Melinda, it's apparently a crunchy granola feel good thing and not real politix. Let it go. It's like talking to a rather smug wall. Joe needs to open up a window. K ----- Original Message ---- From: "wanzala@xxxxxxxxx" <wanzala@xxxxxxxxx> To: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 1:28:19 PM Subject: Re: [NewPacifica] Re: Nader: And Now the Slander Begins Again you are welcome to vote according to how your middle of the road, denialist worldview dictates. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Melinda Iley-Dohn <Iley_dohn@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:25:19 To:NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [NewPacifica] Re: Nader: And Now the Slander Begins Again Which is why I don't want to burn a vote letting an idiot like John McCain WIN! That is the point. The Court is old. You will NEVER convince me that the Democrats who appointed Thurgood Marshall are no better than the idiot who put Roberts into the Chief Justice role. This is stupid. We need to keep McCain out or we will see more people like Alito and Scalia. These are scary people who are willing to give corporate America the farm and We the People the compost heap behind the barn. Get real Joe there is no comparrison. Joseph Wanzala <wanzala@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: Who makes the appointments is not as important as the actual policy impact in real tems - indeed the fact that these are lifetime appointments means that the appointers can do nothing to control the tendency towards independence nor can they control the evolution of thought among individual judges. Also, the exigencies of the Republican agenda are constantly shifting, and its is hard if not imposssible to keep a large number of judges in lockstep - unless you are suggesting some kind of grand conspiracy. The record suggests that while Republicans might 'score' with some judicial appointments, many republican judges do not toe their line. Alex Kosinski, for example is one of the most indepedent Judges on the 9th Circuit, who is just as likely to rule in ways that progressives will like as he is to rule in favor of conservatives. If you look at the Supreme Court, there is little ideological distinction between the justices on economic issues, and in that regard, there have been instances, for example a recent ruling having to do with banking regulation, when the liberals have been worse than the conservatives. Joe W. On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 11:26 PM, Nalini Lasiewicz <LasiewiczN@aol. <mailto:LasiewiczN@xxxxxxx> com> wrote: > --- In NewPacifica@ <mailto:NewPacifica%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com, > wanzala@ wrote: > > I invite you to provide actual examples and significant trends showing a significant difference I don't know how much time you want to spend on this, but here's a detailed analysis: http://www.ajs. <http://www.ajs.org/ajs/publications/Judicature_PDFs/906/Goldman_906.pdf> org/ajs/publications/Judicature_PDFs/906/Goldman_906.pdf In order to do a complete analysis, one has to understand the role of lifetime judgeships, U.S. Court of Appeals, Circuit Judges, the Supreme Court and lower courts of federal jurisdiction. Some of these appointments are for a lifetime. So when one considers that out of the last eight Presidents, five were Republicans [and none were "third party,"[ you might understand why it's important to have a Democrat win in November. These trends effect generations of legal rulings. Nalini ---------------- Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs> New Pacifica Working Group http://www.egroups.com/group/NewPacifica 'Save Our Stations!' Yahoo! Groups Links ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping