Uh oh - Alito's first case... and he sides with the liberals!

ISiddiqui · 02-01-2006, 11:55 PM

I wonder how many conservatives had heart attacks

.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060202/...ath_penalty_15

Quote:

WASHINGTON - New Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito split with the court's conservatives Wednesday night, refusing to let Missouri execute a death-row inmate contesting lethal injection.

Alito, handling his first case, sided with inmate Michael Taylor, who had won a stay from an appeals court earlier in the evening. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas supported lifting the stay, but Alito joined the remaining five members in turning down Missouri's last-minute request to allow a midnight execution.

Desnudo · 02-02-2006, 12:01 AM

What did he have to do with mortgage rates hitting new record lows?

ISiddiqui · 02-02-2006, 12:03 AM

Argh!! The Yahoo coding is all messed up and I can't fix it in editing. Here is what the first two paragraphs are supposed to say:

Quote:

New Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito split with the court's conservatives Wednesday night, refusing to let Missouri execute a death-row inmate contesting lethal injection.
Alito, handling his first case, sided with inmate Michael Taylor, who had won a stay from an appeals court earlier in the evening. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas supported lifting the stay, but Alito joined the remaining five members in turning down Missouri's last-minute request to allow a midnight execution.

stevew · 02-02-2006, 12:05 AM

All this says is that he didn't want to kill the guy today, and it sheds absolutely no light on the case and why a stay was given by the lower courts. More information is needed.

ISiddiqui · 02-02-2006, 12:07 AM

Yeah, but he's willing to consider evidence before throwing the switch, unlike Roberts, Scalia, Thomas

.

SackAttack · 02-02-2006, 12:07 AM

My understanding is that the stay was in effect until tonight anyway so the court could examine some things.

Not sure this is much to get excited over.

Let me know when they make the decision for real.

stevew · 02-02-2006, 12:10 AM

Taylor was convicted of killing 15-year-old Ann Harrison, who was waiting for a school bus when he and an accomplice kidnapped her in Taylor pleaded guilty and said he was high on crack cocaine at the time.

Taylor's legal team had pursued two challenges _ claiming that lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment and that his constitutional rights were violated by a system tilted against black defendants.

The court, acting without Alito, rejected Taylor's appeal that argued that Missouri's death penalty system is racist. Taylor is black and his victim was white. He filed the appeal on Tuesday, the day that Alito was confirmed by the Senate.

Sounds like a real winner, but if they want to say that lethal injection is cruel and unusual, then it needs to be adressed.

Mr. Wednesday · 02-02-2006, 12:17 AM

Interesting. Given my perception of his history, I'm really surprised he went this way.

Schmidty · 02-02-2006, 12:34 AM

Good for him. State supported miurder is not the answer to eliminating crime.

Most citizens want this because they want legal revenge, instead of just doing it with their own hands.

Tigercat · 02-02-2006, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schmidty

Good for him. State supported miurder is not the answer to eliminating crime.

Most citizens want this because they want legal revenge, instead of just doing it with their own hands.

But victims should have rights damnit! Including the ability to see out sweet, sweet revenge that will undoubtably sooth their pain.

SackAttack · 02-02-2006, 01:41 AM

My take on it is when you take a life, you're dishing out "cruel and unusual punishment" to your victim, and you thus forfeit any Constitutional protections you had against the government doing the same.

Can't have it both ways.

Tigercat · 02-02-2006, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SackAttack

My take on it is when you take a life, you're dishing out "cruel and unusual punishment" to your victim, and you thus forfeit any Constitutional protections you had against the government doing the same.

Can't have it both ways.

Perhaps, but there is a difference between being able to do something and if(the government in this case) should do something.

To me its about the idea that the Government should represent the best of us. Do we want to be represented by something which takes the life of another living being to avenge? There are times when killing could be a mercy, but we aren't talking about that. And personally, I would like to be represented by an organization that goes to SOME form of mercy before the final solution, even if part of me wants that person away from the land of the living. But thats just me.

It seems that these days more people want a government that flat out represents their personal views, even if they are indulgent in some not so good ways.

