On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 10:42:30 -0800, nom=de=plume wrote:

The traditional role of justices during a State of the Union address is
to sit quietly and say/do nothing.

I noticed him bobbing his head around and mouthing something, and was
shocked. Looks like I'm not the only one.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/...s-not-true-at-
obama.html

Be kind, Alito is having a tough week. Judicial activism is a tough
job. I wonder how Harriet Miers would have ruled? ;-)

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 10:42:30 -0800, nom=de=plume wrote:

The traditional role of justices during a State of the Union address is
to sit quietly and say/do nothing.

I noticed him bobbing his head around and mouthing something, and was
shocked. Looks like I'm not the only one.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/...s-not-true-at-
obama.html

Be kind, Alito is having a tough week. Judicial activism is a tough
job. I wonder how Harriet Miers would have ruled? ;-)


Poor Harriet...

--
Nom=de=Plume

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 10:42:30 -0800, nom=de=plume wrote:

The traditional role of justices during a State of the Union address is
to sit quietly and say/do nothing.

I noticed him bobbing his head around and mouthing something, and was
shocked. Looks like I'm not the only one.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/...s-not-true-at-
obama.html

Be kind, Alito is having a tough week. Judicial activism is a tough
job. I wonder how Harriet Miers would have ruled? ;-)

Maybe the same. The Justice was noting the lie Obama told about overseas
companies. It's not hard to see what's going on here, you Democrats want
Unions and such to be able to put money in as they support you
generally, but other "industries" who do not, you would rather keep them
silent in the process.

Scotty

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 10:42:30 -0800, nom=de=plume wrote:

The traditional role of justices during a State of the Union address is
to sit quietly and say/do nothing.

I noticed him bobbing his head around and mouthing something, and was
shocked. Looks like I'm not the only one.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/...s-not-true-at-
obama.html

Be kind, Alito is having a tough week. Judicial activism is a tough
job. I wonder how Harriet Miers would have ruled? ;-)

Yeah, but don't touch the money that comes from George Soros

Scotty

On 1/28/10 5:25 PM, I am Tosk wrote:
In ,
says...

On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 10:42:30 -0800, nom=de=plume wrote:

The traditional role of justices during a State of the Union address is
to sit quietly and say/do nothing.

I noticed him bobbing his head around and mouthing something, and was
shocked. Looks like I'm not the only one.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/...s-not-true-at-
obama.html

Be kind, Alito is having a tough week. Judicial activism is a tough
job. I wonder how Harriet Miers would have ruled? ;-)

Maybe the same. The Justice was noting the lie Obama told about overseas
companies.

What lie is that?

On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:25:36 -0500, I am Tosk wrote:


Maybe the same. The Justice was noting the lie Obama told about overseas
companies. It's not hard to see what's going on here, you Democrats want
Unions and such to be able to put money in as they support you
generally, but other "industries" who do not, you would rather keep them
silent in the process.

BS. Personally, I'd like to get all the money out of the system, unions
and corporations. Our elected officials work for us. They are big
enough whores already. We don't need them chasing after all this "new"
money.

Something you may want to consider, unions do give almost exclusively to
Democrats. Corporations tend to hedge their bets, giving to both sides.
However, the biggest recipients are incumbents. You do know who controls
both Houses and the Whitehouse? It's just another reason incumbents
retain their seats 90+% of the time. The only people who should be happy
with the High Courts ruling, are the incumbents.

On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:25:36 -0500, I am Tosk wrote:


Maybe the same. The Justice was noting the lie Obama told about overseas
companies. It's not hard to see what's going on here, you Democrats want
Unions and such to be able to put money in as they support you
generally, but other "industries" who do not, you would rather keep them
silent in the process.

BS. Personally, I'd like to get all the money out of the system, unions
and corporations. Our elected officials work for us. They are big
enough whores already. We don't need them chasing after all this "new"
money.

Something you may want to consider, unions do give almost exclusively to
Democrats. Corporations tend to hedge their bets, giving to both sides.
However, the biggest recipients are incumbents. You do know who controls
both Houses and the Whitehouse? It's just another reason incumbents
retain their seats 90+% of the time. The only people who should be happy
with the High Courts ruling, are the incumbents.

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:25:36 -0500, I am Tosk wrote:


Maybe the same. The Justice was noting the lie Obama told about overseas
companies. It's not hard to see what's going on here, you Democrats want
Unions and such to be able to put money in as they support you
generally, but other "industries" who do not, you would rather keep them
silent in the process.

BS. Personally, I'd like to get all the money out of the system, unions
and corporations. Our elected officials work for us. They are big
enough whores already. We don't need them chasing after all this "new"
money.

Yeah we know, it's all fine as long as your side keeps the dirty upper
hand...

Scotty


Something you may want to consider, unions do give almost exclusively to
Democrats. Corporations tend to hedge their bets, giving to both sides.
However, the biggest recipients are incumbents. You do know who controls
both Houses and the Whitehouse? It's just another reason incumbents
retain their seats 90+% of the time. The only people who should be happy
with the High Courts ruling, are the incumbents.

On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:37:58 -0600, thunder
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 10:42:30 -0800, nom=de=plume wrote:

The traditional role of justices during a State of the Union address is
to sit quietly and say/do nothing.

I noticed him bobbing his head around and mouthing something, and was
shocked. Looks like I'm not the only one.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/...s-not-true-at-
obama.html

Be kind, Alito is having a tough week. Judicial activism is a tough
job. I wonder how Harriet Miers would have ruled? ;-)

Horse****, as usual.
--

"Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and in others." (Unknown)

John H

On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 06:40:48 -0600, thunder
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:25:36 -0500, I am Tosk wrote:


Maybe the same. The Justice was noting the lie Obama told about overseas
companies. It's not hard to see what's going on here, you Democrats want
Unions and such to be able to put money in as they support you
generally, but other "industries" who do not, you would rather keep them
silent in the process.

BS. Personally, I'd like to get all the money out of the system, unions
and corporations. Our elected officials work for us. They are big
enough whores already. We don't need them chasing after all this "new"
money.

Something you may want to consider, unions do give almost exclusively to
Democrats.

the fact is unions are almost non existent in the US

people prefer that large corporations have the power, not unions