there will never be any prosecution of anyone in the executive branch simply because of the ability to declare executive priviledge. Nixon almost got away with “crimes”, the Reagan team did, Clinton did and now Dubya and friends learned very well from that history. None of his aides or cabinet will answer to anyone; Bush and Cheney are nothing new. Political animals all act the same. It did not surprise me that Libby’s sentence was communted; he’ll land on his feet. Just like corporate governess, in politics if you perform badly, you’ll be rewarded with a golden parachute. There is no real difference at the top: they are all in this together; they just take turns bashing one another to keep up the fascade.
Ok Mike, Bush is wrong again and you clearly dislike him so, who’s your choice for President in 08? If you don’t have a favorite now can you tell us who’s your favorite former President?
and it can be said that… “Be careful with, “if you can’t get it done democratically, go to the court…” as this is mostly done by special interest groups and RIGHT-leaning organizations.
You’re right; the right has learned how to use the executive branch to pack the courts at all levels and THEN have the courts revisit 40 year old decisions and reverse themselves so get their way. This, BTW, is what the founding fathers wanted to prevent, that the courts would not move left and right like the other two branches of government, after elections.
So a court that had been falling left for almost 50 years edges back towards the center and you think that’s conservative bias? The only president who actually tried to pack the Supreme Court in reality was FDR, the God of Democrats. A president should appoint those who he believes shares his beliefs. That’s part of what’s so important about electing a president. If you consider appointing those who share your views packing, so be it.
No sarcasm whatsoever. The right and the neo-kkkons used the Courts to push their religious agenda as much as the libs use the courts to pursue their agendas. To say that this does not happen is to be in plain denial and that’s not healthy.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
there will never be any prosecution of anyone in the executive branch simply because of the ability to declare executive priviledge. Nixon almost got away with “crimes”, the Reagan team did, Clinton did and now Dubya and friends learned very well from that history. None of his aides or cabinet will answer to anyone; Bush and Cheney are nothing new. Political animals all act the same. It did not surprise me that Libby’s sentence was communted; he’ll land on his feet. Just like corporate governess, in politics if you perform badly, you’ll be rewarded with a golden parachute. There is no real difference at the top: they are all in this together; they just take turns bashing one another to keep up the fascade.
Ok Mike, Bush is wrong again and you clearly dislike him so, who’s your choice for President in 08? If you don’t have a favorite now can you tell us who’s your favorite former President?
Kucinich is the only candidate that cares about the average Joe
I like to think of him as one of the yellow-backed Democrats. Lots of that type of wildlife out there these days.
and it can be said that… “Be careful with, “if you can’t get it done democratically, go to the court…” as this is mostly done by special interest groups and RIGHT-leaning organizations.
You’re right; the right has learned how to use the executive branch to pack the courts at all levels and THEN have the courts revisit 40 year old decisions and reverse themselves so get their way. This, BTW, is what the founding fathers wanted to prevent, that the courts would not move left and right like the other two branches of government, after elections.
So a court that had been falling left for almost 50 years edges back towards the center and you think that’s conservative bias? The only president who actually tried to pack the Supreme Court in reality was FDR, the God of Democrats. A president should appoint those who he believes shares his beliefs. That’s part of what’s so important about electing a president. If you consider appointing those who share your views packing, so be it.
Stat Guy,
You must be one of them bleeding heart liberals. I really think you are confused on this issue. Go back and read the article again.
G W
No sarcasm whatsoever. The right and the neo-kkkons used the Courts to push their religious agenda as much as the libs use the courts to pursue their agendas. To say that this does not happen is to be in plain denial and that’s not healthy.