SackAttack · 02-02-2006, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tigercat

Perhaps, but there is a difference between being able to do something and if(the government in this case) should do something.

To me its about the idea that the Government should represent the best of us. Do we want to be represented by something which takes the life of another living being to avenge? There are times when killing could be a mercy, but we aren't talking about that. And personally, I would like to be represented by an organization that goes to SOME form of mercy before the final solution, even if part of me wants that person away from the land of the living. But thats just me.

It seems that these days more people want a government that flat out represents their personal views, even if they are indulgent in some not so good ways.

I don't know that I would hold it against the government if the death penalty were outlawed. It's supposed to represent the people, after all, and not my personal views.

On the other hand, I find it difficult to muster mercy for somebody who's in the position they're in because they lack a fundamental understanding of the concept.

Britain had the right idea with penal colonies, I think. Ship 'em away from civilized society, give 'em the freshest start there is and the devil take the hindmost.

Sadly, we don't exactly have that option these days.

sterlingice · 02-02-2006, 03:11 AM

I think we can safely hold off on branding him a leftist until he gets some more substantial cases on his plate.

SI

CraigSca · 02-02-2006, 06:57 AM

/checks pulse Hmmm, I'm still standing!

GrantDawg · 02-02-2006, 07:02 AM

I started a thread, but then saw this one. I'm glad he made the right decision here (to at least look at the issue) and I hope this is a sign that he is open-minded at looking at cases that comes before the court.

wade moore · 02-02-2006, 07:31 AM

I have a serious question being that I don't know these things that well...

Everyone was talking about Alito turning the court conservative.. but then this article states that him siding with the liberals made it 6-3... doesn't that mean if he sides with the conservatives that it is 5-4? So is it not really conservative, or did another conservative side with the liberals?

Subby · 02-02-2006, 07:38 AM

The only crime committed here was that initial cut and paste.

Toddzilla · 02-02-2006, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

The only crime committed here was that initial cut and paste.

Comedy Fucking GOLD

Jon · 02-02-2006, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wade moore

I have a serious question being that I don't know these things that well...

Everyone was talking about Alito turning the court conservative.. but then this article states that him siding with the liberals made it 6-3... doesn't that mean if he sides with the conservatives that it is 5-4? So is it not really conservative, or did another conservative side with the liberals?

Kennedy voted with Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Stevens. So Alito just joined them. This doesn't really answer anything. What would be more telling is how would he have voted if he had been the deciding vote.

There's a ton of political science studies that examine the relationships of the justices in this context (a small group one). One theory is called the freshman effect, where a justice will tag along (voting, etc.) with a more senior justice until he or she gets comfortable to venture out on his/her own. Some have argued that this is what happened with Clarence Thomas (and Scalia).

Just my two cents.

One more thing, but off topic: I would hardly say that the bloc of Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer can legitimately called "liberal." They are liberal in the context of the "conservatives" on the court, but they are really a bunch of moderates.

Souter, who I had studied significantly while in college and law school, isn't a traditional liberal in the way we usually define the term. He oftentimes believe in looking at the facts of a particular case, and applying the regular law. Like Owen Roberts (who cast the "switch in time to save nine" vote), he is hesitant to reverse precedent, which would explain some of his votes where the Rehnquist block would have overturned (and did overturn) a lot of prior case law.

wade moore · 02-02-2006, 08:26 AM

You SO didn't answer my question?

How many conservatives are on the court?

John Galt · 02-02-2006, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wade moore

You SO didn't answer my question?

How many conservatives are on the court?

7 of the 9 justices were appointed by GOP presidents. But most Republicans these days say there are only 4 conservatives (they just ignore Kennedy's overwhelming conservative voting patterns because of a couple cases). Overall, I would say the court is more conservative now than at any time in the modern era. Stevens was a GOP appointee that is hardly the flaming liberal that the right paints him as. He is still quite conservative on a great many issues (although those stories don't make much news). The closest the court has to a "true" liberal is Ginsburg and she is far, far from it. There is no doubt that this court is not as right-wing as some would like it, but judged on a historical frame, I think all of these 9 justices are all to the right of justices from the mid-20th Century on many issues.

ISiddiqui · 02-02-2006, 08:36 AM

He did answer your question... though I think you had a different question in mind than what you wrote

.

As stated:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon

I would hardly say that the bloc of Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer can legitimately called "liberal."

Which would.... make the other 5 (Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Roberts, and Alito) the conservatives by a process of elimination

.

Oh, and for the record, and I'd most definetly consider Ginsberg and perhaps Breyer are liberals, actual liberals.

Jesse_Ewiak · 02-02-2006, 08:37 AM

By 2005 standards - Four. Alito, Thomas, Scalia, Roberts. But, as was just noted, the only true liberals, and that is saying alot is Ginsburg and Breyer. Stevens is 154 years old and I think at this point, just likes to piss off the Right wing, Kennedy's a moderate, and Souter as was noted is just someone who hates to overturn precedent.

Remember, in 1980-whatever when O'Connor was nominated, she was a 'mainstream conservative.' Now, she is/was considered a 'swing' vote.

wade moore · 02-02-2006, 08:57 AM

So the answer is... "depends on who you ask."?

...

flere-imsaho · 02-02-2006, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wade moore

So the answer is... "depends on who you ask."?

...

Actually, I think the answer is, more accurately, "it depends on the case in question".

CamEdwards · 02-02-2006, 09:31 AM

I don't know of any conservatives who are flipping out. Nor do I know of any liberals who are taking back some of the ridiculous charges they levelled against Alito. It's one case, it's a decision that seems reasonable based on other recent rulings, and it's not a huge decision.

Jon · 02-02-2006, 09:46 AM

Sorry for not being more clear on my answer. I define Thomas, Roberts, Alito, and Scalia as the "conservatives" on the court, Kennedy a moderate leaning right, with Ginsberg, Breyer, and Stevens as moderates leaning left. As I mentioned about Souter, he's someone who hates to overturn precedent absent extraordinary circumstances, which (after his first few years on the court), led him to vote with the moderate block more frequently.

When referring to justices, I think we have to be careful how we label them. Some may consider some liberal, but this is usually when focusing on a narrow body of work (social issues, etc.). When deciding whether to label a justice as liberal or conservative, you should focus on the entire body of work, not simply opinions on social issues. Some justices vote certain ways on some issues and other ways on others, and oftentimes it's not really clear why (which explains the social scientists who have made it a career of tracking votes, analyzing opinions, and trying to decipher consistency). I wish I had some more time and access to my old papers b/c then I could cite some authority.

In terms of political leanings (not including judicial opinions), Jeffrey Segal and Albert Cover have created a scoring system to determine the idealogical value of justices based upon editorials made prior to their confirmation. Since I dont' have the full report in front of me, I can't judge the definitions of the variables, what the authors considered liberal or conservative, or even the significance of their findings. I'm posting this here b/c I found it interesting:

Scores (1 most liberal to -1 most conservative)
Ginsberg .26
Breyer -.05
Kennedy -.27
Souter -.34
Stevens -.5
Thomas -.68
Roberts -.8
Scalia -1

Alito's score hasn't been announced yet.

(BTW, Flere beat me to the punch with his short quick post).

wade moore · 02-02-2006, 10:22 AM

Thanks guys, I appreciate the answers... This is something that I honestly just don't know enough about...

Jesse_Ewiak · 02-02-2006, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I don't know of any conservatives who are flipping out. Nor do I know of any liberals who are taking back some of the ridiculous charges they levelled against Alito. It's one case, it's a decision that seems reasonable based on other recent rulings, and it's not a huge decision.

Actual FreeRepublic posts! Note, I don't think this is thinking of most conservatives but hey, if you guys can call DemocraticUnderground the 'mainstream' of the Democratic Party...

“Just trying to make us look bad, then? Ho-hum, just another day at the office.”

“Those of us who supported this guy did so because we trusted his judgement. Wow, that could be a FR record for turning on one of our own; less than 24 hours.”

“Did you expect anything less? The Donner Party “Conservatives” look for any and all excuses to have another Nacht der langen Messer.

“The question seems not to be a review of the scum’s conviction, but wheter death by lethal injection is, “Cruel and unusual punishment.” Alito has definitely thought this issue out before. I hope his decision on this matter is not portending another death penalty bleeding heart—let alone anoter Souter or Kennedy.”

“I hope you are right or we’ll be wiping egg off our faces for the next 25 years…….”

“Exactly. There may be nothing wrong here, but it sure raises some questions. If the libs have managed to get another stealth leftist on the Supreme Court right under our very noses, it’ll be one of the most stunning political defeats ever. I’ll wait and see before jumping to conclusions, but I’m concerned.”

“He likely had a heads up on this case as he has been a nominee for months. No excuses for first day on the job.”

“And how do you know that he had a heads up on this? Who told you a Supreme Court nominee will be reviewing Supreme Court cases behind the scenes while waiting for his confirmation? Where do some of you people come up with this crap? Your stupid conclusions are no different from the delusional conclusions of the liberal media.”

“I’m not going to jump to conclusions over this, but I will have to say, IF ANYONE HERE IS CONCERNED ABOUT LETHAL INJECTION BEING CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT (and that includes Alito unfortunately) FOR A RAPIST KILLER OF A YOUNG GIRL OR ANY RAPIST KILLER FOR THAT MATTER THEN YOU’RE ALL SCREWED UP.”

CamEdwards · 02-02-2006, 10:47 AM

I don't hang out at freerepublic (or Democratic Underground for that matter), so I don't know any of these people.

I guess when I wrote that I was thinking of my conservative friends in D.C.

Now, do you think you could find some DU posts indicating a change of heart by liberals towards Alito?

Jesse_Ewiak · 02-02-2006, 10:49 AM

Mainly a joke, Cam. Plus, it's funny to see people freak out over what is probably a unimportant ruling. So, he isn't quiiiiiite as blood-thirsty as Thomas and Scalia...yet. We Democrats only freak out and attack each other for not being ideologically pure, haven't you figured that out by now? :-)

ISiddiqui · 02-02-2006, 11:34 AM

Yeah, I'd be shocked if anyone thought I was serious about this. I even put a winking smile up!

Glengoyne · 02-02-2006, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tigercat

Perhaps, but there is a difference between being able to do something and if(the government in this case) should do something.

To me its about the idea that the Government should represent the best of us. Do we want to be represented by something which takes the life of another living being to avenge? There are times when killing could be a mercy, but we aren't talking about that. And personally, I would like to be represented by an organization that goes to SOME form of mercy before the final solution, even if part of me wants that person away from the land of the living. But thats just me.

It seems that these days more people want a government that flat out represents their personal views, even if they are indulgent in some not so good ways.

I don't have too much trouble with the arguement that the government should represent the best aspects of humanity, but then again government has the responsibility of punishing criminals as well. Death, in this case, is a punishment. The victim's relatives may regard it as vengeance or retribution, but from the government's perspective...this is punishment and nothing more.

Cotton · 02-02-2006, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Britain had the right idea with penal colonies, I think. Ship 'em away from civilized society, give 'em the freshest start there is and the devil take the hindmost.

Sadly, we don't exactly have that option these days.

Because we're that option for the rest of the world. Send us your huddled masses (and your freaks and malcontents and criminals...)

Jesse_Ewiak · 02-02-2006, 06:24 PM

Yeah, sucks about that whole 'beacon of freedom' thing. It has to apply equally or it really doesn't count for shit.

SackAttack · 02-02-2006, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P. Luxx

Because we're that option for the rest of the world. Send us your huddled masses (and your freaks and malcontents and criminals...)

I often think that if extraplanetary colonization ever becomes a possibility for our society, that penal colonies will be how it really gets rolling. Imagine, kick 'em not just out of the country, not just off the continent, but out of the whole damn solar system!

What politician wouldn't seize on that as a campaign platform?

Schmidty · 02-02-2006, 06:53 PM

I was just thinking about something: I am definitely not a "liberal", but I am against the death penalty. Why does everything have to be so black and white, and stereotyped? It's just a symptom of the mess that is Washington, I guess.

