Replies

If there is any trend that makes me fear for our country more than the trend towards judicially tyranny, I have not yet heard of it.

Would Sandra Dee support an argument that SCOTUS itself must bow down to the World Court in The Hague?

Sad to see Sandra Dee using the Constitution as kindling for her dinner. Expensive dinner, I'd say.

I must say, though, I don't understand why anyone would run for Congress. You'll have a thousand times more people worked up over a kid receiving two cans of Pepsi in a school vending machine for the price of one than people who are concerned that Sandra Dee is using our Constitution to start the fire at her senior center beach blanket bingo party. "Congressman Armor, we don't care about the Constitution when thar's a whole lotta Pepsi consumin' goin' on out thar!"

Congressman Billybob, you promise to file impeachment papers against Sandra Dee and other Constitutional arsonists and you'll see campaign money flowing in like tourists in the Smokies fleeing bears!

I HATE ACTIVIST JUSTICES!!

Entrenched dishonesty and disobedience to the Constitution by federal courts is, as you know, a MAJOR HOT BUTTON for me. However, I've spent decades taking with groups of lawmen about the Constitution and its application. I have no doubt that for the average voter, the Constitution is roughly 11th on a list of the top ten issues in any campaign.

So, I will not abandon this issue as long as I have life and breath. On the other hand, I will not attempt to win the voters' approval by flogging this issue at every possible opportunity to speak in public. You see the distinction, I hope.

John / Billybob

Unfortunately, Dubya can't even use O'Connor's reliance on foreign law as a campaign issue because she's a stinkin' Republican appointee. It might have had some appeal to certain independents. At the least, it would have given Dubya a pretty good comeback when badgered by the Dems about Supreme Court appointments.

I suppose one tiny bright spot is that the Dems can't really use it either because they agree with the merits on that case.