct for United States Judges, Canon 3, Section C 1 (c), a judge must disqualify himself when he has ''a financial interest . . . or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding." Maintaining one's membership in the church and the prospect of eternal life surely count as such an interest.
Immanuel Kant held that no decision could be considered impartial or ethical if personal interest in the outcome played any role in it. It is time for this principle to be observed in our judiciary.
Asking the bishops to testify would be healthy. If they rescinded the threats made against Kerry, then Roberts would feel free to make his decision without the appearance of a conflict of interest, and Catholic politicians who support Roe v. Wade would gain renewed confidence in their advocacy. If the bishops repeated or confirmed their threats, the Senate Judiciary Committee should draft legislation calling for the automatic recusal of Catholic judges from cases citing Roe v. Wade as a precedent.
Of course, such a new law should cover anyone whose religion makes it impossible for them to decide on their own whether abortion should be legal; therefore, testimony should be taken from the leaders of Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, and other faiths as well. It is clear that several mainline Protestant denominations separate the issue of abortion from church membership and personal salvation; judges from these faiths would face no conflict of interest.
Even evangelical Protestants do not oppose abortion at the risk of being separated from a particular church, because their faiths are based on being ''born again," not on adherence to certain articles of faith or a catechism. In theory, the same Holy Spirit that made evangelicals born again could also move them to change a social or political view at any time. (In drafting mandatory recusal legislation, senators should probe the foundations of these beliefs and persuade themselves that evangelicals retained a meaningful, not just a technical, choice.) Inquiry into Judaism, Islam, and other religions should also focus on whether any of them make threats against members who hold particular views about abortion.
It is obvious that mandatory disqualification of Catholic judges from abortion cases would have only the most minor effect on their professional lives. Everyone agrees that people like Justice Antonin Scalia and Roberts are fully able to fairly adjudicate 99 percent of the cases that come before them.
In any case, a Senate investigation of this subject is overdue not simply because of the threats made against Kerry. Christian activists have won a series of court victories that allow use of taxpayer money to help finance their schools, fund their charities, and place their religious symbols in public spaces. If US taxpayers are going to subsidize activities by tax-exempt Christian organizations, they have the right to be told what constraints their followers are under while they sit in judgment of Americans who may not share their religion. When constraints amount to sanctions, impartial decisions are impossible; judges then owe Americans the duty of disqualifying themselves.
One would think Catholic judges would want such a measure in place as a means of honoring their own convictions. That this proposal will no doubt be controversial should not be a reason for failing to pursue it: Political advocacy by religious organizations is on the rise and will only become stronger. If the subject is ducked this time by the Senate Judiciary Committee, it will only come up later in a more aggravated form.
It's time to have this dialogue. Without it, the decisions of our highest court, already tainted by the Bush-Gore election, will increasingly be perceived as self-serving, political, and illegitimate.
TY I was trying to get it off my site, but my DSL provider is low on CPU this morning and it keep knocking Tony's feed off!
There was never any question! She read right straight from the "talking points"!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1460089/posts?page=46#46
To: NormsRevenge
Weldon was on Fox and Friends this a.m. discussing this. Among other things, he cannot understand why "Able Danger" was not mentioned one time in the thick 9/11 Commission's report.
Edie Hill brought up Sandy Berger....is it possible that he may have taken any documents relating to this....Weldon said he would hope not.....
........more than interesting....
46 posted on 08/10/2005 8:32:52 AM EDT by nicmarlo
Thanks, Tony you're a good man!
Yup, only godless pagans need apply, per the 'rat party and MSM....
Don't know .. but it was a good question E.D. asked
I'm not fanatical, I pick my battles, a lot of it I just chalk up to ignornace. But this Morris article and the Cuomo one had me enraged.
It may have been anti-Catholic; but other groups, the Evangelicals, the Mainline Protestants, the Jewish groups, better take note - - this is yet another shot against anyone who is a person of faith.....
They are calling "good", "evil" and "evil", "good".
Now, Who said that this would happen in the Last Days.....?
A question I hope that will be followed up!
Totally aside - last year my 3rd grade granddaughter was very upset. They had a mock election, and her best friend (her father is a lawyer) voted dim. She asked her mother if that meant her friend was going to the bad place, since she voted dim. Her mother (my daughter) explained that it did not mean that - her memaw's best friend is a dim, too.
Why am I not surprised that he has a TON of room to shove things down his trousers?
They are using her and once they are finished Cindy, they will toss her to the curb and move on
And Cindy will be left with no friends, no family and no husband
I hope it will be followed up also
kcvl was right in this post
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1460089/posts?page=44#44
We all knew ... there is no reason why the 9/11 Commission shouldn't have known
Ken Mehlman is on top of this report Tony is going to talk about. Read here
http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=5712
This is running on CBS.
Sept. 11 ringleader Mohammed Atta and three other hijackers were identified by defense intelligence officials more than a year before the attacks, but information about possible al Qaeda connections never was sent to law enforcement, Rep. Curt Weldon said Tuesday.
The 9/11 Commission will investigate the claim. Commission co-chairman Lee Hamilton said that Weldon's information warrants a review. Hamilton says the commission "did not learn of any U.S. government knowledge prior to 9/11 of surveillance of Mohammed Atta or of his cell."
Weldon, vice chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security committees, said the hijackers were identified in 1999 by a classified military intelligence unit known as “Able Danger,” which determined they could be members of an al Qaeda cell.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.