02-02-2006, 12:07 AM	#5
ISiddiqui Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Decatur, GA	Yeah, but he's willing to consider evidence before throwing the switch, unlike Roberts, Scalia, Thomas . __________________ "A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams

02-02-2006, 12:17 AM	#8
Mr. Wednesday Pro Starter Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: South Bend, IN	Interesting. Given my perception of his history, I'm really surprised he went this way. __________________ Hattrick - Brays Bayou FC (70854) / USA III.4 Hockey Arena - Houston Aeros / USA II.1 Thanks to my FOFC Hattrick supporters - Blackout, Brillig, kingfc22, RPI-fan, Rich1033, antbacker, One_to7, ur_land, KevinNU7, and TonyR (PM me if you support me and I've missed you)

02-02-2006, 12:34 AM	#9
Schmidty Coordinator Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Early, TX	Good for him. State supported miurder is not the answer to eliminating crime. Most citizens want this because they want legal revenge, instead of just doing it with their own hands. __________________ Just beat the devil out of it!!! - Bob Ross

02-02-2006, 03:11 AM	#14
sterlingice Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Back in Houston!	I think we can safely hold off on branding him a leftist until he gets some more substantial cases on his plate. SI __________________ Houston Hippopotami, III.3: 20th Anniversary Thread - All former HT players are encouraged to check it out! Janos: "Only America could produce an imbecile of your caliber!" Freakazoid: "That's because we make lots of things better than other people!"

02-02-2006, 06:57 AM	#15
CraigSca Pro Starter Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Not Delaware - hurray!	/checks pulse Hmmm, I'm still standing! __________________ She loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah! She loves you, yeah! how do you know? how do you know?

02-02-2006, 12:01 AM	#2
Desnudo Coordinator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Here and There	What did he have to do with mortgage rates hitting new record lows?

02-02-2006, 12:05 AM	#4
stevew Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: the yo'	All this says is that he didn't want to kill the guy today, and it sheds absolutely no light on the case and why a stay was given by the lower courts. More information is needed.

02-02-2006, 12:07 AM	#6
SackAttack Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Green Bay, WI	My understanding is that the stay was in effect until tonight anyway so the court could examine some things. Not sure this is much to get excited over. Let me know when they make the decision for real.

02-02-2006, 12:10 AM	#7
stevew Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: the yo'	Taylor was convicted of killing 15-year-old Ann Harrison, who was waiting for a school bus when he and an accomplice kidnapped her in Taylor pleaded guilty and said he was high on crack cocaine at the time. Taylor's legal team had pursued two challenges _ claiming that lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment and that his constitutional rights were violated by a system tilted against black defendants. The court, acting without Alito, rejected Taylor's appeal that argued that Missouri's death penalty system is racist. Taylor is black and his victim was white. He filed the appeal on Tuesday, the day that Alito was confirmed by the Senate. Sounds like a real winner, but if they want to say that lethal injection is cruel and unusual, then it needs to be adressed.

02-02-2006, 01:41 AM	#11
SackAttack Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Green Bay, WI	My take on it is when you take a life, you're dishing out "cruel and unusual punishment" to your victim, and you thus forfeit any Constitutional protections you had against the government doing the same. Can't have it both ways.

02-02-2006, 07:02 AM	#16
GrantDawg World Champion Mis-speller Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Covington, Ga.	I started a thread, but then saw this one. I'm glad he made the right decision here (to at least look at the issue) and I hope this is a sign that he is open-minded at looking at cases that comes before the court.

02-02-2006, 07:38 AM	#18
Subby lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: sans pants	The only crime committed here was that initial cut and paste. __________________ Superman was flying around and saw Wonder Woman getting a tan in the nude on her balcony. Superman said I going to hit that real fast. So he flys down toward Wonder Woman to hit it and their is a loud scream. The Invincible Man scream what just hit me in the ass!!!!! I do shit, I take pictures, I write about it: chrisshue.com

02-02-2006, 08:37 AM	#24
Jesse_Ewiak Banned Join Date: Apr 2004	By 2005 standards - Four. Alito, Thomas, Scalia, Roberts. But, as was just noted, the only true liberals, and that is saying alot is Ginsburg and Breyer. Stevens is 154 years old and I think at this point, just likes to piss off the Right wing, Kennedy's a moderate, and Souter as was noted is just someone who hates to overturn precedent. Remember, in 1980-whatever when O'Connor was nominated, she was a 'mainstream conservative.' Now, she is/was considered a 'swing' vote.

02-02-2006, 09:31 AM	#27
CamEdwards Stadium Announcer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Burke, VA	I don't know of any conservatives who are flipping out. Nor do I know of any liberals who are taking back some of the ridiculous charges they levelled against Alito. It's one case, it's a decision that seems reasonable based on other recent rulings, and it's not a huge decision. __________________ I don't want the world. I just want your half.

02-02-2006, 09:46 AM	#28
Jon High School Varsity Join Date: Oct 2000	Sorry for not being more clear on my answer. I define Thomas, Roberts, Alito, and Scalia as the "conservatives" on the court, Kennedy a moderate leaning right, with Ginsberg, Breyer, and Stevens as moderates leaning left. As I mentioned about Souter, he's someone who hates to overturn precedent absent extraordinary circumstances, which (after his first few years on the court), led him to vote with the moderate block more frequently. When referring to justices, I think we have to be careful how we label them. Some may consider some liberal, but this is usually when focusing on a narrow body of work (social issues, etc.). When deciding whether to label a justice as liberal or conservative, you should focus on the entire body of work, not simply opinions on social issues. Some justices vote certain ways on some issues and other ways on others, and oftentimes it's not really clear why (which explains the social scientists who have made it a career of tracking votes, analyzing opinions, and trying to decipher consistency). I wish I had some more time and access to my old papers b/c then I could cite some authority. In terms of political leanings (not including judicial opinions), Jeffrey Segal and Albert Cover have created a scoring system to determine the idealogical value of justices based upon editorials made prior to their confirmation. Since I dont' have the full report in front of me, I can't judge the definitions of the variables, what the authors considered liberal or conservative, or even the significance of their findings. I'm posting this here b/c I found it interesting: Scores (1 most liberal to -1 most conservative) Ginsberg .26 Breyer -.05 Kennedy -.27 Souter -.34 Stevens -.5 Thomas -.68 Roberts -.8 Scalia -1 Alito's score hasn't been announced yet. (BTW, Flere beat me to the punch with his short quick post). Last edited by Jon : 02-02-2006 at 09:47 AM.

02-02-2006, 10:47 AM	#31
CamEdwards Stadium Announcer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Burke, VA	I don't hang out at freerepublic (or Democratic Underground for that matter), so I don't know any of these people. I guess when I wrote that I was thinking of my conservative friends in D.C. Now, do you think you could find some DU posts indicating a change of heart by liberals towards Alito? __________________ I don't want the world. I just want your half.

02-02-2006, 10:49 AM	#32
Jesse_Ewiak Banned Join Date: Apr 2004	Mainly a joke, Cam. Plus, it's funny to see people freak out over what is probably a unimportant ruling. So, he isn't quiiiiiite as blood-thirsty as Thomas and Scalia...yet. We Democrats only freak out and attack each other for not being ideologically pure, haven't you figured that out by now? :-)

02-02-2006, 11:34 AM	#33
ISiddiqui Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Decatur, GA	Yeah, I'd be shocked if anyone thought I was serious about this. I even put a winking smile up! __________________ "A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams

02-02-2006, 06:24 PM	#36
Jesse_Ewiak Banned Join Date: Apr 2004	Yeah, sucks about that whole 'beacon of freedom' thing. It has to apply equally or it really doesn't count for shit.

02-02-2006, 06:53 PM	#38
Schmidty Coordinator Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Early, TX	I was just thinking about something: I am definitely not a "liberal", but I am against the death penalty. Why does everything have to be so black and white, and stereotyped? It's just a symptom of the mess that is Washington, I guess. __________________ Just beat the devil out of it!!! - Bob Ross

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)